Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1995.volume.15/vol15.iss251-300

Internet Message Format | 1995-07-16 | 1.3 MB

Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa22467;
          23 May 95 18:29 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29176 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 23 May 1995 10:35:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29164; Tue, 23 May 1995 10:35:08 -0500
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 10:35:08 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #251

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 May 95 10:35:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 251

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI Reenters Wireless (Steve Geimann)
    Rates, Rates, Rates .... (Stephen Croce)
    Canadian Telephone/Cable Competition Policy Announced (Dave Leibold)
    Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness (David C. Pratt)
    Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (Pieter Jacques)
    Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (Danny Burstein)
    Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (root@henry)
    Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (K.M. Peterson)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Heidi Serverian)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Robert Virzi)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 06:56:42 -0400
Subject: MCI Reenters Wireless


By STEVE GEIMANN
Senior Editor, {Communications Daily}

     MCI returned to wireless Mon. with $190-million purchase of
Nationwide Cellular Services (NCS) of N.Y. and is negotiating
agreements with other carriers to expand coverage nationwide.  NCS
operates in 10 U.S. cities in Northeast, Upper Midwest and West Coast,
covering 25% of U.S. population.  MCI needs greater coverage to be
significant player in wireless resale against AT&T Wireless and
Sprint-Cable alliance in winning PCS licenses.  Neither MCI nor
Nationwide bid in broadband auction.  "We don't have to own underlying
facilities to deliver service," said Kevin Inda, senior mgr., investor
relations.  "There's a glut of spectrum available."

     MCI deal prompted Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association to step up lobbying against amendment to HR-1555 by Rep.
Barton (R-Tex.) that would give wireless resellers direct access to
facilities built by service providers.  MCI last week sent letter to
Hill supporting Barton amendment.

 In letter Mon. to House Commerce Committee Chmn. Bliley (R-Va.), CTIA
Pres.  Thomas Wheeler said: "MCI is attempting to impose on
competitive wireless carriers regulations which it vigorously opposes
having imposed on itself."

 He told us: "The danger is it's [amendment] going to disincent people
to build."

     MCI said negotiations with carriers focus on resale agreements
rather than equity purchases, company said.  NCS is largest reseller,
and other investments wouldn't have same benefits, source said.  Inda
said he expected company to sign additional agreements rapidly --
within 60-90 days.  "This is a good initial jump [into market,] but by
no means the full deployment," Inda told us.  NCS acquisition gives
MCI access to "good operating staff."

      MCI left wireless in 1986 with sale of its Air Signal cellular
and paging unit to subsidiary of McCaw for $120 million.  It had
entered business in 1982, primarily supplying paging services in 35
markets and phone service in 12 cities.  Inda said executives decided
then that company "lacked critical mass" to make wireless successful
venture.  MCI skipped recent PCS auction, saying it preferred to
concentrate on resale rather than invest in facilities.

     Transaction still requires approvals by MCI board and shareholders,
Nationwide shareholders and state and federal agencies.  NCS Chmn.
Stephen Katz and other executives have agreed to vote their 25% stake
in company in favor of deal.  NCS board approved transaction,
companies said.  NCS had 1994 revenue of $213 million, with 275,000
business and residential customers in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago,
L.A., Milwaukee, N.Y., Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco, D.C.

------------------------------

From: Stephen Croce <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rates, Rates, Rates ....
Date: 23 May 1995 03:27:34 GMT
Organization: InternetMCI


[e-mail] (Douglas Kaspar) wrote:

> When you examine Sprint's basic LD tariff vs. AT&T, their cost per
> minute is identical to AT&T's across rate bands, time of day, etc.
> MCI's basic LD tariff across the rate band's is .0001 cent per minute
> less.  The savings come in when your volumes increase, so beware of
> the so called "savings".

The rate game is so rediculous!  For every person who says that
Sprint's rates are only one cent a minute lower than AT&T's I can show
you three people who say they've saved a ton of money by using their
service.  In fact one user on this newsgroup got 50 dollar credits and
free air fare to Bermuda or something like that -- isn't that indeed
worth something?

Bottom line is -- what does your provider do for you today?  Any of
the companies can provide you with low rates - it's up to you to do
what you need to do in order to get the best deal.  Everyone is so
hung up on what the rate per minute is -- price, price, price -- when
was the last time anyone ever bought anything based on price and price
alone?  If I told you that I could sell you a pair of shoes for ten
bucks -- would you buy them?  How 'bout this?  I'll sell you my car for
500 bucks -- wanna buy it?  NO? Well, why not, its CHEAP isn't it?

My point is that there is value to be had in telecommunications --
just like in anything else.  If you're not seeing any value in your
current company's services, you should speak to them or go with
another carrier who will bring you this value.

When you compare companies -- you should attempt to look beyong the
rate per minute.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Date: 22 May 95 20:29:20 -0500
Subject: Canadian Telephone/Cable Competition Policy Announced


(The CRTC announced 19th May the recommended regulatory approach to be
taken for dealing with the development of future services by the
telephone and cable companies in Canada. The following is their news
release on the subject (with approrpriate WWW references))

May 19, 1995

COMPETITION AND CULTURE ON CANADA'S INFORMATION HIGHWAY: MANAGING THE
REALITIES OF TRANSITION

OTTAWA/HULL -- The CRTC today recommended steps to accelerate lasting
competition in the delivery of electronic information and programming
services to Canadians. It also suggested new ways of keeping Canada on
its own broadcasting system with strong Canadian programming.

"We've received a clear message that consumers want greater choice and
we believe that they should have it," said CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer.
"Hundreds of Canadians who participated in our public processes also said
that they want more windows on their own communities, as well as on the
world, and the CRTC will actively support these objectives."

"The Commission has already taken bold steps to increase competition in
the delivery of broadcasting and telecommunications services, and it
continues to share the vision of Government that further competition will
stimulate choice, innovation and growth. We are not looking for ways to
slow competition -- we'll be looking for ways to hasten it."

"It is essential that barriers to competition arising as a result of the
monopoly power or dominant position of telephone and cable companies be
reduced. More choice should also be allowed in how programming services
are packaged and distributed," Mr. Spicer affirmed.

"If the future is to be driven by competition and technology, then we must
ensure that it is *fair* and *sustainable* competition -- that is, lasting.
We must get beyond slogans and recognize the realities of competition in
Canada and manage this transition imaginatively and sensibly or we will end
up with one or two mega-corporations controlling the creation and
dissemination of information and entertainment," said Mr. Spicer. "We
believe in competition that will benefit consumers and entrepreneurs in the
long-term, not just for a year or two until one industry or competitor
annihilates its rivals."

"A more competitive model for both distribution and programming services
must also take into account Canadian realities. If Canadians are to benefit
from increased choice, entry should be managed in a manner that contributes
to the Canadian broadcasting system and the development of quality
programming," Mr. Spicer explained. "The citizens of Canada are more than
just consumers. They are also and first of all Canadians, and as such they
want to see Canadian values reflected in the programming and information
available to them."

The Commission's report to the Government on policy issues related to the
information highway follows an intensive seven-month public consultation
process during which the CRTC received 1,085 written comments and 78
participants intervened at a month-long oral public hearing in March. This
public process was instituted pursuant to an Order in Council issued by the
Government on October 11, 1994.

In preparing its report, the Commission has been guided by a number of key
principles, including:

* Fair and sustainable competition requires that consumers have increased
choice among distributors of telecommunications and broadcasting services,
including cable, telephone, wireless, direct-to-home (DTH) satellite and
others.

* Barriers to competition in distribution must be removed so that both the
public and content providers have affordable and non-discriminatory access
to all distribution systems.

* New programming services must contribute to increasing choice, diversity
and innovation.

The Commission recommends that there be no mandated transitional period
before introducing full competition in the delivery of telecommunications
and broadcasting services to Canadians. As indicated in the report, factors
such as technology and market forces will create a natural transition period
of about three to four years before telephone companies begin to establish
any significant presence in the cable market. "However," Mr. Spicer said,
"telephone companies should be permitted to enter the cable business as soon
as inherent barriers to effective competition in local telephony are reduced.
And we support, without delay, applications by other potential programming
distributors."

"We also support increased competition in programming. Video-on-demand
services should be eligible for licensing as soon as non-preferential
video-dial-tone tariffs are filed and approved," Mr. Spicer added.

The report proposes mechanisms designed to remove existing barriers to
competition, as well as safeguards to prevent anti-competitive practices
and to ensure equitable access to the information highway.

For example:

* Implementation of the open access policy adopted in the Commission's
Regulatory Framework Decision of September 1994 is a precondition
to effective competition in the local telephone market and in
all markets on the information highway. This policy is characterized
by liberalized interconnection, co-location and unbundling requirements.

* Programming services should be produced and distributed by
separate companies to prevent preferential access to distribution
networks and to ensure diversity and choice. (Structural separation,
however, would not be required for non-programming services such
as on-line services, home banking and Internet access.)

* Cable company affiliates should not generally be authorized
to operate, own or control programming services, other than over-the-air
radio and television services, until there is sufficient capacity
on cable networks and comprehensive access rules are in place
to prevent preferential treatment.

Increased reliance on market forces, however, must take into account
the other objectives of broadcasting and telecommunications legislation
from which the CRTC derives its mandate. The *Broadcasting Act*
states that:

"The Canadian broadcasting system should encourage the development of
Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects
Canadian attitudes, opinions, values and artistic creativity, by displaying
Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and
analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of
view..." (Section 3).

The Canadian telecommunications policy has, as its objectives, to
facilitate the development of a system that serves "*to safeguard,
enrich and strengthen the social and economic fabric of Canada and its
regions*" and "*to render reliable and affordable telecommunications
services of high quality accessible to Canadians in both urban and rural
areas...*" (Section 7 of the *Telecommunications Act*).

The Commission, therefore, recommends the following:

* Some form of subsidization, as well as cooperation between governments
and shared use of network infrastructures by distributors, will be
necessary in order to deliver the benefits of the information highway
to every region in Canada, particularly in remote and underserved
areas.

* Programming services should continue to be licensed in a manner that
takes into account market size and ensures that existing and future
producers have sufficient resources to produce quality Canadian
programming.

* All broadcasting undertakings should make equitable and appropriate
contributions to the production and distribution of Canadian cultural-content
products and services.

"It is essential that we maintain a Canadian broadcasting system
offering quality programming which reinforces the sovereignty of our
country and our own cultural identity," Mr. Spicer concluded.

                       -------------------

Contact: Stephen Boissonneault, Director
CRTC Public Affairs, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N2
Tel: [phone], TDD: 819-994-0423, Fax: [phone]
Internet address: http://www.crtc.gc.ca

Copies of the Commission's report *Competition and Culture on
Canada's Information Highway: Managing the Realities of Transition*
are available through the public examination room at any of the
following CRTC offices:

City            Telephone        TDD              Fax
Halifax         902-426-7997     902-426-6997     902-426-2721
Montreal        514-283-6607     514-283-8316     514-283-3689
Ottawa/Hull     819-997-2429     819-994-0423     819-994-0218
Toronto         416-954-6273     416-954-8420     416-954-6343
Winnipeg        204-983-6306     204-983-8274     204-983-6317
Vancouver       604-666-2111     604-666-0778     604-666-8322

                      -----------------

Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:250/730
Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 08:08:40 -0400
From: Pratt, David C. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness


The CRC-6 is to many users the entire reason for using SF over ESF
DS1s.

The CRC-6 is a checksum calculated on the actual data transmitted in
the payload (the 24 64 Kbs timeslots) of the DS1.  It is a way to
determine with complete accuracy that the data carried on the DS1 has
not been corrupted.

In the SF world it is not possible to do this.

The CRC-6 is the basis for "path"-based performance monitoring
parameters.  One CRC-6 violation is a path coding violation, each
second in which one happens is an errored second path, each second in
which 1544 or more is a severely errored second path, each second
after 10 SESP is an unavailable second, etc.

Both SF and ESF DS1s share "line" parameters which are based on
Bipolar Violations (BPVs).  BPVs indicate a probability of data
corruption but do not guarantee it.

The bottom line is that you MUST transmit an accurate CRC-6 on an ESF
DS1.  If not it is likely that the far end will go into alarm based on
an "unavailable seconds" condition.  If you want to ignore the incoming
CRC-6 that's your problem.

This is assuming, of course, that the network is not set up for
far-end performance monitoring which brings another set of contstraints.


Dave Pratt    Reliance Comm/Tec
[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Pieter Jacques)
Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York
Date: 22 May 1995 19:26:56 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This one seems to have caught everyone's
eye. I got a couple dozen messages all saying almost the same thing. Here
are a few of them.   PAT]

John R. Covert <[e-mail]> writes:

> FLASH!!

>    http://www.vtcom.fr/nynex/

> Is a WWWeb interface to the NYNEX Yellow Pages, with links from the business
> entries to their own web pages, when known.

Why is NYNEX, a New York and New England based telephone company,
using a web server in *France* for a WWW version of its New York and
New England Yellow Pages?


Pieter Jacques  ([e-mail])

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (danny burstein)
Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York
Date: 22 May 1995 23:43:40 -0400


In <[e-mail]> John R. Covert <[e-mail].
com> writes:

>    http://www.vtcom.fr/nynex/
                         ^^^
                        ^^^^^^

to which [e-mail] hastens to add:

Fascinating that Nynex has to put their web server in France. Suggests
something about something, but I'm not quite sure what ...


[e-mail] (or [e-mail])

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (root)
Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York
Date: 23 May 1995 02:46:21 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA


Why is Nynex setting up a web page in France? 8-)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (K. M. Peterson)
Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York
Date: 22 May 1995 17:17:59 GMT
Organization: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated


In article <[e-mail]> John R. Covert <covert@covert.
ENET.dec.com> writes:

>         http://www.vtcom.fr/nynex/

Um ... okay... does anyone know why this is served out of _France_?


K. M. Peterson <[e-mail]>


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have not heard anything further from
John Covert since he sent this in. Perhaps he will share whatever he
knows on the topic with us. There were many more of these 'why located
in France' messages than I included here. Do you think they have some
kind of deal going on with Minitel perhaps?  Is that a possibility?   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 09:34:52 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service


Pat -

One small correction to your note.  GTE used to own Sylvania and several
other electronics manufacturing businesses worldwide.  GTE has sold off
the electronics over the past years to concentrate on our core business
of telecommunications.  The consumer electronics (televisions and
stereos) primarily went to Phillips and Magnavox.  I forget who bought
the lightbulb business in 1992 and 1993.

GTE's vision is to expand from our strong base in wireline voice
communications to market leadership in the new world of intergrated
wireline and wireless voice, video and data communications, by offering
customers products and prices that are competitive and service that is
unmatched -- the easiest company to do business with in this industry.

GTE has made a strong commitment to the telecommunications industry.

We could debate the merits of any company which has grown up under a
very paternalistic regulatory system.  The fact of the matter remains
that approximately 93% of all homes in the US have telephone service.
Had telephone originally (100 years ago) been left as a competitive
industry would we have achieved this level of service?  I suggest that
we would not have the same results today.  In all likelihood,
telephone would be a privilege for those with a certain amount of
wealth, as opposed to a utility available to the masses.

Was total rate of return regulation the best option available?  Probably
not, when was the last time the government used the best option.  My
knowledge of economics points toward some form of marginal rate of
return or price regulation.

Going forward, competition appears to be the best option for
encouraging efficient use of resources and developing new technologies
or new applications of technologies.  However, since telephone (POTS at
a minimum) is a *utility*, some mechanism needs to be in place to enable
all people access to the network.  Today we use subsidies such as the
Universal Service Fund and Lifeline to try to reach all who wish to be
connected.  The regulated monopolies are required to provide service to
all who apply (the worst credit risks may fall into special rules).  Who
will serve these customers in the future?

Don't get me wrong; I am a strong capitalist.  I also believe it is
harmful to the capitalist economy to create a markedly disadvantaged
underclass by cutting someone off from a basic need.  Anyone on the net
know how difficult it can be to get a job or credit without a telephone
number?

For all of the readers who believe the established LECs are incapable of
doing it right, maybe it is time to reassess the situation.  Look at the
industry from a more forward view, rather than relying on history.
Remember most of the knowledge and computer hardware/software
that enables the huge leaps in telecommunications which we have seen
were not even dreamed of 30 or 40 years ago.  Just as IBM has had to
reshape itself to the technological world it helped create, the LECs are
learning a whole new game too.

Sorry to have rambled so long, Pat.  Thank you for providing a forum in
which reasonable individuals can discuss and debate relevant issues.
The Digest is one of my favorite morning routines.


Heidi Serverian

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Virzi)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service
Date: 22 May 1995 19:16:04 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA


PAT said, in part:

> Often times letter abbreviations simply take on a meaning of their own
> and the original phrase they represented is forgotten. Does anyone
> remember when ITT referred to 'International Telephone and Telegraph',
> or when GTE meant 'General Telephone and Electronics'?  In the case
> of ITT at least, because of the many varied and diverse enterprises
> the company got involved in (baking bread as one example), the name
> was finally officially changed to simply the letters ITT. Likewise,
> GTE makes lightbulbs among other things, with telephones now being just
> a portion -- but a significant portion -- of their overall business.

Pat -

This is not an offical company response, however, GTE doesn't make
lightbulbs anymore.  Nor do we manufacture consumer electronics.
GTE's businesses, near as I can recall, are: local telephone service,
mobile telephone service, directory publishing, government contracting,
and multi-media production including games.  There are some other
businesses also, but the first four are the lion's share of the
revenue.  Again, this is from memory.  You may want to make this
correction for your readers.


Bob  [e-mail]   Just another ascii  character...
[phone]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #251
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00101;
          24 May 95 11:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15295 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 23 May 1995 21:12:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15285; Tue, 23 May 1995 21:12:05 -0500
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 21:12:05 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #252

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 May 95 21:12:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 252

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Looking For Help Starting a Help Desk (Mandy E. Kinne)
    What's CAPI? Especially 'API' (Byung Wan Suh)
    Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (David K. Leikam)
    Re: Unusual RF Stories (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Unusual RF Stories (Scott D. Fybush)
    Re: Unusual RF Stories (Kevin Magloughlin)
    Re: Unusual RF Stories (Samir Soliman)
    Re: Connie Chung's Attitude About Oklahoma (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
    Re: Phree Phone in Chicago's Union Station - Still There? (Elana Beach)
    Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted (Kevin Kadow)
    Universal Freephone Update (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Pac Bell Fixed it -- and Fast! (John Higdon)
    Re: Cell One/Boston (Christopher C. Stacy)
    Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (Phil Dampier)
    Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York (K.M. Peterson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mandy E. Kinne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Help Starting a Help Desk
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 10:16:11 -0400
Organization: Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


I was recently hired by a company to start up a help desk. Every other
time I have dne something like this the phone system was already in
place. Not here, not now. Blah!

One of my jobs is going to be researching and purchasing a new phone
system that we can afford. Currently we have seven incoming voice lines
running through Bell Centrex service. No local PBX or anything.

What I am looking to do is streamline the calling process. I need to set
up a menuing system, an audiotext system, voice mail and so forth. I've
been looking at this software/hardware package from SpeechSoft. What I
am curious about is can this system run off of a centrex service? Is it
a good solution? Does anyone have any experience with it?

A local provider has also been trying to sell us a Toshiba Strata DK280
as a solution. Does anyone know if this system has peripherals to handle
audiotext? Is it a good system and so forth and or not.

Any clue as to what I should be doing would be greatly appreciated.
Also, any leads on introductory books on CTI and Telephony would be
fantastic. I just wish I hadn't accepted this contract ... blah

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Byung Wan Suh)
Subject: What's CAPI? Especially 'API'
Date: 22 May 1995 07:03:50 GMT
Organization: The George Washington University, Washington DC


Hello, world.

I'd like to ask one simple question.  I figured out that CAPI stands for
COMMON-ISDN-API, but what's the API?  Please let me know with direct
email.  Thanks in advance.


Mr. Byung Wan Suh                 ADDRESSES:
Graduate Teaching Fellow          Internet(USA) -> [e-mail]
Dept. of Management Science       Chollian(KOREA) ->
The George Washington University           [e-mail]
Washington, DC  20052             URL ->http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~bws

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David K. Leikam)
Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software?
Date: 22 May 1995 20:19:28 -0700


Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software
> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be
> voice.  They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and
> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and
> let them know.  It SEEMS like this could be an option on the school's
> phone system (I don't remember who made it), since it does have voice
> mail and all sorts of fancy features.  But I'm wondering if there's
> some simple PC software that could also do it.  I'm running SuperVoice
> 2 with a Maxtech voice/data/fax modem and am quite pleased with it.  I
> spoke with the publisher of SuperVoice yesterday and they did not have
> any voice broadcast software.  So, anything like this around?
> SuperVoice 2 with modem was about $70.  It'd be real nice to find
> something in this price area.

Well, nothing *I* am aware of, that I'd trust to do a halfway decent job.
Thinking about the problems of reliability sorta starts me towards a fair
sized headache ... (deep breath)

I suppose we *could* build something like this, that you could expect,
oh, an 80% reliability rate out of. But it would cost orders of magnitude
more, even if you didn't want maintenance or support.  If you think about
the problems for a minute or two, you'll see why. (Did we get an
answering machine? If so, do we have a beep yet? What kind of beep? Has
the beep ended, and can we talk now? Did we get a forward to a pager? If
so, what number to we tell 'em to dial.? Are we talking to a person? Is
it the right person, i.e, do we want to do voice-recognition at all? Do
we want to be interactive? Do we want to deal with the 30% of the
population that doesn't have touch-tone service?)

Take your desired cost, treble it, multiply by 10, and you're getting to
the ballpark, honestly. And you'll still miss, about 20% of the time, no
guarantees it'll do that well ... more likely it will end up in the
$5-$10K area for acceptable performance.

And no, that's not a bid. My interest is technical, I do NOT want to
actually be responsible for this thing!

Buddy, can you spare an Excedrin?

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories
Organization: IgLou Internet Services
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 06:30:04 GMT


TELECOM Digest Editor PAT wrote:

> Many listeners know that the first FM station in the United States was
> here in Chicago in 1941, when the Zenith Radio Corporation put station
> WEFM on the air with exclusively classical music so that people who
> were buying the (then new) style of radio with frequency modulation (FM)
> would have something to listen to. Otherwise no one would buy an FM
> radio since there were no stations 'like that' to listen to -- not in
> the early 1940's at least. The station was named after the president of
> Zenith at that time, a fellow named <E>dward <F>. <M>cCormick.

Actually that was Commander Eugene F. McDonald.  Perhaps you were thinking
of Colonel Robert R. McCormick, publisher of the {Chicago Tribune}?

WEFM was almost certainly the first FM station in the Midwest, but it was
by no means the first in the U.S. -- that was Major Armstrong's own
W2XMN, outside New York City.  (The first *commercial* FM station,
according to the FCC, was WSM-FM in Nashville -- then called W47NV --
on January 1, 1941.)  The Zenith station was originally an experimental
operation called W9XZR on 42.8 MHz, apparently started around 1939; it
became a commercial station in 1941 as W51C on 45.1 MHz, then became
WWZR around 1944-45 when the special "channel number and city" FM calls
were abolished.  They finally moved to 99.5 MHz some time after 1946;
when that happened Zenith started adding an unlabeled dot at that
position on the dials of all their FM radios.  I don't know when the
WEFM call sign was adopted, other than that it was before FM stereo
broadcasts began in 1961.  (Of course the station is now WUSN -- I
wonder what Commander McDonald would think of *those* initials on
"his" station...:-)

Zenith also had two experimental TV stations at different times.
W9XZV was started in 1939, and became a commercial station as WTZR in
the early 1940s.  They kept their experimental status active and ran a
small market test of a pay-per-view service around 1950-51 with 600
customers (all of whom were lent new Zenith TVs, the only make
compatible with the PPV decoders).  Some time after the test was over
Zenith sold the station to CBS (allegedly at a very tidy profit); it's
now WBBM-TV.  The second was on channel 38 in the late 60s and early
70s (I've forgotten the call sign), and was used to test different
scrambling systems for over-the-air pay TV.  (I suspect the folks at
Zenith wish they'd kept that operation -- when they were field testing
Digital Spectrum Compatible HDTV in 1992 they ended up doing the
broadcasts on WMVT, channel 36 in Milwaukee.  WMVT usually can't be
received around Chicago because of a low-power station on the same
channel, but the HDTV tests came in fine at Zenith's lab in Glenview.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for the name correction and
the additional historical data on FM radios. Yes, I did get my McCormicks
and McDonalds mixed up. Colonel McCormick of the {Chicago Tribune} was
a big factor in getting WGN 720-AM on the air in 1922, which was assigned
those call letters in reference to the Tribune as the World's Greatest
Newspaper. WLS went on the air in 1923 and its call letters reflected its
owner's (Sears, Roebuck) status as the World's Largest Store.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott D Fybush)
Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 05:18:14 GMT


Not to carry this thread too much farther than it merits here, but...

The great frequency switch on AM happened on March 29, 1941.  The goal
of the new "North American Regional Broadcasting Agreement," or NARBA,
was to create some new clear channels for Canada and Mexico, and to
coordinate the expansion of the AM band from 1500-1600 kHz.

WGN had never been on 730 -- it (along with most everything else below
720 kHz) stayed put at 720.  Stations further up the dial were shifted
10, 20, 30, or even in some cases 40kHz to accomodate new Can/Mex clear
channels at 730, 800, 900, 1010, and so forth.   So for PAT's native
Chicago, WMAQ stayed put at 670, WBBM went from 770 to 780, WLS/WENR
from 870 to 890, WAAF from 920 to 950, WCFL from 970 to 1000, WMBI from
1080 to 1110, WJJD from 1130 to 1160, WCRW/WEDC/WSBC from 1210 to 1240,
WGES from 1360 to 1390, and WEHS/WHFC from 1420 to 1450.

Much more information can be gleaned from the NARBA page on the Boston
Radio Archives web site -- set your URL to:

ftp://radio.lcs.mit.edu/radio/bostonradio.html

for more than you ever wanted to know about the history of Boston radio
and radio in general.


Scott Fybush - [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 06:27:50 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Pat-

You were writing about receiving a carrier on 660 Khz that turned out
to be WBBM right there in Chicago.  The explanation given about
subtracting this from that gives 660 Khz is not really the answer in
that situation.  What you had there is a 2A-B mix occurance and most
likely was happening in your receiver.  If you multiply 720 by 2 and
subtract 780, you end up with 660.  I have to chase things like this
routinely and an example of this was in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on an
amateur radio site that had both a two meter repeater and a packet
base station in close proximity.  The repeater transmitter was on
145.290 and the packet transmited on 144.990.  The packet base caused
no problems when it transmitted alone, nor did the repeater.  However,
if both transmitters were up at the same time, 2x144.990 - 145.29= the
input of the repeater, 144.690.  Since this was an on-frequency
product, there was no option but to move one of the transmitters and
the packet system did move to a site outside of Hershey.

I believe in your instance, there may have been some mixing going on at the
AM transmitter sites, but far more likely is the mixing was going on in your
own receiver as it had a clear shot at both carriers at approximately the
same signal stregnth.

In my amateur example also, the packet held up the repeater for extended
periods of time because the packet was the digipeater for the local amateur
packet BBS system.


Kevin Magloughlin  KA0JQO
[e-mail]

Watch for the new best seller _Chasing Sunsets_


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How does that explain the engineer at the
station in North Carolina telling me he could hear the same thing as
myself on the board over there when his AM station was off the air?   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 21:14:56 -0700
From: Samir Soliman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories


TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

> ... I asked the engineer at WBBM about this and why he thought it might have
> happened. His answer was, they and WGN sit very close together out in
> the boondocks. So close together, that WGN picks up some of our signal
> and send it out with theirs, and we pick up some of their signal and
> send it out with ours. So, he said, if you note that we are at 780 and
> they are at 720, that's a difference of 60 kc. Subtract 60 from 720 and
> you get 660 ...   hmmm ...

> Now it used to be quite common to be able to hear WBBM at multiples all
> the way up the tuning dial. At night I could hear them at 780 of course,
> but also at 1560, 2340, and sometimes 3120 kc. I have never before nor
> since ever heard them *below* their usual location. Radio waves can be
> very weird and strange at times.   PAT]

If the signal is strong it compresses the front end of the reciver,
causing the receiver to work in the non-linear region.  What you saw
is the third order IM product (2f1-f2), where f1 = 720 and f2 = 780.
I bet you could have heard it also on 840.


Samir Soliman

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scot E. Wilcoxon)
Subject: Re: Connie Chung's Attitude About Oklahoma
Date: 23 May 1995 23:38:43 -0500
Organization: FieldDay


I think our Moderator is straying a bit from telecom.  Contributors, can
you remember to try to find a little about telecom in the reports on the
latest disaster?  It is helpful to see how things going wrong are dealt
with, and remember in this case it's how telecom problems are dealt with.

I'm waiting for the telecom problems caused by the assault tank situation
(not to be confused with problems involving lawful tank use).


Scot E. Wilcoxon    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By now probably everyone knows that Connie
got fired. She no longer sits next to whats-his-name the Talking Head
with her smile and her reports of dubious value.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Elana who?)
Subject: Re: Phree Phone in Chicago's Union Station - Still There?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 05:14:30 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I feel rather certain you were using the
> unguarded, unattended phone of some employee who was not present at
> his/her desk at the time of your visit. While you were there, did you
> consider rifling through the desk drawers looking for things of value
> which the occupant may have left there while out to lunch or in a meeting
> or wherever people go when they are not at their desk? You would like to
> return to the scene of the crime, eh?

Sorry, dear Moderator, you can't truthfully accuse me of any crime
here.  The phone was in the WAITING AREA, the same room as me and the
other lost Amtrak passengers.  Neither it or I were anywhere NEAR any
of the offices.  Period.  That is why I thought that it was pretty
unique that they would have phree phones (there were TWO in that
waiting room!) right in the midst of the chairs where the wayward
passengers were sitting and waiting to be processed.  They were plain,
not marked (no signs) and there was not an employee desk anywhere
within sight.  We are talking passenger area, NOT an office area.

> Well it is hard to say exactly *where* in the building you were at.
> So much has changed over there, I would not begin to know where to
> start looking for a phone such as you describe.

Oh, THAT'S easy.  Go to the station and ask where they direct the passengers
who have missed their train connections!  NO PROBLEM.  :)

(Betcha those phones have been "discovered" since then ... I'd be
surprised if they are *still* sitting so easily on the tables in the
waiting room since I saw them ...)

Try asking an old-time Amtrak employee about the phones ... as in someone
who would have been working in the lost-passenger area all the way back
to 1990.


Elana
(who is NOT in the business of walking into other people's offices and
using their phones w/o permission ... but DID like these phree phones in
this public place which were like sitting ducks -- roasted on a platter and
inviting you to dinner via Amtrak's blessing ... no shooting necessary)  :)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS, Chicago
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 05:17:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Can anyone point me to a list of Internet providers in the Chicago, IL
> area (708 area code)?

There's actually over a dozen providers in and around Chicago, if you have
gopher or web access, I maintain an index of providers with links to each
provider's own information files:

            http://www.ripco.com/providers/

            gopher.ripco.com

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The first one which comes to mind is
> mcs.net. It is operated by Karl Denninger. He is actually in 312 regards
> his physical location on West Belmont Avenue, but I think he services
> all of northern Illinois with ease.  Try him out.   PAT]

Because of the "band" system for local calls used by Ameritech, you'll
want to find a provider who's central office is within 8 miles of your
central office -- otherwise you pay Ameritech by the minute, rather than
a flat per-call rate.

It gets worse -- _ALL_ outgoing calls on business lines are charged by the
minute.


[e-mail]    Kevin Kadow

FREE Usenet/Mail, inexpensive Internet - Ripco... Wearing white hats since 1983
Dialup:[phone] | http://www.ripco.com/ | Telnet:foley.ripco.com ('info')

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Judith Oppenheimer)
Subject: Universal Freephone Update
Date: 23 May 1995 11:57:24 -0400
Organization: Interactive CallBrand(TM)


Pat, you asked.  <g>

In advance of everyone's return from Tokyo, I was hearing from people in
D.C., who'd stayed home, that they were getting glowing reports from the
MCI spin patrol.

Then reports started filtering in directly from the front.

General comments:

"Like a train through a chicken coop the draft was approved as stable.
Very embarrassing.  MCI chairman ran over everybody with objections.
One guy said, he couldn't have done better with a machine gun.  Date
certain of December 1994 was approved but there are some MAJOR new
glitches.  It got heated with Engleman (MCI chair) literally yelling
from the chair."

Re User Contribution to strike non-ownership language,

"Major battle on this.  AT&T was a real pill as usual.  They've got a
lady who thinks she's Howard Stern and thinks by shouting "it doesn't
matter" in an indignant tone she can have her way.  This issue was
sent to the ITU legal council for review."

Some other problems: where there is a conflict among "priority
applicants", there is no time parameter for resolution, nor for the
"second choice" that priority applicants are supposed to be due.

This is because the system, as delineated to date, calls for immediate
release of all numbers.  The whole thing is a joke.

Incidentally, it's great for business.  We've got users lining up for help
so they at least have a shot at protecting their 800's.

Ain't life grand.


J. Oppenheimer, [e-mail]
Interactive CallBrand(TM)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the update. Please continue
sending them as you receive them.    PAT]

------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 20:23:34 -0700
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac Bell Fixed it -- and Fast!


[e-mail] (Bob Yazz) writes:

> I even got a call from someone at Pac Bell's "External Relations"
> department.  I hadn't contacted them, nor the PUC, nor any higher-
> ups at Pac Bell, so I have to wonder if those folks read the TELECOM
> Digest!

You better believe folks at Pacific Bell read all of the telecom
groups.  Many of the contacts that I have within the company have come
from people responding to my remarks made here and elsewhere.

Don't ever let anyone tell you that airing your remarks in TELECOM Digest
is a waste of time. Many chronic problems, as well as some annoying
practices have evaporated within a short period after complaints have come
to light in this forum. And the followup phone calls received from
management have confirmed what lit the fire.



John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | [phone]
             |         http://www.ati.com/ati             |

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Christopher C Stacy)
Subject: Re: Cell One/Boston
Organization: Christopher C. Stacy
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 23:02:14 GMT


Also, the Dedham switch crashed, resetting some people's voicemail to
"none", so that you would just get the "has left the calling area"
message instead of being transferred into voicemail. If the customer
called the system to check the mailbox, everything appeared normal
(except that there would be no mail waiting).  There was no indication
tht anything was amiss, and Cell One did nothing to inform anyone.

I only found out because someone called me at home to ask me why I
didn't have voicemail anymore.  Then I called Cellular One, and they
turned it back on for me.  Presumably many other customers do not know
that their voicemail is still disabled, and are missing calls.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 13:24:44 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Phillip M. Dampier)
Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have not heard anything further from
> John Covert since he sent this in. Perhaps he will share whatever he
> knows on the topic with us. There were many more of these 'why located
> in France' messages than I included here. Do you think they have some
> kind of deal going on with Minitel perhaps?  Is that a possibility?   PAT]

The {Rochester Democrat & Chronicle's} weekly online telecommunication
column recently reviewed this service and implied that it was, indeed,
cooperating with France's PTT/Minitel service for provision of the
service.  I don't believe this was explicitly stated, however.

Additionally, the reviewer gave NYNEX very poor marks for its
confusing, graphics-intensive (ie. slow for dial-up users) service.
NYNEX listings for businesses in Rochester are very sparse, owing to
the fact independent Rochester Tel holds on to their listings like
someone in the Sahara holds on to a glass of water.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (K. M. Peterson)
Subject: Re: Flash! NYNEX WWWeb Site With Yellow Pages for New York
Date: 23 May 1995 21:08:17 GMT
Organization: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated


> Do you think they have some kind of deal going on with Minitel
> perhaps?  Is that a possibility?  PAT]

I wrote them, and they replied:

As for our host being located in France, the first online yellow pages
service NYNEX launched (USACCESS) was launched in France due to legal
restrictions imposed on us.  When these restrictions were lifted, it
allowed us to launch other services within the US.  We are planning to
move the host to the US. Thank you again.

NIYP Customer Service


[Very interesting...-KMP]


K. M. Peterson <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #252
******************************

Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa27035;
          24 May 95 3:36 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16167 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 23 May 1995 22:02:32 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16159; Tue, 23 May 1995 22:02:30 -0500
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 22:02:30 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #253

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 May 95 22:02:20 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 253

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Auction All the Spectrum (Peter Huber via [e-mail])
    X.25 Equipment Help Wanted (Michael Vakulenko)
    I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love it (Eric Tholome)
    My Experiences With GTE's Tele-Go Service (Mark E. Daniel)
    Are 1-800-0xx-xxxx and 1-800-1xx-xxxx Numbers Possible? (Robert Casey)
    New Area Codes Announced (Steve Grandi)
    Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Raymond Charles Jender)
    Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Tony Waddell)
    Re: Meeting the Challenge (Mike McKinney)
    Re: Phone Monopolies (Lee Winson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Auction All the Spectrum
Date: 23 May 1995 19:47:23 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


Manhattan Institue for Policy Research. This and other articles by Mr.
Huber can be seen at http://khht.com/huber/home.html.

   THE FCC COULD HAVE A GOING-OUT-OF-BUSINESS SALE

   Copyright 1995 by Peter Huber. Electronic copies of this document may
   be distributed freely, provided that this notice accompanies all
   copies.

   ------------------

Here's how Congress can raise $10 billion a year and cut government
at the same time. No new taxes. No phony accounting. No leveling the
timber in national parks. No kidding.

Economists have known for years that the best way to manage the
airwaves is to sell them off in orderly parcels, and then let the
market decide how best to use them. Recently, however, economists have
been putting numbers to this argument. The numbers are stunning.

Congress nationalized all radio spectrum in 1927. Ever since, the
Federal Communications Commission has been zoning chunks for one use
or another -- radio, paging, satellites, whatever happened to hit the
commission's fancy -- and then assigning allotments to favored
applicants who promised to use the spectrum accordingly. Until
recently, no money changed hands, just political favor.

The secondary market, however, gives us a good idea what those
individual licenses are worth. When a company like McCaw sells to AT&T
for $17 billion, it's easy enough to infer the value of the FCC
licenses in the transaction. On that basis, the commercial spectrum
currently used for broadcast, cellular telephone, satellite and so on
is worth somewhere between $100 billion and $300 billion. If all
spectrum were leased on long-term contracts rather than sold, it would
generate additional federal revenues of $10 billion to $20 billion a
year. This compares with $3 billion currently generated from offshore
oil and gas leases and royalties, and $28 million generated from
federal grazing fees.

