From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Dec 2 08:53:12 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA05279; Sat, 2 Dec 1995 08:53:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 08:53:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512021353.IAA05279@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #501 TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Dec 95 08:53:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 501 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Whose Phone was This? (Andrew C. Green) Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Sany M. Zakharia) Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? (Dave Hsu) Rockwell Entering the BIG LEO Game (Fermin Da Costa Gomez) Re: BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe (Al Varney) Re: Sending Files via FAX (Ry Jones) Re: Sending Files via FAX (Sany M. Zakharia) Re: Sending Files via FAX (Steve Cogorno) Competitive Telecommunications Assn Responds to Bell Canada (Nigel Allen) Old Radio Shack "Answering Machine 2-Line Adapter" (Michael Ayotte) Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Steve Schear) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Cogorno) Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Gareth Evans) Re: Last Laugh! Award Recipient Report (Jeff Bamford) Re: Campus-Wide Cable (Fiber) White Papers Wanted (George DeVaux) OK, it's December 1st...? (andy@clark.net) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 10:56:52 -0600 From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Whose Phone was This? I was spending a pleasant Saturday afternoon rummaging through the huge antique store "mall" (their term for it) at the Volo (IL) Antique Auto Museum when I came across an old desk telephone for sale. It was a standard black model, murder-weapon-heavy quality, black metal rotary dial, round black buttons in the cradle, straight handset cord and "Western Electric F-1" (I think it was) on the handset. Let's call it World War II vintage; I'm assume collectors can identify the model I'm talking about. Anyway, the interesting part was that in the middle of the dial was the original, neatly printed (typeset) number: ARmitage 6-2xxx. (I can email the whole number on request.) Just for yucks, I'd like to look up the number. I _assume_ that is a Chicago exchange; what I'm hoping for is that old phone books would be on-line (right :-), but general pointers would be helpful: Is it a Chicago exchange? Judging from the model of phone and format of number, what era (e.g. decade) can I narrow the search down to, or start from? What policy did the phone company of years past have regarding reusing numbers when service was cancelled? Ameritech's namefinder service lists this number now in use at a billiard hall (!) on West Fullerton Avenue, though the 2xxx pattern doesn't correspond to the traditional pay phone pattern of 9xxx. I don't want to bother whoever's now at the number unless I can verify that it's the same person who had it way back when... at which point perhaps I'll offer to sell them their phone back. ;-) Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Adobe Systems, Inc. (formerly Frame Technology) Advanced Product Services 441 W. Huron Internet: acg@frame.com Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ARMitage is a Chicago exchange known now as 312-276. It serves the northwest side of the city. Long ago when a phone was installed, telco did supply a very nice round tag for the window in the dial with the phone number typset there with the complete exchange name, etc. I think the only thing you could do in trying to trace this back to someone in that era (middle 1940's or earlier perhaps) would be to go to the library and *hope* that they had criss-cross books around from that long ago. The library does have the alphabetical phone books on microfilm going back to 1878-79, and they have actual copies of the Haines Cross Reference Directory going back a number of years, but I don't know about that far. Haines started publication sometime in the 1930's but I don't know if they were in the Chicago area market in those days. Our local library here in Skokie has actual paper directories and cross reference books back to 1967; they have no cross reference books from before that. Chicago is probably about the same. Another alternative would be to visit the Municipal Reference Library at Chicago City Hall. They have something called the 'Chicago City Directory' there. They quit publishing the City Directory in 1921, and the final edition is still there in book form with issues prior to 1921 on microfilm. It was organized by section of the city and you might try scanning through it. Also you could probably ask Haines (I think they are headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio) if they have any cross reference books from this area for fifty years ago, but I doubt that they do. Good luck! PAT] ------------------------------ From: zakharia@WPI.EDU (Sany M. Zakharia) Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 00:12:57 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute In Article , TELECOM Digest Editor responded to zakharia@WPI.EDU (Sany M. Zakharia): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So are you saying merely that my timing > is off (regards when the price will come down) or are you saying it > never will get that low? Prices will surely come crashing down, but I think not as drastically within the time window you state. But hey, if you are correct, my pockets can't complain! > My first Apple ][+ computer in 1979-80 cost me over a thousand dollars. It > used its own flavor of Microsoft Basic which it called Applesoft Basic. I had one of these as well, until I upgraded to the powerful Apple //e with a whopping 128K of ram, a mouse, duo disk drive, joystick, sound card, and an Image Writer I printer :) Does anybody remember those Profile HDs Apple used to market for use with the Apple II series? I think I remember them being advertised as "able to hold as much data as TEN floppies". Can anyone verify? > for the manufacturers. Remember Commodore and the C-64 among their > other products? Commodore Amiga, a computer that was definetly decades ahead of its time (as well as the Atari series). Sany - *sigh* a trip down memory lane. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering zakharia@wpi.edu 1 508 831 6784 P.O. Box 3321, Worcester, MA 01609-2280, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: hsu@va.pubnix.com (Dave Hsu) Subject: Re: The Road to a Real Cheap Info Appliance? Date: 01 Dec 1995 19:44:30 -0500 Organization: AlterNet -- Falls Church, Virginia, USA In article , Brian Brown wrote: > shoppa@altair.krl.caltech.edu (Tim Shoppa) wrote: >> Sorry, I have to disagree here. Memory is *dirt cheap* these days. >> Anyone who says otherwise wasn't buying memory two decades ago; my >> first 4kbytes of RAM cost me $200 back then. $200 will buy you 6 >> megabytes now, easily. > For over five years now, memory has stayed within a few percent of the > "40 bucks a meg" rule. All other components have fallen in price. Not true. Memory had been falling from the $40/MB point (late 1990) right up until the Sumitomo fire (July 1993) when it was around $29/MB. It remained high for nearly two years following, I think due to a combination of hype, and due to exploding demand as Windows 3.x proved to be viable, popular, and resource-intensive. Only in the past year has it fallen again to around $32/MB today. Cases, power supplies, and floppy drives had largely bottomed out years ago. Monitor prices have also remained high; although you can get sub-$700 17" units today, this is primarily due to the introduction of cost-reduced models. A good 17" unit will still set you back $900+, which isn't much lower than the $1100+ it would have cost you two years ago. PAT's summary of calculator and PC costs is dramatic, but glosses over the fact that in both examples, the product and its underlying technology made a transition from a laboratory instrument/curiosity to a mass-market item. His $500 calculator didn't sell in the hundreds-of-thousands-per-year, nor did its manufacturer expect it to. Only when TI dropped the bottom out of its IC prices in '75 or so (permitting me to buy my four-function Commodore for less than $50 in 1976) did calculators become as ubiquitous as they are today. The OSI Challenger and Apple II+, both dear to my heart, were constructed in modest quantities out of discrete components. While I have to discredit the comparison with the $50 price of the Sinclair ZX-81 (that was the going rate _after_ it had failed), it DID sell new for around $200, and Sir Clive clearly had mass-marketing on his mind. It seems to me that the closest recent product curve for an information appliance to target is the RCA DSS video receiver. Its launch ran a bit steeper than the VCR did in 1976, somewhere around 800K-1M units in the first year, which is in line with other consumer electronics of this type, notably video game consoles. While the price will certainly go down, it won't be the same kind of dramatic fall. Dave Hsu Systems Programmer Std disclaimers apply Product Development Group / UUNET Technologies http://www.va.pubnix.com ------------------------------ From: fermin@knoware.nl (Fermin Da Costa Gomez) Subject: Rockwell Entering the BIG LEO Game; Competition to Iridium Date: Sat, 02 Dec 1995 10:34:44 GMT Organization: Knoware Internet Could anybody at all verify the following in any way: Is it correct that a few days ago The Communications Daily (Washington DC area) ran an article stating that ROCKWELL INDUSTRIES is joining the BIG LEO game through the funding (or part thereof) of the Ellipso system of MCHI (Mobile Communications Holding Inc.), which would make MCHI elligible for a FCC feeder link license. It sounds quite plausible but it is rather hard to get verification of this so if anybody out there reading this could verify it, it would really be appreciated. Supposedly Westinghouse has been (or still is) involved in this venture as well but that has also been very hard to verify. fermin@knoware.nl ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp5.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: BellSouth's Caller ID Deluxe Organization: AT&T Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 21:42:44 GMT In article , Ronell Elkayam wrote: > On Mon, 20 Nov 95 15:21:00 EST, klein@snt.bellsouth.com > (email: klein@snt.bellsouth.com) posted: >> I would be happy to answer any questions (or find out the answers) >> about the BellSouth Caller ID Deluxe service. > Also: Why on earth is there a 15 character limit? My hardware can > support much larger name fields than that... Why should I suffer if > some Caller ID Box manufacturers can't figure out how to scroll name > fields larger than their LCD can hold? (I'm assuming that's the > reason...) Is this going to change anytime soon? As I understand it, the 15 character limit has several reasons -- the primary one being that the analog FSK signaling period between ring cycles has very little room left, after sending 10 digit calling number and a 15 character name. The limit wasn't imposed by any box manufacturer. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: rjones@coho.halcyon.com (Ry Jones) Subject: Re: Sending Files via FAX Date: 2 Dec 1995 00:13:32 GMT Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services Stephen Primost (0007466483@mcimail.com) wrote: > The disc fax facility is a very fast means of transmitting the > complete contents of a floppy disc. > I asked why this was necessary in view of the internet facility to > import files and was advised that it was for speed of data transfer > (eg for many files on a floppy), and greater security. Having used > Internet I think the speed thing is probably correct but is it worth a > separate capital outlay particularly when you need to rely on other > users having the facility? I can't see how speed can be an issue. If you want dedicated transfer facilities, use an old 386 with a 28.8 or a matched pair of 33.6 modems and a high density floppy drive of both types. You could write a batch file to drive (say) DSZ or GSZ or some other protocol to copy the files over. You could also use PGP to encrypt a zip file of a disk, transfer it, and do the reverse on the other end. I just can't see the value here ... fax speed is limited to 14.4. The unit could be a fax machine with a 28.8 fax/modem that's using a propreitary trasfer protocol or some such. I still can't see how a fax could exceed a dedicated trasfer system. rjones@halcyon.com finger hayden@vax1.mankato.msus.edu ------------------------------ From: zakharia@WPI.EDU (Sany M. Zakharia) Subject: Re: Sending Files via FAX Date: Sat, 2 Dec 95 00:40:22 GMT Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute In article , Stephen Primost <0007466483@mcimail.com> wrote: > import files and was advised that it was for speed of data transfer > (eg for many files on a floppy), and greater security. I don't see the utility of such a device unless you wish to exchange data with locations in the world that do not have Internet facilities. In that case I think the speed will be limited to that of the phone lines, no? Sany Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering zakharia@wpi.edu 1 508 831 6784 P.O. Box 3321, Worcester, MA 01609-2280, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Sending Files via FAX Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 00:29:55 PST Stephen Primost said: > Has anyone heard of this? What company makes this unit and is it really > worth the price of admission? Maybe I am missing something; why not just use a modem? Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 01:12:07 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Competitive Telecommunications Association Responds to Bell Canada Organization: Internex Online Here is a response by the Competitive Telecommunications Association to Bell Canada's announcement that it was appealing a CRTC decision requiring it to reduce its long distance rates further. I fund this press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at http://newswire.flexnet.com COMPETITIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION TORONTO, Nov. 30 -- The Competitive Telecommunications Association (CTA) came out squarely opposed to today's appeal of CRTC Decision 95-21 by the Stentor members. ``There is no public policy or regulatory merit to the appeal. This is simply telco management's attempt to grab the local monopoly revenue increase. The effect of the appeal is to change rate rebalancing to a disguised rate increase,'' claimed Don Braden, Executive Director of CTA. ``Consumers and small businesses will be big losers if the appeal is accepted by Cabinet. These groups will face monopoly rate increases without any offsetting long distance rate relief,'' stated Braden. ``Decision 95-21 gave the telco's the key items they argued for, rate rebalancing and a split rate base. Now they don't like the results because it exposes their strategic conduct in the competitive markets. To the extent that their company-wide financial returns are low, it is caused by the mis-management of their competitive business sector,'' stated Braden. ``The Decision certainly did not give new entrants all they sought, but we consider the Decision to be a good balance of interests. It also represents a tight intertwining of several important issues and should not be tinkered with to suit any particular interest group. The Decision is also a key component in the transition to a fully competitive telecommunications market,'' said Braden. CTA is a national trade associations representing new entrants in the interexchange and local access markets. For further information: Don Braden, Executive Director, (416) 620-5391; For consumer and small business reaction contact: Michael Janigan - PIAC (613) 562-4002, Ted Mallet - CFIB(416) 222-8022 ------------------------------ From: michael@ayotte.com (Michael Ayotte) Subject: Old Radio Shack "Answering Machine 2-Line Adapter" Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 23:41:01 -0700 Organization: Ayotte Radio Shack used to carry an "Answering Machine 2-Line Adapter". Basically it was a small box into which (if I remember correctly) you plugged two separate phone lines and your answering machine. When one of the lines would ring, the answering machine would get switched over to that line. When the other line would ring, it would get switched to that line. Essentially it was an "auto-switch". Apparently RadioShack (at least the ones near me) have stopped carrying this device. Does anyone know where I could get such a device and how much it would cost? And does anyone know weither it passed CNG fax tones through the switch or blocked them (I want to hook it to my Fax modem, which detects the tones, and my answering machine). Any help would be greatly appriciated. Thanks in advance. michael@ayotte.com (Michael Ayotte) http://www.ayotte.com/personal/ayotte/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was a two line auto-switch which could be used for various things. I used to have one and I used it for two lines funneling calls into a single phone instrument. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 23:25:48 -0800 From: azur@netcom.com (Steve Schear) Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility On Tue, 14 Nov 95 08:13:00 PST, Robohn Scott wrote: > We're looking for a solution to the following situation: tech support > staff roam about an office and need easy access to their incoming > phone calls. They can forward their calls, but this gets bothersome > and tedious after you have to reset forwarding the second, third, > fourth time that hour. Cellular reception is very poor in some areas > of the building, so that doesn't look like an option. > One option could be a 900 MHz cordless phone with multiple base > stations and a single handset; does anyone sell these? Web pages for > Panasonic and Sony are no help on this option, but I'll try some > others. I've also heard about special internal wiring in situations > like this, but this sounds like a pretty expensive solution. > Any ideas on specific products and/or services? We'll entertain all > options. The basic requirement is for a person within the office to > have continuous access to a single incoming phone line as they roam > about the office. A lightweight, small handset would be nice; a > headset option would be even nicer. Approximate cost information > would also be appreciated. One solution is to install a 'private' cellular system in your building. Many local carriers offer this option. This is, however, not a cheap solution. Or you might contact Uniden America. They have a line of 900 MHZ Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum phones, both consumer and commerical models which attach to PBX. A model with roaming capability has been discussed. I don't know if they ever manufactured it. Contact: Tony Mirabelli VP Marketing Uniden America 4700 Amon Carter Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76155 817-858-3553 ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 00:37:31 PST Keith Jarett said: > time? When I called the CHP later, they said that you should find a > regular phone and dial 911 in case of a *real* emergency. Your tax > dollars at work ... The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls. They are connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls. It would have taken the CHP much longer to get ambulance service than by calling 911 directly. THe CHP dispatcher would have to call the PSAP center (using the ten digit number, not 911) and relay the info to them. It's easier to just do it yourself. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use in emergencies? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gareth Evans Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon Date: Sat, 02 Dec 95 10:06:06 GMT In article is written: > I've been trying to figure out what it is about POTS that limits the > usable BW to around 3400 Hz, which ultimately, according to Shannon, > limits the capacity of the channel to around 35 Kbits/sec. Since > twisted copper pair has a much higher BW, I presume that there is some > device on the line that limits the BW to the voiceband (someone > mentioned loading coils). The bandwidth limitations traditionally came from the subscriber's relay set in the exchange and were a combination of the shunt inductance from the relays and the series capacitors used as the transmission bridge - this I know cannot be the whole story because the circuit is a high and not a low pass filter in outline. Loading coils were a feature of the long lines in the States but not, I understand over here in Brit land. 73 de Gareth G4SDW ------------------------------ From: aa423@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Award Recipient Report Date: 1 Dec 1995 14:11:07 GMT Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada. > And get across to your employees > the message that we do NOT dial 900/976/540 and/or other odd combin- > ations of numbers just because someone tells us to. Is 540 really a premium exchange in some areas? Here it is just a normal exchange. In fact the local freenet is on the 905-540 exchange. Quite a bit different from a 976 number. I think it's a cellular exchange in 416. I wish these things were standardized. Jeff [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well in New York City, 540 was (is?) being used for premium charge services. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:13:31 -0500 From: devaux@econnect.ca (George DeVaux) Subject: Re: Campus-Wide Cable (Fiber) Plant White Papers Wanted John Brassil wrote: > We're looking for relatively bias-free studies/recommendations on what > kind and how many strands of fiber to pull for the enhancements we are > planning for our network here at Vandy. You might want to contact Telco Systems (800) 221-2849 for a copy of "Asychronous Transfer Mode: Bandwidth for the Future." The price is about $10. I have no connection with Telco Systems. ------------------------------ From: andy@clark.net (andy) Subject: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 1 Dec 1995 10:45:04 GMT Organization: clark.net Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes on our CID boxes and more actual names and numbers? Isn't today the beginning of the requirement for all LD companies to start passing CID data? Please correct me if I'm wrong ...! Thanks, andy [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #501 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Dec 4 18:41:00 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA25698; Mon, 4 Dec 1995 18:41:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 18:41:00 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512042341.SAA25698@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #502 TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Dec 95 18:41:30 EST Volume 15 : Issue 502 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CDMA/GSM Tech Course Offered Prior to CTIA Wireless '96 (K. Zsigo) Book Review: Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users & Futures (Slade) List: PictureTel Users (Neale Banks) Old Billing Practices (Mike Hyman) Internet Reaches Benin ... At Least For A Few Days (Nigel Allen) Cable Executive Sues Comcast (cablenj@aol.com) Sprint PCS ad in USAToday (Mike Miller) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kzsigo@ix.netcom.com (Konstantin Zsigo) Subject: CDMA/GSM Tech Course Offered Prior to CTIA Wireless '96 Date: 2 Dec 1995 16:09:57 GMT Organization: Netcom Due to high demand, we've decided to repeat our CDMA course one more time in Dallas, TX, just prior to the CTIA Wireless '96 tradeshow. The instructor for the program has accepted an offer to help construct the GSM cellular network in Shanghai, China, so it may be some time before this course is offered again. Based upon feedback from the first session, the course outline has been expanded to cover selected topics on GSM to allow for comparison to CDMA. CDMA and GSM System Design, Engineering and Implementation Workshop Wireless Technology Series March 21-23, 1996 Dallas, Texas Sponsored by Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants in conjunction with the Wireless Institute of Technology. Edward Lu, Instructor --------------------------- Edward Lu is a leading expert on wireless communications systems. Under Dr. William Lee's guidance, he was previously in charge of developing and operating AirTouch Communications CDMA Test Bed and Advanced RF Technology program. Currently the Director of Network Planning & Engineering for McCaw International and Chief Engineer of Shanghai McCaw Telecommunications, he is developing the Shanghai GSM system in an area with very high population density. A frequent speaker on IEEE and International technical forums, Edward Lu brings his solid R&D background, CDMA & GSM field operation experience, and system design experience to this seminar. His previous three-day wireless communication seminars have trained engineers and managers from more than fifty-five US and Canadian wireless companies. He has been involved in PCS business development, CDMA & GSM system and subscriber unit testing, cellular and PCS system design, wireless data technology, microcell technology, optical fiber communications, and electromagnetic wave propagation for more than thirteen years. A well-respected wireless communication strategist, Edward Lu will also share his views on smart antennas, different PCS technologies (GSM, TDMA, CDMA, etc.), high rate CDMA & low rate GSM vocoders, CDMA & GSM system development directions, PCS system deployment strategies, microcells, mobile satellite services (Iridium, Globalstar, Odyssey, etc.), GPS, Phone-Print Anti-Fraud technology, and wireless vehicle location technologies. Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants -------------------- Zsigo Wireless is considered a leader in providing sales training, technical consulting, and related services to wireless service providers and manufacturers throughout the United States and Canada. The company is committed to providing top notch educational seminars that provide professionals a broad technical understanding of wireless fundamentals. This education is invaluable to any organization seeking to capitalize on the wireless opportunity within cellular or PCS. Who should Attend This Workshop? --------------------- This three day seminar is designed for network engineers, RF planners, technicians and others wishing to learn how CDMA works and how best to implement the technology. By attending this seminar, you can better plan your deployment of CDMA systems either in the 850 or 1900MHz band. This is the place to get all of your questions answered on the latest advancements in CDMA so you can shorten your learning curve and build a better system. Continuing Education Unit (CEU) certificates are available upon request. Seminar Fees --------------------------- The cost of the three day seminar is $1195 for regular registration (after February 29), or $995 for early registration on or before February 29, 1996. Schedule of Topics to be addressed: GSM Error detection & correction coding GMSK modulation; Time delay spread Adaptive equalization ;SM system design GSM coding scheme Authentication system and smart card system GSM system link budget GSM system coverage planning and system design Coverage reliability calculation GSM system capacity long term planning method PCS system design case study MTA system design case study How to collect demographic data Pre-design noise & RF propagation measurements In-car, portable & in-building coverage design 10 year capacity planning and transceiver count Cell coverage and system coverage based on reliability probility Capital busget planning based on coverage and capacity CDMA The Principles of Operation Shannon’s Information Theory A discussion on cellular system frequency reuse & capacity issue Characteristics of human speech PN Codes PN code generation; Properties of PN code PN code autocorrelation function Spread Spectrum System Spread spectrum communication system Processing gain; Near-far problem for a multiple access system IS-95 CDMA System Architecture CDMA System Timing & Timing Sources CDMA Forward Link Structure Pilot Channel; Sync Channel; Paging Channel Slot Mode Operation Forward Traffic Channel frame structure Long Code Mask; Power Control Sub-channel Codes Used in CDMA System; CDMA Signaling CDMA Reverse Link Structure Access Channel; Access Probe Reverse Traffic Channel structure Orthogonal & Non-orthogonal Coding Overview of Two Way Orthogonal CDMA System Variable Vocoder 14.4 kbps vocoder and its impact on capacity and coverage Markov call statistics Convolutional Coding Frame quality indicator Coding gain Symbol Repetition Block Interleaver Fast fading duration Interleaver performance vs. mobile speed Data Scrambling & Randomizer QPSK & OQPSK RAKE Receiver RAKE receiver at base and subscriber receivers Multipath fading profile Why there is up to 3 cell soft hand-off Optimize CDMA performance for in-building and tunnel system CDMA Power Control Reverse and forward link power control Closed loop, outer loop, and open loop power control Power control speed Power control and access probe Optimize power control parameters Power control dynamic range Power control rule in soft hand-off region CDMA Hand-off Process Which channel power strength control CDMA hand-off process? Soft Hand-off; Softer Hand-off; Hard Hand-off Soft Hand-off process Optimize Soft hand-off parameters: T_ADD, T_DROP, T_TDROP Search window impact on system performance Setting and optimizing search window size for CDMA microcell Pilot set management; Pilot strength measurements Soft Hand-off message and optimization CDMA to CDMA or Analog Hard hand-off CDMA System Engineering CDMA Antenna Structure Erlang and trunking efficiency Multiple sector cell and smart antenna system Multiple sector equipment sharing mechanism How to optimize CDMA sector cell antenna system CDMA Coverage and Capacity Modeling & Calculation Pole capacity; CDMA system link budget Soft Hand-off coverage gain Does soft hand-off reduce capacity? Forward link coverage & capacity Reverse link coverage & capacity Frequency reuse efficiency calculation Receiver noise figure and sensitivity Loading: the link between capacity and coverage Cell breathing and soft capacity Noise rise above thermal noise floor RF propagation model; Fade margin calculations 90% or 95% coverage reliability Ambient Noise Effect on CDMA Capacity and Coverage Based on co-authored paper with Dr. William Lee: "Ambient Noise and Its Impact on CDMA Capacity and Coverage." Ignition noise & ambient noise measurements CDMA System Performance Matrix CDMA system performance under different speed, multipath delay, etc. AMPS to CDMA Transition System capacity planning issues CDMA capacity gain for partial AMPS spectrum conversion CDMA frequency planning and guard band AMPS intermodulation components impact on CDMA system Tolerable external interference to CDMA system Methods to alleviate the AMPS interference effect Deploying Second CDMA carrier When 2nd CDMA carrier should be deployed Complication and strategy of deploying 2nd CDMA carrier System design with more than one CDMA carriers A CDMA Mobile Satellite System: Globalstar Apply CDMA to wireless local loop Workshop on CDMA Microcell: Problems & Solutions CDMA Repeater; Tunnel and In-building CDMA Microcell Imbedded CDMA Microcell for Coverage CDMA Microcell with Long Optical Fiber Time Delay Coordination of micro & macro CDMA cells Workshop on CDMA System Planning Ten-year system planning based on population, traffic, and coverage Design system at minimum front-end cost Equipment planning Workshop on CDMA System Design Major differences of Analog and CDMA system design PCS CDMA system design case study CEU credits will be awarded Every workshop/training course Zsigo Wireless conducts or organizes carries CEU credits according the accepted formula of in-class time. We provide the certificates and keep the information on file! You can use these credits towards obtaining a masters or other degree by substituting CEUs for elective college credits within those programs. Class Schedule for the course Thursday: 8:30am - 5:00pm, Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm, Saturday: 8:30am - 4:00pm Travel and Hotel Accommodations The seminar will be held at the Fairmont Hotel located at 1717 N. Akard, Dallas TX 75201. Group room rate is $126. Mention Zsigo Wireless/WIT to receive this discount. Phone 214-720-2020 or 800-527-4727. Workshop hours will be 8:30am - 5:00pm on Thursday and Friday, 8:30am - 4:00pm on Saturday. Breakfast and lunch will be provided. CTIA Wireless 96 begins on Monday, March 25th, and the Fairmont Hotel is on the shuttle route. For More Information Contact Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants at kzsigo@ix.netcom.com, or call 800-594-5102. In Canada/outside of US, call 517-337-3995. Fax number: 517-337-5012. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 01:49:40 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users & Futures BKISMUAF.RVW 951110 "Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users and Futures", Stephen J. Emmott ed., 1995, 0-12-238360-5 %A Stephen J. Emmott, ed. sje@bigthink.demon.co.uk %C 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495 %D 1995 %G 0-12-238360-5 %I Academic Press %O 619-699-6362 fax: 619-699-6380 app@acad.com 800-321-5068 %P 278 %T "Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users and Futures" Having read a great number of infommercial supercliche books, I approached this one with trepidation. Add in the multimedia buzzword, and it was almost guaranteed to be a copy of any of the prevailing crop of blue-sky, ill- informed, and trivial productions attempting to milk current preoccupations. Instead, what I found was the most practical and useful guide to the future communications technologies I've yet seen. Part one is an excellent and clear-eyed introduction by Emmott. Part two looks at the issues of information and communications in work, domestic and social life. The studies in part three concentrate primarily on the use of video, but in functional work situations. The fact that this is primarily a collection of academic and research papers will likely cause some from industry and the general public to dismiss it out of hand. This is a pity, since I found more realistic help and advice in this than in a year's worth of business seminars and any number of popular works. (Some of the papers seem to be in esoteric areas of study, but even they provide valuable suggestions in areas such as the necessary level of video quality.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKISMUAF.RVW 951110. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slades book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for rslade@cln.etc.bc.ca Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/ User .fidonet.org Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ From: Neale Banks!Communications Engineer Subject: List: PictureTel Users Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 18:13:06 EDT Integration Design of Melbourne Australia and Communications III of Columbus Ohio USA are pleased to launch the PictureTel Users' Mailing List as a forum for discussion of issues related to PictureTel products. The Charter of the list is appended. The WWW Home Page is at http://www.idesign.com.au/vc/ptel-users To subscribe to the list, send an email message to ptel-users-request@planet.net.au with the word subscribe in the *body* of the message. Anyone prefering a digest version of the list should similarly send an email to ptel-users-digest-request@planet.net.au with the word subscribe in the *body* of the message. The list discussion address is ptel-users@planet.net.au All other requests should go to ptel-users-owner@planet.net.au ----------------------------------------------------------- The PictureTel Users' Mailing List (ptel-users) exists to: * Provide a discussion forum for: * users of PictureTel systems, * other interested parties. to exhange ideas and discuss issues informally. * Provide an archive of postings. * Complement, rather than compete with: * Existing PictureTel user groups * PictureTel and Dealer support arrangements. * Existing Newsgroups and Mailing lists covering videoconferencing generally (e.g. comp.dcom.videoconf, videophone@es.net). Postings should be confined to issues specifically related to PictureTel products. There may be occasions where it is appropriate for a cross-post, but followup discussion should be directed to one particular forum. It will, at least initially, be an unmoderated mailing list jointly sponsored by Integration Design of Melbourne Australia and Communications III of Columbus Ohio USA and hosted by Planet Internet. Integration Design and Communications III are both PictureTel resellers actively involved in sales and support of viideoconferencing systems. Planet Internet is the wholly-owned ISP business of Integration Design. Planet Internet will also host a World Wide Web page summarising the list and providing forms for (un)subscription. A Frequently Asked Questions with Answers (FAQ) document is not initially proposed. This point will be reconsidered as the nature and level of traffic becomes apparent. There will be no pre-requisite for participation nor any proscriptions on participation save that the list manager reserves absolute discretion to remove any participants or postings which are considered disruptive or otherwise undesirable. The list is being established independently of any PictureTel resources or support. However, it is hoped that PictureTel will participate and contribute where appropriate. It is also hoped that PictureTel and the existing user groups will promulgate the existence of the list. ------------------------------ From: mhyman@netcom.com (Mike Hyman) Subject: Old Billing Practices Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:56:11 GMT I have always been curious about what old phone bills looked like before computers existed. Did they bill just a flat rate for service, or did they in some way itemize the calls. If so, how did they track calling and create the bills. Please help answer this long burning question!! Thanks, Michael Hyman Quickturn Design Systems Senior Network Administrator 440 Clyde Ave. mhyman@qcktrn.com Mountain View, Ca. 94043 (415) 694-6409 Voice (415) 967-3199 Fax [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like the banks, the credit card companies, the department stores and other businesses, telco bills prior to computerization were typed out on typewriters, and prior to typewriters being commonplace they were written out by hand. Since it was easier to write things out by hand rather than try to type columns of numbers and amounts usually letters were typewritten but accompanying statements of account, etc were handwritten. Single inovices would usually be typewritten. Around here in my collection of artifacts somewhere I have a telephone bill issued to my grandparents around 1930. It is printed on stationary from Illinois Bell Telephone Company; it is written in very exquisite penmanship (in those days, the public schools taught children how to properly write and print letters, etc) and it states that they owed two dollars and something for the current month's service along with another couple dollars for long distance and toll calls. They kept track of all the calls then, just as they do now, but they used legions of bookeepers and ledger posting clerks, all of whom knew how to add and subtract and do other common arithmetic processes. There was a lot more flat rate local calling in those days. Generally the record keeping procedure was thus: As customers finished their calls, the operators 'stamped out' the handwritten toll tickets in the clock which was attached to their switchboard. It was like a little time clock that would print on the back side of the paper with the operator number which handled the call and the starting and ending time. About every ten or fifteen minutes ledger posting clerks came past with something like a grocery shopping cart and collected the tickets from each operator's position. Those with special conditions like needing time and charges called back were marked as such. The tickets went to people who calculated the time and charges and sorted them out by phone number, etc. As this part was finished, other ledger posting clerks began microfilming the tickets. The microfilm machine added its own stamped endorsement to the back of the toll ticket saying what day and what reel of film it could be found on, etc. As the tickets came out the back side of the microfilm machine they were collected and carried off to the file room for posting on the customer file jackets. The file room was a big barn-like place with row after row after row of filing cabinets. An 'accelerated index' told where to find each customer's file. For example phone number 1234 would be found in aisle 17, cabinet 34, drawer 3, row 2. With their work arranged for easy posting and filing, the clerks with their shopping carts would move up and down the aisles from one cabinet to the next. On the front of the individual file folder they would write in the latest charges, reference the position on the microfilm should the ticket itself get lost or mis-filed, and drop the ticket in the customer's folder. Then they would move along to the next one, etc. There were three or four hundred ledger/file clerks doing the same job repeatedly all day long. When customers called the business office to discuss their account, the process was similar. The service rep would say just a minute while I get your account. She would put the call on hold, unplug her headset from wherever she was plugged in, walk to the appropriate area in the files, plug her headset into a jack there, press the button for the line her call was being held on, and resume the conversation with the proper folder in hand. They had little lecture stands where they could put the folder and stand to do writing on the files, etc. When finished, she put the folder back in the drawer where it belonged and took her next call, etc. The pecking order was that ledger posting clerks were considered very important, and their work took priority over the customer service reps. So if a service rep was standing at a lectern with a file and a ledger posting clerk came along at the same time and looked in the drawer and did not find the file desired, she would look at the lecterns nearby. If a service rep had the file in question, the posting clerk would take the file away right in front of her, make the required notations, insert the new toll ticket, and toss the file back on the lectern to the service rep who was still talking to the customer. Not a word would be spoken, since it was under- stood the posting clerks could have any file they desired at any time they desired it. The service rep always got the semaphore wait signal. On a daily basis, twenty-two times per month, entire aisles of file cabinets would be emptied out with the contents carried away in shopping carts; it was said these files were 'in bookeeping' and they would return to their normal resting place three days later with a new fresh folder, permanent records back in place in each jacket, etc. One day 'in bookeeping' was spent tallying all the bills; a second day in microfilming the bills and moving the toll tickets into permanent storage at the warehouse, and a third day in mailing out the newly prepared invoices, preparing new jackets for the coming month and getting the files back in place. Most large companies had dozens of bookeepers assigned to these tasks. The pecking order was the bookeepers took precendence over the file clerks, the service reps, and even the supervisors to a large extent. When a file went 'to bookeeping' no amount of of begging or pleading got it back until they were ready to send it back. A high-up supervisor could 'borrow' the file from bookeeping if absolutely needed but had to return it within an hour or so. As the files passed through bookeeping they stayed in the same order as they were in the filing cabinets so the file clerks would have an easy time getting them all put back in place later on. If a service rep got a call from a customer whose file was 'in bookeeping' the service rep had to wing it; play it by ear and engage in a general conversation with the customer and a promise to call back in a day or so 'once I have checked your file, which is not available to me right now.' Ledger posting clerks would just re-cycle the toll tickets they could not post and file until the file folder got back in the cabinet. If a service rep was at a lectern speaking with a customer on the phone, file in hand, and the book- eepers came along with their shopping carts collecting everything in that aisle, they *could* under the rules just take the file out of the service rep's hands and walk away with it. Usually they were nice enough to say 'hurry up I want that,' and collect the rest of the aisle and then come back for the leftovers a couple minutes later as the reps finished up last minute hasty notes for themselves or the files, etc. Only a few employees were allowed to carry files away from the filing cabinets more than a few feet. The bookeepers of course could do so, and the service reps who worked with walk in customers to the business office could do so, as could various 'assistants to the chairman', special auditors, supervisory personnel, etc. In real practice though, files did wind up all over the place, on desks everywhere. The collectors would have stacks of files on the customers they were calling to get payment, etc. The bookeepers and ledger posting clerks could pull files away from the collectors, but the service reps could not. Now and again a customer would come into the business office in person and the rep would go to pull the file and it would not be where it could be found. A customer in the business office was a valid reason to get a file out of bookeeping if needed but sometimes it could not be found there either. The public address system would announce, "Please check your desks for file XXXXXXXX which is urgently needed by the business office at this time." Everyone would stop and look through piles of stuff all over their desks and whoever found it took it to wherever needed. If no results were forthcoming, the person behind the PA would repeat the message in a little more irritated tone of voice a second or third time as needed. Sometimes a 'file searcher' (a clerk with a sheet of paper called a 'hot list' of misplaced files which had not been located for a few days) would come around and start looking at every file on your desk. You did everything but drop your pants for them. What would have happened typically was that files got stuck together, or the papers from one tossed in another jacket by accident. The file searchers were good and very sharp with their eyes. Of course for a company with over two million active files at any given time like telco, it was necessary to have about two thousand employees administering them. Illinois Bell at one time had over six hundred 'bookeepers' each handling the monthly billings for a couple hundred accounts daily, day after day, on a cycle billing basis. Where 'customer service' in general got a very bad reputation was in the early to middle 1970's as computers were being phased in. It had gotten to the point most large companies were absolutely getting strangled in their paperwork. More and more customers, more and more daily activity, yet harder and harder to find people willing to work for very low wages -- even for those days -- who were smart enough to work accurately and quickly. As Viet Nam became more of an issue, more and more people began protesting. They looked at large companies -- often times their own employers -- as evil participants in the society in which we lived, and they adopted an attitude that the computer was going to put them out of a job before long anyway, so why care how the job got done. But, somehow we managed without computers, thousands of clerks passing millions of pieces of paper back and forth to each other, and it worked remarkably well. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 14:23:24 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Internet Reaches Benin ... At Least For A Few Days Organization: Internex Online Here is a press release from Teleglobe Canada Inc. I found the press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at http://newswire.flexnet.com/ FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT: BENIN ACCESSES INTERNET THANKS TO TELEGLOBE CANADA INC. AND VIDEOTRON MONTREAL, Dec. 2 - ``Today in Benin, we successfully demonstrated that African countries can access the Internet with wireless phone technology,'' stated Serge Fortin, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Market and Network Operations at Teleglobe Canada Inc. He made the comment in reference to the ongoing Francophone Summit, whose theme is the information highway. Teleglobe Canada and Le Groupe Videotron Ltee - PC Services Division worked together to establish a satellite hookup and a terrestrial fiber-optic link that enabled Summit participants from Africa's French-speaking nations to access the Internet. Thanks to the 64-kbps link, the Canadian delegation in Benin was able to have the contents of various training courses transmitted to the African country via the Internet, which also supports such applications as universal e-mail, file transfer and high-resolution image transmission. Carried out under the direction of Jacques Lyrette, President of Industry Canada's Communications Research Centre, the demonstration involved the use of Inmarsat satellites (International Maritime Satellite Organization), an Inmarsat B terminal, and ISDN technology (Integrated Services Digital Network). The Right Honourable Jean Chretien, Prime Minister of Canada, was among those in attendance. He emphasized Canada's keen interest in the development of the information highway and, more generally, in technology transfers between francophone countries. Groupe Videotron is an international telecommunications company which is active in cable television, telephone services and interactive multimedia services in Canada, England and the United States. Teleglobe Canada is a recognized world leader in the field of intercontinental telecommunications. Its satellite and submarine cable netwok extends to more than 230 countries and territories. For further information: Maryse Sauve, Teleglobe Canada Inc., (514) 868-8503 forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen ------------------------------ From: cablenj@aol.com (CableNJ) Subject: Cable Executive Sues Comcast Date: 4 Dec 1995 01:44:22 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: cablenj@aol.com (CableNJ) The former Vice President and General Manager of Suburban Cablevision of New Jersey filed a Federal Employment Discrimination complaint against Comcast Cable Corporation of Philadelphia alleging age and disability discrimination. The charge was filed by Frank DeJoy, 56, of West Orange, New Jersey, a fourteen year manager of the cable systems and a member of the Cable Pioneers. The complaint alleges that executives of Comcast, including Mike Doyle, Regional Vice President for New Jersey and Tom Baxter, President of the Comcast Cable Division, violated the federal age and disability laws by removing him from his position while he was critically ill and in a hospital intensive care unit in December of 1994, replacing him with two younger men. The complaint alleges that over the months prior to the aquisition of Maclean Hunter's US operations, DeJoy and all of the Suburban staff were repeatedly and publicly assured by Doyle that he (DeJoy)would continue to manage the cable system following the closing of the sale and would, in fact, be promoted to the position of Area Vice President with responsibility for all of the northern New Jersey properties. According to DeJoy, there was no indication whatsoever from anyone at Comcast that he would be removed from his position until he was notified by telephone at his home while recovering from his near-fatal and unexpected medical emergency. Although he has completely recovered, DeJoy was not returned to his former position by Comcast and the appointment of the two younger men with less experience was not recinded. DeJoy, a twenty nine year cable veteran was President of the New Jersy Cable Television Association (1991-1993) and is a member of the National Cable Pioneers. He is now employed as an executive with another cable operator. ------------------------------ From: mikemiller@dsm1.dsmnet.com Subject: Sprint PCS ad in USAToday Date: 4 Dec 1995 03:01:03 GMT Organization: DES MOINES INTERNET, DES MOINES, IA Reply-To: mikemiller@dsm1.dsmnet.com You might want to check out Sprint's full page advertisement in the November 30 {USA Today}. Apparently they are formally announcing availability of the service in Washington, DC, Fairfax Co. Virginia, and along the I95 corridor to Baltimore. The service operates in the 1900 Mhz band, with phones available from Nokia and Ericsson. Mike Miller Des Moines, IA mikemiller@dsmnet.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #502 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Dec 5 01:07:24 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA24857; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:07:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:07:24 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512050607.BAA24857@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #503 TELECOM Digest Tue, 5 Dec 95 01:07:30 EST Volume 15 : Issue 503 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Keith Knipschild) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Eric Ewanco) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Louis Judice) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Bill Michaelson) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Mark Musante) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Paul S. Sawyer) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (John C. Fowler) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (mbarton@smtplink.ram.com) Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking (Steve Uhrig) Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking (Timothy Brown) Caller ID via 1-800-COLLECT! (Ronell Elkayam) Nationwide Caller ID Anecdotes (Jim Derdzinski) National Caller ID in Puerto Rico (Sherman Hall) "Caller ID Day" Undesired Side Effects (bkron@netcom.com) Roadside Boxes and Caller ID (John M. Sullivan) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Cogorno) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Paul S. Sawyer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 21:29:22 -0600 From: keith@unix.asb.com (Keith Knipschild - L.I.,NY) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? andy@clark.net (andy) wrote: > Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes > on our CID boxes and more actual names and numbers? Isn't today the > beginning of the requirement for all LD companies to start passing CID > data? Please correct me if I'm wrong ...! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's > have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences > with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying > with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will > actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] Well if anyone wants to call me, and let the phone ring 1.5 - 2 times, I'll post the NPA and NXX of the calls I recieve ... so if you see your Area Code and exchage posted, please let us know who you are using for Long Distance. My number is 1-516-979-5348 Please call between 9am - 11pm ET Thanks, Keith ------------------------------ From: rishab@infinity.c2.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 4 Dec 1995 18:49:31 GMT Organization: Community ConneXion: http://www.c2.org/ 510-658-6376 I was curious to know how exactly do names appear in CID. Is the name drawn from the telco's billing records, or from a user-created directory in the CID box (like similar features in, for instance, the Nokia 2110 cellular phone)? The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry http://dxm.org/techonomist/ rishab@dxm.org Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab@arbornet.org Vox +91 11 6853410; 3760335; H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From telco billing records, such as they are. We have read some rather funny 'names' here in recent weeks as this thread has progressed, such as Mr. Pay Phone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: eje@xyplex.com (Eric Ewanco) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 04 Dec 1995 09:42:39 -0500 Organization: Xyplex > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's > have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences > with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying > with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will > actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] I did some testing with a friend. It works over AT&T between AC 201 (NJ) and AC 508 (MA), but not over LDDS Worldcom (even between the same two lines). I'm tempted to call LDDS and ask them why they are in violation of the law. I'd be curious to see how WATS lines come across. I'm looking forward to being able to determine if a call is likely a telemarketing call before I pick it up. Eric Ewanco eje@world.std.com Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc. Littleton, Mass. ------------------------------ From: ljj@esr.hp.com (Louis Judice) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 4 Dec 1995 16:24:55 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard Well, everytime the phone rang this weekend, I jumped over to check the Caller-ID box (pretty sad isn't it??)