To its credit, the FCC recently took a first, reasonably successful,
stab at selling off spectrum licenses. In the last 12 months, the
various auctions of ten-year licenses of spectrum for so-called
personal communications services (meaning: cellular phone service)
have raised about $10 billion. The commission would have raised even
more if ownership had been sold outright.

The FCC and other government agencies are sitting on billions of
dollars of additional bandwidth, which remains idle while federal
bureaucrats ponder how to assign it. The creation of the cellular
industry, which today generates $20 billion or so a year in revenue,
was delayed for a decade while the FCC fretted about whether and how
it should allocate spectrum to this newfangled use.

It's a safe bet that there are other $20 billion industries just
waiting for the FCC to awake from its slumber.

Spectrum that has already been given away presents a more subtle
financial opportunity. Buyers in the secondary market -- AT&T, for
example -- can cogently argue that they already paid for their
spectrum when they wrote a check to primary licensees like Craig
McCaw. At this point there's no fair or politically feasible way for
the government to reclaim those licenses.

But even here, the FCC still has something very valuable to sell. The
FCC never quite gave away spectrum to anyone -- it issued fixed-term
licenses. The property, in theory, reverts to the FCC when the leases
expire. At present, licensees spend lavishly on lawyers every time
they renew or transfer a license. Quite often they have to buy off
challengers who file objections for the sole purpose of legal
extortion. Existing licensees would pay good money to convert their
lease into ownership free and clear.

Yet another way for the government to raise a chunk of money is to
sell legal erasers. At present, spectrum licenses are strictly zoned.
If you're licensed to do television, you may not use your spectrum to
do wireless telephony. If the FCC authorized just one UHF television
station in Los Angeles to transfer its spectrum to a third cellular
provider, the overall public gain would be about $1 billion, or so the
government itself estimated in 1992. Nextel was created in just this
way, by an entrepreneur who bought up taxi dispatch licenses and then
persuaded the FCC to rezone them for digital radio services.  Deleting
a few lines of legal boilerplate from all outstanding FCC licenses
would create tens of billions of dollars of new national wealth.

Which means that the rights to erase that boilerplate are immensely
valuable. They, too, can be sold. Sold they should be. These rights
are currently in the wrong hands. While the FCC owns them, they just
make work for bureaucrats and inflate the FCC's already bloated $200
million annual budget.

The opportunity here is almost too good to be true. A single, clean
piece of dezone-and-auction legislation will raise money, shrink
government and unleash private enterprise on the wireless lanes of the
infobahn industry. Someone should write it.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael Vakulenko)
Subject: X.25 Equipment Help Wanted
Date: 23 May 1995 12:53:42 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm Israel


Hi,

We are looking for X.25 switch (DCE) equipment for our project.

Please, advise where we could find such an equipment.

Any relevant information will be appreciated.  Please, respond by
e-mail.


Thanks in advance,

Michael Vakulenko,               Voice: [phone]
  Software Engineer,             Fax:   [phone]
    Qualcomm Israel, Ltd.        Email: [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Eric Tholome)
Subject: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 21:10:26 +0200


I thought I'd let you know that I just bought a CT2 phone (digital cordless
phone) and I love it.

Actually, I already had the handset and was using it from time to time
in the street (France Telecom offers a CT2 public service in and
around Paris). A few days ago, I just bought my personal base station.
It's amazing: it is sold with a range of around 1000 feet, just like
most old CT0 phones. But unlike old CT0 phones, which actually start
being noisy when you're just one room away from your base station, my
new CT2 base station will let me call from anywhere in my flat. What's
more, I can even call from 3 floors below, and from several hundred
feet outside, with a perfect sound quality. With all the features
(takes about 3 hours to configure it!), plus the privacy and security
of a digital technology, it is really worth its price.

Is CT2 popular in the U.S.A.?


Eric Tholome
23, avenue du Centre          [e-mail]
78180 Montigny le Bretonneux  phone: [phone]
                    France    fax: same number, call first!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 95 04:15:35 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mark E. Daniel) (Mark E. Daniel)
Subject: My Experiences With GTE's Tele-Go Service


Greetings everyone.  You may remember my posts about GTE Tele-Go
service from a while ago.  Now that I've had it for a while I have
some comments to make.  They say one can use his/her cell phone as a
cordless while at home, with a little gadget called an Enhanced (ha!)
Cordless Base Station., You may remember I mentioned this before.
Finally I got the ECB.  It didn't work.  You are supposed to authorize
your cell phone with the ECB before you can use it.  Mine wouldn't
authorize.

I called, days past.  I called again.  This time I was given a access
charge credit for my troubles.  Finally someone called.  But it was on
a day when I wasn't home.  A few more days past.  Finally I was home
when the guy called.  So he comes out and reprograms my cell handset
and the ECB.  So now the thing authorizes.  Of course I find out that
you can not simply hook your ECB to the phone line (and this is
*wierd*).  You have to use one of those handy two-jack-in-one deals
from Radio Shack and hook a standard phone to one site, and the ECB to
the other.  I can't find anyone who can explain *why* this is
necessary, or what the ECB uses the phone for.  But they say it won't
work if you don't do it this way.

A thought I just had is that perhaps the ECB does not have the
capacity to dial and perhaps the phone is used to complete the part of
the call which is set up via my POTS line.  It works the same as when
it's in cell mode.  You just dial and then the number is sent to the
cell site (in this case the ECB) and then the ECB goes off-hook and
presumably dials the number.  The sound quality is not as good as when
you use the cell-mode.  It sounds *very* far away and not very loud.
But it gets a little worse.  The ECB dropped all my calls at varying
times.  And I tried a little experiment.  When one is in the range of
their ECB, all calls to their cellular number are to get forwarded to
their POTS line.  The phone ("handset") in question is an Oki Telecom
1150.  You can press Menu and the Green "dial tone" button to have the
phone use cell-mode instead of the ECB.  I have call forwarding on my
cellular account.  I wanted to see if forwarding my calls would have
any effect on the ECB forwarding.  It did.  It simply quit working.  I
tried deactivating it and all that did was go to the "Your call can
not be completed at this time..." intercept.

Morning comes.  I call GTE Mobilnet to tell them of my problems.  Re:
The call dropping they say I have an outdated ECB and they'll have to
replace it. I inform them that my ECB forwarding quit working and they
come back and quote me the number I had forwarded my cellular to.  Wow
I said.  I tell the rep of my experiment and she then comes and tells
me that my cell phone was not programmed with the ECB forwarding
number and that I had used an improper code to deactivate the
forwarding. Although the Fine Manual said to use *730, she said that
*720 is proper.  Both of them give confirmation tones when dialed even
though the only custom calling feature I have is forwarding.  So I get
impatient and take the ECB back to a GTE store.  They've sent an order
for a new updated ECB that doesn't drop calls to be sent to me.
Reason they gave for the old one dropping calls was a reaction to line
noise. :-).  So....  The guy at the store who looked at my phone and
ECB said the phone was programmed fine, dispite what the other person
said.  Then how the hell does all this work? :-).  Does the ECB
intercept a celular signal and reroute the call to my POTS line?
ECB forwarding BTW is free of airtime charges (when it works).

So then are there any alternitives?  When I'm using the cell phone "on
the go", I pay only .25/min regardless of time of day.  and only
$19.95/mo access charge.  But the service area is limited to the 216
area code.  They say I can use national Roamer's Network to make calls
out of my service area, but that it's pricey and charges via a credit
card.  Can anyone tell me how that works?

Can anyone give me .25/min when in the local area and some other
imflated rate when "roaming"?  But with incomming privlanges as well?
Or is it simply not possible and I'm a nut for thinking it should be?


Mark E Daniel      (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS)
Inet: [e-mail]       [e-mail] (Direct INet)
521 Shannon CT Akron OH 44312-2276  BBS/FAX: [phone] v: 3245
Pager  : [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: Are 1-800-0xx-xxxx and 1-800-1xx-xxxx Numbers Possible?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 03:12:20 GMT


Can the phone system support toll free 1-800 numbers of the format
1-800-0xx-xxxx and/or 1-800-1xx-xxxx?  I know you never see exchanges
in regular area codes starting with 0 or 1, but, as far as I know, one
phone in the "800" "area code" can't just dial seven digits to reach
another phone in 1-800.  Not like phones in regular area codes.  So,
it seems that the phone system would not get confused with 1-800-0xx-xxxx
or 1-800-1xx-xxxx.

This could add an extra 1/5 possible numbers to 1-800 toll free service.

What have I missed?

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 11:25:47 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Steve Grandi)
Subject: New Area Codes Announced


Bellcore seems to have made a batch of assignments lately:

1) According to the {St. Louis Post Dispatch}, AC 573 has been
assigned to the upcoming split or overlay of AC 314 (to take place in
February 1996).  The Missouri Public Services Commission is holding
hearings on the split vs. overlay question.

2) According to the {Cleveland Plain Dealer}, AC 330 has been assigned
to an upcoming split of AC 216.  The nature of the split is still
uncertain but Cleveland will retain 216.  The timescale is quoted to
be the end of 1995 or early 1996.

3) Ian Fisher ([e-mail]) reports in alt.dcom.telecom that
the {Vancouver Sun} reports that AC 250 has been assigned for a split
of AC 604.  The Greater Vancouver area will retain 604; implementation
will begin in October 1996.

Who is next? According Bellcore's "number exhaustion list" AC 818 in
the Los Angeles metro area, AC 210 in S. Texas (including San Antonio)
and AC 318 in Louisiana are getting close to splits.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And of course we here in 708 got bypassed
entirely with the pending split to 630, and the northern suburbs of
Chicago will be in 847 sometime next year.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS?
Organization: AT&T NSC, 2600 Warrenville, Lisle, IL
Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 15:55:07 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the last word is 'service' rather
> than 'system'.  A minor distinction perhaps, perhaps not. <P>lain <O>ld
> <T>elephone <S>ervice or POTS usually refers to the use of just one or
> two lines with just regular instruments and no bells or whistles. POTS
> lines would not have any of the newer custom calling features for
> example. POTS always refers to the humble and simple service of any single
> subscriber, not to the system or network as a whole.   PAT]

Pat,

In my world of telephony, we use POTS to differentiate from a Centrex
line also ... for testing purposes in the labs, we order our test lines
by POTS or Centrex.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So maybe it just is relative to whatever
is going on in the industry. Any simple and unadorned arrangement will
be called POTS when compared to a more elaborate version of the same
thing. Would you say that is correct?    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tony Waddell)
Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS?
Date: Tue, 22 May 1995 16:22:25 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the last word is 'service' rather
> than 'system'.  A minor distinction perhaps, perhaps not. <P>lain <O>ld
> <T>elephone <S>ervice or POTS usually refers to the use of just one or
> two lines with just regular instruments and no bells or whistles. POTS
> lines would not have any of the newer custom calling features for
> example. POTS always refers to the humble and simple service of any single
> subscriber, not to the system or network as a whole.   PAT]

Pat, you could well be correct, because I've heard Plain Old Telephone
Service referred to as POTS for quite some time now. But when I was in
the business office too many years ago, we service reps used to get
"credit" for selling the newer type telephones: touch tone, slimline,
DesignLine, etc. When a customer just wanted the standard dial phone,
s/he was getting a <P>lain <O>ld <T>elephone <S>et. (We did have color
phones and I vaguely recall that we may even have charged extra for
them, but I didn't work there so long ago that "the customer could get
any color they wanted as long as it was black").

Back then, there wern't a lot of options for the "service" end, (at
least for residential customers), so almost everyone got plain old
telephone SERVICE by default.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 19:17:55 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mike McKinney)
Subject: Re: Meeting the Challenge


John Higdon, in issue #249, writes:

> The following remarks concern the history, practices, and policies of
> Pacific Bell and do not necessarily reflect any aspect of any of the
> other RBOCs. However, I suspect that there may be aspects of these
> observations that do apply in one way or another.

Come on John, you can't hide behind this thin of a disclaimer !

He later says:

> As telcos across the nation were rolling out 976 services to
> providers, Pac*Bell followed suit. However, the PB powers-that-be
> looked at all these potential competitors (to its failed chat line)
> and hedged its bets.  Exercising its power as owner and controller of
> the network, yet hiding behind the PUC tariffs that the company itself
> wrote, Pac*Bell offered 976 services to information providers with
> incredible conditions attached.

> A provider had to place an incredible cash deposit with the written
> service installation order, usually several thousand dollars. The
> installation site had to have "excess facilities" which meant that any
> 976 lines had to be installed on pairs that would never conceivably be
> used for POTS. The site had to be located within some arbitrary
> perimeter of the specific 976-serving office.

A cash deposit is required on *any* major installation that requires
capitol investment on a Telco's part, either that or a letter of
guarantee that the service will be used long enough to recover the
cost. This will probably change with real competiton because there
will no doubt be companies that will do it just for the monthly
service charges. As an aside to that there will probably be a lot of
competitors that fail because of poor choices in who they try to
serve.  It will be a gamble: some will win, some will lose and only
the biggest or the most astute will survive.

As regards to other installation requirements, I have no idea what he
means by "The installation site had to have "excess facilities" which
meant that any 976 lines had to be installed on pairs that would never
conceivably be used for POTS."  Perhaps John could explain his
comment.

It's obvious that John knows nothing about the technical side of the
telephone business because any time you go outside the walls of the CO
you're going to have physical requirements: simple physics determines
how far you can push a given signal across a given facility and simple
economics determines how much money to spend to push it any further.
If it costs more to push the signal than the signal costs, there is no
profit in it.  Again, this could change.  And again this could be the
downfall of many companies.  Won't those people who go with the lowest
price be thrilled when there 'real' cost doubles (or more) because
their provider folds and they have to install the service a second
time (and a third, fourth, etc.: providers will not be the only ones
gambling).


Mike McKinney  SW Bell
Austin, TX     [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To the contrary, I think John Higdon has
a very excellent knowledge of the technical side of this business. And
unlike yourself, I cannot imagine a provider going out of business without
making arrangements for its existing customer base to be serviced by
some other remaining provider. I guess it is possible, but I suspect a
new law might be put on the books saying that existing customer bases
had to be dealt with by the remaining companies, etc.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: Phone Monopolies
Date: 24 May 1995 01:03:40 GMT
Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS


As a small-time POTS customer, I am interested in the highest quality
service at the lowest possible price.  I don't really care if that's
delivered by competition or a regulated monopoly.

If it's more economical for a local telephone company to deliver a
service or product (due to economies of scale or expertise), then why
not let it deliver it?  For instance, Bell Atlantic charges me cheaper
toll rates than the LD carriers, but Bell is not allowed to provide long
distance service between its own customers if it crosses LATA lines.

Why shouldn't Bell be allowed to provide such service?

And if competing PBX/DID manufacturers can't compete against a Bell
centrex system, should the Bell company be handcuffed or criticized?
There are certain economies of scale of doing everything in one place
(which is why the system became a monopoly in the first place.)

I am glad I can own my own equipment.  But it's interesting how I find
myself seeking Western Electric brand phones instead of newer stuff -- I
find they're more reliable and durable than the "AT&T" brand or anything
else (and I hate chime ringers).

As to customer-owned coin phones, I believe they are tremendous ripoffs.
The tiny little instruction card is usually misleading and the prices
charged are always higher than Bell coin phones.  Now why is that?
(Anybody involved in this, please, please comment.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are higher priced because the owner
has to pay the same for the telco connection as the telco charges itself
for its own coin phones. He is not running a charity, or a Union Station
phree phone (like Elana discussed). He wants to make a profit for himself
and telco is detirmined to get their profit one way or another out of it
also. So he has to charge more in order to be able to siphon off some for
himself. Another reason they are usually higher priced is because the
COCOT owner will put in a phone many times where telco will not put one in.
If telco cannot make a profit from a public phone, then it won't be there
in most instances unless someone else is willing to have a 'semi-public'
coin phone there, allow telco to keep all the money -- paying no commissions
to the owner of the property -- AND pay a monthly fee, typically ten or
fifteen dollars, for having the pay phone there. The COCOT guy in the
meantime goes in the same place, offers to put a phone there and pay
commmissions to the proprietor. Where do those commissions come from?
That's why COCOT phones typically cost more to use, but granted, they are
a ripoff to most of us. For the poor person living in a ghetto slum where
the only available pay phone is the COCOT at the corner liquor store or
lottery agent however, it is probably a lifesaver at times and worth the
cost.  PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #253
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa10795;
          24 May 95 16:00 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22878 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 24 May 1995 08:07:15 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22869; Wed, 24 May 1995 08:07:12 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 08:07:12 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #254

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 May 95 08:07:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 254

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Cox Amendment to Limit Universal Service to Voice Telephone (M. Solomon)
    Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Jan Joris Vereijken)
    Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness (Al Varney)
    Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Jamie Mason)
    Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Gareth J. Evans)
    Re: What's CAPI? Especially 'API' (James Carlson)
    Re: Long Wave and Medium Wave Transmitters (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: Easy Way to Busy Line in Modem Pool? (Kevin Kadow)
    Re: 10224 - Thanks MCI!! (Les Reeves)
    Re: Cell One/Boston (John R. Covert)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:56:30 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cox Amendment to Limit Universal Service to Voice Grade Telephone
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Submitted FYI:

Begin forwarded message:

TAP-INFO - An Internet newsletter available from [e-mail]

TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - INFORMATION POLICY NOTE
May 23, 1995

-    Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) may offer amendment
     to limit universal service to voice grade telephone
     service.

-    Amendment may lead to higher residential ISDN tariffs

     James Love (202/387-8030; [e-mail]) TAP

     During the May 17, 1995 House Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and Finance mark-up on HR 1555, Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA,
voice 202/225-5611; fax [phone], staff David Sachs) offered an
amendment that would have limited payments from a universal service
fund to voice grade telephone services that are generally available on
the date the Act passes. The Cox amendment specifically would have
deleted language that would have defined universal service to include:

     "access to advanced telecommunications services and
     capabilities."

     The controversy concerns the new way that telecommunications
services will be priced to consumers.  At present, most states have
monopoly local exchange carriers, which charge prices set by state
regulators to reflect universal service goals, such as lower tariffs
for residential consumers.  As Congress seeks to promote competition
for local telephone service, it is setting up a mechanism to support
universal service that will be funded by "equitable and nondiscriminatory
contributions" by all telecommunications providers.  These funds will
be used to support universal service goals.  The issue of how the
money will be spent will be decided later.  In the House bill, the
decisions will be made by a joint board composed of federal and state
regulators plus a state consumer advocate.

     It is anticipated that universal service funds will be used to
lower the cost of residential telecommunications services, by lowering
the allocation of joint infrastructure costs paid for by residential
consumers.  By limiting the contributions to voice grade services,
Representative Cox would treat residential ISDN services (or other
digital technologies) differently than residential voice grade
services.  Because ISDN or other digital technologies would not
receive any universal service contributions at all, the cost of
providing the ISDN service would be both the incremental cost of the
providing the technology and the loss of the universal service
contribution.

This is likely to lead to higher ISDN tariffs for some residential
consumers -- particularly where state regulatory commissions have
sought to provide lower ISDN residential tariffs.

     Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA) objected to the Cox amendment,
as freezing technology at present levels.  Cox staffers say he is
trying to freeze regulation, not technology.

The matter was tabled until the full Commerce Committee mark-up
on the 24th.

     TAP VIEW

     TAP opposes the Cox amendment on universal service.  We believe
the Joint Board should have the authority to redefine universal
service according to the broader public interest criteria included in
the original bill, and we believe that high speed ISDN connections
should be included in universal service.

     Below is the original language for universal service, the Cox
amendment, and contact information for the Commerce Committee.

ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE AND COX AMENDMENT TO
UNIVERSAL SERVICE.

1.   ORIGINAL LANGUAGE

          `SEC. 246. UNIVERSAL SERVICE.
            `(a) Joint Board To Preserve Universal Service . - Within
30 days after the date of enactment of this part, the Commission shall
convene a Federal-State Joint Board under section 410(c) for the
purpose of recommending actions to the Commission and State
commissions for the preservation of universal service in furtherance
of the purposes set forth in section 1 of this Act. In addition to the
members required under section 410(c), one member of the Joint Board
shall be a State-appointed utility consumer advocate nominated by a
national organization of State utility consumer advocates.

            (b) Principles . - The Joint Board shall base policies
for the preservation of universal service on the following principles:

                (1) Just and reasonable rates . - A plan adopted by
the Commission and the States should ensure the continued viability of
universal service by maintaining quality services at just and
reasonable rates.
                (2) Definitions of included services;
comparability in urban and rural areas  . - Such plan should
recommend a definition of the nature and extent of the services
encompassed within carriers` universal service obligations.

Such plan should seek to promote access to advanced telecommunications
services and capabilities, and to promote reasonably comparable
services for the general public in urban and rural areas, while
maintaining just and reasonable rates.

                (3) Adequate and sustainable support mechanisms. -
Such plan should recommend specific and predictable mechanisms to
provide adequate and sustainable support for universal service.

                (4) Equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions . -
All providers of telecommunications services should make an equitable
and nondiscriminatory contribution to the preservation of universal
service.
                (5) Educational access to advanced telecommunications
services . - To the extent that a common carrier establishes advanced
telecommunications services, such plan should include recommendations
to ensure access to advanced telecommunications services for students
in elementary and secondary schools.

        (6) Additional principles . - Such other principles as
the Board determines are necessary and appropriate for the protection
of the public interest, convenience, and necessity and consistent with
the purposes of this Act.

                (c) Definition of Universal Service . - In
recommending a definition of the nature and extent of the services
encompassed within carriers universal service obligations under
subsection
          (b)(2), the Joint Board shall consider the extent to
which -

                (1) a telecommunications service has, through
the operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to
by a substantial majority of residential customers;

                (2) such service or capability is essential to
public health, public safety, or the public interest;

                (3) such service has been deployed in the
public switched telecommunications network; and

                (4) inclusion of such service within carriers`
universal service obligations is otherwise consistent with the
public interest, convenience, and necessity. The Joint Board
may, from time to time, recommend to the Commission
modifications in the definition proposed under subsection (b).

            (d) Report; Commission Response . - The Joint Board
convened pursuant to subsection (a) shall report its recommendations
within 270 days after the date of enactment of this part.  The
Commission shall complete any proceeding to act upon such
recommendations and to comply with the principles set forth in
subsection (b) within one year after such date of enactment.


2.   COX AMENDMENT

Change SEC. 246.(b)(2) Definitions of included services, to
read:  (inserted language in caps]

                (2) Definitions of included services; comparability in
urban and rural areas . - Such plan should recommend a definition of
the nature and extent of the services encompassed within carriers`
universal service obligations THAT IS BASED ON BASIC VOICE-GRADE LOCAL
TELEPHONE SERVICE EQUIVALENT TO THE SERVICE GENERALLY AVAILABLE TO
RESIDENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS ON THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS PART.  Such
plan should seek to promote

     [STRIKE: access to advanced telecommunications
     services and capabilities, and to promote]

reasonably comparable services for the general public in urban
and rural areas, while maintaining just and reasonable rates.


     STRIKE all of SEC. 246(c), Definition of Universal Service.


                           Committee on Commerce

                          PHONE           FAX
REPUBLICANS
Bliley, Thomas,Chmn (VA) 225-2927       225-0011
Moorhead,Carlos(CA)      225-4176       226-1279

Fields, Jack             226-2424       226-4105
Oxley, Michael(OH)v-c    225-2676       226-1160
Bilirakis, Michael(FL)   225-5755       225-4085
Schaefer,Dan(CO)         225-7882       225-7885
                                        [e-mail]
Barton,Joe(TX)            225-2002       225-3052
Hastert,Dennis(IL)       225-2976       225-0697
                                        [e-mail]
Stearns,Cliff (FL)       225-5744       225-3973
                                        [e-mail]
Paxon,Bill(NY)           225-5260       225-5910
Gillmor,Paul(OH)         225-6405       225-1985
Klug,Scott(WI)           225-2906       225-6942
Franks, Gary (CT)        225-3822       225-5085
Greenwood, Jim (PA)      225-4276       225-9511
Crapo, Michael (ID)      225-5531       225-8216
Cox,Christopher(CA)      225-5611       225-9177
Burr, Richard (NC)       225-2071       225-2995
Bilbray, Brian (CA)      225-2040       225-2948
Whitefield, Ed (KY)      225-3115       225-3547
Ganske, Greg (IA)        225-4426       225-3193
Frisa,Dan(NY)            225-5516       225-3187
Norwood, Charlie (GA)    225-4101       225-3397
White,Rick(WA)           225-6311       225-3524
                                        [e-mail]
Coburn,Tom(OK)           225-2701       225-3038


DEMOCRATS
Dingell, John(MI)        225-4071
Waxman, Henry(CA)        225-3976       225-4099
Markey, Edward(MA)       225-2836       225-1716
Tauzin,W.J.(Billy)(LA)   225-4031       225-0563

Wyden, Ron(OR)           225-4811       225-8941
Hall, Ralph(TX)          225-6673       225-3332
Bryant, John(TX)         225-2231       225-0327
Boucher, Rick(VA)        225-3861       225-0442
                                        [e-mail]
Manton, Tom(NY)          225-3965       225-1909
                                        [e-mail]
Towns, Edolphus(NY)      225-5061       225-1018
Studds, Gerry(MA)        225-3111       225-2212
Pallone, Frank(NJ)       225-4671       225-9665
Brown, Sherrod(OH)       225-3401       225-2266
Lambert Lincoln,Blanche(AR) 225-4076    225-4654
Gordon, Bart(TN)         225-4231       225-6887


Furse, Elizabeth(OR)     225-0855       225-9497
Deutsch, Peter(FL)       225-7931       225-8456
Rush, Bobby(IL)          225-4372       226-0333
Eshoo, Anna(GA)          225-8104       225-8890
                                        [e-mail]
Klink, Ron(PA)           225-2565       226-2274

                ------------------------------------

TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer
Assets Project (TAP).  TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the
management of government property, including information systems and
data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government
assets.  TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal
information policy.  Tap-info is archived at www.essential.org and
gopher.essential.org in the taxpayer assets project directory.

Subscription requests to tap-info to [e-mail] with
the message:  subscribe tap-info your name.

Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC  20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet:  [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jan Joris Vereijken)
Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It
Date: 24 May 1995 14:07:07 +0200
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jan Joris Vereijken)


Eric Tholome <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I thought I'd let you know that I just bought a CT2 phone (digital cordless
> phone) and I love it.
> ...
> new CT2 base station will let me call from anywhere in my flat. What's
> more, I can even call from 3 floors below, and from several hundred
> feet outside, with a perfect sound quality. With all the features
> (takes about 3 hours to configure it!), plus the privacy and security
> of a digital technology, it is really worth its price.

Yes, CT2 *is* wonderful! I have one too ;-)

Did you know that in The Netherlands there is a very substantial CT2
network? It's called "Greenpoint" (formerly "Kermit"), and it's
operated by PTT Telecom.

I live in Amsterdam, and they have set up so many base stations that I
don't even bother to remember the locations anymore. I just count on
getting a signal when I want to call. And 9 out of 10 times I do!

Can you tell me how large the French network (it's called "BeBop",
isn't it?) is? I'm considering to have the roaming option enabled, so
I can use the phone when I'm over there.

By the way, the U.K. used to have *four* (correct me if I'm wrong)
CT2 networks, but all have stopped operations. Damn!

Enjoy your phone,


Jan Joris

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: T1.403 ESF and CRC-6 Usefulness
Organization: AT&T Network Systems
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 05:17:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Pratt, David C. <PRATTD@REU.
RELIANCE.sprint.com> wrote:

> The bottom line is that you MUST transmit an accurate CRC-6 on an ESF
> DS1.  If not it is likely that the far end will go into alarm based on
> an "unavailable seconds" condition.  If you want to ignore the incoming
> CRC-6 that's your problem.

   So you can't build a cheap DS0 drop/add for ESF without reconstructing
the CRC.  Is that what you had in mind?


Al Varney

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jamie Mason)
Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS?
Organization: University of Toronto, Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 04:25:36 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> In my world of telephony, we use POTS to differentiate from a Centrex
> line also ... for testing purposes in the labs, we order our test lines
> by POTS or Centrex.

    I have also seen POTS to mean the provision of regular single-line
telephone service, as separate from all the custom calling features
associated with it.

    This reminds me of the routine that one goes through when ordering
(regular) telephone service.  First, one makes the order for the
service itself: address, number of lines, directory listing, and
billing arrangements, as well as making an appointment for physical
installation, if necessary.  This is the arrangement for POTS.

    Second, the rep tries to sell you some custom calling features.
(Or, if you're on the ball, you tell him exactly what you want ...)
I have heard this part being called, in jest, the arangement for PANS;
a pun on POTS, of course!  I don't remember exactly what the acronym
was purported to stand for: I think it was something very silly along
the lines of "Pretty And Nice Stuff". :-)


Jamie

------------------------------

From: Gareth J. Evans <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS?
Date: 24 May 1995 11:00:20 +0100
Organization: Sectel


> I was wondering whether any of the Digest Readers, or you Pat, could
> explain me what exactly POTS means.

POTS - Plain Ordinary Telephone System
PANS - Potentially Attractive New Services
CUPS - Customer Unspecified Private Services


Gareth Evans  [e-mail]
Tel [phone]   Fax [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (James Carlson)
Subject: Re: What's CAPI? Especially 'API'
Date: 24 May 1995 07:06:31 -0400
Organization: Xylogics Incorporated
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Byung
Wan Suh) writes:

> I'd like to ask one simple question.  I figured out that CAPI stands for
> COMMON-ISDN-API, but what's the API?  Please let me know with direct
> email.  Thanks in advance.

It's a relatively simple message-queue based interface for application
programs which want to communicate via ISDN.  I got my copy of the
spec from ITK GmbH (Emil-Figge-Str. 80 / D-44227 Dortmund).  The spec
was originally developed in Germany, and is distributed by:

    DBP Telekom
    Fernmeldeamt Bad Kreuznach
    Projekt ROLAND
    Postfach 9100
    Wilhelmstr. 6
    GERMANY

    55543 Bad Kreuznach
    tel 0671 / 83 33 0
    fax 0671 / 96 69 99


James Carlson <[e-mail]>            Tel:  [phone]
Annex Software Support / Xylogics, Inc.               [phone]
53 Third Avenue / Burlington MA  01803-4491     Fax:  [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 May 95 23:34:40 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: Long Wave and Medium Wave Transmitters
Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

>* Do you know long wave transmitters in the frequency range 230kHz-270kHz
>  and 355kHz-395kHz and medium wave transmitters in the frequency range
>  480kHz-520kHz, 605kHz-645kHz?

The US medium wave band goes 530 KhZ to 1610 kHz. There is a major
transmitter in Los Angeles on 640 (KFI).

But I suspect you are looking for specific transmitters in Europe.

>* Is somewhere a list of long wave and medium wave transmitters for
>  Europe and perhaps other countries? I'm interested in magnetic field
>  strength in about 10km distance of those transmitter and their location
>  too. If you can tell me an estimate of the transmitted power, I can
>  calculate the field strength by myself.

How about the World Radio and TV Handbook, published annually in
Denmark. It should be available in most large libraries.


Lars Poulsen            Internet E-mail: [e-mail]
Rockwell Network Systems    Phone:        [phone]
7402 Hollister Avenue         Telefax:      [phone]
Santa Barbara, CA 93105        Internets: designed and built while you wait

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: Easy Way to Busy Line in Modem Pool?
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS, Chicago
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 05:22:36 GMT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, some readers of this group
> have reported busying out lines by merely shorting the wires in the
> pair and letting it go at that. It seems to cause no harm to the phone
> network, although the PBX at your school may be different than others.
> You could probably just install a little toggle switch for each line
> where it is connected at the wall. Bring up a little jumper wire from
> the pair to the toggle switch which, when thrown, will short the two
> wires. When you want to take a line out of service, just flip the
> little toggle switch for each pair. There are other, more elaborate
> methods as well.   PAT]

With a PBX it shouldn't cause any trouble, but I have been told that just
shorting the line will cause the phone company equipment to show line
trouble.

The new USR Courier modems have a front panel button that can be configured
to perform one of several functions, including busying the line.


[e-mail]    Kevin Kadow

FREE Usenet/Mail, inexpensive Internet - Ripco... Wearing white hats since 1983
Dialup:[phone] | http://www.ripco.com/ | Telnet:foley.ripco.com ('info')

------------------------------

From: Les Reeves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10224 - Thanks MCI!!
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 06:09:20 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access


On Fri, 19 May 1995, Donald R. Newcomb wrote:

> Les, very good advice to the low-volume (retail) buyer of LD. I have
> tended to use a local LD company which is not as cheap just because
> I can pick up any phone in MS and get the same DD rates by dialing
> 950-0885+access code+area code+number. For quick calls it is often
> cheaper doing this from a pay-phone than dropping a quarter.

Since posting the original message I have been told that that MCI (aka
TelecomUSA) is only offering 10224 at fifteen cents per minute in a
few select areas [thanks Richard Layman]:

    From: Richard Layman <[e-mail]>
    To: Les Reeves <[e-mail]>
    Subject: Re: 10224 (fwd)

I called, because 700 ... didn't work either and they said it's only
operative in CO, IL, GA, TX, and CA.

Richard Layman, Mgr., Business Development, and Research Producer
Computer Television Network, 825 6th St. NE, Washington, DC 20002
[phone] - [phone] (fax) - [e-mail]

http://www.phoenix.net/~ctn  (... I know, it needs work)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 95 21:59:18 EDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cell One/Boston


Brian Vita <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The official party line was that their switch was 13 years old and,
> being so grossly out of date, required replacement with an AT&T
> switch.  I tend to think that the reality of it was simply that since
> AT&T spent meggabucks buying a portion of CO's parent, they are
> forcing their subsidiary CO franchises to buy new AT&T switching
> equipment to get some of their money back.

Cell One/Boston is owned by Southwestern Bell; I'm sure AT&T did not
purchase any part of Southwestern Bell.  You're thinking of McCaw,
which operates the "A" carrier franchises in many other cities.

The name "CellOne" is actually (as I understand) owned by Southwestern
Bell, who acquired it when they purchased the initial trial systems in
Chicago and Washington.  They license it to any "A" carrier who wishes
to do business under that name.  And, of course, they don't use it in
those systems where they are the local wireline "B" carrier.

> A $5 charge for detail billing.

According to my last bill, that charge is only $1.  I still find it
unjustified.  And their service reps have falsely claimed that NYNEX
also has a detail billing charge, which I do not find on my NYNEX bill.

> My wife notified them that she wanted to maintain the detail
> billing when the notice went out.  They ignored her request and
> started sending just the summary bills.

Interesting.  I did nothing at all and continued to get detail billing
(and started getting the $1 charge).

> We've just been given notice of a per call "line access" charge that is
> going be assessed to each outbound call.

This was the last straw for Cell One and me.  The actual change was that
the land line charge was changing from a pure pass-through of the local
Telco's message-rate business service charge of 3 cents per call plus
1.6 cents per minute to the new Call One charge of 4 cents per call plus
4.9 cents per minute.

When that happened, I called and complained about them tripling my
per-minute rate (since I was mostly an off-peak user on the old leisure
plan which had been $25 a month and was now $36 a month).  She swore up
and down that they had not tripled the rates.  New math, I suppose.

Since I already had NYNEX service for $11/month and 39 cents peak and
29 cents off peak (no land line at all) I decided that I was sick of
Cell One and would simply stop my practice of useless gabbing on the
phone whenever I was driving somewhere.  I had been using up to 400
minutes a month of off peak time; I'll now have to keep that down to
about 1/3rd as much, but that's the way it goes.  Most of those calls
were really totally unnecessary.

I had retained the $11/month NYNEX service to save money when roaming.
With Cell One's $4/month plus $3/day/system roaming fees, using NYNEX
for roaming instead of Cell One paid for the $11 with only 1-3 days of
roaming per month.  (NYNEX customers are not charged daily fees for
roaming no matter where they go in North America.)


john

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #254
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa10992;
          24 May 95 16:05 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24104 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 24 May 1995 08:59:12 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24096; Wed, 24 May 1995 08:59:09 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 08:59:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #255

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 May 95 08:59:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 255

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800-1XX, 800-0XX (Mark Cuccia)
    Re: Bell Canada to File Pay-per-Local-Call Rates (Jeff Bamford)
    Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help (Harold Buehl)
    Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help (Mike K. Tyler)
    Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Chris Garrigues)
    Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator (Barry Loveridge)
    Re: A Question About Priorities (Matt Barton)
    Re: Cell One/Boston (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs (Tim Gorman)
    Help Identify Netcom Research (Michael K. Makuch)
    Book Review: Telecommunications Directory, 1995-96, 7th Edition (N. Allen)
    US Area Code Changes - Test Numbers (Ben Heckscher)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-1XX, 800-0XX
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 08:09:00 GMT


This type of combination HAS been considered by Bellcore's N.American
Numbering as well as the 800 Numbering Administration (Lockheed) and
the telecom.industry forums (ICCF, INC, etc.).  They seem to have
rejected this FOR THE TIME BEING since only 200 possible codes for
line-number assignments could be available.  Instead they will be
going to new special NPA's 888, then 877, 866, 855(?), 844, etc.

There would have been WAY-TOO-MANY switches of all types and owned by
all types of players in North America which would need special
reprogramming to allow CUSTOMER dialable access to a 0 or 1 in the 'D'
digit.

In 1992 (and revised in 93), Bellcore NANPA issued a 70page (or so)
document as an 'IL' on the future of numbering in the North American
Numbering Plan.  I think it is called 'Long-Term Numbering Plan'.  You
can get a copy (free) from Bellcore's NANPA (WHICH MOVED from Livingston NJ
to Piscataway NJ earlier this month).  It discusses such possibilities
to preserve a 10-digit number within WZ1 by going to an NXX-0XX or
NXX-1XX type of central-office-code -- known as 'unblocking the D
digit' for 0 or 1.

Some of us might think that this would be ambiguous with special
Operator and network special system routing codes as well as test codes
used 'only' by telco personnel.  It does look confusing, but when an
operator needs to reach, say the direct DA operator for a smaller
area, (s)he keys [KP]+NPA+0XX+131+[ST].  The 'ST' key 'ends' the
dialing string, therefore this is NOT the same thing as NPA-0XX-131X
which could be someone's number.

Personaly, I'm NOT in favor of 0XX or 1XX 'regular' central office
codes in geographic central offices.  ANOTHER ambiguity would be with
'non-subscriber'/IXC-issues/RAO-based calling cards (only for those
who follow the Bellcore standard), which are of the form NXX-0/1XX-XXXX
plus pin (0/1XXX).  An 'arbitrary' calling card issued now could
'eventually' be based on someone ELSE'S home phone number and THEY
'should' be assigned an LEC card based on THEIR phone number.  BUT --I'll
leave this to Bellcore NANPA (or its successor) and the ICCF, INC, etc.

BTW - Here in the New Orleans area, when you dial (at least using AT&T
and of course SCBell): 1+(or 0+) valid (geographic) NPA+ 0/1XX+xxxx you
get cut off RIGHT AWAY by your originating local Bell switch -- in some
cases right after the NPA-0/1XX, sometimes after the full ten digits.
When you dial 1 + 800 + ANY ten digits, there is a slight delay (while the
800 database is checked) before you get 'clicked-over' to whatever
treatment is to be done.  THIS INCLUDES 800-0XX and 800-1XX dial-strings --
the recording is 'your call cannot be completed as dialed' and it comes from
the Bell TANDEM switch.


MARK J. CUCCIA    [e-mail]
TEL, WORK: [phone] (UNiversity 5-6000, EXT.5954)
FAX, WORK: [phone] (UNiversity 5-6000, EXT.5917)
HOME:
4710 Wright Road
New Orleans LA  70128
TEL (will forward to cellular & voicemail) [phone] (CHestnut 1-2497)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Bamford)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to File Pay-per-Local-Call Rates
Organization: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 13:54:01 -0400


In article <[e-mail]>, Dave Leibold <Dave.Leibold@
superctl.tor250.org> wrote:

> from Bell News, 15 May 95 - this is Bell Canada's version of events

> Bell to file usage-based pricing for business local calling.

> sidebar

> What business will NOT pay for:

> * incoming calls;
> * long distance calls;
> * calls made within customer's system;
> * calls to 911;
> * directory assistance (411);
> * Bell operator (0);
> * Bell repair (611);
> * relay services for the hearing impaired (711).

> What business will pay for:

> * all other outbound local calls.

> TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think they are making a big mistake by
> not requiring businesses to pay for calls to Directory Assistance. Many
> large businesses are big abusers of this service. There will usually be
> hundreds of copies of the telephone directory delivered to a large corp-
> oration each year, yet very few employees ever seem to have a copy at
> their desk; it is always easier to dial 411. Then also, businesses which
> rely on very accurate, up-to-date records of how to reach their customers
> such as credit services, banks, etc *never* use the paper directory,
> instead preferring the more accurate operator records. One reason all of
> us here in Ameritech territory have paid for Directory Assistance calls
> for many years now was because of the way businesses abused it.   PAT

    Free long distance?  That's what it says above, clearly they
must mean that the long distance charge is all that will be paid.  The
same must apply to directory assistance.  They'll charge the 50c to
get the number but not for the time to get the number, if that makes
sense.  Sort of like a cell-phone with free air, you'd still pay for
the d.a. but not for the air.  Bell Canada can't be that stupid as to
give businesses free d.a.


Jeff Bamford   Email - [e-mail] -- NeXT Mail welcome
Office/Lab: [phone] x3814     Fax: [phone]
WEB Page: <a href="http://audiolab.uwaterloo.ca/"> A.R.G. Home Page </a>

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help
Date: 24 May 1995 03:41:25 GMT
Organization: Des Moines Internet
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]>, carlin![e-mail] (Evan
Harris) writes:

> I need to find a source of technical specs for Natural Microsystems VBX/400
> telephony boards.  I need to find out what the file format of the prompt
> files is, so that I can create them.

> I've called NMS, and they have been no help.  Apparently the person that
> worked for them that wrote the drivers for the board left the company and
> no one knows the specs on the files.  (Sounds like good planning to me...)

> Anyway, if anyone knows anything about these boards, or knows where I can
> get more information on technical details, it would be much appreciated!

Your response from NMS is somewhat suspect.  The VBX/400, along with
all of their voice processing uses a VOX file format which is proprietary
to NMS.  They have several conversion programs that will allow you to
convert from other voice file formats to the VOX.  As far as making
prompt files, there are also a series of utilities that can be used to
develop the prompt files, including rules tables to make the systems
count, recite dollars and ordinal numbers, etc.  Everything "SHOULD"
be available from NMS.  We have recently completed a project using a
VBX/400 which we had the prompts recorded in 16 bit linear and converted
them to VOX using utilities supplied by NMS.  We also developed rules
and prompt files to speak back numbers, dollars, dates, etc in French.


Harold Buehl   Croyle & Associates   Des Moines, Iowa

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mike K. Tyler)
Subject: Re: Natural Microsystems VBX/400 Telephony Board Help
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 05:40:23 GMT
Organization: OSD, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> carlin![e-mail]
(Evan Harris) writes:

> I've called NMS, and they have been no help.  Apparently the person that
> worked for them that wrote the drivers for the board left the company and
> no one knows the specs on the files.  (Sounds like good planning to me...)

I don't believe that for a minute. NMS Is still making the VBX 400. Do you
have the developers kit? It has all the information as well as Vscript (the
NMS scripting language) and ME2 (the "C" interface API)  Call them back and
get the Vscript stuff, it comes with a great manual and lots of examples.


[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Chris Garrigues)
Subject: Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 15:45:08 -0500
Organization: Deep Eddy Internet Consulting


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Sandman)
wrote:

> Right now, if you want message waiting indication on CO based voice
> mail, you need to pick up the phone and listen for stutter dial tone.

> Most phone companies are quickly shifting to a new technology, called
> FSK (Frequency Shift Keying).  An FSK message waiting indicator works
> kinda like caller id.  The CO sends out a burst of data every once in
> a while, and the FSK gizmo listens for the audio.  It either turns the
> light on or off based on the data sent. They do this WITHOUT the phone
> line going off hook, the data is just audio riding on the pair from
> the CO.  We should have FSK Message Waiting indicators in stock in the
> next couple of weeks, selling for around $30.

Maybe you can clear something up for me.

I've got SWBell's Call Notes (Voice Mail) on my ISDN line (Seimens
switch).  Originally they told me that by programming one of my
buttons (Seimens 787 phone) to Feature ID Number 64, the associated
light would act as a message light.

I appear to be the first one in these parts to try to do this, so
we're all learning together.  They managed to enable the stutter tone,
but all we've got the button on FIN 64 to do is clear the stutter
tone.

Is this a problem with the switch?  With switches in general?  With my
phone?  With ISDN in general?


Chris Garrigues                     [e-mail]
  Deep Eddy Internet Consulting     [phone]
  609 Deep Eddy Avenue
  Austin, TX  78703-4513    USA     http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barry Loveridge)
Subject: Re: CLID and Visual Message Waiting Indicator
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:13:31
Organization: VoiceWaves, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Sandman)
writes:

> There are Stutter Dial Tone Message Waiting devices on the market (we
> sell one for $29.95), but they are to be used behind a PBX or Key
> System, not for connection to the Public Switched Network - because
> the FCC hasn't authorized this kind of device yet.

There Stutter Dial Tone Message Waiting devices out there that retail
for less then $29.95 and are line powered, so DON'T require batteries
or a power adaptor.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 00:24:53 GMT
From: matt barton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Question About Priorities
Organization: BNR RTP


It is certainly true that the interaction of different services
provisioned against a line is a very complicated business.  There is
no single "right" way to set priorities. Bellcore has voluminous
spec's addressing some specific interactions, but there are also CEPT,
ETSI, and other standards bodies, not to mention the requirements of
the telco's and large corporate customer's.  In some cases, a specific
interaction is never defined in advance, it just occurs as whatever
the switch software does, and is then possibly documented afterwards,
if ever.

With that said, I can state one answer to some of your questions.
Call Screening essentially corresponds to the "Call Authorization"
point in call (PIC) in the AIN call model, which comes very early.
Transfer on Busy would tend to come later, at the Selecting Route PIC.
(Transfer on Busy is a feature like any other, and they are all
implemented in software these days.)  So a good reference to where the
PSTN is going regarding service interactions would be a look at the
AIN call model. But as to where it is now, it all depends on the
specific switch.


Matthew Barton,Dept 3R37     PCS is coming to DMS!
[e-mail]        ESN 294-7807         Phone:[phone]    fax:-7592
BNR, Inc., Dept 3R37, 35 Davis Dr, POB 13478, RTP, NC 27709-3478 USA

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 09:15:17 -0400
From: Fred R. Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cell One/Boston


Brian Vita <[e-mail]> complains,

> The long promised (threatened) switch change from a Motorola analog to
> a AT&T digitial occurred this past weekend (5/12-14) and with it came
> three days of nightmarish service....

> When I was finally able to get a live service drone on the line
> Monday, I was told that they had no way of anticipating problems (gee,
> what about the fiascos at all the other McCaw properties that have
> already made the changeover) and that I was basically SOL for the
> inconvenience.

Except that Cell One/Boston is not a McCaw property.  Cell One/Boston is
Southwestern Bell, who bought it from Metromedia some years ago.

> The official party line was that their switch was 13 years old and,
> being so grossly out of date, required replacement with an AT&T
> switch.  I tend to think that the reality of it was simply that since
> AT&T spent meggabucks buying a portion of CO's parent, they are
> forcing their subsidiary CO franchises to buy new AT&T switching
> equipment to get some of their money back.

No relationship between AT&T and SBC/Southwestern Bell, except
supplier/ customer.

"Cell One" is a shared franchise name for "A" systems.  McCaw/AT&T uses it,
as do others, including SWB when on the A side.  These companies have nothing
more in common with each other.


Fred R. Goldstein      [e-mail]
Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.  Cambridge MA  USA [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 21:22:33 -0500
From: Tim Gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RBOC IP Legislation Scaring Local ISPs


[e-mail] (Jack Decker) writes in Telecom Digest V15 #244:

> In a previous article, [e-mail] (Thomas Peters) says:

>> The relationship between the public and a large regulated monopoly is
>> never going to be smooth and free of disagreements, but a little
>> balance is in order. The Bell System and the other local phone
>> companies have built a fabulous telephone network, by far the best in
>> the world. They invested their money, time, and energy on the basis of
>> a deal they made with the public long ago. This is how you would repay
>> them?

> Tom, I think you are living in some sort of fantasyland where the
> telephone company was always good, and always put the interest of its
> customers first.  This, or course, has no relationship whatsoever to
> the reality of the situation.

> First of all, they got to be monopolies by eating up their competition
> like sharks and by convincing (some might say "bribing", but of course
> we have no proof of that) legislators that a regulated monopoly was
> better than competition.

Of course there are always two sides to every story. The one presented
here doesn't present the part where if you subscribed to the Jack Doe
phone company you couldn't call neighbor on the John Doe phone
company. It doesn't present the part where different phone companies
were installing poles and wire everywhere and making an eyesore you
wouldn't believe. If you haven't seen pictures of New York and Chicago
in those days you literally would not believe the mess in the air. It
doesn't present the part that much of the competition got eaten up
because they couldn't afford the capital investment needed to compete
and sold out rather than losing everything.

> Then they set up a system where prices bore no relationship to their
> costs.

And, once again, we see the "they". As in the conspiracy "they". "They" are
always out to get the little guy, don't you know.

> The way you talk, this system was what the public wanted, and their
> elected officials were only expressing the public's desire.  Yeah,
> right.  The telco monopoly and the ridiculous system of charging
> outrageous amounts for things that cost the phone company almost zero
> was put in place by some pointy-headed bureaucrats who were given a
> real snow job by the phone company attorneys (this varied from state
> to state, but in no case that I know of was the public consulted on
> whether they wanted phone service to be a monopoly).

The description of the bureaucrats sounds about right. The problem is
that the bureaucrats didn't make the decisions concerning any of this.
It was elected officials either making the decisions or appointing the
commisioners who did.  So, in essence, the public had as much say
about this as they did about any of the social welfare programs we
have today. I guess one can argue that the public has no say on
anything the government does but that sounds rather extreme.

> You see, I happen to live near a local phone company that for several
> decades has proved what local service could be like if the customers
> really are put first (unfortunately NOT near enough to be in their
> local service area).  That is the Allendale Telephone Company of
> Allendale, Michigan, a suburb of Grand Rapids.  They offer local
> calling to the Grand Rapids area, but their local service prices are
> about one-third of those charged by other area phone companies, and
> their optional services are much more reasonable as well.  And they've
> been profitable for at least the last four decades.  If it had not
> been for the Bell System, there might be a lot more Allendale
> Telephone Companies around, and in my opinion we'd all be much better
> off.

Uh huh. Just as above, this is only part of the story. Did Allendale
Telephone Company participate in Division of Revenue separations with
the Bell System? If they did, it is quite likely they made out very
well because of the favorable payments received. Of course, this
doesn't make as nearly as good of a conspiracy story.

> So if you are looking for folks to have some sort of gratitude toward
> the old Bell System, I think you're going to have to search long and
> hard.  Perhaps some former employees, and quite likely most of the
> stockholders would have some warm feelings for it, but many customers
> have felt that all they have got is shafted and gouged.

You are judging what "many" people feel based on your feelings.
Contrary to this most of the surveys I have seen indicate that most
people think they DID receive good value for the service they
received. Most people still feel so.  What most people feel is that
the RBOC's STILL provide good, basic service at a decent price. The
problem is that many also feel the RBOC's are not players on the
technological frontier.


Tim Gorman     [e-mail]
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael K. Makuch)
Subject: Help Identify Netcom Research
Date: 24 May 1995 04:10:46 GMT
Organization: ABM Data Systems
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I came across an old 8 bit ISA network adapter card that I'd like to
try and put to use, only I do not have any documentation on the
jumper/dip switch settings. The card is labeled "1989 NETCOM RESEARCH,
INC."

I have a PC INDUSTRY PHONE BOOK containing many phone numbers of
manufacturers but it doesn't have an entry for NETCOM Research. Anyone
know who this is or where I can get a phone number for them or documentation
on this adapter card?


Thanks,

Michael Makuch     [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: Telecommunications Directory, 1995-96, 7th Edition
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:19:56 EDT
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada


Here is information about an expensive but useful reference book that
may be of interest to many readers of this Digest. It may be available
at your local public or university library, or your company's library
may have a copy. The description is from the company's catalog.

 Telecommunications Directory 1995-96, Seventh Edition
 Edited by John Krol
 Published by Gale Research Inc., 835 Penobscot Building,
 Detroit, MI 48226-4094, USA; telephone [phone] or 800-877-GALE
 Copyright 1994
 ISBN: 0-8103-9125-2  Price: $340.00

Find detailed descriptions and full contact information on more than
2,500 national and international communications systems and services
You'll discover voice and data communication services, local area
networks, teleconferencing facilities, videotext and teletext
operations, electronic mail services, facsimile services, Internet
access providers, voicemail systems and services, satellite services
and electronic transactional services. You'll also get the facts on
relevant advertising/marketing firms, associations, consultants, law
firms, financial organizations, publishers/information services,
regulatory and standards bodies, research organizations, seminar and
conference sponsors and training organizations.

Glossary of terms, acronyms, standards and issues. Function/service,
geographic, personal name and master indexes help speed your search.


Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    [e-mail]
http://www.io.org/~ndallen

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 95 08:51 EST
From: Ben Heckscher <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Area Code Changes - Test Numbers


On Saturday May 13th the US public-switched telephone network stopped
completing calls to southern Alabama that were dialed using the old
"205" area code.  The new area code for this region is "334", which is
the first of a new series of area codes that are being assigned
without a "0" or "1" as the second digit.

By dialing the test numbers listed below, users can find out whether
they can reach locations that are using the new US area codes.
Recorded messages indicate whether you have successfully reached the
test number, or if it could not be completed.  Overseas (i.e. non-US)
locations, small offices, and users with telephones connected to a
PABX should test the numbers to see if they can be reached.


                       Area Code
                       ---------   Mandatory
Area                   Old   New   dialing date   Test Number
-------------------    ---------   ------------   ---------------
Southern Alabama       205   334   Now            [phone]

Western                206   360   19 Aug 1995    [phone]
Washington (state)

Phoenix Arizona area   602   520   23 Jul 1995    [phone] (*)

Northern and           303   970   01 Oct 1995    [phone]
Western Colorado

Chicago Illinois area  708   630   Undetermined   [phone]

(*) May require multiple tries to reach this number.


Source: FCC, Washington, DC
        "411 Newsletter", Rockville, MD
        Network World magazine, 22 May 1995



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As of this morning, the area 630 number
cannot be reached from 708.    PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #255
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29435;
          25 May 95 19:00 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24507 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 25 May 1995 11:02:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24497; Thu, 25 May 1995 11:02:05 -0500
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:02:05 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #256

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 May 95 11:02:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 256

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    GTE Mobilenet Battle Rages On (Dave Rand)
    COCOT Commissions (Lee Winson)
    U.S. Postal Service Warns Against Telemarketing Fraud (Nigel Allen)
    Ohio Telephone Competition (Frank Atkinson)
    India's Telecom Regulator May Really Be Autonomous (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
    Re: 800 1 and 800 0 - Why Not? (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Meeting the Challenge (John Higdon)
    In a Land With No Infrastructure, How to Connect to Internet (S. Schubert)
    Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Thomas P. Brisco)
    Review -- FCC Docket # 91-281: Caller ID ([e-mail])
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Gordon S. Hlavenka)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 95 17:35 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Dave Rand)
Subject: GTE Mobilenet Battle Rages On


Flashback to September: I had just signed on with GTE Mobilenet in
California, only to find them pulling the same old tricks.  They
resell long distance service (from AT&T and Sprint), unlike Cellular
One here in the Bay Area (BATCS).  When asked for long distance rates,
they refer you off to AT&T.  When the bill comes, the AT&T rate
doesn't match the GTEM rate (big surprise).

I filed complaints with the PUC in California.  After wasting a
month or so, they said, roughly, "no problem here - they are
charging the tariffed rates for California traffic."  And,
to my utter amazment, they were.  GTEM rates are within cents
of the AT&T in-state rates.  Since this now was an inter-state
issue, I filed an informal complaint with the FCC.

[the wavy lines disappear, as we snap back into the present]

About a month ago, I got a nice letter from the FCC telling be that
they had asked AT&T and GTEM to respond to my complaints.  AT&T sent
me a letter a few days after, telling me that they had started the
investigation, and would get back to me within 30 days.  They did,
telling me that there was no issue with AT&T (correct), and that they
had closed their investigation.  GTEM send me a letter on the same
day, telling me the results of their investigation ...

Well, the bottom line was *of COURSE* GTEM was reselling service, and
they had carefully trained their staff to answer questions properly
about long distance service.  Lots of other waffle-words about valued
customers, and so on.  So I call GTEM up, and ask them how long
distance was handled.  The CSR assured me, as GTEM has in the past,
that "either AT&T or Sprint carries your call, whichever one is
cheaper at the time you make the call, and they will bill you for the
call.  We do not know how much a specific call will cost."  Well, if
they don't know how much it costs, how can they route the call to AT&T
or Sprint?  CSR gets upset...

So once again into the breach we go, another letter to the FCC.

Once again, the moral of the story is if you are using GTEM as your
cellular carrier, and you use *any* long distance, including
Follow-Me-Roaming, check your bill carefully.  For more information,
write to me directly, and I can put you on my fax or email list.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dave, I hope you will keep after them
on this and send us additional followup as it becomes available to you.
I for one will be interested in how they respond to your latest note.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lee Winson)
Subject: COCOT Commissions
Date: 25 May 1995 03:29:47 GMT
Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS


Strictly speaking as a consumer, I didn't even know property owners
got commissions for pay phones on their premises.  I always assumed
phones were there as a service for the customers, or so customers
wouldn't bother the business owner to use his/her phones for calls.

The moderator mentions COCOTs in poor areas.  In Philadelphia, there
are a great many COCOTS located in the city.  While Bell of Penna
always got city permission and pays all taxes and fees to put a phone
on a street corner, most COCOTs owners never did.  The city attempted
to crack down on this, and the COCOTS refused, and fought back in a
lawsuit.  (Which, IMHO, is groundless, and the city COCOTS are just
ripping the city off.)

Other COCOTS that have gotten news are those in hospitals and shopping
centers.  Basically, the owner of these properties are seeking a
higher return than they were getting from Bell, at the expense of
consumers.

Readers of this newsgroup are real quick to point out errors by the
Bell Telcos and call for honest competition.  But why aren't COCOTS
duly labeled with their charges?  There has been many newspaper
articles about people finding $5 calling card or collect charges the
next month on their bill.  That hurts!

Maybe instead of a card with fine print that only a telephone engineer
would understand, there should be a price list of fees.  Supermarkets
are required to post prices clearly, why not phone companies?  (BTW, I
tried calling 00 to get some rates from COCOTS -- next to impossible.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are obviously not reading the back
issues of this Digest or the various files in the Archives or you would
know that indeed, there have been many complaints about COCOTS presented
in this forum over the years. Telco -- or 'Genuine Bell' as we have called
them -- payphones come in two ways: either they are 'public' phones and
commisionable to the owners of the property on which they sit or they are
'semi-public' and non-commissionable with the property or business owner
where they are located paying telco a fee for keeping them there (with
telco keeping all the coins as well). If public (commissionable) then the
property/business owner gets a commission on all traffic sent paid and
all traffic received collect. He gets a set fee for all traffic billed to
calling cards or other third-party numbers. The phone cannot be listed in
the directory, and many times the phone will be set up for one way outbound
service only.

With 'semi-public' phones it is a bit different. Telco, in their own judgment
feels the location does not warrant a 'public' payphone.  They would not put
one there, and certainly would not pay commissions for keeping it there on
their own. The property/business owner has agreed to not only let telco keep
all the revenue from the phone, but to *pay an additional monthly fee as well*
for having it there, for the reason, as you point out, of convenience for his
customers. The property owner gets something else for his money though;
'semi-public' payphones can be listed in the directory as the owner's bus-
iness phone if desired; they can receive incoming calls if desired, and the
owner can have an extension installed in his office or wherever for when
the phone rings if he wants.

Payphones located in 'public' places where the 'owner' is not readily
apparent such as on the sidewalk on a street corner, in a park at the
shelter house, along the highway, etc. are generally assigned to the city
in which they are located. That is, the city government receives commissions
on the phone in exchange for allowing telco to clutter the sidewalk or
the park. When in telco's judgment an outdoor, 'public' location does not
warrant a pay (commissionable) phone, and no one is willing to pay to have
one there, then various things may happen. The city may prevail on telco
to go ahead and put one there as a community service (in which case telco
itself is listed as the 'subscriber' and receives the commissions) or
maybe the location goes without a phone, particularly if vandalism has
been a serious problem there. Because of increasing vandalism and robbery
of payphones in outdoor locations, and the increasing number of ghetto
inner city neighborhoods where telco felt their own payphones would be
a losing proposition, there was a gap to be filled, thus the COCOT came
into existence.

The COCOT people go to the places where payphones are otherwise installed
(or not installed at all) and offer to put payphones there on terms and
conditions better than the terms and conditions offered by telco for the
same thing. They offer higher commissions, or perhaps they offer commissions
in cases where telco had refused to provide public coin service at all.
So payphones (of the COCOT variety) are now available in places where it
is likely there would be no public phone at all otherwise. But someone
has to pay for the phone vandalism and the commissions they pay out. Guess
who that is ... we have had many, many, many complaints about COCOTS, and
the 'operator service bureaus' they use printed in this forum. As telco
cuts back on the payphone locations they service, the choice often times
is a COCOT or no phone at all. Which will it be?  And I may be mistaken
but I think quite a few COCOT operators have cleaned up their act quite
a bit over the past couple years. Five to ten years ago they were all
pretty outrageous. Now some are actually quite competitive with telco,
at least for the phone using public.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 19:24:12 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: U.S. Postal Service Warns Against Telemarketing Fraud


For warnings about some common types of telemarketing and postal fraud
against consumers and businesses and preventive measures that you can
take, take a look at the following Web page:

        "http://www.usps.gov/depart/inspect/Welcome.html".

It provides information from the Inspection Service of the United
States Postal Service. Most readers of the Telecom Digest will be
aware of these common fraud schemes, but you may want to share some of
this information with other members of your family and people at your
place of work.

Here are some of the topics listed:

 *  900 Telephone Number Schemes
 *  Advance Fee Loan Schemes
 *  Advertising Specialty Products Schemes
 *  Boiler Room Schemes against Business
 *  Chain Letters
 *  Charity Fraud
 *  Credit Card Schemes
 *  Cut-Rate Health Insurance Fraud
 *  Distributorship and Franchise Fraud
 *  False Billing Schemes Against Business
 *  Government Look-alike Mail
 *  Home Improvement and Home Repair Frauds
 *  Mail Bombs
 *  Mailing of Child Pornography
 *  Hot Tip on Playing Foreign Lotteries by Mail
 *  Missing Persons Fraud Scheme
 *  Oil and Gas Investment Frauds
 *  Prison Pen Pal Money Order Scam
 *  The Phony Inheritance Scam
 *  Schemes That Charge Money for Services
 *  Solicitations Disguised as Invoices

Other information from the U.S. Postal Service is available on its Web
server at "http://www.usps.gov".


Nigel Allen (no affiliation with U.S. Postal Service)
52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]   http://www.io.org/~ndallen
Telephone: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wish the Postal Service would stick to
delivering mail and attempt to just do that much well. The postal ins-
pectors should just spend their time cleaning out the thieves who work
for the post office. Ever been in a big city post office sorting room?
If they find out you are getting money in the mail at your post office
box they'll rip you off good. Here in Chicago several years ago, a
charity known as the Missionary Fathers had a box at the same post office
I used for about twenty years. Their thing was those cheesy name and
address labels, pencils, pens and other trinkets sent to you as a gift
by the homeless Indian children in the orphanage, and won't you send
them a gift also to help pay for their food and clothing, etc. Your
ten dollars per month will support a dozen on a diet of macaroni and
cheese, or beans, or whatever the orphanage was feeding them. The
Missionary Fathers were pulling it in pretty well at their post office
box, and although mostly it would be checks and money orders or
credit card authorizations, a certain amount was cash stuffed in an
envelope; they got maybe a thousand dollars per day in cash.

When they complained to the postal inspectors that their cash seemed
to be a lot less than usual, the PI's got interested and started
watching things more closely. They 'salted' the mail, meaning they
deliberatly planted marked cash money in the mailbags for the charity
then used hidden cameras in the employees bathrooms and locker rooms.
They'd see employees grab a handful of the charity's mail, disappear
into the bathroom and come out five minutes later without the mail.
The cash in their pocket, and the remains shredded and flushed down the
toilet, etc ... in the indictment against eighteen postal workers,
the government alleged that some were double-dipping; that is, making
two trips to the bathroom on their shift, and one supervisor who got
indicted went back to the ladies room four times one day with a handful
of Missionary Father's mail each time!

The day the scandal broke, I went down to get my mail as always and
at the call-counter they had all different people working there. It
seems the day before the postal inspectors had fired everyone who worked
there and brought in a new crew from one of the other post offices.
Shortly thereafter they passed a rule saying all the workers in the
sorting room and on the loading docks had to wear a certain type of
coveralls at work that did not have any pockets in them, and that at
the end of each shift they would go to the locker room and change
back into their street clothes under the watchful eyes of the postal
inspectors. Women employees went to a different locker room where a
matron had the duty of checking them out. Basically, they were just
cloth sacks the employees wore to cover their nakedness while they
sorted the mail. Naturally, frequent drug testing -- and this was
in the early 1970's -- became part of the routine.

Big city post office facilities are still hell-holes to work in. It is
no wonder so many of the workers wind up shooting and killing each other
and their supervisors, etc. Are the post offices in Canada also pretty
bad places to work?  Remember that fellow working for the post office
in Toronto a few years ago who ripped off Oral Roberts for the cash
in the mail? How much was it?  $250 thousand if my memory is correct.
The postal inspectors don't need to worry so much about child porn as
they do getting their own houses cleaned out, like they have had to
do at zip 60690 here in Chicago a few times and 60680, the main post
office here (or 'big house' as the sorting room facilties there are
sometimes referred to by workers).    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Frank Atkinson)
Subject: Ohio Telephone Competition
Date: 24 May 1995 20:27:05 -0400
Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet


Ohio is currently going through the process of letting competition
enter the local telephone market. It started out with the players
talking around the edges, now court actions are starting to fly.

We are setting up a mailing list for those who wish to follow this
process in more detail. If you wish to subscribe drop a note to:

    [e-mail] asking to subscribe to

    ohio-telecom


  Frank Atkinson       [e-mail] or
                       [e-mail]  I think therefore I am, I think?

------------------------------

Subject: India's Telecom Regulator May Really Be Autonomous
From: [e-mail] (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 00:08:17 IST
Organization: Deus X Machina


--==(C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh ([e-mail])

India's telecom regulator may really be autonomous

24th May 1995: In an exclusive interview for my forthcoming newsletter
on India's information industry, Telecom Secretary R K Takkar said
that the government is "committed to treating [the yet-to-be-formed
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India] as independent and autonomous,"
and enumerated the various measures it is taking to ensure the TRAI's
independence.

First, it is trying to pass a one-line amendment to the ancient
(British) Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, to shift the powers of the
Director General of Telecommunications to the TRAI for most purposes.
This may be procedurally delayed, as the Parliament ends its current
session this week.

Second, it is working on separate legislation to formalize the TRAI as an
autonomous regulator similar to the SEBI, which monitors India's stock
exchanges. This will be made law in a year or two, with the benefit of
experience of the TRAI's actual performance; till then the body gets its
powers from the government's excecutive order.

Third, the three-member TRAI panel will be appointed on secure tenure for
5 years, so, like Supreme Court judges, they do not risk being removed by
an disagreeable government.

Other measures, and a discussion of the possible merger of at least the
regulatory bodies of India's communications and broadcasting ministries -
following an earlier Supreme Court ruling against the country's government
monopoly of the airwaves - will be found in my newsletter when the sample
issue is made available for free electronic distribution in late June.

--==(C) Copyright 1995 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh ([e-mail])
--==May be distributed electronically provided that only compilation or
--==transmission charges are applied. Other uses require written permission.


Rishab Aiyer Ghosh                   For Electric Dreams subscriptions
[e-mail]                    and back issues, send a mail to
[e-mail]                           [e-mail] with
Vox [phone] Voxmail 3760335       'help' in lower case, without
H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA       the quotes, as the Subject.

------------------------------

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 14:53:16 -0400
Subject: Re: 800 1 and 800 0 - Why Not?


The question was asked, wouldn't 800 1 and 800 0 add another 20% of numbers
to the 800 database.  The answer is yes, it would.  Is it do-able?  Yes
again.

This issue was raised in INC, where the concensus was that the additional
20% wouldn't solve the "shortage", so why bother.

In reference to that infamous shortage, we've dug up just a few interesting
pieces of information.

{CallCenter Magazine} reported in its September '94 issue that "60
million calls are made daily over the countries 1.8 million 800
numbers."

**** Yes folks, that's 1.8 million 800 numbers in use.  ****

CallCenter got that information from the DMA (Direct Marketing
Association.)

The DMA got it from AT&T.

According to my sources in the DMA's public relations office, through
May '94, AT&T public relations supplied the DMA with 800 stats as well
as other mundane statistical information, on a routine basis.

But starting June '94, AT&T stopped giving the DMA this info; said it
didn't have it, and had no way to access the number of 800 numbers in
assignment to users.

Since then, reporters have complained to me that, having asked AT&T
and MCI how many 800 numbers they have assigned to users, they were
told the carriers have no way of knowing.

You'd think between their resp org administrative offices, and their
billing offices, this sort of information would be easy enough to spit
out of some computer.

(Then again, these are the same folks who argued against "date
certain" to the U.S. ITU Delegation, asserting that they had no way of
telling who'd had their 800 assignments prior to December, '94.)

Back to June '94, when AT&T stopped reporting to the DMA.  This timing
just happens to coincide with two seemingly unrelated events: 500 PCS
marketing, and industry "800 shortage" claims.

Privately, no one even bothers to dispute that the 800 database is being
misappropriated for delivery of non-800 services that require routing.

Can't be too hard to figure out either, as publications as diverse as
Catalog Age and Investor's Business Daily have recently reported on carrier
stockpiling of 800 numbers.

(Anyone want copies of the articles, email me with your fax number.)


J. Oppenheimer, [e-mail]
Interactive CallBrand(TM)

------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:38:53 -0700
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Meeting the Challenge


[e-mail] (Mike McKinney) writes:

> Come on John, you can't hide behind this thin of a disclaimer !

I do not hide behind disclaimers. It is one of the luxuries of owning
one's own site. My intimate knowledge is of Pacific Bell practices.
How they relate to other companies' policies or practices is beyond my
direct knowledge, and I wanted that understood up front. That is
hardly "hiding".  Again, my comments apply to Pac*Bell.

> A cash deposit is required on *any* major installation that requires
> capitol investment on a Telco's part, either that or a letter of
> guarantee that the service will be used long enough to recover the
> cost.

Cash deposits are generally not required from customers who have
substantial credit and history with telco. But 976 service was a
special case. Customers who could get banks of DID trunks, servicing
thousands of numbers, with five-year service commitments could get
such installations with a phone call. These same customers had to fork
over thousands of dollars to get so much as four 976 lines installed.

> This will probably change with real competiton because there
> will no doubt be companies that will do it just for the monthly
> service charges.

Thank you. That was my point. Pacific Bell had these practices because

a) it could get away with them; and

b) it wanted to place competition to its own excuse for IP services at
a disadvantage.

> As regards to other installation requirements, I have no idea what he
> means by "The installation site had to have "excess facilities" which
> meant that any 976 lines had to be installed on pairs that would never
> conceivably be used for POTS."  Perhaps John could explain his
> comment.

I would be happy to explain. Upon finding a site that significantly
met Pac*Bell's requirements for 976 service (within the arbitrary
perimeter of the serving CO, etc.,), a 976 provider could be told that
there were insufficient facilities. There could be 100 spare pairs
going into the building and the IP might only want six 976 lines, but
Pac*Bell would say that those 100 pairs were inadequate for projected
usage. It was as I said: there had to be "excess facilities", over and
beyond any anticipated usage by other customers.

> It's obvious that John knows nothing about the technical side of the
> telephone business because any time you go outside the walls of the CO
> you're going to have physical requirements:

With all due respect, it is you who were unaware of the doctrine of
"excess capacity". It is no secret that I have been involved with the
information providing industry for over ten years as a developer and
participant. I am well aware that the physical requirements of six 976
lines are no more nor less than the physical requirements of six POTS
lines. Requiring the cash deposit of thousands of dollars or requiring
a site to be grossly over-built is nothing more than a utility using
its position of power to screw a customer base that happens to also
represent competition.

Significantly, since Pacific Bell has decided not to play in the
information business, most of the anti-competitive practices have been
terminated. Deposits are now insignificant if not non-existent
(haven't ordered 976 for awhile). The arbitrary perimeter requirement
has been lifted, as has the "excess facility" requirement. Pac*Bell's
recharge policy is much tougher than it was -- and customers only get to
do it once.  Out of state callers have been cut off. And finally,
recharges only amount to the IP's portion of the call -- Pac*Bell eats
its own costs on every call it forgives.

I appreciate your desire to defend your employer and her sisters, but
it does not reflect well upon that defense to publicly tell major
players and pioneers in an industry that they don't know what they are
talking about.


John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | [phone]
             |         http://www.ati.com/ati             |

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Samuel R. Schubert)
Subject: In a Land With No Infrastructure, How to Connect to Internet
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:15:12 GMT
Organization: IAEA
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I have an urgent need to connect a site, literally in the middle of
nowhere to the INTERNET.  The situation is rather urgent.  Money,
interestingly enough, is a secondary issue.  Who should I contact.  I
will need Satellite equipment for sure. Perhaps Radiographic
transmitters etc.  Could someone put me in contact with a company who
can provide such a facility, anywhere on earth.  The site would be
stationary, so size is not a dramatic factor.  Electricty may be.

Please help.


Thanks,

SRS

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 95 11:25:23 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Thomas P. Brisco)
Subject: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers?


    I've been working with someone locally to try and get a
Fax-On-Demand system ("single call" configuration) -- and I'm
attempting to have it as closely integrated into the existing
environment as possible.

    Our Meridian reps aren't making this easy.

    Our tech rep indicates that our "Meridian SL1 with Option 61"
can hand off an analog line.  However, I also know that we're running
some digital protocol between the PBX and our multi-line sets.  When I
inquire as to what this protocol is, he tells me "Its digital" (big
help).  This makes me worried about his information regarding the
ability to do an analog handoff.

    Additionally; I've been working with a different group here as
well and attempting to verify the configuration of the switch.  The
salescritter and tech rep claim "it can't be done".  We're looking for
some way to "map out" the configuration showing what calls should be
going where when (this is primarily to verify that the system is
configured the way that we believe it is.)  To me, this sounds like a
relatively straight-foward graphing problem.  The tough part is
getting the configuration data off the blasted machine.  Again, the
critters we have servicing us indicate that this is some hugely
complex task -- which (frankly) I just don't believe.  There's backups
 -- but it's on some seriously screwy *4MB* (yes, 4MB) 3.25" floppy.
I'd be interested also in finding out where I could get one of these
drives.

    Any pointers to information would be greatly appreciated.

Tp.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:06:56 -0400
Subject: Review -- FCC Docket # 91-281: Caller ID


The requirement that Caller ID be delivered on all long distance calls
by April 12 1995 was stayed by the FCC because of opposition on two
primary points.

1.  Some states mandate per-line Caller ID blocking, some don't.  The
FCC had ruled that only per-call Caller ID blocking be allowed on
interstate calls.  It is technically unfeasible to have per-line
blocking within a state, but not on on interstate calls on the same
line.  California mandates that all unlisted numbers (44% of
California numbers are unlisted) be automatically per-line blocked by
default.

2. The long distance companies objected to being obliged to transport Caller
ID without compensation.

On May 4, the FCC released a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
addressed these two issues, and set a new date, December 1, 1995 for
mandatory interstate transport of CalIer ID on all SS7 systems capable
of such transport.

The new Notice resolves the above issues in a fair and reasonable manner:

1. Where states allow per line call blocking, those blocked lines will
be blocked for all calls, inter and intra state.  Any unblocked line
can be blocked for a single call by dialing *67 before the destination
number.  Any per-line blocked line can be unblocked for a single call
by dialing *82 before the destination number.  Dialing *67 on an
already blocked line will yield a fast busy signal.  No line (even in
California) is to be per-line blocked unless the subscriber specifically
requests it.  Having an unlisted number is not considered to be such a
request.

2. The long distance companies must transport Caller ID without
compensation.  The reasoning here is that if they have SS7 it doesn't
cost them anything, and in any case if they charge the LEC's for
transporting Caller ID on an inbound call, the LEC's will in turn
charge them for providing the Caller ID on an outbound call.  It is
unlikely that the LEC's will charge the IXC's less for Caller ID than
the IXC's charge them, so it would be a wash anyway!

This ruling appears to be a big win for all telephone users, since many new
and useful services will be enabled by this technology.