... Only a couple of out of state calls. My brother-in-law's call generated an out-of-area message - he was calling from the Philadelphia area on Sprint. However, at 5:00pm Sunday, my mother-in-law called from the Philly area on AT&T, with her 215 number displayed in all it's glory. Actually, we've been receiving 212 calls from NYC on AT&T for a few weeks. We'll keep watching the box! Cheers, Louis J. Judice | Voice: 908-562-6287 Hewlett-Packard Company | Fax: 908-537-6627 20 New England Avenue | Piscataway, NJ 08854 | E-Mail: ljj@seneca.esr.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Bill Michaelson Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 4 Dec 1995 23:31:59 GMT Organization: COS, Incorporated OK ... I'm in central NJ -- Bell Atlantic area. Doesn't work yet. Called the telco and asked when it would. First, of course, I had to explain to the clueless rep about the Dec 1 deadline. He dithered and babbled for awhile, until I convinced him to go ask someone who knew what was going on. He did, and came back and told me I was indeed right -- it is supposed to happen, but he doesn't know when it will. I'll post when it works. ------------------------------ From: miles@roundlake.baxter.com (Mad Milesman Musante) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Reply-To: olorin@world.std.com Organization: Zippo Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 19:01:55 GMT Not quite fully functional. :-( I'm *still* getting "Out Of Area" messages from both local and long distance calls. Mark Musante olorin@world.std.com http://world.std.com/~olorin/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It looks like a lot of the telcos are simply ignoring the legally mandated deadline doesn't it? I wonder if some will have to be sued to get them to come into compliance? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul.Sawyer@unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: 4 Dec 1995 18:26:39 GMT Organization: University of New Hampshire - Durham, NH I have had three or four calls on my home CID boxes since December 1 showing "Out of area", with corresponding non-messages on the answering machines (held on long enough to listen to the message and beep), so I assumed them to be telemarketing slime. I will also be glad when these numbers are passed along. Paul S. Sawyer Paul.Sawyer@UNH.edu UNH Telecommunications Voice: +1 603 862 3262 FAX: +1 603 862 4545 50 College Road Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 95 19:06 EST From: John C. Fowler <0003513813@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Sure enough, caller ID is travelling interstate, over AT&T at least! I don't have caller ID myself, but I do call a BBS in Gainesville, Florida (I'm in St. Louis, Missouri). My calls to the BBS have traditionally shown up there as "OUT OF AREA," but when I called on December 2, the sysop broke in and proudly announced that yes, his caller ID box was showing my real number! However, it was not showing my name, just the city I was calling from. I'd be interested to know if caller ID is being passed by Sprint. They were the ones who wanted to put it off a few months longer, right? Also, are operator-assisted calls now passing caller ID? What if I made my call via 1-800-CALL-ATT and charged it to my calling card? If that passes the caller ID, how can they tell if I dialed *67 first? John C. Fowler, 3513813@mcimail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer to that very simply is you cannot dial *67 when calling the operator, or certain other numbers such as 911. That is, you can dial it, but it is null and void. It means nothing. Ditto using *67 in front of 800, 900, etc. I don't know if operator assisted calls are passing the ID or not; it used to be they did not which always was a bother for the 911 call-takers when calls would come into them via the operator. But whether or not your ID is passed on calls through the operator, it has nothing to do with whether you enter *67 on the front or not. And by the way, I have seen a couple cases where someone wanted to both block their ID *and* cancel call waiting on the same call, as in *67*70-number. That's fine, but make sure the *67 -comes first- before the *70; two people have reported that *67 won't stick if it is entered as anything other than the first part of the string. That may not be the case in all generics; I don't know. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mbarton@smtplink.ram.com Reply-To: mbarton@smtplink.ram.com Date: Mon, 04 Dec 95 09:34:55 EST Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Just to let you know, I have deluxe caller ID and it still does not display any numbers or information outside of my local calling area (770 - 404). ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 23:39:59 GMT Organization: BrightNet tb@Walden.MO.NET (Timothy Brown) wrote: > I have CNID on one of my lines here in 314 (St. Louis, MO, served by > Southwestern Bell). Recently, I got a "courtesy call" and > the number showed up without a hitch. It was from out of state (916? > 917?), but local numbers from not-so-distant locales (suburbs) are > listed as out of area. If the call came from a mechanical switch in your area it would show out of area because these switches are not capable of sending the CNID information to your switch. This would be true even if the other switch was in the same room with the digital switch that serves you. > Even worse, an SWB Operator I talked to said that, given that I had > the number of the party I wished to block, I couldn't do so, because > "their area doesn't have that service yet." Asking her why I can't do > it even if I have the service, she didn't have an answer. Once again you can't block the call because your serving switch has no way to tell what number the call came from. If it doesn't know the calling number it can't block it. Steve Uhrig suhrig@bright.net Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: tb@Walden.MO.NET (Timothy Brown) Subject: Re: CNID in 314/Call Blocking Date: 4 Dec 1995 15:00:21 GMT Organization: MVP-Net, Inc. [St. Louis Area] > If you can see a number on your caller ID display (or the word 'private') > then you can deal with the number like any other. I have experimented [snip] > now, try again in a few minutes'. PAT] But the number didn't show up on my CNID; that's my point. Why can't the phone company block numbers that _DON'T_ show up on CNID? If you know the calling party's number, then what's the problem? It wasn't private -- although that shouldn't matter either; it was out of area. Timothy Brown netSolutions, L.L.C. PGP Key Available; Encrypted Email Preferred 2733 McClay Valley Blvd UNIX, MS-DOS, Windows 95, Win3.1 St. Peters, MO 63376 Internet Connectivity Consultant Office: [+1 314 303 2949] HTML Design and Web Publishing BBS: [+1 314 928 5250] http://walden.mo.net/~tb/ Pager: [+1 314 670 9464] http://www.netsolutions.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Out of area' is telco's way of saying they do not know what number is calling you. You may know, but they do not know, therefore they cannot block what they do not know about. If they give it to you, they obviously know about it and can block it. If your box says 'private', telco still knows about it and can block it. 'Out of area' is not a geographical place. As Mr. Uhrig points out in the message before this one, on older phone switches the number simply is not known without a lot of hassle, i.e. tracing it, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu (Ronell Elkayam) Subject: Caller ID via 1-800-COLLECT!!! Date: 4 Dec 1995 23:55:50 GMT Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468 Do you have friends (or family) that use pay-phones to call you on a regular basis? Try telling them to call you 1-800-COLLECT from now on. Your phone will ring, and LOW AND BEHOLD -- their number will show up on your Caller ID! If it's a pay-phone, you'll see "PAY PHONE". If they called from a COCOT, it will sometimes show the name of the place, such as "HOME DEPOT". Just refuse the call and dial back the person directly instead. Save them a quarter, and in case the caller really did intend a collect call, save yourself the outrageous charges of collect calls. BTW, it even works for *69 ... if you're being called 1-800-COLLECT by someone and you have *69, you can connect back to them that way (and if you have the announcing *69, you'll hear the number that just tried to call you collect). If you want to call me via 1-800-COLLECT, or you want me to call you via 1-800-COLLECT to see how well it works with TRUE long distance calls, drop me email. If I call you, you'll see my last name and a 305-6XX-XXXX number so you'd know it's me calling. Just refuse the charges (naturally). If enough people respond, I'll post the interesting findings. Oh, BTW, *67 has no effect when dialing 1-800-COLLECT. I thought it would at least protect the name of the person calling -- but no, it shows name and number, just like when dialing w/o *67. Take care. W/love, | Owner & Programmer: The People's Voice BBS @ 305-937-6468 | No pregnant women or heart-conditioned senior citizens are Ron | allowed. Under 42 must get parents' permission to call. Miami, FL | "THIS IS WHAT YOUR MOTHER ALWAYS WARNED YOU ABOUT" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I see your point. Defraud 1-800-COLLECT by getting them to deliver half the message for free, then you call back via some other network you like better. Sorry, I do not support toll fraud in this Digest, and any scheme which allows for the deliv- ery of a message using coded words or phrases, or a pretirmined ringing cadence ('let it ring once and hang up') or now in the latest twist, delivery of the calling number for callback purposes is just fraud. And people wonder why the surcharge for operator handling of calls, person to person calls, and collect/bill third number calls is so expensive. I suspect all the chislers out there has a lot to do with it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 04 Dec 95 21:07:16 EST From: Jim Derdzinski <73114.3146@compuserve.com> Subject: Nationwide Caller ID Anecdotes I live in California, so I can't get Caller ID (at least not for another six months -- no thanks to "CPUKE"). However, many of the CLASS-related custom calling features are available here. I subscribe to Call Return (*69), Repeat Dialing (*66), and Priority Ringing (*61) from Pacific Bell here in San Francisco. I make and get long distance calls regularly to and from friends in Chicago. I still show up on their Caller ID boxes as "OUT-OF-AREA". Regarding my custom calling features: I noticed that Call Return and Repeat Dialing do not work on these calls (nothing new here). However, I can now add long distance numbers to my Priority Ringing list. But I have to do it in a backwards way. I can't just add the numbers directly (*61 then #area code and number#). I have to wait for them to call me and then immediately after we hang up, add the number via the "last call received" method (*61 and then #01#). The funny thing is, if I go to add the number directly, after using the above method, the system will announce the number and advise that it is already on my list. The Priority Ringing will work with these numbers just as it does with local ones. So, apparently calls placed to me in California via Ameritech and AT&T are sending the number to me to kind of make use of. I have not tried this with other friends who use other carriers yet. Calls I make to Chicago via Pacific Bell and AT&T are apparently not sending the number. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is odd you say this, because I have gotten calls from 415 where the area and number was shown, and some where it was 'private'. Maybe some carriers are free-lancing out there and doing things the way they want. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sherman Hall Subject: National Caller ID in Puerto Rico Date: Mon, 04 Dec 1995 09:46:13 -0800 Organization: CompuServe Incorporated I received several "Out Of Area" calls this weekend from parties in the USA. The CID information is not being passed to (or, is being blocked by) the Puerto Rico Telephone Company. I have seen nothing in the local newspapers regarding CID going national here. Seems that they should, since the PRTC is accountable to the FCC ... ------------------------------ From: bkron@netcom.com Subject: "Caller ID Day" Undesired Side Effects Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 01:52:30 GMT It may have been "Caller ID day" over the weekend, but our inbound 800 calls which terminate on a POTS line with Caller-ID have the wrong idea! Until today, we were passed caller-ID data on most of our inbound 800 calls (Wiltel) -- usually name plus number, sometimes just number (if they have the call blocked, I suppose. We still get ANI if nothing else), and sometimes "unavailable" (probably areas not yet caller-id'd). Today, calls we get from clients who, in the past, had their calls show their name and number, now show "unavailable." In fact ALL our inbound 800 calls are passing "unavailable" on caller-ID! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 15:32:49 -0500 From: sullivan@interramp.com (John M. Sullivan) Subject: Re: Roadside Boxes and Caller ID cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) wrote: > Keith Jarett said: >> When I called the CHP later, they said that you should find a >> regular phone and dial 911 in case of a *real* emergency. Your tax >> dollars at work ... > The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls. They are > connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the > PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls. It would have taken the CHP > much longer to get ambulance service than by calling 911 directly. THe > CHP dispatcher would have to call the PSAP center (using the ten digit > number, not 911) and relay the info to them. It's easier to just do it > yourself. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] Steve appears to be saying that they are intended for people driving along the highway who are just sort of moved by the spirit to chat with someone at the CHP dispatching center in Sacramento. I wouldn't have thought there would be enough demand for this to justify the infrastructure cost, but this IS California and we are talking about public funds, so who knows? Maybe it's a phenomenon engendered by CHiPs, that horrid old cop show with Erik Estrada. I understand its fondly remembered in some circles. I've also heard that people used to think there really was a branch of the Hawaiian police called Five-O, and that even years after the show went off the air tourists would show up at the station wanting to talk to Steve McGarrett and were really disappointed when they learned that McGarrett was a fictional character and there was no Five-O. Maybe the roadside boxes connect to an operator who explains to hundreds of motorists a day that Ponch and Jon were just make believe. I prefer to think however that, like the current occupant of 221-B Baker St. in London who answers mail to Sherlock Holmes in the guise of his personal secretary, the operators instead say that Ponch and Jon can't be reached at the moment because they're out on the road rounding up bad guys and chasing fluffy haired disco babes while they listen to Fleetwood Mac in a sweet, sunny late 1970s that never ends. Sorry, I'm bored at the moment and I get really whimsical when bored. Let me try to make up for it with something more serious. andy@clark.net (andy) wrote: > Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes > on our CID boxes and more actual names and numbers? Isn't today the > beginning of the requirement for all LD companies to start passing CID > data? Please correct me if I'm wrong ...! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's > have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences > with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying > with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will > actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] I haven't been able to get confirmation on anything since my publication deadline was just BEFORE Dec. 1 and I've been out of the office since then, but the odds weren't looking too good as of Nov 29. The California lawsuit had been in the hands of the panel of judges since Nov. 16 and they hadn't ruled. California had asked for an emergency stay from the court pending their decision, but that hadn't been acted on yet either. California carriers had also asked FCC for a temporary waiver since California hadn't approved anybody's consumer education plans and so they were not allowed to pass CPN under CA law. Unless somebody did something the carriers were between a rock and a hard place as of Dec. 1. Either they didn't pass CPN and were in violation of the FCC order or they did and were in violation of state law. I can't imagine them letting this happen, although I certainly can imagine FCC waiting until the last instant in hopes that the court would rule before Dec. 1 in their favor. There were also about 20 to 30 other petitions before FCC, according to Kathy Levitz, who is Deputy Bureau Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau, many of which had been submitted in the last week. The long distance carriers basically tried to swamp FCC with waiver requests based on technical problems which I think have already been discussed in the digest. They all basically claimed the Sprint problem regarding sending ANI when they didn't get CPN from the LEC. Given the mess things were in then, I can't imagine what FCC could have done by the deadline short of staying the whole mess temporarily - probably until the court rules on their preemption. Assuming it rules in their favor, I'm guessing they will say very impolite things to the IXCs while rejecting their petitions, and we can finally get down to business. (total speculation there, of course) As of Thursday, somebody else in my office had talked to Levitz and gotten something like "if we release anything it will probably be around 5:30 today," but I don't know if they finally did. I did get a call today that showed up as out of area on my display though, for what that's worth. John Sullivan ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 13:16:01 PST Earlier I said: > The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls. They are > connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the > PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls. It would have taken the CHP [deleted] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] Perhaps I should clairify what I meant by emergency. The boxes are in fact intended for emergency use, but not LIFE-THREATENING emergencies. The call boxes are intended to be used by stranded motorists to call for a tow or other assistance. Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting. If my car runs out of gas or stalls on the highway, I can use one of those phones. On the other hand, if there is a collision and a four-car pileup with a couple of dead people and a couple of severely injured people I am not to use those phones and instead am to walk or drive for a couple miles looking for a 7/Eleven with some phones in the parking lot. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Paul.Sawyer@unh.edu (Paul S. Sawyer) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: 4 Dec 1995 18:18:50 GMT Organization: University of New Hampshire - Durham, NH > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] They are for various contractors and state agencies to get Federal money for installing them. Some states even maintain them afterwards. :-) Paul S. Sawyer Paul.Sawyer@UNH.edu UNH Telecommunications Voice: +1 603 862 3262 50 College Road FAX: +1 603 862 4545 Durham, New Hampshire 03824-3523 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There you go ... probably the most honest answer on the subject yet. I am reminded of how the Chicago Transit Authority had subway and elevated train cars equipped as 'handicapped accessible' (meaning special sideways seats near the front of the car and a place with no seat at all where a wheel chair could sit) for *years* before they had any handicapped accessible stations (meaning stations equipped with escalators and/or elevators to convey the handicapped people to track level). For years the handicapped accessible cars did only one thing: they caused a few more riders to have to stand up for lack of seats where they had been removed to provide for wheel chair riders who did not exist. The CTA (locally we call it the Transit Atrocity) blamed it on the federal government's demands; everyone else blamed it on the stupidity of the politicians here who run the busses and trains. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #503 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 6 15:11:07 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA06844; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:11:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:11:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512062011.PAA06844@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #504 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Dec 95 15:11:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 504 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "How Local Area Networks Work" by Kosiur/Angel (Rob Slade) Microsoft Announces Unimodem/V Driver for Voice Modems (Toby Nixon) Downloadable GLU (R. Jagannathan) WWW: Doing Business as a Telco in Washington State (Glenn Blackmon) Frontier Offering Cellular Service (TELECOM Digest Editor) "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? (Bob Izenberg) Is SoftRAM95 a Scam? (Tad Cook) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 1995 22:40:18 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "How Local Area Networks Work" by Kosiur/Angel BKHLANWK.RVW 951114 "How Local Area Networks Work", Kosiur/Angel, 1995, 0-13-185489-5, U$26.95/C$36.95 %A David R. Kosiur %A Jonathan Angel %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1995 %G 0-13-185489-5 %I Prentice Hall %O U$26.95/C$36.95 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 282 %T "How Local Area Networks Work" This is, quite simply, an excellent guide to LANs for the non-technical manager, or for the technical professional with no networking background. It introduces the concepts, components and more sophisticated aspects of LANs without either drifting into impenetrable technicalities or getting cute. Chapter ten, a contact listing of network product vendors, is worth the price of the book alone. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKHLANWK.RVW 951114. 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@vanisl.decus.ca DECUS Symposium '96, Vancouver, BC, Feb 26-Mar 1, 1996, contact: rulag@decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Microsoft Announces Unimodem/V Driver for Voice Modems Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 16:12:01 -0800 Microsoft announces the availability of "Unimodem V". Unimodem V is Microsoft's newest release of Unimodem, the Windows universal modem driver/telephony service provider for data/fax modems. Unimodem V provides the driver support that sits between telephony applications and voice modems and allows them to work together. This driver adds the most-requested features to support data/fax/voice modems, including wave playback and record to/from the phone line, wave playback and record to/from the handset, and support for speakerphone, Caller ID, distinctive ringing, and call forwarding. IHVs and OEMs can include Unimodem V with voice modem hardware so that telephony applications can run on their hardware. ISVs may want to ship it with telephony applications so that their applications can run on voice modems that may not already include Unimodem V. End Users can use Unimodem V with telephony applications or a voice modem if neither includes Unimodem V. The driver is distributed as a self-extracting ZIP archive file ("UNIMODV.EXE") that is approximately 468K bytes in size. It is available for download from the following online sources: Internet: ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/UNIMODV.EXE http://www.microsoft.com/windows/software/drivers/unimodem.htm CompuServe: GO WINNEWS, library 4 GO WINEXT, library 3 GO MSL Microsoft Download Service: +1 (206) 936-6735 Here is an extract of key information from the README file included with the Unimodem V software: UNIMODEM V FUNCTIONALITY ======================== This release provides .inf files for some specific modems; however, Unimodem V provides base support, with the addition of an .inf file, for any voice modem based on one of the specific supported chipsets (Rockwell, Cirrus, AT&T) or any other AT+V/AT#V standard modem. Support for Sierra chipsets is in progress and will be available soon. Information on the process for creating .inf files can be found on ftp.microsoft.com in the developr\drg\modem directory. The Unimodem V specification, which describes new features and what you need to know about wave drivers, is located on CompuServe? on the WINEXT forum, Library Section 3 (TAPI SDK), and on the Microsoft ftp site (ftp.microsoft.com or 198.105.232.1) in the \Developer\Tapi directory. The Unimodem V software consists of the following parts: 1. The Unimodem V Telephony Service Provider (TSP) and VxD. The TSP handles program requests, such as dialing and answering, which are passed down from TAPI. The TSP hides modem-specific details of how telephony operations, such as dialing, are handled. The VxD is called by the TSP to send command strings to the modem. It is called by the VCOMM VxD to change modem settings and send/receive data to/from the modem. 2. Operator Agent, a program that identifies whether an incoming call is from a person, a fax machine, or a data modem. It then forwards the call to the appropriate program, such as the answering machine or fax program. If Operator Agent can't automatically determine the type of call, it asks the caller to identify it. If the caller cannot identify it, Operator Agent forwards the call to a program specified by the user. 3. A wave driver for serial port modems that supports the following formats: IMA ADPCM at 4800 kHz, 7200 kHz, or 8000 kHz; and Rockwell ADPCM. 4. A wave wrapper for use with modems with a separate audio hardware interface, where synchronization is needed between the modem and audio via AT commands. The wave wrapper is called by MMSystem, and it calls Unimodem V to send any needed AT commands to the modem. After the AT commands are complete, the wave wrapper calls back into MMSystem, and MMSystem then calls the modem wave device. The modem wave device interfaces only with the audio hardware interface. 5. A wave driver for the Compaq Presario, which uses the wave wrapper. 6. The following .inf files for modems currently supported by Unimodem V: mdmcpq.inf Compaq Presario models 520, 720, 820, and 920 tamwrap.inf Presario wave driver and wrapper mdmdsi.inf Creative Labs Phone Blaster mdmrock.inf Logicode 14.4 data/fax/voice PCMCIA mdmrock2.inf Diamond Multimedia TeleCommander 2500 mdmrock2.inf Cirrus Logic mdmrock3.inf Aztech Systems mdmrock4.inf Rockwell PCMCIA reference design ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 14:15:45 PST From: R. Jagannathan Reply-To: Subject: Downloadable GLU The latest release (version 951201) of GLU (Granular Lucid) is now available over the Web under: http://www.csl.sri.com/GLU.html Several Unix systems are supported including SunOS4, SunOS5, IRIX5, AIX, and FreeBSD. The executables generated by GLU can either run in the single-generator/multiple-workers mode or the multiple-generator/worker mode. Process interaction can be configured at runtime to be based on TCP/IP or PVM (relatively untested). We encourage you to download and use the GLU system and provide us (glu@csl.sri.com) with feedback. Thanks! Regards, R. Jagannathan phone: +1-415-859-2717 SRI International fax: +1-415-859-2844 Computer Science Laboratory email: jaggan@csl.sri.com 333 Ravenswood Avenue www: http://www.csl.sri.com/~jagan Menlo Park, California 94025, U.S.A ------------------------------ From: Glenn Blackmon Subject: WWW: Doing Business as a Telco in Washington State Date: 6 Dec 1995 01:15:39 GMT Organization: Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission http://www.washington.edu/wutc and the site includes information on how to register as a telecommunications company in Washington State. A company can also apply for competitive classification, which relieves it of many of the usual regulatory requirements, and the web site tells how that works as well. Glenn Blackmon - glenn@wutc.wa.gov Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission http://www.washington.edu/wutc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 10:29:27 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Frontier Offering Cellular Service Frontier Communications is now offering cellular service around the USA in an interesting arrangement or service package. You buy the phone at full price, wherever you want to get one. They of course have some for sale if you like. There is no free phone subsidized by the service under their plan. Get whatever phone you like and report it to them. If you already have one, use it instead. They assign you a cellular number. Program the phone yourself or they have techs on contract who will come out and do it for you for free. No long term contracts of any sort. Call waiting, three-way calling, call forwarding, forwarding on busy/no answer, and roaming are free of charge (except you pay tolls when roaming, based on your home site). They charge a ten dollar per month service fee, and rates of 35 cents per minute during peak times and 18 cents per minute off-peak/weekends. They bill you on your existing account with them each month and offer discounts of four to ten percent monthly based on volume of usage. For example, from $50 to $125 per month in usage gets a four percent discount. $125 to $250 per month gets a six percent discount. The service is month by month; charges are placed on your credit card each month a couple weeks after the bill has been sent to you. No credit check, no formalities. Quit whenever you want by telling them to turn it off. If you buy one of their phones, the prices seem about average, and you get the usual warranties, etc. The 35/18 pricing is not the best, and for the ten dollars per month service charge I am sure they can afford to give you 'features' for free. I am told however they charge 'double air' when using the three-way/call waiting features, and that they charge airtime on call forwarding even when the switch forwards the call to a landline number without even hitting the air. Still it might be a good deal for a very limited user or someone who wants absolutely no service contracts. It is national in scope; you can sign up from anywhere in the USA, but you need to otherwise have at least some account with Frontier. It can be one or more lines defaulted to Allnet long distance; it can be an 800 number from their subsidiary Call Home America. The exact name of the service is Frontier Mobile Line; you can reach them at 800-594-5900. In turn they will refer you to a couple of places: 1-800-TALK-NOW (825-5669) if you want to buy a phone from them via Cellular World, and 1-800-783-2020 to get a cellular number assigned. You then either report the number assigned back to the Cellular World people who program the phone and send it out overnight Federal Express, or you program it yourself into your own phone. They won't give you a cellular number however unless you already have an account with Frontier, as noted above. Their literature encourages you to drop your existing cellular service if you can do so without penalty and sign up with them instead. If a 'significant' penalty would be incurred, they suggest you wait until the contract is about to expire and then call them. As always, anyone who tries it out is welcome to report their experiences here. PAT ------------------------------ From: bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) Subject: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 13:50:07 CST Reply-To: bei@io.com I was asked an infamous Kid's Question the other day, and as I don't know the answer I'm putting it out to the Digest readership. If you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong numbers, do you still pay for the calls? In pondering this procedural matter, I wondered how prevalent this sort of thing might be. We have every other sort of irresponsible, money-driven behavior these days. Surely this is a natural for the true Creatures of (Darkness in) the Nineties among us... :-( Bob bei@dogface.austin.tx.us home: +1 (512) 442-0614 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All an 800 number is, quite simply, is your authorization to telco to automatically hand you collect calls without requiring you to verbally authorize each one. You are saying to telco, 'anyone who wants to call me is free to do so, you need not ask my approval to bill me for the call.' That is it: automatic reverse charge calling. Just as you agree to pay for calls from people who wish to call you and whatever foolishness they wish to talk about, you agree to pay for their errors in dialing just as they would pay for their errors in dialing if they were calling 'sent paid'. Just as they can go to the business office and plead their case and get out of paying for wrong numbers in some reasonable amount, you likewise can plead your case and get a few things here and there removed. This depends on how liberal is the attitude of your carrier. In the olden days, AT&T -- when they they were the only one -- used to be quite liberal about removing charges due to customer dialing errors. They were not interested in helping you with customers who in fact did dial your number correctly even though you were not interested in talking to them. That, they said, was your problem getting rid of callers. Dialing errors was another matter, and those they credited 'within reason'. One of the most infamous cases of 800 number abuse and Creatures of Darkness happened about ten years ago, and the perpetrator was severely punished afterward. The victim in that case was Jerry Falwell's organization in Lynchburg, Virginia. The four parts of his organization were 'Moral Majority', 'The Old Time Gospel Hour', Thomas Road Baptist Church, and Liberty University. They all share a common phone room, and quite a few telecom functions such as outgoing WATS lines, etc. A staff of several dozen people staff the phone room around the clock, seven days per week. Incoming calls came in on various lines, separated by what the caller was trying to reach along with quite a few 800 lines. In other words, callers to the University might dial xxx-1000; callers to OTGH might dial xxx-2000; persons watching his television show who wished counseling or other services might dial in on 800-xxx-xxxx, etc. All incoming calls were piped through an Automatic Call Distributor and out to the floor for handling, transfer to a counselor, an extension or whatever. They were logging about 8000-10,000 calls per day through the ACD. Operators answered the call and got rid of it. Either they outdialed to an an extension; passed it to a counselor, an administrative office, etc. A fellow in Georgia got very annoyed with Dr. Falwell and his percieved attacks on the gay community. So this fellow set up his computer and modem so it would dial Falwell's 800 number over and over, repeatedly once a minute. The ACD would hand the call to an operator who responded to dead silence. Once a minute, around the clock. This went on for *several weeks* before it was noticed. Then two things happened at about the same time. The operators began reporting to their supervisor about an unusually high number of 'hangup' calls. They were quite accustomed to, and trained for handling obscene calls which arrived in droves some days along with the wrong number callers who would just hang up without speaking, etc. But after a few weeks of getting this fellow's calls with such regularity, even an overloaded phone room with an automatic call distributor which rocked around the clock could detect some kind of pattern. They first thought it was problems with the ACD; either that it was getting calls but losing them in the process of passing them out to the operators, or perhaps that there was no call at all but something made the ACD think there was and causing it to hand null traffic -- traffic which did not exist -- out to the operators. Repair guys from Southern Bell spent three days there looking at it and getting nowhere. The trouble with trying to repair any large ACD is that you can't get a line idle long enough to test it. The repair guy would stand there waiting for a trunk to come down; it would and then there was another seizure instantly. They finally were able to show conclusively however that the ACD was indeed getting those calls; it was not 'falsing', it was not making anything up. The incoming calls were all traced to a certain group of lines used for 800 calls into the center. I think he had fifteen or twenty lines in a hunt group on which calls to the 800 numbers were sent. Those lines were always the ones with the bogus calls. The other thing that happened about that time was the phone bill came for the 800 lines. Normally fifty to sixty thousand dollars per month, this time the bill was much, much higher. They were not previously bothering to analyze it as well as they should, but this time they decided to. Bingo ... *lots* of one minute calls, 1440 of them per day in fact, or about 44,640 of them in the prior month. All from one number in Georgia ... gee. And it was not just the disgruntled fellow in Georgia; there were others doing the same thing, but none with quite the vigor of the Georgia guy. Now it was time to get AT&T involved since they carried the 800 traffic. AT&T and Southern Bell put equipment on the line to specifically record the activity and they let the guy have his fun for a couple more days while they collected all the evidence they knew they would need. Then they got a federal grand jury to issue an indictment and with the same in hand went out and whacked the guy hard in an old- fashioned raid, i.e. seizure of all computer equipment, modems, phones, disk drives, you name it. You know the routine. The charges against him dealt with the use of interstate phone lines to harass someone. He was found guilty in federal court, and then AT&T turned around and sued him civilly for the cost of the calls. AT&T and Southern Bell had jointly shared a goodwill write off to Falwell, so he was out nothing except the time of the operators and people on his staff who worked on identifying the problem. His is an excellent account where telco is concerned, and naturally they wanted to appease him. It went on though for about two months before finally being stopped, to the tune of about fifty thousand dollars in harassing 800 calls. It only went that far because of the size of Falwell's phone room; those calls literally got ignored in the process of handling thousands of otherwise legitimate calls. Because the {Advocate}, a newspaper in the gay community had covered the affair rather extensively, Falwell changed his 800 number in the hopes a lot of the harassing and obscene calls his operators were otherwise getting would go away. And the volume of those calls did subside quite a bit for a month or so, until the {Advocate} printed his new 800 number and encouraged their readers to once again call up and place bogus orders for literature, Bibles, and similar. When that happened, Falwell took them to task one day on his tele- vision program and asked rhetorically, 'would you like it if all the Christian people started calling and polluting *your* 800 number the way you did ours? The trouble is, I don't know any Christian people who would be interested in pornographic magazines, inflatable male mannequins, battery operated devices alleged to be used for massage, metal rings for attachment to bodily appendages other than fingers, or subscriptions to your newspaper. Nor would they be interested in poppers or potions and pills alleged to improve their sex life and ability to lure others into sex.' The {Advocate} apparently gave that favorable consideration and responded editorially that 'he does have a good point there.' They discretely hid their own 800 number for a few weeks until the stink had gone away and retaliation was unlikely. For several months afterward a group calling itself the 'Oral Majority' kept urging phone harassment via Falwell's 800 number, but the campaign finally died out. Short form answer to your question: yes and no. The circumstances and context are all-important. Technically telco owes you nothing except, I suppose, the peaceful and unhindered use of your phone line. In practice, they will help you out sometimes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Is SoftRAM95 a Scam? Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:13:25 PST Forwarded FYI to the Digest: Lab Tests Find SoftRAM95 Software Useless for Windows Users By Dwight Silverman, Houston Chronicle Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 5--Growing evidence suggests the best-selling software program SoftRAM95, which claims to double the memory on a personal computer, does not do what it purports to do. Syncronys Softcorp, which makes the program, already has said it has no benefits for users of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows 95 operating system. But several software testing labs also have found SoftRAM95 does not do anything for users of Windows 3.1, despite Syncronys officials' insistence to the contrary. And Microsoft has issued a cease-and-desist letter to Syncronys, saying the company illegally placed the "Designed for Windows 95" logo on SoftRAM boxes. SoftRAM also includes Microsoft code that was used without the software giant's permission, a Microsoft spokesman said. Rainer Poertner, Syncronys' chief executive, on Monday defended his company against the growing barrage of criticism, saying SoftRAM95 does what it promises for users of Windows 3.1. Poertner characterized the lack of benefits for Windows 95 users as a bug. A "software patch" intended to fix the Windows 95 problems goes into the testing phase this week and will be released before Christmas, Poertner said. The patch also will provide improvements for Windows 3.1 users, he said. SoftRAM95 was the second-best-selling Windows program in the country during October, with the Windows 95 Upgrade being No. 1, said Ann Stephens of PC Data, which tracks software sales. Other sales indexes, such as a list from wholesale distributor Ingram Micro, have put SoftRAM95 at No. 1. Industry observers say the program is popular because it promises to do for a few dollars what would normally take hundreds of dollars in hardware: effectively double the random access memory of a personal computer, allowing the computer to run faster and open more programs. This memory, or RAM, typically costs about $50 per megabyte, while SoftRAM95 sells for about $30. The {Houston Chronicle} first reported in a Sept. 24 product review that SoftRAM95 appeared to have no effect on the performance of IBM-compatible personal computers running either Windows 95 or Windows 3.1. Since then, there's been mounting evidence: The National Software Testing Laboratory, a division of McGraw-Hill, conducted a study of SoftRAM95 and determined it did nothing for either Windows 95 or Windows 3.1 systems. The study was commissioned by Connectix, a Syncronys competitor. The NSTL is considered one of the most reputable of the independent software evaluation facilities Syncronys responded that the testing conditions were flawed. Microsoft, in a document posted on the Internet's World Wide Web, said that Syncronys used the "Designed for Windows 95" logo without permission and that some of SoftRAM95 contains early, test versions of Windows 95 code distributed to developers and also used without permission. Microsoft issued a cease-and-desist letter on those points, a spokesman said Monday, adding Syncronys had indicated it will comply. Poertner dismissed the logo issue on Monday as a "bureaucratic snafu" and said the code it used was freely available for use by developers. PC magazine's software laboratories conducted two separate tests and found SoftRAM95 did nothing for Windows users. A respected German computer publication, Magazine fur computer technik, took the SoftRAM95 code apart and determined the program did nothing. The German distributor of SoftRAM95 sued the magazine, trying to prevent its editors from using words "Placebo Software." Poertner said the magazine has a "vendetta" against the German distributor and wrote the articles as a result. Mark Russinovich, a professor of computer science at the University of Oregon, conducted a series of tests on SoftRAM95 after installing it on his computer and noticing no benefits. He determined the Windows 95 version indeed did nothing. Russinovich later retracted his statements after learning Syncronys had already conceded that point -- and after Poertner threatened Russinovich with a lawsuit. But Russinovich a few days later retracted the retraction -- he'd taken apart the Windows 3.1 version and determined it, too, did nothing. "The thing is a fraud," he told {Time Magazine} in a Nov. 27 article. He confirmed that statement on Monday. "I find it totally impossible to believe that they would be shipping software that didn't do anything and that no one in Syncronys' engineering department -- or higher up -- knew about it," Russinovich said. Russinovich also said he found a small part of the code "that looks like it might do compression," but that part of the program is never activated. Poertner said Russinovich's story "changes here from day to day." "First he said it does no compression, now he said he's found some," Poertner said. He said Russinovich was unable to find the trigger for the code because "we hide it so well." In response to the negative studies, Syncronys commissioned its own study by XXCal, a Los Angeles-based software testing lab. It found that SoftRAM95 provides benefits for Windows 3.1 users. But in a clarification issued Nov. 29, XXCal also said its tests were conducted using strict parameters set by Syncronys -- settings which some critics have said are unrealistic. "We believe this is the average configuration for most of the users out there," Poertner said. Some critics of the program have gone so far as to use the word "scam" to describe SoftRAM95. Bill Machrone, vice president for technology at computer magazine giant Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., wrote in a column published Monday in {PC Week} that a part of SoftRAM95's code "bears a striking resemblance to a popular, copyrighted {PC Magazine} utility ..." "Is 'scam' too strong a word?" Machrone wrote. Poertner said he had not yet seen Machrone's column. As a result of the controversy, Washington-based Egghead Software, which operates two stores in Houston, has pulled the program from its stores' shelves. But other major computer retailers, such as the Tandy Corp.-owned Computer City, continue to sell SoftRAM. Computer City President Alan Bush said he had not heard of the controversy surrounding SoftRAM95 when initially contacted by the Chronicle. But Bush later called back to say he had spoken with a computer City buyer who was knowledgeable about the issue. Bush said the buyer told him Syncronys "denies all of it." Bush said SoftRAM95 will continue to be sold in his stores. "We have no reason to do anything otherwise," he said. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #504 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 6 20:06:12 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA02321; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:06:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:06:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512070106.UAA02321@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #505 TELECOM Digest Wed, 6 Dec 95 20:06:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 505 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Accessing The Internet By E-Mail (Kelly Breit) Long Distance CID (John Mayson) Book Review: "Digital Cash" by Wayner (Rob Slade) Details of Split: New NPA 330 From 216 (Stan Brown) Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services (Lynne Gregg) MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (D. Burstein) New Telecom Information Web Site (Peter Polishuk) Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See (Michael Franz) Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. (Jon Noring) 10.9 Cent/Min StarQuest/IntelliCommunications? (Mike Wengler) Australia's Largest On-Line Computer Shop (pcs@powerup.com.au) What is Ameritech Selling? (Tom Allebrandi) Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (Toyo Kondo) Announcement: Marcwell MobyMail(TM) (Marcwell) TNPP CAP Page Function Code (Morris Wong) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 13:02:09 -0600 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: FYI> Accessing The Internet By E-Mail Accessing The Internet By E-Mail Doctor Bob's Guide to Offline Internet Access 3rd Edition - December 1994 Copyright (c) 1994, "Doctor Bob" Rankin All rights reserved. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this document provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Feel free to upload to your favorite BBS or Internet server! How to Access Internet Services by E-mail If your only access to the Internet is via e-mail, you don't have to miss out on all the fun! Maybe you've heard of FTP, Gopher, Archie, Veronica, Finger, Whois, WAIS, World-Wide Web, and Usenet but thought they were out of your reach because your online service does not provide those tools. Not so! And even if you do have full Internet access, using e-mail servers can save you time and money. This special report will show you how to retrieve files from FTP sites, explore the Internet via Gopher, search for information with Archie, Veronica, or WAIS, tap into the World-Wide Web, and even access Usenet newsgroups using E-MAIL AS YOUR ONLY TOOL. If you can send a note to an Internet address, you're in the game! This is great news for users of online services where there is partial or no direct Internet access. As of late 1994, there were 150 countries with only e-mail connections to the Internet. This is double the number of countries with direct (IP) connections. I encourage you to read this entire document first and then go back and try out the techniques that are covered. This way, you will gain a broader perspective of the information resources that are available, an introduction to the tools you can work with, and the best methods for finding the information you want. Finding the Latest Version This document is now available from several automated mail servers. To get the latest edition, send e-mail to one of the addresses below. To: listserv@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu (for US/Canada/etc.) Leave Subject blank, and enter only this line in the body of the note: GET INTERNET BY-EMAIL NETTRAIN F=MAIL To: mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu (for Eastern US) Leave Subject blank, and enter only this line in the body of the note: send usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email To: mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk (for UK/Europe/etc.) Leave Subject blank, and enter only this line in the body of the note: send lis-iis e-access-inet.txt You can also get the file by anonymous FTP at one of these sites: Site: ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu get NETTRAIN/INTERNET.BY-EMAIL Site: rtfm.mit.edu get pub/usenet/news.answers/internet-services/access-via-email Site: mailbase.ac.uk get pub/lists/lis-iis/files/e-access-inet.txt Acknowledgements This document is continually expanding and improving as a result of the daily flood of comments and questions received by the author. The following individuals are hereby recognized for their contributions. (If I forgot anyone, let me know and I'll gladly add you to the list.) Miles Baska Sylvain Chamberland Roddy MacLeod - Engineering Faculty Librarian, Heriot Watt University George McMurdo - Queen Margaret College Jim Milles - NETTRAIN Moderator, Saint Louis University Glee Willis - Engineering Librarian, University of Nevada Herman VanUy ------------------------------ From: jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) Subject: Long Distance CID Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 14:07:32 EST I called BellSouth about my Caller ID Deluxe. NONE, that is ZERO, of the long distance calls I've received since Dec 1 have shown up on my caller ID box with the name and number of the caller. All I get is "OUT-OF-AREA". BellSouth said it should work and repair is checking my line. I know there's nothing wrong with my line. I don't have my hopes up about getting long distance caller ID any time soon. :-( John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | john.mayson@harris.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 20:00:41 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Digital Cash" by Wayner BKDGTCSH.RVW 951112 "Digital Cash: Commerce on the Net", Peter Wayner, 1996, 0-12-738763-3 %A Peter Wayner pcw@access.digex.com %C 1300 Boylston Street, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167 %D 1996 %G 0-12-738763-3 %I Academic Press Professional %O 619-699-6735 fax: 619-699-6380 app@acad.com 619-231-0926 800-321-5068 %P 271 %T "Digital Cash: Commerce on the Net" Wayner's book actually covers much more territory than simply commerce on the current Internet. There is an overview of current and developing implementations and technologies. More than that, however, the author provides a very thought provoking look at what cash is: the aspects of confidence (trust), confidentiality (privacy), commitment (non-repudiation), divisibility and so forth that are part of any non-barter system of commerce. The review concentrates on existing technologies and gives a realistic appraisal of the strengths, weaknesses and uses of each. Closing chapters provide an interesting look at money past, and possibly future. The foundational chapters, although they exist, are the weak point of the book. It isn't quite accurate to say that they are non-technical. It is likely that they are *too* technical. DES, RSA and other forms of encryption are described with pages of mathematics. What is missing, though, is any assessment of the reliability or strength of encryption systems for those who don't live and breathe number theory. The lack of straightforward discussion of the United States government policy on encryption is also a weakness. Combined, this allows misleading statements such as the one that "full 768 bit RSA as well as DES encryption ... can't be used to keep secrets." For those who are planning to think about online commerce, this provides considerable food for thought. For those planning to work with online commerce, additional background is needed. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKDGTCSH.RVW 951112 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 rslade@cyberstore.ca Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153/ User .z1.fidonet.org Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ Subject: Details of Split: New NPA 330 From 216 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 18:35:09 EST From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown) Reply-To: stbrown@nacs.net In the mail yesterday (Wednesday, 29 November) I received the long-awaited information on the split of new NPA 330 from 216, which presently covers northeast Ohio. (Ohio's other NPAs are 419 in NW including Toledo, 513 in SW including Cincinnati, and 614 in SE and central Ohio including Columbus.) Anything quoted below is taken verbatim from Ameritech's mailing. Ameritech's information package is called "get to know 330" (lower case in original). It was addressed to my small-business phone number; nothing at all has yet come to my residence. Ameritech's package was actually rather informative: there's a good map, a complete exchange list, a list of Ameritech phone directories and their new area codes, the usual checklists of things to do, sample letters to customers and press releases for businesses to announce their new area codes, and an offer of a thousand free "Our area code will change to 330 on March 9, 1996." stickers. The brochure calls this the "first new Area Code in Ohio since Area Codes began in 1947." The letter gives the usual reason for the split: "An unprecedented demand for new telephone numbers -- for pagers, cellular phones, fax machines, computer modems, and additional phone lines -- has depleted the supply of available numbers in the current 216 area code, requiring the introduction of a new area code." My comment: Nowhere is there mention of considering any plan other than a split, such as an overlay. We're going to end up dialing 1+NPA+7D for most calls eventually anyway; why not do it now and avoid changing any existing phones' NPA? (end comment) Here's a summary of the change: The southern chunk of NPA 216 (details below) will be assigned to NPA 330 on 9 March 1996, the new NPA becoming mandatory on 29 June 1996. There will be no change in what telephones can be reached as a local call or in the cost of toll calls. All toll calls (including those within the same area code) will be dialed 1+NPA+7D. Later, there will be a second split of the remaining NPA 216: "The second phase is scheduled to take place in 1997-1998 where [sic] the remaining 216 area code will be subdivided. The area code number, exact date and geographic boundaries have not yet been determined." The letter claims that the two-phase "plan ensures that Northeast Ohio won't run out of phone numbers for at least 10 years, and each of your existing numbers will only experience one area code change." "For general information about the area code change or to verify codes based on the first three digits of a phone number, call 1-800-330-Info (1-800-330-4636)." I dialed that number and got "Thanks for calling Ameritech. The next available representative will be with you shortly." I didn't hang on. The lists of prefixes staying in 216 and moving to 330 are given, but there are too many for my fingers to type. I'll be happy to mail the brochure to anyone who has a scanner and wants to scan them in for Digest subscribers. Details by Ameritech directory region ===================================== 216: Cleveland; the following directories for Cleveland suburbs or groups of suburbs: Brecksville (S), Chargin (SE), Euclid (NE), Fairview (W), Heights Area (E), Lake County (far NE), Lyndhurst (E), South Suburban, Southeast Area, Southwest Area, West Shore. Lorain is not listed, which leads me to believe it's not in Ameritech-land. 330: Akron, Alliance, Barberton, Canton, Cuyahoga Falls, East Liverpool, Kent, Massillon, Niles, Salem, Youngstown. ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 13:49:00 PST > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It looks like a lot of the telcos are > simply ignoring the legally mandated deadline doesn't it? I wonder > if some will have to be sued to get them to come into compliance? PAT] To clarify the FCC Order: telcos who are EQUIPPED to transport Calling Party Number MUST DO SO. They also, at minimum, must support *67 and *82 as standard per call options (blocking, unblocking). In states where Per Line Blocking is permitted, telcos may continue to offer that service. Unfortunately today, there are plenty of telcos out there who are NOT equipped with SS7/ISUP or switch software needed to deal with transport of Calling Party Number. The FCC Order won't result in immediate gratification here, but will result in significant improvements in Caller ID service going forward. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: danny burstein Subject: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:12:37 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC The following text appeared in a legal advert ("tombstone") in the {NY Post} a couple of days ago. A friend of mine was kind enough to type it in as a favor for my faxing it to him ... Here it is. Notice to All AT&T Long Distance Customers On November 29, 1995, AT&T filed with the Federal Communications Commission to: 1) increase interstate sent-paid coin service charge and transport rates with an overall increase of 9.7%. 2) increase selected interstate charges for AT&T reach out america plans, AT&T anyhour saver plans, and AT&T selectsaver plans, with increases ranging from 2-6% per plan. 3) Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines which are presubscribed to an interexchange carrier other than AT&T, or not presubscribed to any interexchange carrier. This charge is in addition to the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These charges are effective on December 1, 1995. Also on November 30, 1995, AT&T filed to modify the rate schedules for cellular and PCS-originated, interstate long distance calls. Such calls will have two rate periods, peak (8:00 AM to but not including 11:00 PM, Monday through Friday) and off-peak (all other times). This change is effective on December 1, 1995. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:53:25 +0000 From: Peter_Polishuk@nt.com Subject: New Telecom Information Web Site Organization: Nortel (Northern Telecom) New info site: Information Gatekeepers Group Publishers and consultants in Fiber Optics, ISDN, ATM, Wireless. Tons of newsletters, market reports, etc. http://www.igigroup.com/ Peter Polishuk Nortel Marketing Communications Switching Networks ESN 255-4295 or (919)992-4295 Peter_Polishuk@nt.com ------------------------------ From: franz@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Franz) Subject: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 15:18:24 +0200 Organization: Institut für Computersysteme, ETH Zürich I travel a lot and can get to my email from many places in the world via the internet, for a relatively low local access charge. However, when I want to check my answering machine at home, I need to make an expensive long distance call. Wouldn't it be a nice option if some of the answering machine software packages that are available for PCs could compress incoming voice messages, encrypt them, and then send them out again as email? This would probably even be practical for every-day life, as I could get the messages from my home phone at work over email, instead of having to call home and check. Any phone software developers listening? Michael Franz, Computersysteme ETH, Zurich, Switzerland ------------------------------ From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) Subject: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:45:02 GMT (Note that followup discussion has been set to rec.video.cable-tv and sci.electronics.misc) Hello, We're in the process of finishing our basement, and before it is finished and everything sealed up, I want to install coax lines to many of the rooms in the basement as well as upstairs rooms (from the basement line). The coax lines of course will be used for television, maybe FM, and who knows, maybe even a computer line. For TV/FM, the source would either be cable, an antenna, or a satellite dish (right now we're using an attic antenna). Being a mechanical and not electrical engineer, I'd like advice as to how to wire it properly. What type/size of coax to use, fittings, etc., as well as the layout of the wiring. My engineering sense tells me that if I don't design it properly, the signal could be adversely affected throughout the whole house. Or am I being overly-cautious here? Any advice would be most appreciated, and do post to the followup-to newsgroups as I think others contemplating doing something similar may be interested in your words of wisdom. Thanks, Jon Noring OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia 9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP: South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia 801-253-4037 | E-mail: omnimedia@netcom.com OmniMedia Electronic Books -- http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 10:32:35 EST From: wengler@ee.rochester.edu (Mike Wengler) Subject: 10.9 Cent/Min StarQuest/IntelliCommunications? I'm wondering if anyone out there has any information on the following entities or calling plan. I have signed up as a rep for this plan, and want to know what I might be getting into. StarQuest Corporation (of Oregon?) sells the plan. IntelliCommunications (of Nevada?), a reseller of MCI, does the billing. MCI is the underlying network. The rates are spectacular! 10.9 cent/min flat rate interstate, six-second billing. Really good intrastate rates, also flat, six-second. There will be a $1/month fee if ordered after 1/1/96, but this is trivial to even a $20/month customer. StarQuest will pay to switch customer in, and pay to switch them back within 90 days if they don't like it. Marketing is MLM, I think, which is to say I can sign up reps who have the same deal I do, but I get money based on how much business they sign. However, it seems much more oriented to signing up straight customers than other MLM's I've read about on the net. There is a half-page form asking minimal info to sign up someone as a pure customer, with no reference to the MLM part built in. This doesn't strike me as too good to be true, but it certainly is the best I've seen. Its good enough that as soon as I get the sign-up forms, mom, my fiancee, and my sister are on the plan, whether they like it or not! Don't worry FCC, I won't slam them, I'll MAKE them sign the forms first. Anyway, if anyone knows what I should be warned about here, I'd like to know. Thanks, Mike Wengler http://www.he.net/~wengler/StarQuest [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As soon as you get the complete package -- the Full Disclosure you might say -- you perhaps will kindly share more details on this with us. PATTTT] ------------------------------ From: pcs@powerup.com.au (Personal Comuter Supplies Pty Ltd) Subject: Australia's Largest On-Line Computer Shop Date: 6 Dec 1995 03:06:54 GMT Organization: Power Up Reply-To: pcs@powerup.com.au Personal Computer Supplies Pty Ltd a Brisbane-based discount supplier, announces the launch of Australia's largest on-line retail ordering service. Located on the Internet and with over 2000 products available for purchase, the PCS Web site has something for everyone: from floppy disks to notebooks, over 500 printer consumables and software from many leading vendors. http://www.odyssey.com.au/wtc/pcs You can also download dozends of net shareware, games & demos software and can listen to James Brown and find the cockroach on one for our pages (listen to the sound file). ------------------------------ From: Tom@Tass.Com (Tom Allebrandi) Subject: What is Ameritech Selling? Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 05:16:23 GMT Organization: TA Software Systems/Frontline Test Equipment Hi! When in Indianapolis over the Thanksgiving holdiay, both my father and my wife's brother in-law were talking about the big push that Ameritech Cellular is making in the Indianapolis market. Apparently, they are offering really good deals on airtime and service packages. And, they are advertising like crazy. But, what are they selling? Cellular One is the A side carrier in Indy and GTE Mobilenet has the B side. Does Indy now have a C side cellular carrier? Or, is Ameritech simply reselling one of the other two in a competitive manner? Just curious, Tom Allebrandi | Tom@Tass.Com TA Software Systems/Frontline Test Equipment | Tom@Mcs.Com Valparaiso, IN USA | +1-219-465-0108 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In an issue of the Digest earlier today I mentioned that another company starting to make a big push for cellular customers on a national basis. Frontier Mobile Line, run by the folks at Allnet is trying to cut into the territory of the big established carriers in various city markets. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) Subject: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air Date: 6 Dec 1995 02:45:38 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic. Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of telephone network? Thank you in advance, Toyo ------------------------------ From: Marcwell Subject: Announcement: Marcwell MobyMail(TM) Date: 6 Dec 1995 10:04:54 GMT Organization: Uniplus Internet Access STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Dec. 4, 1995 - Marcwell today announced the Marcwell MobyMail(TM) mobile message transport provider for the Windows 95 and Windows NT operating systems. GSM cellular phones and pagers has become very popular today. The cellular phones transfers data/fax reliable and can send and retrieve short messages (SMS) and with a pager you can be reached without being disturbed. Marcwell MobyMail lets you send and retrieve short messages to cellular phones and pagers. It is even possible to send messages from a cellular phone to a recipient within a local area network via the MobyMail workgroup server. Only the imagination limits the possibilities, except for sending an e-mail to the cellular phone/pager you can communicate with text commands or text data between applications or between an application and a person (transparent messages is a fortcoming feature). For example could the communication between an application and a person be used for a delivery firm, the driver receives the collect address and when he has delivered the parcel he sends an acknowledge back into the network/application. Another example would be to use it together with an application to send alarm messages or to send news updates, stock-exchange quotations etc. Marcwell MobyMail makes it easy to communicate to mobile units and is based upon a messaging standard - MAPI. Instead of having to use a separate program MobyMail integrates into the operating system as an extension and can be used from many types of applications, including old DOS-applications using a file interface. Currently supported SMS providers are; Cellnet, Comviq, DeTeMobil, Europolitan, Mannesmann Mobilfunk, NetCom, PC-Card (direct phone connection), Radiolinja, Sonofon, Tele Danmark Mobil, Telecom Finland, Telia Mobitel, Telenor Mobil, Vodafone and supported paging providers are; Telia Mobitel, Telenor Mobil. MobyMail Key Features * 32-bit: Implemented as a true Win32 MAPI transport provider with multithreading for performance and stability. * Many service providers: Many of the today available European message service providers are supported. * Workgroup server: Send and retrieve messages from within a local area network through the Marcwell MobyMail workgroup server. * Third-party interface: Either use OLE Messaging or the file interface for DOS- and non-OLE applications. * Upgradeable: Easily upgraded from a single user version to a workgroup server with a new license key. Pricing and Availability ------------------------ Marcwell MobyMail for Windows 95 is available now and the Windows NT (Intel) version will be available as soon as MAPI is released for Windows NT. Download MobyMail for a 30-day evaluation and trial period or a technical whitepaper from either CompuServe (go MSWIN95, library "Mobile/PCMCIA") or via Internet from our web with address http://www.marcwell.se. Our e-mail address is helpdesk@marcwell.se. MobyMail is available in a single user version for 595 SEK and a 50 user workgroup server version for 4.995 SEK. For the server a special LAN client is available for 195 SEK each. The LAN client can only operate via the server, the single version that can operate both stand-alone and as a LAN client. All prices are excluding VAT. ######### Marcwell, MobyMail are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Marcwell. Microsoft, Windows, Windows NT are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Intel is a registered trademark of Intel Corporation. CompuServe is a registered trademark of CompuServe Inc. ------------------------------ From: ac91@Comp.HKBU.Edu.HK (Applied Computing 91) Subject: [Qn] TNPP CAP page function code Date: 6 Dec 1995 11:46:54 GMT Organization: Hong Kong Baptist University Hello netters, Here's a question about TNPP CAP page function code field. If a pager has four tones from A to D, how can it map to the CAP page function code field. The format of function code is 01P0ABCD where ABCD has the following meaning. 0000 - default pager address/function 0001 - address/function 1 0010 - address/function 2 0011 - address/function 3 0100 - address/function 4 Here's two mapping. mapping 1 mapping 2 0000 Tone A ---- 0001 Tone B Tone A 0010 Tone C Tone B 0011 Tone D Tone C 0100 ---- Tone D Could someone tell me which is correct? Thank you in advance. Morris Wong ac91@comp.hkbu.edu.hk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #505 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 7 08:21:32 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA06888; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:21:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 08:21:32 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512071321.IAA06888@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #506 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Dec 95 08:21:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 506 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What Will Technological Future be Like? (LA Times via John Nestoriak) Call Me Cards (Tony Harminc) Want to Buy Predictive Dialers (phoneroom@aol.com) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (hassan@access5.digex.net) Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air (John R. Grout) Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? (Hovig Heghinian) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (William Kucharski) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Jim Hebbeln) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Keith Knipschild) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Kevin Paul Herbert) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: john@telecnnct.com (John Nestoriak) Subject: What Will Technological Future be Like? Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 17:01:22 -0500 (EST) The following is copyright {The Los Angeles Times} and forwarded to the TELECOM Digest with the permission of the author. A very interesting take on telecomm competition and the building of the NII. Date: 01 Dec 1995 06:32:51 From: gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu Subject: L.A. Times column, 11/30/95 The following is my column that appearned in {The Los Angeles Times} today, November 30, 1995. It will appear in other newspapers in the next week, including {The San Jose Mercury News} and {The Boston Globe}. Gary Chapman, Coordinator The 21st Century Project LBJ School of Public Affairs Drawer Y, University Station University of Texas Austin, TX 78713 (512) 471-8326 (512) 471-1835 (fax) Electronic mail: gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------- It is largely taken for granted today that "market forces" will determine our technological future. But what the market is likely to deliver in telecommunications may not be what we need, nor what we could have. Assumptions about the benefits of a specific kind of competition lie at the heart of the mammoth telecommunications deregulation bill now being considered by Congress. That bill, if passed, will largely determine the architecture of the fabled information superhighway. But it's based on the notion that the public good will be served by competition in wires, while we should really be trying to foster competition in services. The large telecom companies have billions of dollars invested in their wires and switches -- either in copper wire and fiber, for the telephone companies, or coaxial cable and fiber for the cable companies, with both sectors using satellites. Deregulation of these industries means that each will be able to use their wires and switches to encroach on the other's business -- telephone companies will start to offer video services, like movies on demand, while cable companies are gearing up to offer telephone service. Consumers, according to the theory, will get better and cheaper service with these industries competing against each other. But how many consumers will be able to make a reasonable choice between cable or telephone companies, when both will start offering similar services and for roughly comparable prices? Most people are already baffled trying to sort out the claims of long-distance providers like AT&T, Sprint, and MCI. And a lot of people are angry about the constant harangues of these companies, especially their dinner-time telemarketing calls. Try multiplying those by ten. A completely different arrangement is possible. If people were given access to a universal, public network, especially one based on fiber optic cables with virtually limitless carrying capacity, we'd see an explosion of entrepreneurial energy instead of more marketing appeals. We'd build an entirely new economic sector instead of divvying up the current telecom business differently. The city of Austin, Texas, where I live, is pursuing an innovative and controversial plan that many communities around the nation are watching with intense interest. Austin reportedly has the highest Internet usage, per capita, of any major metropolitan area in the U.S. The city is home to a booming home-grown multi-media industry, largely made up of small, start-up firms, some of them run on kitchen tables. It's also a growing world center of semiconductor manufacturing. To serve this population, city officials have proposed an unusual public-private partnership to wire all Austin homes and businesses with high-speed fiber connections within two years. The private partner gets to manage the network and collect leasing fees in exchange for its investment in the hardware. The City offers its rights-of-way, permission to tear up the streets, and an exclusive arrangement with the contractor, in exchange for some important public interest principles. These include universal service, interoperability of components, and open systems, which all add up to a public network infrastructure open to all users with maximum available bandwidth available to everyone. What the city officials hope will result from this kind of arrangement is an Internet-like network model, but with bandwidth that can carry video, data, voice, and sound all at once. With new technologies appearing that make the World-Wide Web more and more capable of exploiting this capacity, entrepreneurs could blossom all over town. And the network could carry conventional cable TV, telephone, and online services as well, producing true competition between large companies instead of a zero-sum scramble for market share. This plan is especially important for low-income neighborhoods, because what typically obstructs economic development in those communities is the reluctance of people with money to shop or do business in poor areas. A network presence would remove that barrier -- geography would no longer matter. Southwestern Bell and Austin Cablevision, a subsidiary of Time Warner, oppose the City of Austin's plan. They envision a model in which they own the wires and lease their bandwidth to content providers that they select and then market to consumers in "bundles," the way cable TV, America Online, Prodigy, or CompuServe work now. Their networks would not be open, and it's likely that their interactivity would be highly constrained -- enough for users to send e-mail and a credit card number, but not enough to have a full-blown, interactive video presence on the network that could rival their own offerings. This is a battle that will be waged all over the country -- it is already apparent in the telecommunications reform bill passed by both houses of Congress, which reinforces the model preferred by large corporations. Unfortunately, most citizens don't understand the first thing about this debate, either what's at stake or what alternatives are feasible. This is true even in Austin. Television commercials from the large telecom companies are now filled with encomiums to the "information superhighway." But our concrete highways are a genuine public resource, and, at the same time, the arteries of our economy. They carry all vehicles, old and new, commercial and private, sleek and homely. Is it too late to start thinking about the "information superhighway" in the same way? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Dec 95 19:36:20 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Call Me Cards I got two similar items in yesterday's mail: four calling bird... ah, cards from Bell Canada, and an application form for one from BT in the UK. The four Bell ones are Call Me cards, consisting of my phone number and a four digit PIN (the same on all four cards). These were accompanied by a letter suggesting that I give these out to my friends and relatives so they can call me *for exactly what it would cost me to call them*. The implication is that there is no transaction charge, i.e. if I use my regular PIN to call home there will be a $.75 or whatever charge, but if I use the Call Me PIN there won't be. Strange, if true. The fine print says that this identical charging does not apply to calls originated outside the country, though it doesn't say what the charge will be. The obvious question that comes to mind is what happens if someone tries to use this card to call other than my number? Clearly Bell's own database will reject such attempts, but what about the various lesser foreign telcos (Integratel?) who accept the card? If I posted the PIN publicly, would I be liable for charges made to other than my number? The BT application invites me to apply for one of their calling cards. They say nothing whatever about rates -- they're trying to sell the card based on the convenience of dealing with BT operators when calling from a foreign country. Based on my experiences with surly BT operators in the past, I'd say this is not the wisest sales pitch! They want me to give them a credit card number to bill to, and they will send an itemized statement each month. No charge for the card, no minimum billing. I can't tell what mailing list BT got my name from, but the application form comes with a postpaid envelope supposedly good for the USA, Australia, and South Africa - "other countries please apply proper postage"! Can anyone think of a good reason for having one of these cards? Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Subject: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers Date: 7 Dec 1995 01:57:17 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Does anyone know of a used predictive dial system that is available for sale? I am most interested in a Melita Phoneframe but would consider others. Any info would be appreciated. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: These devices are an extreme nuisance for the people being called. Anyone who has one of these devices be forwarned that when one of them calls me, if you are not on the line *immediatly* and ready to talk when I pick up the phone, I hang up without waiting for you. I do not know how many times I have answered the phone only to be told, "We have an important message for you, please hold the line until an agent becomes available." It seems to me to be very arrogant to call someone and then expect them to hold on until you find time to talk to them. It is not like I called you, after all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Hassan Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 00:13:16 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA All that a PCS service will or can provide, cellular service providers can provide too. Short messaging service will soon be available to the Cellular customers. GSM has a flaw and it's priority calls would not be handend off to other sites, which is the case for cellular at present time. So what else is better in PCS which is not available in cellular. Quality of service, size and weight of phones, battery charge holding time, any other that you can think of is either same or better in cellular. Hasan ------------------------------ From: j-grout@glibm8.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Digital Transmission of Video Signal Over the Air Date: 07 Dec 1995 03:19:45 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu In article tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) writes: > Hi. Is there anyone who can explain how digital transmission of video > signals over the air work? I think digital transmission is only possible > in guided media, such as twisted pairs, coax, and fiber optic. No. > Digital transmission of video signal via unguided media is already > underway, i.e. USSB and DirecTV. Are they transmitting digital signal as > an analog as modem does for sending digital signal via analog circuit of > telephone network? No, they use moderately sophisticated techniques for encoding digital signals directly. By comparison, the new USA HDTV standard, just certified by the FCC for terrestrial digital TV broadcasting, uses extremely sophisticated techniques. The major problems with direct digital encoding of any signal sent through the air are multi-path distortion (e.g., reflections off buildings, trees, airplanes, etc.), rejection of signals on adjacent frequencies, and rejection of distant signals on the same frequency... because, without sophisticated technology, these problems cause total decoding failure instead of gradual signal degredation... the "ghosting" encountered in terrestrial analog TV reception is the most familiar example of such degradation. As far as I understand the situation, at the frequencies used by DBS services, multi-path distortion and signal rejection aren't much of a problem for _satellite_ broadcasting ... and the band used for DBS is large enough to allow use of only moderately sophisticated video compression techniques (I think they're just getting into newer ones which will allow footballs flying through the air to not leave "digital artifacts" behind on the screen). However, multi-path distortion for _terrestrial_ digital broadcasting is a far more serious problem ... so much so that all fully-implemented terrestrial high-definition TV (HDTV) standards (e.g., the Japanese standard) use analog encoding. However, an unexpected breakthrough in research several years ago in the USA led to techniques which can overcome this problem. These new techniques, along with significant (if less serendipitous) new techniques for video compression, are the cornerstones of the new USA HDTV standard, which packages HDTV signals into narrow-enough channels to meet the original political objective for HDTV... to allow each existing TV broadcaster an equivalent HDTV broadcast license (at a different, higher frequency) to serve the same broadcast area. As I understand it, such an HDTV transmitter foils multi-path distortion by sending out extra analog data in a special pattern as part of a digital signal ... this allows a matching HDTV receiver to figure out (from time and frequency shifts, etc., when analyzing the telemetry) what the analog errors are in the signal it is receiving, and, within realistic conditions (i.e., the user has an antenna which allows one version of a signal to be received stronger than a reflected version of that signal arriving at a slightly different time, transmitters on adjacent frequencies aren't nearby, transmitters on the same frequency are far away), the receiver can reconstruct the original digital signal with no degredation whatsoever. How all the components of the new HDTV standard will be _used_ is anyone's guess. If affordable flat-screen technology finally takes off (and there's been lots of progress in the last two years or so ... from digital micromirrors to arrays of microscopic picture tubes), HDTV as it was originally envisioned ... terrestrial broadcast transmission to receivers with large screens with a 13 by 9 aspect ratio ... may still take shape. However, there are lots of political details to work out. For example, most Republicans want to auction off HDTV licenses to raise money for the U.S. Government, while most public TV stations want not only to receive a free HDTV license, but want HDTV receivers to be taxed to pay for public television's HDTV transmission equipment and converters for poor people with old TV sets. If large, relatively inexpensive wide-angle displays aren't available soon enough, the video parts of HDTV may be used in computer monitors (there were changes in the standard to handle them a while back), or with cable, satellite or fiber-optic transmission instead of broadcast transmission. There was an issue of the IEEE Spectrum in the last year or two focusing on digital video. Several of those articles probably would be within the reach of c.d.t readers with a general technical background. John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: hovig@ai.uiuc.edu (Hovig Heghinian) Subject: Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? Date: 6 Dec 1995 20:37:46 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: hovig@cs.uiuc.edu bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) asked: > If you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong numbers, > do you still pay for the calls? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All an 800 number is, quite simply, is > your authorization to telco to automatically hand you collect calls > without requiring you to verbally authorize each one. ... PAT] Allow me a follow-up question: Are you, the one with the 1-800 number, charged at your own carrier's rates, or at the calling party's rates? I know that you can specify different carriers for different conditions, such as day of week, time of day and/or call volume, but what about silly things like calls from PBXs, pay phones and cell phones? And is this the same as a collect call, then? Hovig Heghinian | Open your mind too far, Department of Computer Science | and your brain may fall out. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your selected carrier is the *only* one that matters in 800 calls. As soon as someone dials an 800 number, the telephone company receiving the call for processing hands it to the carrier *you* have designated. PBX, pay phone, cell phone, no difference. As soon as the call reaches the phone company central office, it is handed over to the carrier you have chosen. Therefore you are only billed at the rate your carrier charges. If someone chooses to call you 'collect', then the traffic is up for grabs. The originating carrier is entitled to (and usually does) handle it all the way to your end. Not so with 800 numbers, which are still 'collect' strictly speaking, but rather limited authorization to automatically call you collect via the carrier you have chosen. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kucharsk@drmail.dr.att.com (William Kucharski) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Denver, CO Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 01:49:20 GMT If your friends are complaining about your calls being received as "Out of Area" (or if you are receiving such calls yourself), one big factor may be Sprint. Specifically, I've confirmed with Sprint (my LD carrier) that the following extract from FCC Docket #91-281 is the case, and they are operating under a waiver until March 31, 1996: On October 24, 1995, Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) filed a petition requesting a waiver of Sections 64.1601(a), 64.1603 and 64.1604 of the Commission's rules until March 31, 1996. Sprint requests a waiver to defer the CPN requirement until modifications in its software delivery of CPN can be corrected. Sprint indicates that during testing of its switch software, it identified certain instances in which its switches would pass Automatic Number Identification (ANI) (billing number information) when CPN information was not available. Sprint requests a waiver to allow time for it to correct this problem. Personally, my Sprint calls are still showing up on friends' boxes as "Out of Area"; the same call made using a 10288 prefix (AT&T) shows my number quite clearly. Funny how every other IXC can manage to get their act together, but even given eight months' lead time from the decision Sprint is still clueless. I remember when I first subscribed to them they were the most advanced network ... On a related subject, has anyone seen any out of state names? It's my understanding that this will likely not work for various technical reasons, and at current only the "number" phase of CID is mandated. (Name delivery being considered a number-related "additional feature.") For those of you who may be curious, the two other major waivered carriers are GTE and Pac*Bell in California: On October 13, 1995, GTE Service Corporation (GTE) filed a petition for limited waiver or, in the alternative, a limited suspension of Section 64.1601(a) of the Commission's rules in the State of California until June 3, 1996. GTE contends that it will not be able to meet the December 1, 1995 deadline for passage of CPN because it cannot lawfully pass CPN in California as it has been unable to obtain approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for its customer notification and education plan (CNEP) on caller ID services. GTE states that under California law, all local exchange carriers (LECs) must first comply with the CPUC's customer education and notification requirements, before they can pass any CPN. GTE asserts that despite its numerous efforts to design a CNEP to meet the guidelines of the CPUC, it has been unsuccessful. On October 25, 1995, Pacific Bell (Pacific) filed a petition requesting a temporary and limited waiver of Section 64.1601(a) of the Commission's rules in the State of California until June 1, 1996. Like GTE, Pacific contends that it will not be able to meet the December 1, 1995 deadline for passage of CPN because it cannot lawfully pass CPN in California as it has been unable to obtain approval from the CPUC for its caller ID services. Pacific asserts that despite proposing a CNEP, which it estimates would cost $33 million, it has been unsuccessful in its attempts to receive CPUC approval. William Kucharski, contractor, AT&T Bell Labs Work Internet: kucharsk@drmail.dr.att.com Fun Internet: kucharsk@netcom.com Ham: N0OKQ President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 95 8:23:27 MST From: Jim Hebbeln Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Pat, Sunday I received three CallerID test calls: Calling from: 608-233-xxxx Madison, WI DMS-100 Calling to: 970-224-xxxx Fort Collins, CO 1AESS (still) Via: AT&T (10288+1+970-224...) received 10-digit calling number* MCI (10222+1+970-224...) received 10-digit calling number* Sprint (10333+1+970-224...) received "OUT OF AREA" (* calling name is not displayed) Sprint doesn't seem to be passing through the calling number to U S West. Both they and MCI use Nortel DMS-250 switches; MCI works, Sprint doesn't. Hmmm ...) I thought I might add "how CallerID works" internally within the networks, and some history: The CALLING NUMBER (and the privacy Presentation Indicator bit) is transported to the terminating central office within the Signalling System #7 (SS7) Integrated Services Digital Network User Part (ISUP) Initial Address Message (IAM) sent between switches that initiates setup of the trunk between them. (The IAM contains the 24-bit Originating Point Code and the Destination Point Code of the switches at each end of the trunk, the trunk circuit number, the calling number and display Presentation Indicator, the called number, the Bearer Capability (speech, 56k/64k data), and other miscellaneous info such as a 64K data call is ISDN end-to-end.) However, the calling customer's NAME that appears in the CallerID display is not contained (now) either in the CO's database, nor, therefore, in the SS7 IAM message. The calling party's name, once the IAM's calling number is received in the called party's CO, is obtained by the terminating CO by using SS7's Transaction CAPability (TCAP) to query the RBOC's Line Information DataBase (LIDB), which usually responds back in ~300-500 milliseconds with the 15-character name that is transmitted to the CallerID unit (if the Presentation Indicator doesn't block it). The LIDB is the same database that keeps track of each line's Calling Card PIN (if any), the line's class (Residence, Business, Coin,...), Collect and Third Number Billing blocking, and now CallerID name. Why is the name field fixed at 15 characters? I don't know for sure, but perhaps this might be some insight: U S West was probably the biggest instigator of CallerID with Name. Using a DMS-100 central office that served an entire town in the Dakota's (Grand Forks, I believe) in 1990-91, U S West performed working market trials/studies that indicated that CallerID would sell twice as well if the caller's name was included. The DMS-100 has a **15 character** NAME field that can be associated with each Directory Number's Attributes (data table DNATTRS) for use in DMS-100 Centrex applications with Electronic Business Sets with Display. I would guess the CallerID display units were, therefore, designed to accomodate these 15 characters, and the design spec carried forth ... Grand Forkers loved CallerID with Name. Therefore, U S West delayed their CLASS/CallerID implementation programs for a large portion of a year, while AT&T/Nortel/Ericcson developed the SS7 TCAP query software that would obtain the calling name from the LIDB database (memory was available for 15 characters), instead of keeping the names in each CO's database. (RAM and hard disk memory in a CO switch is notoriously expensive.) This is not as good a story as "where OCTOTHORPE came from", but I hope it adds to the discussion and perspective. (By my choice I don't work for U S West anymore, but I did translations (data base) work for SS7 and CLASS implementation in Colorado in 1991-92. Now, I have "my own" ISDN switch rather than sharing it and 700 other switches with an army of technicians.) Perhaps another time, I'll write on the RBOC/switch vendor technical trial of "Whose Calling" in 1990 in Fort Collins -- a computer that announced the caller's name in a synthesized voice (it enunciated pretty well -- even my name). When you pressed 1, the caller was connected. Else, you hung up and the caller got no answer. The Whose Calling user didn't have to buy a CallerID unit, and it worked from all the DTMF phones on your line. Jim Hebbeln, Telecommunications Specialist, Nortel SL-100 tech Telecommunications Department Voice: 970-491-1014 E-100 Glover Building Fax: 970-491-2179 Colorado State University (NEW AREA CODE 970 ON APRIL 2, 1995) Fort Collins, CO 80523-2009 Email: JHebbeln@Vines.ColoState.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 18:38:24 -0600 From: keith@unix.asb.com (Keith Knipschild - L.I.,NY) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ... ? andy@clark.net (andy) wrote: > Given that it is now Dec 1, will we be seeing less "UNAVAILABLE" notes > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, yesterday was December 1. Let's > have some reports submitted to the Digest please of your experiences > with this over the next week or so. How well are the telcos complying > with the new requirement. Maybe for once, our caller-id boxes will > actually be fully functional, eh? It is about time! PAT] I responded: >> Well if anyone wants to call me, and let the phone ring 1.5 - 2 times, >> I'll post the NPA and NXX of the calls I recieve ... so if you see your >> Area Code and exchage posted, please let us know who you are using for >> Long Distance. Well I got many phone calls today 12/5/1995. There were alot (10+) of calls that said " OUT OF AREA " Some callers did not allow the phone to ring 1.5 - 2 times, So there was no CID info avaiable. As for those who called, here is the list as of 6pm ET - 12/5/95 : Area Code NPA Time 404 727 9am ET 206 885 11am ET 206 328 3pm ET 403 531 3:30pm ET And TODAY (December 6,1995), I received the following calls: 970 493 10am ET 810 651 11:30am ET 804 850 6pm ET ------------------------------ From: kph@cisco.com (Kevin Paul Herbert) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 14:13:04 -0800 Organization: Cisco Systems, Ashland, OR Here is an interesting way to test for interstate caller ID: call up a caller ID test number in another LATA and see what happens. I've been using 413-447-8214; there are plenty of others out there. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #506 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 7 15:11:18 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA06068; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:11:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:11:18 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512072011.PAA06068@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #507 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Dec 95 13:34:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 507 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes (Mark Cuccia) South Carolina (864) Test Number Correction (Michael Fumich) Re: Old Billing Practices (Andreas Pavlik) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (David Whiteman) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Keith Jarett) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (David Whiteman) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Cogorno) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Raymond Hazel) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Edward A. Kleinhample) Re: Roadside Boxes and Caller ID (Carl Moore) What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (David McCord) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Cuccia Subject: What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes Date: Mon, 04 Dec 95 10:55:00 CST In January of this year, 1995, we saw the actual implementation of `interchangeable' areacodes into the North American Numbering Plan, more-or-less right on schedule with AT&T's predictions made sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's, of when the N0X/N1X areacode format would exhaust. We have had several NPA's of the new format take effect this year, with many more planned for introduction in 1996 and 1997. Just take into account the number of NPA's which have gone into effect or have been assigned since 1988-on, and we have already added more NPA's than the 1948-65 time frame when some 35 NPA's were added to the original 86 assigned codes in 1947. Excluding any special areacodes for TWX, Mexico, or other special services (800, 900, etc), there were no new geographic areacodes to take effect between 1965 and 1982, except when Virginia's single 703 areacode split off 804 in 1973. It wasn't until around 1982/83 when 619 split from 714 (southeastern CA) and 409 split from 713 (southeastern TX). And then again in 1984 when Los Angeles County (213) split off 818 for the northern part and New York City (212) split off 718 for Brooklyn/Queens/Staten Island (and now includes the Bronx since 1992). But since 1988, we have seen at *least* one new areacode take effect every year -- with no end in sight! Many states/provinces which had only ONE areacode in 1947 (and back then, a state/province with a single NPA and the N0X format were identical) have been split into two since then -- some have been split even several times! The following list identifies those states/provinces which *still* have only ONE areacode -- that single code which was assigned in 1947, and as of yet, there have been no announcements of any additional *specific* areacodes for that state/province. 207 Maine 603 New Hampshire 802 Vermont 401 Rhode Island 302 Delaware 304 West Virginia 601 Mississippi (*) 501 Arkansas (*) 701 North Dakota 605 South Dakota 406 Montana 307 Wyoming 505 New Mexico 801 Utah (*) 702 Nevada 208 Idaho 204 Manitoba 306 Saskatchewan 403 Alberta (*) (*) according to the Bellcore IL-95/01-018 (31 Jan. 1995), NANPA's 1995 annual report on NPA's, these are *projected* to exhaust, but there have been no new codes nor boundaries of any future splits/ overlays yet announced: 501 AR projected to exhaust by the 1st Quarter of 1999 601 MS projected to exhaust by the 1st Quarter of 2004 801 UT projected to exhuast by the 3rd Quarter of 1999 403 AB projected to exhaust by the 1st Quarter of 2005 -- but it *does* seem that 403 is using up NXX exchange codes rather fast, however, and could probably need a split earlier. I have a few more notes about 403 further down, since 403 also presently serves YK and the western/southern NWT. Nova Scotia (and Prince Edward Island) also still has its single 1947 assigned 902 areacode. Back then, 902 was assigned to the *entire* Maritime Provinces region (including Newfoundland/Labrador which didn't become part of the Dominion of Canada until 1948). New Brunswick split from 902 in 1955, but this province still has its single areacode 506. Newfoundland/Labrador split from 902 in 1962, and this province as well still has its single areacode 709. The District of Columbia (Washington DC) still has only 202, which was part of the original 86 assigned codes in 1947, and I haven't seen any projections of a *second* areacode strictly for DC, but prior to 1990, all central office codes of DC were `protected' in both 703 Virginia and 301 Maryland. There was full permissive dialing among the three areacodes when calling to the Washington DC metro area -- which includes the Northern VA and Southern MD suburbs of DC. If I'm not mistaken, the southern MD suburbs' 301-NXX codes were *also* `protected' in all of 703; likewise the northern VA suburbs' 703-NXX codes were `protected' in all of 301. This was terminated in 1990, and the boundaries between these three NPA's are now fixed and rigid. Hawaii and Alaska had areacodes assigned to them in 1957, ten years after the North American Numbering Plan was introduced. But even those two states still have the same *single* areacodes (808 and 907 respectively) assigned to them. The Caribbean Islands (at least most of them) were assigned areacode 809 in 1958. We have seen Bermuda assigned its own NPA 441 this year, and the Bahamas will have NPA 242 take effect next year. Although these new NPA's have actually *split* from 809, Bermuda and the Bahamas will still each have only *one* NPA assigned. And even if *every* country or island group is assigned its *own & unique* NPA, they would all *each* still have a *single* areacode (at least for many years to come). When 403 eventually *does* split, Yukon and the western/southern NWT will probably still have a single shared NPA, probably a new one *just* for them. Probably the eastern/northern parts of the NWT (which presently shares 819 with part of Quebec) will `join-in' with the southern/western parts of the NWT in a *new single* YK/NWT areacode. The northern part of Alberta could probably be assigned its own NPA separate from the YK/NWT code -- i.e. 403 might actually be split into three areacodes -- a smaller 403 (southern Alberta) and two new codes. BTW, Alberta's 403 was `extended' in 1972 to include CN's Northwestel operations in Yukon and the southern/western parts of the NWT; 819 (which covers part of Quebec) was similarly `extended' in 1975 to include Bell Canada's operations in the eastern/northern part of the NWT. The holding company BCE (Bell Canada Enterprises) purchased Northwestel from CN in 1988, and in 1992 the Bell Canada operations in the NWT were transferred over to BCE's Northwestel which has merged togather the two operations even though they presently have two geogrphic areacodes. Also, the only states with *multiple* areacodes but having the *same* areacodes as they did in 1947 are: Kansas (316 & 913) Iowa (712-515-319) So far, there haven't been any announcements of additional codes for these two states, although Bellcore NANPA projects that both of Kansas' areacodes could need additional areacodes sometime in 2004. And prior to recent splits or announcements of splits, Ohio and Pennsylvania had also been the only other multi-NPA states which were able to get along with just their original areacodes assigned in 1947. PA had their 215/610 split in 1994; it has been announced that OH will have their 216/330 split in March 1996 -- and even after that, yet *another* split of 216 to take place in 1997. Bellcore NANPA also projects two other Ohio NPA's to need additional areacodes over the next ten years- 513 by 4Q 2001 and 614 by 1Q 2003. There are also some other states/provinces which had additional areacodes assigned in the 1948-65 timeframe -- some are only *now* getting (or just recently had) more additional areacodes (TN, WA, NC, MI, MO, MN, ON). Others (such as Nebraska) still haven't had any new areacode announcements, although Bellcore has projected the following states/NPA's as needing additional areacodes over the next ten years: KY's 502 by 3Q 2005 LA's 318 by 3Q 1998 LA's 504 by 1Q 1999 OK's 405 by 4Q 1999 IN's 317 by 3Q 1999 WI's 414 by 2Q 2003 Quebec originally had two areacodes assigned in 1947 -- 418 and 514. About ten years later, 819 was added (around 1957). 514 (Montreal area) is not indicated in Bellcore's lists as projected to exhaust, but since 514 serves a major metro area, it could need another areacode over the next five years (IMHO). Finally, the following are states/provinces which had only one NPA since 1947 but their second areacode has only been added or announced recently -- AL, AZ, OR, CT, BC, SC. It seems like the mainly rural states/provinces identified earlier will probably remain with their single areacode and Iowa will probably continue to be the only multi-NPA state having just its three original 1947 areacodes for quite some time. The North American Numbering Plan has held up quite well for about a half of a century. `NNX' format interchangeable areacodes just generalize the NXX format for both areacodes and exchange codes. The only probelms are with those PBX systems, 'other' common carriers, private payphones, and other CPE systems which didn't forsee what many of us already knew was going to occur, and the regulatory agencies and others which don't see the benefits of overlays and 10-digit local dialing. We will still be using standard ten-digit continent-wide telephone numbers for what is projected to be another 50 or so years. Hopefully, the INC/ICCF and NANPA future plans for longer than 10 digit NANP telephone numbers will be observed and *adhered* to by all players in the industry. It may be the middle of the 21st Century when this will happen, but those who forget problems of the past are always doomed to repeat it! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 18:28 EST From: North Coast Communications <0005082894@mcimail.com> Subject: South Carolina (864) Test Number Correction It has been pointed out to me today (several times!), that the test number for new South Carolina area code (864) is 864-242-0070. ^^ The number that got published in my list was 864-242-0040 , a rollover number at a business in SC. ^^ My apologies to those affected. Again, the proper test number for the new South Carolina area code is: -------> 864-242-0070 <------- ^^ Michael L. Fumich / E-Mail: <3311835@mcimail.com> / V-Mail: 708-461-5770 ------------------------------ From: pavlik@apap4.pap.univie.ac.at Subject: Re: Old Billing Practices Date: 7 Dec 95 10:38:06 GMT Organization: Vienna University Computer Center In article , mhyman@netcom.com (Mike Hyman) writes: > I have always been curious about what old phone bills looked like > before computers existed. Did they bill just a flat rate for service, > or did they in some way itemize the calls. If so, how did they track > calling and create the bills. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like the banks, the credit card > companies, the department stores and other businesses, telco bills > prior to computerization were typed out on typewriters, ... In Austria long distance calls were billed of course in the same (or a very similar way) as Pat had described. But also locals calls were billed and this was done by metering the time one used the phone. We had a wall-mounted phone with a built-in scaler which metered the time when the phone was off-hook. I think desk-top phones had the meter in a small wall-mounted box. And in addition to the man from the utility company every two months sombody from the Postal and Telegraph Authority showed up to read the meter. That meant that also incoming calls were metered, which sometimes made my mother upset when her eight years old son got long phone calls from his friends. For long-distance calls of course you had to pay the charge for phone usage plus the charge on the (itemized) phone bill. Around 1966 we got what was called an "active" phone. Now long-distance calls to the most parts of Austria (and a little time later also to Western Germany and Switzerland) could be dialled directly and were billed by the pulse method. The rate for outgoing local calls was twice the previous rate for phone usage (and my mother was only upset when I called my friends). As the metering pulses were simply added up in a scaler in the CO this meant also the end of intemized phone bills. I think it was about the same time when the PT started to print the bills on standard punched cards. The left side of the card showed the bill, which had three items (basic charges, metered charges and other charges). The "other charges" were operator assisted calls, telegram fees etc., which were itemized on a separate sheet. The right side of the bill showed some punches. The bill had to be paid at the post office, the left side was stamped and signed by the clerk and returned to the customer and the right side was teared off and finally read into a computer (or at least some kind of bookkeeping machine). Andreas Pavlik University of Vienna Vienna, Austria pavlik@pap.univie.ac.at ------------------------------ From: dbw@ucla.edu (David Whiteman) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 03:23:18 -0700 Organization: ViaNet Communications > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] The roadside phones can also be used for requesting assistance for a disabled vehicle, such as an overheated radiator, or a flat tire etc. That is why roadside phone calls are not treated with as high as priority as a 911 call. ------------------------------ From: Keith Jarett Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: 6 Dec 1995 23:58:44 GMT Organization: TCSI As the originator of this thread, I'll contribute what I have learned from a dispatcher who replied rather irately to my post in ca.driving: First of all, had this been a deserted road in the middle of the night, I probably would have gotten right through. Given that it was not, and given that cellular calls have priority, many of them got through ahead of me with information on this accident. It is not unusual for the dispatchers to receive dozens of calls on an accident, each caller thinking he is the first one to call in. I suggested that the phone system be upgraded to allow dispatchers to record a brief announcement to the effect that "the following incidents have been reported and help dispatched: location1, time1, location2, time2, etc." The idea is that redundant callers then drop off, freeing the dispatchers to handle new nonredundant reports. This proposal is under consideration, and may have been so even before I suggested it. The particular dispatcher I talked to says that he tries to qualify each new call before putting it on hold, but that is obviously not a universal practice. The automatic priority to cell calls over roadside box calls may make it impossible to do currently. keith@tcs.com Keith Jarett ------------------------------ From: dbw@ucla.edu (David Whiteman) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Wed, 06 Dec 1995 08:14:41 -0800 Organization: ViaNet Communications From a pamphlet printed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) 818 West Seventh Street Ste 100, Los Angeles, CA 90017: Car failure is always a hassle. If that, or any other emergency does occur, motorists can find comfort in the knowledge tthat help is right at the other end of a cellular phone located inside a Los Angeles County Metro Call Box. ... Call boxes were first installed in Los Angeles County in 1962 as a roadside emergency system to report flat tires, road hazards, mechanical breakdowns, or other emergencies. ... Using the Metro Call box ... Personal calls cannot be made from the Metro Call Box; it can only be used to call the CHP when you have car trouble, or to report an accident or hazard. Another posting on this thread implied that the call boxes were a Federal requirement and subsidy. Another pamphlet that I received with my car registration invoice stated that the Metro call boxes are funded entirely by a $7/year surcharge to my registration fee. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This would seem to imply that *any emer- gency* is eligible to use the call boxes wouldn't it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 03:42:03 PST TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to my posting: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting. If my car runs out of > gas or stalls on the highway, I can use one of those phones. On the > other hand, if there is a collision and a four-car pileup with a > couple of dead people and a couple of severely injured people I am > not to use those phones and instead am to walk or drive for a couple > miles looking for a 7/Eleven with some phones in the parking lot. PAT] Well what would the alternative be? If the call boxes were routed to the local 911, the PSAPs would be flooded with motorist wanting to contact a garage. Obviously that would be a bad situation, because life threatening 911 calls are getting pushed by the wayside. Perhaps the CHP center should have an option saying "If this is a life-threatening emergenty press 1 now." Oh that won't work; the call boxes don't have dials (rather a TouchTone pad). CHP could hire more operators to answer the calls, but with all of the budget problems going on, I doubt that it's a priority. In all honesty, what did people do before the call boxes were installed? (They're only three or so years old.) I live in Santa Cruz, and pretty much the only way to get anywhere is via Hwy 17, through the Santa Cruz Mountains. There are parts of this road that are quite dangerous. In fact, there are more than 400 accidents a year in a signle 12 mile stretch of the road. If there is an accident, I'll guarantee you that the CHP is on the scene very quickly; the roads back up immediately, and someone invariably calls on a car phone or from one of the pay phones at the turn-outs. Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: razel@unet.net.com (Raymond Hazel) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 08:34:20 -0800 Organization: N.E.T. In article , cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) wrote: > Keith Jarett said: >> time? When I called the CHP later, they said that you should find a >> regular phone and dial 911 in case of a *real* emergency. Your tax >> dollars at work ... > The roadside boxes are not to be used for emergency calls. They are > connected directly to the CHP Dispatching Center in Sacramento; NOT the > PSAP that would normally handle 911 calls. It would have taken the CHP > much longer to get ambulance service than by calling 911 directly. THe > CHP dispatcher would have to call the PSAP center (using the ten digit > number, not 911) and relay the info to them. It's easier to just do it > yourself. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well excuse me if I am missing something, > but if a person's call was not an emergency, why would they stop and > use one of those roadside phones? What are they for, if not for use > in emergencies? PAT] The signs say "Call Box", have an id number for location, and are blue in color. The original reason was to counter "rubber-neckers" going by a disabled, slowing traffic down while waiting for assistance. And usually, the first one to come by was the Highway Patrol. If the callboxes were used to summon vehicle help, the CHP could then drive on by, persuing more pressing needs. I don't recall the boxes promoted as "for emergencies"; I don't think they've been promoted at all. Just the fact that they're there is information enough. However, after hearing about the current process for handling calls, I'm glad I bought my cell phone. Ray Hazel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, note the quotes from the pamphlet written by the MTA quoted earlier in this issue and its use several times of the phrase 'any emergency'. This reminds me of the bozos in charge of police communications here in the Chicago area: Call 911 for emergencies only! say the posters and the press releases from the police, etc. So some of us take that to heart and try to be helpful by staying OFF 911 lines for anything but dire emergencies, that is, a situation where immediate inter- vention is required by police or fire personnel. But when we call the district police station to discuss a NON-emergency what are we told? Hang up and call 911 if you want a policeman to stop by your house to see you. A total contradiction. I wonder if anyone at CHP has considered the possibility of having the call boxes answered immediatly with the statement, "Is this an emergency which requires immediate police assistance?" If the caller says yes, the dispatcher would tape a couple of keys on the console which would bring the appropriate emergency response agency on line. This would function much the same way as 911 does now. If you call 911 to report a fire, as soon as the dispatcher hears 'fire' s/he immediatly cuts the call over to the Fire Department, usually staying on line at least long enough to find out if Fire will need police assistance on location. Why couldn't CHP do the same thing? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 07 Dec 95 11:54:17 EST From: Edward A. Kleinhample <70574.3514@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How interesting. If my car runs out of > gas or stalls on the highway, I can use one of those phones. On the > other hand, if there is a collision and a four-car pileup with a > couple of dead people and a couple of severely injured people I am > not to use those phones and instead am to walk or drive for a couple > miles looking for a 7/Eleven with some phones in the parking lot. PAT] Assuming of course that the 7/Eleven that you find does indeed have pay-phones, that the phones will allow outgoing calls (there are pay phones in Tampa, FL that won't -- to prevent drug trafficing), that they do not block calls to 911, that the phones still have cords and receivers (many in Tampa don't). I witnessed a traffic accident while driving through northern Tampa the other night. Being a good citizen, I pulled into a convenience store to call the police on a pay-phone (not a GTE phone), picked up the receiver and started dialing 9-1-... Before I could push the 1 key, a recorded voice stated that "outgoing calls are not permitted from this phone". I then preceeded to dial the operator, to which I received an automated recording instructing me how to dial various calls from this phone, or "hold for an operator..." About this time, a Tampa Police officer appeared on the scene and began sorting out what had happened. After about 30 minutes when things where about wrapped up, I spoke to the police officer and told her about the incoming-only payphone. He stated that this had been done to curb drug trafficing in the area. Please explain to me the logic in a pay-phone that allows INCOMING calls only! I don't imagine that the operator of the phone is seeing much revenue from this phone. It's a strange world that we live in! Ed Kleinhample 70574.3514@compuserve.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Ed, as I was reading your message and editing it for publication, I thought to myself surely that must be a typographical error; he must mean no INCOMING calls allowed. I was all set to write an Editor's Note asking you to sort this all out for me, and then I finished reading your message: you beat me to the punch. What kind of payphone does not allow OUTGOING calls? Perhaps they meant no outgoing COIN calls. That makes 'sense' in a non-sensical sort of way as part of the War on Drugs. There are lots of payphones in Chicago which are restricted to 'no coins after dark'. At the 7/Eleven here in Skokie the payphones outside all work normally at any hour of the day or night, but then this is sort of an upper-crust village. Everyone around here either buys their drugs from a fellow trader at the Commodities Exchange or the Board of Trade in downtown Chicago, or else they get them from a co-worker at the Federal Building there. Folks around here don't have to stand in the cold at an outside payphone waiting for a callback and some teenage guy to show up a few minutes later with their purchase. The other major outlet for drug selling and buying here is the Cook County Criminal Courts Building, where the sellers hawk their wares in the hallway right outside of 'Drug Court' and in the nearby men's room. On the 'Wanted by the Police' bulletin board in the lobby there, someone defaced the board by *gluing* on a picture of Al Capone with a caption reading, "The War on Drugs is the best thing to happen in America since Prohibition. I supported Prohibition and I support the War on Drugs. You should also!" But back to your payphone scenario: Some of those COCOT operators really don't have a clue do they ... first off, I don't think under the law any phone is supposed to be blocked from 911, and second, it does not require coins anyway. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 95 08:43:46 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Roadside Boxes and Caller ID Pardon me for sending non-telecom material (although I will mention telephones later in this paragraph, but I did see you mention Hawaii Five-O. In a similar vein, I have heard (courtesy of the Nickelodeon cable channel) that the Dragnet series which originally aired 1967-70 was so realistic (*EVEN DOWN TO THE TELEPHONES ON THE DESKS*) that people would stop in at the real-life Los Angeles police department and ask to see Sgt. Friday! (According to Nickelodeon, the standard reply was "sorry, it's his day off".) (The main characters on Dragnet were Sgt. Joe Friday, played by Jack Webb; and Officer Bill Gannon, played by Harry Morgan, whom I remember from the earlier Pete and Gladys series.) Anyway, most (or all?) of these TV shows have the notice that the persons and events depicted in them are fictitious, and that any resemblance to actual ones is coincidental. However, I don't see this notice on the shows carrying the Desilu name, which was set up by Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz when they were still married to each other. It's a long story to explain that I Love Lucy took some things (not all) right out of real life. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, you have your dates wrong on Dragnet. It was on the radio originally, and I remember it on television in the early to middle 1950's. It was still Sgt. Friday of course, of the LAPD, and it was based entirely on true cases from police files. At the end of each program, after the bad guy had been put away, a gong would sound, and a solemn voice would tell us that " was found guilty on of by and sentenced to 85 years in prison (or something equally outrageous) in San Quentin, California. Then the gong would sound once or twice more. Now and then the solemn voice would tell us instead that the criminal had been sentenced to death and that on his punishment had been carried out in the gas chamber at San Quentin. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:41:50 -0800 From: david_mccord@ins.com (David McCord) Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? In Telecom Digest #500 drhall@ix.netcom.com (David Hall ) writes: > In my reading about home ISDN they recommend catagory 3 or greater > unshielded twisted pair. Some warn against shielded cable (even for > POTS wiring). But I've seen no explanation of what's wrong with > shielded cable. I suspect you're puzzled why unshielded cable is recommended over shielded, even though unshielded is demonstrably inferior in several electrical test categories. This is generally because the marketplace contains much more unshielded than shielded. More products and services have been developed which use it. Also, if it is installed properly unshielded does have acceptable noise immunity. In the marketplace real-world large-scale structured cabling systems either a) include both types, or b) contain unshielded only. There are few (if any) systems that are unshielded only. Also, ISDN was engineered to work with POTS wiring. david_mccord@ins.com | This |International Network Services + 1 510 831 4743 voice| space for | San Ramon, California, USA + 1 510 743 3777 fax | rent | Network Systems Consultant ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #507 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 7 17:49:59 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA20500; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:49:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:49:59 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512072249.RAA20500@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #508 TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Dec 95 17:50:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 508 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Law Enforcement Taking a Byte Out of Crime (Knight-Ridder via Tad Cook) AT&T vs. BellSouth InTRA-Lata Rates (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (Garrett A. Wollman) PacBell and Ascend Present ISDN Seminar, Jan 17, SF (Cherie Shore) Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home For TV, etc. (Al Mc Lennan) Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Myron Jackson) Computer Network Survey (Linda Hergenhahn) Book Review: "Internet File Formats" by Kientzle (Rob Slade) Siemens S3COM Users Wanted! (Alex van Es) "Quick Quote": The National ISDN Availability/Pricing Database (E Seyfried) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Law Enforcement Taking a Byte out of Crime Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 09:39:56 PST Law enforcement taking a byte out of crime BY JULIO OJEDA-ZAPATA Knight-Ridder Newspapers ST. PAUL, Minn. -- When Detective Chuck Esposito switched on his home computer and logged on to America Online last summer, he wasn't looking to catch any cyber-criminals. Like hundreds of other law enforcement officers around the country, he merely wanted to learn about the on-line universe and the range of illegal activities that are occurring with growing frequency there. Esposito -- who investigates crimes against children in Clearwater, Fla. -- had heard stories about pedophiles who enter electronic "chat rooms" to entice minors into sex. He planned a leisurely exploration of those live-conversation areas in the guise of 14-year-old "Karen." But within a week, the detective was thrust into a major on-line investigation involving federal and Minnesota authorities. The case culminated Nov. 16 with the arrest in Clearwater of 47-year-old Steven Stanley of Coon Rapids, Minn., who had allegedly traveled to Florida to have sex with "Karen." Esposito says he was shocked at how quickly events unfolded. "On the first day, (the suspect) asked me if I liked to `talk dirty' and described in graphic detail the sex acts he wanted to do with me," he says. "About a week later, he started sending me pictures of young children engaged in sex. "When he sent me child porn, he crossed the line." Esposito and his counterparts in other agencies also have crossed a threshold in the past year -- shedding their reluctance to adopt high-tech investigation methods and plunging into the rapidly evolving field of computerized law enforcement. From police departments and state attorney general office to the FBI and Federal Trade Commission, dozens of organizations are playing catch-up with criminals who have used computers and online-access methods for years. Computer-related crimes range from on-line pedophilia and electronic child-porn peddling to Internet scams, hacking attempts, industrial espionage and other forms of white-collar crime. All of these activities have been on the rise, says Scott Charney, head of the U.S. Justice Department's computer crime unit. "When you think about the rapid growth of the Internet, you have to expect a similar increase in the number of people who are abusing the Net," Charney says. "Historically, criminals have flocked to new technologies. That's what has happened here." Just as computers have expanded in the workplace, for instance, so has computer crime. A recent Michigan State University survey found that 98.5 percent of companies that responded had been the victims of a computer-related crime. "This is happening because of the phenomenal growth in computer networking and the (resulting) availability of information," says study co-author David Carter of the university's school of criminal justice. "Right now these incidents are happening more from within than without ... but I expect more hacking and `cracking' in the next couple of years." Minnesota -- partly by accident, partly by design -- has been heavily involved in efforts to combat computer crime. In the past month alone: Twin Cities authorities have helped investigate two unrelated cases involving on-line pedophilia. In addition to the Steven Stanley case, Kevin Mahoney, a St. Paul Cos. investment manager, allegedly tried to solicit sex from a minor -- this time, an actual teen-ager in Davenport, Iowa. Mahoney was arrested near his Burnsville home Nov. 6 after he made two trips to Iowa, allegedly to meet the girl. Iowa authorities are now seeking to extradite him. An Apple Valley teen-ager went on trial last week on charges that he used a computer to "hack" and damage the systems of the Greater Detroit Free-Net, a Michigan community on-line access provider. The youth -- who allegedly penetrated the Detroit system and others in Minnesota and around the world via an unauthorized University of Minnesota Internet account -- was charged with two felony counts of computer damage in April. Court proceedings in the case wrapped up Thursday. A judge's verdict is expected sometime this month. The Minnesota attorney general's office has continued its high-profile pursuit of on-line con artists. In July, Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III filed suit against six individuals and companies he claimed were operating scams on commercial on-line services and the Internet. Four of the suits have been settled. Another suit -- involving a Las Vegas businessman who had announced plans to operate an electronic sports bookmaking service, WagerNet, on the Caribbean island of Belize in an alleged attempt to circumvent U.S. laws -- is now winding through the Ramsey County civil court system. In an opening salvo on Thursday, Minnesota lawyers argued that they are entitled to records and other evidence from Kerry Roger's Las Vegas company, Granite Gate Resorts. The attorney general's office has called WagerNet "an illegal bookie operation." The lawsuit is apparently the first involving authorities in one state who claim they can sue a company in another state because of its electronic services, which can be accessed by computer users anywhere. According to WagerNet's Web page, customers in Minnesota or elsewhere will pay a fee for special hardware and software that will link their PCs to the service. "What constitutes `in Minnesota' is the key issue to be decided here," says Deputy Attorney General Tom Pursell. The pursuit of alleged on-line con artists has taxed the resources and ingenuity of state and federal investigators. The WagerNet case points to a troubling development: Because the Internet extends around the country and the world, Minnesotans are vulnerable to hundreds of inexpensively concocted scams perpetrated from faraway bases, often with impunity. "Because there's so much activity on the Internet, the attorney general's office has to set priorities," Pursell says. "We won't be able to investigate every fraud and right every wrong." The attorney general's office has another problem: It can't resolve its sixth and final cyberspace lawsuit because it can't find the plaintiff, who allegedly operated an illegal "credit repair" company via the America Online commercial network. Customers had requested the company's bogus credit repair kit by sending money to a private post office box, "which is the only way we even found out the guy was in Georgia," Humphrey says. "A suspicious clerk at the mail drop got a look at his license plates, but the plates didn't match the car -- they had been stolen or switched from another car." On-line anonymity will be one of the greatest hurdles for enforcement agencies that attempt to investigate cyberspace crime in coming years, Pursell says. "Many (criminals) can still be found because they publish a toll-free number or an address," he says. "But that will soon change. Transactions will occur entirely over the Internet, and it will become much harder to locate people who don't want to be located." For that reason, state and federal agencies are learning to share information about such cases. The Minnesota attorney general, for instance, has formed a national task force of attorney general offices that is studying computer crime and its ramifications. Meanwhile, Pursell and his colleagues have cultivated contacts at federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, a civil agency that looks into fraudulent commercial practices. The commission is relatively new to on-line enforcement: It announced its first case, an investigation of another credit repair company, in September 1994. "That was a test case for us," says Lucy Harris, an assistant director for credit practices. "There's a learning curve when doing this kind of work. But the funny thing is, the scams don't change." Other agencies have been scrambling to keep up with computer-savvy criminals. Both the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI set up computer crime units in the early 1990s, for instance. The units initially focused on business-related crimes involving corporate computer networks, says Charney of the Justice Department. But in recent months, they have broadened their scope to include electronic crimes involving the Internet and commercial on-line services. In September, the FBI searched 120 homes and made several arrests as part of a two-year child porn and pedophilia investigation of America Online users. The raids marked the first time federal agents investigated the exchange of illegal materials on such networks. The FBI's computer crime squad even has its own page on the Net's popular World Wide Web (http://www.fbi.gov/compcrim.htm). "Kids coming out of school have an amazing degree of computer literacy, while many of our older agents are new to this area," Charney admits. "That's why we are recruiting graduates with computer science and telecommunication backgrounds." State agencies such as the Florida Department of Law Enforcement -- the equivalent of Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension -- have been pioneers in computer-assisted law enforcement. The FDLE was the first in the country to establish a computer "forensics" department, which extracts data from confiscated computers, according to Merle Manze, an FDLE special agent based in Tallahassee. The agency also has set up regional task forces to nab computer criminals, including would-be pedophiles who use the pretext of a Florida vacation to seek out minors they have "met" online, according to Al Danna, a crimes-against-children investigator in Tampa and vice president of the Florida Association of Computer Crime Investigators. Danna, who has worked in law enforcement for 15 years, remembers a 1982 seminar in which an FBI agent "was telling us that pedophiles would soon be using computer record keeping and getting on computer bulletin board services. I remember thinking, `Yeah, right."' But a short time later, Danna was part of a Baltimore law enforcement team that apprehended an Air Force sergeant who had been luring teen-age boys into sexual encounters and keeping elaborate records on a computer. Because of their ignorance about electronic record keeping, the investigators needed the help of an Air Force technician to extract data from the sergeant's equipment, Danna recalls. A mastery of electronic skills is particularly vital when investigating pedophilia and child pornography cases because most now involve computers or on-line services in some fashion, says Donald Huycke Jr., head of the U.S. Custom Service's child pornography unit. "Pedophiles feel safer online because it's harder for law enforcement to track them down," says Huycke, who has seen an alarming increase in the frequency of such cases. "These guys spend big money on equipment and use all the latest methods, such as encryption and anonymous `re-mailer' services" to mask their identities. As a result, "law enforcement agencies are constantly playing catch-up," Huycke says. He laments the fact that child pornography investigations are considered "collateral" duties at the custom service's 150 offices around the country. Some agencies have been cutting back on such investigations. Frank Clark, an investigator at the Fresno, Calif., police department and a nationally known expert on computerized crimes against children, expressed dismay last month when his employer instructed him to focus primarily on white collar crime. "It's really sad because ... the number of (on-line pedophile) cases is increasing astronomically," he says. Minnesota's largest law enforcement agencies have yet to make computer crime a priority. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has investigated reports of on-line child porn peddling "on a situational basis" but does not systematically pursue computer criminals, says Michael Campion, the agency's director of investigations. "We're too short-handed with homicides and sexual assaults to monitor that kind of activity," Campion says. "It's very labor-intensive, and we simply don't have enough people." The Minneapolis police department, which has seen a record number of homicides this year, also steers clear of high-tech criminal investigations, according to spokeswoman Penny Parrish. "We get reports of computer-involved porn cases ... but we don't have any computers hooked up online," Parrish says. "We're too busy working immediate cases. We don't have the luxury of logging on and playing that game for weeks and months." But agencies such as the Minneapolis and St. Paul police departments are anything but technological backwaters. In the next two years, several Twin Cities enforcement agencies will make striking improvements to their electronic record keeping systems that will help them put more criminals behind bars. The St. Paul police department, for instance, is working with Hennepin County to create a metrowide "master name" database of information about criminal suspects, victims and witnesses. When the system becomes operational in 1996, it will help solve criminal cases more quickly because St. Paul investigators will have acce ss to information from several other departments, says Lt. Joe Polski, head of the department's records division. "In the past, we had to call each agency on the phone and ask them to look up the information," Polski says. "Now that the number of (law enforcement agencies) in the Twin Cities is well into the double digits, that just isn't practical." The St. Paul police department also is planning to equip squads with portable computers. Street officers would tap out their reports, "dock" their laptops at their neighborhood offices and upload the information to the department's network, Polski says. "But we have to make sure the laptops will hold up in our harsh climate," he adds. "It makes no sense to buy a bunch of stuff that won't work because of Minnesota winters." In Minneapolis, police are assembling an "automated pawn system" database that would collect information from city pawn shops, which would be required to submit data via modems on items they purchase. If approved, the system would "dramatically improve our ability to investigate property crimes and identify stolen items that move through pawn shops and second-hand dealers," says Lt. Phil Hafvenstein, commander of the department's license inspection unit. Other departments would be invited to subscribe to the service, he says. Minneapolis police would collect the information from pawn shops in participating jurisdictions and forward it to the appropriate enforcement agencies. Hafvenstein sees a day when the system goes metrowide and even statewide. Such cooperation among law enforcement agencies will be crucial in coming years as criminals become increasingly sophisticated, and as computers and on-line accounts become as common as televisions and cable television subscriptions, experts believe. Huycke of the U.S. Customs Service predicts that even mid-sized agencies such as the Minneapolis police department will eventually devote resources to computer-related crimes and forensics, and will collaborate with neighboring departments and federal agencies on on-line investigations. "Change is coming and we have to be prepared for it," Humphrey says. "State and federal law enforcers have to work with private consumer agencies and industry groups (to establish) safe, reliable and honest computer networks. If ever an issue calls for putting our collective heads and resources together, this is it." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 11:52:27 -0600 (CST) From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: AT&T vs. BellSouth InTRA-Lata rates Recently, AT&T (and other IXC's) has been on a marketing campaign stating that you can *save* over the local telco for inTRA-lata calls by using their 10-XXX/101-XXXX fg.D codes. (10-288/101-0288+ is AT&T's). The 504 areacode is composed mainly of two LATA's: New Orleans and Baton Rouge. The town/ratecenter of Pearlington LA (504-531, I think) is part of the Gulfport MS LATA, and the town/ratecenter of `South Osyka LA' (also in 504) is in the Jackson MS LATA. The New Orleans LATA also contains Crossroads MS (601-772). If I dial 1/0+601-772-XXXX, my call routes over BellSouth, since I didn't prefix it with a 10-XXX/101-XXXX code, even tho' it is out-of-state, and AT&T is my chosen carrier. We don't (yet) have a choice for primary carrier for inTRA-LATA calls here in Louisiana. Prior to 1991, we couldn't use 10-XXX fg.D codes for inTRA-LATA points. South Central Bell would block the call with "it is not necessary to dial a long-distance company access code when calling this number ...", but this only applied to fg.D forms of access. 1-800- and 950- forms of access via non-AT&T carriers would go thru that carrier at their rates okay; when AT&T established 800 access, sometimes they allowed inTRA-LATA calls but at Bell's rates, and the charges showed up on the Bell page- so I assume Bell would get the revenue, but sometimes AT&T refused to handle the call. In 1991 when the La.PSC permitted inTRA-LATA competition and ordered Bell to unblock 10-XXX+inTRA-lata toll, AT&T also completed the calls at AT&T's rates & revenue. Initially, I could dial 10-XXX+local seven digits. That only lasted for a few months in late 1991. I can *not* dial that combination now. I do subscribe to Bell's LOS (Local Option Service), a form of Extended Area Service. The first band outside of the *traditional* local calling area is `capped'- almost like monthly flat rate, while the outer band has large per-minute/mile discounts, but is *not* capped. LOS points are (presently) dialed as seven-digits without a 1+ nor with the 504 areacode, but *only* if you *choose* to subscribe to LOS. I am *not* permitted to dial LOS points as 1-504-NNX-XXXX (altho' I can dial them 0-504...). I am also not allowed to dial them 10-XXX/101-XXXX+1-504...), but I *can* dial them 10-XXX/101-XXXX+ seven digits! Of course, I will be paying an IXC rate. There are points in my LATA which still *are* toll. While LOS is available throughout the state, each coverage area is *not* LATA-wide. LOS bands also do *not* cross LATA-lines. A call from New Orleans to Morgan City is in the LATA, but is outside of *my* LOS coverage. I choose to dial Morgan City from home as 10-288+1-504... via AT&T. The rates are cheaper, and I also subscribe to AT&T's True Savings plan. I wouldn't place calls to LOS capped or uncapped points via 10-288+ (seven-digits), since while I do subscribe to AT&T's True Savings, the Bell LOS package is even cheaper. Local calls will always be dialed by me via Bell, since I don't pay per-minute charges. I only wish that I could access Bell with an 800 number for use at COCOT payphones where the COCOT dials out to *their* AOSlime carriers even if I entered 0+504+seven-digits local. In Louisiana, Bell's calling card rates for traditional local area calls are 88 cents FLAT. AT&T (and the other IXC's charge _by_the_minute_ for card, opr.assisted, and if Bell continued to allow it- 10-XXX-1+ access). So, while it does appear that AT&T (and other IXC's) *are* indeed less than Bell for inTRA-LATA toll- and Bell is better for local, and LOS if you subscribe to it, you would think that AT&T would be cheaper than Bell for a call to Crossroads MS from New Orleans LA. Not so -- I called a Bell operator (single 0-) last night and inquired to the rate (all three time-periods) for a 1+ call from 504-241 to 601-772. At first, I was told that this was a call handled by a long-distance company. I told the Bell operator that Crossroads MS *is* in my LATA, and it is identified as such in the front of the phone book. When she still didn't even *try* to look up the rate or see if it was in the LATA, I asked for a supervisor. The supervisor did eventually try to get the rate -- and Bell's rate is approx. 19 cents/minute for day. When I asked an AT&T operator (10-288)-00, I found out AT&T's 1+ day rate is 26 cents/minute! AT&T's evening/holiday and night/weekend rates are also about 7 cents more than Bell's are! Incidently, prior to the PSC order in 1991 to unblock 10-XXX intraLATA toll, I was always able to dial 10-XXX+1/0+601-772-XXXX for Crossroads MS, ever since we had equal access dialing (1984/85 timeframe). The call always did route and bill over the dialed 10-XXX carrier, with them getting the revenue! This is an inTER-State but inTRA-LATA situation. It also happens to be a different NPA. It is the only one with respect to my home exchange. There are many other situations like this all over -- BTW, Bogalusa LA (NPA=504, in the New Orleans LATA, but toll to me -- not even in my LOS) is Bell *local* with respect to Crossroads MS. Lata lines, state lines, NPA boundaries, and local calling boundaries do not necessarily fit into neat patterns. There is all kinds of overlap. Switch/wirecenter boundaries and their assoicated NPA-NXX codes and local calling areas, and state/political boundaries didn't always fit neatly prior to the breakup of `The Bell System'. It seems like it will get even more confusing with local competition, as well as with continual splitting of areacodes. These days, it might be necessary to call various LEC and IXC operators or customer service centers to determine the cheapest rates -- prior to dialing -- and Bell can *even* be cheaper than AT&T for actual toll (non-local) calls! and then know the right access codes/prefixes to dial! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@rs6.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Date: 7 Dec 1995 12:53:59 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Hassan wrote: > So what else is better in PCS which is not available in > cellular. Quality of service, size and weight of phones, battery > charge holding time, any other that you can think of is either same or > better in cellular. Umm, you forgot about the most obvious and important one: privacy and security. Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: cashore@PacBell.COM (Cherie Shore) Subject: PacBell and Ascend Present ISDN Seminar, Jan 17, SF Date: 7 Dec 1995 18:13:21 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Pacific Bell and Ascend Communications will jointly present an ISDN seminar, on the evening of January 17, from 6:30-9pm. The seminar will take place at the Pacific Bell facility at 370 3rd St, San Francisco, and will include an overview of ISDN services and applications, a review of Ascend's ISDN products, and a demonstration of Internet access using the Ascend Pipeline 25 at 128kbps. To reserve seats, call Linda at 408-493-7732. Cherie Shore cashore@pacbell.com ISDN Technology Manager, PacBell ------------------------------ From: ljm3@lehigh.edu Subject: Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. Date: 7 Dec 1995 13:22:24 -0500 In article , noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes: > (Note that followup discussion has been set to rec.video.cable-tv and > sci.electronics.misc) > We're in the process of finishing our basement, and before it is > finished and everything sealed up, I want to install coax lines to > many of the rooms in the basement as well as upstairs rooms (from the > basement line). The coax lines of course will be used for television, > maybe FM, and who knows, maybe even a computer line. For TV/FM, the > source would either be cable, an antenna, or a satellite dish (right > now we're using an attic antenna). > Being a mechanical and not electrical engineer, I'd like advice as to > how to wire it properly. What type/size of coax to use, fittings, > etc., as well as the layout of the wiring. My engineering sense tells > me that if I don't design it properly, the signal could be adversely > affected throughout the whole house. Or am I being overly-cautious > here? Don't put splitters behind walls, i.e., run uninterrupted cable from each outlet to a central accessible place where you can connect amplifiers or splitters at leisure. Go to Radio Shack, where they will sell you what you need and tell you how to do it. Al McLennan ------------------------------ From: epgg66@email.mot.com (Myron Jackson) Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility Organization: Motorola Derivative Technologies Division Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 18:26:02 GMT In article , Robohn Scott wrote: > We're looking for a solution to the following situation: tech support > staff roam about an office and need easy access to their incoming > phone calls. They can forward their calls, but this gets bothersome > and tedious after you have to reset forwarding the second, third, > fourth time that hour. Cellular reception is very poor in some areas > of the building, so that doesn't look like an option. Check out or Site Call solution on Motorola Derivative Technologies Division at: http://www.mot.com/MIMS/PPG/org/dtd/index.html Click Products and Services/SiteCall. This software product was developed specifically for the roaming on-site employee. Myron Jackson Motorola Inc. ------------------------------ From: Linda.Hergenhahn-1@pp.ksc.nasa.gov (Linda Hergenhahn) Subject: Computer Network Survey Date: 7 Dec 1995 18:47:29 GMT Organization: NASA - KSC I have been asked to create a survey to send to all network users in the organization I work for. The survey is supposed to elicit information about how network users feel about the network, what needs they have, what problems they have, etc. Unfortunately, I know very little about networks. Can any of you computer/network literate readers suggest good questions to ask and/or topics to address? Any help would be sincerely appreciated! E-mail to: linda.hergenhahn-1@kmail.ksc.nasa.gov Thank you! Linda ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 11:51:51 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet File Formats" by Kientzle BKINTFLF.RVW 951128 "Internet File Formats", Tim Kientzle, 1995, 1-883577-56-X, U$39.99/C$54.99 %A Tim Kientzle kientzle@netcom.com %C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 %D 1995 %G 1-883577-56-X %I Coriolis %O U$39.99/C$54.99 800-410-0192 602-483-0192 fax 602-483-0193 sbounds@aol.com %P 397 %T "Internet File Formats" Most Internet guides give a passing reference to archive file types with which the author may be familiar. And most (70%, if the studies can be believed) Internet users stick to plain, readable text. But MIME and XXencode happeneth to all accounts, and the variety of different types of files can be bewildering, even to seasoned Internauts. Kientzle has arranged this work into sections dealing with text and documents, graphics, compression and archiving, encoding (binary to printable), audio, and video. While not exhausting all possibilities, he covers the most widely used formats, and everything that all but the most specialized user is ever likely to see. Each chapter, usually covering a single format, gives some background; advice on when to use (or not to use) the format, and how; some details on the algorithms and/or data structure. Where the format is not universal, pointers are generally given for programs on alternate platforms, although the directions in these cases could be more specific. For the average Internet user, this book may be bigger, and more technical, than desired. Advanced Internauts will likely find it both interesting and handy. For the Internet trainer or support person, it is "must have" information. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKINTFLF.RVW 951128. 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 roberts@decus.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 17:31:12 GMT From: Alex van Es Subject: Siemens S3COM Users Wanted! Hi all, I am looking for people that are currently using the Siemens S3-COM phone for the GSM network. When I plug the phone into the charges, the display starts flashing when the phone is online, is this normal? The salesguy told me so when I called him.. but a guy at Siemens wasn't so sure of it (but couldn't give a sure answer) ... so ... anyone outthere? Alex Alex@Worldaccess.NL, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands Phone:+31-55-5421184 Pager:+31-6-59333551 (CT-2 Greenpoint) Voicemail: +31-6-59958458 GSM:+31-6-53398711 ------------------------------ From: Eric Seyfried Subject: "Quick Quote": The National ISDN Availability/Pricing Database Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 13:47:01 -0800 Organization: INfax Services, Ltd. "Quick Quote" is a National ISDN and Switched 56Kbps availability and pricing database available from Network Implementation Services Corp. If you're interested in finding out whether or not ISDN is available to your office or residence NIS's "Quick Quote" can tell you. Check out the NIS Web Site at http//www.insgroup.com/nis/qwikquot.htm. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #508 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 8 08:15:01 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA04978; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:15:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:15:01 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512081315.IAA04978@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #509 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 95 08:15:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 509 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson When the LD Network Went Down (Lawrence M. Casse) BellSouth and the Local Competition Follies (Tom Horsley) Stock Market in Computer Parts (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (Paul Judge) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (Shane M. Potter) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (lr@access5.digex.net) Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See (Brian Brown) Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers (Brian Brown) Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Nicholas Spill) Re: Call Me Cards (Steve Forrette) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (E. Ewanco) Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (Bud Couch) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: resonanc@terraport.net (Lawrence M. Casse) Subject: When the LD Network Went Down Date: Thu, 07 Dec 95 19:35:58 GMT Organization: TerraPort Online Inc. (416) 392-3050 It was in January 1990 that the AT&T network went down for several hours in the afternoon. I believe there was also a second incident in 1991 when part of the east coast went down. The first incident was blamed on bugs in switching software from DSC Communications, I believe. I have heard several conflicting versions of the story, one of which was that a colon was missing in somes lines of software, another that a Capital A had been substituted for a lower-case a in some lines of code-a common problem in Unix. It seems that the incident has achieved the status of an "urban legend" with conflicting versions of the story. My questions are: What were the real causes of the incidents? What in the opinion of experts is the likelihood of this happening again, if not to AT&T, then to another LD carrier? I understand that the FCC keeps records of carrier's "downtimes": where can I obtain this info? Lawrence Casse Resonance Capital Corporation resonanc@terraport.net ------------------------------ From: tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) Subject: BellSouth and the Local Competition Follies Date: 05 Dec 1995 13:12:24 GMT Organization: Harris Computer Systems Corporation Reply-To: Tom.Horsley@hawk.hcsc.com The Headline: AT&T and MCI have just sued BellSouth because BellSouth has decided to give Floridians a good deal. The background: With local competition just around the corner in South Florida, BellSouth recently got approval (with massive public support, I might add) for a new rate structure. Instead of charging outrageous prices billed per minute (as they have done for years with short haul long distance charges), they will now charge a flat 25 cents per call for long distance calls within the South Florida area (regardless of the time the calls take). Without question, they did this because they knew Floridians have felt ripped off for years (its hard not to feel ripped off when it is cheaper to call New York than West Palm Beach :-) and were anxiously awaiting the opportunity for local competition so they could dump BellSouth em-masse. (The state of Florida has passed its own telcom deregulation bill which implements local competition -- the state got tired of waiting for the feds to get their act together :-). With this new plan, people still resent the past, but an awful lot of them (me included) are willing to forgive and forget because it is such a good deal. The lawsuit: Today, the Palm Beach Post reports that AT&T and MCI have just filed suit against BellSouth trying to block implementation of the new plan. They claim that the prices BellSouth charges them for access to the local lines would make it impossible for them to compete. It wouldn't surprise me if that were true (although I note that Sprint hasn't joined the suit), but consumers (like me) want to know why they are suing to block our good deal instead of suing to make BellSouth give them a better deal on local access? Could it be that they only want to compete if that means they can split outrageous profits and they aren't interested in competition that means giving consumers a good deal? Anyway, all the local activists who fought so long in favor of the 25 cent plan are really annoyed at AT&T and MCI. It wouldn't surprise me to find large numbers of Floridians switching from AT&T or MCI to Sprint or some other carrier that isn't involved in the lawsuit (in fact, the other carriers might want to get some ads on the air quick promising not to sue :-). Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com Home: 511 Kingbird Circle Delray Beach FL 33444 Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309 ------------------------------ From: rishab@infinity.c2.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Stock Market in Computer Parts Date: 3 Dec 1995 19:14:55 GMT Organization: Community ConneXion: http://www.c2.org/ 510-658-6376 > In article , bill@interactive.ns.ca > (Bill McMullin) wrote: [angst elided] >> How could anything produced in such mass quantity cost so much? If >> they are trying to make use believe it is a commodity subject to >> supply and demand, why isn't it traded on the stock market? (Maybe it >> is, help me here.) Why aren't computer parts traded as on the stock market? Well ... there's one place I know they are. In India, a "grey market" in smuggled computer parts accounts for over a third of total hardware sales. The parts are bought from factories in Taiwan, Singapore or Malaysia, and smuggled into the country to avoid very high import duties. As the smugglers have an advanced form of just-in-time delivery, demand and supply rule the prices. Last week, I traded in my two drives -- 440 and 540Mb, about six months old -- for a brand new gigabyte drive, and MADE $100 in the process. How? Well, 1Gb drive prices have crashed over the past several months, leading grey market operaters to stock up on them. However, the buyers don't know this yet, and are perhaps intimidated by the large storage capacity, and still want 540Mb drives. The price of these drives had also fallen, but now there aren't any of them on the market, so the price has shot up. The result is that the difference between 1Gb and 540 is only $80 -- for a few weeks. I timed my purchase well, so I made money! Incidentally, 1Gbs go for a little above $300 here. See http://dxm.org/techonomist/palegrey.html for an analysis of India's grey market in computer hardware. The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry http://dxm.org/techonomist/ rishab@dxm.org Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab@arbornet.org Vox +91 11 6853410; 3760335; H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 19:14:21 -0800 From: pjudge@ix.netcom.com (Paul Judge ) Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint In the article submitted yesterday (Re: PCS Service of Sprint), Hassan incorrectly stated that 'Quality of service, size and weight of phones, battery charge holding time, any other that you can think of is either same or better in cellular.' Though I recognize that PCS can be viewed as simply up-banded cellular, there are a few important distinctions which need to be pointed out. Lets look at the issues Hassan raised: Quality of Service - Everybody has their own definition of quality of service. The mobile phone salesman is going to try to convince you to buy a digital handset because DIGITAL is 'better quality.' The heavy user of cellular service who tried DIGITAL will tell you that much of the tone (some people call it voice recognition) of a conversation is lost. They are both right. A properly configured digital system should provide a cleaner stream of voice information, but some of the tone is lost due to the voice sampling rate of digital. Though some may prefer the subtleties of voice over analog cellular, many will appreciate the added capacity of digital PCS at those peak busy hours in those most congested spots. If you try to compare digital cellular to PCS, you will also find that the higher frequency range of PCS affords marginally better quality of service while both suffer from a similar voice sampling degradation. Size and weight of phones -- I have been told that the higher frequency range of PCS allows for smaller circuitry, but if the PCS phone is a dual mode with cellular, the difference may be nil. However PCS phones should be able to have a smaller battery for the same talk time. Battery charge hold time -- Because of the air interface techniques used in digital cellular/PCS, battery life is significantly extended for both standby and talk time. There are differences between technologies (CDMA, TDMA, GSM/DCS1900) and due to the tendency to have more cells in a PCS network, a PCS phone should have longer a longer life then both its analog and digital cellular cousins. Any other that you can thing of -- Cellular is hindered by their legacy network, systems, and customer equipment. PCS gets a fresh start with all the new technologies and does not have to be concerned with backwards compatibility. It is kind of like Windows and Macintosh. Also, a small note to add regarding the reference to GSM and Sprint. Sprints overall plan is reported to be the deployment of a CDMA technology standard, and the use of a GSM standard in the Washington DC -- Baltimore region is due solely to the acquisition of American Personal Communications (APC) from {The Washington Post.} Paul F. Judge The Walter Group, Inc. 140 Lakeside Ave., Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98122 (206) 328-0808 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 15:52:51 +0000 From: shane potter Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. In article , Hassan wrote: > GSM has a flaw and it's priority calls would not be handend off to > other sites, which is the case for cellular at present time. > Hasan Can you explain what you mean by this sentence? Not only do I not understand the basic premise of what you're trying to say (GSM not handing over priority calls correctly?), but the construction of your sentence implies that current cellular service suffers from the same flaw (which I'm certain is not what you were trying to say). Thanks, Spotter Shane M. Potter spotter@bnr.ca GSM Field Support ------------------------------ From: lr@access5.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Date: 7 Dec 1995 16:01:43 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank Speaking of PCS ... Has anybody heard news of an attempt by the PCS industry to get federal pre-emeption of state and local zoning/planning review on siting of towers? Originally, PCS was sold with the idea of lots of relatively low towers, even more so than existing cellular. I've been watching a lot of the 456 reviews (a process labeled after the section of the state code that deals with the siting of utilities and other "public" here that one of the PCS providers has been submitting and it would seem that they are engineering the system pretty damn similarly to existing cellular strategies. ------------------------------ From: brianb@cfer.com (Brian Brown) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 16:16:07 GMT Organization: ConferTech, international franz@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Franz) wrote: > Wouldn't it be a nice option if some of the answering machine software > packages that are available for PCs could compress incoming voice > messages, encrypt them, and then send them out again as email? ------stuff deleted --------------- > Any phone software developers listening? Yes. I see a problem: Typical (large) email message: 4Kb. download time for 4K on 14.4 modem: 5 seconds Typical (small) phone message: 30 seconds. 