There are many peripheral points in the ruling, including issues of
caller ID blocking to emergency numbers, on payphones, on PBX's, on
cellular phones, from hotels, and from various kinds of spousal abuse
shelters.  The ruling also requires that other CID based services,
such as last number callback, be blocked for anonymous callers.  The
ruling also talks about ANI, and mandates restrictions on the use of
ANI information.  The ruling requires number delivery only, and does
not require Calling Name Delivery.

Caller ID is kind of like the little peephole that you have in your
front door to see who is there before you open it.  People who block
Caller ID are like people who stick their thumbs over the peephole
before they ring the bell so you can't see who is there.  For those
who would not open their door to a person blocking the peephole, there
is an excellent service available from all LEC's called 'Anonymous
Call Rejection.'  If you subscribe to this service, callers who block
their Caller ID when they call you are routed to a recording saying
that your number does not accept anonymous calls.  Your phone never
rings.

By the way, some countries are ahead of the USA on this technology.  I
called Germany from Washington DC a couple of weeks ago, and my number
was delivered internationally!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 May 95 22:41:09 CDT
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service
Organization: Vpnet - Your FREE link to the Internet [phone]


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very clever!  Some real cases of name
> choices though include MCI and Sprint. MCI, or Microwave Communications,
> Inc. did in fact get started as a small company in central Illinois where
> the owner was involved in the production and repair of microwave radio
> equipment. His name long since forgotten, he got involved in a partnership
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't let Jack Goeken, the man behind FTD, Airfone (now GTE Airfone)
and In-Flight Phone, hear you say that!  When I saw him this afternoon
he was as unforgettable as ever ... and, he's still involved in new
telecom ventures; right now he's working on wireless local-loop.

> Often times letter abbreviations simply take on a meaning of their own
> and the original phrase they represented is forgotten. Does anyone
> remember ... [ITT or GTE]?

I know you're talking telecom here, but what about the Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company?


Gordon S. Hlavenka    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MMM, or 3-M as they are sometimes called,
makes a variety of tape products, including 'Scotch Tape' and other
tapes used for sealing boxes, etc. They also make computer diskettes and
tapes used to back-up computer data. I can see where all that would be
considered manufacturing, but where does the mining part come into it?  PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #256
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00363;
          25 May 95 21:03 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01320 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 25 May 1995 14:27:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01312; Thu, 25 May 1995 14:27:04 -0500
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 14:27:04 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #257

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 May 95 14:27:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 257

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Unusual RF Stories (Kevin Magloughlin)
    Re: Unusual RF Stories (John Woods)
    Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Mike Sandman)
    Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Robert Virzi)
    Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Ed Mitchell)
    Infrastructure Conference in Atlanta (Barbara F. Hanes)
    Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail? (Steve Samler)
    Looking For ETSI Documentation Online? (George E. Cabanas)
    Is it Northern or Nortel? (Holly Fenn)
    CD Changer For Music on Hold (Jerry Aguirre)
    Need One Mile PC Communications (Randy Constan)
    Independent Category 5 Cable Evaluations (Jean McGillivray)
    Clarifications to Oregon PUC Ruling on Area Code Split (Robert Hansen)
    Low Cost Router Alternatives? ([e-mail])

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Unusual RF Stories
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 04:17:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Pat -

In your reply to my article, you asked why the engineer at the station
in North Carolina was hearing the same program material at his board,
with his station off the air, as you were in Chicago. My only
conclusion would be both stations were receiving the same network feed
at the same time.  I suspect this was quite some time ago,before
putting program feeds on satelite which would certainly limit the
number of available feeds.  Did you check the affiliation of the
station in North Carolina, by chance?

I would say this is why both places in the country had common programs when
you made your phone call.


Kevin Magloughlin KA0JQO      [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I did not specifically inquire if the
program on WBBM was being fed to the network, but I seriously doubt that
it was; it was a locally originated discussion program airing in the
middle of the night. Anyway, I don't think the station in North Carolina
was a CBS affiliate.  Good point though.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Woods)
Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories
Organization: Proteon, Inc., Westborough, Ma.
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 14:12:45 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> You were writing about receiving a carrier on 660 Khz that turned out
> to be WBBM right there in Chicago.  The explanation given about
> subtracting this from that gives 660 Khz is not really the answer in
> that situation.  What you had there is a 2A-B mix occurance and most
> likely was happening in your receiver.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How does that explain the engineer at the
> station in North Carolina telling me he could hear the same thing as
> myself on the board over there when his AM station was off the air?   PAT]

If the antennas of the two radio stations were *very* close, and if
there was any significantly large metal object in somewhat poor repair
near both antennas (and I've heard of BC antenna farms that looked
like scrap metal dumps), then a rusty joint could easily act as a
crude diode, which would then act as an RF mixer to combine the two
signals, generate the 2A-B mixing product, and then reradiate it.  I
wouldn't expect that to generate more than a couple of watts, even if
located very close to two high-power transmitters, but if propagation
was just right, the NC engineer could have heard the signal if the
channel was otherwise quiet.  (Unless the engineer was using a very
sensitive receiver, in which case good propagation could have resulted
in local generation of the spurious signal -- 2A-B calculates out to
the same result regardless of where you are.  Were there any stations
on the two real channels in his area?  If so, he would have been
likely to hear *them* mixing, not the Chicago stations.)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Quite a few years ago when we had a
local, daytime only station here on 820 called WAIT, they would always
go off the air at sundown, meaning in the winter as early as 4:30 pm
some days and during the summer as late as 8:30 pm. It was always fun
to catch them just as they were going off the air for the day since
the second they powered down the transmitter a station from Toronto,
Ontario (might have been CJR, not sure) would come booming in like
gangbusters, loud and clear right on the same spot.

I think I mentioned the two neighborhood kids here who got me to fix
them up with an old tube radio that I had diddled with the IF on so it
could be heard around the neighborhood with a little luck. They were
back the other day, *pulling in a wagon* an old floor model Philco
radio from about 1930. They had got it for a few dollars out of
someone's garage sale. Since the cord had a short in it and the
lightbulb over the tuning dial was burned out the original owners
assumed it was unusable. I replaced the cord and the lightbulb, cleaned
it up a little, dusted the insides out good and checked all the tubes.
It worked just fine, and some of the tubes were new, or never used.
We turned it on and got quite a few local stations. Those old floor
model radios had great big speakers in them which made them sound
great, just like Grundigs. But I said, "kids! you want to really hear
this radio talking? ..." I got in the back and clipped onto the antenna
leads with about fifty feet of wire which we strung out the window and
along the side of my house. We came back inside and that radio was
screaming. With its big huge tuning dial, stations all over the USA were
easy to hear. I told them you wait until later on tonight, or maybe
late on a hot summer night in August and turn this on. You haven't heard
anything yet. Of course it had no FM, but it had four shortwave bands
plus AM. The AM band was numbered up to 1750 kc of all things, and
the area from 1650 to 1750 was labeled 'police'. They thought that was
pretty funny and I explained that fifty or sixty years ago police used
*one way* broadcast stations around that range in their cars. The
police dispatchers would make announcements but that's all, and the
police would then drive to wherever they heard mentioned on the radio.
I helped them load it back in their little wagon and they took it home.
I hope their parents let them keep it to play with.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 18:18:11 PDT


Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software
> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be
> voice.  They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and
> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and
> let them know.  It SEEMS like this could be an option on the school's
> phone system (I don't remember who made it), since it does have voice
> mail and all sorts of fancy features.  But I'm wondering if there's
> some simple PC software that could also do it.  I'm running SuperVoice
> 2 with a Maxtech voice/data/fax modem and am quite pleased with it.  I
> spoke with the publisher of SuperVoice yesterday and they did not have
> any voice broadcast software.  So, anything like this around?
> SuperVoice 2 with modem was about $70.  It'd be real nice to find
> something in this price area.

This should not be hard to find; many schools have similar set-ups.  All 22
high schools in the San Jose Unifed School District and the East Side Union
High School District (both in San Jose, CA) have auto dialing systems
connected to their attendance systems.

The physical box is located at each campus, so it can't be too expensive,
but I'm sure that *ANY* kind of system is going to cost you a lot more than
$70.  I think that $1000 to $4000 might be more accurate.

The attendance dialer setup is actually quite interesting: the
teachers have ScanTron sheets printed for each class with each
student's name.  They mark absent/tardy/etc. and the sheets get
scanned right after school ends.  Around four o'clock, the computer
system starts calling the homes of absent students.  The message is
English, Spanish, Vietnamese, or Filipino depending on the what
language is spoken at home (the computer has a record of the language
and just passes a code to the dialer).

It has apparently save the school district quite a bit of money,
because it used to take a staff person 6 hours a day just to let
parents know their child wasn't in school.  Also, attendance increased
around 5% and the schools were able to recover the cost of the
equipment many times over in state funding (California funds schools
by the number of days each student is in attendance).

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mike Sandman)
Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software?
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 21:43:06 LOCAL
Organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider


Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software
>> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be
>> voice.  They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and
>> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and
>> let them know.  It SEEMS like this could be an option on the school's
>> phone system (I don't remember who made it), since it does have voice
>> mail and all sorts of fancy features.  But I'm wondering if there's
>> some simple PC software that could also do it.  I'm running SuperVoice
>> 2 with a Maxtech voice/data/fax modem and am quite pleased with it.  I
>> spoke with the publisher of SuperVoice yesterday and they did not have
>> any voice broadcast software.  So, anything like this around?
>> SuperVoice 2 with modem was about $70.  It'd be real nice to find
>> something in this price area.

I just read in this week's {PC Magazine} that Creative Lab's new Phone
Blaster card will do what you want.  They had a review of a bunch of
inexpensive voice mail type systems.

It seemed like it said that it might not be out yet, but I'm not sure.


Good luck,

Mike

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Virzi)
Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software?
Date: 24 May 1995 19:31:28 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA


> Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software
>> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be
>> voice.  They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and
>> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and
>> let them know.   <deletia>
>> But I'm wondering if there's
>> some simple PC software that could also do it.   <more deletia>

and paraprasing here, Harold said, for about $70.

David K. Leikam <[e-mail]> responded:

> Well, nothing *I* am aware of, that I'd trust to do a halfway decent job.
> Thinking about the problems of reliability sorta starts me towards a fair
> sized headache ... (deep breath)

> I suppose we *could* build something like this, that you could expect,
> oh, an 80% reliability rate out of. But it would cost orders of magnitude
> more, even if you didn't want maintenance or support.  If you think about
> the problems for a minute or two, you'll see why. (Did we get an
> answering machine? If so, do we have a beep yet? What kind of beep? Has
> the beep ended, and can we talk now? Did we get a forward to a pager? If
> so, what number to we tell 'em to dial.? Are we talking to a person? Is
> it the right person, i.e, do we want to do voice-recognition at all? Do
> we want to be interactive? Do we want to deal with the 30% of the
> population that doesn't have touch-tone service?)

So David says, basically, 'No'.  Or at least not for less than $2k -
$10k.

I think you are over engineering the solution.  This is for a school.
Most of the numbers that the kids have are POTS lines, nothing fancy
like pagers and the like.  Answering machines need to be dealt with,
true.  But generally the particular population might really benefit
from a cheap, somewhat reliable system, rather than no system.

Why not simply call through the list, playing the message on offhook,
repeating the message until (a) the line is released or (b) 90 seconds
has elapsed?  If a person gets it, they listen to it, or have some
time to call Mom over to the phone to hear the message.  If its an
answering machine, they get 90 seconds of the message (minus the time
for the OGM) on the tape.  Should be pretty simple for the system to
track busy/no answer and call those numbers back.

I'm not suggesting this is a bulletproof system.  Far from it.  But
the requirements don't seem to call for one.  If this user population
knows about the system, it will work even better because parents will
be hanging by waiting for the call to hear soccer is cancelled because
of rain.  This kind of simple system could be built on a Mac, and I'm
guessing an Intel processor as well.  For not much money, and a little
development time.


Bob Virzi

[e-mail]            Just another ascii character...
[phone]

------------------------------

From: Ed Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 11:48:13 PDT
Subject: Re: Auction All the Spectrum


> When a company like McCaw sells to AT&T for $17 billion, it's easy
> enough to infer the value of the FCC licenses in the transaction. On
> that basis, the commercial spectrum currently used for broadcast,
> cellular telephone, satellite and so on is worth somewhere between
> $100 billion and $300 billion.

The value of any property depends upon supply and demand. If all
spectrum were suddenly put up for auction, the supply would suddenly
be in excess of the demand. The result is that the value of the
spectrum would fall until the price met the demand. Therefore, figures
determined by multiplying the price of today's "scarce" commodity into
infinity are appealing to justify a massive spectrum auction -- but the
actual earnings are likely to be considerably less. Indeed, some
prognasticators believe a lot of PCS buyers will be broke in five years
and excess spectrum will go for sale at reduced prices.

One advantage of assigning a $ value to a piece of spectrum is that
the spectrum may be used more efficiently.  Why spend billions for
more MHz if converting to the latest whizbang digital thingamajigger
will increase the effective bandwidth?The effect of deploying better
technology is to create "virtual spectrum". And it may very well be
cheaper to deploy technology than to buy spectrum. If, for example,
CDMA enables a 10x capacity improvement for a given service, then we
create have an excess of virtual spectrum. (What was once 1 MHz
becomes equivalent to today's 10 MHz slice -- kind of like multiplying
all spectrum by a factor of 10).

Spectrum auctions state that the *only* valid use of radio spectrum is
that which makes money. Any other use is not essential. But there are
bonafide uses of the spectrum that are not measured (or easily
measured) in a strict dollar value. For example, suppose we auction
the marine frequencies and the cost of putting a two-way radio on a
boat increases substantially to pay for the marine channels -- leading
to people not putting radios on boats and decreasing the safety of the
marine environment (I live near Puget Sound...). You push in on one
side of the balloon and the cost pops out somewhere else. How about
aviation? What about Amateur Radio and public access services?

We currently have no experiencing selling spectrum for anything but
cellular/PCS-like services. We need to move slowly to understand the
impact and determine if such impacts are truly what we want. The last
thing we want is to, say, auction the marine frequencies, then turn
around and from a government subsidy program to ensure equal access to
marine safety communications.


Ed Mitchell    [e-mail]    kf7vy

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 11:57:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Barbara F. Hanes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Infrastructure Conference in Atlanta


  "Infrastructure: the Framework for Development," a conference
sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and the Policy
Research Center of Georgia State University will be held on June 15
and 16, 1995, at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 104 Marietta
Street, Atlanta, Georgia.  This conference features nationally
recognized experts -- economists, consultants, and industry executives
 -- speaking on critical issues facing traditional infrastructure
industries like transportation and utilities as well as
telecommunications.  In addition to considering the regulatory
framework and other important issues, this conference will address
capital budgeting at the state level and the role of the private
sector in infrastructure financing.  Program speakers include Ned
Gramlich, director of the Institute of Public Policy Studies at the
University of Michigan; Wallace Hawkes of Greiner, Inc.; Tom Bradshaw
of Smith Barney; Keith Bishop of the California Business,
Transportation, and Housing Agency; and Steve Hewlett, Tennessee's
Public Service Commissioner.  Registration fee is $85.  For further
information call Ms.  Jess Palazzolo at [phone].  To register,
call [phone] for an automated conference RSVP message.


Barbara F. Frolik  Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
[phone]  FAX:[phone]   [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 09:44:05 EDT
From: Steve Samler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail?


I've heard of and experienced some problems with Nynex's c.o. based
voice mail.  I called someone yesterday (5/25) and when they didn't
pick up I heard "You have reached the Nynex message center.  Please
enter the phone phone number of the person you are calling ..."
Eventually I heard their greeting and was able to leave a message.
This same person has told me that she has called other Nynex voice
mail subscribers and instead of getting their greeting heard the
subscriber menu for picking up messages.

Does anyone know what is going on?  Anyone out there from Nynex that
can shed some light?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Supposedly your call goes in to voicemail
on a DID trunk which shows who was being called in order to come up with
the appropriate answer phrase or greeting. I think sometimes the system
fails for whatever reason and voicemail does not know who is calling whom,
so it has to ask you.

People with telco voicemail might also try this little trick and see
what happens:  have you noticed how when you dial into the main number
using the phone number assigned it does not ask you to enter your mail-
box number? It already knows who you are, and just asks for your pass-
word. Now try calling the main number but using *67 first ... does it
still know who you are and merely ask for your password, or do you get
the introductory part about 'please enter the number of the mailbox you
are calling."  I am told in some telcos they say to heck with that *67
business on calls to them; the privacy flag is ignored when you call
into a telco function such as voicemail. How does it work in your
community?    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (George E. Cabanas)
Subject: Looking For ETSI Documentation Online?
Date: 25 May 1995 10:03:22 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


Looking for ETSI recommendations online.  Does anyone know if it exists?
I'm looking for something similar to ITU gopher.


Thanks in advance,

George   [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Holly Fenn)
Subject: Is it Northern or Nortel?
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:55:33 -0400
Organization: The MathWorks, Inc.


I purchased a Northern 61C Meridian system loaded with Meridian mail,
IVR, CCR, ACD, Meridian MAX, and Meridian Link. For six months I have
had the worst service and support through Nortel.  Has anyone else had
the same problem?  I came from a 12 year ROLM background so I have
nothing to compare this too.  I can't figure out if my frustration
lies within Nortel's organization, or if Northern just isn't the
technological giant it markets itself to be?

Any feedback and/or recommendations on an alternative service provider
would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Holly Fenn                                      [e-mail]
The MathWorks, Inc.                          [e-mail]
24 Prime Park Way                           http://www.mathworks.com
Natick, MA 01760-1500                   ftp.mathworks.com
Phone: [phone]  ext. 4395      Fax: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jerry Aguirre)
Subject: CD Changer For Music on Hold
Date: 25 May 1995 03:42:51 GMT
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, CA; USA


I am thinking about getting a CD changer and feeding it into the music
on hold port of our PBX.  Any negative issues to doing this?  I would
appreciate any experience people have with particular models or
features that make this more practical.

Any speculation on how long a CD changer would last in continuous
loop 24 hour a day use?

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (RC)
Subject: Need One Mile PC Communications
Date: 25 May 1995 16:16:01 GMT


We're using reachout between two PCs, but the nominal 9600-28K baud
rates available between the machines is not quite fast enough for the
customers needs. However, the machines are one mile apart, and the
customer is willing to string his own wire if necessary to gain
thruput.  Unfortunately, high speed phone lines are simply not
available in this area. But it seems to me that a mile is not too far
fetched for the right kind of direct connection. If anyone is
familliar enough with the possible off the shelf solutions, please
email me.


Thanks in advance.

Randy

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jean McGillivray)
Subject: Independent Category 5 Cable Evaluations
Date: 25 May 1995 19:37:45 GMT
Organization: Penn State College of Medicine
Reply-To: [e-mail]


We are interested in reviewing Category 5 cable and manufacturers to
compare technical specifications and *actual* performance. Would
someone please provide references to either an Internet site or
independent testing organization who might be able to provide this
level of detail?

Please respond directly to [e-mail].


Thank you,

Jean McGillivray      Penn State College of Medicine
Center for Information Technology    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Hansen)
Subject: Clarifications to Oregon PUC Ruling on Area Code Split
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 20:05:41 GMT
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University


On May 4, 1995, the Oregon PUB approved a new area code plan.  On the
original PUC list of exchanges, the Stayton exchange was inadvertently
included on both the 503 and 541 area code lists.  Stayton is assigned
to the 503 area code.

In addition, the Independence-Monmouth exchange was originally listed
on the 503 list under the name "Independence" using the industry
terminology.  In order to avoid customer confusion, the name
"Monmouth" has been added to the 503 list.


ROBERT A. HANSEN          Telecommunications Department
Oregon Health Sciences University  Portland, Oregon USA
[phone]   [until 6/30/95]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (ZEI)
Subject: Low Cost Router Alternatives?
Organization: ZEI Software - Client Server Business Solutions
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 20:08:14 GMT


Does anyone swear by a super low cost router alternative that can
migrate from 56K to T1?

I am interested in reliability / problems / costs.

I imagine this working with Linux / ethernet on intel box.


Art     [e-mail]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #257
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00963;
          25 May 95 22:02 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03566 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 25 May 1995 15:36:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03557; Thu, 25 May 1995 15:36:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 15:36:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #258

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 May 95 15:36:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 258

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecoms Newsline - an E-zine About UK Telecoms (Peter Judge)
    Re: Unusual RF Stories (Richard Jennings)
    Re: Unusual RF Stories (A. Padgett Peterson)
    Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS? (Gerald Serviss)
    Telecom history (Greg Schumacher)
    Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted (Kevin Martin)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 07:24:33 GMT
From: Peter Judge <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecoms Newsline - an e-zine about UK telecoms


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Quite a bit of this issue will be given
over to a look at a relatively new telecom publication published in the
UK but available on the internet. If you like it, sign up! I hope this
mention will help Peter Judge obtain a lot of good subscribers.   PAT]


Hello, Telecoms Newsline is an independent bulletin of UK telecoms
market news, sponsored by Hewlett-Packard.

I attach a brief description suitable for posting, and a sample copy.
Subscription details are included.


Peter Judge
89 Upper Tulse Hill
London  SW2 2RA
Tel/Fax: [phone]


Brief info:

#################################################################
#                                                               #
#                      Telecoms Newsline                        #
#          A News Service for Telecoms Professionals            #
#                 Sponsored by Hewlett Packard                  #
#                                                               #
#################################################################


#############################################################
#  Telecoms Newsline gives independent coverage of the UK   #
#  telecoms market.  It is sponsored by Hewlett-Packard,    #
#  and edited by Peter Judge and Annie Turner.              #
#                                                           #
#  Telecoms Newsline is free and may be re-posted without   #
#  restriction. As Telecoms Newsline is available globally  #
#  on the Internet, we cannot guarantee availability of     #
#  products in your area.                                   #
#                                                           #
#  To subscribe to Telecoms Newsline send mail to           #
#  <[e-mail]>.  To unsubscribe, mail to  #
#  <[e-mail]>  No message is required.       #
#                                                           #
#  Editorial comments or questions please mail to           #
#  <[e-mail]>                            #
#############################################################

#################################################################
#                                                               #
#                      Telecoms Newsline                        #
#          A News Service for Telecoms Professionals            #
#                 Sponsored by Hewlett Packard                  #
#                                                               #
#                    Issue 10: 16 May 1995                      #
#                                                               #
#################################################################

==> In this issue:

==> MCI and Murdoch: alliance of giants
==> BSkyB comes down to earth for cable
==> Fighting phone fraud
==> Swedes fail to make turnips out of BT
==> A tactical error by BT?
==> TINA: telecoms middleware arrives
==> Italians help Mercury take flight again
==> The last thing Mercury needs is Analysys
==> Hey, big spender
==> HP in Franco-German ATM and German GSM
==> Drenched RBOC upgrades
==> Operators count the cost of phone tapping
==> Hutchison to provide 200 jobs
==> HP wins the Cup

  *******************************************************
  * Hewlett-Packard's home page is at http://www.hp.com *
  * HP Labs' home page is at http://hplose.hpl.hp.com   *
  *******************************************************

MCI and Murdoch: alliance of giants
-----------------------------------
MCI is to invest $2bn, the equivalent of a 13.5% stake, in Rupert
Murdoch's News Corp over the next four years in a global joint
venture, with MCI providing the means of distribution and News
Corp providing content. Previous attempts to marry telecoms and
entertainment have come unstuck, with last year's failed merger
of Bell Atlantic and TCI being the most spectacular example.

News Corp's assets include extensive film, TV and publishing
interests. MCI, the US' second largest long distance carrier, has
pioneered mass Internet access. At the moment, the companies are
giving no details of exactly what services they plan to offer,
but say they are likely to be business information orientated,
rather than consumer entertainment.

Apparently services will begin this year. Last-mile delivery
mechanisms will include satellite receivers, radio and cable TV
networks. BT, which owns 20% of MCI, has professed itself pleased
to be involved in such an enterprise, even at one remove.  It has
long argued against the government policy which prevents it from
providing broadcast services in the UK, in order to protect the
fledgling cable TV companies until the next century. MCI's
alliance with News Corp is likely to help Murdoch in his US
regulatory struggle over his ownership of Fox TV.

BSkyB comes down to earth for cable
-----------------------------------
Two of the UK's largest cable TV operators, Nynex CableComms and
TeleWest Communications, have agreed to carry BSkyB's nine
channels and the pay per view channel it plans to launch later
this year. They reserve the right to launch their own channels if
they wish and to transmit whatever programmes they wish. At least
for these two companies for the moment, it will bring to an end
the acrimony that exists between BSkyB and the cable operators.

Fighting phone fraud
--------------------
The UK's four cellular operators (Vodafone, Cellnet, One2One and
Orange) have joined forces with handset manufacturers and service
providers in an attempt to stamp out fraud - which costs the UK
industry UKP50m annually.

The four operators have stumped up UKP650,000 to set up a team of
undercover investigators to catch dishonest dealers who connect
stolen mobile phones to the networks, signalling their willing-
ness to do so, with slogans like `Previous history no problem'.

Swedes fail to make turnips out of BT
-------------------------------------
Telia, the Swedish state-owned operator, has failed to keep a
consortium headed by BT out of its domestic market. BT's partners
are Tele Danmark and Telenor of Norway; their joint company is to
be called Telenordia and they will own and fund it equally.

Telia appealed to the EU to block the venture on the grounds that
the Danish and Norwegian markets are closed to competition, but
the Commission dismissed the complaint. Such judgements are
becoming increasingly complex; Telia is one of the founding
partners of the Unisource consortium which is becoming more
closely affiliated to AT&T and its would-be world-domination
vehicle, WorldPartners. Needless to say, they view BT and its
global joint venture with MCI, Concert, as their greatest rival.

Telenordia has already said it will spend US$276m in the attempt
to capture 10% of the Swedish market by the end of the century.
Existing Tele Danmark and BT business will be taken over by
Telenordia and while Concert will offer Swedish corporations
worldwide data and voice services, the new company is to focus on
intra-nordic region traffic which amounts to half of Sweden's
international traffic. In Sweden Telenordia will offer closed
user group voice and data transmission as well as PSTN services.

A tactical error by BT?
-----------------------
BT could regret involving the Monopolies and Mergers Commission
(MMC) in its dispute with Oftel over who should bear the cost of
implementing number portability (see TN8). The Government is
coming under growing pressure to strengthen competition law,
making consumers' welfare the primary concern. This goal could
lead to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the MMC being merged
into a single organisation, a step backed by the outgoing
Director General of the OFT, Sir Bryan Carsberg.

The Labour Party has added its support to the cause of stiffening
competition law and it is an open secret that Sir Bryan, who is
leaving OFT half-way through his five year term of office, is
exasperated by the Government's neglect of competition policy
since Mr Michael Heseltine took charge of the DTI in 1992.

Sir Bryan, the first Director General of Oftel, says UK compet-
ition law lacks teeth, with no rules banning anti- competitive
agreements and no means to enforce what little competition law we
have. The UK and the Netherlands are the only countries not to
have adopted rules based on articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty.

These prohibit price fixing and market-sharing agreements, abuses
of market power by monopolies and impose fines of up to 10% of
worldwide turnover for offenders. No wonder these have not been
taken up in the UK; some of the cornerstones of telecoms policy
would have to go immediately including the RPI-7.5% price cap
fixed by Oftel on BT and the apportioning of access deficit cont-
ribution charges if BT slips to less than an 85% market share.

==> TN wonders... what if someone objects to an OFT/MMC merger?
==> Where would the matter be referred?

Telecoms middleware - TINA paves the way
----------------------------------------
The telecoms industry is a step closer to a standard architect-
ure for services and management software, with the launch of
telecoms-specific middleware which merges distributed computing
with telecoms.

In July 1995, Hewlett-Packard will ship a middleware product
based on Bellcore's Information Networking Architecture (INA)
framework.  It will be a first step towards the specifications
from the ambitious TINA-C (Telecommunications Industry Networking
Architecture Consortium) as they are published.

TINA-C is a coalition of service providers and suppliers aiming
to produce an open, next generation architecture for telecoms by
1997. HP is a member (represented by HP LABs, Bristol), alongside
40 other leading companies including AT&T, IBM, Digital, NEC,
Fujitsu, NT, Ericsson, Siemens, Alcatel, Nokia, NTT, BT and
France Telecom.  TINA's work is being done at Bellcore in New
Jersey, where INA was developed.

Both TINA and INA include a software backplane for applications
to plug into, called the Distributed Processing Environment
(DPE), and based on distributed object technologies such as the
Object Management Group's CORBA and the Open Software
Foundation's DCE. Bellcore showed its prototype earlier this year
with sample ATM applications; HP's product will also include
OpenView DM. HP, Bellcore and other ISVs are working on
applications which use DPE. TINA and INA are well grounded in the
standards world: they refer to the ITU's Telecommunications
Management Network (TMN), ISO's reference model for open
distributed processing (RM-ODP), Intelligent Network (IN), and
Network Management Forum work.

Italians help Mercury take flight again
---------------------------------------
An Italian company, Industria Politecnica Meridonale looks set to
take over Mercury Communications' 2,873 public payphone sites,
for an undisclosed price. Divesting itself of payphones was part
of the cost cutting plan set out last December, after Mercury's
interim results revealed falling profits despite growing revenue.

The Italian firm makes telephone equipment in Naples and operates
around 200,000 payphones in Italy. It is awaiting a licence from
the DTI to operate payphones. Unlike Mercury's card-only phones,
the new Italian payphones will take cards and coins.

To add insult to injury for Mercury, BT's Patricia Vaz has been
named Veuve Cliquot Businesswoman of the Year. Her achievement?
Turning BT's payphone business from running at a 46m loss in 1990
when she was put in charge of it to making a 74m profit in
1993-94. She also radically increased their reliability and upped
the number of BT payphones nationwide from 97,000 to 130,000.

The last thing Mercury needs is Analysys
----------------------------------------
Consultancy Analysys reckons that for UK residential customers
and businesses with fewer than six lines cable operators and BT
are cheaper than Mercury.

Apparently for those with more than 12 lines, Mercury is still
more economic. Analysys' conclusion was reached via calculations
of average line costs for most European carriers. Mercury
commented that the definition of an average customer could be
misleading; its business has never been in the provision of local
telephony nor for very low volume users.

Hey, big spender
----------------
BT invests more money in technology than any other UK business
according to a survey conducted by Corporate IT Strategy
magazine. It spent almost UKP580m last year, UKP200m more than
the second largest IT spender, GEC. British Gas came third with
UKP313m. However, Reuters was streets ahead of everyone else in
terms of the percentage of turnover spent on technology; it
invests over 10%. On this scale, BT came seventh, at 4.4%.

HP in Franco-German ATM and German GSM
--------------------------------------
Deutsche Telekom and France Telecom will use HP's OpenView DM to
manage their common ATM network, using extensions from Debis
Systemhaus, Germany, and CAP SESA, France. Meanwhile DeTeMobil,
Deutsche Telekom's subsidiary and Germany's largest mobile
network operator, is to run the geographical information systems
used for planning its GSM network, and some customer care system,
on HP systems.  The deal may eventually be worth around $3.5
million.

==> Not surprisingly, HP's UK manufacturing divisions won a
Queen's Award for Export Achievement in 1995.  With UKP 445
million in 1994, the company is the UK's 39th largest exporter.

Drenched RBOC upgrades
----------------------
Meanwhile, in the US, AT&T keeps its finger in the RBOCs' pie by
selling them IT systems... and those systems use Hewlett-Packard
equipment. At US West, HP delivered two systems overnight, when the
RBOC's legacy loop management systems were overloaded by high service
call-outs due to rain - and won an order for eight more machines.
Another deal at Pacific Bell, for systems to supporvideo, could be
worth $15 million.

Operators count the cost of phone tapping
-----------------------------------------
A row has erupted in Germany between the government and mobile phone
network operators after operators were told to modify their systems so
that the police could eavesdrop on criminals. It is likely to cost the
operators - Deutsche Telekom, MannesmanMobilfunk and E-Plus - a total
of about UKP114m to change their digital networks to comply. They
argue they should not have to pay, as the civil service should have
made official eavesdropping a condition of the licences it awarded in
1989.

Hutchison to provide 200 jobs
-----------------------------
Hutchison Telecom is to create 200 jobs in a UKP3m expansion of its
Darlington-based HQ which is to be the main base for customer service
operations for the Orange PCN and paging services.

HP wins the Cup
---------------
Hewlett-Packard is over the moon to have wrested the prized World
Cup IT deal from Sun Microsystems. TV coverage of the 1998 Cup,
held in France and watched by 37 million people, will feature
HP's name. Soccer enthusiast HP announced earlier this year plans
to sponsor Tottenham Hotspur from the 1995/6 season. But will
this be enough to make up for the loss of Jurgen Klinsman?

#############################################################
#  (c) 1995 Hewlett Packard Co.                             #
#                                                           #
#  If you like it, pass it on. This publication is free     #
#  and may be re-posted without restriction. As Telecoms    #
#  Newsline is available globally on the Internet, we       #
#  cannot guarantee availability of products in your area.  #
#                                                           #
#  To subscribe to Telecoms Newsline send mail to           #
#  <[e-mail]>.  To unsubscribe, mail to  #
#  <[e-mail]>  No message is required.       #
#                                                           #
#  Editorial comments or questions please mail to           #
#  <[e-mail]>                            #
#############################################################

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 19:21:30 +0100
From: C-News owner c/o Richi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 18:10:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard EMO-Pinewood, UK


Ed Ellers <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was during the Second World War that
>> the radio stations in the USA went through a frequency realignment

> That was actually before Pearl Harbor -- most of the AM stations in North
> America had to change channels on the same day, in March 1941.  This was a

Ahem.  Us Europeans might like to remind everyone that the 2WW started
in 1939.


 Richard Jennings, Software Specialist.                 [|< [\] PADI RD
 EMO Pinewood, home of HP's advanced messaging solutions.
 Hewlett-Packard     Voice: (+44)/(0)1344 763738        A=GOLD 400
 Nine Mile Ride      Fax:   (+44)/(0)1344 763526       OU=HP1600   O=hp
 Wokingham RG40 3LL  e-mail: [e-mail]     G=Richard  P=hp
 England             or:     [e-mail]   S=Jennings C=GB


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are of course correct, and so was I
in my original statement. The war did begin in 1939, but the United
States did not get involved until Sunday, December 7, 1941 following the
attack in Hawaii. There are a number of theories behind the attack which
thrust us into the war; those are best left for other forums. All I will
say here is that President Roosevelt was just *itching* to get into it
right from the beginning, but he had no valid excuse for sticking his nose
where it did not belong until that Sunday morning ... FDR wanted to get
in the war so badly he could taste it. A good war works wonders for the
economy you know.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 95 10:22:23 -0400
From: [e-mail] (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: Re: Unusual RF Stories


> WEFM was almost certainly the first FM station in the Midwest, but it was
> by no means the first in the U.S. -- that was Major Armstrong's own
> W2XMN, outside New York City.

Would like to suggest the book "Empire of the Air" (also a
documentary) for a slightly biased account of early radio in the US.
Have to take some of it with a grain of salt (few items I knew about
did not jibe, for instance had Cmdr. McDonald holding up adoption of
color TV by Zenith until 1961 -- neat trick since he died in 1958).

> (Of course the station is now WUSN -- I wonder what Commander
> McDonald would think of *those* initials on "his" station...:-)

Probably not much, the "Commander" was a Navy rank earned in WW1 and
the Naval excursion of 1924 played a big part in making Zenith a success.


Warmly,

Padgett

PS: amazing the overlaps on the net - I also collect Zenith TransOceanics.
PPS: of course it took two years and some intense lobbying, but Sarnoff did
    make "General" so outranked both McDonald and Armstrong.

        ----- and now back to telecom -----

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh indeed, Zenith made out like bandits
during the Second War as well; so did all of the defense contractors
including RCA, and I might add, Western Electric/AT&T. The manufacture
of telephone instruments was suspended from 1942 through early in 1946
when Western Electric 'went to war'. There was such a shortage of phone
instruments during that time that if you had an extension phone in your
house the patriotic thing to do when the phone company called on you
was to give it up in order that the instrument might be used to provide
service for other people who had could not obtain a phone instrument at
all. Lots of people gave their extension phones back to telco so that
needy subscribers could be serviced while Western Electric was unavailable
due to wartime production for the armed forces.

That is one of the reasons it took so long to get Chicago converted from
manual service (beginning in 1939) to completely dial service (in 1951).
About one third of the city was coverted to automatic dialing when the
USA got into WW-2 and the government seized Western Electric for its own
requirements.  Once the war ended Western Electric was allowed to resume
normal manufacturing for AT&T beginning early in 1946.

It is worth noting also that during WW-2, military personnel were given
priority status on AT&T long distance circuits. If all circuits from
point A to B were busy and a military commander (as an example) needed
to make a call, the operator would select a trunk -- yours, or whoever
she saw first -- and tell you, 'sorry, line is needed for priority call
in the war effort.'  Then she pulled the cords down and that was that.

Also, telephone books and other advertising by AT&T warned against the
use of the telephone to discuss military secrets. For example your
son or husband was in the military, off in Germany or the UK or the
South Pacific or the North Atlantic or wherever. Finally you got word
that he would be able to speak with you on the phone at a certain time,
and the AT&T operator would put the call through while the whole family
waited anxiously by the phone, each one wanting to get at least a few
seconds of conversation in with their father, their brother, husband
or whatever. But the AT&T ads in the newspapers and the phone directories
plainly warned, "Loose lips sink ships. When conversing with a military
person on the telephone, please do not ask him to compromise our nation's
security by discussing military secrets to which he may have knowledge.
There may be so much he wants to tell you, but cannot, because of the
war, and you never know when the telephone lines may have been sabatoged
by the enemy ....'.   (From {Chicago Tribune} AT&T advertisement, 1944).

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gerald Serviss)
Subject: Re: What is the Exact Meaning of POTS?
Date: 24 May 1995 14:57:00 GMT
Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola


Gareth J. Evans  <[e-mail]> wrote:

> POTS - Plain Ordinary Telephone System
> PANS - Potentially Attractive New Services
> CUPS - Customer Unspecified Private Services

I was at an AIN (Advanced Intelligent Network) COMFORUM when I heard
PANS . The definition given then was:

    Pretty Amazing New Services


Jerry Serviss  Motorola Inc
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 12:29:55 EDT
From: Greg Schumacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom History


Pat,

I have a question that is somewhat tangential to the serious telecom
discussions usually found here for the telecom historians or veterans.

Last weekend I was at a yardsale and while poking through the piles of
books found one titled "Principles of Electricity applied to Telephone
and Telegraph Work 1953 Edition". Scanning through it briefly, I found
some intresting photos and diagrams of cross bar and step by step
switches. And at $1 it was a deal I could not pass up.

Later upon closer examination, it turns out to be "A Training Course
Text Prepared for Employees of the Long Lines Department, American
Telegraph and Telephone Company, January 1953" being a revision to a
1938 edition.

My question is this: The frontispiece is a photo of a statue labeled
"Spirit of Communication". The statue is a winged nude male in the
classic roman style holding up 3 lightning bolts in his left hand and
holding the end of a thick cable in his right hand. This cable is
coiled around his arm and midriff providing "some" modesty. Does
anybody know the origin or location of this statue and where it is
today?

PS. This book has a couple of paragraphs about transisters, pulse code
modulation and todays T carriers (though not named as such in the
book.)


Greg Schumacher, Director of Systems Engineering & Advanced Research
Priority Call Management
226 Lowell St., MS A-2  Wilmington, MA 01887  [e-mail]
508-694-2762 voice    [e-mail]
508-694-2762 FAX      [e-mail]



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was -- still is? -- at the AT&T
Building on Broadway in lower Manhattan.  A picture of that statue
was also the standard back cover of Bell System telephone directories
for many years, and quite a few business offices, including the one
in downtown Chicago had replicas of it. The phone books always had
that statue on the cover somewhere, along with the little circle and
the words 'American Telephone and Telegraph and Associated Companies'
in the circle.  I guess they quit using the statue about 1960.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Martin)
Subject: Re: Chicago Area Internet Providers Wanted
Date: 24 May 1995 08:55:48 -0500
Organization: MCSNet Services


[e-mail] (Kevin Kadow) writes:

> Because of the "band" system for local calls used by Ameritech, you'll
> want to find a provider who's central office is within 8 miles of your
> central office -- otherwise you pay Ameritech by the minute, rather than
> a flat per-call rate.

A bit misleading -- for your data calls, it's not the central office
that matters.  It is, of course, their nearest Point Of Presence to
you.  MCS actually has quite a presence in 708, more so than in 312
even.

Here's the current modem list from "http://www.mcs.net/phones", for example:

POP Location            V.32bis or below        V.34/V.FC

Chicago/Lakeview        312-248-0900 (55)       312-248-5687 (48)
Naperville              708-637-0900 (32)       708-637-0964 (16)
Wheeling                708-465-0990 (24)       708-465-1091 (16)
Blue Island/Alsip       708-385-0997 (10)       708-385-1142 (6)
St Charles/Geneva       708-262-0900 (10)       708-262-0949 (6)
Schaumburg                                      708-413-8450 (24)

                        Totals       131                     116

Total network-wide = 247


Kevin Martin                     [e-mail]
Pinball Archive: ftp.mcs.com(192.160.127.87):/mcsnet.users/sigma/pinball
Many a sober Christian would rather admit that a wafer is God
than that God is a cruel and capricious tyrant.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MCSNet has expanded greatly over the
Chicago area in the past couple years. I would recommend Karl Denninger
and his company to anyone looking for internet services.   PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #258
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa14327;
          26 May 95 16:18 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18816 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 26 May 1995 09:27:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18808; Fri, 26 May 1995 09:27:06 -0500
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 09:27:06 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #259

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 May 95 09:27:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 259

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Broadband Networking News (Electronic Newsstand)
    U.S. Schools and Libraries Ask For Affordable Telecom Access (Nigel Allen)
    Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform (Nigel Allen)
    How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 (Andrew C. Green)
    Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Kimmo Ketolainen)
    Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers? (Kate Weber Brown)
    Centrex Voice Mail Notifier (John Zambito)
    SS7 <--> MFR2 Conversion? (Ronald Reiner)
    Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution (Michel Adam)
    Book Review: "Netlaw: Your Rights in the Online World" by Rose (Rob Slade)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (enews)
Subject: Broadband Networking News
Date: 25 May 1995 20:47:59 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA


The featured article from the May 16 issue of BROADBAND NETWORKING NEWS
looks at combinations of cable and phone companies. Here is an excerpt from
"ALLIANCE TARGETS BROADBAND INTERNET SOLUTION."

                   --------------------------

     Thanks to a new solution being developed by AT&T Network Systems,
Intel Corporation, and Hybrid Networks Inc., local cable and phone
companies are one step closer to offering Internet access -- and to
bypassing traditional Internet service providers (ISPs).  The joint
solution will enable consumers to access the Internet at speeds up to
27 Mbps from their home computers, while allowing telcos and cable
companies to offer another new service over their growing broadband
networks.

     "Online access is a rapidly growing area," said Stan Holcomb,
director of business strategy for visual consumer broadband networks
for AT&T Network Systems.  "We hope to bring [cable and phone]
companies into this growing market.  This will bring service providers
a new revenue source -- PC-based services.  These services will
especially be important for Internet access and for work-at-home
applications."

     "We think there is a big market in bringing broadband to PCs,"
said Tom Waldrop, an Intel spokesman.  "We think the PC -- not the
television -- will be the consumers' choice for interactive data
services like Internet, work-at-home, education, and news."


 ...Creating the Service

     AT&T will integrate the Internet solution into both of its
broadband networking systems -- the HFC-2000 Broadband Access System,
a hybrid fiber-coax solution, and the SLC-2000 Access System with FLX
Switched Digital Video, a fiber-to-the curb, switched video solution.
AT&T is developing the latter system jointly with BroadBand
Technologies (see BNN, October 18, 1994).

     Both systems incorporate AT&T's GlobeView 2000 ATM switch as a
central component, and AT&T is installing both around the country.
Southwestern Bell has deployed the SLC-2000 with FLX Switched Digital
Video in Richardson, Texas, while Pacific Bell is using the HFC-2000
solution in California.  Southern New England Telephone and Comcast
Cable are also deploying the HFC-2000, and Bell Atlantic is using both
broadband systems.

     Although running TCP/IP over ATM has been troublesome, AT&T's
Holcomb says the problems of running the protocol over its networking
solutions have been solved, and the systems have been tested.  AT&T
plans to introduce additional, related networking products over the
next 12 months.

     Hybrid Networks will integrate its point-of-presence network hubs
into the broadband solution.  The hubs are used to link the Internet
and other multimedia content providers to broadband networks.

     For its part in the solution, Intel will provide the CablePort
adapter technology needed to connect PCs to cable networks.  The
products, which are still being tested, will include a card that goes
inside a PC and an external module that connects the computer to the
cable.  Both Viacom and Comcast Cable have been testing the
technologies.  In the test, each firm is providing access to online
service providers and the Internet as well as additional programming
such as home shopping.  Intel expects to introduce the products later
this year.

     According to both Holcomb and Waldrop, local cable and phone
companies will be able to install the solution and begin offering
Internet access by year's end.  They don't, however, expect the
solution to become widespread until the end of 1996.

                 ____________________________________

So begins this issue's featured article from Broadband Networking News.

This article and others from Broadband Networking News and additional
publications can be viewed at no charge on The Electronic Newsstand, a
service which collects articles, editorials, and table of contents from
over 260 magazines and provides them to the Global Internet community.

Access to The Electronic Newsstand is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week via Gopher, an information navigation and retrieval technology from the
University of Minnesota.

For those without a local Gopher client program, The Electronic Newsstand
provides a telnet account which will allow you to use a text based Gopher
client to access our service.

To access The Electronic Newsstand,

    via Local Gopher Client:

        Hostname:    gopher.enews.com
        Port:        2100

    via the Gopher Home Menu at U of Minn:

        Other Gopher and Information Servers/
          North America/
            USA/
              General/
            The Electronic Newsstand (tm)

    via Gopher Link Information:

        Name=The Electronic Newsstand
        Type=1
        Port=2100
        Path=1/
        Host=gopher.enews.com

    via Telnet:

        Hostname:     gopher.enews.com
        Loginname:    enews
        Password:    <not required>

    via World Wide Web:

        URL:        http://www.enews.com

    via electronic mail:

        Send a blank email message to [e-mail]
        to retrieve files.

We are also available for America Online users in the Gopher area under
Literature and Books.

If you have any suggestions on how we might improve this
service, or need more information, please email  [e-mail]

    --The Electronic Newsstand Staff

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 04:36:55 -0400
Subject: U.S. Schools and Libraries Ask For Affordable Telecom Access
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto M6G 1V3
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)


Here is a press release from the National School Boards Association.
I downloaded the press release from the U.S. Newswire BBS in
Maryland at [phone]. I do not work for the association.

                ---------------------

 Education and Technology Groups Rally to Ensure Access for School
and Libraries in Pending Telecommunications Reform Bill

 Contact: Michelle Richards of the National School Boards
          Association, 703-838-6208

   WASHINGTON, May 25 -- A broad-based, non-partisan coalition of more
than 40 organizations has joined to rally support for provisions of
the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995 that
assure the nation's schools and students receive universal and
affordable access to emerging telecommunications and information
services.

   The provisions for school and library access, co-sponsored by U.S.
Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), J.
Robert Kerrey (D-Neb.), and J. James Exon (D-Neb.), are expected to be
the focus of heated debate in the Senate which is scheduled to take up
consideration of the bill over the next few weeks.

   The coalition is working to protect language in the Senate bill
that ensures all children will have an affordable "on-ramp" to the
Information Highway by providing the nation's schools and libraries
with universal and reasonably-priced access to telecommunications and
information services.

   Opposition to the provision has been raised by those who believe
that competition alone should result in affordable access without the
necessity for specific assurances.  The coalition counters that,
especially in rural areas, competition will be insufficient to lower
rates.  Schools and libraries are not asking for a "free ride," just
affordability.  Since schools and libraries are public service
institutions rather than commercial markets, it is in the public
interest to assure such affordable access.

   The coalition is also encouraging leaders in the U.S. House of
Representatives to include a similar provision in its version of the
telecommunication bill, H.R. 1555.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And it *is* possible for libraries and
schools to get online inexpensively. A lot of equipment is *not* needed;
extensive telecom equipment is *not* needed. What often times are needed
are terminals, printers and modems to provide the most elementary access
and in effect the only access needed by many small institutions. Yes, more
would be useful, but is not needed. I have said many times that if I were
to win the Illinois State Lottery and a couple million dollars I would
see to it that every small library in the Chicago area and school got at
least the minimum basics needed to use the Internet. There is some outfit
now trying to sell the Chicago Public Schools a massive, millions-of-dollars
comptuter network for the same purpose; it will be a ripoff! Politicians
and bureaucrats trying to figure out how the Internet works and squandering
all their money in the process. Did you know that with even a small, used
386 you can operate a small site with accomodations for a couple dozen
users, newsgroups, email, etc? For the longest time, I have wanted to see
a Freenet in operation here for the libraries and schools in Chicago where
such a thing is badly needed. People would be amazed how much can be done
with very little expense *if they know how to do it*. Now I am not suggesting
a Freenet can be run on a 386; but I am saying lots of small sites for use
by library patrons could be established with a lot less money than they
think, if dedicated and knowledgeable netters would assist in setting them
up. The trouble is -- and here shows up my cynicism of government, politi-
cians and bureaucrats in general -- they probably won't ask any of us for
help. They'll stumble along, somehow millions of dollars later manage to
get connected, then a lot of the equipment will set unused because people
do not know how to operate it.  I only wish I were in a position to do
something about it. Somedays I feel so helpless here, seeing how much needs
to be done to truly bring America on line ...  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 04:38:08 -0400
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3


Here is a press release from the United States Conference of Mayors.
I downloaded the press release from the U.S. Newswire BBS in
Maryland at [phone]. I do not work for the association.

                  -------------------

 Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecommunications
Reform

 Contact: Mike Brown, Kevin McCarty of the United States Conference
         of Mayors, 202-293-7330

   WASHINGTON, May 25 -- In a statement delivered to reporters today
in Washington, Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe, president of The U.S.
Conference of Mayors, called on Congress to respect local governments'
right to manage the use of their roads and streets and to be
compensated for their use when telecommunications companies install
their communications networks.

   Ashe also asserted that local governments should not lose their
very basic police power -- zoning -- in the name of launching new
technologies.  "We can't let companies, in the name of expediency,
simply sweep our community interests and needs to the side," said
Ashe.  "And we can't let Congress and the Federal Communications
Commission pretend that they are in the zoning business or that they
are the local utilities board."

   Noting that the House Commerce Committee was marking up new
telecommunications legislation at that moment, Ashe described
mayors' concerns that, in the name of building the information
superhighway, commercial interests were seeking legislation to
preempt what traditionally have been local authorities.  "Efforts
have been made to compromise our property rights; efforts have been
made to devalue the compensation we receive for the use of local
property; more recently, some are trying to avoid local zoning,"
Ashe explained.

   Because the fiberoptic cable and conduit networks needed to
support new telecommunication systems will share space with other
occupants of cities' rights-of-way -- gas companies, sewer and
water utilities, electric companies and existing telecommunication
providers -- mayors anticipate costly problems for local
governments in accommodating the overlay of these new networks.
"To suggest that the Congress and the Federal Communications
Commission can manage the rules, resolve the conflicts and protect
local community interests is simply foolhardy," said Ashe.

   An amendment to the Communications Act of 1995 which addresses
the mayors' right-of-way concerns had been offered by Rep. Bart
Stupak (Mich.).  While the amendment was not acted upon, Commerce
Committee Chair Thomas Bliley (Va.), a former mayor, indicated
today that the mayors' concerns would be addressed as the
legislation moves toward full House consideration.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 22:57:32 CDT
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942


In my hobby of listening to Old Time Radio programs, I came across
this gem which I've transcribed below, which gives a fascinating
insight into what it took to make a long-distance phone call in 1942.

This is an episode of the dramatic series "Suspense". This particular
broadcast occurred on September 2, 1942, starring Orson Welles and
entitled "The Hitchhiker". Welles plays a man named Ronald Adams, who
is traveling alone cross-country in his car, and as the story
progresses, he is becoming increasingly tormented by a mysterious
figure he keeps encountering along the way, usually along the side of
the road. At a tense and dramatic point near the end, he decides to
call his mother in Brooklyn, New York from a payphone in Gallup, New
Mexico, several thousand miles to the west. Note that the complexity
of making the call has nothing to do with the story; it's just
presented as how things were routinely done. PAT, feel free to jump in
and clarify, if you can, why it takes at least four operators working
in sequence to pull this off:

(Adams deposits a coin and waits)

OPERATOR #1: Your call, please...

ADAMS: Long distance.

OPERATOR #1: Long distance... certainly...

(a buzzer is heard on the line...)

OPERATOR #2: This is Long Distance...

ADAMS: I'd like-- *cough* *cough* (louder now:) I'd like to put in a
call to my home in Brooklyn, New York... I'm Ronald Adams... um, er,
the number is BEechwood two, oh eight two eight.

OPERATOR #2: Certainly; I will try to get it for you...

(another buzzer, fainter this time)

OPERATOR #3: Albuquerque...

OPERATOR #2: New York, for Gallup...

(two faint electronic beeps heard on the line)

OPERATOR #4: New York...

OPERATOR #2: Gallup, New Mexico calling BEechwood two, oh eight
two eight.

ADAMS: (talking quietly to himself:) I read somewhere that love
could banish demons...

(his payphone abruptly swallows the first coin into its box)

 ... it was the middle of the morning ... I knew mother'd be home...
I pictured her, tall and white-haired, in her crisp house dress, going
about her tasks. It'd be enough, I thought, just to hear the even
calmness of her voice--

OPERATOR #1: (brisk, sing-song businesslike voice) Will you please
deposit three dollars and eighty-five cents for the first three
minutes? When you have deposited a dollar and a half, will you wait
until I have collected the money ...

(we hear six quarters go in one at a time, each striking the heavy
bell inside the phone. After the sixth quarter, we hear a slight
avalanche of coins falling inside the phone.)

OPERATOR #1: (more sing-song business script:) All right, deposit
another dollar and a half ...

(six more clangs and an avalanche)

OPERATOR #1: Will you please deposit the remaining eighty-five cents ...

(three more clangs, then a ringy-ding from a dime)

OPERATOR #1: Ready with Brooklyn. Go ahead, please ...

ADAMS: Hello?

VOICE ON THE OTHER END: Mrs. Adams' residence ...

Whew! It all moves briskly along, but still takes a full two minutes
and six seconds of airtime between the time Orson puts his first
nickel in the phone and the time the phone is answered at his mother's
house.  Contrast that with how little time it takes us today to pick
up the phone, rip through a speed dial and have someone halfway around
the world answer in seconds. (And it probably costs less than $3.85!)


Andrew C. Green            [phone]
Frame Advanced Product Services
441 W. Huron               Internet: [e-mail]
Chicago, IL  60610-3498    FAX: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The above is mostly accurate. Usually
if the coin deposit required was more than the collection table inside
could hold, the operator refrained from asking for payment until the
called number or party answered. The reason was, if there was no answer
the money had to be returned, and what had been dumped in the box
already could obviously not be returned through the coin return slot.
If it was a small enough amount the operator would ask for it and it
would be held inside on the table. The operator's switchboard had two
buttons on it marked 'return' and 'collect' and by pressing one button
or the other, the money would fall in the box or the table would tip
in the other direction and dump the coins back out to the caller. If
the amount or number of coins made it impossible to hold them all (and
this usually only happened on international calls costing ten or fifteen
dollars) then the operator would get the distant party on the line,
tell them to hold on a minute and come back to the caller asking for
the money. If the caller tried to be smart and talk to the other end
before the money all got deposited the operator would either tell them
to shut up and try to talk over them or she would 'split the connection';
that is, cut off the one party from hearing the other until all the money
was deposited. Then if she had to collect it in increments of a few
dollars at a time, tell them to wait while she collected and then ask
for more, she would. For calls costing less than a couple dollars they
asked for all the money up front because even with a busy/no answer at
the other end, this could still be funneled down the return slot by
tipping the table inside the phone to the left.

It took as many operators as it did because there were apparently (in
the example on the radio) no direct lines between Gallup and New York.
Had there been a direct line between Albuquerque and New York then you
might have heard an operator answer 'Kansas City' or 'Chicago' (or maybe
both!) along the way, with a request from the earlier operator to please
extend the call. Had it been in the late 1920's or 1930's, it is likely
there would have been a half dozen more operators on the line in the
process of making the connection.

In some places, the operator who collected the money could not return
it. Here in Chicago as late as about 1970, from some payphones in the
south end of the downtown area if you called a suburban point which
required the deposit of extra coins (over and above the five cents needed
for the local connection) you had to dial '211' and tell the operator
the number desired (to call Skokie for example). She would ask for the
additional twenty cents due then ring the number. If there was no answer
or the line was busy, she would tell you to hold on a minute for the
return of your money. She plugged in on the switchboard somewhere and
got another operator who answered 'Wabash' and your operator would then
say something like 'return on trunk 178'.  You would hear a rather rude
popping noise in the earpiece and the coins would come clattering down
into the coin return slot. Now and then an accident would occur: the
operator would collect the coins when she meant to return them or even
return them when she meant to collect them. In the former case, it was
handled rather casually. If the customer indicated he would be attempting
the call again in a few minutes, he would be told "when the operator
answers, tell her you have ten cents credit coming from your prior call."
If the coins were returned in error, the operator would ask you politely
to redeposit them.     PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kimmo Ketolainen [phone])
Subject: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM
Organization: University of Turku
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 03:58:35 GMT


According to {Helsingin Sanomat} (25 May) Telecom Finland plans to use
the 1800 MHz frequencies in the major cities to enhance GSM efficiency.
DCS 1800 will only be taken into use in the metropolitan areas where
the GSM frequency bands around 900 MHz are getting more and more
populated. The new frequ ency does not require any major capital
investment, as it can and will be us ed by the current GSM base
stations.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kate Weber Brown)
Subject: Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers
Date: 26 May 1995 06:58:45 -0400
Organization: Bank of Bermuda


Hello, all,

Is there anyone who can send me an algorithm for taking apart a string
of numbers and working out which digits are area code or country code,
etc.?  I'm trying to build an application which bills fax calls from
the log ...


Thanks,

Kate Weber Brown     Office Automation
The Bank of Bermuda  [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Zambito)
Subject: Centrex Voice Mail Notifier?
Organization: Performance Technologies, Incorporated
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 12:32:28 GMT


We just got centrex and they want $35 for the red LED indicator
that plugs into the phone line and flashes when there is a voice
mail message. How do these work?


John Zambito, Performance Telecom Corporation     [e-mail]
315 Science Parkway, Rochester, New York 14620    uupsi!ptsys1!jvz
Maker of HDSL systems for sending 1.544kbs 16,000 ft

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ronald Reiner)
Subject: SS7 <--> MFR2 Conversion?
Date: 26 May 1995 02:43:21 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA


I am seeking advice about a specialized conversion unit that accepts
SS7 from the PSTN and converts it to R2.  We sell facsimile store and
forward equipment and manufacture our own hardware for interfacing
over the PSTN for incoming and outgoing fax delivery.  These fax ports
are R2 capable so that we can capture called number and calling number
for some of our value added features.

We now have a customer who wants us to use our value added features on
and SS7 network. It sure would ease our lives if we could find a
"black box" which could sit between us and the PSTN and make the PSTN
look like R2.

We know of one product: Pit Boss.  Is anyone out there aware of other vendors
for this type of product?  If so, please respond by E-mail.


Thanks,

Ron Reiner

------------------------------

From: Michel Adam <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 14:44:25 MDT
Organization: NTNet Society


    I am in need of the expertise of the readers of this group.

We need to provide 56kbps connections to numerous customers in town (we
are a non-profit society providing internet connections in the Canadian
North), and have had some success with expensive Synchronous CSU/DSU.

We would like to use an abundance of Asynchronous ports on our Netblazer
to provide 56kbps at a much lower cost. We will be using leased lines,
the 4-wire garden variety, 24ga., over up to 4 miles (5 would be better,
but it appears to be stretching it...).

Using good old RS-232, and preferrably Rack mounted at our central location,
and stand-alone at the remote end. Is there anything that will do the
job? Our target price per connection is around $US 730, or $CAN 1000.

The current candidate for the central site is a Black-Box rack with
Mini Driver MP Cards (page 20 of the summer 95 catalog), ME778C-RJ11.

The only problem is that there does not appears to be any Stand-alone
equivalent for the other side. Does anyone know who actually MAKE these
units?

Any help greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Michel Adam    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 17:41:47 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Netlaw: Your Rights in the Online World" by Rose


BKNETLAW.RVW   950406

"NetLaw:  Your Rights in the Online World", Lance Rose, 1995, 0-07-882077-4,
U$19.95
%A   Lance Rose
%C   2600 Tenth St., Berkeley, CA   94710
%D   1995
%G   0-07-882077-4
%I   McGraw-Hill
%O   U$19.95 510-548-2805 800-227-0900 [e-mail]
%O   [e-mail]
%P   372
%T   "NetLaw:  Your Rights in the Online World"

Very similar to his earlier "Syslaw" (cf. BKSYSLAW.RVW), this is a
general guide to various legal aspects of life online.  The major
changes are the broadening of the scope from BBS level systems to
include online services and the Internet, and very handy (and
interesting) sidebars, which give a thumbnail sketch version of the
topic under discussion.  These usually include a reference to some
specific case.

Chapters address the issues of censorship, contracts, commerce, and
copyright.  Chapter four, which deals with the responsibility of the
system operator in light of online dangers, does touch on the topic of
malicious software.  I was disappointed that this is limited to a not
terribly accurate defining of terms, and almost no discussion of the
admittedly confused legal situation.  Further chapters cover privacy,
crime, search and seizure, and a rather disappointing chapter on
obscenity.  Appendices include some very useful sample contracts, and
various US laws.

Given recent developments which have strongly indicated the
international nature of the net and international legal ramifications,
it is discouraging to see that Rose still presents only a limited and
US-centric view.  However, the general principles he describes are
held in common law, and this book should at least provide guidance for
the broader online world.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKNETLAW.RVW   950406. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  [e-mail]
User           [e-mail]
Security       Canada V7K 2G6

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #259
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa12215;
          31 May 95 2:09 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26228 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 30 May 1995 20:00:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26220; Tue, 30 May 1995 20:00:02 -0500
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 20:00:02 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #260

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 May 95 19:59:30 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 260

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Privacy at Americtech (Van Hefner)
    ITU World Wide Web Server (Robert Shaw)
    Sunday's OTR on WTIX (Mark Cuccia)
    Jobs at AT&T Bell Labs (Jiming Liu)
    UCLA Short Course: Wavelet Transform Applications (William Goodin)
    Cantel and the New Area Codes (Jeff Bamford)
    Cellular One of NYC Credit (Keith Knipschild)
    California's New Area Code: 760 (Greg Monti)
    Re: Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform (Mark Crispin)
    Re: Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail? (Scot M. Desort)
    Re: Troubles with NYNEX Voice Mail? (Stan Schwartz)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 01:00:39 -0400
Subject: Telecom Privacy at Americtech


Pat,

      I thought that your readers may find this artice disturbingly
interesting. Has
Ameritech gone off the deep end?!!?

       ==================================================

By David Adams, {Akron Beacon Journal}, Ohio Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Business News

May 24 -- Deborah Tarvin let her fingers do the walking right into her
neighbor's telephone bill. Due to changes in Ameritech's automated
toll-free customer service line last year, anyone can access basic
billing information about almost any of the company's 10.8 million
households in Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Indiana -- just
by knowing that customer's phone number.

That means anyone -- your boss, your neighbors, your ex-spouse.
Ameritech previously required customers to use a three-digit access
code printed on their monthly bill. But early last year, as part of a
technological upgrade, the company dropped the code, citing Ameritech
studies showing customers overwhelmingly didn't want them.

But when Tarvin, a 42-year-old Akron resident, called last week to
find out about her May bill, she was surprised to learn how easily
anyone else could gain that information and much more.

Concerned, she tried her teenage daughter's phone number, and got her
daughter's billing information. Then, in successive calls, she
obtained the billing records for her parent and neighbors.

"I am outraged -- I feel those records should be private," Tarvin
said. "I think it's a breach of privacy."

Getting billing information by phone from Ameritech is markedly easier
than getting similar information from other businesses. Most banks,
credit card and other services require customers to use a combination
of account numbers and personal identification codes to access billing
data.

The information available through the customer service line, 800-660-
2626, includes a customer's balance due, last payment date, and when
the a payment was received by the company.

Customer service representative available on the service can also arrange
payment of a bill with a credit card.

Duplicate bills can also be obtained through the service but those
bills are only sent to the address of the customer listed on the bill.
The mailing addresses cannot be changed by telephone.

It isn't possible for anyone using the service line to find out what numbers
a customer has called.

Still, Tarvin says simple billing information can reveal plenty, and
she called the 800 number to complain. "I kept telling her about right
of privacy, and she kept telling me about test studies," said Tarvin,
recalling her conversation with an Ameritech representative.

That's close to the company's official position on the subject. "We
did customer research, and they wanted this system to be quick and
convenient as possible," said Tim Fitzpatrick, Ameritech spokesman.
"They don't consider overall bill information vital, and they don't
want to keep track of another number ... the primary driver in this is
to make it as simple as possible."

Ameritech's move so far hasn't caused much of an uproar, according to
Ohio's Public Utility Commission, and Consumers' Counsel, the state
consumer advocate.

"We haven't had any calls about it, and we watch for things like
that," said Consumers' Counsel spokeswoman, Susan Gaskell. "There may
be some who would abuse this. But does that outweigh the convenience
of having this? It doesn't seem so."

Ameritech considered keeping the code system, Fitzpatrick said. But it
found out that most people who were calling to find out what they owed
had misplaced their bills. Without their bills, they couldn't find the
required three-digit code -- rendering the service line useless to
most people who needed it, Fitzpatrick said.

Since the change, use of the company's service line has doubled to
about five million calls a year, while Ameritech has received only
about a dozen complaints, Fitzpatrick said.

"Our customers are extremely satisfied with the system," he said. Just
the same, Ameritech is blocking access to the service for customers
who request it, and is considering returning to a system that requires
customers to use private access codes.


      Van Hefner   VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS   [e-mail]
                    Publisher of Discount Long Distance Digest
            -1995 LONG DISTANCE RESELLER SOURCEBOOK-

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 08:39:41 CET
From: SHAW [phone] <[e-mail]>
Subject: ITU World Wide Web Server


Dear Patrick,

Thought your readers might like to learn that the International
Telecommunication Union in Geneva has made available its World Wide
Web server.  The URL is:

http://www.itu.ch

The ITU WWW Server contains thousands of documents on telecom
standardization, radiocommunication and telecom development.
Information on TELECOM 95 in Geneva from October 3-11, 1995 is also
available from the home page or directly at:

http://www.itu.ch/TELECOM/

Questions should be directed to [e-mail].

Thanks also to many of your readers who supplied URLs for "Telecom
Resources on the Net" (available on the home page).

Happy telesurfing...


Robert Shaw
Information Services Department
International Telecommunication Union
Place des Nations
1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
X.400:G=robert;S=shaw;A=arcom;P=itu;C=ch
Internet: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And my sincere thanks goes to the ITU as
well for their continued financial support of TELECOM Digest. ITU has
provided a monthly grant to this Digest for quite awhile now without which
I do believe continued publication would have been impossible.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sunday's OTR on WTIX
Date: Mon, 29 May 95 09:23:00 +6C


Yesterday, George Buck's Golden Era of Radio on WTIX aired an episode
of The Whistler (from 1951) in the morning edition of OTR, and a 1953
Suspense episode that evening -

each episode had an interesting telco/telecommunications aspect -

In 'A Law of Physics' on The Whistler, the murderer tried to claim in
his alibi was that he used his phone when the murder was committed --
his CAR PHONE -- but the sheriff made him 'test' his carphone at the
same point he claims he placed the call -- he tells the sheriff that he
pulled the car to the side of the road, lifted the reciever and
pressed the 'call-request' button 'like-this' and gave the operator
(verbally) the number he wanted to reach.  When the sheriff says
'well, where's your operator', the murderer says 'I don't understand
what's going on' (and you hear just crackle comming out), to which the
sheriff replies 'It's just a simple law of physics - You can't get any
radiotelephone transmission/reception along this stretch of highway -
It's in the valley' (boom-boom, followed by the whistling and the
announcer closing out the Signal Oil commercial and 'Stay tuned for
Our Miss Brooks, which follows immedietely on most of these same CBS
Stations.

Marvin Miller speaking --  This is C.B.S., the Co-LUM-bia Broadcasting
System'

In 'Public Defender' on Suspense (with Frank Lovejoy) which was a
network aircheck tape, (1953), the program is interrupted (and this
was NOT part of the story) with 'We interrupt this program -- we have
more names of American Prisoners of War just released by the Korean
Communists' and the news announcer begins reading a list of 16 names
of American Servicemen and their hometowns.  While you couldn't hear
any clatter of the teletypewriter, the news announcer states that
'More of the names are coming across the wire now'.  This News
Bulletin lasted about three to four minutes, and while the original
pre-produced 'SUSPENSE' tape was continuing to roll from CBS
Hollywood, there was not much of a loss of storyline in the program
when 'rejoined'.  The announcer states further 'As more names are
released, we will interrupt our regularly scheduled programming on the
CBS Radio network.

This News Bulletin has come to you from CBS Radio News in New York, we
now return to the regularly scheduled programming on this CBS Radio
Network Station.'  There were NO musical-jingles/sound-effect-beeping
to alert listeners that an important bulletin was breaking in, and
obviously there was NO 'bleep' tones (CBS did NOT introduce 'NetALERT'
automation to alert affiliates not carrying a program at that time
that a bulletin was moving and to join the net-feed or to start their
'cart' machines or reel-tapes -- until around 1961/62).  ALSO, the
announcer did NOT identify himself, but I THINK that it was Dallas
Townsend who also anchored the weekday CBS World News Roundup
(8-8:15am ET) on CBS Radio in the late 60's, 1970's, early 80's. (Neil
Strawser did the Saturday WNR on CBS Radio in the 60's/70's/80's).  I
know you Chicago area people heard this on WBBM (which I have listened
to at night).

I might be only 34, but I know my nostalgia -- telco, radio, TV, etc. -- and I
grew up in the 1960's listening to the stations that my parents listened to
 -- which were the CBS, NBC, Mutual, and ABC affiliates -- and I
remember MONITOR, weekends on NBC Radio, whose jingle incidently was
donated to them by AT&T in 1955 -- the jingle for Monitor was a tape of
the AT&T inband MF KP tones, played at regular speed, fast-speed, and
slow-speed.  ANYONE OUT THERE REMEMBER THE MONITOR JINGLE (NBC called
it the Monitor Beeper)?


MARK J. CUCCIA

WRITE, PHONE, or WIRE:

HOME:
CHestnut 1-2497 (tel, forwards on No-Answer/Busy to cellphone/voicemail)

4710 Wright Road
New Orleans 28
LOUISIANA (70128)

WORK:
[e-mail]
UNiversity 5-5954 (tel)
UNiversity 5-5917 (fax)

(AREA CODE 504)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember well the news bulletins which
interuppted the television programs repeatedly at the end of the Korean
War (oh excuse me! 'police action'; Harry Truman never did ask Congress
to declare war). As the war was ending, and the American prisoners of
war were being released, there was a period of about a week where those
bulletins were coming over the air two or three times every hour, and
each time, the names and home towns of the prisoners on the list were
read for the benefit of their families, etc., who were listening to the
radio or television for the latest word.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Jobs at AT&T Bell Labs
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 01:53:42 GMT


The Advanced Decision Support System (ADSS) organization at AT&T Bell
Labs is interested in outstanding candidates who are considering
consulting and development careers in Operations Research and Computer
Science.

AT&T Bell Labs ADSS has a long record of developing large-scale
decision support systems and providing optimization-based consulting,
object oriented design and software development, and implementation of
client/server architectures.  We have 3-4 openings for regular
employees as well as for post-doctoral positions with a possibility of
converting to regular employee positions.

What AT&T Bell Labs ADSS requires:

Education:  Advanced degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) in Operations Research,
Computer Science or related field required.  In addition, an
undergraduate degree in Engineering is desirable.

OR Expertise: Practical experience and a theoretical background in
general optimization and/or stochastic processes required. Knowledge
of network analysis, system design and analysis, decision support
systems, and basic statistical analysis desirable.

Work Experience: A minimum of 2 years of non-academic professional
experience required (may be waived for an applicant with a Ph.D.).
Experience in the telecommunication area is desired.  Previous
consulting experience a plus.

Computer Skills: Proficiency in programming C++ or C required.
Knowledge of UNIX, object-oriented methodology, use of state-of-the-art
optimization and statistical packages desirable.  Experience with
graphics and spreadsheets a plus.

General: Highly developed oral and written communication skills
as well as excellent interpersonal skills.  Willingness to learn,
self-motivation, and self-management.

What AT&T Bell Labs ADSS can offer:

A challenging and informal work environment.  Work on leading-edge
problems, develop innovative decision technologies, using the latest
in high-performance commercial software technology (object oriented
development, etc.).  An opportunity to make an impact in a leading
industrial laborotory environment.

Competitive salaries, excellent benifits, and exciting career growth.

If your background and interests match these expectations, please send
your resume via fax, e-mail or regular mail to:

Jiming Liu     AT&T Bell Laboratories
Room 2L-320    101 Crawfords Corner Road
Holmdel, NJ 07733  e-mail.  [e-mail]
fax. [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (William R. Goodin)
Subject: UCLA Short Course on Wavelet Transform Applications to Data
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 16:01:21
Organization: UCLA Extension


On September 11-15, 1995, UCLA Extension will present the short
course, "Wavelet Transform Applications to Data, Signal, Image, and
Video Processing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles.

The instructors are Dr. Harold Szu, Research Physicist, Washington, DC,
and Prof. John Villasenor, UCLA.

The National Information Infrastructure (NII) has generated
substantial interest in the broad tele-informatics processing area in
which a new mathematical tool called the Wavelet Transform (WT) has
been developed based on human sensor wideband transient
characteristics.  The wavelet transform has proved to be a powerful
and efficient mechanism whenever the noisy data, signal image, and/or
video processing functions are related to the quality of human sensory
perception.

This course builds the basics of both continuous and discrete WTs
(CWTs and DWTs) and demonstrates both techniques with various real
world signal restoration and pattern recognition applications.  Case
studies are then examined, including the FBI's decade-long fingerprint
compression program, the five-year NIST/ATP program in digital video
information infrastructure, the ARPA tele-medicine program, among
others.

The topics to be discussed include: Introduction to the Wavelet
Transform (WT); Applications-Driven Wavelet: Principles by
Dimensionality, Design by Functionality; Continuous and Discrete
Mathematics of WT and Comparisons, How to Design Mother Wavelets;
Neural Network Adaptive WT; Applications of Super-Mother Wavelets;
Advanced Medical Applications Using WT; Nonlinear Dynamics
Applications: Soliton WT Kernel; WT Implementation: Hardware and
Software Issues; Image Compression; 2D Wavelet Theory and Practice;
and Video Compression Applications.

The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials.

For more information and a complete course description, please contact
Marcus Hennessy at:

[phone]     [phone]  fax
[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Bamford)
Subject: Cantel and the New Area Codes
Organization: Audio Research Group, University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 14:30:26 -0400


Rogers Cantel in Canada seems to have a problem with the new area
codes.  I tried the test numbers that were posted here last week and
they were unable to connect me to *any* of the test numbers!

    I called their service line and reported that I couldn't call
a Southern Alabama number.  She did the standard things: Did I dial
the area code?  Was I sure the number was right (worked fine from my
home phbone I said)?  She checked to make sure there was no block on
long distance (shouldn't be, they just bill my MasterCard every month)
and there wasn't.  Since it was Sunday she said someone would look
into and give me a call back on Monday.  I left her the test number to
try.  We'll see what happens.

    Any other cellular users in Canada having a problem with these
new area codes?  Unitel (whom Cantel's parent company Rogers own 29%)
had no problem with them except the new Chicago code, but if Pat can't
even reach it from the Chicago area you really can't blame other
companies for not reaching it.  Interested to know what the status is.
I'm sure all hell will break loose next year with the 604 split in BC.
That will affect many more Canadians than the Alabama split.


Jeff Bamford
Email - [e-mail] -- NeXT Mail welcome
Office/Lab: [phone] x3814     Fax: [phone]
WEB Page: <a href="http://audiolab.uwaterloo.ca/"> A.R.G. Home Page </a>

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Keith Knipschild)
Subject: Cellular One of NYC Credit
Organization: ASB
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 18:42:04 GMT


On Tuesday last week, Cellular One was OFFLINE ... I tried to use my
phone for one hour; all I got were fast buzy signals, even to 611

So I called C1 from a landline phone, they told me there was problems
with the system andd they would CREDIT my account for the time thay
were offline ...