6KHz 8bit ADPCM compression (pretty tight, poor quality): 100K. download time for 100K on 14.4 modem: 80 seconds. Note: It takes longer to download the files than to listen to them! I have some questions: A) Your PC must stay on and must either be always connected to the internet (expensive!) or have a way of dynamically connecting when it has messages to send (e.g. UUCP) Does it delete the messages after it sends them to the internet? If so, then you run the risk of being forced to rely on the internet to get your messages, even if you're standing next to your PC. B) Do any providers in your area already offer voicemail-email transmission? Just wondering. Finally, a suggestion: In the states several telcos offer voice messaging, which is basically voicemail for your home phone. If you are indeed travelling this often, you may want to investigate options like this. Even if the local PTT doesn't offer it, busy and na forwarding to a voicemail box is a great way to handle it. Then you can get your "voice mail" (really home messages) via a (potentially) cheaper call. Just my thoughts, Brian Brown ConferTech, International ------------------------------ From: brianb@cfer.com (Brian Brown) Subject: Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 16:29:13 GMT Organization: ConferTech, international phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) wrote: > Does anyone know of a used predictive dial system that is available > for sale? I am most interested in a Melita Phoneframe but would > consider others. Any info would be appreciated. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: These devices are an extreme nuisance > for the people being called. ---- stuff deleted ------ I would refer both of you to the article on page 48 of {Computer Telephony} magazine, Volume 3, Issue 11 (November 1995) entitled "Predictive Dialers (Not Just Collections Anymore)". It is an interesting article describing the true goal of predictive dialing. If you are willing to pay the big bucks and staff accordingly, the dialer puts the call through _as soon as it hears "hello"_ so you can't tell. If you've gotten telephone solicitations that sounded like the person called you from large companies recently, there's a good chance that was the case. There are other uses besides the annoying "cold calling" telesales agenda: credit card companies may use it to call lists of folks who haven't paid their bills; sales followup ("how do you like our product so far") calls can be done this way as well. Admittedly, however, the vast majority of uses of these dialers are used for nuisance calls. Brian Brown ConferTech, International ------------------------------ From: ntp@netrunner.net Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 12:28:04 -0500 Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse Your recent article by Bob (bei@dogface.austin.tx.us) prompts me to report my latest solution to multiple repeat callers who are abusing or harassing inbound telemarketing staff. I have coordinated the telethon COMIC RELIEF for the last nine years; all seven of them and this year was the first time we have OCDD/RT. I have gone away to AT&T for training on this service when it foirst came out and have used it for almost two years on other clients to great effect. This time for COMIC RELIEF VII (it airs again this month on HBO one and and as repeats) we had OCDD/RT set up with all RNs loaded. (I used call allocation RCS2 and other features with multiple call centers - all of which worked superbly). Every 1/2 hour I would pull a report on 'prank calls/multiple callers' and give the phone numbers to a specially trained staff (thankfully we only needed one person this time) who would then call each number and in a very calm tactful manner identify herself as calling from COMIC RELIEF and ask if the caller had a problem gaining access to an operator to make a donation. (Because HBO subsidizes the live show -- all monies raised, 100% -- from the live show goes to Health care for the Homeless.) This 'soft' approach worked wonders and I will expand it for future telethons I organize. The 'culprits' all apologized for the multiple attempts but complained about the content of the show -- yes the show had some raunchy aspects but the idea is to keep the phone lines open for bona fide donors -- if you want to complain about bad language -- write a letter to HBO. Or if you don't like a particular performer for whatever reason change the channel! One young lad was discovered by his mother making repeat prank calls to COMIC RELIEF when she swore he was tucked up in bed. (She checked and found out he wasn't!) Use of ANI for call backs to question callers why they are calling so many times is to some people controversial (and I am sensitive to these issues) but if these multiple callers are using up valuable resources (in effect stealing dollars from the homeless) -- then such efforts to stop them are justified. If this approach, level headed, non threatening and very controlled, is spread, then we should see a reduction of such prank callers. However bear in mind I grew up reading Orwell's 1984 and Kakfa -- so I am paranoid about goverment and 'big brother' interfering in what I do in the pricvacy of my own home -- hence I hit these callers with a velvet glove -- it worked -- using infomration from OCDD/RT for a positive change in behaviour from such callers. The other advantage to this approach is that we got these callers to express why they were doing this behaviour and this had the efect of stopping such dialing. Thanks, Nicholas Spill Telemarketing consultant Email address: ntp@netrunner.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your report. We have long known that when callers/users know that *we know* who they are, the amount of trouble caused is virtually zero. Someone I know who runs a BBS here makes extensive use of Caller-ID to keep track of his users. When his line first answers, the first question it asks of new users (after getting their name) is 'please enter your full ten digit phone number'. Now, he has the caller-ID on most of these people already but he wants to see if they are basically truthful or not. He does not tell them he has it. He waits to see if they enter the same number he sees or not. If they enter a number that is different than what the caller-ID says, he asks them a second time more firmly, 'please enter the phone number you are actually using right now to place this call.' If they still lie a second time then he responds, 'sorry, I don't have resources to take you on as a new user at this time. Try one of several other popular BBS lines in the area.' He then disconnects them. If they call in as 'private' and their name is not otherwise recognized as an established user, he gives them the same response. In the event the call shows up as 'out of area', he asks them for their phone number, and compares it against a list of what phone numbers should and should not 'look like', i.e. 123-4567 is not a valid number, nor are all zeros, etc. He does accept these 'out of area' new users provided they pass the phone number 'litmus test' in those instances. He says it is fun to be there when a new caller tries to gain ad- mission and watch how they lie. Once a new member is accepted on his BBS he gives them a short text file which says essentially that he allows complete freedom of speech, etc. He said that once new callers become aware that he has Caller-ID, they behave themselves marvelously. And that is all he really wants; not to censor them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Forrette, Steve) Subject: Re: Call Me Cards Date: 7 Dec 1995 20:15:16 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , EL406045@BROWNVM.BROWN. EDU says: > I got two similar items in yesterday's mail: four calling bird... ah, > cards from Bell Canada, and an application form for one from BT in the > UK. > The four Bell ones are Call Me cards, consisting of my phone number > and a four digit PIN (the same on all four cards). > The obvious question that comes to mind is what happens if someone > tries to use this card to call other than my number? Clearly Bell's > own database will reject such attempts, but what about the various > lesser foreign telcos (Integratel?) who accept the card? If I posted > the PIN publicly, would I be liable for charges made to other than my > number? There are indeed security holes with the "Call Me" cards (at least there have been in the past). In particular, ComSystems (10555 in the US I believe) did not honor the restricted nature of the Call Me cards. So, anyone who got a hold of your PIN could call anywhere they wanted to on ComSystems, and the charge would appear on your bill. I went around and around on this issue a few years ago with Pacific Bell. Although technically I suppose you're not responsible for unauthorized charges on your bill, the problem was that Pacific Bell had no way of knowing which PIN was used to place a particular calling card call. So, since I had both a Call Me and a regular (unrestricted) PIN on the same line, the billing department said "Well, you must have used the unrestricted one to place these calls, since the Call Me one wouldn't have worked!" Just to see what would happen, I ordered a Call Me card only on one of my data lines, then placed a test call via ComSystems. When the bill came, I disputed it. This time, customer service could see that there was no unrestricted card on the line, and looked into it further. The issue got escalated, and I ended up talking with some person in "carrier relations" at Pacific Bell that handled issues with the independent carriers that sign up with Pacific Bell to bill charges on the customer's Pacific Bell bill, and also subscribe to the shared calling card database. She said that the contractual requirement is that any carrier that they bill calling card calls for must validate the PIN against the database at the time the call is placed. (earlier, they had problems with some carriers not subscribing to the calling card database, and letting calls go through with *any* four- digit PIN -- they put a stop to this). This particular issue of validating the PIN (which they were doing, because any PIN other than the unrestricted one or the Call Me one didn't work), but not honoring the "Call Me" restriction, was a grey area. The conclusion we came to was that they were supposed to honor it, and they were violating their contracts by not doing it, but in reality, nobody was policing it and nothing was likely to get done about it unless it became a large problem. Also, you should be aware that with a Call Me card, it can be very expensive to receive calls. Consider that a Call Me card in the shared LEC database (which Bell Canada participates in) can be used to call the restricted number from, among other places, the in-flight telephones on commerical airlines, at $2.50 per call and $2.50 per minute. Also, it may be possible to use it with the Bell Canada's equivalent of CallUSA(tm) from any number of foreign countries. If you really want to be able to control your costs and minimize the fraud potential, 800 service is the best option, IMHO. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: eje@xyplex.com (Eric Ewanco) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: 07 Dec 1995 15:45:37 -0500 Organization: Xyplex In article danny burstein writes: > 3) Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic > Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines > which are presubscribed to an interexchange carrier other than AT&T, or not > presubscribed to any interexchange carrier. This charge is in addition to > the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland > and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. > Virgin Islands. These charges are effective on December 1, 1995. This is so bogus! It really angers me how they are trying to evade the whole purpose of equal-access dialing by imposing arbitrary restrictions on those who do not presubscribe. I really don't understand why they want to do it, because it brings them more business. It is like they are attempting to discourage people from choosing AT&T freely. And why does it only apply to residential lines, not business lines? (Incidentally -- what is a "message"? A minute? Is there any information on filing objections with the FCC or other authorities over these changes? Are these approved, or still under consideration? Can anyone point me to something on the FCC web site (http://www.fcc.gov) that might have this notice and information on what we can do about it? Eric Ewanco je@world.std.com Software Engineer, Xyplex Inc. Littleton, Mass. ------------------------------ From: bud@kentrox.com (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? Organization: ADC Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 20:59:16 GMT In article david_mccord@ins.com (David McCord) writes: > In Telecom Digest #500 drhall@ix.netcom.com (David Hall ) writes: >> In my reading about home ISDN they recommend catagory 3 or greater >> unshielded twisted pair. Some warn against shielded cable (even for >> POTS wiring). But I've seen no explanation of what's wrong with >> shielded cable. > I suspect you're puzzled why unshielded cable is recommended over > shielded, even though unshielded is demonstrably inferior in several > electrical test categories. Actually, except for the test categories of "emi radiation/susceptablity" and "crosstalk", unshielded cable is superior. > This is generally because the marketplace contains much more unshielded > than shielded. More products and services have been developed which use > it. Also, if it is installed properly unshielded does have acceptable > noise immunity. Shielded cable has a big problem for high-speed data transmission: the capacitance loading per foot is *lots* higher. At T1 rates, for instance, acceptable line lengths are more than an order of magnitude *lower* for shielded cable, which is why it is used only for short runs within buildings. Because of this factor, ISDN data equipment has been designed (translation: the manufacturers have busted their pick) to work acceptably with unshielded wires. > In the marketplace real-world large-scale structured cabling systems either > a) include both types, or b) contain unshielded only. There are few (if > any) systems that are unshielded only. That's funny, I could have sworn that the entire telephone network running T1 used unshielded cables. May not be what you were thinking of, but it certainly qualifies as a "real-world large-scale structured cabling system". > Also, ISDN was engineered to work with POTS wiring. *Both* types; basic and primary.;-). Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox bud@kentrox.com (192.228.59.2) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #509 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 8 08:58:06 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA07464; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:58:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:58:06 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512081358.IAA07464@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #510 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 95 08:58:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 510 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Need Help in Modem Bank Capacity Planning (Robert Wolf) Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Rupert Baines) Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon (Mark McAllister) Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges (Stephen Tell) Re: Oldest 1AESS Cuts (was: Re: Limits to Redialing?) (Al Varney) Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System (kriston@ibm.net) Re: PCS Service of Sprint (David Boettger) IVTTA Workshop - Call For Papers (Murray F. Spiegel) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Robert Wolf Subject: Re: Need Help in Modem Bank Capacity Planning Date: 7 Dec 1995 22:14:53 GMT Organization: Millennium Telecom jlnichol@ffx.mobil.com (Jeff Nichols) wrote: > I'm looking for a formula or software tool to calculate the number of > modems and phone lines that should be allocated for peak usage. The > scenario would be that the users dial in to a modem bank for ten > minutes each, three times a day. The total number of users is 600. How > many modems/lines should I have so the caller would not get a busy > signal more than one time in five minutes? Which formula or where can I > find a utility to do this calculation. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I assume you are unable to specifically > assign them their time periods. For example, User 309, you call in > at 8:10 AM, 2:40 PM and 7:55 PM. Are you going to have to deal with > them calling at their pleasure, as 'things' occur which prompt them > to call? PAT] The scenario you described sounds like the traditional telephone facility requirement scenario. If you assume a call holding time of 10 minutes (as specified), you have 18,000 call minutes per day. You did not specify how long the day is. The longer the day, the fewer facilities you need. Several tables have been developed to determine these facility requirements, based on what happens to blocked calls (calls that receive busy signals). Erlang B tables assume that blocked calls go away, Poisson tables assume that blocked calls wait for a while, then go away, Retrial tables assume that some percentage (usually 70%) of blocked calls retry, with the remainder going away. Your scenario sounds like Retrial tables would be most appropriate. Blocking in these tables is usually specified as a percentage of all calls. For example, assuming an eight-hour day a Retrial table specifies that you need: for 1% blocking 66 lines for 2% blocking 63 lines for 5% blocking 60 lines The number of lines is not linear. Assuming a 16-hour day: for 1% blocking 49 lines for 2% blocking 47 lines for 5% blocking 44 lines All tables assume a random distribution of call arrivals. Robert Wolf Millennium Telecom http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339; Fax 818-790-7309 !robertwolf@attmail.com Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: Rupert Baines Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon Date: 8 Dec 1995 01:06:21 GMT In article michael petsalis, petsalis@bnr.ca writes: > I've been trying to figure out what it is about POTS that limits the > usable BW to around 3400 Hz, which ultimately, according to Shannon, > limits the capacity of the channel to around 35 Kbits/sec. Since > twisted copper pair has a much higher BW, I presume that there is some > device on the line that limits the BW to the voiceband (someone > mentioned loading coils). > Is this device on every POTS line? How is it that we can take that > same copper pair and put ISDN on it at 144 Kbits/sec or more? Do these > devices need to be removed? How is it that we can put Mbits/sec over > the same copper pair with ADSL? I'm clearly missing something here ... You are on the right lines, but there's one extra piece of information you'd overlooked. There is a big difference between the circuit created by the network and the *physical* bandwidth of the wires. The network hierarchy builds on a 4kHz bandwidth (ish); a dial up modem that fits into that space is limitted to about 30Kbps (depending on conditions etc) but then it can travel across the world "transparently" as the system treats it just as if it were a voice call in the same BW (Oversimplifying a bit, but roughly true). On the other hand the *physical* BW of the copper pair connection between you and the network -- whether you define that as the exchange (Central Office) or kerbside unit is very much bigger -- Megahertz. Depending on how far you go (attenuation is severe as you go up, RFI is a problem), if the network knows about it (so it can select switching with right capacity)then you can use that bigger BW to carry more data. ISDN is 80KHz, HDSL uses much more, ADSL uses 1.1MHz to get 6Mbps a few miles, and VDSL ("ADSL on steroids") will use several MHz to get up to 51Mbps a few hundred yards. So it isn't so much a "device" as the "system" that sets your 4kHz. And that can, and will, change. But Shannon still applies of course :) Incidentally, one of the neast things of ADSL is that it deliberately avoids the POTS bandwidth, so your existing phone and fax co-exist smoothly with the higher rate. Rupert Baines ADSL Product Marketing Analog Devices ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon Date: 8 Dec 1995 05:37:41 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc. In article , gareth@sectel.com says... > In article is written: >> I've been trying to figure out what it is about POTS that limits the >> usable BW to around 3400 Hz, which ultimately, according to Shannon, >> limits the capacity of the channel to around 35 Kbits/sec. Since >> twisted copper pair has a much higher BW, I presume that there is some >> device on the line that limits the BW to the voiceband (someone >> mentioned loading coils). The copper wire isn't the limiting factor. It's a *network design* issue. The telephone network is designed for voice, which requires up to 3.4 kHz or so to be intelligible. Everything else falls out of that. So on the old analog (FDM) multiplexors used on microwave, coax and even some twisted pair, channels were 4 kHz apart, using single sideband transmission. On modern digital systems, voice is sampled at 8 kHz, which per the Nyquist limit guarantees that nothing above 4 kHz will go through. Given the need for actual filters to prevent 4 kHz and above from going into the coders, the bandwidth slopes down pretty steeply beginning around 3.4 kHz, though some newer filters go closer to 3.7 kHz. > Loading coils were a feature of the long lines in the States but not, > I understand over here in Brit land. Loading coils also set a limit, of course. They essentially turn the line into a low-pass filter tuned to 4 kHz. This dramatically improves performance in the 2-4 kHz range and of course wipes out everything much above 4 kHz. That's a design feature, not a bug. Loaded wires are used for pairs beyond around 18000 feet, which is why ISDN was designed for that distance (it works on most old unloaded pairs). Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ From: mmcallister@tri.sbc.com (mark mcallister) Subject: Re: Bandwidth Over POTS/Twisted Pair - Shannon Date: 7 Dec 1995 23:06:51 GMT Organization: sbc tech. resources In article , michael petsalis wrote: > I've been trying to figure out what it is about POTS that limits the > usable BW to around 3400 Hz, which ultimately, according to Shannon, > limits the capacity of the channel to around 35 Kbits/sec. Since > twisted copper pair has a much higher BW, I presume that there is some > device on the line that limits the BW to the voiceband (someone > mentioned loading coils). > Is this device on every POTS line? How is it that we can take that > same copper pair and put ISDN on it at 144 Kbits/sec or more? Do these > devices need to be removed? How is it that we can put Mbits/sec over > the same copper pair with ADSL? I'm clearly missing something here ... Good question - I was confused myself on this for a while. At COs, POTS lines are treated as voice lines. The signals are digitized in channel banks at 8 kHz sampling rate, based on Nyquist and a presumed 4 kHz maximum frequency. To avoid aliasing the lines must be low-pass filtered. This is where the bandwidth limitation occurs; loading coils are not that commmon. Mark McAllister Southwestern Bell Technology Resources ------------------------------ From: tell@cs.unc.edu (Stephen Tell) Subject: Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges Date: 7 Dec 1995 13:56:45 -0500 Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill In article , rob.m.saiter wrote: > While staying in a hotel in Chapel Hill, NC last week, I was charged a > _long distance surcharge_ to call a number in near by Research > Triangle Park, NC. The hotel's number is 919-909-xxxx while the > number I called is 919-558-xxxx. According to the front desk manager, > the hotel has no choice but to impose this outrageous fee since the > local phone company considers calls within the 919 area code but > between different counties to be long distance. I was finally able to > have the charge removed from my bill by arguing that because I was > only required to dial 9, 558-xxxx without using the area code, I was > not aware that the call was long distance. In short, I think the hotel manager was feeding you a line and trying to make a buck. If the hotel wanted, they could just charge the measured rate listed below. 919-909 is not listed at all in my 1994-95 Chapel Hill phone book (the 1995-96 one just came out, and mine isn't handy). The 1995-96 university phone book lists 919-909 as "Raleigh". But whatever, for the past few years there has been a "Triangle Regional Calling Plan," with six bands based on distance. Originating from Chapel Hill, these bands with the measured rate are: band distance 1st minute/each additional daytime rate. home exchange $.03/$.02 * band 1 0-10 miles (no cities in this band) band 2 11-16 $.10/$.07 band 3 17-22 $.12/$.08 band 4 23-30 $.14/$.09 band 5 31-40 $.19/$.12 band 6 41-55 $.23/$.14 The prefixes for each band are listed in the front of the phone book; 919-558 in RTP is band 2 from Chapel Hill. * "home exchange" is all of the Chapel Hill prefixes, and is measured at $.03/.02 with the "thrifty caller" plan, which is $5.50 per month residential, $14.80 business non-key, $15.35 for key system, $26.35 PBX, and $13.45 ESSX. Home exchange is flat rate with the "community caller" plan. Per month: $10.83 residential, $29.10, $29.65, $51.89, and $26.69 business, respectively. Also, the Durham 408 prefix and RDU airport 840 prefixes are unlimited flat rate with this plan. As for dialing plan, all of these "band calls" are dialed with seven digits, at least from a residential line. Here at work, on a PBX behind a university Centrex line, all but the "home exchange" prefixes have to be dialied 1+10 digits, (or with a calling card for personal calls). I'm not sure if this dialing plan difference is a function of the phone company or of our PBX. Steve Tell tell@cs.unc.edu W: +1 919 962 1845 Research Associate, Computer Science Department, UNC@Chapel Hill. Who needs 3-D television when you've got live theatre? -me ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp4.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Oldest 1AESS Cuts (was: Re: Limits to Redialing?) Organization: AT&T Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 00:07:17 GMT In article , Les Reeves wrote: > Ed Ellers (edellers@shivasys.com) wrote: >> (A side note: I was told by an AT&T person on comp.dcom.telecom.tech a >> few months ago that the Succasunna 1ESS was replaced with a 5ESS a >> couple years ago. That switch was designed to last forty years in >> service; it remains to be seen if any 1ESSes will be in that long.) Two points: 1) There are no TELCo-operated No. 1 ESS switches left in service anywhere. Frontier (nee Rochester Tel) turned off the last one last year. Or was it early January of this year? I know it was a few months before May, 1995, because that would have made the 1 ESS lifetime an even 30 years (Succasunna cut over in May, 1965). The 1A ESS will be lucky to make 25 years (2001). 2) Succasunna went to 1A ESS several years ago, prior to replacement by a 5ESS switch. Maybe 1983?? Both No. 1 and 1A ESS switches were designed with forty-year service lives. It's likely even the 1A ESS (and the remaining 2B ESS switches) will be gone in ten years, but that's not due to any fault of the switches. (Maybe I'm just another in a long line of folks predicting the "end of the 1A ESS is near".) The economics of switching have changed, and that drives system life more than anything else. If I recall correctly, one of the hardest forty-year objectives was in assuring that contact resistance would remain low, and contact force stable, for several hundred circuit pack insertions over time. This had to address the relaxation characteristics of the string contacts on the circuit boards and the creep in plastic housings. These are not zero-force insertion MIL-spec connections -- hence the need for 24K gold plating on the contacts. And it forced the circuit board to have the spring connector, not the backplane. (Circuit boards don't have to last 40 years -- the backplane connector is much harder to change, and so must last longer.) The 1 ESS switch could use the older mechanism of putting the springs in the connector because of much wider contacts and contact spacing requirements. >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The first ESS in Chicago was on the >> near north side in the Chicago-Superior office in 1972. Then the >> downtown area was converted in a couple parts during 1974-75. It >> was installed throughout the city by 1983. PAT] Chicago-Franklin was the first 1A ESS switch in service (Oct. 15, 1976). And it's also been replaced (subsumed into an existing 5ESS switch, if I remember correctly). As have most of the first 12 1A ESS switches I helped install (actually, I was mostly doing on-site training of the installers). > On Saturday, Nov. 11, the 1AESS in Peachtree Place in Atlanta, GA was > cutover to a 5ESS. This switch was originally installed as a #1ESS in > the second or third quarter of 1969. It was upgraded to a #1AESS in > 1978. It has been in continuous operation since 1969. Was this a new 5ESS switch, or did you just add the 1A customers to an existing switch? My understanding was that some of the Courtland St. 5ESS switches are huge, replacing two or three other switches in the building. > This was the first #1ESS installed in Atlanta. I believe it holds > the record for longest continuous operation of a #1ESS in the US. That's only about ten years (1969-1978). Succasunna cut over on May 30, 1965, and couldn't have converted to 1A ESS until 1978 (cause that's when we retrofitted the first 1A processor at Folsum Street in San Francisco). So Succasunna was a 1ESS for at least 12.5 years -- more likely 18 years or so. Al Varney - just my opinion [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mentioned the conversions in downtown Chicago in the middle 1970's. Were you around this area then doing some of the work? Wasn't Chicago-Superior cut over before anything downtown? Maybe my memory is failing me after twenty years. I do know it was wonderful the day my phone (312-939 in the Wabash office) went ESS. The old panel system or whatever it was absolutely was awful near the end of its life. Rumors were that knowing it was on the way out, they did absolutelty no routine maintainence on it for the last several months it was in service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kriston@ibm.net Subject: Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 02:32:26 GMT Organization: Nut Screws and Bolts - Film at 11 Reply-To: kriston@ibm.net Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile has taken on an interesting negativity campaign against the new Sprint Spectrum digital cellular service. The advertisements mock the Sprint digital service primarily because you can't use it outside of the greater Washington/Baltimore area. They don't mention the unique features of Sprint Spectrum, such as text messaging, two-way paging and others mentioned in the previous post, plus the competive rates. They do have a point, but they don't try to address the other differences between the service. I guess the campaign was either a rush job or perhaps they could only find one problem with the new Sprint service? One new service that Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile just implemented was service in the subway (the Metro, as we call it), though it's not clear if the service is in the stations or in the tunnels themselves. Quotes from the ads: "[When roaming] you may as well be talking into a banana." "Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile has a very open system..." Open system? I guess they must be talking about cloners and scanning eavesdroppers. Through all this, I'm waiting for radio stations in the tunnels, myself. Kriston Kriston@IBM.Net Washington, DC http://152.163.199.22/kjrehberg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 06:27:00 -0600 From: david boettger Subject: Re: PCS Service of Sprint Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. In article is written: > Today, I went to a local electronics shop (Best Buy) and saw about > Sprint Spectrum (Personal Communication System) Is this service > what we call PCS? The salesman told me it only covers DC and Baltimore [...] > and Paging services. It sounds very good to me. But before I start, I > would like to hear from you about the pros and cons of this service. > Are other phone companies offering this service? > In case of Sprint service, the only disadvantage is the service doesn't > cover wide area like normal cell service. It seems to be no roaming > service. The salesman told me the service is only available DC area > now. The service you describe is offered by APC - "American Personal Communications", which is partially owned by Sprint, and marketed under the Sprint name. APC was the first "PCS" operator to go live in the US (last month). The technology is upbanded GSM/PCS1900. Currently, you won't be able to use the phone anywhere but in the Baltimore/DC area, but as more GSM-based 1900 MHz systems go live, you'll be able to roam farther. Something to consider is that GSM will not be the dominant standard at 1900 MHz. CDMA and IS-136 (DAMPS with digital control channel) will cover more of the US than GSM (including Baltimore/DC), so if roaming is of prime concern, GSM might not be the best choice. If you're not going to roam much, the features are better than AMPS, and the cost is the same as or lower than AMPS, go for it. David Boettger Richardson, TX boettger@bnr.ca BNR 214.684.1750 ------------------------------ From: spiegel@din.bellcore.com (Murray F Spiegel) Subject: IVTTA Workshop - Call For Papers Date: 8 Dec 1995 10:52:11 GMT Organization: Speech Technology Research Group (Bellcore) Reply-To: spiegel@bellcore.com CALL FOR PAPERS THIRD IEEE WORKSHOP ON INTERACTIVE VOICE TECHNOLOGY FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS =-=-=-=-=-=-=-= September 30 - October 1, 1996 The AT&T Learning Center 300 N Maple Ave Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 USA Sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society The third of a series of IEEE workshops on Interactive Voice Technology for Telecommunications Applications will be held at the AT&T Learning Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, from September 30 - October 1, 1996. The conference venue is on 35 semi-rural acres and is close enough (one hour) for side trips to New York City. Our workshop will be held immediately before ICSLP '96 in Philadelphia, PA, approximately 80 miles from our location. The IVTTA workshop brings together application researchers planning to conduct or who have recently conducted field trials of new applications of speech recognition, speaker indentity verification, text-to-speech synthesis over the telephone network. The workshop will explore promising opportunities for applications and attempt to identify areas where further research is needed. Topic areas of interest: - ASR/verification systems for the cellular environment - User interface / human factors of applying speech to telecommunications tasks - Language modeling and dialog design for "audio-only" communication - Experimental interactive systems for telecommunication applications - Experience in deployment & assessment of deployed ASR/verification systems - Text-to-speech applications in the network - Speech enhancement for telecommunications applications - Telephone services for the disabled - Architectures for speech-based services Prospective authors should submit one-page abstracts of no more than 400 words for review. Submissions should include a title, authors' names, affiliations, address, telephone and fax numbers and email address if any. Please indicate the topic area of interest closest to your submission. Camera-ready full papers (maximum of 6 pages) will be published in the proceedings distributed at the workshop. Due to workshop facility constraints, attendance will be limited with priority given to authors with accepted contributions. For further information about the workshop, please contact: Dr. Murray Spiegel, Bellcore, 445 South Street, Morristown, NJ 07960 USA Phone: 1-201-829-4519; Fax: 1-201-829-5963; E-mail: spiegel@bellcore.com For full information, visit our web page: http://superbook.bellcore.com/IVTTA.html Send abstracts (fax or email preferred) to: Dr. David Roe IEEE IVTTA '96 AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA Phone: 1-908-582-2548; Fax: 1-908-582-3306 E-mail: roe@hogpb.att.com SCHEDULE Abstracts due (400 words, maximum 1 page): Mar 15, 1996 Notification of acceptance: May 1, 1996 Submission of photo-ready paper (maximum 6 pages): Jun 15, 1996 Advance registration to be received before: Jun 15, 1996 Late registration cut-off: Aug 30, 1996 IVTTA '96 Evening welcoming reception: Sep 29, 1996 IVTTA '96 Conference: Sep 30 & Oct 1, 1996 WEB PAGE Check our web page for late breaking news and developments: http://superbook.bellcore.com/IVTTA.html REGISTRATION INFORMATION Early registration (prior to June 15, 1996): Day-only: $390 Full: $650 Late registration (Jun 15 - Aug 30, 1996): Day-only: $465 Full: $725 IEEE members: charges are $25 less Additional proceedings: $25 Day-only registration includes all technical sessions, welcoming reception, lunches, snacks, banquet, and a copy of the proceedings. Full registration includes all of the above plus: dinner on evening of arrival, breakfast both days, two nights lodging at the conference center, and use of the center facilities (jogging track, exercise center, pool, etc). WORKSHOP COMMITTEE GENERAL CHAIR REGISTRATION & FINANCE Candace Kamm Dick Rosinski AT&T Bell Laboratories AT&T Bell Laboratories cak@research.att.com rrr@arch4.att.com PROGRAM CHAIRS PUBLICITY David Roe Murray Spiegel AT&T Bell Laboratories Bellcore roe@hogpb.att.com spiegel@bellcore.com George Vysotsky LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS NYNEX Science & Technology David Pepper george@nynexst.com Bellcore dpepper@bellcore.com INTERNATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE Sadaoki Furui, NTT PROCEEDINGS Matthew Lennig, BNR Jay Naik David Roe, AT&T Bell Laboratories NYNEX Science & Technology Christel Sorin, CNET naik@nynexst.com George Vysotsky, NYNEX ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #510 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 8 09:52:02 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA10883; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:52:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:52:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512081452.JAA10883@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #511 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:52:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 511 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! (Mike P. Storke) Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See (Hendrik Rood) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Mark J Cuccia) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Tony Harminc) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Scott Plichta) Re: Ok, it's December 1st ...? (John Sullivan) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Jack Adams) Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? (Ron Schnell) Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement (Steve Forrette) Area Code 904/352 Split (raltpa@aol.com) Re: Citibank Screen Phone Pilot (Christoph F. Strnadl) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com (Mike P. Storke) Subject: Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! Date: 8 Dec 1995 07:53:41 GMT Organization: Great Basin Public Access UNIX, Reno, NV (Little brother to Pacific Bell, and still under the umbrella of Pac Telesis) can't be the only intra-lata telco to be thinking about this. Have fun with the hysteria and paranoia! I heard from a reliable source at Nevada Bell today (I'm not gonna say who because I have the feeling this likely shouldn't have leaked out, though it's importance to all dial-up data users is too much to keep quiet about) that over the next couple of years, they will be eliminating flat rate access. The reason given is that data users tend to tie up the switches too much. Normal design on a switch traditionally has been a four to one ratio. That is, a maximum of 25% of the lines coming into an office can be switched before busy-out occurs. However, lately, a three to one ratio (i.e., 33%) has been being used, according to my source, mainly because of switch load by dial-up data users. This is logical: not only do true dial-up users spend at least, typically, an hour MINIMUM on line, but there are many circuits used like leased lines, and thus are on ALL the time -- thus eliminating a switch that could be used for other, voice traffic. My understanding is that business (of course) flat rate billing will be phased out in a year to a year and a half, with residental following some time later. While this may seem a long way away for you, in reality, it's probably much closer than you think. As soon as businesses (all internet providers, and most bbs's fall under this classification on their phone lines) have to pay by the minute, guess what -- SO WILL YOU!! Furthermore, think how outrageously high your phone bill will get. BBS'S AND DIAL-UP INTERNET PROVIDERS WILL BE ELIMINATED (or seriously cut back) BECAUSE PEOPLE WON'T BE WILLING TO PAY THE HIGH RATES!! Now I've been thinking about this for a while today. My source has the suggestion that tariffs for leased lines be reduced (he pointed out the price of a T-1 is cheaper than a 56K line right now!) to eliminate people using switched lines in a dedicated mode, and I agree. However, I'd go a little further by doing the following: 1. 2 wire full-duplex leased lines. Most all modems are designed for this, and ISDN is, too. My knowledge of ISDN protocols is limited, but I'd say that if the ability for 2 NT-1's to talk directly exists, tie them together with "dark copper" (i.e, nothing but battery on the line). Same for modems. If the loops are on different central offices (CO's), do the necessary trunk terminations. If a bank of these devices (I'll call them "battery" and "trunk terminators", respectively) can be installed, it's basically a "set and forget" setup, and is certainly cheaper than installing new switches. 2. Raise flat rate tariffs. I know no one likes this idea, but dial-up will always be around, and metering data communications will kill the industry for all but business customers (and even they will be seriously affected, especially internet providers). This flat-rate line can be renamed a "modem line" or something, and, in bad areas, can be conditioned. Since most internet providers are probably using Centrex, maybe making it some sort of "Classic Centrex" offering (the same way ISDN is done now) would be the way to go -- a small, dedicated switch for data and any other essentially non-switched, high-use traffic. The bottom line here is something that no telco anywhere in the world can ignore: Using dial-up for data will not go away -- in fact, it will only get worse. Trying to make it go away by eliminating flat-rate tariffing will only hurt or even shut down industries that revolve around it, not to mention creating one of the biggest public relations scandals since Intel's Pentium FPU bug. It must be worked around and dealt with. *Mike P. Storke N7MSD Snailmail: 2308 Paradise Dr. #134 * *Inet: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com Reno, NV 89512-2712 * ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Features We Would Like to See Date: Thu, 07 Dec 95 21:15:20 GMT In article , franz@inf.ethz.ch (Michael Franz) wrote: > I travel a lot and can get to my email from many places in the world > via the internet, for a relatively low local access charge. However, > when I want to check my answering machine at home, I need to make an > expensive long distance call. > Wouldn't it be a nice option if some of the answering machine software > packages that are available for PCs could compress incoming voice > messages, encrypt them, and then send them out again as email? This > would probably even be practical for every-day life, as I could get > the messages from my home phone at work over email, instead of having > to call home and check. This looks as a good idea but just remind the costs. Sending out a one Mbyte file over the international part of the Internet costs around $1 here via various IP-providers (we do have competition in that area!). A phone converation of one minute on a voice mail system results in a compressed file of 60 seconds * 8 kbit/s = 60 kByte. This means it is indeed cheaper than calling international over continents (USA is around $1 pro minute via call-back resellers). But just look at your connect times (local calls are metered). And you see it is not so much cheaper than voice. > Any phone software developers listening? I have heared rumours in the market about voice mail systems that can do this type of messaging and distribution lists too. I think there is not so much difference in costs between an Internet-solution and a voice-mail system solution. I just do not see voice-mail providers yet doing the store and forwarding of voice mail on a nation-wide basis, but that might come faster to the market than a lot of people think now. Because this is a really useful feature for the travelers market. ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:41:23 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Over the weekend (Fri.Dec 1st thru Sun.Dec 3rd), I had several people out-of-LATA/state (and even within the LATA but toll) try to call me via AT&T, MCI, etc. For the most part, I got `out-of-area' on my ID Box. When I tried to call others via AT&T, MCI, etc. I was also coming up as `out-of-area'. If I used *67 (11-67) to make my number `private', I would still ring a line even if they had Anonymous Call Rejection, aka `Block the Blocker' as well as come up `out-of-area'. In early November, I had someone call me from Minneapolis via AT&T, MCI, etc. MCI *was* delivering the number, and something like MNNSTPMNZN1, MN for the name part of the ID box. AT&T just had out-of-area. Sunday afternoon, I called AT&T's repair dept (800-222-3000), and was told that it was not them, but it was BellSouth that was not delivering CID info to or from AT&T's switches. The repair rep. said that she was getting complaints all weekend from people all over the country but it was only for calls originating and/or terminating in a BellSouth area. Last night, I *did* receive the number, and the ratecenter (city) for the name on the Minneapolis call, via AT&T & MCI. WilTel (or whatever reseller is associated with WilTel, 10-555), Allnet, Sprint, and others just came in as out-of-area. There was a report on the local newsblock on WTIX Radio Monday morning about inter-LATA/state Caller-ID. A BellSouth spokesman stated that if the call *both* originated *and* terminated in BellSouth territory (where CID is available on both switches), the *name* of the caller would be displayed, but if both ends of the call weren't in BellSouth, only the number would show (with the city/state displayed in place of the name). It seems that a BellSouth database *is* checked for name if inter-LATA but only if both ends of the call is BellSouth. I would hope that all RBOC/LEC's would *eventually* allow each other to access each other's LIDB databases for CID name, regardless of the IXC or LEC's involved in the call. BTW, while BellSouth told me that `Block-the-Blocker' should eventually be available to me at *no* additional charge, I am still getting a `reorder' tone when I try to activate it with *77 (11-77), or enter the deactivate code *87 (11-87). Usually, if a Custom-Calling /CLASS/Vertical *XX code is not available in my switch (altho' the code may have a `standard' Bellcore assignment), my #1AESS switch gives me a recording "call cannot be completed as dialed -- please check your _instruction_manual_ or call the _business_office_ for assistance" and not a reorder. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@rs6.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Dec 95 13:53:47 EST From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Jim Hebbeln wrote: > The calling party's name, once the IAM's calling number is received in > the called party's CO, is obtained by the terminating CO by using > SS7's Transaction CAPability (TCAP) to query the RBOC's Line > Information DataBase (LIDB), which usually responds back in ~300-500 > milliseconds with the 15-character name that is transmitted to the > CallerID unit (if the Presentation Indicator doesn't block it). The > LIDB is the same database that keeps track of each line's Calling Card > PIN (if any), the line's class (Residence, Business, Coin,...), > Collect and Third Number Billing blocking, and now CallerID name. How many LIDBs are there? I've been getting calling numbers on many calls from the US for over a year, but never a name. But I routinely get names and numbers on calls from other telcos in Canada, e.g. on calls from Vancouver and Calgary to my home in Toronto. So is there one US LIDB and one Canadian? Is there no facility for a terminating CO in one country to talk to the LIDB in the other? If the same LIDB holds calling card PINs, then it would seem doable, since international calling card use generally works fine. Are there separate Presentation Indicators for number and name? Bell Canada's tariff has the option of displaying PRIVATE NAME while still transmitting the calling number. Are they simply setting the name in the LIDB to "PRIVATE NAME", or is there actually a presentation indicator that would in theory allow the name through while blocking the number? On the timing, does the terminating CO overlap the LIDB lookup with starting the first ring ? If it doesn't, then presumably calling name delivery effectively adds 300-500 ms to call setup time. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:03:31 EST From: splichta@instalink.com (Scott Plichta) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? I live outside of Philadelphia (Bell Atlantic). I still get local caller-ID, they didn't break anything. When I call from work and force the call using 10ATT, the caller ID shows up. Calls from Maryland (301)371-xxxx over AT&T, get the dreaded "NO CID NMBR", as well as calls from Salt Lake City over MCI. I know both switches are SS7. OK, so when is the next date that we can try this and watch it fail??? (and these guys want to deliver me 500 channels and pay-per-view .... no thanks.) Scott Plichta Western Interactive Media Wayne, PA 19087 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone wrote me and said the date for full compliance had now been set forward to next June! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 09:22:44 GMT From: John Sullivan Subject: Re: Ok, it's December 1 ..? Well, once again I showed myself to be a lousy prophet. FCC apparently did exactly what I didn't think they'd do. Instead of issuing a blanket stay, they issued a series of narrow waivers. (I have to stop doing this sort of thing in public before my subscribers realize I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, and I'm out of a job). This is from the 12/1 edition of my "sister publication" {Communications Today} since, as I previously noted, I took 12/1 off. (To celebrate Nationwide Caller ID Day, of course!) ====================== NOT ALL CUSTOMERS WILL SEE INTERSTATE CALLER ID PASS-THROUGH At 5:30 p.m. yesterday (11/30), the FCC announced several limited stays of its CC Docket No. 91-281 rules requiring the pass through of Caller ID information between carriers beginning today (12/1). Customers will have to check with their local exchange and long-distance carriers to see if interstate calling-party numbers (CPNs) can be received at their Caller ID display units. Availability may have been affected by one of the following stays: (1) Interexchange carriers with certain DSC Communications Corp. [DIGI] and Northern Telecom [NT] switches have until March 31, 1996, to comply; (2) California local exchange carriers (LECs), still embroiled in state regulatory negotiations regarding effective consumer education programs on Caller ID privacy options, have until June 1, 1996, to comply; and (3) Telcos with switches lacking "custom local area signaling service" capabilities have Jan. 1, 1997, to upgrade those switches to recognize CPN blocking and unblocking requests. In the meantime, these telcos must suppress CPN transport to interconnecting carriers from these switches. Other limited stays, including one delaying the effectiveness of the rule requiring the recognition of the *82 unblocking code for carriers with Siemens Stromberg Carlson DCO switches, also were granted. ===================================== So basically, interstate Caller ID is now in place, but with so many loopholes that it may be hard to tell for a while. I haven't yet dug into this with anyone from FCC yet, but part 1 interests me. I'm not sure if this means they can just skip the whole thing, or if they're supposed to pass it where they can but are off the hook for a given call if that call happens to pass through one of these switches. I would think that all the major IXCs could point to an example of just about any switch you care to name _somewhere_ in the network. BTW, our esteemed editor said, regarding getting numbers on calls from California: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is odd you say this, because I have > gotten calls from 415 where the area and number was shown, and some > where it was 'private'. Maybe some carriers are free-lancing out there > and doing things the way they want. PAT] CPUC is in fact currently investigating one of the smaller IXCs (I _think_ it's Wiltel, but I may be misremembering) for passing the numbers of customers in the state. This apparently was taking place well before 12/1. John Sullivan ------------------------------ From: jacka@ffast.ffast.att.com (Jack Adams) Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Organization: AT&T Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:20:39 GMT In article , Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > I was curious to know how exactly do names appear in CID. Is the name > drawn from the telco's billing records, or from a user-created directory > in the CID box (like similar features in, for instance, the Nokia 2110 > cellular phone)? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From telco billing records, such as > they are. We have read some rather funny 'names' here in recent > weeks as this thread has progressed, such as Mr. Pay Phone. PAT] Rishab, Pat, and others, The name actually comes from each originating LEC's Line Information DataBase (LIDB for you acronym fans). Jack Adams AT&T Bell Labs:Rm 3E-137:185 Monmouth Parkway W. Long Branch, NJ 07764-1994:jacka@ffast.ffast.att.com 908.870.7051 908.870.7286 [FAX] AN EXPERT: Anyone >50 miles from home...Alan Ableson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Dec 95 08:52:09 EST From: Ron Schnell Subject: Re: OK, it's December 1st ...? Well, here in BellSouth land (Miami, FL) I have been receiving out-of-state CID properly from all of the majors except Sprint. I've had people call from several different states, through several different carriers, and Sprint definitely isn't working. Ron ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Forrette, Steve) Subject: Re: Roadside Call Box Mismanagement Date: 7 Dec 1995 20:24:42 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , PAT wrote: [ original message about incoming-only payphone deleted ] > Perhaps they meant no outgoing COIN calls. That makes 'sense' in a > non-sensical sort of way as part of the War on Drugs. There are lots > of payphones in Chicago which are restricted to 'no coins after dark'. There was a pair of payphones (genuine US West no lesS) at a local gas station here in Seattle that were disabled after dark for a period of time. And I mean completely disabled. There was even a sign posted above the phones in the booth that said "These phones disabled after 10pm. If you have an emergency and need to call 911, please see the gas station attendant inside." I couldn't believe it! Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am going to take a wild guess and suggest US West had nothing to do with that at all ... that the phones were being killed by the proprietor of the gas station for whatever reason. I doubt that US West has any tariff on file at all which calls for that situation and a sign hanging over the phone telling people that 'if you need to call 911, see the attendant inside.' It sounds like some monkey-business with the phones by the people who run the station. PAT] ------------------------------ From: RALTPA@aol.com Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 01:12:17 -0500 Subject: Area Code 904/352 Split A Bellsouth ad on 12-3-95 in the Tampa paper announces that the split of 904 into 904 and 352 is effective that date (12-3-95) with the transition period extending thru 5-20-96. Test calls can be made to (352) 848-0517 toll free. Pretty standard ad except that in the list of 904 NXX's changing to 352 they show an NXX of 065. My attempts to call (352) 065-xxxx from (813) 689 result in the recording: We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed ... Any idea what 065 is or is this a goof from Bellsouth Public Affairs? Dick raltpa@aol.com ------------------------------ From: cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com (Christoph F. Strnadl) Subject: Re: Citibank Screen Phone Pilot Date: Fri, 08 Dec 95 11:12:29 GMT Organization: Philips C&P Austria/VAN Services rmorse@qds.com (Robert D. Morse) wrote: > Does anyone have any information on Citibank's screen phone banking > application in New York? I know that they are using the Philips > P100-A screen phone but little else. I would like to know: You may try to contact either Citibank or PHS Inc. (Philips Home Services) directly: Citibank: Ms Laurie A Fettinger, Director Access Services New York, NY, (212) 559 0580 PHS Inc: Ms S. Vladeck, Director Marketing 8 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 (617) 238 3440 Christoph F. Strnadl, Product Mgmt/VANS PHILIPS C&P / VAN Services Tel: +43 1 60101/1752 FAX: +43 1 6023568 cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #511 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 8 17:18:16 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA17219; Fri, 8 Dec 1995 17:18:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 17:18:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512082218.RAA17219@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #512 TELECOM Digest Fri, 8 Dec 95 17:17:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 512 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson You Ought to be in Pictures (Kelly Breit) Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility (Robert Wolf) New Wiring Suggestions (Barry Roomberg) Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System (Shri Balachandran) Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System (Michael G. Reed) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (J. Grout) Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? (Robert Wolf) Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Roger Wells) Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? (Kevin Paul Herbert) Re: Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services (Mike Morris) Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Tayeb Damerji) Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility (Robert Wolf) Re: What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes (Scott Robert Dawson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 14:54:01 -0600 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: You Ought to be in Pictures For further information, contact: "You Ought to be in Pictures" Rick Smolan and the team that created the "Day in the Life", "From Alice to Ocean" and "Passage to Vietnam" photography books, want to shoot you and your friends! They're looking for the best examples about how Cyberspace is changing peoples lives all over the world and if they like your story they may send one of the world's top photographers to shoot pictures of you on Thursday, February 8, 1996. On that day over 1000 photographers armed with digital cameras will be dispatched around the globe to show how Cyberspace is beginning to reach out and affect peoples lives. It's going to be one of the largest photographic projects ever done and certainly one of the biggest collaborative internet projects. The Focus of "24 Hours in Cyberspace: Painting on the Walls of the Digital Cave" will be on the human stories behind the technology; the new ways in which we work, play, learn, conduct business and interact. These photographs will be transmitted digitally back to project headquarters in San Francisco that same day, where an international team of 80 editors (representing {Time, Newsweek, Life, National Geographic} etc), plus designers and programmers will assemble a unique "instant" 24-hour World Wide Web site. The goal is to produce unprecedented online, real-time photojournalism on a global scale. The idea is to use the power of the Internet to let people around the world both contribute and view images and stories of things that happened since they woke up that day. The goal here is NOT to show people sitting at computer terminals and it's not about collecting lots of random "bits". The project is driven by carefully researched assignments and is both photograpic and edit driven. The goal is to show in photographs and words how peoples lives are being affected as a results of being wired. The leads can be about you, a friend, something you read about that was cool, etc. A team of professional journalists on the 24 Hours staff will follow up any interesting leads. If you think you've got a great story to tell and would like to either submit an assignment idea or learn more about how you can participate in this cool project please send your ideas to: Stories@Cyber24.com or check out: http://www.Cyber24.com. Please also feel free to pass this along to people you know. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 10:50:53 -0800 From: Robert Wolf Subject: Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility A couple of weeks ago you posted a request for information about equipment that will permit your tech support staff to roam about the office and receive incoming calls. Several companies make wireless systems that work specifically with their own telephone systems. Some of the companies that provide this type of equiment include AT&T, Northern Telecom and Ericsson, among others. There is at least one company, SpectraLink, that manufactures a wireless system which works with most installed telephone systems. All the above wireless systems consist of three components (1) Controllers that connect to the host telephone system, (2) Base Stations that are hard-wired to the Controller and are distributed throughout the facility, and (3) Portable Telephones which are light and typically small enough to fit in a pocket. Most of these systems are a bit pricey, but the specific cost of the system will depend on the size of the facility, how many Base Stations you need to cover the building(s), and the number of Portable Telephones you need. I sent this via e-mail since Patrick Townson screens all postings to the newsgroup and seems reluctant to post short replies to people who request information. Robert Wolf Millennium Telecom Consulting in Voice, Video, Data URL: http://keyconnect.com/millennium Voice: 818-790-7339 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wish it were possible to print more of the shorter replies which come in, but these days it is not even possible to print all the original material which arrives. I may be a victim of my own success with this Digest; two hundred pieces of mail daily with submissions is not uncommon, and of necessity I hope that people who can answer questions for other readers with a very short reply (such as providing a contact name at a company or an address) will do so directly to provide the fastest response. I am looking at ways to be able to print more here, but there is no immediate solution. If you send something in and it is not published, but you really feel it would be of interest to a large number of readers, *please resubmit it clearly marked *duplicate posting* and ask for reconsideration. I will try to accomodate everyone I can. Seriously, the volume of mail here has become horrendous. PAT] ------------------------------ From: barry_roomberg@iacnet.com (Barry Roomberg) Subject: New Wiring Suggestions Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 18:58:51 GMT Organization: Information Access Center We are about to move to a new location and it will be wired from scratch. Current proposal: Everyone get a four jack outlet. Jacks will be RJ-11. Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs. 1 Jack - Telephone 1 Jack - RS232 serial to Unix system. 1 Jack - Token ring - Novell 1 Jack - free for future use . Parent corporation says to use Level 3 for the Telephone and RS232 jacks, Level 5 for others. We really have no plans to "use" level 5 for high speed, but it'll be nice to have it. Also, while everyone SAYS that the cost difference between 5 and 3 is minimal, would there be a reason to use ALL level 5 as opposed to eight wires? We'd like ALL jacks to come into a patch panel, and then patch to phone/Unix serial/Token ring panels. We'd like all the in-wall wiring to be the same, ie: no 2-3 pin switches for serial, and then handle any differences in either the hoods at the PCs or patch panel cables. This way we could use a single wall outlet for four of the same type of connections, as long as we are not relying on the Level 5 aspect. We gonna start cheap (most likely) concerning wall panel jumper blocks, and if we ever really use the Level 5 we'll upgrade those as needed. Anything I should be looking for from the contractor, cable type, distances, twist type (??), or whatever? Are there any FAQs for this group that'll answer these question and educate a newbie? ------------------------------ From: Shri Balachandran Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 11:44:54 -0600 Subject: Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System A few points cellular providers would definitely NOT want to tell you in their advertisement. * GSM gives terminal mobility using a unique concept called SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) card. Pick up any GSM phone and it becomes u'r subscriber id. * GSM uses encryption. So security is excellent. Saves phone company and subscribers millions. * APC's current PCS cost is less than what the cellular providers advt. No wonder the RBOCs without an active GSM n/w are *mad*. * FCC has currently auctioned out only 2 bands. C and D band operators would cover up the rest of the areas to probably give seamless GSM roaming. * In addition Ericsson and Nokia will be coming out with dual mode phones which will act as a GSM phone in the GSM area and as a DAMPS phone in other cellular area. This will also abet seamless roaming (all over US and even internationally, especially Europe). Shri Balachandran Ericsson Inc. ------------------------------ From: reed@usonian.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Michael G. Reed) Subject: Re: Sprint Spectrum PCS System Date: 8 Dec 1995 17:59:28 GMT Organization: Naval Research Laboratory kriston@ibm.net wrote: > Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile has taken on an interesting negativity > campaign against the new Sprint Spectrum digital cellular service. > The advertisements mock the Sprint digital service primarily because > you can't use it outside of the greater Washington/Baltimore area. I noticed this also ... not being a big fan of BA (for reasons of their ISDN tarrif), I was not impressed with their PCS bashing. I'm currently a BA cell user, but am rapidly considering a PCS phone replacement. > One new service that Bell Atlantic/NYNEX Mobile just implemented was > service in the subway (the Metro, as we call it), though it's not > clear if the service is in the stations or in the tunnels themselves. Both (at least for some of the metro lines -- I know red line is covered end to end and I think orange is as well) -- they ran a pair of split coax cables through the system to external transmitters/receivers to act as a waveguide. Look for a pair of thick (about 1") white wires in the metro lines/stations (usually on the walls around human level). Michael ------------------------------ From: j-grout@glibm8.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: 08 Dec 1995 18:16:16 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu In article eje@xyplex.com (Eric Ewanco) writes: > In article danny burstein > writes: >> 3) Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic >> Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines >> which are presubscribed to an interexchange carrier other than AT&T, or not >> presubscribed to any interexchange carrier. This charge is in addition to >> the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland >> and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. >> Virgin Islands. These charges are effective on December 1, 1995. > This is so bogus! It really angers me how they are trying to evade > the whole purpose of equal-access dialing by imposing arbitrary > restrictions on those who do not presubscribe. I really don't > understand why they want to do it, because it brings them more > business. It is like they are attempting to discourage people from > choosing AT&T freely. And why does it only apply to residential > lines, not business lines? When a non-subscriber makes his/her _first_ call using AT&T in a billing period, which would include both 10-288 calls _and_ calls to AT&T-provided 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for subsequent calls. However, since AT&T gets something like $.50 for handling a one-minute call to a 900 number (to cover network services, billing, etc.), a $.40 surcharge on non-subscriber calls sounds like more than is needed to recover the costs of billing casual users. Perhaps a $.25 surcharge would be fairer. John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-grout@uiuc.edu Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ------------------------------ From: Robert Wolf Subject: Re: "Abuse" of 800/888 Numbers? Date: 8 Dec 1995 17:31:13 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) wrote: > I was asked an infamous Kid's Question the other day, and as I > don't know the answer I'm putting it out to the Digest readership. If > you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong numbers, > do you still pay for the calls? > In pondering this procedural matter, I wondered how prevalent > this sort of thing might be. We have every other sort of > irresponsible, money-driven behavior these days. Surely this is a > natural for the true Creatures of (Darkness in) the Nineties among > us... :-( There are more Creatures of Darkness thay you might suspect who are actively involved in getting someone else to pay for their phone calls. The typical approach is something like this: They dial in on a business' 800 number, trick the company's phone system into transfering them to an outside line, and then dial a number (usually an international call). This "service" is sold as discount international calling to people without phone service or people of limited means. The charge for the 800 number and outbound calls is billed to the business. This type of activity currently costs business about $4 Billion annually. The long distance carriers have included in their tariffs (making it enforceable in court) that calls originating frpm a business' phone system are the responsibility of the business. This clause includes 800 number calls. Is AT&T serious about collecting for these illegal calls? It has sued its customers (and won). Occassionally, AT&T and MCI and Sprint will write off these illegal charges the first time they show up on a phone bill, if the amount is not too large. Robert Wolf member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants Millennium Telecom http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339; Fax 818-790-7309 Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: rwells@usin.com (Roger Wells) Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse Date: 8 Dec 1995 18:43:56 GMT Organization: U.S. Intelco Networks, Inc. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone I know who runs a > BBS here makes extensive use of Caller-ID to keep track of his users. > When his line first answers, the first question it asks of new users > (after getting their name) is 'please enter your full ten digit > phone number'. Now, he has the caller-ID on most of these people > already but he wants to see if they are basically truthful or not. > He does not tell them he has it. He waits to see if they enter the > same number he sees or not. If they enter a number that is different > than what the caller-ID says, he asks them a second time more firmly, > 'please enter the phone number you are actually using right now to > place this call.' Does he assume nobody ever calls from a private PBX? Roger Wells (speaking only for myself) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He makes allowances for that. If the ID given is 'out of area' or 'unavailable' he simply takes their word for whatever they give as long as it 'looks like' a phone number based on examples he has given the computer of things that cannot be a legitimate phone number such as '911' or 000-0000. After getting your note, I asked him again about this and he said he no longer flatly rejects them as users. He tells them they will be contacted by phone at the number *they gave* -- not the number the caller-ID displayed -- and given their password verbally. Of course the truthful ones get their password later the same day or the next day; the liars get to sit there with egg on their face, or else wait a discrete period of a few days and call back giving honest numbers for his records. Very clever ploy, I think. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kph@cisco.com (Kevin Paul Herbert) Subject: Re: What's Wrong With Shielded Cable? Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 12:32:39 -0800 Organization: Cisco Systems, Ashland, OR In article , bud@kentrox.com (Bud Couch) wrote: > That's funny, I could have sworn that the entire telephone network running > T1 used unshielded cables. May not be what you were thinking of, but it > certainly qualifies as a "real-world large-scale structured cabling system". Interesting you would bring this up. I just had a T-1 circuit installed yesterday. The circuit was delivered via HDSL (via a ADC box), and the Telco used CAT-3 STP for the HDSL side of the circuit (incoming drop to HDSL interface), and used CAT-3 UTP for the T-1 side (HDSL interface to junction box for my wiring). I did my own internal wiring using CAT-5 UTP to extend the demarc up to my office. When Sprint came out to install their FT1 CSU/DSU (also an ADC/Kentrox unit), the installer used Cat-3 STP between the RJ48 that I installed and the CSU/DSU, and told me that I really should have used STP for the premises wiring. Well, who's right? US West used UTP for the two-foot run to the demarc (T-1 side), although they used STP for the HDSL side. Sprint says that they (and I) should have used STP everywhere. I've always thought that you were only supposed to use STP when you had a specific problem with AC noise. The six-pair drop that carries my HDSL service (and other things) is also shielded, as is all underground drop wire (my service entrance is underground via 2" conduit). My circuit checks out clean, so it is obviously happy with this mix of STP and UTP. The extension from the demarc is about 60', doesn't run parallel to any power, and runs parallel to some 10-base-T ethernets, digital telephones, and analog telephones. Kevin ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Clarifying the FCC Order on Calling Number Services Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 18:30:38 GMT Lynne Gregg writes: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It looks like a lot of the telcos are >> simply ignoring the legally mandated deadline doesn't it? I wonder >> if some will have to be sued to get them to come into compliance? PAT] > To clarify the FCC Order: telcos who are EQUIPPED to transport Calling > Party Number MUST DO SO. They also, at minimum, must support *67 and > *82 as standard per call options (blocking, unblocking). In states > where Per Line Blocking is permitted, telcos may continue to offer > that service. > Unfortunately today, there are plenty of telcos out there who are NOT > equipped with SS7/ISUP or switch software needed to deal with > transport of Calling Party Number. > The FCC Order won't result in immediate gratification here, but will > result in significant improvements in Caller ID service going forward. I called Pacific Bell yesterday about a billing glitch, and in the process I asked about Caller ID here in the Los Angeles area (specifically 818-447-xxxx and 818-445-xxxx), and the customer dis-service rep giggled and said "The technical people are working on it, we hope to have it working by June of '96". I didn't have time to push it. Mike Morris morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us #include I have others, but this works the best. This message assembled from 100% recycled electrons (and pixels). ------------------------------ From: tayeb@maestro.intertel.net (Tayeb Damerji) Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility Date: 8 Dec 1995 16:53:54 GMT Organization: Interactive Telecom, Inc. (613) 727-5258 Myron Jackson (epgg66@email.mot.com) wrote: > In article , Robohn Scott > wrote: >> We're looking for a solution to the following situation: tech support >> staff roam about an office and need easy access to their incoming >> phone calls. They can forward their calls, but this gets bothersome >> and tedious after you have to reset forwarding the second, third, >> fourth time that hour. Cellular reception is very poor in some areas >> of the building, so that doesn't look like an option. You should check the PCS products from Northern Telecom. I don't rememeber the exact name of the product but I know that it has been used in some hotels and hospitals to do the same functions that you describe. Tayeb Damerji Tel.(613) 727 5258 Interactive Telecom Inc. Fax.(613) 727 5438 204 -190 Colonnade Rd Email: tayeb@intertel.net Nepean , Ont K2E 7J5, Canada Web: http://www.intertel.net ------------------------------ From: Robert Wolf Subject: Re: Wireless Solutions for Roaming a Facility Date: 8 Dec 1995 17:02:29 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. azur@netcom.com (Steve Schear) wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 95 08:13:00 PST, Robohn Scott wrote: >> We're looking for a solution to the following situation: tech support >> staff roam about an office and need easy access to their incoming >> phone calls. They can forward their calls, but this gets bothersome >> and tedious after you have to reset forwarding the second, third, >> fourth time that hour. Cellular reception is very poor in some areas >> of the building, so that doesn't look like an option. >> One option could be a 900 MHz cordless phone with multiple base >> stations and a single handset; does anyone sell these? Web pages for >> Panasonic and Sony are no help on this option, but I'll try some >> others. I've also heard about special internal wiring in situations >> like this, but this sounds like a pretty expensive solution. >> Any ideas on specific products and/or services? We'll entertain all >> options. The basic requirement is for a person within the office to >> have continuous access to a single incoming phone line as they roam >> about the office. A lightweight, small handset would be nice; a >> headset option would be even nicer. Approximate cost information >> would also be appreciated. > One solution is to install a 'private' cellular system in your > building. Many local carriers offer this option. This is, however, > not a cheap solution. > Or you might contact Uniden America. They have a line of 900 MHZ > Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum phones, both consumer and commerical > models which attach to PBX. A model with roaming capability has been > discussed. I don't know if they ever manufactured it. > Contact: > Tony Mirabelli > VP Marketing > Uniden America > 4700 Amon Carter Blvd. > Fort Worth, TX 76155 > 817-858-3553 Several companies make wireless adjuncts to in-place phone systems. The major phone system manufacturers, Northern Telecom, AT&T, Ericssonn all make wireless adjuncts that are compatible with their particularr systems. SpectraLink makes a generic wireless system that works with most in-place systems. All of them tend to be a bit pricey at this time. Robert Wolf member: Society of Telecommunication Consultantss Millennium Tele http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339 Fax 818-790-7309 Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: srdawson@interlog.com (Scott Robert Dawson) Subject: Re: What Has *NOT* Yet Changed With Areacodes Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 05:20:27 GMT Organization: InterLog Internet Services Mark Cuccia wrote: [snip] > Quebec originally had two areacodes assigned in 1947 -- 418 and 514. > About ten years later, 819 was added (around 1957). 514 (Montreal > area) is not indicated in Bellcore's lists as projected to exhaust, > but since 514 serves a major metro area, it could need another > areacode over the next five years (IMHO). [snip] Quebec may not need a new NPA as quickly as might be thought ... the separatistes may not have won the referendum on 30 October, but it was _very_ close. Bouchard and the Parti Quebecois fully intend to try again. I have seen a number of reports in the Toronto papers (the Star, the Sun, and the Globe & Mail) about continued tension there. Apparently there is a continuing outflow of Anglophones (that is, English-speaking Quebeckers), mostly in the direction of Toronto. Some companies, too, are still leaving. The national railway (no longer state-owned), for instance, has announced plans to move its headquarters to Calgary. I would not be surprised if the metropolitan Montreal area actually loses population. As late as (I think) the 1960s, Montreal was larger than Toronto and has a greater proportion of large national company headquarters and population. After the 1976 election, in which the Parti Quebecois was elected for the first time, a lot of companies and Anglo people left. The headquarters of the Bank of Montreal is the tallest building in Toronto (ignoring the CN Tower). They've been trickling out ever since ... now The Greater Toronto Area is 4.5 million plus and the metropolitan Montreal area is almost certainly under 3.5 million. (Correct me if I'm wrong ...) Scott Robert Dawson Life is a learning ground... srdawson@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~srdawson/scothmpg.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What a shame that whole scene is up there. I can easily sympathize with both sides, and understand the positions of both sides. If as you point out, people are moving out of Montreal and Quebec, that is unfortunate also. On its own merits, regardless of where one might stand on the politics involved, the city of Montreal is a beautiful place, and Quebec is likewise very, very lovely. If they cannot resolve their differences, not only will the people of Quebec lose, but so will all of Canada; indeed North America as well. I've said before and will reiterate my own position again that this is an issue for the people of Quebec to resolve with their (existing) federal government. It is not some- thing for the people in the USA to stick their noses into or get involved in ... still, it hurts to think about it, even on this side of the border doesn't it ... Do have a nice weekend one and all ... we will meet here again on Monday I suppose. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #512 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Dec 13 16:37:51 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA04264; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:37:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:37:51 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512132137.QAA04264@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #513 TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:26:53 EST Volume 15 : Issue 513 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Country Codes History (Dave Leibold) Group Member Publishes International Telecom Primer (Rob Frieden) Shame Telstra Shame (Peter Charles Tonoli) Cellular Airtime Resellers (Michael B. Chernoff) Re: Frontier Offering Cellular Service (Charles Buckley) Programming Information Needed For NEC P-110/120 (TELECOM Digest Editor) New Area Code in San Francisco in 1997 (Linc Madison) Phone *XX Codes? (John Wilkerson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 21:46 EST From: dleibold@else.net (Dave Leibold) Subject: Country Codes History Country Codes History 10 December 1995 David Leibold (aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca) This is an attempt to trace the development of ITU's (formerly CCITT's) country codes assignments over the years. Information was gleaned from vintage ITU/CCITT "Books" (i.e. the Recommendations which are the international telecommunications standards), and whatever else was available. There will be numerous details to be filled in (dates of changes, introductions, circumstances etc). Additional or updated information to this end would be welcome. Document History... 10 December 1995 - inaugural edition Format... This file is ordered first by time (when country codes were established, changed, deleted, etc) then within each particular time by country code. The initial list of 1964 is shown; only the changes are listed therafter. ------- 1 9 6 0 ------- The 1960 CCITT Red Book listed a set of codes for Europe that was the precursor for the international telephone country codes. Whether this was ever available for subscriber use is unknown; this could have been intended for operator dialing (such as was the case initially within the North American Numbering Plan, prior to the introduction of automatic direct dialing). That list went as follows (* represents a code that remains in use in today's country code plan): 00 to 19 - special codes - special routings, semi-automatic services, direct routes between countries, situations where digits of a destination number are not analysed, etc. 20 - Poland 21 - Algeria (Fr.) [* today is 213] 22 - Belgium 23 - Austria 24 - (unassigned) 25 - Finland 26 - Arabia 27 - Cyprus 28 - Bulgaria 29 - Gibraltar 30 - Greece * 31 - Egypt (U.A. Rep.) 32 - (unassigned) 33 - France * 34 - Israel 35 - Hungary 36 - Turkey 37 - Lebanon 38 - Norway 39 - Italy * 40 - Libya 41 - Jordan 42 - Portugal 43 - Malta 44 - Great Britain * 45 - (unassigned) 46 - Sweden * 47 - Rumania 48 - Morocco 49 - Germany * [presumably West Germany at that time] 50 - Spain 51 - (unassigned) 52 - Ireland 53 - (unassigned) 54 - Syria (U.A. Rep.) 55 - Netherlands 56 - (unassigned) 57 - Czechoslovakia 58 - (unassigned) 59 - Albania 60 - Luxembourg 61 - Denmark 62 - Tunisia 63 - Yugoslavia 64 - Iceland 65 - (unassigned) 66 - Switzerland 67 - (unassigned) 68, 69 - USSR 70 to 79 - European Republics / USSR 80 to 89 - spare codes 90 to 99 - intercontinental traffic ------- 1 9 6 4 ------- The 1964 CCITT Blue Book listed the initial country codes list for international dialing, arranging the codes according to their world zones. These corresponded to the initial digit of the one- to three-digit country codes; Europe got two zones (3 & 4) due to a high number of countries requiring two-digit country codes. The initial listing was referred to as Recommendation E.29. That initial country code list was as follows (country codes not listed were spare at the time): World Zone 1 (North America - country code 1 - note some of the nations that were to be included, but were since assigned World Zone 5 country codes): Bahamas, Bermuda, British Honduras, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, French Antilles, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, USA, US Virgin Islands. World Zone 2 (Africa): 20 - United Arab Republic 21 - Maghreb (integrated numbering plan): Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia 220 - Gambia 221 - Senegal 222 - Mauritania 223 - Mali 224 - Guinea 225 - Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire) 226 - Upper Volta 227 - Niger 228 - Togolese Republic 229 - Dahomey 231 - Liberia 232 - Sierra Leone 233 - Ghana 234 - Nigeria 235 - Chad 236 - Central African Republic 237 - Cameroon 238 - Cape Verde Island 239 - St Thomas & Prince 241 - Gabon 242 - Congo (Brazzaville) 243 - Congo (Leopoldville) 244 - Angola 245 - Portuguese Guinea 249 - Sudan 250 - Rwanda 251 - Ethiopia 252 - Somalia 253 - French Somaliland 254 - Kenya 255 - Tanzania 256 - Uganda 257 - Burundi 258 - Mozambique 260 - Northern Rhodesia 261 - Malagasy Republic 262 - Reunion 263 - Southern Rhodesia 264 - Territory of SW Africa 265 - Malawi 266 - Basutoland 267 - Bechuanaland 268 - Swaziland 269 - Comores 27 - South Africa World Zone 3 & 4 (Europe): 30 - Greece 31 - Netherlands 32 - Belgium 33 - France 34 - Spain 350 - Gibraltar 351 - Portugal 352 - Luxembourg 353 - Ireland 354 - Iceland 356 - Malta 357 - Cyprus 36 - Turkey 37 - [Note: not assigned until 1966] 38 - Yugoslavia 39 - Italy 401 - Finland 402 - Hungary 403 - Bulgaria 404 - Romania 405 - Albania 41 - Switzerland 42 - Czechoslovakia 43 - Austria 44 - Great Britain 45 - Denmark 46 - Sweden 47 - Norway 48 - Poland 49 - Germany (West) World Zone 5 (South America): (50, 51, 52 - unassigned in 1964) 53 - Cuba 54 - Argentina 55 - Brazil 56 - Chile 57 - Colombia 58 - Venezuela 591 - Bolivia 592 - British Guiana 593 - Ecuador 594 - French Guiana 595 - Paraguay 596 - Peru 597 - Surinam (Netherlands) 598 - Uruguay Zone 6 (Oceania, Australia, etc): 60 - Malaysia 61 - Australia 62 - Indonesia 63 - Philippines 64 - New Zealand 65 - (unassigned in 1964) 66 - Thailand 672 - Portuguese Timor 675 - Papua New Guinea 676 - Tonga 677 - British Solomon Isles 678 - New Hebrides 679 - Fiji 682 - Guam 683 - Western Samoa 684 - American Samoa 685 - Cook Islands 687 - New Caledonia 688 - Niue 689 - French Polynesia 69 - (unassigned in 1964) World Zone 7 - USSR (only country code 7) World Zone 8 - Eastern Asia 80 - (unassigned in 1964) 81 - Japan 82 - Korea 83 - (unassigned in 1964) 84 - Vietnam 852 - Hong Kong 853 - Macao 855 - Cambodia 856 - Laos 86 - China 87 - (unassigned in 1964) 88 - (unassigned in 1964) 89 - (unassigned in 1964) World Zone 9 (Western Asia, Middle East): 90 - (unassigned in 1964) 91 - India 92 - Pakistan 93 - Afghanistan 94 - Ceylon 95 - Burma 961 - Lebanon 962 - Jordan 963 - Syria 964 - Iraq 965 - Kuwait 966 - Saudi Arabia 967 - Yemen 969 - Aden 972 - Israel 975 - Hadramut 977 - Nepal 98 - Iran ------- 1 9 6 8 ------- Changes in the 1968 CCITT White Book ... the list is now listed as Recommendation E.161 / Q.11. Changes listed in order of country code: 1 - Antigua (territory added) - Barbados (territory added) - British Virgin Islands (territory added) - Cayman Islands (territory added) - Dominica (territory added) - Grenada (territory added) - Montserrat (territory added) - St Kitts (territory added) - St Lucia (territory added) - St Pierre & Miquelon (territory added) - St Vincent (territory added) x Guatemala (CHANGED to country code 500) x Mexico (CHANGED to country code 52) x Netherlands Antilles (CHANGED to country code 599) 240 - Equitorial Guinea (NEW) 243 - Congo (Dem. Rep. of the) (Name change) 259 - Zanzibar (NEW) 260 - Zambia (Name Change) 263 - Rhodesia (Name Change) 266 - Lesotho (Name Change) 267 - Botswana (Name Change) 269 - Comoro Islands (Name Change) 355 - Albania (NEW - changed from 405) 358 - Finland (NEW - changed from 401) 359 - Bulgaria (NEW - changed from 403) 36 x Turkey (CHANGED to 90) 36 - Hungary (NEW - changed from 402) 37 - East Germany (added - announced in ITU Notification #980 of 10 March 1966) 40 - Romania (NEW - changed from 404) 500 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 1) 52 - Mexico (NEW - changed from 1) 599 - Netherlands Antilles (NEW - changed from 1) 65 - Singapore (NEW) 681 - Wallis and Futuna (NEW) 686 - Gilbert & Ellice Islands (NEW) 90 - Turkey (NEW - changed from 36) 968 - Sultanate of Muscat & Oman (NEW) 969 - Southern Yemen (Name Change) 971 - Trucial States (NEW) 973 - Bahrain (NEW) 974 - Qatar (NEW) 976 - Mongolia (NEW) [Notes: ITU Notifications 992, 995 and 998 of 1967 announced the new country codes 968 (Muscat & Oman), 971 (Trucial States), 974 (Qatar); ITU Notification #984 of 10 July 1966 announced 973 (Bahrain). No official reasons were found for the many country changes between 1964 and 1968 information.] ------- 1 9 7 2 ------- Changes in the 1972 Green Book for E.161/Q.11: World Zone 1: 1 x British Honduras (CHANGED to 501) x Costa Rica (CHANGED to 506) x El Salvador (CHANGED to 503) x Honduras (CHANGED to 504) x Nicaragua (CHANGED to 505) x Panama (CHANGED to 507) 21 x "Maghreb" integrated numbering plan divided into separate country code assignments that follows ... 210 - Morocco 211 - Morocco 212 - Morocco [only this country code used today for Morocco] 213 - Algeria [only this country code used today for Algeria] 214 - Algeria 215 - Algeria 216 - Tunisia [only this country code used today for Tunisia] 217 - Tunisia 218 - Libya [only this country code used today for Libya] 219 - Libya 243 - Zaire (Name Change) 253 - Afars Alssas (Fr. Terr) (Name Change) 500 x (CHANGED to 502) 501 - British Honduras (NEW - was in 1) 502 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 500) 503 - El Salvador (NEW - was in 1) 504 - Honduras (NEW - was in 1) 505 - Nicaragua (NEW - was in 1) 506 - Costa Rica (NEW - was in 1) 507 - Panama (NEW - was in 1) 51 - Peru (NEW - changed from 596) 596 x Peru (CHANGED to 51) 671 - Guam (NEW - changed from 682) 682 x Guam (CHANGED to 671) ------- 1 9 7 6 ------- In the 1976 Orange Book, these changes appear: 248 - Seychelles (NEW) 509 - Haiti (NEW) 590 - Guadeloupe (NEW) 596 - Martinique (NEW - originally assigned to Peru) 673 - Brunei (NEW) 674 - Nauru (NEW) 87x - (NEW - reserved for mobile/maritime assignments) 880 - Bangladesh (NEW) 978 - Dubai (UAE) (NEW) 979 - Abu Dhabi (UAE) (NEW) ------- 1 9 8 0 ------- The Yellow Boo in 1980 had this: 253 - Djibouti (Name Change) 672 x (Portugues Timor DELETED) 682 - Cook Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guam) 683 x Western Samoa (CHANGED to 685) 683 - Niue (NEW - changed from 688) 685 x Cook Islands (CHANGED to 682) 685 - Western Samoa (NEW - changed from 683) 688 x Niue (CHANGED to 683) 688 - Tuvalu (NEW) 960 - Maldives (NEW) 978 x (Dubai DELETED) 979 x (Abu Dhabi DELETED) [Notes: no reasons found for the shuffling of 6xx series country codes; no information on the deletions of 978 (Dubai) and 979 (Abu Dhabi) although these probably became part of 971 (UAE, originally listed as "Trucial States").] ------- 1 9 8 4 ------- The 1984 book made some further changes: 1 x St Pierre & Miquelon (CHANGED to 508) 246 - Diego Garcia (NEW) 298 - Faroe Islands (Denmark) (NEW) 299 - Greenland (Denmark) (NEW) 500 - Falkland Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guatemala) 508 - St Pierre and Miquelon (NEW - was in 1) 670 - Marianna Islands (NEW) 672 - Australian Territories (NEW - originally assigned to Portuguese Timor) 680 - Palau (NEW) 690 - Tokelau (NEW) 691 - Federated States of Micronesia (NEW) 692 - Marshall Islands (NEW) 850 - North Korea (NEW - South Korea retains 82) ------------------- A f t e r 1 9 8 4 ------------------- The following country codes were added, changed, had country names changes, or were otherwise noteworthy since 1984. Dates were included if they were available. The country codes are presently assigned under Recommendation E.164 (formerly E.163, in turn E.161/Q.11, in turn E.29). 226 - Burkina Faso (Name Change) 229 - Benin (Name Change) 230 - Mauritius (NEW - year of introduction unknown) 239 - Sao Tome & Principe (Name Change or use of domestic language form) 245 - Guinea-Bissau (Name Change) 247 - Ascension (NEW - year of introduction unknown) 259 - Zanzibar (although assigned in 1968, routing via Tanzania country code 255 had been in effect for many years, and may still be in effect) 261 - Madagascar (name change from Malagasy Rep.) 263 - Zimbabwe (name change from Rhodesia) 264 - Namibia (name change from Territory of SW Africa) 269 - Comoros & Mayotte (Mayotte added - year unknown) 290 - St Helena (NEW - year of introduction unknown) 291 - Eritrea (NEW - seceded from Ethiopia in 1993) 295 - San Marino (NEW then CHANGED - was assigned, but became 378) 296 - Trinidad/Tobago (apparently assigned then removed) 297 - Aruba (NEW - became autonomous of Netherlands Antilles as of 1 Jan 1986 - dates of country code assignment and implementation are unknown) 37 - East Germany (DELETED - with German reunification, numbers are under country code 49 now) 370 - Lithuania (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 371 - Latvia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 372 - Estonia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 373 - Moldova (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993) 374 - Armenia (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 1 May 1995; this was split from country code 7) 375 - Belarus (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 16 Apr 1995; this was split from country code 7) 376 - Andorra (Principality of) (NEW - in effect Dec. 1994; formerly reached via France (33)) 377 - Monaco (Principality of) (NEW - in effect late 1995; formerly reached via France (33)) 378 - San Marino (NEW - split from Italy 39; formerly assigned 295) 379 - Vatican City (NEW - implementation dates/details unknown; formerly reached via Italy (39)) 38 - Yugoslavia (DELETED - 1 Oct 1993, due to Yugoslav break-up) 380 - Ukraine (NEW - announced Jan. 1995; in effect 16 Apr 1995; this was split from country code 7) 381 - Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslav areas) (NEW - formed from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 385 - Croatia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 386 - Slovenia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 387 - Bosnia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 389 - Macedonia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993) 41 - Liechtenstein (probably always was part of Switzerland system (country code 41)) 42 - (Czech & Slovak Republics now separate - country code remains for now) 501 - Belize (Name Change - was British Honduras) 592 - Guyana (was (or officially still is?) British Guyana) 678 - Vanuatu (Name Change - was New Hebrides) 686 - Kiribati, Gilbert Is (Ellice moved to 688 - year unknown) 688 - Tuvalu, Ellice Is (Saipan?) (Ellice added - year unknown) 800 - International "freephone" services (NEW - as of 1995) 870 - Inmarsat "SNAC" service (NEW - 1995) 871 - Inmarsat Atlantic East (NEW - originally assigned to all of Atlantic) 872 - Inmarsat Pacific (NEW) 873 - Inmarsat Indian (NEW) 874 - Inmarsat Atlantic West (NEW - formed from split of 871 Atlantic) 878 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW) 879 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW) 886 - Taiwan (Mainland China has reserved +86-6 for access to Taiwan) 94 - Sri Lanka (Name Change - was Ceylon) 95 - (Current regime refers to itself as Myanmar; some nations only recognise it as Burma.) 967 - Yemen Arab Republic (Name Change?) 968 - Oman (Name Change? Short form for Muscat & Oman?) 969 - Yemen Democratic Republic (DELETED? Wity Yemen unification, 967 would be the single country code; this territory was formerly called Aden) 971 - United Arab Emirates (Name Change - was Trucial States) 975 - Bhutan (Name Change - was Hadramut) 994 - Azerbaijan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7)) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 10:08:51 -0500 From: rmf5@psu.edu (Rob Frieden) Subject: Group Member Publishes International Telecom Primer I have written a comprehensive primer on many facets of international telecommunications that may interest participants in this group. I attempt to provide a desk reference tool for students, practitioners, business executives and academics. The topics include: explaining the "rule of the road" in international telecommunications; current and developing models, e.g., PTTs and privatized shareholder-owned enterprises; technologies used; the ITU; standard setting; submarine cables; IVANs; accounting rates; trade policy; development; satellites (including Intelsat; separate systems and Low Earth Orbiting space stations); deregulation; liberalization; privatization; spectrum management; case studies and developing trends. For further information please refer to my publisher's Web Site: http://www. artech-house.com/artech.html or contact me at rmf5@psuvm.psu.edu. Thanks, Rob Frieden Consultant and Assoc. Professor, College of Communications, Penn State University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 19:13:37 +1100 (GMT+1100) From: Peter Charles Tonoli <071836@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> Subject: Shame Telstra Shame Originally from: lucy.swin.edu.au Shame Telstra Shame... BBS Operators all over Australia will be receiving a letter like the one below. This affects people who run any sort of Online service that make use of telephones. Voice your concern now. I have set up an email address which can be used to send email letters of complaint. These will be forwarded to Telstra and to the Federal Government. I am also in the process of setting up a WWW page. NOW IS THE TIME TO FIGHT THIS! Send letters of protest to: shame@grumpy.apana.org.au Today I received this letter: Dear Customer, Telstra is committed to providing a full rage of phone services at prices that are fair and equitable to all Australians. At present your Bulletin Board Service lines are being charged at our Non Business rate of $139.80 per line per year. However, as part of a review of Section 4.2.2 of the Basic Carriage Service tariff filed on July 1, 1995, our Business rate of $274.80 per line was confirmed as appropriate for all Bulletin Board Services and information providers. Telstra is obligated under Section 197 of the Telecommunications Act to charge all customers strictly in accordance with its filed tariff. Therefore, we must now adjust your phone service charges to reflect this change which will result in an increase of $11.25 per line per month. Please note that there is no change to your call charges. This adjustment will take effect on 1 February, 1996. Being classified as a Business customer has some real advantages for Bulletin Board Services such as yours. For example, from the time your Bulletin Board is classified as a Business Customer for Telstra billing pursposes: * You will have access to Telstra special commercial maintenance team, which guarantees a fast response whenever you report a service fault to our business fault reporting service on 13 2999 * You will automatically receive a free Yellow Pages Directory listing * You can also make use of our special Business Customer Service by calling FREECALL 1800 068 133 between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday should you require information about Telstra business services, or wish to arrange connection of any additional Telstra services. Bearing in mind the technical requirements of operating a Bulletin Board Service, your organziation may well benefit from some of the many service enhancements we can offer such as Line Hunt which will direct calls to your next available line or distribute calls equally across every line in your group or even super fast ISDN services. If you have any questions or require further details about your telephone charges, just call one of our Business Customer Support Representatives on FREECALL 1800 068 133 and quote extension number 4392, Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm (EST). Call before 12 January 1996 and we'll answer any queries you have in time for the preparation of you Frebruary 1996 account statement. We Look forward to continuing to be of service to your organization. Yours faithfully Simone Semmens Director Community Relations Peter Tonoli anarchie@edna.cc.swin.edu.au t3jk022@seinfeld.cc.swin.edu.au ------------------------------ From: mchernof@gmu.edu (Michael B. Chernoff) Subject: Cellular Airtime Resellers Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:36:43 GMT Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA I am currently looking for a cellular airtime plan which doesn't charge me a subsidy for a "free" phone since I already have a phone. I've seen ads in the paper for monthly rates as low as $10.00/month (if you don't need a phone) and reduced airtime charges, but these are offered by "no-name" cellular re-sellers. My question is, what are the risks in using a cellular airtime re-seller? Also, I am looking for suggestions for airtime providers in the Washington/Baltimore cellular calling area. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Michael [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would say check out Frontier Mobile Line, aka Allnet, aka Call Home America, aka Frontier Communications. That is who I signed up with just recently (about a week ago in fact, and so far they are *very good* at least here in the Chicago area. Their customer service people seem a little confused, but the service itself is good. I made some errors in my original report on them last week and will correct those in the mext message here today. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 02:41:45 -0800 From: Charles Buckley Organization: Mauto Subject: Re: Frontier Offering Cellular Service ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) wrote: > Frontier Communications is now offering cellular service around the USA > in an interesting arrangement or service package. > They charge a ten dollar per month service fee, and rates of 35 cents > per minute during peak times and 18 cents per minute off-peak/weekends. > They bill you on your existing account with them each month and > offer discounts of four to ten percent monthly based on volume of > usage. For example, from $50 to $125 per month in usage gets a four > percent discount. $125 to $250 per month gets a six percent discount. > The 35/18 pricing is not the best, and for the ten dollars per month > service charge I am sure they can afford to give you 'features' for > free. I am told however they charge 'double air' when using the > three-way/call waiting features, and that they charge airtime on > call forwarding even when the switch forwards the call to a landline > number without even hitting the air. Gee, from the Bay Area point of view, these prices seem pretty competititive. Do you know of better deals? I have an acquaintance who still just signed up for one of those .90/min peak rate accounts, at a higher monthly rate, but she did get a $50 two-year-old analog Motorola flip clunker in the bargain. I wonder how Frontier get access to infrastructure, and why it would be in the local A or B carriers interest to let them undercut in price. Might this be some sort of come-on to encourage people to join their landline services? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is the story, as best as I have been able to sort it out. **I was in error on some of my statements last week.** They not only 'encourage' you to use their landline services, I think you *must* use them on at least one line for long distance, etc. I have an 800 number via Call Home America (four dollars per month or so, rarely used). When I called to sign up for the cellular service, their first question was 'what is your account number with us now?' Having an 800 number from them got me past that hurdle. They get their infrastructure from all the other carriers, based on whatever part of the country it is. Apparently they cut whatever deals they can with the A or B carrier and go from there. Here in this area they use Ameritech, the B carrier. *They never admit to that unless you ask them*. They keep it pretty well disguised as their own product, and I guess actually it is their own product. Very rarely in the course of using the service will you ever hear any reference to Ameritech except in occassional recorded intercept messages, etc. For example, they gave me my number a couple days before it was actually turned on. When I dialed it, I got a 'number not in service' message tagged at the end by Ameritech. But you know me: I try all the odd and bizarre things I can think of; when the phone was turned on, I tried 'star 611' figuring I would get Ameritech customer service. But nope, a recording came on saying I had reached 'Frontier customer service, please hold for a repre- sentative ...' etc. It is well enough disguised that I doubt the average user would know he was on Ameritech (or whatever carrier they are reselling for in your part of the country.) Things allowed and not allowed: 900/976 is not allowed. 1-500 is not allowed, but 0-500 is allowed. 1 plus long distance goes to Allnet/Frontier, but zero plus on my phone goes to AT&T. 10xxx is not allowed. 800 is allowed. 011 and 01 international are allowed, the latter via AT&T. 0-700 is given a fast re-order. 1-700 (or just 700) has some kind of bug at the present time; no matter what 700 or 1-700 number dialed, you ALWAYS get the voicemail box of a Mr. John Failex (Phallex? Felix?) 'Star 711' which is frequently used to obtain roaming information goes to an intercept telling me that the number I dialed, 708-something is not in service at this time. So they were clever about intercepting *611 from their customers, but have apparently overlooked *711 even thought their user instruction book does refer to it as the way to get roaming information. They may or may not offer voicemail. I did not ask because I have enough of it already. I suppose since John has voicemail on any and all 700 numbers, they apparently do offer it. Most important, I made a SERIOUS mistake in quoting their rates and for that I apologize. It *is* 35/18 per minute as mentioned, however they do NOT charge 'double air' on call-waiting or three-way calling. They do NOT charge airtime on calls forwarded which go to a landline phone without hitting the air at all. On calls forwarded which do not go over the air, they apply something called the 'telco pass-thru charge', meaning apparently whatever local rates the serving telco gets for call forwarding stuff. They get a ten dollar per month service charge in this market (I have found out from others that their rates vary around the country) and for the ten dollars, Frontier gives for free: Call waiting (hear beep, press send, press it again, etc); Three way calling (enter the digits, press send, etc); Immediate call forwarding (*72 plus number to activate and *73 to cancel); Transfer on busy/no answer (*68 plus number to activate and *73 to cancel); Frontier Roaming Service aka 'Follow Me' aka Ameritech 'Fast Track' (*18 while in other than home market to turn on, and *19 to turn off in other than home market, or *73 at home); Standard roaming service using the roaming phone numbers; Detailed monthly billing reports. Where roaming in general is concerned, they were very vague about what charges would apply, and how the billing was done as you might expect, and their booklet had a disclaimer saying that Frontier could not be responsible for 'charges or conditions of service imposed by carriers' in whose territory you roamed. The example copy of the monthly bill they sent along seemed very detailed and concise, showing times of day, numbers called, etc. Best of all for some people, no contracts, no minimum service periods, and a way to avoid the tyranny some claim is unavoidable using the 'established' carriers. No credit checks since it is all billed to your credit card a couple weeks after you get the bill. I'd say it is probably worth giving them one of your lines for default long distance purposes in order to qualify as a customer for their cellular service. If you already have an account with Frontier/Allnet/Call Home America to get a cellular number assigned to you call them at 800-783-2020, which is their 'cellular department'. They assign a number, take the ESN information, etc. If you need help programming, they send you to some local technician at no charge. If you want an 800 number call 800-594-5900, or otherwise call Allnet and set something up with them, *then* get back to the cellular side afterward. Beleive me, they won't talk to you unless you can give them an existing account number or a phone number they recognize. You asked why would the existing carriers let a reseller undercut them on prices, etc. I suppose because the risk is so little to the carrier. He no longer has to worry about fraud, he no longer cares about trying to collect the bills each month, and he no longer has to listen to cranky, complaining customers who know too much for their own good. All he has to do is maintain the system. Regardless of who the carrier is or how much they charge, don't you think that if you had a market of million or more ready-made customers and you went to the cell carrier saying, "I have quite a few people here who want to sign up for cellular service, but they will be working through my office instead of yours, and here are the terms I am willing to offer you if will accomodate these folks ..." if you went to a cell carrier with that easily verifiable and bonafide message, don't you think the carrier would immediatly drop to their knees and begin worshipping? About 25 years ago, when the Diner's Club credit card service was so poorly mismanaged, hit with fraud and millions of dollars in uncollectibles from deadbeat customers that they were literally on the verge -- days, maybe a month away from filing bankruptcy -- they were approached by Amoco Oil Company who asked them 'how would you like ummm .. about thirteen million pre-qualified card holders of ours ... the Amoco list at that point had about twenty million credit card holders, but a good portion of those were deadbeats also, or not the best when it came to paying on time. Amoco skimmed the cream, the best of theirs and dangled it right in front of Mr. Bloomingdale at Diners and told him 'sooey! sooey! come and get it!" The resulting deal was a new program for Amoco card holders called 'Torch Club' which had full Diner's Club privileges and acceptance. Diners got a nice piece of the action, and Amoco made out nicely also. I think we may see more cellular resellers come along with ideas on how to market it better, and as the existing traditional carriers get more and more tangled up in their own messes, they'll gladly let the resellers put their heads on the chopping block for awhile instead. Just my opinion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Programming Information Needed on NEC P-110/120 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:13:00 CST Well, you guessed it! The NEC-120 is the phone I bought to go with cellular service from Frontier. I called their tech support line in Texas asking for advice and they said take it to a dealer here. I already have it programmed; it came all set to use when Federal Express delivered it last week. But I may need to -- you know -- reprogram it at some time in the future. NEC apparently does not like people doing that. They'd rather have you pay for it. On the other hand, I do not like paying for things if I can avoid it. All help available on this phone will be appreciated. Thanks. PAT ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: New Area Code in San Francisco in 1997 Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:49:11 GMT I was watching CNN Headline News this evening, and, during the segment where they have a local station produce the local news blurb, they mentioned that Pacific Bell has announced that 415 will either split or overlay (not yet decided, nor has the new area code been decided) some time in 1997. That's all I've heard so far, and this is the first I've heard of it, but I certainly will be watching. As for a geographic split, it would almost have to be a three-way split, with Marin County, San Francisco, and San Mateo County (plus the little bits of Santa Clara County that are 415) going into separate area codes. Marin County doesn't have nearly the population to warrant having its own area code, but it would be insane to move Marin and San Mateo both into the same new area code. I suppose Marin could be left in 415 with San Francisco, but that would advance the date of the next split. There's actually enough capacity in 707 to accommodate Marin County, but there is a problem with a number of duplicated exchanges (mostly in San Rafael on the 415 side), so they'd have to take the highly unpopular step of moving several thousand subscribers to new local numbers if they wanted to move Marin into 707. The other obvious question is, what's up with 510? At the time of the 415/510 split, it was an almost perfect 50/50 split, and there's certainly been plenty of growth in the East Bay. A geographic split there would be much more difficult, without the obvious clean lines. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ From: jwilkers@freenet.columbus.oh.us (John Wilkerson) Subject: Phone *XX Codes? Date: 13 Dec 1995 10:30:11 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet I am in search of a list of all of the *XX codes, such as *67, *57, *69 and the like. Does anyone have a complete list, so I can see if they work in my area? Thanks... John L. Wilkerson Jr... jwilkers@freenet.columbus.oh.us johnw@right.net 71140,77@compuserve.com http://www.right.net/~johnw ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #513 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 14 11:39:07 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA29957; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:39:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:39:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512141639.LAA29957@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #514 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 95 11:39:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 514 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (Robert Casey) Inet Addresses in the Phone Book (Frank Atkinson) Wide-Screen Television (Toyo Kondo) Americas Telecom 96 - Call for Speakers (Fernando Lagrana) Cellular CID - It's Here! (Kevin Autrey) Wire Management (Ian Macdonald) GTE Rate Restructuring for Washington State (Ry Jones) BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! (Eric Friedebach) No LD --> No LD ?? (Glenn Foote) Beta Tester Wanted For GSM SMS (Kent Skagvik) KSU Needed (Jim Youll) Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics (Dave Leibold) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:59:11 GMT Saw on the news last night (Dec 12) that New York state's Suffolk County (at the end of Long Island) wants the 911 emergency number to be off loaded with non-emergency police business (paperwork reports, barking dog reports, noisy parties, and other non-life threating problems) and to establish 811 for that non emergency stuff. Leaving 911 free and open for the important emergencies. People are getting recordings on hold on 911 now there. One of the county politicians got put on hold on 911 personally, and so thought up the non-emergency police number idea. 811 isn't being used for something else now, is it? ------------------------------ From: fratkins@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Frank Atkinson) Subject: Inet Addresses in the Phone Book Date: 13 Dec 1995 11:22:16 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Ameritech in Columbus has announced that their next business yellow pages will include Internet addresses. A company spokesperson said that addresses would be handled as a second line in the yellow pages listing. The release says that by 1997 or 98 they expect the white pages to also include email addresses. 'Spose they know the difference between an email address and a url. I would rather have my home page rather than a street address, if I was to chose. I'm sure some single women would also rather not have street addresses listed. Will caller id return a URL so you can pull up their home page as you speak to them. Frank Atkinson fratkins@freenet.columbus.oh.us frank@han1.hannah.com http://han1.hannah.com/frank/frank.html ------------------------------ From: tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) Subject: Wide-Screen Television Date: 13 Dec 1995 15:50:13 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: tkondo2937@aol.com (TKondo2937) It seems that wide-screen television -- I think it has 9 to 16 aspect ratio, which is the same as HDTV -- is popular in Japan. My question is how the wide-screen program production, transmission, and display are coordinated. It is true in the United States that many feature films are made with 3-4 aspect ratio television audience in mind by positioning actors at the center of the screen, or they modify the original films to fit them into smaller display unites unless those films are shown as cinema scope with both the top and bottom of the TV screen blacken out. When you are showing conventional television programming in 3-4 aspect ratio television, the situation is opposite. You have to blacken out the both right and left edge of the television screen to display the conventional television programming, or use a production method that is compatible with the display units from the beginning. However, modifying all the production method is an expensive process. I wonder how they actually work. Is there anyone familiar with these issues? Thanks, Toyo ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:39:00 CET From: fernando.lagrana@itu.ch (Fernando Lagrana) Subject: Americas Telecom 96 - Call for Speakers AMERICAS TELECOM 96 FORUM Rio de Janeiro, 10-15 June 1996 CALL FOR SPEAKERS After the tremendous success of TELECOM 95 (over 150,000 visitors, 850 speakers, 6000 delegates to the Forum), the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is organizing its next event: Americas TELECOM 96, to be held in Rio de Janeiro from 10 to 15 June 1996. As usual, this event will encompass an exhibition and a set of confer- ences (the FORUM). The FORUM at Americas TELECOM 96 will comprise two Summits to address vital issues on the future of telecommunications in the region. The Strategies Summit will give the floor to highlevel speakers on policy and regulatory issues, regional alliances, finance and trade, risk assessment, political challenges and other strategic considerations. The Technology Summit will consider the technical means by which the Americas region can achieve its leap forward, including the latest advances in hardware, software and networking concepts, taking particular account of regional needs. The two Summits will run in parallel throughout the whole week. The Forum Advisory Committee has begun identifying topics and we are now making a call for speakers (based on tentative proposals -- subject to change). If you wish to be considered as a speaker at either of the two Summits -- which will both include Workshop Sessions please forward a synopsis (not more than 300 words) on one of the following topics, before 15 January 1996, indicating the Summit for which your paper is intended and including a professional biography. STRATEGIES SUMMIT * American geopolitical challenges * Between fragility and growth - international financing entities - trade opportunities and perspectives - foreign direct investments and ownership - private initiatives, investment prerequisites * Assessing risks, maximizing growth potential * New market paradigms - entertainment & broadcasting - mobile trends - cultural diversity * Regional alliances, market globalisation * From Regulator to Trend-Setter - challenging the "traditional" regulators - privatising for growth - fair competition * Regional standards, international integration * Political challenges - telecommunications and the environment - research & development - accounting rates * Narrowing the knowledge gap * Managing by example: American success stories * From development to growth - the new trade environment - regional cooperation - Americas, a broad perspective: a solutions review * The Information Age - electronic democracy - cybertrade - educational perspectives * The Information Highway: the missing link or a new frontier? * Upsizing for growth - human resources development - new trends - wireless is fine - investing in inflationary economies * Interacting towards the global information society TECHNOLOGY SUMMIT * Wireless telecommunications * Universal Personal Telecommunications (UPT) * Broadband telecommunications * Transport Network Evolution * Multimedia Applications * American Realities * Information Highway Technologies * TV in progress WORKSHOPS * Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) * Mobile Standards * The World Wide Web * Human resources and tele-education * Telemedicine * Maintenance * Emergency telecommunications NOTE TO THE APPLICANTS: Sales/product promotion papers will not be accepted. Material must be original and previously unpublished. For further information on the FORUM, please contact Elizabeth A. Lake at the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva, on tel: +41 22 730 5680, fax: +41 22 730 6444 or e-mail: forumcfp@itu.ch or consult our WWW home page at http://www3.itu.ch/TELECOM. I wish you a busy and studious Christmas! Fernando Lagrana FORUM Coordinator, ITU/TELECOM ------------------------------ From: exukev@exu.ericsson.se (Kevin Autrey) Subject: Cellular CID - It's Here! Date: 14 Dec 1995 13:30:58 GMT Organization: Ericsson North America Inc. AT&T Wireless (formerly known as Metrocel) -- a cellular carrier in the Dallas/Fort-Worth area has begun delivering Caller-ID data on calls from a cellular phone to a non-cellular number. It's kind of got some kinks that they are working out at this point (see below), but it does indeed deliver my cellular number to my CID box at home when I call home from my mobile phone. For now, all cellular numbers in the system are apparently set to a default value of "Per-Line Blocking ON". When I call home -- just dialing my seven-digit number, and where I have "Anonymous Call Rejection" turned ON, I got the reject message that the phone company plays to anonymous callers. In order to turn off Per-Line Blocking for a given call, you dial *82, then the number you are dialing, and then . Just like you would on a regular land-line (well, except for that button). Hopefully, there will be a way for a user to toggle the Per-Line Blocking setting in the future. The recorded message at AT&T Wireless indicates that the *82 is just a "temporary measure" to get around the Anonymous Call Rejection message. But the message also indicated that the eventual goal of their work is to deliver CID data on Cellular calls as a default. I know that AT&T Wireless switched out their entire system last year - pulling out their old switches and putting in brand new Ericsson switches. I honestly don't know if other cellular switch manufacturers have the capability to deliver CID data. Let me see - MCI can get it right. AT&T can get it right. Cellular providers are working towards delivering CID - but Sprint can't... Hmm. Kevin Autrey | exukev@exu.ericsson.se | +1 214 997-6865 Ericsson Inc. (USA), Richardson, TX Radio Systems - Research & Development EUS/RD/KD Design Services - Design and Verification Tools ------------------------------ From: polygon@portal.ca (IAN MACDONALD) Subject: Wire Management Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 05:39:23 GMT Organization: Online at Wimsey VELCRO HARNESSES PUTS THE REIGNS ON DATA CABLE NIGHTMARE VANCOUVER, October 25, 1995 - Microsoft's head office is stuck on it, so are Northern Telecom and Georgia Tech, numerous phone companies and other businesses across North America. Polygon Wire Management Systems of Port Coquitlam, B.C., manufactures a line of Velcro wire management products for organizing and securing the disarray of cables on telecommunication racks, work stations, computer networks and cabling systems. A major problem setting up telecommunication and computer networks is the tendency for wires, most notably category five and fiber optic cables, to bend beyond their specified bend radius. This bending through tray sections and to relay racks and storage cabinets can cause serious kinks, thus changing the shape of the cable core. This results in deformed designed symmetry and distorted or canceled data transmission. Cables can also be pulled from their connectors due to excessive strain causing permanent and costly damage. Polygon's Velcro systems are designed for instant installation using self-adhesive or screw mounts. Unlike nylon tie wraps and rigid systems, these proven secure systems are sensitive enough to avoid crushing category five wire or glass fibers. Company President Ian MacDonald explains that, "In the 90's there has been a tremendous rush to set up computer and telecommunications networks. With that rush it appears cable management was often neglected. That is now being addressed. After assessing the market, we designed and now supply products to organize existing and new locations. Network engineers now specify our line into planned networks." Polygon offers a number of devices that are adaptable to most network setups worldwide. Polygon also encourages customized solutions for more challenging situations. Their products are available through Anixter, a major international data product distributor. For further information contact: Ian MacDonald, President , Polygon Wire Management Systems 407-1952 KINGSWAY AVE., PORT COQUITLAM, B.C. CANADA V3C 6C2 Phone: (604)941-9961 Fax: (604)941-1721 email polygon@portal.ca Internet Home page http://www.portal.ca/~polygon ------------------------------ From: rjones@coho.halcyon.com (Ry Jones) Subject: GTE Rate Restructuring for Washington State Date: 14 Dec 1995 06:47:39 GMT Organization: Northwest Nexus, Inc. - Professional Internet Services My bill from GTE today had an insert that reads: "IMPORTANT NOTICE Recently, GTE has filed a proposal with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) to consolidate existing Washington tariffs with those of the former Contel telephone company. Contel became a part of GTE in 1993. The company has filed tariffs with the WUTC that, if approved, decrease some rates while increasing others. Some charges have been eliminated and some services restructured. This new tariff is designed to eliminate certain inequities that have existed since GTE merged with Contel and to simplify the terms, conditions, and services to all customers." Later, a table breaks out two charges as an example: GTE Contel Proposed Busy Line Interrupt: $0.40 $2.10 $2.10 Busy Line Verify: $0.20 $1.37 $1.35 Returned check fee goes from $7.50 GTE to $15.00 Contel. Call waiting goes from $2.81 to $3.25 (res) and $3.31 to $4.00 business. ISDN is renamed Digital Single Line Service and is restructured. It in amazing to me that the only tariff that went down was the Busy Line Verify, which went down two cents. However, since the DSLS and the new CentraNet/ISDN-BRI services aren't broken out into price ranges, I can't say what happened with those prices. From the looks of the insert, GTE is taking an opportunity to rake in some more dough. Which is fine, they're a business, they're allowed to make money. Since I don't use BLV or BLI, it doesn't seem to really affect me, but I fear that If I don't speak up, I'll end up like this fellow: "First they came for the hackers. But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the pornographers. But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the anonymous remailers. But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the encryption users. But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me. And by that time there was no one left to speak up." - anon And then my rates will go up, and I'll have no moral ground to stand on. So I don't know where I stand. A $15.00 fee is in line with what other businesses charge for a bounced check, so I just don't know. The address to comment is: Secretary WUTC PO Box 47250 Olympia WA 98504 1-800-662-2967 Ry http://www.wicker.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All I can say is whoever took that quote from Martin Neimoller and *perverted* it to apply to Internet had a lot of nerve. First of all, I disagree with the idea that because 'they' come for one person or group of people 'they' will soon return for another person or group of people. The one does not absolutely follow the other at all. Second, Neimoller made it clear *which groups* he was speaking about. People quote him now as though it was an all-purpose catch-all thing, and that is *not* what he was saying. I am too young to remember him in person but people older than myself who did see him (for instance, an elderly aquaintence who passed away a few years ago heard him in person twice at the Chicago Sunday Evening Club in the late 1930/early 1940's) were always annoyed that modern day usage of his quote only includes less than half of the whole thing. To compare the present day gov- ernment of the USA -- as bad as it is in some respects -- to the Nazi movement in 1930/40 Germany, and users of the Internet today to the Jewish victims of Hitler is absolutely ludicrous. To further compare them to people who are likely to see some increases in their phone bill as a result of tariff realignments is obscene. Where are the GTE gas chambers located? Where are their concentration camps? You begin by saying you did not speak up when 'they' first came for people who had committed crimes with computers (what crimes had the Jews committed?) and then reach the conclusion that when your rates go up you won't have any moral ground to stand on. Huh??? PAT] ------------------------------ From: aerostar@ccia.com Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 21:57:25 -0800 Subject: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! I was making a flight connection at the Charlotte Douglas Intl. Airport in Charlotte, NC today when I noticed that about one in five of the BellSouth payphones in the terminal have a special coin box installed in them with a full color Olympic logo with the words *Official Sponsor of the 1996 U.S. Olympic Team*. Very colorful and unique! I don't think an Olympic Sponsor is allowed to display such promotional tie-ins after the games are over, unless they are a long term sponsor (and I doubt BellSouth is). So the question is; what's going to happen to all those special coin boxes after the 1996 Games? Maybe some BellSouth employees will have a neat little bookend on their shelves in 1997 ... Eric Friedebach aerostar@ccia.com ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: No LD --> No LD ?? Date: 14 Dec 1995 02:45:12 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet A friend of mine has two kids in different cities. Right now they are both out of work, and have gotten a little behind on their bills, including that important one, the telephone. He had both of their long distance accesses turned off, until things get better. (Daddy has deep pockets, but he does believe in being ... well cheap.) He asked me, and I didn't know ... can the kids call each other by reversing the charges? Can anyone with the long distance access turned off recieve collect calls? Just how extensive is that data base anyway? Just a small question to pass the time ... Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, they can call each other collect. What 'Daddy' needs to do is have Billed Number Screening added to all phone lines, then when attempting to call to the number collect, the call will be bounced back to the caller with a response that, 'collect calls are not accepted. Please choose some other billing method to pay for the call.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: Kent Skagvik Subject: Beta Tester Wanted For GSM SMS Date: 14 Dec 1995 13:36:51 GMT Beta tester Wanted for GSM/SMS Meum is a Swedish company specialised in Mobile computing and communication. One of our products, an application called ShortCut sends SMS (Short Message Service) to GSM phones. A SMS is a small text message (160 character) which could be sent from a PC running MS Windows. ShortCut has been a hit in Sweden and we are now delivering 100 - 200 samples per day. Shortcut is a UseWare. It means that the customer pays when he is using it, not when he is buying it. We are now releasing an UK version and an US version of ShortCut. We know that the US market is not GSM based but we belive that there is an interest to be able to send SMS to GSM phones all around the world. ShortCut handles today 27 different GSM operators from Australia, South Africa to the European countries. The great advantage of the product is that a message will be sent to the GSM phone even if the recepient is using his phone or he has forward his calls to the company Switchboard. We are now looking for beta testers both in the UK and US. If there is anyone that want to test the product, please send us email. Since we also have products like Email/SMS gateway we also want to come in contact with companies both in UK and US which can help us marketing our other products. Email address: meum@algonet.se ------------------------------ From: jyoull@cs.bgsu.edu (Jim Youll) Subject: KSU Needed Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:17:06 -0500 Organization: Bowling Green State University I have a Panasonic KSU and I like it a lot. One of my clients needs a KSU for his new office and I'm suggesting a Panasonic ... So: I'm looking for people who sell them, either new or USED (at a good price). He needs ~6 CO lines, ~12-16 inside extensions, nothing larger than that and 1-4 feature phones depending on price. I've heard that the newest digital Panasonic units have problems with 28.8K modems so I'd appreciate any comments about that. Also, if you carry something that's not a Panasonic but which will do the trick (primarily, allowing POTS devices and feature phones in any combination, and which is easily programmable) then let me know about it. New or used ... Purchase will be made within four weeks. Please email at this address for more information or if you carry this stuff. Thanks, Jim Youll jyoull@wcnet.org jim@answerfactory.com ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 13 Dec 95 19:17:34 -0500 Subject: Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics Here's the latest summary of some of the daily funnies dealings with the phone system over the past several months, as listed in comic name and date order. - - - Adam 15 Oct 95: Clayton invites a classmate over to check out some "cool toys". His classmate proceeds to check with his parents right away by pulling out a cell phone ... Clayton then wonders who should be going to who's place. Animal Crackers 10 Dec 95: Lyle phones Lana ... but goes on indefinite hold: "I have 'call waiting' without paying for it". Beetle Bailey 16 Nov 95: Sergeant yells expletive-ridden shot through the phone ... the other party shoots back with an even more-expletive-filled response. Sergeant hangs up: "Gee, no matter how bad I get I keep falling behind". Bound & Gagged (appeared Toronto Star 26 Nov 95 - probably had actual earlier date): One Prisoner is #161125 ... the other is #60180 ... Fax #40112. Broom Hilda 1 Oct 95: Broom Hilda keeps answering a wrong number callers. After enough calls, BH gets ready to administer the air-horn treatment, only to be pre-empted when the "wrong number caller" uses the same strategy first, saying, "Electronic mail will never replace the true joy of good old-fashioned personal communication." Dave (July 95 ... actual date uncertain): Attempts to enter an e-mail for golf@chat.com are hindered by typos ... first goof@chat.com, then golf@chet.com ... wife wonders why "mandatory typing skills" aren't mentioned in the infobahn-mania. Family Circus 26 Nov 95: The kids make a tin can and string phone ... actually, a three-way "conference call" network. Friends (apparently just a local Toronto Star comic): Of all the pages in a phone book, "why is it always the page that I need?" that gets tore out. The Fusco Brothers (date in 1995 uncertain): Rolf's idea of "a non-dedicated telephone line" is something one says, rather than what one plugs into the telco lines. Hi & Lois 28 Jul 95: Chip chats extensively with a girl on-line ... even though she's in a different end of the nation, they can still get into trouble ... to the tune of a $300 phone bill. (Must be long distance to reach an access port unless telcos are doing more 'net services that we thought ...) Hi & Lois 9 Sep 95: Plumbing repair is needed, but messages via answering services, machines, faxes, pages, etc. are to no avail ... Lois: "I'm reaching out, but I'm not touching anyone." Hi & Lois 16 Sep 95: Hi visits as Thirsty goes on-line ... Thirsty has met some on-line folks ... "Littlebit" who was over 400 pounds, a bald netter named "Hairguy", a 4'10" tall "Skyscraper"... Thirsty himself goes as "Mel Gibson". Marmaduke 23 Sep 95: Marmaduke gets beeped instead of yelled for dinner. Non Sequitur 25 Sep 95: As an incentive to get the older guys on-line, a company realises savings in training by using cyberporn. On The Fastrack 29 Jun 95: Bud gets a fax coming in through his mobile phone ... his car explodes with paper ... back at the office, Art's "in" basket seems to be relieved of its enormous stack. On the Fastrack 9 Oct 95: Bud: "I knew this would happen once they started regulating the net" (that is, install customs procedures into cyberspace). On the Fastrack 6 Nov 95: 20 years earlier, Wendy is seen redialing through to a radio contest line ... that experience comes in handy today as she faces that "all operators are busy, please dial again later" syndrome. Sherman's Lagoon 14 Oct 95: Hawthorne gets Sherman's answering machine, says some not so nice things for his message ... Sherman's Lagoon 26 Oct 95: Sherman is kidnapped to Oceanworld ... but manages to send an e-mail home. (This comic has the website http://www.slagoon.com) Shoe 5 May 95: Wizard seeks a way to make money fast on the 'Net, so he buys a book ... for $35.95 ... Shoe to Wiz: "There's your answer." Shoe 23 Jul 95: Cosmo's idea of what happens when the infobahn technologies are mixed with a nation of couch potatoes: "A nation of couch fries." Shoe 28 Jul 95: A waiter takes a customer to a smoking booth ... a telephone booth, that is. Shoe 22 Sep 95: The 'Net is described as "people with computers talking to other people with computers about computers ... behold, the information beltway." ["beltway" refers to a highway that goes around a city in circles] Shoe 28 Sep 95: "Last warning ... no more wake-up calls from the switchboard." Shoe 19 Oct 95: describes the pressing of ties with a fax machine ... as long as it's a local call. Walnut Cove 24 Sep 95: News stories can come via computer, but someone can't download the news with the software at hand ... "the electronic equivalent of having the morning newspaper thrown on your roof". Walnut Cove 26 Oct 95: A girl figures her brother Andrew is very low on the social food chain ... "He calls women on 1-900 lines and they hang up on him." Walnut Cove 10 Dec 95: A computer setup is ready to go on-line, but one of the boys is hesitant to go on-line: "I'm not sure I want a bunch of weirdos to know my address." Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:259/730@fidonet.org Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #514 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 14 20:08:52 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA10033; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:08:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:08:52 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512150108.UAA10033@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #515 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 95 20:09:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 515 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Internet Access via RF/Infra-Red? (Pete Kruckenberg) Timing Cryptanalysis of RSA, DH, DSS (Paul C. Kocher via Dave Farber) Frontier Cellular Service and Resellers (Clifford D. McGlamry) Frontier Cellular Service Requiring LD (Stacy Sherman) Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice (A. Padgett Peterson) Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! (Carl Moore) Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers (Elana Beach) Telemarketing Issues and This Forum (PhoneRoom@aol.com) Recent Experiences With BellSouth Caller ID (Paul Selig) Programming Information For an ATT 8130 Phone (Marc Wiz) How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? (Jodi Weber) Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest (Hovig Heghinian) Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' (Bill Moynihan) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pete@inquo.net (Pete Kruckenberg) Subject: Internet Access via RF/Infra-Red? Date: 14 Dec 1995 06:09:36 GMT Organization: inQuo Internet (801) 530-7160 I would like to research the possibility of providing Internet access via RF (microwave, or spread-spectrum, or other) or infrared, as an alternative to using "traditional" telecom transports such as frame-relay or leased lines (and up-and-coming ones like cable and ISDN). I'm interested in this on both a local-access (within a radius of maybe 15-20 miles line-of-site), and a state- or region-wide basis (probably using some kind of existing RF network to get over mountains, etc). Any advice, pointers, suggestions, en- or discouragement would be appreciated. In particular, I'm interested in: Equipment to use in local-access stuff, both on our side and on the customer's side. Must be able to go 28.8kb to 1.5Mb, and hopefully up to 20 miles. Recommendations, suggestions, experiences, etc. Equipment for "long-haul" (over 20 miles, or not line-of-site) connections, and what kind of providers can help haul our data over their existing RF networks. How to establish a "network" that customers can hook into (we run via RF to a remote location, then customers connect to that via RF, infrared, or copper). FCC/Federal/Regulatory requirements for doing this kind of thing and whether we should license RF space, use spread spectrum, etc. Pointers, FAQs, books, magazines, etc on how a system like this would work, what we'd need, costs, RF providers, etc. Possibility of using satellites instead (like digital TV)? Equipment that would let people connect via small, affordable sets (that could possibly replace a traditional modem or CSU/DSU). Any other input on other similar attempts at doing data over RF/infrared would be appreciated. We are just doing research into this now, so anything that'll help us put together a reasonable technical plan and business model would be very helpful. Thanks, Pete Kruckenberg pete@inquo.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:21:32 -0500 From: Dave Farber Subject: Timing Cryptanalysis of RSA, DH, DSS Forwarded FYI to the Digest: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 21:48:19 -0800 From: pck@netcom.com (Paul C. Kocher) I've just released details of an attack many of you will find interesting since quite a few existing cryptography products and systems are potentially at risk. The general idea of the attack is that secret keys can be found by measuring the amount of time used to to process messages. The paper describes attacks against RSA, fixed- exponent Diffie-Hellman, and DSS, and the techniques can work with many other systems as well. My research on the subject is still in progress and the current paper does not include many of my findings. I will eventually publish a full paper, but am releasing a preliminary draft now to alert the community as quickly as possible. A copy of the abstract is attached at the end of this message and the full text can be downloaded in PostScript format from: ftp://ftp.cryptography.com/pub/kocher_timing_attack.ps ftp://ftp.cryptography.com/pub/kocher_timing_attack.ps.gz I've also made an HTML version which is accessible at: http://www.cryptography.com (The HTML uses subscripts and superscripts which aren't supported in older web browsers. The PostScript version is the "official" one and looks nicer.) The results have already been seen by Matt Blaze, Martin Hellman, Ron Rivest, Bruce Schneier, and many others. While the full significance of the attack is not yet known, I think everyone who has seen it considers it important (including Netscape who awarded me a $1000 bugs bounty prize). ABSTRACT. Cryptosystems often take slightly different amounts of time to process different messages. With network- based cryptosystems, cryptographic tokens, and many other applications, attackers can measure the amount of time used to complete cryptographic operations. This abstract shows that timing channels can, and often do, leak key material. The attacks are particularly alarming because they often require only known ciphertext, work even if timing measurements are somewhat inaccurate, are computationally easy, and are difficult to detect. This preliminary draft outlines attacks that can find secret exponents in Diffie- Hellman key exchange, factor RSA keys, and find DSS secret parameters. Other symmetric and asymmetric cryptographic functions are also at risk. A complete description of the attack will be presented in a full paper, to be released later. I conclude by noting that closing timing channels is often more difficult than might be expected. Cheers, Paul Kocher ********************************************************************* VERY IMPORTANT: If you send me e-mail, please understand that I probably won't have time to respond to all who write. Please keep messages SHORT and send them to pck@cryptography.com (**not** my netcom address -- misdirected messages will be ignored). PGP when used for e-mail is not vulnerable to the attack. Please state in your note whether you would like a reply. ******************************************************************** Paul C. Kocher Independent cryptography/data security consultant E-mail: pck@cryptography.com (please see above before replying) ------------------------------ Date: 14 Dec 95 13:06:39 EST From: Clifford D. McGlamry <102073.1425@compuserve.com> Subject: Frontier Cellular Service and Resellers > My question is, what are the risks in using a cellular airtime > re-seller? Also, I am looking for suggestions for airtime providers > in the Washington/Baltimore cellular calling area. Any help will be > greatly appreciated. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would say check out Frontier Mobile > Line, aka Allnet, aka Call Home America, aka Frontier Communications. > That is who I signed up with just recently (about a week ago in > fact, and so far they are *very good* at least here in the Chicago > area. Their customer service people seem a little confused, but > the service itself is good. You bring up many points in discussing this issue, but some of the conclusions reached are just flat out wrong. First of all, cellular resale is nothing new. It is mandated by Federal law. Most carriers would like to get rid of resellers, but the FCC has found time and time again that these requests were not in the best interests of the public. How do cellular resellers operate cheaper? Well, just like any other business, you have to buy at one price, sell at another, and live in the margin. By the way, the carriers only obligation to the reseller is to provide pricing equal to or better than their best retail customers. This is often a hotly contested issue, but of important note, there is NO requirement for a wholesale rate that provides any sort of guaranteed or fair margin. As a result, many areas don't have resellers as the required return can't be achieved. As far as Frontier aka whoever they are this week, I wish you luck. Every time they have tried operating as a reseller, they have failed miserably. The reason revolves around the support cellular customers require. Frontier aka Allnet is used to providing customer service reps at a ratio of about 15000 to 1 or higher. This is appropriate for the volume of calls a LD carrier/reseller would handle. However, in cellular, anything over about 3000 to 1 results in unhappy customers due to long hold times. Add in the fact that cellular problems are FAR more complex when they arise and have many more variables involved, this is where they lose the ability to satisfy the customer. As far as credit card billing, I am amused. As a cellular reseller myself, we KNOW what happens with that scheme. I have a friend with an operation with approximately 45,000 subscribers. He tried this in Mass. Six months later, after being cancelled by six different credit card processing clearing houses for unsatisfactory chargeback ratios, this program was canned. THESE WERE PEOPLE WHO HAD PASSED CREDIT CHECKS! A seller of telecommunications services has no recourse in the event of chargeback for services paid by credit card (other than collection agencies and lawyers) and the chargeback window is right at five and half months! You may be getting a "good deal" with Allnet aka whoever they call themselves this week, but I think you will find yourself very shortchanged in the long run. Why? Refer to your own Editor's Note at the end of the V15 #513 Digest. We reprogram OUR customers phones for FREE and are willing to help them do it, when necessary, over the phone. Why do we do this? Because it's good business. If you have a problem, we have a shop and can often fix things while the customer waits. Generally, we find 60% of the complaints customers have about their equipment when it malfunctions are very easy and quick to fix. We don't charge for these small repairs. If your phone has to go off for service, we provide loaners (at no charge) until yours comes back. Me thinks you get what you pay for in the long run. You are buying a fair weather supplier. I look forward to hearing what you think about them when the rain comes. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well don't confuse where I got the phone with who supplies the air ... unless they are one and the same and I don't know it. Calls to Frontier about the phones illustrated in their brochure were referred to a company called 'Cellular World' in Texas, where NEC happens to be located. What their tie-in with Frontier is, if any, I do not know. The next message in this issue is from someone who might take exception to some of what you said. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom216@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:17:59 -0500 Subject: Frontier Cellular Service Requiring LD I'm a new subscriber to your fine electronic journal. I'm surprised to see all the hullabaloo over Frontier reselling cellular service. There is nothing new about reselling airtime -- it's been around since the beginning of cellular service in a lot of markets. Of course the underlying carriers love their rebillers! They have a guaranteed revenue stream and are not responsible for collection, customer service, etc. It' what they call a "win/win" since Frontier gets to penetrate a bigger share of the telecom market without a lot of capital investment. Perhaps I can be of a assistance to your readers. I am an independent agent of Frontier (as well as 1/2 dozen other long distance carriers). Since you do have to have an account with Frontier before you can get their cellular service, I'd be happy to help set you up. You can e-mail me and I will call you back. Telecom 216@AOL (Stacy Sherman, Vice President/National Sales Telecom Resources, Inc.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well now, Mr. McGlamry in the message just before yours says that the cellular carriers do not like the resellers and would be rid of them if not for laws stipulating other- wise. So who is correct here? I would agree witn you that it probably makes good sense to work with them. The carrier can greatly reduce the price he charges 'regular customers', allowing the reseller to mark it up to somewhere higher and both still make a profit. Now I cannot comment on his remarks about Frontier as a 'fair weather supplier' since I have not been on line with them long enough to form an opinion. I also have to take care when forming opinions because sometimes those people (of whom I form them) know I write this Digest and they treat me a little differently. Today in the mail from Frontier in response to my request to them, I got a complete list of all their charges, the markets they operate in at present, and a couple other things. They do indeed have a very wide range of monthly fees and charges per minute. For example, the most expensive I found on their list were: Los Angeles $40.00 per month service charge, and 35/23 per minute. Miami $27.95 per month service charge, and 37/25 per minute. Atlanta $23.95 per month service charge, and 37/25 per minute. and the real shocker, to me at least was: New York $21.95 per month service charge, and 53/40 per minute. Imagine, fifty three cents per minute, but 'only' forty cents per minute if you want to stay up all night making calls. What could *possibly* be the reason for a forty dollar per month fee in Los Angeles? Look at Boston: $15.00 per month (better, however) 45/39 per minute. Who came in least expensive? Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Grand Rapids and Milwaukee ... all Ameritech cities and all at $10 per month and 35/18 per minute. Their custom calling features are all installed free and there is no monthly fee except for Called Party Pays; for that they still charge the cell phone user $3 per month. The one exception is Atlanta where I guess they can't make do with $23.95 per month and 37/25. In Atlanta you pay $15.00 *for each feature* as a set up fee. Talk about heaping on a little insult to add to the injury! In Los Angeles, $40.00 per month service charge is not all you pay either. To that monthly fee there is added a 'surcharge' for Universal Service Tax and a second tax to fund communications services for deaf and disabled persons. They assess those taxes on your actual calls as well. If we in Ameritech territory are getting it for $10 --> 35/18 then I wonder how much Ameritech is charging Frontier? Probably next to nothing. Any ideas *why* Ameritech territory is so much less? Also, times are rounded upward to the next minute in all markets. Time is calculated from SEND until END, including ringing, except that there is no charge for DA/BY. There is a disconnect fee of $25 per number. They also sent me some handy wallet cards reminding me how to use the Custom Calling Features, and a little wallet card entitled 'B System Roaming Directory' with numbers from all over the USA/Canada, most of which end in 'ROAM'. Anyone have experience with other resellers? Anyone gonna send me the hacks -- oops, I mean 'programming instructions' for the P-120? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 13:22:31 EST From: A. Padgett Peterson Subject: Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice When my wife needed an emergency phone to keep with her and concious of horror stories of being cloned, I attempted to obtain a service that did not permit any toll calls. Long distance was not anticipated as a need and is just an 800 number away if necessary (I know but as said was not anticipated to be needed). First barrier was when the service company insisted on a long distance provider. Second barrier was when I was told that blocking of toll calls was a "feature" that had to be added and not a just a service I did not want to select. Bottom line was that for $1.75 a month (which was waived for a year), only non-toll calls could be dialed. The downside which I did not understand was that roaming was also disallowed. Would like to know why roaming (making calls from a different LATA ) must be blocked if outward toll calls are blocked ? Seems like it would be easy to separate. Warmly, Padgett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 13:31:28 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: BellSouth Has *Olympic Fever*! aerostar@ccia.com writes: > I don't think an Olympic Sponsor is allowed to display such > promotional tie-ins after the games are over, unless they are > a long term sponsor (and I doubt BellSouth is). What games are over? The 1996 Games have not taken place yet. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He is not saying the games are over. He said *after* the games are over, and I assume is reference was to the cost of amortizing the stuff involved. It is doubtful it will have all depreciated before it is required to take it out of service. PAT] ------------------------------ From: elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) Subject: Re: Want to Buy Predictive Dialers Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 22:45:23 GMT Brian Brown wrote: > It is an interesting article describing the true goal of predictive > dialing. If you are willing to pay the big bucks and staff > accordingly, the dialer puts the call through _as soon as it hears > "hello"_ so you can't tell. Which is precisely the reason why I normally answer the phone by saying: "Hi, this is Elana" instead of "hello". If I hear dead silence even if I say my usual greeting more than once, then I hang up -- or use it as a means to have some fun. ;-) > Admittedly, however, the vast majority of uses of these dialers are > used for nuisance calls. No kidding. I have found that if I found that I've been called by a robot, and I am in a mischevious mood that day, I'll happily say "hello" just to trigger it. Then when the human phone droid says: "Mrs. Elana J. Engstrom?" (why do they always say Mrs. to a female?) I'll put on a sad voice and say: "She died in an accident last week. I'm cleaning out the apartment." This results in the human phone droid going into slight shock, and they then often say: "I guess I'll have to take her off our calling list then." Me: "Yeah, I guess you have to." I now have a nice, quiet phone. Very few junk calls. :-) Works with any type of phone solicitor, it seems ... Would this work with bill collectors? I rarely have any outstanding bills, so not much chance of me finding out firsthand ... Elana [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... Say, aren't you the person who wrote me some time ago to tell about the phones you found at the train station in Chicago where you could place calls for free? Is that why you don't have many outstanding bills? ... Seriously Elana, messages like yours are an affront to people in the telemarketing industry, as the next message in this issue will illustrate. PAT] ------------------------------ From: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Subject: Telemarketing Issues and This Forum Date: 14 Dec 1995 11:34:25 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: phoneroom@aol.com (PhoneRoom) Does anyone know of a newsgroup that is dedicated to issues specific to the telemarketing field? I have found that the editor of this group has negative feelings toward the industry and therefore desire to join discussions in a more unbiased area. Please Email Phoneroom@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 16:47:49 -0500 From: paul@conterra.com (Paul Selig) Subject: Recent Experiences With BellSouth Caller ID I've had Caller-ID & Name service from BellSouth for about a year and a half now in Columbia, SC. I've watched with interest how things have changed since the December 1 deadline for nationwide Caller-ID. Alltel, which serves parts of South Carolina, has always provided a number with a city/state pair. Other non-local exchanges which are BellSouth previously reported "Out of Area". Local exchanges always provided the number and database name. On December 1st, and for about a week thereafter, all non-local BellSouth numbers reported "Out of Area", though most of my calls were coming from the Atlanta Metro area. Calls from Ameritech regions were spotty - some neighborhoods in Cleveland, OH came through with the number and city/state, while others still showed "Out of Area". Finally, on Dec. 12, calls from other BellSouth areas started showing the number and database name. Calls in both directions in Columbia, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Birmingham are now working properly. As has been reported earlier, all calls from Sprint are showing up as "Out of Area". An interesting note: As part of BellSouth's Touchstar(R) "Deluxe Caller-ID" package ($7.50/mo), I also get Anonymous Call Reject. It simply routes all callers who have blocked their number to an intercept which states that I don't accept calls when the number has been blocked. As an experiment, I toggled that service off for about a week. During that week, calls from telemarketers more than quadrupled (13 calls in one week!) , with most showing up as "private call". Of course, I've had people call me at work to tell me that they tried to get ahold of me at home and thought that my line was out of service. It turns out that they had recently installed one of those "in-line" boxes which automatically dials the number blocking code before every call. The anonymous reject message is the typical low-quality scratchy telco recording, so it does sound like a "line out of service" message to callers if they don't listen carefully. Paul Selig [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In my phone bill which arrived yesterday was an insert from AT&T saying, "As of December 1, we are required to pass your telephone number and name to the party you are calling. To prevent this from happening, dial *67 at the start of your call." PAT] ------------------------------ From: marc@wiz.com (Marc Wiz) Subject: Programming Information For an ATT 8130 Phone Organization: Wizywyg Software Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:17:34 GMT I just saw an ATT 8130 phone at an ATT store today. This looks like a wonderful toy to me. It's a two line speaker phone that can also display caller id. What's even better is that the phone has an RS-232 port that allows a computer to obtain the caller id info. But the real kicker is that you can control the phone via the RS-232 port. The phone comes with software for Windows but I want to use the phone with my Unix box at home. Does anyone know if the "protocol" the phone uses is available and where I might get it? Thanks, Marc Wiz marc@wiz.com Yes, that really is my last name. ------------------------------ From: jweber@cbnews.att.com Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 14:30:46 EST Subject: How Do You Reach A Local Operator From Out Of State? Organization: AT&T Can anyone tell me how to reach the local operator if I'm not in the same state? I'm not trying to dial the AT&T operator ("00"). I've been trying to dial the local operator in NV (specifically Contel, the LEC for the Lake Tahoe area) from NJ, and so far the only way I've been able to get connected is by calling Contel's business office, who put me through. Any suggestions much appreciated! Jodi Weber jodiweber@attmail.com or jweber@cbnews.cb.att.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The short and simple answer is, you don't. Under almost all circumstances, there is nothing the 'local' operator in some community not your own can do for you. Anything which requires some local 'presence' in a distant community should be initiated with a call to *your* long distance operator who will attempt to resolve the problem, or lacking the ability to do so place a call to 'inward' in the desired location. If you must speak with someone at the phone company in the distant location, then you do exactly what you did: you call the business office in that town and work through them. If you are asking is there some magical code to dial which will get you through, the answer is no. Not any codes that you as a customer can dial from your line. Things like AC+121, AC+131, etc do not work from customer lines. Neither does 702+181 which reaches an operator handling Nevada toll stations, although they sometimes answer saying 'Reno Microwave'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hovig@ai.uiuc.edu (Hovig Heghinian) Subject: Re: Reactions and Rebuttal to Internet Day of Protest Date: 14 Dec 1995 21:39:05 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: hovig@cs.uiuc.edu In reply to PAT's question, of why so few are "involved" in this Great Censorship Debate: Because we don't care all that much. This is why we have three branches of government and elections all the time. The Senate can pass any law they so choose. So let them. They can even pass a flag-burning amendment if they want, since they apparently have too much time on their hands to worry about stupid things like the economy or maintaining foreign alliances -- which are probably better off without them, anyway. (This is what happens in a spoiled and philosophical society like ours, where everybody is an expert on everything, yet skilled at nothing.) But then the Supreme Court says, Um, sorry, but, like, dumb law. And no matter who screams -- or how loud -- in the words of Aesop, "Nature will out." These laws and protests are all short-term bumps in the unummerable turnings of the world. We're all going to live a century or so in this, the freest and most comfortable society ever, and senators like Exon, who have brought very little credit to their names otherwise, need something to keep their aging and imminently- retiring blood boiling. So be it. And the ACLU, who turns every molehill they find into a mountain, needs issues like this to validate their existence. So be it. Liberals, conservatives: who cares? Most of us have work to do, families to raise, and taxes to avoid. This is usually the best cure for infantile paranoia and a general lack of confidence in life. Rantingly yours (thanks for the venting space =), Hovig Heghinian | Open your mind too far, Department of Computer Science | and your brain may fall out. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for the good reply. Like you, I have about reached the point I say 'who cares' any longer where our national politics are concerned. You would not believe how much stuff I get here for publication from 'those people', i.e. the ones who are doing battle with Exon and the others this week. I get easily five or six huge mailings each week from people wanting me to publish something in the Digest decrying the 'religious right' and other 'right wing' organizations, people, etc. I could fill up the Digest day after day with their stuff. Admittedly, there *are* some problems on the net these days, and things may come to a boiling point before long, but then, we have been hearing that for years haven't we? I guess when you live under the sword of Damocles long enough, you eventually learn to ignore it. After 'they' have come for the rest of you and taken you all away and there is no one left to protest on my behalf, then maybe I will start worrying; or maybe at that point I will just call it quits. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bmoynihan@mcimail.com (Bill Moynihan) Subject: Data/Voice Call Center 'Discriminator' Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:46:49 GMT Organization: campusMCI Hello, I need a little help defining some equipment for an application. The application requires a single 800 number with a box behind it that will: a) Route to a modem pool for a <=28Kbps dial-up session, or; b) If no carrier is detected within a couple of seconds, decide it is a voice call and direct callers to a VRU/menu application for user- directed assistance. The modem pool/terminal server and the VRU applications are not part of an integrated chip/box, and are stand-alone applications today. The mystery box would simply 'discriminate' between call types and route appropriately. I've seen this in small applications (i.e., the call center software on ThinkPads and on Packard Bell machines at Best Buy), so I have to think that someone has implemented this on a larger scale (e.g., a real call center with multi-line/multi-T1 terminations with concurrent sessions). Any recommendations, suggestions, etc. would be appreciated. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Bill SGUS TC Madison, WI ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #515 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 14 21:27:52 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA15199; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:27:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:27:52 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512150227.VAA15199@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #516 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 95 21:28:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 516 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 (Old Time Radio via Andrew C. Green) Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split (Mike King) Three New Area Codes in 1997 (Mike King) Prime Dime Long Distance (Richard Thomsen) New Beeper Numbers (Jonathan A. Solomon) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Tom Peters) Re: Reactions to Congress and Indecency on Net (Stanley W. Henson) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:17:44 -0600 From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 The following first appeared in the {Old Time Radio Digest}, and I think it's a fascinating example of how people of the late 1800's viewed the possibilities of their new technology. Having read Bill Gates' effort in {Newsweek} recently, I found this excerpt from the _last_ century to be just as interesting ... if not more so. Notice below how the telephone system, then a fledgling industry, is worked into the future vision in an intriguing way. It is reprinted here with the permission of Prof. Bensman, the original poster. Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:12:29 -0600 From: bensmanm@msuvx2.memphis.edu (Marvin R. Bensman) Subject: Radio as Science Fiction in 1888 Radio in 2000: The View From 1888 Edward Bellamy was born in Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts, March 26, 1850. He trained as a lawyer and journalist, but soon he devoted himself to his major interest: writing. He wrote three novels and several short stories before he married Emma Sanderson in 1882. In 1888 Looking Backward was published. It aroused considerable interest and Bellamy toured lecturing on the book. He died of tuberculosis on May 22, 1898 after writing several other novels and founding a Boston newspaper that failed. In April 1888 in response to a review in the Boston Transcript Bellamy wrote: Looking Backward, although in form a fanciful romance, is intended, in all seriousness, as a forecast, in accordance with the principles of evolution, of the next stage in the industrial and social development of humanity, especially in this country; and no part of it is believed by the author to be better supported by the indications of probability than the implied prediction that the dawn of the new era is already near at hand, and that the full day will swiftly follow. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Looking Backward was written in the belief that the Golden Age lies before us and not behind us, and is not far away. Our children will surely see it, and we, too, who are already men and women, if we deserve it by our faith and by our works. Looking Backward is the story of Julian West, who falls asleep in an underground chamber on May 30, 1887. He wakes to find that it is September 2000. He is the guest of a Dr. and Mrs. Leeta and their daughter, Edith. His house had burned the night he had fallen asleep, but hypnotized he had slept all these years until he was discovered in his chamber. Throughout the book he is told what transpired in the 20th century. Business had merged into giant combinations, and since about 1925 there had been few small businesses left. Stores have only showrooms and send out all their goods by pneumatic tubes directly from warehouse to home. Women had achieved equality, no money was used but payment (credit) cards, relations between men and women were more frank and open, there is no war, etc. It was utopia. Bellamy in the novel predicts radio-or at least a music room. Certainly he was not the first with such a prediction, but his explanation and detail are interesting. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - When we arrived home, Doctor Leete had not yet returned, and Mrs. Leete was not visible. "Are you fond of music, Mr. West?" Edith asked. I assured her that it was half of life, according to my notion. "I ought to apologize for inquiring," she said. "It is not a question that we ask one another nowadays; but I have read that in your day, even among the cultured class, there were some who did not care for music." "You must remember, in excuse," I said, "that we had some rather absurd kinds of music." "Yes," she said, "I know that. I am afraid I should not have fancied it all myself. Would you like to hear some of ours now, Mr. West?" "Nothing would delight me so much as to listen to you," I said. "To me!" she exclaimed, laughing. "Did you think I was going to play or sing to you?" "I hoped so, certainly," I replied. Seeing that I was a little abashed, she subdued her merriment and explained. "Of course, we all sing nowadays as a matter of course in the training of the voice, and some learn to play instruments for their private amusement; but the professional music is so much grander and more perfect than any performance of ours, and so easily commanded when we wish to hear it, that we don't think of calling our singing or playing music at all. All the really fine singers and players are in the musical service, and the rest of us hold our peace for the main part. But would you really like to hear some music?" I assured her once more that I would. "Come, then, into the music room," she said, and I followed her into an apartment finished, without hangings, in wood, with a floor of polished wood. I was prepared for new devices in musical instruments, but I saw nothing in the room which by any stretch of imagination could be conceived as such. It was evident that my puzzled appearance was affording intense amusement to Edith. "Please look at today's music," she said, handing me a card, "and tell me what you would prefer. It is now five o'clock, you will remember." The card bore the date "September 12, 2000," and contained the longest program of music I had ever seen. It was as various as it was long, including a most extraordinary range of vocal and instrumental solos, duets, quartets, and various orchestral combinations. I remained bewildered by the prodigious list until Edith's pink fingertip indicated a particular section of it, where several selections were bracketed, with the words "5 P.M." against them; then I observed that this prodigious program was an all-day one, divided into twenty-four sections answering to the hours. There were but a few pieces of music in the "5 P.M." section, and I indicated an organ piece as my preference. "I am so glad you like the organ," she said. "I think there is scarcely any music that suits my mood oftener." She made me sit down comfortably, and, crossing the room, so far as I could see, merely touched one or two screws, and at once the room was filed with a music of a grand organ anthem; filled, not flooded, for, by some means, the volume of melody had been perfectly graduated to the size of the apartment. I listened, scarcely breathing, to the close. Such music, so perfectly rendered, I had never expected to hear. "Grand!" I cried, as the last great wave of sound broke and ebbed away into silence. "Bach must be at the keys of that organ; but where is the organ?" "Wait a moment, please," said Edith. "I want to have you listen to this waltz before you ask any questions. I think it is perfectly charming." And as she spoke the sound of violins filled the room with the witchery of a summer night. When this had also ceased, she said: "There is nothing in the least mysterious about the music, as you seem to imagine. It is not made by fairies or genii, but by good, honest, and exceedingly clever human hands. We have simply carried the idea of labor-saving by cooperation into our musical service as into everything else. There are a number of music rooms in the city, perfectly adapted acoustically to the different sorts of music. These halls are connected by telephone with all the houses of the city whose people care to pay the small fee, and there are none, you may be sure, who do not. The corps of musicians attached to each hall is so large that, although no individual performer, or group of performers, has more than a brief part, each day's program lasts through the twenty four hours. There are on that card for today, as you will see if you observe closely, distinct programs of four of these concerts, each of a different order of music from the others, being now simultaneously performed, and any one of the four pieces now going on that you prefer, you can hear by merely pressing the button which will connect your house wire with the hall where it is being rendered. The programs are so coordinated that the pieces at any one time simultaneously proceeding in the different halls usually offer a choice, not only between instrumental and vocal, and between different sorts of instruments, but also between different motives from grave to gay, so that all tastes and moods can be suited." "It appears to me, Miss Leete," I said, "that if we could have devised an arrangement for providing everybody with music in their homes, perfect in quality, unlimited in quantity, suited to every mood, and beginning and ceasing at will, we should have considered the limit of human felicity already attained, and ceased to strive for further improvements." "I am sure I never could imagine how those among you who depend at all on music managed to endure the old-fashioned system for providing for it," replied Edith. "Music really worth hearing must have been, I suppose, wholly out of the reach of the masses, and attainable by the most favored only occasionally, at great trouble, prodigious expense, and then for brief periods, arbitrarily fixed by somebody else, and in connection with all sorts of undesirable circumstances. Your concerts, for instance, and operas. How perfectly exasperating it must have been, for the sake of a piece or two of music that suited you, to have to sit for hours listening to what you did not care for! Who would ever dine, however hungry, if required to eat everything brought on the table? And I am sure one's hearing is quite as sensitive as one's taste. I suppose it was these difficulties in the way of commanding really good music which made me endure so much playing and singing in your homes by people who had only the rudiments of art." "Yes," I replied, "it was that sort of music or none for most of us." "Ah, well," Edith sighed, "when one really considers, it is not so strange that people in those days so often did not care for music. I dare say I should have detested it, too." "Did I understand you rightly," I inquired, "that this musical program covers the entire twenty-four hours? It seems to on this card, certainly; but who is there to listen to music between, say, midnight and morning?" "Oh, many," Edith replied. "Our people keep all hours; but if the music were provided from midnight to morning for no others, it still would be for the sleepless, the sick, and the dying. All our bedchambers have a telephone attachment at the head of the bed by which any person who may be sleepless can command music at pleasure, of the sort suited to the mood." ************************************************************************ *Professor Marvin R. Bensman, J.D., Ph.D. * *Department of Communication; Office Phone: (901) 678-3174 or 678-2565 * *University of Memphis Fax: (901) 678-4331 * *Memphis, TN 38152 * *E-mail: BensmanM@cc.Memphis.edu * * * * See: http://www.memst.edu/radio-archive/radio-archive-homepage.html * ************************************************************************ Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Adobe Systems, Inc. (formerly Frame Technology) Advanced Product Services 441 W. Huron Internet: acg@frame.com Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for passing along this interesting article. I found it fascinating, and hope other readers enjoyed it as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:36:32 PST Forwarded FYI... Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:43:00 -0800 From: Teresa.Ruano@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Teresa Ruano) Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split >>>>NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL<<<< Pacific Bell Files Final Plan on 619 Area Code Split December 5, 1995 Contacts: Pacific Bell: John Britton, 619-237-2430 GTE: Larry Cox, 800-227-5556 Contel: Al Sabsevitz, 619-243-0210 Pacific Bell has filed the final plan for the splitting of area code 619 with the California Public Utilities Commission. The plan represents the consensus of more than 20 telecommunications companies. A second area code is needed because 619 is rapidly running out of phone numbers. The new 760 area code will begin operation March 22, 1997. There will be a six month permissive calling period where you will be able to get through by dialing either area code. The new area code will not affect the price of telephone calls. The cost of a call will be the same, even if you dial into a different area code. With the new plan, the existing 619 area code will start at the Mexican border and include the following cities and communities: Chula Vista, National City, Coronado, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Rancho Santa Fe, Poway, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, El Cajon, Rancho San Diego, Santee, Lakeside, east to the Imperial County line, and all of the city of San Diego, except the San Pasqual Valley. The new 760 area code will include Encinitas, Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Ramona, Julian and all the other communities in San Diego County. Phone customers living in the counties of Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, Mono and Kern who currently have area code 619 will change to area code 760. People who change to area code 760 will keep their existing 7-digit telephone numbers. It's also important for customers to know that PBX's, auto-dialers and other telecommunications equipment will have to be re-programmed to recognize the new area code. "Announcing the exact date now gives business and individuals a chance to plan for changes in stationary and advertising," said Sweet. The only change to the previously announced plan is that the San Diego East County communities of Alpine, Pine Valley, Jacumba, Dulzura and Campo will remain in area code 619, instead of transferring to the new 760 code. "At the public meeting we held in East County, we heard from many people who felt that Alpine and the rest of East County should remain in 619," said Area Code Relief Administrator Tom Sweet. "The industry agreed that would simplify the boundary line. We were able to include these prefixes because of the small number of telephone lines in these rural areas." Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) Subject: Three New Area Codes in 1997 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:38:21 PST Forwarded FYI... Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 13:08:47 -0800 From: tltinne@legsf.PacBell.COM Subject: NEWS: Three New Area Codes in 1997 >>NEWS FROM PACIFIC BELL<< Three New Area Codes To Be Unveiled In 1997 916, 415 And 714 Running Out of Numbers, Need Relief FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 8, 1995 CONTACT: Dave Miller (Sacramento) 916 974-2811 Beverly Butler (San Francisco) 415 542-9468 John Britton (Orange County) 619 237-2430 San Francisco - Due to increased demand for telephone numbers, new area codes will be introduced in some or all of the areas that now use the 415, 916 and 714 area codes in California. The telecommun- ications industry expects to start using the three new area codes as early as December 1997. A group comprised of representatives from the telecommunications industry is currently developing and evaluating different options for introducing the new area codes. Under California law, public participation and comment must be obtained before the industry can submit proposed area code relief plans with the California Public Utilities Commission and administrators at Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), the organization that administers the North American Numbering Plan. Bruce Bennett, numbering plan administrator for Pacific Bell and coordinator of the industry area code relief efforts for the 415, 916 and 714 area codes, said a series of meetings will be held before the end of June 1996 to seek public comment and input on potential area code introduction options and proposals. Locations, dates and times of the public meetings will be announced at a later time, Bennett said. Boundaries for the new area codes, as well as the actual three-digit number, will be announced later next year after customers have an opportunity to evaluate various boundary proposals in the upcoming public meetings, he said. The 415 area code currently serves all of Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties and the northern portion of Santa Clara County. The 916 area code currently serves an 18-county portion of Northern California from Sacramento north to the Oregon border, except the North Coast. The 714 area code currently serves most of Orange County. Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:08:54 -0700 From: rgt@lanl.gov (Richard Thomsen) Subject: Prime Dime Long Distance I received an advertisement in the mail for Prime Dime Long Distance. They advertise guaranteed $0.10 per minute, 24 hours a day, *without* canceling your existing service ($0.14 in-state). Plus a $5.00 monthly access fee per telephone line for each month you use Prime Dime. There is a three-minute minimum billing. Has anyone heard about this place, and have any comments? Richard Thomsen Network Engineering rgt@lanl.gov CIC-5, MS B255 Voice: 505.667.4210 Los Alamos National Laboratory FAX: 505.665.7793 Los Alamos, NM 87545 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 12:12:34 -0800 From: jsol@netcom.com (Jonathan A. Solomon) Subject: New Beeper Numbers My beeper has been set up so I can receive pages in NYC and Hartford/Springfield. I am going to be setting it up for Boston too. Right now my beeper has four numbers; three in Hartford, and one in NYC. It's neat that I can get a fex line to NYC to ring on my beeper while paying for a beeper with four local numbers (it costs no more to do Hartford/NYC/Boston ...). The only thing that costs a lot is to have the beeper ring me in NYC and Boston for any of the above beeper numbers (and in Hartford). The NYC number is 917-953-1849. The Hartford numbers are 860-939-5573, and 860-842-7811. The fourth line will be released when I set up the Boston number, so its area code should be 617. I am thinking of a Chicago number too, but that will either require me to remove one of the Hartford numbers, or purchase a new beeper. This plus my calling cards will allow me to live without toll calling from my home phone (that's another story). I made about $1k of toll calls when I was in the rest home, and paid it off, but now the phone company wants $600 ... as a deposit. Right now my lines are toll restricted (I can use my roommate's line to make toll calls, or my ATT MCI and Sprint calling cards, or my SNET prepaid calling card.) So much for fascism ... These numbers (except one of the Hartford numbers) are for my consulting business. It's neat to be able to carry your phone numbers (with voice mail ... :) anywhere. Two or three beepers doesn't faze me. It's even better than cellphones, which can only have two numbers. It's also cheaper for me than purchasing a cellphone; rates for calling card calls are much lower than cellphone airtime rates. Looking forward to those who are in the areas my beepers cover to call me whenever. I get 300 calls per month per line. Voice mail lets you enter your number (with area code) or a message (which will cause the beeper to display the number you dialed). I have decided not to use an 800 number, because of the insecurities involved. Believe it or not, these lines combined cost less than an 800 number. Cheers, jsol [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jon Solomon, or 'jsol' as he is known to many users was the founder of TELECOM Digest, and the moderator for about seven years in the early 1980's. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tpeters@hns.com (Thomas Peters) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: 14 Dec 1995 19:21:14 GMT Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc. >> 3) Apply a non-subscriber service charge of $.40 per message to domestic >> Interlata interstate dial station calls originated from residential lines >> presubscribed to any interexchange carrier. This charge is in addition to >> the inital period charges applicable to calls from points in the Mainland >> and Hawaii to points throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. >> Virgin Islands. These charges are effective on December 1, 1995. > This is so bogus! It really angers me how they are trying to evade > the whole purpose of equal-access dialing by imposing arbitrary > restrictions on those who do not presubscribe. I really don't Like many people who read this Digest, I subscribe to a small carrier and only use AT&T for special occasions, so this change may impact me. I point this out because I don't want to sound sanctimonious when I say that most 10288 dialers are cream skimmers who are taking advantage of AT&T's regular customers. I don't like price increases either, but it is silly to pretend that AT&T has done something *wrong*. A free market in long distance has to include the right to raise prices and to give better prices to frequent customers. Most non-subscribers are infrequent customers who tend to use AT&T only for the difficult calls that other carriers don't do. From a business point of view, why shouldn't AT&T want to make this type of customer pay more? They provide minimum revenue and maximum headache. ------------------------------ From: shenson@uiuc.edu (Stanley W. Henson) Subject: Re: Reactions to Congress and Indecency on Net Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:59:03 -0600 Organization: University of Illinois, CCSO-Communications In article <12.13.95.5667tf@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > The actions in the United States Congress this past week regarding the > Internet and 'indecency' has spurred a considerable protest by many on > the net. A "Day of Protest" -- which actually is going on all this > week -- has been called. The articles below discuss it in detail. > From: ROGOR@delphi.com > Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:23:48 -0500 (EST) > Subject: *** URGENT ACTION ALERT - Stop Net Censorship *** > Do you oppose censorship? Of course, I oppose censorship -- practically everyone does! But that's the wrong point. Any restrictions can be considered 'censorship' from the appropriate point of view. Even copyright laws could be argued to be censorship of a person's right to information. The problem is that some people are taking advantage of the freedom of the Internet to put inappropriate information in public places, and the hard issue is how to protect children (and adults, too, for that matter) without undue restriction of free communication. Instead of one more knee-jerk reaction of thousands of people screaming about the infringment of their rights, it would seem that the Internet community would be better served by offering positive suggestions of ways of preserving the public's Right to Decency. There are still a few behaviors that most of us would agree could and should be restricted from public display for any and all ages. The hard part is how to define these and impose appropriate 'censorship' on these behaviors while preserving as much individual freedom as possible. I do not think that a few hundred thousand email messages and phone calls will contribute much to solving this social dilemma. But then -- email is cheap and easy, and it doesn't take much thinking to blast off a few flames to our leaders who are struggling with these issues. Stan Henson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good points you raise. I suggested earlier that in view of the email flood going into Congress right now on this issue -- apparently most of it very, very negative and probably quite a bit of it extremely hostile if I know the netters like I think I know them, a very short and postive note would probably be appreciated and let our legislators know that there is far from uniform agreement on the net about the problems we face. I agree with you that email can be cheap and easy, but it doesn't have to be that way. It can be thoughtful and carefully presented. No, I don't want to see 'censorship' either; but I fear we will be forced into a reform situation by the government unless it comes to pass on its own. As I said in an article earlier this week in the {Computer Underground Digest} (you may have seen it), self-censorship is the best censorship of all. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #516 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Dec 14 23:34:03 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA25011; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:34:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:34:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512150434.XAA25011@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #517 TELECOM Digest Thu, 14 Dec 95 23:34:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 517 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Digital Cellular Service (Edward A. Kleinhample) Line Test Standards Request (Michael J. Gallo) Anyone Used NHT for T1, T3, or POTS? (Timothy H. Ohara) Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers (Mark D. Tenenbaum) Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Lawrence Chen) Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse (Mitch Wagner) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Thompson) Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users (Rosenberg) Caller ID Information From Canada (Mark J. Cuccia) Vista 350 Phone From Northern Telecom (Johnny K. Lai) Re: New Wiring Suggestions (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: New Wiring Suggestions (cccef.bgriffis@capital.ge.com) Re: New Wiring Suggestions (Jason J. Kennedy) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: EDWARD.A.KLEINHAMPLE@gte.sprint.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 13:00:10 -0500 Subject: Digital Cellular Service I am considering the purchase of a cellular phone in the coming months. I live near Tampa, FL. where the available carriers are GTE Mobilnet and AT&T Wireless. I have heard plenty of advertising hoopla about AT&T's digital cellular service. Although I will pay more for the phone (costs start at $100 and go up), the monthly service is considerably less ($20/month as opposed to $30/month for either the A or B carrier). My immediate feeling is that the cost of a $100 phone is recouped in the first year by the $10/month difference in service prices. I have several questions that are delaying my purchase: What digital technology is in use by AT&T in Tampa? How widespread is this technology in other areas (AT&T advertises digital coverage in most of Florida)? Can a digital cellular phone roam to a non-digital area? (the phones that I have seen include the Motorola PERSONALD and MICROTACD, and several Ericson offerings -- I don't know model numbers). Is the technology likely to be obsolete soon -- should I wait? Does digital REALLY offer a significant advantage over the analog service? AT&T advertises better sound quality, better security (less fraud) -- what's the real story? What are general opinions about AT&T Wireless, GTE Mobilenet, good experiences, bad experiences, etc? Both local carriers bundle the mandatory one year service at the rates stated above. What kind of rates are typical 12 months from now when I have completed the mandatory service agreement? Am I correct in assuming that a portion of the price of the phone is ammortized into the monthly service rate for the first year? Should I expect lower rates once this period is over? Thanks in advance for any information that you can provide. Ed Kleinhample 70574.3514@compuserve.com Land O' Lakes, FL. or edward.a.kleinhample@gte.sprint.com ------------------------------ From: mjgallo@deltanet.com Subject: Line Test Standards Request Date: 14 Dec 1995 23:13:03 GMT Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, CA Request help on finding specs I can hand to local phone companies on what to test for on POTS lines. I am working with a retailer with 500 stores nationwide; we call out nightly to the stores registers and pull back the daily sales from the registers. Ten stores are consistent problems. I either lose the connection in the middle, or I can't make a connection at all. I have identified that the real problem is the phone line. On a couple of the stores when I put a standard analog phone on the line I can either crosstalk, other lines dialing, or hiss and pop. Yet when I call the local phone company they can't find anything wrong. My real question is: Are there specifications I can get hold of that I can point the local phone company to so they know what to test for, or is there a standard list of tests I can tell them to run? Thanks, Michael Gallo ------------------------------ From: tohara@acsu.buffalo.edu (Timothy H Ohara) Subject: Anyone Used NHT for T1, T3, or POTS? Date: 15 Dec 1995 01:11:00 GMT Organization: UB (State University of New York at Buffalo) I think the subject says it all. Looking for anyone with experience with NHT providing a Local Loop for T1, T3, or POTS. Please Email tohara@eng.buffalo.edu Thanks in Advance, Timothy H. O'Hara Senior, Electrical Engineering State University of New York at Buffalo tohara @ eng.buffalo.edu World Wide Web Home Page: "http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~tohara" ------------------------------ From: MARK.D.TENENBAUM@gte.sprint.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:13:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Abuse of 800/888 Numbers Bob Izenberg asked: > If you have an 800 number that receives nuisance calls or wrong > numbers, do you still pay for the calls? To which you responded, after a very interesting essay on Jerry Falwell's woes with 800: > Short form answer to your question: yes and no. The circumstances > and context are all-important. Technically telco owes you nothing > except, I suppose, the peaceful and unhindered use of your phone > line. In practice, they will help you out sometimes. PAT] Made me wonder: Suppose you have an 800 number like 800-543-2273 which if you glance at your keypad translates to being one very little slip of the finger away from being 800-THE-CARD. I suppose that this unlucky entity receives more than its fair share of wrong numbers. Same goes for the unlucky soul or entity who has 800-656-9377, just one mis-digited punch away from 800-FLOWERS. Made me wonder even further: Do 800 number providers account for this possibility or do they just hand their allotment out consecutively and buyer beware if his number is close to a very frequently dialed number? And wondering even more: What are the most common types of mis-dialings? Slipping digits? Reversing numbers? Maybe some Government agency has spent mucho dollars to find out. I'm reminded of when I lived in Raleigh, NC where almost daily I would get at least one call for the Foot Locker shoe store at a nearby mall. Why? My last two digits were the reverse of their last two digits. The rest of our numbers were the exact same. After telling Foot Locker callers to reverse the last two digits and try again, it was amazing how many times, not ten seconds later, after answering "Hello," I'd hear the same guy in my ear: "This Footlocker?" I always felt like responding "Yea sure it is, we always answer our phone, 'Hello' instead of 'Footlocker'" MARK D. TENENBAUM Plano, TX ------------------------------ From: lawrence@combdyn.com (Lawrence *The Dreamer* Chen) Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse Organization: Combustion Dynamics Ltd. Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:48:16 GMT rwells@usin.com (Roger Wells) writes: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Someone I know who runs a >> BBS here makes extensive use of Caller-ID to keep track of his users. >> When his line first answers, the first question it asks of new users >> (after getting their name) is 'please enter your full ten digit >> phone number'. Now, he has the caller-ID on most of these people >> already but he wants to see if they are basically truthful or not. >> He does not tell them he has it. He waits to see if they enter the >> same number he sees or not. If they enter a number that is different >> than what the caller-ID says, he asks them a second time more firmly, >> 'please enter the phone number you are actually using right now to >> place this call.' > Does he assume nobody ever calls from a private PBX? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: He makes allowances for that. If the > ID given is 'out of area' or 'unavailable' he simply takes their > word for whatever they give as long as it 'looks like' a phone > number based on examples he has given the computer of things that > cannot be a legitimate phone number such as '911' or 000-0000. > After getting your note, I asked him again about this and he said > he no longer flatly rejects them as users. He tells them they will > be contacted by phone at the number *they gave* -- not the number the > caller-ID displayed -- and given their password verbally. Of course > the truthful ones get their password later the same day or the next > day; the liars get to sit there with egg on their face, or else wait > a discrete period of a few days and call back giving honest numbers > for his records. Very clever ploy, I think. PAT] Huh, did I miss something ... So, the user has to provide a number that can be called voice ... while the caller-ID will be providing the number they are calling from. Or do they provide the number they are calling from, and suddenly be expected to answer instead of modems to validate themselves. Here at work, we have six lines ... three for voice ... we always give out the main number (except the secretary who uses it to track her personal calls 8-), but caller-ID will show one of three possible. We have two lines for data and a fax line. There are no telephones attached to any of the data or fax lines. So, if your human ... don't bother trying to call these lines. While at home, I have five lines; only one is voice, the others are all data ... good luck trying to talk to me calling any of them. (Actually the one I called voice used to be a SupraFAXmodem on silent answer and my answering machine; now its just the answering machine). I used to track caller-Id for my BBS callers, but there were lots of cases where it didn't work; namely the ones where the voice number doesn't match the data number. Or people calling from work or their friend's place and other variations where the number to reach the person doesn't match the one they call from. And, a lot of people don't realize how to give me the number they are actually calling from. A lot of my callers are school teachers that have enough trouble figuring out how to call out from the school as it is. SNAIL: Lawrence Chen, P.Eng. VE6LKC/VE6PAQ Computer Engineer Phone: (403)529-2162 Combustion Dynamics Ltd. Fax: (403)529-2516 #203, 132 4th Avenue S.E. Email: lawrence@combdyn.com Medicine Hat, Alberta T1A 8B5 dreamer@mlc.awinc.com CIS: 74200,2431 FIDONET: 1:134/3002 dreamer@lhaven.uumh.ab.ca DISCLAIMER: All opinions expressed are mine and *NOT* my employers ------------------------------ From: mwagner@netcom.com (Mitch Wagner) Subject: Re: 800 and 888 Number Abuse Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 23:38:17 GMT There was a time when I had a line in my house that got used only for outgoing data calls. And that line was billed to my employer, too. I could never remember what the phone number on that line was -- why should I? Nobody ever called me there? So when your friend asked me the first question -- "Please enter your full ten digit phone number" -- I probably would've answered with my voice number, not the one I was calling from. The second time, I guess I just would've been disconnected. My point here is a minor one, I guess: There are times when a person might have legitimate reason not to divulge the number he's calling from. He might, simply, not know. mitch w. mwagner@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: tcs@tcs.netbox.com (John Thompson) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 20:13:32 GMT Organization: TCS Telecommunications In article , j-grout@glibm8.cen.uiuc. edu (John R. Grout) wrote: > When a non-subscriber makes his/her _first_ call using AT&T in a billing > period, which would include both 10-288 calls _and_ calls to AT&T-provided > 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly > bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for > subsequent calls. > However, since AT&T gets something like $.50 for handling a > one-minute call to a 900 number (to cover network services, billing, > etc.), a $.40 surcharge on non-subscriber calls sounds like more than > is needed to recover the costs of billing casual users. But, that would mean that AT&T customers, and customers of other long distance carriers would pay different rates for the 900 number. Instead of saying "$2.99 first minute, $1.99 each additional" at the bottom of the ad, it would be someting like "$2.99 first minute for AT&T customers or 10-288 callers who have made at least one call this month or customers who have called at least one AT&T 900 number this month, or $3.39 first minute for non-AT&T customers, $1.99 each additional". 40 cents does seem like enough for AT&T to _prepare_ the bill for the LEC. But, doesn't the LEC charge AT&T for the billing? I was told by an AT&T employee about five years ago that the LEC (Bell Atlantic, anyway) charges about $5 per customer to include AT&T's (or anybody else's) bill with the local phone bill. Of course that was 5 years ago, and I could be wrong, but I know that the LEC must charge something. So, a very casual user, even if they are an AT&T Dial-1 customer could actually cost AT&T money to service, provided they get their bill through the LEC. Right? ------------------------------ From: robertr@icu.com (Robert A. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: MAJOR Change in AT&T Tariffs Hitting Casual (10-288) Users Organization: RockMug Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 17:02:38 GMT In article , j-grout@glibm8.cen.uiuc. edu (John R. Grout) wrote: > When a non-subscriber makes his/her _first_ call using AT&T in a billing > period, which would include both 10-288 calls _and_ calls to AT&T-provided > 900 numbers, the back-office cost involved i.e., generating a monthly > bill for them and sending it to the LEC is _far_ greater than that for > subsequent calls. What back office cost? The only cost that I can see is if the person is placing a call from a LEC that is not yet on AT&T's list of LECs (one time cost to add that LEC to the Billing Cycle which is eaten by AT&T). Once there is already a billing tape going to the LEC, there is no extra cost to add new numbers to be billed (why keep track of WHO is placing the call at call PLACEMENT time?). The file is an audit trail of the phone calls and gets sorted in Phone Number Sequence by AT&T as part of cutting the billing file (so volume discounts can be applied) to be sent to the LEC. If you are not a Subscriber, the request for your account record gets a "Not a Subscriber" result and you get billed at full rate. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:17:45 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Caller ID Information From Canada Friday evening, I received a call from a friend in Canada. He used his chosen primary carrier, Bell Canada (a Stentor member), dialing 1+504+my number. His full telephone number showed up on my CID box. The NPA-NXX was 905-842, which is Oakville, ON. But for the name portion of the CID box, I received `ONTARIO' (left-justified) spelled out, followed by 8 spaces. Probably when BellSouth checked its LIDB, it didn't have the full town/ratecenter name for Canadian NPA-NXX codes, and rather only the province name for Canadian NPA's. I asked my friend to redial me using the Unitel's 10-XXX carrier code. I received an Out-of-Area message on that try, however. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: laijk@charon.engga.uwo.ca (Johnny K Lai) Subject: Vista 350 Phone from Northern Telecom Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:43:26 GMT Organization: ITS, UWO Hi, I just wonder, is anyone here in Canada is using the Northern Telecom Vista 350 Phone with Bell Canada, which provides Visual Call-Waiting (allows you to see the CID number even for call-waitings), and CallMall? I wanna to have some technical information on this phone. (It is quite a wonderful phone to me.) Regards, Johnny K LAI Electrical Engineering '98 & CompSci. E-Mail: jlai@mustang.uwo.ca or an054@torfree.net Homepage: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~stevenl/johnny.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What is 'CallMall', or did you mean 'Call Mail', as in another name for voicemail? PAT] ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions Date: 14 Dec 1995 07:40:32 -0600 > We are about to move to a new location and it will be wired > from scratch. Current proposal: > Everyone get a four jack outlet. Jacks will be RJ-11. > Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs. Anyone have experience with 25-pair Cat 5? Bring up a spreadsheet on the screen and do a cost comparison between using separate cables compared to 25-pair cables. Last time I did that, it was cheaper to use separate cables for six RS-232 terminals when the terminals were no further than three feet from the wiring closet. The wire cost per foot and installation time easily exceeded the extra costs for harmonica or other modular wiring components, and to have the 50-pin connectors put on each end of the 25-pair cable. Also note that a cable in one wall can often service two rooms. If you'll be using Token Ring, I think Cat 5 is a good idea both for speed and reliability. You don't want to lose tokens often. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org Laws are society's common sense, written down for the stupid. The stupid refuse to read. Their lawyers read to them. ------------------------------ From: cccef.bgriffis@capital.ge.com Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 13:43:55 PDT Organization: GE Capital News Server Barry, You may want to re-post to the cabling newsgroup. Basically, your plan looks pretty solid, with a few minor items: 1. Verify from your PBX vendor what is required for voice. Specifically, determine the number of pairs required, the jack type and the block type. 2. Check distance limitations for your RS-232 connections. You can easily run into trouble. 3. Token Ring should be RJ45, not RJ11. CAT5 will help you meet speed requirements. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: New Wiring Suggestions From: jjkenne2@bcsc02.gov.bc.ca (Jason J Kennedy) Date: 14 Dec 95 14:23:58 PST Organization: Ministry of Social Services In article , barry_roomberg@iacnet. com says: > We are about to move to a new location and it will be wired > from scratch. Current proposal: > Everyone get a four jack outlet. Jacks will be RJ-11. > Each Jack will have four wires, ie: two twisted pairs. > 1 Jack - Telephone > 1 Jack - RS232 serial to Unix system. > 1 Jack - Token ring - Novell > 1 Jack - free for future use . Just FYI: we recently rewired one of our premises, and have found a system that works quite well for us is as follows: 2 4pr. Cat 5 runs to each w/s, terminated at w/s in AMP ACO duplex. First Cat5 run split (using AMP ACO modular inserts) to: 1 RJ12 for voice (single pair) 1 RJ45 for 3270 (only needs single pair) Second Cat5 run terminated in Cat5 ACO insert RJ45 for TR LAN attachment. The modular inserts allow us to mix and match our terminations, and the two sheaths allow us some flexibility as well. We found this solution minimizes our installation costs, and allows us some room for change in the future. Just food for thought. Opinions are those of Jason J Kennedy, not necessarily BC Systems, Ministry of Social Services, or Province of British Columbia. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #517 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Dec 15 01:14:13 1995 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA01469; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:14:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 01:14:13 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199512150614.BAA01469@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Bcc: Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #518 TELECOM Digest Fri, 15 Dec 95 01:14:00 EST Volume 15 : Issue 518 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! (Lynne Gregg) Re: Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice (Steve Granata) Re: Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility (Lynne Gregg) Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number (D Burstein) Re: You Ought to be in Pictures (Dr. Peter Beill) Re: Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! (Stan Brown) Fax --> E-mail (Robert Speirs) Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. (Roger Kennealy) Re: New Wiring Suggestions (Robert Vietzke) Re: Hotel Long Distance Charges (Joe Hearn) Information Wanted; Legislation on Telephone Recording (David Steurn) Nikko CID Unit Chokes on Name Display (Tim Meehan) New PCS Networks Online? (Brian Isherwood) Re: Need Satcomm Help (Dr. Peter Beill) Telecommunications Programs Wanted (Joe Biernat) Digital Music On Hold Device (Jack McGee) Looking for Worried Reps and Resellers (IbssTelCom@aol.com) Urgent - North American Modem in Australia? (Toby Weir-Jones) Wanted: POTS Designer/Consultant (Bill Shields) Need Info on Online Configuration (Fardad Vakil) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at ftp.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Cellular CID - It's Here! Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 14:38:00 PST exukev@exu.ericsson.se (Kevin Autrey) commented on AT&T Wireless. Thank you, Kevin for your comments about AT&T Wireless Caller ID. I think you read the situation well. Our Dallas market is in process of ISUP migration (MF to ISUP trunks needed to deliver CPN and offer Caller ID). For your benefit and those of other AT&T Wireless cellular subscribers, let me just run down what occurs throughout our network as we equip ourselves to deliver CPN. -ISUP INSTALL/TEST phase - Until such time as all ISUP trunks are in and tested in a metro area, we apply a default line block as a matter of practice. This default ONLY is applied while we're in the install/test phase. The purpose is to protect our customers from our transporting their cellular numbers without their awareness or consent. Our cellular customers generally are a tad sensitive about distributing their numbers. Charges are incurred for inbound calls that could be generated as a result of publicizing the cellular number. Once the trunks are in and all's well, we send a notice (bill message page) to all active subscribers and release the block. -AT&T WIRELESS CUSTOMER options on blocking - Once customer notification occurs, we fully comply with the FCC Order: Customers who request Per Line Blocking (in those states where it is available), may order this feature at no charge from AT&T Wireless. When a customer orders this block, *82 may be used on outbound calls to unblock on a per call basis (i.e., *822068288077+SEND). Per Call Blocking is accomplished by pre-pending *67 to the dialed number (i.e., *672068288077+SEND). - THE 'MOBILITY FACTOR' AND PRIVACY- When roaming occurs, the cellular operator may *not* have visibility to whether the roamer has Caller ID on their home network or whether they have chosen Per Line Blocking or not. The FCC Order states that default line blocking cannot be applied in areas where Caller ID services are offered (consumers must affirmatively choose Line Blocking). In this case where we have no visibility to what's in the home market, we must SEND THE NUMBER. Therefore, if roamers want to ensure blocking of the cellular number, they should use *67. We are in process of adding support for *67 to our entire network in order to consistently process calls. If *67 support is offered in an AT&T Wireless city with no Caller ID service (no ISUP), the CPN can't be sent and NO ID or OUT OF AREA appears on the equipment. Kevin and other AT&T Wireless customers: if you want to have the temporary block removed from your cellular lines, place your request with Customer Care or email me (lynne.gregg@attws.com). We'll take care of it for you. AT&T Wireless now offers Caller ID services to digital (TDMA) subscribers throughout Washington, Oregon, and Florida. Other cities will offer Caller ID during the first half of 1996. Regards, Lynne Gregg Product Manager, Personal Services AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Headquarters 5000 Carillon Point, Kirkland, WA 98033 ------------------------------ From: sgranata@ix.netcom.com (Steve Granata ) Subject: Re: Cell Phones: "None of the Above" is Not a Choice Date: 15 Dec 1995 04:03:27 GMT Organization: Netcom In A. Padgett Peterson writes: > Would like to know why roaming (making calls from a different LATA) > must be blocked if outward toll calls are blocked? Seems like it > would be easy to separate. With a cell phone there actually is very little difference between making an interLATA seven-digit-dial (NXX-XXXX) call and making an outbound toll call. If you dial NXX-XXXX from your roaming location -- across LATA bounds -- back to your home service area, you'll be charged the long distance toll for the call. As far as the switching sequence is concerned, it makes very little difference whether you dialed NXX-XXXX or 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX. The switching system still must haul the call across LATAs from the cellular servicing switch to the terminating phone number. Furthermore, depending on the technology available at the switch servicing your cell phone, your cellular long distance PIC may not be available. In that case you are at the mercy of whatever is the switch's carrier of choice. In rural areas there often is only one IXC to which the servicing switch is connected. To add insult to injury, when you make the NXX-XXXX roaming call between LATAs, most cellular providers bill you your standard roaming rate, in addition to the toll you'll have to pay from the IXC. Steve Granata Reston, Virginia ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Wireless Solution for Roaming a Facility Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 15:53:00 PST Robert Wolf stated that "Several companies make wireless systems that work specifically with their own telephone systems. Some of the companies that provide this type of equipment include AT&T, Northern Telecom and Ericsson, among others." AT&T Wireless's Cellular Office solution works with most major PBX's and most analog or digital cellular phones. For more info, write to mary.anawalt@attws.com or reply to me. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Re: New York Suffolk County Proposes Non-Emergency 811 Number Date: 14 Dec 1995 18:52:55 -0500 Organization: mostly unorganized In wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) writes: > Saw on the news last night (Dec 12) that New York state's Suffolk County > (at the end of Long Island) wants the 911 emergency number to be > off loaded with non-emergency police business (paperwork reports, barking > dog reports, noisy parties, and other non-life threating problems) and > to establish 811 for that non emergency stuff. Leaving 911 free and > open for the important emergencies. People are getting recordings on > hold on 911 now there. One of the county politicians got put on hold > on 911 personally, and so thought up the non-emergency police number idea. Let's see now. Based on this concept and other events going on in NYS, a 'deaf-tty' caller uses 311, a minor emergency uses 811, a serious emergency uses 911. Oh, let's not forget the campaign in NYC to call 999-1111, 999-2222, 999-3333, 999-4444, or 999-5555 to reach the fire dispatcher (depends on which of the 5 boroughs you're in) so as to 'reduce' the load on the general 911 operator andcut down on the delay. Hmm, sounds to me like it would be much simpler, safer, and effective to finally simply staff 911 centers with the right number of people and with decent equipment. In the famous words of a former NYC City Council President (Andrew Stein), who, when questioning why 911 (ambulance) response was so slow was told it was the middle of the summer and call volume was higher beacuse it was so hot, replied: "It was hot last July, it's hot this July, and it'll be hot next July." It's not like stochastic probability and queuing theory are anything new. It's a simple (???) matter of assigning (paying for) appropriate resources. dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ From: jdrintel@aol.com (Jdrintel) Subject: Re: You Ought to be in Pictures Date: 14 Dec 1995 19:04:00 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jdrintel@aol.com (Jdrintel) I would like to discuss how videoconferencing is changing the shape and the way we communicate and do business. If interested call me, at: Dr. Peter Beill 814-946-4505 3037 Broad Avenue Altoona, Pa. 16601 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Nevada Bell to Eliminate Flat Rates! Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 02:07:09 EST From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown) Reply-To: stbrown@nacs.net Mike P. Storke (storkus@heather.greatbasin.com) wrote in article : > My understanding is that business (of course) flat rate billing will > be phased out in a year to a year and a half, with residental > following some time later. While this may seem a long way away for > you, in reality, it's probably much closer than you think. As soon as > businesses (all internet providers, and most bbs's fall under this > classification on their phone lines) have to pay by the minute, guess > what -- SO WILL YOU!! Why? A BBS doesn't make a significant number of outgoing calls. The duration of incoming calls is irrelevant -- unless Nevada Bell is going to start charging on both ends of the call, and you didn't say anything about that. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA Can't find FAQ lists? http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/faqget.htm for instructions, or email me. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about the Fido BBS which spends an hour or two every night polling other systems for mail and news? They are going to get hit hard aren't they? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 02:15:18 -0400 From: Robert Speirs Subject: Fax --> E-mail In your opinion, what is the potential of a company which offers the service of enabling people to receive their faxes at their e-mail addresses? Robert Speirs, 12 Briarwood Cres, Halifax, NS, B3M 1P3, Canada tel/fax:(902)443-3965, tel:(902)452-6392 cellular e-mail:ab304@ccn.cs.dal.ca http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ab304/Profile.html 44.39 N, 63.36 W time zone: AT = ET + 1 hr 29/10/95 - 06/04/96: AT = GMT - 4 hr; 07/04/96+: AT = GMT - 3 hr [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How do you like the above .signature? I don't think I've seen anything quite like it before. To answer the reader's question, I think we should call on Doug Reuben. He is involved with a company doing just that, or perhaps it is in reverse with email out to faxes, etc. He has not contributed anything here in awhile now, so perhaps this will prompt him to write. PAT] ------------------------------ From: "aeo452::kennealy_r"@annecy.enet.dec.com Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 10:20:25 MET Subject: Re: Need Quick Advice on Coax Wiring of Home for TV, etc. > We're in the process of finishing our basement, and before it is > finished and everything sealed up, I want to install coax lines to > many of the rooms in the basement as well as upstairs rooms (from the > basement line). The coax lines of course will be used for television, > maybe FM, and who knows, maybe even a computer line. For TV/FM, the > source would either be cable, an antenna, or a satellite dish (right > now we're using an attic antenna). > Being a mechanical and not electrical engineer, I'd like advice as to > how to wire it properly. What type/size of coax to use, fittings, > etc., as well as the layout of the wiring. My engineering sense tells > me that if I d