I guess if you don't ask for a credit you won't get it.


Keith

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 95 18:55:09 PDT
From: Greg Monti <[e-mail]>
Subject: California's New Area Code: 760


{Comm Daily} has reported that area code 619 in California will split.
No date was given.  The "area north of San Diego" and the "five
counties out to the Nevada and Arizona borders" will get a new code:
760.  Presumably, 619 will be retained for the city of San Diego and
for the southern and western suburbs down to the Mexican border.


Greg Monti Arlington, Virginia, USA
[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Mark Crispin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mayors Seek Protection From Preemption in Telecom Reform
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 08:49:45 -0700
Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing


I live in a community where this is an issue.  It has very little to
do with infrastructure costs.

What is really going on is that in many cities and towns across the US,
political power has been seized by a small but very organized clique of
individuals who mistrust technology and will do everything possible to
hamper it, including using junk science.

The cellular industry has been a popular victim.  We can not get a
small monopole installed because of bogus "health" concerns.  "The
cellular rays have been proven to cause brain cancer!"  "Our health is
more important than allowing yuppies to make calls from their cars!"

It wouldn't be so bad if the land lines were reliable, but they
aren't; winter storms take them down regularly.  Cellular is a crucial
communications backup link -- unless you're in a dead zone or a
fade-out zone.

I welcome any/all pulling of the fangs from these aging hippies.  It isn't
just federal over-regulation that needs to be ended.


Mark -- (still living in a fade-out zone, thanks to the cretins)
DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: [phone]  ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39"
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'aging hippies' get their due every
now and then. Remember how so much of California burned down a couple
years ago after *some people* had refused for how many ever years to
allow the Fire Department to do controlled burns? How *some people* out
there in a town left unnamed full of 'aging hippies' refused any and all
cooperation with state and federal authorities who wanted to change the
agricultural scene around a little to prevent or greatly reduce the chance
of a major fire?  They resisted, they protested, they sued, they carried
on and then one day their town burned down ... remember?  All these people
with their deluded agendas and will you please stop the world so they can
get off greatly annoy me also. Now let's watch the Mothers of America
unite in wrecking the Internet as the newspapers relate all kinds of
foolishness and many times outright lies.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 23:52:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Troubles With NYNEX Voice Mail?


[e-mail] wrote:

> I've heard of and experienced some problems with Nynex's c.o. based
> voice mail.  I called someone yesterday (5/25) and when they didn't
> pick up I heard "You have reached the Nynex message center.  Please
> enter the phone phone number of the person you are calling ..."
> Eventually I heard their greeting and was able to leave a message.
> This same person has told me that she has called other Nynex voice
> mail subscribers and instead of getting their greeting heard the
> subscriber menu for picking up messages.

What you experienced is not all that uncommon. The voicemail system is
supposed to retrieve the number you're dialing from thru a DID-like
delivery system as Pat stated. If the call to the voicemail number was
direct-dialed from a line that subscribes to voicemail, is it supposed
to play the greeting prompting you to enter your PIN. If the call was
"forwarded" to the voicemail number, the system should play your
greeting. However, if the voicemail number is dialed from a phone that
does *not* subscribe, the system plays the generic "Welcome to
voicemail ..." greeting. If there is corruption of the CLID to the
voicemail switch (we all know Caller ID is never corrupt) or the
system is overloaded, you will experience what you have described. I
have personally had this happen to me on my business lines. Not too
great for customers to get that message. I've also had the voicemail
system ring without answering, and even sometimes pick up then
disconnect. Also quite yukky.

then, Pat wrote:

> People with telco voicemail might also try this little trick and see
> what happens:  have you noticed how when you dial into the main number
> using the phone number assigned it does not ask you to enter your mail-
> box number? It already knows who you are, and just asks for your pass-
> word. Now try calling the main number but using *67 first ... does it
> still know who you are and merely ask for your password, or do you get
> the introductory part about 'please enter the number of the mailbox you
> are calling."  I am told in some telcos they say to heck with that *67
> business on calls to them; the privacy flag is ignored when you call
> into a telco function such as voicemail. How does it work in your
> community?    PAT]

Tried it here, Pat. In my CO (Bell Atlantic, 5ESS (release 9 I believe,
non-generic), *67 does not disable CLID detection - voicemail properly
prompts me for my PIN. I don't think that the system really uses the
same delivery method as CLID (at least not CLID as we end users know it).
If you dialed *67 before dialing 0 or 00, the operator would still know
who you are (same is true for 911). But, the privacy flag may be ignored
for calls to the voicemail number, as you stated. Interesting test though,
Pat.


Regards,

Scot M. Desort        Garden State Micro, Inc.
[phone]       [phone] Fax
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Ameritech voicemail users manual claims
that the 'envelope' function on messages will give not only the time and
date of the call, but also the phone number of the calling party. So far
it does not work that way here, and it seems a shame they can't add it
to the service. Just as the computer voice tells you the time and date
the call was received, it could easily tell you the number that called.
When I asked Ameritech about this they claim it is not part of the service,
yet their user manual says it is.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:32:01 EDT
Subject: Re: Troubles with NYNEX Voice Mail?


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:

> People with telco voicemail might also try this little trick and see
> what happens: have you noticed how when you dial into the main number
> using the phone number assigned it does not ask you to enter your
> mailbox number? It already knows who you are, and just asks for your
> password. Now try calling the main number but using *67 first ...
> does it still know who you are and merely ask for your password, or do
> you get the introductory part about 'please enter the number of the
> mailbox you are calling."  I am told in some telcos they say to heck
> with that *67 business on calls to them; the privacy flag is ignored
> when you call into a telco function such as voicemail. How does it
> work in your community?  PAT]

Pat,

Here in the 516 part of NYNEXLand, the telco voicemail works exactly
as you described.  There's one additional catch.  If you three-way
call FROM YOUR OWN PHONE into the voicemail server, the server does
not receive the CID or ANI information from you, and asks you to enter
your mailbox number.

On a semi-related note, I have a Visa card from First USA Bank in
Philadelphia.  When dialing in for customer service, the voice response
system only asks me to touch-tone in the last four digits of my
account number for verification (it has already done an account lookup
based on the incoming ANI).  When I received a new card from them, they
sent what the industry calls a "dead plastic".  It's not "live" until
you call the number on the sticker on the card and verify that you
received it.  The sticker on the card emphasizes that you only activate
your new card "FROM YOUR OWN PHONE", as it does the same verification.

How is this related, you ask?  When I was on a call telling a friend
about this, I tried to three-way into First USA's 800 number (800-955-9900)
and it acted as if it didn't receive the ANI information ("Please enter your
16-digit account number").

I wonder why that is?


Stan

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #260
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa20775;
          31 May 95 5:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28055 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 30 May 1995 21:53:14 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28039; Tue, 30 May 1995 21:53:01 -0500
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 21:53:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #261

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 30 May 95 21:53:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 261

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Caused by Subscriber (Dave Banisar)
    Book Review: Unix Communications and the Internet by Anderson (Rob Slade)
    Foreign Exchange Lines in Oregon (Greg Tompkins)
    CD-ROM of Residental and Business Phone Listings Wanted ([e-mail])
    New Name For LDDS (Greg Monti)
    Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please (Ian Gamble)
    Asynchronous Dial Access Study Participants Wanted (Dennis Shen)
    ATLAS alliance between France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom (Yves Blondeel)
    'Sorry, Wrong Number' (was 'Long Distance in 1942') (Mark Cuccia)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 1995 23:12:00 -0400
From: Dave Banisar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Casued by Subscriber


A New York state trial court ruled on May 24 that Prodigy is
responsible for the libelous statements of its users because it
exercises editorial control over their posts. In the case, an
anonymous Prodigy user made statements against New York Investment
firm Stratton Oakmont accusing it of criminal and fraudulent acts.
Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy and the volunteer moderator of the forum
where the statements were published.

The Court found that Prodigy was acting as a publisher and therefore
was responsible for the content of the posts. The Court distinguished
the case from the earlier Cubby v. Compuserve decision, which found
that Compuserve was subject to the standards of a bookstore or
library. It that case, the US District court ruled that Compuserve had
no editorial control over the text.  According to the New York state
court:

  In contrast, here Prodigy has virtually created an
  editorial staff of Board Leaders who have the ability to
  continually monitor incoming transmissions and in fact do
  spend time censoring notes. Indeed, it could be said that
  Prodigy's current system of automatic scanning,
  guidelines, and Board Leaders may have a chilling effect
  on freedom of communications in Cyberspace, and it appears
  that this chilling effect is exactly what Prodigy wants,
  but for the legal liability that attaches to such
  censorship.

  Let it be clear that this court is in full agreement with
  Cubby and Auvil. Computer bulletin boards should generally
  be regarded in the same context as bookstores, libraries
  and network affiliates...It is Prodigy's own policies,
  technology and staffing decisions which have altered the
  scenario and mandated the finding that it is a publisher.

The court also attempted to downplay the significance of its decision
on the greater area of electronic networks:

  Prodigy's conscious choice, to gain the benefits of editorial
  control, has opened it up to greater liability that Compuserve
  and other computer networks that make no such choice. For the
  record, the fear that this Court's finding of publisher status
  for Prodigy will compel all computer networks to abdicate
  control of their bulletin boards, incorrectly presumes that
  the market will refuse to compensate a network for its
  increased control and the resulting increased exposure.

The Court also found that the volunteer "Board Leader" of the Prodigy
Bulletin Board was acting as an agent of the company. The Court found
Prodigy exercised control over the Board Leaders though the the
Bulletin Board Leader Agreement and the actions of Prodigy's
employees.

Prodigy has said that it will consider appealing the decision. EPIC
has materials on free speech available at http://epic.org/free_speech/
We will be making a copy of the decision available in the next few
days.


David Banisar ([e-mail])       * 202-544-9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301  * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org
Washington, DC 20003                * HTTP://epic.digicash.com/epic


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the decision was fair and proper.
So many folks involved in net publishing, operating BBS's, newsgroups
and whatever are insistent on having the same legitimacy granted to
them that the print media recieves. I agree with this, and think it
should be. I believe for example the TELECOM Digest is just as legitimate
a publication -- admittedly all electronic -- as say, {Telephony} or
Harry Newton's magazine. But the flip side of that coin is that with
that legitimacy comes responsibility. It used to be -- and maybe still
is, I don't use them enough to know -- that all the BBS sysops used
to whine and cry when they were called on the carpet about pirated
files on their system or porn or whatever the current crusade happened
to be. They'd say 'well I cannot be held responsible! I am just running
a little system as a volunteer! I have no control over what people post
on my computer ... well of course they had control; they can unplug the
computer from the phone line and turn off the electricity to it, but
that is *not what they meant*. What they meant was they wanted to play
along with the big boys but not be held accountable to the same standards.
Somehow, because they are little and operate as non-profit, all the rules
should be changed.

I support Prodigy's right to have full editorial control over every last
item on their system if they want. Its their 'computer', their business,
their product. I support the right of people to sign up for and use such
a system if they want, or ignore it if they want in the same way people
either buy and read the {New York Times} or they read something else. I'm
sure Prodigy's customers are a happy lot, pleased with the service and
what they are getting for their money, etc. I know I certainly do not
intend to relinquish control of the editorial content of this Digest, and
I would not expect it of others. So if they do their thing, then they
are responsible for what they 'publish'.

And I'll tell you who I think will be the next one to get their corporate
neck on the chopping block: America On Line. Those folks lean hard and
breath heavily on their user/subscribers also with their 'Terms of Service'
provisions which the Guides are *constantly* reminding people about.
Say a profane word in a chat room? Read those Terms of Service!  Put up
something disagreeable in one of the forums? Read those Terms of Service!
Like Prodigy, I think AOL is perfectly entitled to market a product they
think people want -- and they seem to be pretty much on the mark, and the
money if their growth in the past year means anything -- but if they are
going to structure it so much and make their users comply so closely with
their rules, etc, then watch what happens when someone breaks the rules
big time: well, let's sue AOL also, it was their carelessness in screening
the user ... the classic example of this is the story making the rounds
about how the pedophile lurked on AOL in Teen Chat and lured some kid to
meet him in person; mommie and daddy then sued AOL when they found out.

Its still going to be a long time before the electronic media has full
parity with the print media, if we ever do. But whimpering about how
there is nothing we can do; no way to control the problems and troublesome
users on the net just won't work any longer. Do you want to clean things
up a little here or would you prefer to have Senator Exon and his cronies
do it instead?  He is chomping at the bit to do it himself, we all know
that ... so I think we need to let Prodigy hang on this ... just blow
in the wind so to speak, and learn their own lessons.      PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:45:18 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "UNIX Communications and the Internet" by Anderson


BKUNCMIN.RVW   950405

"UNIX Communications and the Internet", Anderson/Costales/Henderson/Pike,
1995, 0-672-30537-2, U$35.00/C$47.95/UK#26.95
%A   Bart Anderson
%A   Bryan Costales
%A   Harry Henderson
%A   Tod Pike [e-mail]
%C   201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN   46290
%D   1995
%G   0-672-30537-2
%I   SAMS Publishing
%O   U$35.00/C$47.95/UK#26.95 800-858-7674 [e-mail]
%P   817
%T   "UNIX Communications and the Internet"

Despite the increasing popularity of dial-up IP connections to the
Internet, the most common situation is still the dial-up shell
account.  The most common platform for providers is UNIX, and,
although there are many and varied menu- based shells available, at
some point the active Internet user is likely going to have to use
UNIX, and the UNIX communications tools.

The first edition of this book was written seven years ago, when UUCP
and the Usenet network (as opposed to the Usenet news application)
held a more significant position in global network communications.
Internet users may therefore find the non-Usenet material to be a
somewhat cursory add-on to the original text.  Email addressing
examples often give only the UUCP ("bang path") specifications,
without adding the more familiar domain name ([e-mail])
format.  (Given the size of the work, I was surprised that the
explanation lists only "logical" domains, such as .com and .edu,
without discussing geographic or more complex structures.)  The
coverage of Internet particulars is so terse that the explanation of
URLs (Universal Resource Locators) describes only HTTP (HyperText
Transer protocol, the underlying system for displaying W3 pages).  The
whole Internet "part" contains only three chapters (twenty-four is
really an extension of the UUCP content.)

Overall, however, the quality of the material is quite high.  There is
solid coverage of email, dealing both with concepts and the major mail
user agents.  The section on Usenet news is also good, though it shows
a similar lack of updating: neither trn nor tin are mentioned, and the
coverage of "network etiquette" is to be found in the chapter on
postnews.

UUCP is not dead by any means, and active Internauts, particularly
those working at multiple sites on the net, are likely to encounter it
at least occasionally.  The extreme domination of this book by UUCP
applications (readnews and postnews are, by now, specialty applications
at best) at the expense of Internet-specific information, will limit
the usefulness of this edition.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKUNCMIN.RVW   950405. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  [e-mail]
User           [e-mail]
Security       Canada V7K 2G6

------------------------------

From: Greg Tompkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Foreign Exchange Lines in Oregon
Date: 30 May 1995 00:27:12 GMT
Organization: 4-T Acres


I called GTE and wanted to know some rates for foreign exhange lines
the other day.  The lady told me "In Oregon, we do not have Foreign
Exchange, but we have a service called Group A service".  I asked her
what Group A was.  She went on to tell me that it would cost $700 to
install, cost approximatly $325 per month and I would be billed on
both incoming and outgoing calls at a rate of .07 per minute.  My plan
was to get a foreign exchange line to a city that is only ten miles
away from me, but is long distance.  I was so disgusted that I called
and complained to the PUC about GTE.  Why do you all think it's not an
available service in Oregon?

Any other ideas to have foreign exchange without paying these
ridiculous rates.  I have checked into leased lines, RF links,
everything but they are all expensive options.  Maybe I can get right
of way and string my own wire to someone who lives in the area I am
trying to call free!  :-)


GREG


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Unless you think your usage per month
would be great enough that you would amortize that $700 install plus
$325 per month plus .07 per minute of useage in a short time, why not
consider an 800 number in the place you are trying to reach? Even if
the cost was 15 to 20 cents per minute, you would need a great deal of
usage before that $325 per month fee becomes less expensive. I don't
have a lot of sympathy these days for people who feel they need FX in
view of the large number of inexpensive 800 service providers around.
FX was a service devised fifty years ago for businesses who literally
had the volume of traffic required to keep that FX line loaded all the
time, which is about the only way they ever are cost effective. I think
one time here in the Digest someone analyzed this pretty closely and
detirmined there were times you could get by with 70 percent occupancy
on an FX line over a great distance; shorter FX's required still more
use.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David)
Subject: CD-ROM of Residental and/or Business Phone Listings Wanted
Date: 30 May 1995 07:43:32 -0400
Organization: PSS InterNet Services, InterNet in Fl 904 253 7100


I was wondering what the name of such a CD-ROM would be. Does it allow
you to extract listings to an ASCII format? How much does something like
this cost, etc.


Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 95 14:07:15 PDT
From: Greg Monti <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Name For LDDS


A brief notice in {Communications Daily} on 5/26 noted that LDDS
shareholders had approved "WorldCom" as the new name of the merged
long distance carrier made up of LDDS, IDB Communications Group,
WilTel Network Services.

Sidebar: Company founders developed the LDDS name after asking a
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, waitress for help.  She suggested "Long
Distance Discount Service."


Greg Monti  Arlington, Virginia, USA  [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Ian Gamble <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 23:31:20 MDT


Northwestel, the telco for northern Canada, has nearly completed the
installation of a Northern Telecom Meridian 1 Option 11E PBX for the
hotel where I work.

There will be about 150 new telephones installed, all digital.  The
system was represented by the salesperson as being compatible with
analog devices.  The intent was to have a modern, and upgradeable,
system to serve the needs of business travellers.  Particularly, each
room was to have the capacity to support fax and modem use by guests.

Three days ago the technician installing the system informed the
manager of the hotel that the digital PBX was incompatible with analog
devices.  The proposed fix, to install analog cards into the system
unit, would be prohibitively expensive: 1.) the cards support a
limited number of lines, 2.) each card is expensive, and 3.) if the
digital lines were to be retained, a complete rewiring would be
required to provide access in each of 130 rooms.

I understand that there are risks to analog equipment if it is connected
to the PBX due to the higher voltage, and the PBX itself can be harmed
if modems or fax machines are hooked up.  Is this true?

Are there any analog to digital converters available that can be
installed to permit this use on the PBX?  Where can they be purchased?

What should be done about the representation by the salesperson that the
system would be suitable "out-of-the-box" for this purpose?

Thank you for your attention.


Regards,

Ian Gamble    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you have him saying in writing that
the two would be compatible -- or even if you don't but there are a
few witnesses to the conversation -- you can always sue the company.
And by all means, don't make any further payments on the new system.
Let them *sue you* if they want to get paid the balance due.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Asynchronous Dial Access Study Participants Wanted
Date: 30 May 1995 18:13:34 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, US
Reply-To: [e-mail]


If you have ordered ADA in the past sixty days or will order ADA in
the next sixty days, please consider participating in our study of new
ADA users.  Participants will receive results of the study which may
help you receive better service from your provider, gain you insight
into the experiences of other new users, and allow you to better
understand some of the practical benefits and drawbacks of your new
service.

If interested, please contact Dennis Shen at [e-mail].

Please include your name, e-mail, and a phone number (if you feel
comfortable giving out your number great, if not feel free to leave
that out).


Thanks,

Dennis Shen

------------------------------

From: Yves Blondeel <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATLAS Alliance Between France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom
Date: 30 May 1995 16:03:02 GMT
Organization: T-REGS


ATLAS alliance between France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom.

I hereby forward the statement made by the European Commission's
Competition Commissioner Karel Van Miert concerning the proposed
alliance between France Telecom and Deutsche Telekom.

Extracted from the European Commission's RAPID Database, which is
publicly accessible via:

http://www.cec.lu/ml/rapid/rapmain.html

* * *

Rapid

Ref: IP/95/524 - 24/05/95 - EN

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ATLAS PROJECT:

STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER KAREL VAN
 MIERT

I have instructed the services of the Commission's Directorate-General
for Competition to inform Deutsche Telekom AG and France Telecom that
certain aspects of their cooperation through the ATLAS joint venture
company raise preliminary concerns under the EC Treaty's competition
rules.

I have indicated on numerous occasions,that the Commission is all in
favour of strategic alliances involving European telecommunications
operators (TOs) which allow them to enter the newly emerging market
for sophisticated Europe- and world-wide telecommunications services.
This new market mainly addresses the needs of large multinational
companies with operations over the globe and which require 24 hour
services regardless of differences in time zones, linguistic borders
and currencies. The Commission has already last year issued a
favourable Decision regarding the global telecommunications venture
between BT and the US operator MCI.

In examining the ATLAS venture, my services have gathered extensive
information from the parties themselves, from other telecommunications
service providers and from users. As a result, several problems have
been identified which will need to be examined further before the
Commission can take a definite position on the ATLAS venture:

- the ATLAS venture in its present form does not appear to be in a position
  to address the global needs of multinational companies;

- the ATLAS venture appears to relate mainly to the provision of domestic
  data communications services to companies operating in France or Germany
  and not at a global -- or even European-level; given the very high market
  shares of the parent companies on those domestic markets (+75% in both
  cases)and the fact that through the joint venture, the parent companies
  will not compete with each other on those markets, competition is likely
  to be eliminated or at least seriously restricted. The main victims will
  be small-and medium-sized companies, whose choice of service providers
  will be reduced and who are not in a position to exert any downward
  pressure on the prices for such services;

- the national markets in question are very important in terms of size in
  the total EU context: approximately 45 % of data communications services
  in the entire EU are accounted for by services provided in France and
  Germany;

- the elimination of competition on national markets is aggravated by the
  fact that the parent companies of ATLAS at present enjoy monopolies for
  the provision of infrastructure, the necessary building blocks for service
  providers competing with ATLAS; in the absence of alternative
  infrastructure allowing competing service providers to build up their own
  networks at competitive prices, competition will suffer a set-back
  precisely at the time that action taken by the Commission to liberalize
  all telecommunications services except basic voice services should begin
  to bear its fruits for the benefit of users.

My services have set out these major concerns as well as other
competition problems in an administrative letter addressed to the
parties, which I should stress by no means involves a definite
position on the part of the Commission. The next step in the procedure
will consist of examining any changes which the parties put forward to
meet the concerns expressed by the Commission's services.


Yves Blondeel     <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'Sorry, Wrong Number' (was 'Long Distance in 1942')
Date: Tue, 30 May 95 11:07:00 GMT


Suspense was produced in Hollywood from about four weeks into its run
in 1942, thru August or September 1959.  It was produced in New York
from then until its end at the end of September, 1962.

Los Angeles (and most ALL of Southern California was primarliy a 'step
by step' type of switching area thru the early 60's.  New York was
'Panel' and 'Crossbar' as was Phily, Chicago, Frisco, DC, etc.

FOR THE MOST PART - Panel/Crossbar areas used N11 codes for special
services, Step areas used 11X codes.

Sorry Wrong Number - this episode took place in New York, although Agnes
did it live and later on tape from CBS/KNX at Sunset & Gower in Hollywood.
She did no more than seven performances on the Suspense series -- the
1957 performance (by that time Suspense was pre-taped sometime earlier
than the network feed/broadcast) which was rerun in 1960 (with new
commercials and slight reformatting for open/close) is the one I have a
good copy of -- I have the 1960 rerun on tape.  I also have some 'bad'
copies of earlier editions of this episode.

Agnes at one point calls information, and she dials (if you listen to
the pulls of the dial) 113.  THIS was the code for Information at that
time in Southern California, while NYC really used 411.

In many an episode of Perry Mason (TV, Raymond Burr -- I've never
heard the 'soap-opera' daytime radio version from the 1940's thru mid
50's), people dial Information with 113, and Long Distance with 0 or
110.  In Panel/Crossbar areas, LD was 211.  Perry Mason took place in
L.A., and was of course filmed there also.

While Panel/Crossbar offices COULD handle 11X service codes, most areas that
had Panel/Crossbar switches since the 1920's used N11 service codes.

There have been many posts to the three groups lately about the N11 codes.

The OLD 'standard' assignments were:

211 - Long Distance
411 - Information
611 - Repair
811 - Telco Business Office
911 - Emergency (assigned in the 1960's)

OTHER codes have been used for ringback, testboard, reading back your
number, etc.

The OLD (and here, I MEAN OLD) 'standard' assignments for 11X codes were:

111111111... (each subsequent '1' keeps getting 'absorbed')
112+  Long Distance Access (later replaced by 1+)
113 - Information
114 - Repair
115 - Mobile/Conference/Marine/etc. 'Leave-Word' Operator
116 - 'COUNTY' operator for reaching nearby rural points
117 - Testboard
118 + N1 - ringbacks on four and eight party (i.e.calling someone who
shares your party line. You could NOT just dial them from a step office
 -- you had to dial a special code and hang up -- and then you and the
party-on-your line who you were calling -- would alternately ring with
your coded rings).
119 + 1 - ringback for two party lines -- after hanging up, each party
would alternately ring.
110 - Long Distance.

These codes were not ALWAYS the same in every place -- and not ALL
codes were used for any place.


MARK J. CUCCIA

HOME:
4710 Wright Road   New Orleans 28
LOUISIANA (70128)
CHestnut 1-2497 (rolls to cellular on busy/no-answer; cell has voicemail; +1
504 241 2497)

WORK:
[e-mail]
UNiversity 5-5954 - TEL.[phone])
UNiversity 5-5917 - FAX.[phone])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Back in the days of '211' for the long
distance operator in Chicago -- prior to about 1975 -- we also had '811'
which served two purposes over a period of about forty years. During the
Second World War, '811' was called 'Priority Long Distance' and it was
used by military personnel who had the authority to ask that some other
connection be dropped if necessary to allow for completion of an urgent
military call.

At the same time, and for the thirty years following the war, '811' was
used by hotel switchboard operators, along with hospital and university
switchboard operators for 'automatic time and charges callback'. If the
call came in on 811 rather than 211, the Bell long distance operator knew
it was a switchboard calling where some chargeback arrangement was in
effect, meaning time and charges had to be quoted to the hotel operator
immediatly when the call was finished. The guest might be checking out
momentarily and the front desk needed the charges so they could be put
on the guest's bill.

AT&T paid a commission to the hotels/hospitals/universities, etc with
switchboards for their traffic in return for the hotel/hospital/university
guarenteeing paying of the bill caused by the guest's telephone calls.
After all, strictly speaking, a transient person could call telco and
demand an installation. This would be a nuisance to telco so the deal
was the institution would run all the traffic through the switchboard
and pay the bill, which had usually a 10-12 percent discount on it. The
hotels, hospitals, etc naturally collected the full thing from the
tenant/guest/patient.  Part of the deal was though that the telco
operators had to quote T&C 'as promptly as possible' following the
completion of the call so the switchboard could complete their ticket
which was then passed to the front desk or bookkeeper or whatever for
adding to the guest's account.  If telco failed to quote T&C on any
given call, they wrote it off. The institution was only responsible
provided the operator quoted the charge to be collected.

To resolve the problem of 'you never quoted on that call' versus 'yes
we did', the switchboard toll tickets were serialized, as were the
toll tickets used by telco operators. The switchboard operator had to
introduce each call to the long distance operator by saying 'hotel
time and charges, room XXX' unless the call went out from the switchboard
via 811, in which case the hotel operator merely had to introduce each
call saying 'room XXX'. When the call came down a few minutes later the
Bell operator frequently held the line up and would ring back to the
switchboard saying 'T&C Room XXX, one dollar seventy cents plus tax,
I am <serial number> who are you?' And the switchboard operator would
respond 'I am <serial number>'. Disputes over whether or not T&C were
quoted could be resolved at billing time when telco was able to produce
the hotel's toll ticket serial number as proof it had been called back.
In the case of bigger switchboards, often times all the toll tickets
for a given period of time, usually one hour, were given to the telco
supervisor to all be quoted at one time. Then the conversation would
go on for several minutes, with the long distance operator telling the
hotel operator, 'ready to quote are you ready?'  When the hotel operator
had all the tickets for the past hour or so in front of her then the
LD operator would rattle off the time and charges on each, stopping
after each quote for "I am 'operator <serial number>' you are?" and the
hotel operator's response.  In the very, very big phone rooms such as
the Conrad Hilton Hotel, the University of Chicago, Rush-Presbyterian
Hospital and places like that, instead of callbacks with T&C telco sent
the charge amounts via telex. U of C for example had a telex machine
just for use by the long distance operators. Once an hour or so that
telex would come to life noisily and on the other end a clerk at telco
was banging out the time and charges for all long distance calls sent
through the university switchboard over the past hour.

Of course the big phone rooms such as the above did not dial anything
to get long distance. They did not have to use 811 or 211 ... the
university operators, like the operators at the Conrad Hilton Hotel
simply plugged into 'tie lines' located right on their switchboard.
Little jacks that looked like any other extension on the switchboard,
they were actually direct to long distance. When the long distance
operators got the corresponding signal on their switchboard, it was
known who was calling and the university or hotel operator merely
had to pass the extension number or room number of the user since that
was not readily apparent to the Bell operator.

The hotels and others getting commissions from Bell for handling and
paying for the long distance traffic were not supposed to use those
lines (or '811') for their own administrative traffic. Those lines and
the commissions paid by Bell as a result were only supposed to be used
by the 'guests', (or patients, or students). Administrative traffic from
the institution itself was supposed to go out over 211 the same as
any 'regular' subscriber and was not commissionable.    PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #261
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa26816;
          31 May 95 17:23 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11845 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 31 May 1995 09:21:34 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11837; Wed, 31 May 1995 09:21:32 -0500
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 09:21:32 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #262

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 May 95 09:21:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 262

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Can I Bring Legal Action to Force NYNEX to Do Its Job (Bradley Ward Allen)
    Telecom (NON)-Privacy at Ameritech (Lauren Weinstein)
    Help Wanted With BigMouth (Guido DeMarchi)
    Notice From FCC Regards ISDN - SLC Charges Today ([e-mail])
    Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution (Michel Adam)
    Is LDDS Pulling my Leg? (Dave O'Shea)
    French Hotels May Overcharge For Phone Calls (Nigel Allen)
    Fax/Voice Switches (Gary Breuckman)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bradley Ward Allen)
Subject: Can I Bring Legal Action to Force NYNEX to Do Its Job
Date: 31 May 1995 04:36:20 -0400
Organization: URL:http://www.armory.com/~ulmo/ (see rivers.html for PGP key)


Is someone willing to give me free legal advice who can point me at
information that will work as intended in court?  Here's the question:

Is it possible for me to bring legal action to force NYNEX to follow
laws and/or agreements it is bound to, when my relationship with it in
each particular case is via some other entity, in one case via MFS,
and in another via a company which uses MFS, both of which are
depending on NYNEX to do something or other with their lines?

In each case I am willing to do the legal procedure whereas the people
I'm dealing with may or may not have the balls to do it, may or may
not have the same approach to dealing with this issue, and may or may
not have the same amount of stake in the issues as me, nevermind may
or may not have already received appropriate bribes from the appropriate
companies (hint hint??  Would I be considered an accessory if I were to ask
for this?)

I would have a hard time quantifying money lost.

I would need to identify laws and agreements being broken; some of
these may be hard to find or private; are there things that help me
obtain these items?  The most basic general ideas I have come up with
are: causing unfairness in market; causing second, third, fourth, etc.
parties to violate their own promises based on missed and/or inappropriate
deadlines, reasonable levels of service, etc.

I know that in the true spirit of open market, the biggest incentive
for NYNEX to do their job would be for me to switch companies.
However, there is no other company which is free totally from the
reins of NYNEX within Manhattan except Me, Myself and I; therefore in
the interest of settling these issues should I start my own telephone
company just to serve myself, including all the governmental
communications necessary to secure access and ability to modify the
necessary properties which are between the two points which I wish to
connect, and the associated money involved?  Or should I see that to
serve myself I must start or cause to have started a company which
works for many who share similar interests and can obtain my goals?

Or am I being really blind and dumb and not realizing other options to
connect me at the data rate of at least 14,400 bits per second to
another location within Manhattan 24 hours a day as a personal adjunct
to my life that I can afford?  For example, I have called the two
cable companies but have not bothered researching a microwave link
because I have made the rash assumption (without checking) that my
four story building is not line-of-sight and microwavable to the other
building (whose location I do not know) and/or the use of another
radio device (not so direction dependent and humanly dangerous as
microwave) is prohibitively expensive considering the applications
necessary to the FCC and various other entities for bandwidth which I
may use for any purpose I want to at any time via any particular
transceiving method(s) which would also yield at least 14,400 bps
around the clock with fairly low latency (less than 2s).

Thank you for any and all help.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bear in mind that free legal advice is
always worth everything you paid for it. Furthermore, I am not your
attorney and you should seek the advice of counsel specializing in
communications law before taking any action. With that said, I believe
I am correct in noting that since you have no direct dealings with
NYNEX, you cannot sue them for anything. They made no promises or
commitments to *you*; they have violated no contracts or conditions
with *you*, and your losses, if any, are due to promises that were
made to you by MFS. Now perhaps 'everyone knows' that MFS has been
unable to meet its commitments to you because of something NYNEX did
or did not do, but that's the problem of MFS and not yourself.

MFS said to you in effect 'we can do a better job' and you took them
at their word and entered a contract with them. I imagine you will
see their contract -- what they actually agreed to in writing with
you -- gives them a way to weasel out of this also, but whether it
does or does not, your complaint is with promises and commitments
MFS made; promises they made when they knew or should have known that
*their vendor NYNEX* was unlikely to cooperate. You did not enter into
any contracts with NYNEX, therefore they owe you nothing.

You can call yourself a 'telephone company' if you want to; that does
not mean you are one by any generally understood use of the term, and
I suggest you talk at length with the state utility commission before
foolishly designating yourself with this title. And speaking of the
utility commission, I think laws in many states and the telco's own
tariffs require you to exhaust any and all administrative remedies
prior to bringing suit -- in your case against MFS since that is the
company which you allege made promises and commitments to you.

But more to the meat of the matter: you say you are unable to get 14.4
on a 24 hour per day basis 'at a rate you can afford'. If that is the
case, I don't think you are going to be able to pursue this legally
at a rate you can afford either. Are you really serious that dialup as
needed won't work just as well?  Have you looked at technical explanations
to your problem as well or just thought in terms of legal action?  What
do you suppose a judge is going to do if one did agree to hear this
case? He'll listen to the technical experts from NYNEX and go along with
whatever they tell him.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 95 01:52 PDT
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Telecom (NON)-Privacy at Ameritech


Greetings. In a recent Digest, it was reported that Ameritech now
allows anyone to obtain bill payment information for any Ameritech
line (unless blocked by specific subscriber request) -- a true bonanza
for snoops in general and for folks trolling for big bill customers to
target for marketing.

Obviously, this is a terrible policy.  It is unfortunately not a
unique situation.  Ameritech's explanation (as reported in TELECOM
Digest) has been spouted by numerous other utilities, banks, and other
entities.  If a subscriber complains, they are frequently told that
"hardly anyone else has complained about the system".  If 1000 people
complain, they may each individually be told that they're essentially
the "lone wolf".

It is also common for these entities to say that they're just trying
to make things easier for their customers.  This is the logic used for
simple passcodes (e.g. zipcode, which anyone can determine), ill-advised
passcodes (e.g. use of the SS number), or as in the case of Ameritech, no
passcode at all.

It is unfortunately nearly always the case that "most" people won't
complain about such a system until something happens that impacts them
negatively as a result of the poor security on the system.  The
entities with these poor security policies are simply trading off the
hassles and disruptions caused to subscribers about whom information
from the system is misused, against having to deal with callers who
can't remember their passcode.

The "solution" is obvious.  Ameritech should return to a "random"
passcode system, and allow customers who have a problem remembering
the code to either choose something simple ("0000") or opt for no code
at all.  But such a choice of no security should be made by the
individual customer -- to make it the default condition for all
customers is very bad policy.

Experience has shown that the only effective way to deal with these
types of situations is to complain loudly to the highest level you can
reach.  In the case of Ameritech, complaints (and suggestions for
"fixing" the problem, as mentioned above) should be made to the
billing supervisor level at least -- better yet, speak to the
managers.  And while it means taking the time to put it down in
written form, letters to state PUCs are *extremely* important with
such matters.

I'm sure there are just a *few* Ameritech subscribers reading this
now.  If each of you expressed your opinion (one way or another) to
the PUC and Ameritech regarding their system, I suspect you could have
considerable impact.


 --Lauren--

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 18:35:41 EST
From: Guido De Marchi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Wanted With BigMouth


    Dear Mr. Townson:

    In a recent article appeared in your TELECOM e-zine (May 9)
you described, in quite a detailed way, the implementation of an auto-
attendant system for a Greyhound bus station, in which you employed
Talking Technology's BigMouth card. I have used the same card for a
very similar application in my parents' shop, in Italy. I've put that
card behind their Panasonic KX-T61610 PABX to answer all incoming
calls (on 4 C.O. lines) and direct customers to the specific
department and/or sales assistant of their choice, by means of
announcements over the shop P.A. system. Needless to say it works
flawlessy, and it pleases callers too.

    I noticed, however, that in your article you mentioned the use
of a (probably) temporised job for after hours service. For a number
of reasons, my parents would like the system to switch automatically
to "night" mode at evenings and on weekends, and then back to the
regular telebox scheme during regular business hours. I have been
struggling with this problem for quite a while now, but have not made
any progress yet. I must admit that my knowledge of personal computers
and DOS is quite limited (after all, I'm an astronomer .... and we
generally deal with quite different problems here ...). I was then
wondering if you could possibly give me some hints or point me to some
appropriate readings that could help me make this one more step ahead.


Best regards,

Guido De Marchi

Space Telescope Science Institute     Tel:    [phone]
3700 San Martin Drive            Fax:    [phone]
Baltimore MD 21210            E-mail: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do you have a copy of the BigMouth
Programmer's Manual?  Check out the routines there very carefully
to see some excellent tricks you can play with BigMouth. You have
to have two 'phone books' on the system, and a short script which
logs in as the administrator, swaps out the phone books at the
aappropriate times, etc. With the new phone book in place, the
system is then rebooted and it comes back up with the overnight
phone book in place, which is really the same as the daytime book
except for a couple different introductory messages and the way
calls are transferred to a live person.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (HiHoSteveo)
Subject: ISDN - SLC Charges
Date: 30 May 1995 14:34:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (HiHoSteveo)


The FCC is expected to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
today, freezing the charges applied to the derived channels of an IDSN
facility as discussed here in prior notes. The LEC's have proposed
various charges ranging from one SLC for the BRI & add'l chgs, to
someone's proposal of 24 SLC's for a T-1 facility. The goal of the
user community is of course to minimize the number of SLC's applied,
keeping the ISDN rates as low as possible. I'll look for the public
notice and post it for what it is worth - i.e. PN's tend to be very
vague, and the order itself has up to 30 days to hit the street.

(And a later message which arrived ... PAT)

In answer to my own expectation of today's FCC order - here it is on ISDN
- see also other note posted containing the lengthy NPRM.

NEWSReport No. DC 95-76    ACTION IN DOCKET CASE               May 30,
1995

                          COMMISSION CONSIDERS
                 CHANGES TO SUBSCRIBER LINE CHARGE RULES
               FOR ISDN AND OTHER DERIVED CHANNEL SERVICES
                            (CC DOCKET 95-72)

     The Commission is considering changes to its Subscriber Line
Charge rules as they apply to Integrated Services Digital Network
(ISDN) and other derived channel services.  Derived channel services
provide customers with multiple voice-grade-equivalent channnels over
a single facility.  The Commission described several basic principles
that should guide this process.  The Commission stated that it must be
careful to avoid creating regulatory barriers to the development of
beneficial new technologies, particularly when those services and
technologies can facilitate access to the benefits of the National
Information Infrastructure.  At the same time, the Commission added
that it should not favor one technology or service over others.

     The Commission today released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
seeking comment on the application of Subscriber Line Charges (SLCs)
to ISDN and other derived channel services.  This proceeding will
consider changes in the existing rules, which provide for application
of a SLC to each derived channel in the case of such services.


     In a Public Notice, also released today, the Common Carrier
Bureau announced suspension of its enforcement authority against local
exchange carriers (LECs) that do not apply a SLC to each derived
channel for services such as ISDN pending further action in the
rulemaking proceeding.  This suspension of enforcement was subject to
LEC compliance with certain conditions to ensure that interstate toll
rates would not increase.

     In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed
several alternatives for applying SLCs to derived channel technologies
in addition to the current rule.  These options include, among others:

     o Apply one SLC per facility.  For example, a subscriber to
either Basic Rate Interface or Primary Rate Interface ISDN service would
pay one SLC for each ISDN facility.

     o    Charge SLCs based on a ratio of the average LEC cost of
providing a derived channel service to the average LEC cost of providing
an ordinary local loop or T-1 facility.

     o    Permit local exchange carriers some flexibility in setting SLC
rates for derived channel services, but modify the price cap rules so that
any reduction in SLC flat rate recovery does not increase the Carrier Common
Line (CCL) rates and potentially increase interstate toll rates.

     The Commission also expressed concern about measures that could
reduce SLC revenues, and potentially increase interstate toll rates.
The Commission stated that the implementation of SLCs to recover a
portion of the cost of local loops (that connect a subscriber's home
or business with the local telephone company central office) has
produced significant benefits, including reduced interstate toll
rates.  (A reduction in SLC revenues would permit LECs to increase CCL
charges, which affect the level of interstate toll rates.)

     The Commission stated that policies that appear to reduce
dramatically SLC charges to large business customers, but not to
residential customers, would need to be carefully examined.  The
Commission also noted that resolution of these issues should take into
account competitive developments in the interstate access market.

     ISDN permits digital transmission over ordinary local loops and
T-1 facilities through the use of advanced central office equipment
and customer premises equipment.  Currently, carriers offer two basic
types of ISDN service.  Basic Rate Interface service allows a
subscriber to obtain two voice-grade-equivalent channels and a
data/signalling channel over an ordinary local loop.  Primary Rate
Interface service allows subscribers to obtain 23 voice-grade-equivalent
channels and one data/signalling channel over a T-1 facility.

     The costs of the local loop portion of the telephone network are
recovered through charges levied at both state and federal levels,
with approximately 25 percent of those costs collected through
interstate charges.  Since 1984, those charges have been collected
through SLCs, a flat fee on every subscriber's monthly telephone bill,
as well as a usage-sensitive charge called the Carrier Common Line
charge.  For residential and single line customers, the SLC is capped
at $3.50 per line.  For multiline business users, the charge is capped
at $6 per line.  That portion of the interstate costs not collected
through the SLC is collected through the CCL charge, a per minute
charge reflected in interstate long distance rates.

     Action by the Commission May 24, 1995, by Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FCC 95-212).  Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello,
Barrett, Ness and Chong.

  -FCC-

     News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet at [phone].
     Common Carrier Bureau contact: Claudia Pabo at [phone].


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A more detailed version of the above was
also sent out in a special mailing to Digest subscribers earlier today
for those of you who wanted more specifics.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: Michel Adam <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Short Haul 56kbps Solution
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 04:44:25 MDT
Organization: NTNet Society


    I am in need of the expertise of the readers of this group.

We need to provide 56kbps connections to numerous customers in town (we
are a non-profit society providing internet connections in the Canadian
North), and have had some success with expensive Synchronous CSU/DSU.

We would like to use an abundance of Asynchronous ports on our Netblazer
to provide 56kbps at a much lower cost. We will be using leased lines,
the 4-wire garden variety, 24ga., over up to 4 miles (5 would be better,
but it appears to be stretching it...).

Using good old RS-232, and preferrably Rack mounted at our central location,
and stand-alone at the remote end. Is there anything that will do the
job? Our target price per connection is around $US 730, or $CAN 1000.

The current candidate for the central site is a Black-Box rack with
Mini Driver MP Cards (page 20 of the summer 95 catalog), ME778C-RJ11.

The only problem is that there does not appears to be any Stand-alone
equivalent for the other side. Does anyone know who actually MAKE these
units?

Any help greatly appreciated.


Thanks,

Michel Adam
[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave O'Shea)
Subject: Is LDDS Pulling My Leg?
Date: 30 May 1995 15:55:44 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


I had thought the days of this kind of blame-shifting were over, but
it seems not. Recently, I moved to the Houston area, and ordered three
dial lines for my house. The local telco did a fairly adequate job of
installing the new cable and lines on time, and only needed to come
back once to get it working.

The problem started as soon as I tried to use a high-speed (14.4 or
28.8) modem on the lines. Connections either renegotiate or drop off
constantly.  2400 seemed to be the only thing that worked. Southwest
bell was called in, and their answer was to send a guy to hook a butt
set to the demarc, and check for dial tone. (The analogy of a
speed-bump on the Infobahn didn't cross my mind. Well, maybe only
once.)

Same problem continued, until I finally noticed that this was only
happening on long-distance connections. Aha! I use LDDS as my carrier,
since they have good rates, so I tried having the modem stick a 10288
in front of a number, to see if the old death-star folks could do any
better.  Call gets completed, and the signal levels have my modems
practically singing Beethoven's ninth in praise of a clear signal.

Call went in to LDDS. (24 hrs later, no response, so opened up a second
trouble ticket).

The next evening, I call LDDS to check up on the ticket, and their CSR
proudly announces that it has been tracked down to an AT&T problem. (I
remind her that using AT&T is the only way I can actually COMPLETE a
call, and if that's a symptom of the problem, for God's sake, please
don't fix it!)

Two days later, and I'm ready to use tin cans and string. Call up
LDDS, and track down the tech who worked on the ticket. Bottom line:
LDDS will not guarantee any data connection at all, and simply
suggests that I switch to AT&T, or go back to using a 1200bps modem.
Vague mumblings were offered about AT&T either having better connections
or less aggressive compression algorithms, and that if I screamed
enough, I might get someone to listen, but no specific suggestions or
where to turn could be given.

Well, I just got off the phone with AT&T, who seemed quite happy to
have my business. I guess the old "you get what you pay for" holds
true in this case. I wonder if anybody out at LDDS heard it. :-)

So, my question is, if I were serious about getting LDDS to provide decent
service, who would I have to chase after -- them, or Southwest bell?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 17:02:48 -0400
Subject: French Hotels May Overcharge For Phone Calls
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)


An article in the Toronto {Globe and Mail} travel section (page E1,
May 27, 1995) warns that hotels and restaurants in France are now free
to charge whatever they want for calls made from pay phones and room
phones on their premises. The rates are supposed to be posted, but may
be confusing to people from outside France if they are quoted per
pulse rather than per minute.

People travelling in the U.S. have learned to watch out for COCOTs,
and for hotel phone rates anywhere in the world. Now it seems that
France has been added to the list of countries with rip-off pay
phones.


Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada      [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 00:07:48 PDT
From: Gary Breuckman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax/Voice Switches


Scott A. Merlino <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Does anyone know of any high-quality (as in reliable and easily
> implemented) FAX/MODEM/phone switches on the market?  If anybody is using
> such a switch, and is satisfied with it, I would sure appreciate a
> recommendation.  Our office cannot afford to install a separate FAX line
> for data transmissions, so we would like to use our existing phone line.

You are probably aware (but didn't mention!) that there are two
different kinds of switches.  The first silently answers the call and
listens for the "CNG" tones from a "calling" fax, or touchtone codes,
or "reverse" modem tones, and routes the call accordingly generating
it's own ringing signals on the appropriate output jack.

The other type uses "distinctive ringing" or "ringmate" or whatever
your local telco calls that service, and routes the call by listening
to the ringing pattern, without actually answering the call first.
This telco feature provides more than one number for your line with
different ring patterns, at a lower cost than a separate line,
although of course you only have one real line and except for features
like three-way-calling and call-waiting, you can only have one call in
progress at a time.

I use a ComSwitch 660, one of the first type.  The box has an input
jack and outputs for FAX, PHONE, ANS-MACHINE, and AUX.  Phone and
Ans-mach are really just connected together, AUX is for your modem (or
other).  The box answers the call, listens for the CNG (calling) tone
from a fax, and if found rings the fax, if not rings the
Phone/ans-mach jacks.  You can also assign a touch tone code of up to
4 digits to both the FAX and AUX lines and route calls that way - the
box has applications beyond just FAX switching.  I only have one
regular caller who has a fax so old it doesn't send CNG tones.  FAX
machines in manual mode also don't send CNG (ie., if you pick up the
handset to place the call).  That person uses the touchtone code to
route it to the fax.

Reverse modem tone is a modem that places a call with itself in ANSWER
mode so it sends a tone.  The answering modem must then be in
originate mode to communicate.  All this doesn't work well with the
new modems that have type recognition and multiple handshakes, I find
using the touchtone codes to work fine.

Cost of this box was around $90.  This type of box can be used on any
line without additional telco costs.  The second type is possibly more
reliable and lets you advertise separate fax and voice numbers, but
with a monthly telco cost.


[e-mail]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #262
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00378;
          1 Jun 95 1:53 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00669 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 31 May 1995 18:49:14 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00661; Wed, 31 May 1995 18:49:11 -0500
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 18:49:11 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #263


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 May 95 18:49:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 263

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    $0 to $3 per Month Cellular Service (Keith Jaret)
    ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Tom Steegmann)
    Latest ITU-T (CCITT) Country Code List (Mark Cuccia)
    International Jobs for Telecom Specialists Up to $500/day (Dave Herndon)
    Information Wanted on ADSI Standard (Alex Zacharov)
    Synergy Semiconductor Attacks Speed Barriers w/High Speed FIFOs (Gelphman)
    Avon Park, Florida Area Code Question (Carl Moore)
    Centrex Research Project (Charles P. Whaley)
    Information Wanted On V.SAVD, Cable Modems (Matthew A. Earley)
    Information Wanted on FSL (Gary Mason)
    Local Call From Norfolk to Hampton VA? (Guy Cox)
    Phone Line Voltage (Keith Knipschild)
    Information Needed on GST or GST Net (John Royce)
    Re: FCC ISDN SLCs Ruling (Steve J. Slavin)
    Re: New Name For LDDS (Nigel Allen)
    Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (David K. Leikam)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 31 May 95 14:38:09 PST
Subject: $0 to $3 per Month Cellular Service!


After reading an earlier article in this Digest entitled "Using a
Unregistered Cellular Phone", I decided to try it myself with a
recently acquired "brick" phone.  I posted a Usenet request and
received helpful private email replies from Darrel, Simon, and David.
Their information is incorporated here, and I thank them for it.

Here is what I have learned about low-cost emergency cellular
service in northern California:

PLAN A

In northern California, setting the MIN (phone number) and the
carrier code to all zeros, as described in the article, worked
very briefly only.  By working, I mean that an attempt to call
any number would reach a recording telling me to dial *311 for an
operator to place a credit card call.  I dialed *311 and verified
Cellular One's rates: $1.25 for setup and $1.95 per minute, as I
recall.  Of course you do have to give your credit card number
over the air, which is a bit of a worry.

Alas, a few hours later, any use of the Send button yielded only
a reorder (fast busy) signal.  Even 911 was blocked!

Since I did not write the carrier's MTSO switch software, I do
not know exactly what caused the system to block my phone.  But I
suspect that it was either the fact that my phone number was all
zeros or that I attempted a non-free call by entering a local
number and pressing Send.

I next set the MIN to a non-zero value, using a known non-cellular
phone number, since I didn't want to appear to the switch software to
be impersonating a valid user.  I left the carrier code as all zeros.
This time, I did not attempt a non-free call.  Instead, I restricted
my testing to *nnn calls.  An attempted call to the traffic reporting
line of a local all-news radio station gave me the same recording I
described above.  Sure enough, *311 now gets me the credit card
operator.  I have not tried 911, but I'll bet it does work at the
moment, and I'd rather not annoy the CHP.

Through two weeks of occasional testing, the phone has continued to
give me the recording asking me to dial *311, rather than the fast
busy that I got when service was blocked.  Thus, although I have not
actually placed any calls, I believe that the phone will allow me to
make a call when I need to.

On the basis of this testing, I believe that in northern California,
to have durable *311 access for credit card calling without a cellular
subscription, one or both of the following actions is required:

  1) setting the MIN to a non-zero value;
  2) refraining from attempting any non-free calls.

Minimizing the time your phone is powered on wouldn't hurt, either, so
the phone will not be sending its MIN and ESN (equipment serial
number) to the network every five minutes.  My testing did not reveal a
problem here, possibly meaning that the switch software does not check
the MIN/ESN pair until a call is actually attempted.  But you might as
well keep the phone off and save the battery.  There is really no need
to turn the phone on until you want to make a call, since you can't
receive calls anyway.

I have not experimented with carrier codes other than zero, so I
recommend setting the code to zero unless the above does not work.  I
can't imagine that anything good would happen if the switch software
finds out that your supposed carrier either doesn't exist or doesn't
know who you are.

If the above technique works for you, you have emergency cellular
service, outgoing calls only, at roughly $2 per minute, $0 per month
 -- not a bad deal!  Otherwise, it's time for ...

PLAN B

If the above does not work, you have several other options.  First, if
you can call at first but get blocked shortly thereafter, you could
become a *paying* hacker, figuring out how to change your ESN and
doing so once per credit card call, so that the switch software does
not have the ESN in its "kill file".  Not very practical and not
recommended.

Second, you could sign up for a cheap "zero minutes free" service.
For $35 per year, roughly $3 per month, you can subscribe to HELPTEL,
which provides outgoing-only call capability at $3.50 per minute
(ouch!) anywhere in the US.  If you were in northern California, you
could dial *311 for cheaper outgoing calls instead.  Your local
carriers may have an equivalent service.  The main thing HELPTEL does
for you is to make your phone officially subscribed, so that the MTSO
switch software will not block your MIN/ESN pair.

Call Lindsay Communications in Leominster, Mass. 800-370-4445 for the
brochure on HELPTEL.  I did.  They are a direct reseller of air time.
They normally charge $45 for programming, but they will give you the
necessary information to program your own phone, which isn't any more
difficult than programming a VCR.  My thanks to Darrel for this find.

Third, for slightly greater use, and rates lower than $3.50 per minute,
you can sign up for an emergency plan with a Canadian cellular carrier.
The rate is $15 Canadian per month, which is probably better than your
local carrier offers.  The bonus with this option is that you should
be able to make calls *to* the cellular phone in unusual circumstances.
For example, a one-minute call would suffice to notify you to call
home from the nearest pay phone.  In fact, if you knew no one else
would be calling, you could simply turn the phone off when it rings
(rather than answering the call and incurring a one-minute charge),
drive to the nearest pay phone, and call home.  That would let your
cellular phone work as a crude wide-area pager.

The fourth option costs a bit more and requires a trusted friend.  I
don't claim to fully understand this suggestion, but I am told that
you and your friend can split the cost of a cellular phone and
extension with the same number.  This would work much better if you
don't plan to take incoming calls on the cellular phone.  Cellular One
tells me that they do not offer this service here in northern
California.  Such an offering would probably require that the switch
software be able to associate two different ESNs with the same MIN.
Or you could alter the ESNs to match each other and hope that both
phones are never turned on at the same time (which the switch software
would interpret as fraudulent use).  Based on my limited understanding,
I can't recommend this option unless your carrier offers it officially.


CONCLUSION

In summary, it's time to buy a used cellular phone for your wife's
birthday!  Costs about the same as a couple dozen roses.  One way or
another, you *can* make it work for outgoing calls!


[e-mail]     Keith Jarett

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 10:27:39 -0800
Subject: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations
From: [e-mail] (Tom Steegmann)
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 13:26:34 -0400 (EDT)


I work for Schenectady County, NY E911, and we are having a problem
with some of the larger centrex operations (including the one for our
county office building).  The problem is that the ALI information
coming from any of the trunks is undependable.  The county government
is based at 620 State St, but has offices in at least seven other
buildings all on 388-xxxx.  According to NYNEX, it is actually a
centrex sitting on top of a PBX, if that helps.  Anyway, the centrex
has only 14 lines going out, and the 15th line picked up rolls over to
a non dedicated 386-2xxx line, of which there are 30 extras.  The
386-2xxx lines are based in 1 Broadway Center, where my office is.
Now, if anyone calls 911 from ANY 388-xxxx line, it will either show
up as 620 State St, or if it the 15th or greater line picked up, 1
Broadway Center.  I am wondering if there is any way to program the
centrex into recognizing a 911 call and forcing it through with the
correct ALI information.  I thought maybe installing a dedicated
outside line (not on the centrex) at each location that to use for
911 calls might be a solution.  I don't know, I'm new at phones.  At
any rate, NYNEX has been reluctant to engage in discussion with us so
I can assume they don't really want to deal with it.  We can't possibly
be the first people to recognize the risks involved here.  If anyone
has any idea what I'm talking about, please reply to my email address.
Thanks for any ideas, we are getting close to going on line, and have
only non-solutions so far (NYNEX suggested that we blank out all ALI
information for all the numbers on that centrex.  That's not a solution.)


Tom Steegmann    Schenectady County E911
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Centrexes do *not* all have to return the
same address. I just now tried the Name and Address service offered by
Ameritech (312-796-9600) and punched in a couple different numbers on the
centrex for the City of Chicago Police Department. The response -- although
somewhat convoluted -- came back 'City of Chicago 25th District Grand-
Central, 5555 West Grand Avenue'. I was advised there are 'many' listings
for that number and did I want another one? A second listing for the same
number was 'Police Chicago Dept 25th Dist. 5555 W. Grand Avenue'. And that
was the 25th District station of the Chicago Police Department at the
address given. The City of Chicago uses 312-744, 312-746, and 312-747 for
its centrex, and this covers all agencies and departments. When  I tried
744-4000 which is the main switchboard number the listing was 'Chicago City,
121 N. Lasalle' which is City Hall.

Now I realize the database which is used for Caller-ID and public services
such as Ameritech's are not going to be entirely the same as those used by
911, however the different numbers on a centrex can be picked out and
identified one from another *provided it was set up that way*. If all the
centrex lines were listed with the same address when the centrex was
installed then so be it; that's what the database will show.

In the case of a PBX where all the trunks are at one place, and users
at an OPX (off-premise extension) dial 9 to get an outside line, then
everyone is going to show up at the address where the switchboard is
physically located, since usually when the telco central office responds
to the PBX trunk it has no idea which user the PBX is dealing with.

Maybe some readers with E911 experience will write in to tell how they
deal with oddities such as you describe. One of the reasons I have not
bothered with CID Name and Number (we can now get this enhanced service
if we buy new Caller ID boxes) is that a friend who has it says there
is little consistency in how the listings come through. Residences are
almost always consistently correct, but the large companies with DID,
Centrex, humongous PBX's and other specialized arrangements are likely
to come through with the 'name' given as whatever someone punched in
when the order was being installed, if they bothered to punch in anything
at all. In a few cases here, entire prefixes although working show up as
'no information listed' when you try to cross-check through the Name and
Address service. And my friend with CID Name and Number service says
in the case of large companies calling him, quite often the number will be
displayed as one of the lines used for outgoing calls with the 'name'
given as 'Unknown' or 'Not Listed' -- not to be confused with non-pub
numbers which are not listed with directory assistance but do show up
with name and number via Caller-ID.     PAT]

------------------------------

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest ITU-T (CCITT) Country Code List
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 10:27:00 GMT


In surfing the ITU WWW & Gopher site, I looked at the latest Telephone
Country Code List, NUM & ALPHA.

Here are some of the LATEST changes/assignments which may not have been
discussed in previous in TELECOM Digest:

296 for Tr & Tob is NOT on it anymore - it NOW IS listed as '1' (Tr & Tob.
was not previously included with '1' with the other 1-809 Carib.points)(296
is now 'spare').

295 is gone.

The entire 87 series is reserved or used for Intl.Maritime/Mobile (871 thru
874 USED, 875-879 reserved, 870 says reserved for InMarSat 'SNAC' trial).

Russia and five Central Asian former SSR's use 7.

Czech & Slovakia still share 42.

Comoros & Mayotte still share 269.

41 is still shared by Switz. & Liecht.

Greenland still 299.

Faroe still 298.

Aruba still 297.

382,3,4,8 are still 'spare'.

970,8,9 still 'spare' (altho' I DO remember that 15 years ago, 971 was UAE
except for Abu-Dhabi(sp) and Dubai -- one was 978 and the other was 979).

969 is stated as 'reserved - but currently under investigation' -- Seems
as the unified Yemen will all have 967. (I know that one of the two
'former Yemens' was known at one time as Aden).

Of course, 886 is listed as 'spare' with Taiwan shown in a footnote as 86-6,
part of (Red) China.

255 is Tanzania, while 259 is still listed as Zanzibar (Tanzania).

800 is still 'reserved' for future International FREEFONE.

0 is stated as 'Assignment not feasible until after Time-T, 31 Dec.96'.

There is still no assignment for Pitcairn Island (I would guess that it
will be 693 if ever assigned its own code), nor a seperate code for
'Sikkim' (a territory near Bhutan, India, Nepal, Red China -- but I am
never quite sure who it belongs to politically), nor Easter Island (but I
would think that it is part of Chile's code), nor any of those small
British Islands in the South Atlantic (probably would be part of 500
Falklands or maybe part of Ascension 247 or St.Helena 290), nor any
other small French Is.in the Indian Ocean.

For those interested, there are also updated lists for Telex country
codes, Data Network country codes, '89' International Telephone
Chargecard country/network/card-issuer codes, and Intl.SS7 network
codes (some are NUM only, some are ALPHA by country/network/region
only, and some have two seperate lists Numerical and Alpha).

These various code lists are as of December, 1994 thru May, 1995.


MARK J. CUCCIA

PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:

Work:
[e-mail]
UNiversity 5-5954 (TEL, [phone])
UNiversity 5-5917 (FAX, [phone])

Home:
4710 Wright Road
New Orleans 28
Louisiana (70128)
USA

CHestnut 1-2497 (Home Tel)
(fwds.on busy/no-answr.to cellphone/voicemail)
([phone])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your use of the phrase 'Red China' is
incorrect. Yes, when you and I were growing up that was correct. There
was China and euphemistically 'Red' (or Communist) China. That was
as of 1949 until about ten years ago, when international politics
changed. Now we have 'China' and 'Taiwan'. We now recognize the
legitimacy of the former but not the latter. Taiwan is what we in
the USA used to call 'China' and China is what we in in the USA used
to call 'Red China'. Always be politically correct in this forum,
just like me!   <g>    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (DaveH)
Subject: International Jobs for Telecom Specialists Up to $500/day
Date: 30 May 1995 02:25:23 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (DaveH)


This position is available through SCII U.S. Technologies,
International specialists in systems architecture consulting and in
software and MIS placement.  Areas of expertise include Banks,
Telecommunications and Transportation.

CONTRACT
Job Title: Oracle? Unix Consultants, Telecommunication specialists
Location: USA, Phillipines, Mexico, South Africa
Compensation: up to $500/Day + Expenses
Education Requirements: BS in CS
Years Experience: 3-5

Required Experience: Oracle, UNIX, Billing Systems

Preferred Experience: French or Spanish speaking

Comments: If you wish to be a candidate for SCII Technologies
technical assignments, please send us your current resume and a
completed confidential professional profile form (see below). (Your
name will not be submitted to any company without your consent.)

CONFIDENTIAL PROFESSIONAL PROFILE FORM

Name:
Address:
City, state, zip:
Home phone:
Work phone:
Company:
Title:
Current salary:
Education:
Years experience:
Are you a US citizen, Permanent Resident, other?:
If "other", please explain:
Are you a homeowner or renter?:
Would you consider relocating?:
Are you willing to consider contract assignments?:

Send this registration form and your resume to:

America Online EMAIL: DaveH
Fax: [phone]
Or mail to:

SCII U.S. Technologies Ltd.
Attn: Dave Herndon Acount Manager
1 Sansome St.  Suite 2100
San Francisco Ca. 94104

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (TMX1002 Alex Zacharov 2396)
Subject: Information Wanted on ADSI Standard
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 14:49:59 GMT
Organization: Telrad Ltd.


I am looking for text sources of Bellcore standard ADSI. Can anybody
tell me where can I get it? (anonymous ftp is preferable).

Please, send me information to: [e-mail].


Thanks in advance,

Alex,

Telrad Ltd.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Rob Gelphman)
Subject: Synergy Semiconductor Attacks Speed Barriers w/ High Speed FIFOs
Date: 30 May 1995 20:24:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Synergy Semiconductor is now offering two, new ultra-high speed FIFO
(first in, first out) buffers. Both are 64 word - by - 18-bit
components.  The SY69167 performs one write OR one read operation at
up to 200 MHz (5ns cycle) and the SY69168 performs one write AND/OR
one read operation at up to 100 MHz (10ns cycle).  Both devices are
10KH ECL compatible.

These FIFO buffers are used in automatic test equipment as vector data
buffers, in telecommunications systems in data rate conversion
subsystems, and in computers for minimizing data skewing, and any
other system where high-speed data buffering is a critical requirement.

These new FIFO products offer designers several key design benefits.
As wide-word devices, these products can buffer two parity-checked
bytes per chip.  Thus, designers need fewer devices, less board space,
and lower power supply, reducing overall design and production costs.

A single-clock synchronous design makes these two ECL FIFOs easier to
use while avoiding the complicated timing constraints imposed by the
more traditionally-used and lower-performance CMOS FIFOs.

The SY69167 and -168 are both single-stage pipeline designs with all
control and data signals registered on the rising edge of the clock.
Thus, designers need only concern themselves with set up and hold
timing with reference to the clock.

All input signals are sampled on the rising edge of the clock and a
read or write operation begins during the next clock period.  All
output signals are driven by registers which are also clocked on the
rising clock edge.  Thus one read or one write operation can occur with
each clock cycle in the -167, or both operations in the -168.

Status flag logic provides empty, half full and full status flag
outputs.  In addition, there are interrupt outputs for overflow and
underflow conditions.  Chip initialization is easily done using the
reset input pin.  When pulled low, this pin initializes the device and
resets both read and write pointers to zero.  On-chip voltage and
temperature compensation circuitry provide improved noise margins.
Finally, the chip is designed for enhanced alpha-particle immunity.

Both the SY69167 and SY69168 are available in 64-pin QFPs, and are
priced at $125 in quantities of 1000.

For More Information:

[e-mail]

Synergy Semiconductor
3450 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA  95051
408/730-1313
fax: [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 95 17:24:57 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Avon Park, Florida Area Code Information Wanted


I have an old area-codes file which has Avon Park in 813. Is it
staying there or is it going to 941?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 10:55:55 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Charles P. Whaley)
Subject: Centrex Research Project


Basically, I'm in the early stages of a research project on Centrex.
I'm pretty much up to speed on what's offered by the telcos, and will
shortly be interviewing some actual customers.

Before I do, however, I'd be interested in whether anyone out there
knows of any Centrex user organizations, user groups, or online
discussion groups.

I've been searching through the Archives here, and (so far) haven't
seen much with a user bent to it.  Any help will be appreciated.


Charles P. Whaley, Ph.D.                Phone: [phone]
Suite 3702, 85 Thorncliffe Park Drive   Fax: [phone]
Toronto, Ontario  M4H 1L6               Email: [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Matthew A Earley)
Subject: Information Wanted On V.SAVD, Cable Modems
Date: 31 May 1995 16:15:46 GMT
Organization: UB


I'm aware of the V.xx series standards such as the V.34, V.42, V.32, etc.
However, recently I came across a new one V.SAVD, it was briefly mentioned
in an article without reference.

Does V.SAVD have anything to do with the proposed V.34 fax standard, or
possibly a cable modem?

Any information on V.SAVD, Cable Modems, or the V.34 Fax would be greatly
appreciated.


Thanks in advance as they say,

Matthew A. Earley
SUNYAB IEEE VP
Buffalo NY 14228
716-639-9211

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gary Mason)
Subject: Information Wanted on FSL
Date: 31 May 1995 17:02:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom


FSL (Flexible Service Logic), a component of service building in AIN
(Advanced Intelligent Network), is said to be addressed by Bellcore
and CCITT.3. Haven't been able to Gopher anything up.  Does anyone
know titles of documents (what does CCITT.3 stand for?) or know of
any literature discussing this subject?


Gary Mason

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Guy Cox)
Subject: Local Call From Norfolk to Hampton VA?
Date: 31 May 1995 11:26:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Subject says it all. I am getting ready to move to Hampton VA. The
only local access number in the tidewater Virginia for Netcom is in
Norfolk.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Organization: America's Suggestion Box [phone]
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 16:07:31 -0500
Subject: Phone Line Voltage


I am having a problem with the phones in my house, I have about seven
extensions, with many different types of phones, such as a Panasonic,
Western Electric Princess, Northern Tel. 9516, ATT 8110.

Well the problem is:

I'll be talking on the Northern Tel 9516 phone,and then my wife
picks up the ATT 8110 phone, she gets NOTHING!! (a dead line);

and if shes on the ATT8110 phone and I pick up a phone (any phone)
the ATT 8110 goes dead ...

Also, if I put the call on HOLD (using the hold button on the Panasonic)
I sometimes can pick up the line from the ATT 8110 or even the WE Princess.

(Don't blame it on the ATT 8110, I just used it as an example.)

It seems that different phones draw different amounts of CURRENT when
on line and some phones need a certain voltage/current to work to pick
up the line.

So what is the minimum amount of voltage when the the line is in use?

I measured the following :

ATT 8110           7.11   v
NT 9516            6.61   v
WE Princess        5.20   v
Panasonic          10.76  v

Now with the 9516 and 8110 the voltage droped to  5.58 v

and with the 8110 and Panasonic the voltage was   4.96 v
What can I do to solve this problem?

so now I connected 4+ phones and the voltage was  2.95 v

Please help me out.


Thanks,

Keith.Knipschild @ asb.com  ===  Internet Address
Keith @ Unix.ASB.com        ===  SLIP Internet Address
N2NJS @ KC2FD.NY.USA.NA     ===  Ham Radio AX25 Packet Address
70302,2701                  ===  CompuServe Address
K.Knipschild                ===  GENIE Address


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess what you have to do is call the
Telephone Company and tell them to quit being so chintzy with the amount
of power they send down the line. Tell then you need at least a couple
more volts on a regular basis.   <grin>.

You are really pressing your luck with that much stuff -- and such a
variety at that -- on the line all at the same time. I am surprised
the bells even ring correctly when a call comes in.

Do you have a second, or third phone line there? Try balancing the load
a little if you do, moving a couple of the phones using the most current
to another line and putting something simple in their place on the original
line.  Normally three or four instruments is the most you should have on
a single line.

I guess another way of phrasing your question would be this: I have an
air-conditioner, a television, a microwave oven and a clothes washer
in my house, but the single circuit in my fuse box has a 15 amp fuse.
Why can't I stay cool watching television while I wash my clothes and
cook my dinner?  Someone told me about 30 amp fuses so I went and got
one of those and all my appliances kept right on running, even when I
was out one day and forgot to turn them off. Imagine my surprise to
get home and see the Fire Department there putting out the blaze started
by the overheated wiring.

The Telephone Company sends you a certain amount of current. That's
it. Live with it.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Royce)
Subject: Information Needed on GST or GST Net
Date: 31 May 1995 03:33:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Anyone having any information regarding this telecommunications
company, your response would be appreciated.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)
Subject: Re: FCC ISDN SLCs Ruling
Date: 31 May 1995 12:52:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Earlier Wednesday, I circulated the FCC
notice on ISDN. I got various copies from different readers but not a
single one came intact. I printed what I had, which seemed to be the
gist of it. I used [e-mail] as the source for the one I sent
out, and he now responds.   PAT]

Thanks PAT -- no that's not where it was to end -- it is about 13
pages long when I printed the whole thing off line and pasting it blew
my mind. This is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and apparently
exceeded buffer length. I wasn't able to truly download it v. buffer
it. Interested parties should check the FCC server under Common
Carrier. The note above was an auxilliary Public Notice (odd way of
doing business).


Steve

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 02:28:13 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: New Name For LDDS


Greg Monti <[e-mail]> writes:

> A brief notice in {Communications Daily} on 5/26 noted that LDDS
> shareholders had approved "WorldCom" as the new name of the merged
> long distance carrier made up of LDDS, IDB Communications Group,
> WilTel Network Services.

Interestingly, the telecommunications services (telex and cablegrams)
unit of ITT was known as ITT Worldcom, at least in its later years.

I think that ITT eventually divested its telecommunications operating
unit, but I don't know who acquired it. (ITT's telecom manufacturing
unit became part of Alcatel.)


Nigel Allen
52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]   http://www.io.org/~ndallen
Telephone: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David K. Leikam)
Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software?
Date: 31 May 1995 07:22:31 -0700


> Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software
>> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be
>> voice.  They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and
>> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and
>> let them know.   <deletia>

But I'm wondering if there's some simple PC software that could also
do it.  <more deletia>

and paraprasing here, Harold said, for about $70.

I responded:

> Well, nothing *I* am aware of, that I'd trust to do a halfway decent job.
> Thinking about the problems of reliability sorta starts me towards a fair
> sized headache ... (deep breath)

Robert Virzi <[e-mail]> wrote:

So David says, basically, 'No'.  Or at least not for less than $2k -
$10k.

I think you are over engineering the solution.  This is for a school.
Most of the numbers that the kids have are POTS lines, nothing fancy
like pagers and the like.  Answering machines need to be dealt with,
true.  But generally the particular population might really benefit
from a cheap, somewhat reliable system, rather than no system.

I suspect you're not reading between the lines enough, Robert. Harold
was speaking of calling the students in a class to tell them it has
been cancelled. That sounds a lot more like a college than a grade-school,
to me. So, first off there's the POTS question -- some of them likely
live in dorms on campus, so you've got the university pbx, if any, to
deal with as well. Second, pagers and the like are cheap and getting
cheaper.  Likewise voicemail services.

I think you'd find more of that kind of thing than you expect. And for
most of the issues I detailed, the type of service isn't too material
 -- it's what you get on the other end, no matter how you get there.

> Why not simply call through the list, playing the message on offhook,
> repeating the message until (a) the line is released or (b) 90 seconds
> has elapsed?  If a person gets it, they listen to it, or have some
> time to call Mom over to the phone to hear the message.  If its an
> answering machine, they get 90 seconds of the message (minus the time
> for the OGM) on the tape.  Should be pretty simple for the system to
> track busy/no answer and call those numbers back.

The students are going to want to be notified according to their schedules,
not yours. That means, in all likelihood, at work sometimes.  You'll need to
deal with secretaries, company pbx's, long hold times, voice attendants,
extension numbers, and so forth.  Otherwise, you're just blurting the
message and hoping someone/something was there to get it, and hopefulling
willing to deliver it (correctly) to the intended receiver.

> I'm not suggesting this is a bulletproof system.  Far from it.  But
> the requirements don't seem to call for one.  If this user population
> knows about the system, it will work even better because parents will
> be hanging by waiting for the call to hear soccer is cancelled because
> of rain.  This kind of simple system could be built on a Mac, and I'm
> guessing an Intel processor as well.  For not much money, and a little
> development time.

A soccer game is one thing. A rescheduled class, another. One bit of
private feedback that I got from this, someone told me that if they
missed an important class because of something like this, they'd
probably sue the university. Can't blame 'em, myself.

The bottom line is, can you live with the failure rate you're likely
to get? For a lot of applications, yes. For this one, I don't think
so.  The 20-30% of people who show up for the cancelled class are
going to be upset, and downright angry if it happens a lot. And
suppose it's not a class, but a major exam? If you're willing to
accomodate those who say they didn't hear about the change, what's to
stop anyone from claiming that, and will you fade the heat from irate
faculty who have to deal with them, because of your system's
shortcomings?

Let's suppose you think  that you can. You put in the system, but later,
when the stack of complaints and hate-mail overflows your in-basket, you
decide you need to improve it. Can you, with the particular system you've
chosen? What will it cost? Do you have the budget, or is it better to
just cut your losses and scrap it?

How many people need to be notified and what amount of time does that
take? What if you need more lines than you thought? Can you expand your
budget system to handle more lines? What if your university rewires the
phone system for a different pbx, maybe even a digital one? Can your
budget system adapt? What will that cost?

There are some very important issues here, and I think they need more
engineering, not less, to avoid unpleasant surprises later on.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #263
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00590;
          1 Jun 95 2:04 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02433 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 31 May 1995 19:47:32 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02425; Wed, 31 May 1995 19:47:30 -0500
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 19:47:30 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #264

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 May 95 19:47:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 264

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "Education on the Internet" by Ellsworth (Rob Slade)
    Wanted: Low-Cost Multiplexers (Diamantis Papazoglou)
    AC 303: What Number Should I Use to Get Number of This Phone? (Dawn Adler)
    BC to Wisconsin Data Line Type? (Andrew Tuline)
    Plan to Abolish FCC (Bennett Z. Kobb)
    T1/FT1 Provider in LA Area (Philip Kim)
    Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please (Mike Sandman)
    Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Is it Northern or Nortel? (Richard Parkinson)
    Re: Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers (Linc Madison)
    Re: California's New Area Code: 760 (Scott D. Fybush)
    Re: Telecom History (James H. Haynes)
    Re: Telecom History (Robert B Muderick)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:21:29 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Education on the Internet" by Ellsworth


BKEDCINT.RVW   950413

"Education on the Internet", Ellsworth, 1994, 0-672-30595-X, U$25.00/C$34.95
%A   Jill Ellsworth [e-mail]
%C   201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN   46290
%D   1994
%G   0-672-30595-X
%I   SAMS Publishing
%O   U$25.00/C$34.95 800-858-7674 [e-mail] 317-581-3743
%P   591
%T   "Education on the Internet"

Appendix A gives a "once over lightly" on the various Internet tools,
and Appendix B describes ERIC (the Educational Resources Information
Center).  The rest of the book lists different mailing lists, newsgroups,
telnet sites, gopher sites, and other resources.  There are divisions
by level and subject, although the formatting can make it very hard to
find what you want.  Most of the resources have something to do with
education.

Educators may find it worthwhile getting the more general resource
catalogues, where it is easier to find a specific topic.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKEDCINT.RVW   950413. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters
Editor and/or reviewer [e-mail], [e-mail], Rob Slade at 1:153/733
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wanted: Low-Cost Multiplexers
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Crete HELLAS
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:20:24 GMT


Hello everybody,

We are looking for low-cost Statistical Data Multiplexers that support
at least following features:

* 2/3/4 EIA-232 ports. Speed from 300 to 19200 baud;
* One composite link. Speed at least 19200 baud.


Many thanks in advance.

Diamantis Papazoglou
Technical Director
NETConnect Dept.

Macedonian Peripherals S.A.    Tel. ++30-31-326190
NETConnect Department        Tel. ++30-31-306800
Diamantis Papazoglou        FAX. ++30-31-325841
D. Glinou 26
54249 Thessaloniki    E-mail: [e-mail]
GREECE            CompuServe ID: 100101,1566

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dawn Adler)
Subject: AC 303: What Number Should I Use to Get Number of This Phone?
Date: 31 May 1995 07:34:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I'm moving to a Denver suburb next week, and I ordered two lines, one for
personal and other is for my BBS. I need to know if USWest has a three
digit code to get the number of my phone(s)? In Tampa, FL (GTE) I use
311.


Thanks,

Michael Adler
System Adminstrator
Lakewood Online
(offline)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know what the readback and/or
ringback codes are for that area, but it won't do you much good until
you get there and are actually using the phones in question, and at
that point in time I am sure the telco will have already notified you
of what your new numbers will be. If you are there when the installer
arrives -- if one is needed -- I'm sure he will tell you the numbers,
else whatever rep you called out there will be glad to work with you
on it. I suppose a Denver reader will be in touch with you soon to
give you the specifics.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Tuline)
Subject: BC to Wisconsin Data Line Type?
Organization: Dynapro Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:51:09 GMT


We need to exchange data between companies in Milwaukee and Vancouver.

Traffic is typically:

- email
- a few large file transfers daily (> 10M)
- IPX and IP protocols
- marginal telnet traffic

Function is to co-develop software between the two sites.

We felt that 112K of bandwidth would probably do the trick.  Suggestions
were:

- dedicated lines? (Hopefully not. We don't need the line up ALL the
time.  This is about $4K CDN/mo.)

- frame relay? (Throw in a T1 local loop, and run 112K frame relay.
Sounds reasonable.  Users would be pissed if they didn't get close to
112K bandwidth though.  Also, the company in Milwaukee doesn't seem very
keen on frame relay for some reason).

- Switched 56?  (How about a couple of switched 56 lines?  I didn't get
good vibes about this from BCTel or fONOROLA.  Additionally, how would
you combine them?)

Any comments, suggestions for a relatively inexperienced WAN type would
be appreciated.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bennett Z. Kobb)
Subject: Plan to Abolish FCC
Organization: New Signals Press
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:25:58 GMT


The Progress and Freedom Foundation <[e-mail]> in Washington has
released its plan to abolish the Federal Communications Commission.

Highlights from the "comprehensive plan" of particular interest
to wireless users:

* Unless Congress acts to preserve regulations, all FCC rules and
regulations will be rescinded in three years.

* Immediate repeal of all FCC licensing authority.

* All current FCC license holders would receive property rights in the
spectrum, enforced by the trespass laws.

* Deeds recorded in a central Spectrum Registry File.

* Any spectrum that has more than one claimant would be auctioned
within 180 days. Government would establish standardized spectrum
parcels for auction.

* Government agencies must "disgorge" their unused spectrum within
a determined timeframe.

* All restrictions on use of spectrum would be eliminated. Those who
win title could develop and/or re-sell the spectrum subject to
antitrust review and geographic and interference boundaries; however,
legislation would not set forth interference rights in detail.

* Department of Justice would confiscate any devices used in violation
of communications rules.

* Complaint investigation and answering of general inquiries from the
public discontinued.

* Spectrum above 300 GHz is infrared rather than radio.


Bennett Z. Kobb    [e-mail]
Editor and publisher, Spectrum Guide


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I dunno ... readers please give
your thoughts on this; I will run them soon.     PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Philip Kim)
Subject: T1/FT1 Provider in LA Area
Organization: CTSNET
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 20:17:06 GMT


Does anyone know of a good, inexpensive provider of T1/FT1 lines in
the LA (California) area?  Just wondering if PACBELL is the only, or
best choice.  The application is an internet site for a non-profit
organization.

Please email me at '[e-mail]'


TIA,

Phil

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mike Sandman)
Subject: Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 15:49:25 LOCAL
Organization: InterAccess, Chicago's best Internet Service Provider


Boy, what a horror story!

Personally, I don't know why you would need digital phones in a hotel
room, especially since they normally don't have an analog port in them
to hook up a modem etc.

If you are a real upscale hotel, you may want to have two extensions
in each room, so that you could use a modem while being able to make
and receive calls. I don't recall that anyone makes a PBX with hotel
features that gives you a digital phone with an analog port, so that
both can be used simultaneously (but there may be one).

If you really need a new PBX (as in the old one is obsolete and no
longer supported -- or you've outgrown it), you may want to have your
vendor reconfigure his proposal for analog phones in the rooms -- that
way you would only need the analog station card -- not the digital.
Stick some nice single line feature phones with a bunch of speed dial
buttons in the rooms, preferably with a data port on them.

If your old PBX works fine, you may want to go out and buy 150 of
those nice feature phones, and get the same results for lots less
money. The people in the rooms won't have a clue of how old or how
messy your PBX is.

Personally, I wouldn't want to deal with a company that tried to do
this to me, but you may be able to make the most of it since it sounds
like your vendor is a pretty big company. In the interest of keeping
up their numbers, and not causing a lot of bad feelings, they may
offer you a discount to reconfigure to the above scenario (which
should cost a little less than the digital phones/cards anyway).
Salespeople seldom change their spots, so your vendor probably won't
be surprised about what your salesperson pulled.

If your old system works OK for now, there's nothing to push you into
accepting anything other than exactly what you want. If it takes them
six months to resolve the situation -- make the best of it!  Many
companies figure that they'll install the system, get their sales
numbers and deal with suing you later. I wouldn't let them do that if
I were you. Also, if you're leasing the system, don't sign the
acceptance (or anything that remotely looks like an acceptance), until
you're happy as hell. Once you sign an acceptance, the leasing company
has a perfect right to bill you and sue you. If you don't sign it,
they usually won't pay the vendor anything -- and will never start
billing you.

You can't plug any kind of single line phone into a port designed for
a digital phone. You may be able to kludge an adapter, or get a gizmo
that lets you hook up a single line device through the handset port (a
nice one is available through Vive Synergies in Canada). In a hotel,
it would be very difficult to keep track of these external devices.
Either the single line device, or less often the digital station port
on the PBX could be damaged if you plug the single line into the
digital jack. You'll really hate yourself in the morning if you go for
some half-assed solution!


Good luck,

Mike

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Telco Northwestel Errs With PBX; Help Please
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 16:57:01 LOCAL
Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> Ian Gamble <[e-mail]>
writes:

> Northwestel, the telco for northern Canada, has nearly completed the
> installation of a Northern Telecom Meridian 1 Option 11E PBX for the
> hotel where I work.

The Meridian 1 is a nice switch.  It can take analog, proprietary-
digital, and ISDN extensions.  Each uses a different line card, and of
course the phone sets are different.

> There will be about 150 new telephones installed, all digital.  The
> system was represented by the salesperson as being compatible with
> analog devices.  The intent was to have a modern, and upgradeable,
> system to serve the needs of business travellers.  Particularly, each
> room was to have the capacity to support fax and modem use by guests.

Somebody blew it Big Time!  You NEVER use digital extensions for things like
fax and modems!  Those devices are built to work with analog lines ONLY.
(There are "ISDN modems" and even a nice IBM PCMCIA ISDN card but it's
new and not yet common.)  I've never stayed at a hotel with digital
room phones.  The norm nowadays is an analog phone with a secondary
jack on the side and a message waiting light (good old 90v neon).

> I understand that there are risks to analog equipment if it is connected
> to the PBX due to the higher voltage, and the PBX itself can be harmed
> if modems or fax machines are hooked up.  Is this true?

"Risk" is not the right word.  You are guaranteed 100% that an analog
modem, fax or other device will NOT work on a digital line!  It may
harm the modem, but is unlikely to harm the PBX, because most analog
devices do not generate power, but expect power from the analog line.
Note that it will not always harm the modem, but you don't want to
risk liability ...

> Are there any analog to digital converters available that can be
> installed to permit this use on the PBX?  Where can they be purchased?

For a proprietary-digital interface, no.  That's likely what you have.
For an ISDN interface, there are terminal adapters like the Adak that
have analog outputs.  I doubt you have ISDN extensions, though.  PBX
vendors prefer proprietary, since they can run on one pair, are cheap,
and lock the customer in to that brand of PBX (when upgrade time
comes).

> What should be done about the representation by the salesperson that the
> system would be suitable "out-of-the-box" for this purpose?

Pat's advice is good.  Check your contract.  Check your lawyer.


Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    [e-mail]
Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA  USA   [phone]
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My original advice was to make no further
payments -- if any had been made -- on this mess. It sounds like it might
be quite expensive to repair the problem. I suggested the writer could
sue the company to force the corrections needed, but he would have to
sue them in their jurisdiction most likely. He would be better off letting
them sue him for the balance due, since the company would have to come
to his location to do that, and once they sue for the remainder due then
the hotel can countersue without having to make a trip out of town to
wherever the company is located.  But the other person responding in this
thread today says waiting to get sued is not a good idea. I don't see why
not; even if its a third party leasing company handling the paper which
claims it has already made the payout, a lot of courts won't give any
credence to 'holder in due course' arguments.

I certainly agree with Fred that the hotel should seek legal counsel
on this as soon as possible if anything has been signed or the work
has commenced.  Otherwise, sign *nothing* and the next time a
representative from the company shows up have your security staff show
him the door and how to open it going outward.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Richard Parkinson)
Subject: Re: Is it Northern or Nortel?
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 19:41:25 -0800
Organization: Infotel Systems Corp.



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Holly
Fenn) wrote:

> I purchased a Northern 61C Meridian system loaded with Meridian mail,
> IVR, CCR, ACD, Meridian MAX, and Meridian Link. For six months I have
> had the worst service and support through Nortel.  Has anyone else had
> the same problem?  I came from a 12 year ROLM background so I have
> nothing to compare this too.  I can't figure out if my frustration
> lies within Nortel's organization, or if Northern just isn't the
> technological giant it markets itself to be?

> Any feedback and/or recommendations on an alternative service provider
> would be greatly appreciated.

My understanding is that Nortel is the new name for Northern Telecom, thus
they are one and the same companies.

Are you dealing with Northern directly, or is in fact your maintainer
a distributor? If the latter, you should put the heat on Northern.  If
the former complain to the Richardson, Texas headquarters.


Regards

Richard

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 20:14:38 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Algorithm For Parsing Phone Numbers
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kate
Weber Brown at Bank of Bermuda) wrote:

: Is there anyone who can send me an algorithm for taking apart a string
: of numbers and working out which digits are area code or country code,
: etc.?  I'm trying to build an application which bills fax calls from
: the log ...

Well, yes and no.  The format of an international number is:

(dialing prefix)  -- depends on country of origin; e.g., 011, 00, etc.
(country code)    -- 1, 2, or 3 digits
(city code)       -- 0 to 6 digits
(local number)    -- 1 to 8 digits

The maximum total number of digits in the last three segments is 12, but
is scheduled to increase to 15 digits in the not-too-distant future.

There are other rules which can be invoked when the country code has
been parsed; for example, numbers in Denmark are always the two-digit
country code, no city code, and an 8-digit local number.  In the U.S.,
Canada, and other parts of World Zone 1, the location can be fairly
precisely specified by the country code (1), city code (3-digit area
code) and prefix (first 3 digits of the local number).

However, for billing for fax calls, you probably only need to account
for parsing the country code.  Look at the first three digits after the
international dialing prefix and you're home.  You can invoke more
detailed rules for domestic calls, to whatever extent your costs vary by
location.


Linc Madison   *   San Francisco, California   *   [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott D Fybush)
Subject: Re: California's New Area Code: 760
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 04:40:50 GMT


So we can now add the new "760" area to the very exclusive list of
areas that will have had three different area codes since 1980.
As best I can figure it, the others are:

847 and 630 - Illinois - were 312, now 708, splitting again
562 - California - areas that were 213, now 310, splitting again

 ... and that's pretty much it, I think.

The 760 area was, of course, part of 714 until that code split in half
in 1982, with San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties getting
714, and the rest going 619.  (SB and Riverside later split themselves,
to 909).


Scott Fybush - [e-mail]
(and a former resident of the future 760-872, Bishop CA)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (James H. Haynes)
Subject: Re: Telecom History
Date: 30 May 1995 21:31:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <[e-mail]>, Greg Schumacher <gregs@world.
std.com> wrote:

> Last weekend I was at a yardsale and while poking through the piles of
> books found one titled "Principles of Electricity applied to Telephone
> and Telegraph Work 1953 Edition". Scanning through it briefly, I found
> some intresting photos and diagrams of cross bar and step by step
> switches. And at $1 it was a deal I could not pass up.

Great book.  I cut my teeth on that one, after having been loaned the
1938 edition by the local wire chief.

> My question is this: The frontispiece is a photo of a statue labeled
> "Spirit of Communication". The statue is a winged nude male in the

Here's some info from George Oslin's book.  There is a picture of the
statue, with the caption "The Genius of Electricity (later renamed the
Spirit of Communication) was a familiar figure on the New York skyline.

Then a reference to another picture of the building at 195 Broadway,
NYC, with the caption "Western Union headquarters building, 195
Broadway, New York.  The gold-winged figure at the peak of the tower
is "Genius of Electricity", erected October 24, 1916, the 55th
anniversary of the completion of the first transcontinental telegraph.
When W.U. sold its half ownership of the building to AT&T, AT&T
renamed it the "Spirit of Communications".

Then there is some text:

  "Western Union invited sculptor Evelyn Beatrice Longman to design a
statue symbolizing the Genius of Electricity to top the Fulton Street
tower on its 195 Broadway headquarters, built in 1875.  The result was
a twenty four foot high bronze statue of a man with a twelve foot wing
span, standing on a large globe.  One arm held cables; the other hand,
held high, grasped darting lightning bolts, representing electrity
that powers telecommunications.  The statue was erected on October 24,
1916, the fifty-fifth anniversary of the first transcontinental
telegraph line.

  "In 1930, Western Union sold its interest in the building to AT&T,
which rechristened the statue the Spirit of Communications, gilded it
with more than 12,500 pieces of gold leaf, and called it 'Golden Boy'.
In 1980 AT&T moved the statue to its new headquarters at 550 Madison
Avenue.  For sixty-four years at 195 Broadway the statue was the second
largest sculpture in New York, higher than the 151-foot Statue of
Liberty, and a familiar sight to millions."

The book I'm quoting from is "The Story of Telecommunications" ISBN
0-86554-418-2, by George P. Oslin, (age 93) the former public
relations director for Western Union, published by Mercer University
Press.  I'll say the book is a mess, especially toward the end; but
I'm glad the old man took the time to write it.  It could have used a
lot better editing -- but then the publisher mostly publishes religious
books so probably lacks an editor qualified for this topic.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 10:08:01 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Robert B Muderick)
Subject: Re: Telecom History


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was -- still is? -- at the AT&T
> Building on Broadway in lower Manhattan.  A picture of that statue
> was also the standard back cover of Bell System telephone directories
> for many years, and quite a few business offices, including the one
> in downtown Chicago had replicas of it. The phone books always had
> that statue on the cover somewhere, along with the little circle and
> the words 'American Telephone and Telegraph and Associated Companies'
> in the circle.  I guess they quit using the statue about 1960.   PAT]

The winged statue called "Spirit of Communication" or "Golden Boy" was
moved at some point to atop the building at 550 Madison Avenue, also
in New York City.  But a couple years ago when AT&T leased the
building at 500 Madison to Sony, the statue was moved to a pedestal in
front of corporate headquarters in Basking Ridge, NJ.  (I get to see
it every day out the window).  As part of the latest move it was given
a much needed restoration.

Here is the description given to visitors in Basking Ridge:
(The location has not been updated) ...

"The Spirit of Communication" or "Golden Boy" was created by Evelyn
 Beatrice Longman and has stood in New York since 1916.  Mrs. Longman's
 design was selected by the president of AT&T at that time, Theodore N.
 Vail; the architect of the old AT&T headquarters building in lower
 Manhattan, William Welles Rosworth; and noted American sculptor Daniel
 Chester French after a nationwide competition in 1914 to develop an
 AT&T corporate symbol.

Some of Golden Boy's statistics:
Height of Bronze Figure : 24 Feet
Granite Base            : 21 Feet
Weight                  : 32,000 pounds
Wing Span               : 23 Feet
Gilding                 : 23 Karat Gold


Bob Muderick     [e-mail]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #264
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa08669;
          1 Jun 95 4:21 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04663 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 31 May 1995 21:05:21 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04654; Wed, 31 May 1995 21:05:18 -0500
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 21:05:18 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #265

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 May 95 21:05:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 265

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "Being Digital" by Nicholas Negroponte (Laasri Hassan)
    Re: Book Review: "UNIX Communications and the Internet" (Pat Fogarty)
    Re: Telephone 'Call Back' Services (Bert Kooi)
    Re: Dime Line Anyone? (David Kammeyer)
    Re: Need One Mile PC Communications (David Kammeyer)
    Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Michael J. Kuras)
    Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Eric Tholome)
    Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Kimmo Ketolainen)
    Re: Need One Mile PC Communications (Vince Muehe)
    Re: Is it Northern or Nortel? (Allan Bourque)
    Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC (Sven Dietrich)
    Re: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 (Pete Farmer)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: LAASRI Hassan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Being Digital" by Nicholas Negroponte
Date: 31 May 1995 09:01:25 GMT
Organization: Alcatel CIT Le Pecq, France


Since 1993 through the present time, I have been searching for books
which present the upcoming information superhighways. Unfortunately,
all the papers and magazines were repeatedly chattering about the same
topics. A lot of them present rather policital views with no precise
action plans. Others present some telecom technologies as the
milestone of the information superhighway building, i.e., ATM, SDH,
ASDL, etc. Of course, VOD is still the hot stuff that every one is
talking about.

Thus, I was always frustrated after reading and reading the same thing
written many different ways. That was before I read Being Digital,
Nicholas Negroponte's last book on the future of digital products and
services.

First of all, the book is a good starting point for many directions,
be it technical, economical, or social. Its reading is really funny: I
read it in less than a week, though I have done so only at home after
a full day of work.

As an ex-researcher in Artificial Intelligence and presently engineer
in the telecommunications industry, I focused my attention on the
technical aspects of the book. I also found that I learned many new
things from a social and commercial point of view.

It provides a deep analysis of the current status of multimedia
(Negroponte simply identifies it as the melding of bits) and where
more work needs to be done. In particular, the book shows where the
present R&D in HDTV IS now and where it SHOULD be. From my point of
view, this part of the book is the most important if not the
major one. I highly recommend its reading to all those working on
services such as visual browsing, information searching. Negroponte
suggests that such services should be based on what he calls the
bits-on-bits (information on the content of a digital stuff).

I also appreciated the interface part. It shows where AI in general
and intelligent agents can have an industrial come-back and play a
terrific role. Instead of searching, just program your interface
agents and it's up to them to do the work based on your centers of
interest. I highly recommand the reading of this part to those
reseachers looking for challanging but not toy problems for their AI
models and systems. I'm really sure that AI may help in the future of
the Internet surfing.

The only thing which I found missing in this book is the refernces of
the research going on in institutions (e.g., MIT Media Lab). This will
help "thirsty" readers, like me, to follow where their developments
will lead us.

Finally, I will end my review by asking Negroponte "When will Volume
II be ready?"


Dr. Hassan LAASRI    Alcatel CIT
3, Parc des Grillons  60, Route de Sartrouville
78230 Le Pecq - France
Phone: + 33 1 34 80 79 33/Fax: + 33 1 34 80 79 47
Alcanet Code: 2 117, Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Pat Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Book Review: "UNIX Communications and the Internet" by Anderson
Date: 31 May 1995 09:50:09 -0400
Organization: Interpath -- Public Access UNIX for North Carolina


I found the second edition of this book to be quite useful. Since
almost nothing changed for the third edition, it's still useful, but
somewhat out of date.

For instance, there are still full chapters on rn and vnews, but tin?
trn? Naaaaaaah ...

The appendix on transfer protocols still thinks xmodem and kermit is
all there is.  (One could argue that Kermit _is_ all there is).

I didn't buy it. Go to remainder sales and look for the second edition
instead.


Pat

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bert Kooi)
Subject: Re: Telephone 'Call Back' Services
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:45:03 GMT
Organization: Kooi Info Services
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Steven Knopoff) wrote:

> I have two related questions I hope someone might answer:

> First, does anyone know of a phone company that offers cheap rates (e.g.
> under .50/minute) between the U.S. and Australia?

Yes, the USA Callback company MTC Passport. Their rate is US$0.29
p/min. from Australia to the USA.

> And second, can anyone here familiar with these 'call back' long
> distance services (some of which claim to offer U.S./Australia rates as
> low as .30/minute) explain why these companies' sales/customer service
> operations are run in such unprofessional manners? I have looked into
> three of these services (including MTC Passport) but have hesitated to
> proceed because their own sales phone numbers keep changing (at least
> here in Adelaide they do) and/or because the people answering the phone
> act as if they are somehow unauthorized or unwilling to answer questions
> about the service, or they say they will call back with the answer to a
> question but do not call back. At one point I started to think that this
> type of business might not be legal, but I checked with the Australian
> telecommunications ombudsman and Australian Trade Practices Commission,
> both of whom say that 'call back' services are perfectly legal (though
> they had no further information about them). Why, for example, don't
> these companies advertise in the phone book or newspapers like any other
> telephone-related business?

Although I'm in the callback business maybe would like some experience
from the other side of the globe:

I'm a MTC Passport representative in The Netherlands for over one year
now with about 60 happy clients. Why are my clients happy? Because the
rates of our Dutch PTT are about twice the rates of MTC Passport to
most countries. My clients call the USA, Australia, Israel, Netherlands
Antilles, Aruba, South Africa, Iran, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. MTC
Passport is located in the USA and they are offering a product to
customers all over the world. You can imagine this would be very
expensive to have offices all over the world. I guess that is why they
contract (small) local agents like me in The Netherlands who give rate
information and sign up forms to customers who are interested in low
international telephone rates.

If you have any further questions you can email me at:
[e-mail]

BTW: I also have a client in Australia who seems happy with the
Passport service.

Bert Kooi
Kooi Info Services
Schanshoek 75
1188 LL  Amstelveen
The Netherlands
tel [phone]
fax [phone]
email [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: David Kammeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dime Line Anyone?
Date: 31 May 1995 04:17:30 GMT


[e-mail] (Paul Celestin) wrote:

> I just got a mailing the other day from a company called VarTec Telecom,
> Inc. that states you can get 10 cents a minute long distance service
> anytime, anywhere in the continental U.S. Only catch is a $5 monthly
> service charge for residential lines, even if you use it just once. I
> think the service charge for business lines is $15.

Stay away from Vartec!  I signed up with them, when their promotion
was "get every tenth call for one cent.  I compared the probabilities
and such, and they looked to be the best deal I could find.  I
switched all seven lines in my house to them (I used to run a BBS).
Anyway, a few months later I decided to switch to MCI.  I had them
switch all my lines.  After a few days, I checked my lines by dialing
00 and asked the operator what company they were.  They all were MCI.
About two days later I needed a long distance operator for something or
other and I got the VarTec operator.  I was puzzled at this, and it
seems that five of my lines had mysteriously been switched over to
Vartec.  I then called MCI, explained my situation and they switched
the lines again to MCI.  They were switched over to MCI, and after two
days, they went back to Vartec.  After this, I called Vartec and asked
to talk to a supervisor, and threatened legal action.  I then called
Ameritech and told them not to let Vartec switch it again.  Anyway,
Vartec caused me a lot of trouble switching the lines and getting back
the switchover fee.  As a side note, the MCI rep said that Vartec is
notorious for this.  I'd be very careful when dealing with these
folks.

------------------------------

From: David Kammeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications
Date: 29 May 1995 04:37:03 GMT


[e-mail] (RC) wrote:

> We're using reachout between two PCs, but the nominal 9600-28K baud
> rates available between the machines is not quite fast enough for the
> customers needs. However, the machines are one mile apart, and the
> customer is willing to string his own wire if necessary to gain
> thruput.  Unfortunately, high speed phone lines are simply not
> available in this area. But it seems to me that a mile is not too far
> fetched for the right kind of direct connection. If anyone is
> familliar enough with the possible off the shelf solutions, please
> email me.

This sounds like a perfect application for Spread-Spectrum radio.  I
know Black Box sells stuff for this.  Basically you just put an antenna
on each building, and you get 2mbps, no FCC licensing.  Furthermore,
you can get a data compression box on each end and get about 3.5mbps
out of it.  That should be more than enough speed considering that's
1/3 of ethernet.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:40:18 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Michael J Kuras)
Subject: Re: Auction All the Spectrum
Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University


[e-mail] wrote:

> Here's how Congress can raise $10 billion a year and cut government
> at the same time....
> Economists have known for years that the best way to manage the
> airwaves is to sell them off in orderly parcels, and then let the
> market decide how best to use them. Recently, however, economists have
> been putting numbers to this argument. The numbers are stunning....

I found this related article in the WSJ:

SPECTRUM AUCTION PLANS MAY ACCELERATE

House Republicans are considering a Congressional Budget Office
recommendation to auction television broadcasters' existing analog
channel spectrum seven years from now as part of a plan to balance the
budget by 2002.  By that time, they hope that most broadcasters will
have moved over to new digital-broadcasting channels.  Current FCC
plans provide broadcasters the new digital channels for free, allow
them to use both digital and analog channels for 15 years, after which
time the analog channel spectrum will be returned to the government.
Speeding the auction process up, although onerous to the broadcasting
community, would still be less drastic than another suggested
alternative, which would force broadcasters to pay billions for the
digital channels in the first place.  (Wall Street Journal 5/24/95 B8)


michael j kuras      www.ccs.neu.edu/~mkuras       [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interested readers are also referred to
the issue of the Digest just before this one (#264) and another writer
who flatly says 'abolish the FCC'.  I'd appreciate your thoughts.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Eric Tholome)
Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It
Date: Tue, 30 May 1995 20:24:45 +0200


My article about my new CT2 phone generated quite a few messages in my
mailbox from various people asking various questions. Since this seems of
some interest for DIGEST readers, I thought I'd take the time to answer
them here for the benefit of us all.


What is CT2?

CT2 is a standard for cordless phones. It is digital and operates in the
900 MHz range. Anyone cares to give more details?


What CT2 handset do I own?

It is sold by France Telecom, holds the "SAGEM" sticker (a French Telecom
company), but is in fact a Motorola Silverlink 2000 product. It is sold
$200 in France (this may sound expensive, but remember that all telecom
products and services are a lot more expensive in France and Europe than in
the USA).


What CT2 Private Base do I own?

A Motorola Silverlink 3020. It is sold $380 in France.


What is Bi-Bop?

Bi-Bop is the commercial name of the telepoint service offered by France
Telecom which let's you use your CT2 handset in the street. This service is
available in and around Paris, in Strasbourg and Lille. France Telecom did
install many base stations (several thousands). Actually, there are so many
that I don't bother looking at the map they gave me when I intend to use my
phone in the street: I simply count on getting the dial tone, and most of
the time, it works!

Bi-Bop lets me call any number, as long as I'm within the coverage area.
Bi-Bop also lets me receive phone calls (this is optional). Because
receiving calls is not straightforward (there is no automatic location
updating), incoming calls will, most of the time, hit my voice mail. Every
time I try to use my phone, I'm notified if someone left a message and I
can retrieve it very easily.

In one word, Bi-Bop is definitely neither as convenient nor as powerful as
a real cellular phone, but the latter are still a lot more expensive than
Bi-Bop, which explains why Bi-Bop has gained some popularity here (there
are around 80,000 Bi-Bop subscribers I believe).

How much does Bi-Bop cost?

Currently, I pay $10/month to subscribe to Bi-Bop, and all my calls
(outgoing AND incoming) cost me $0.20/min extra. I also pay $6/month to
enable incoming phone calls and have a voice mailbox.

A new plan was recently introduced: the extra cost for communications is
$0.35/min, but there is no monthly fee. This is obviously targetting
occasional users (like me!).

Are there other telepoint services anywhere?

Hong kong has a big CT2 public network.
The Netherlands has quite a big CT2 public network ("Greenpoint").
England had four but they are not operational anymore.
Germany had plans to start one but gave it up.
A private operator is about to open another CT2 public network in Bordeaux,
France.
Anyone has more info about these networks, or others?

Some roaming agreements were signed, at least between Bi-Bop and
Greenpoint.

That's it for today!


Eric Tholome     23, avenue du Centre   [e-mail]
78180 Montigny le Bretonneux  phone: [phone]
                    France    fax: same number, call first!

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kimmo Ketolainen [phone])
Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It
Organization: University of Turku
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 21:03:41 GMT


[e-mail] (Jan Joris Vereijken) wrote:

> By the way, the U.K. used to have *four* (correct me if I'm wrong)
> CT2 networks, but all have stopped operations. Damn!=20

CT2 would have been a financial suicide in many countries -- here in
Finland, DECT has taken its place in local area networks, and GSM in
national and international level (~700 000 subscribers in the
population of 5.1 million).  CT2 (known as _Pointer_) was aborted
shortly after its introduction as technically and commercially
unsound.

I would suggest GSM for you too if only the cost of use in France was decent.

I have compiled a short listing of European digital cellular networks'
rates.  The listing has at the moment only prices from Finland, Sweden
and UK. I would appreciate all information from the other countries
using GSM or DCS180


[e-mail]
Studentbyn 84 A 10 =B7 FIN-20540 =C5bo =B7 Finland =

------------------------------

From: Vince Muehe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications
Date: 31 May 1995 16:04:39 GMT
Organization: Primenet


[e-mail] (RC) wrote:

> We're using reachout between two PCs, but the nominal 9600-28K baud
> rates available between the machines is not quite fast enough for the
> customers needs. However, the machines are one mile apart, and the
> customer is willing to string his own wire if necessary to gain
> thruput.  Unfortunately, high speed phone lines are simply not
> available in this area. But it seems to me that a mile is not too far
> fetched for the right kind of direct connection. If anyone is
> familliar enough with the possible off the shelf solutions, please
> email me.

You may want to look into wireless to connect the sites. One possible
solution is to use SOLECTEK's AIRLAN that will connect sites up to
three miles at 2Mb/s (vs your current 28.8Kb/s. You can reach them at
800-437-1518, ext. 3900. (I have not used this product and do not
vouch for the effectiveness of providing a solution).


Vince Muehe

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Allan Bourque)
Subject: Re: Is it Northern or Nortel?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 17:52:42 GMT


[e-mail] (Holly Fenn) wrote:

> I purchased a Northern 61C Meridian system loaded with Meridian mail,
> IVR, CCR, ACD, Meridian MAX, and Meridian Link. For six months I have
> had the worst service and support through Nortel.  Has anyone else had
> the same problem?  I came from a 12 year ROLM background so I have
> nothing to compare this too.  I can't figure out if my frustration
> lies within Nortel's organization, or if Northern just isn't the
> technological giant it markets itself to be?

Nortel/Northern are now the same company.  Northern has had a history
of bad customer support.  In fact, during most of the late 80's, they
did not even deal directly with users, only the distributors.

> Any feedback and/or recommendations on an alternative service provider
> would be greatly appreciated.

Try Wiltel.  They have an excellent TAC center and I have had fairly
good luck with them.


Regards,

Allan Bourque     [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Sven Dietrich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 21:39:33 EDT


Just wanted to share my troubles of retrieving my voice mail from a public
pay phone in NYC:

I went up to a NYNEX pay phone with the keys even with the covering
metal plate and called the main number for my voice mail via
10288-0-516-877-xxxx *bong* <calling card + PIN>. After entering the
mailbox number and the * key, the phone hangs up on me. Hmm. So I
repeat the process. Same thing. Then I tried 1-800-321-0ATT *bong*
516-877-xxxx *bong* <calling card + PIN>. This time I got to enter my
mailbox number, * key and passcode, then a disconnect. So I tried a
different phone (same style phone though). Same thing. Coin call.
Same thing. Frustration builds as I know by now that I *do* have
messages but get disconnected before I can retrieve them.

I finally walked up to a NYNEX phone with *raised* keys and did not
have any problems via calling card. This all happened within two blocks
of 6th Ave and 10th Street. Anyone have a clue what went on here?


Sven Dietrich -- A/UX SysAdmin | Internet: [e-mail] (MIME)
Faculty Support Lab            |    Voice: [phone] |   PGP key via
Adelphi University, New York   |      Fax: [phone] | finger & server


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It sounds like the '*' key on those
phones forces a disconnect doesn't it?      PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Pete Farmer)
Subject: Re: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 16:09:46 -0700
Organization: Tetherless Access Ltd.


> The operator's switchboard had two buttons on it marked 'return' and
> 'collect' and by pressing one button or the other, the money would
> fall in the box or the table would tip in the other direction and dump
> the coins back out to the caller.

A manager I had worked with at Bell Atlantic had once been put into
service as a PSTS operator in Norfolk, VA, during a strike, and
handled calls from coin telephones.  Unfortunately, the training she
got for the position was less than adequate and -- you guessed it --
for her first full day on the post, she hit the wrong button *every
time* she handled a call.  Everyone who completed a call got money
back, and everyone who failed had their money taken.  Nothing like
getting the public interested in a quick settlement!


Peter J. Farmer                Internet:  [e-mail]
Tetherless Access Ltd.         Voice:     415-843-6880 ext.16
2468 Embarcadero Way           Fax:       [phone]
Palo Alto, CA   94303          WWW:       http://www.tetherless.net/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In days of old ... when coin phones had
three slots on the top for money (25/10/5) and coin return slots without
the trap door on the front as they have had now for many years, customers
used to retrieve their own coins from the collection table in the phone,
sometimes even to reuse the same coins for the 'additional deposit' the
operator was demanding.

The old payphones just had a little cup down at the bottom where the
coins fell into it when you got your money back, and less than honorable
people knew you could take something like a coat hanger or any piece of
stiff wire bent the correct way and stick it up the chute where the coins
fell out. Carefully probing with your stiff piece of wire up the chute,
when you reached the table in there, the object was to cause it to tip
in your favor so the coins would tumble out before the operator got around
to tipping it in her favor. For local calls it was no problem since the
money was simply held on the table until the call was finished at which
point the coin would dump in the box. So in the middle of your call, you
stalled for time with the person you were talking to while you got your
probe up there and tip the table enough to get the coin back.  On a long
distance call -- or any call where an operator was on the line supervising
the collection, care had to be taken to not get her wise to what was
going on. Let's say the long distance call cost $2.00.  For domestic
calls -- the norm -- where the table could hold the entire payment, it
would stay there until it was all put in and your party answered, just
in case the operator had to give it badk (person to person and the called
party not available, etc.)

So you would put four quarters in, and pause ... start working on the
table with that little wire stuck up the chute. Meanwhile the operator
was demanding more money, "another dollar please!" ... you'd say,
"just a minute operator! I am looking for more change ... '  <grin> ...
you would get the coins back you started with, and give them all to
the operator a second time.  Yeah right, looking for more change ...

If the operator suspected hanky-panky or thievery of some kind, she
would hit that collect key in a hurry and dump all the coins in the
box before you could get them back out ... and the long time operators
recognized the voices of the children who were the main perpetrators
of the fraud. I got suspended from junior high school for two days
when the cafeteria supervisor at school caught me teaching a couple
other boys how to do it.  The cafeteria pay phone was on a completely
manual exchange; a five cent coin got you an operator who asked 'number
please?' and the idea was to liberate that nickle from the innards of
the phone before the operator got around to collecting it when your
call was finished.   PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #265
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa19073;
          2 Jun 95 2:01 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11680 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:41:00 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11669; Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:40:57 -0500
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 20:40:57 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #266

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Jun 95 20:40:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 266

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    ISLIP'95 a Success (Bill Wadge via R. Jagannathan)
    South American TE (Modem) Approvals ([e-mail])
    Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Paul Cook)
    Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC (Bradley Ward Allen)
    Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC (Steve Kass)
    Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed (Anthony Wallis)
    Long-Distance Carriers and LEC's (Joseph Norton)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: R. Jagannathan <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISLIP95 a Success
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 12:00:00 GMT


Bill Wadge is the editor of an electronic newsletter of Intensional
Programming, called Field and Stream (F&S).  I am attaching his latest
issue regarding ISLIP 95.  (If you want to subsribe, contact Bill at
[e-mail] or see http://lucy.uvic.ca.

-Jaggan

                ---------------

  Date: Tue, 23 May 95 15:56:09 PDT
  From: [e-mail] (Bill  Wadge)
  Subject: F&S: ISLIP95 a Success


Sorry you haven't got a Field & Stream for a while but things got
hectic with finals and preparing for ISLIP 95 all coinciding.

Anyway I just got back from Australia and I'm pleased to say that
ISLIP95 was a real success. (ISLIP is the annual Lucid/Intensional
programming conference, held this year at Macquarie University in
Sydney Australia, 3-5 May).

Obviously not everyone from N. America was able to attend and there
was some concern. However, the concerns proved groundless. It was one
of the most successful ISLIPs ever, whether in terms of attendance,
variety of topics, quality of presentations, and geographical
diversity.

There were authors/presenters from:

AUSTRALIA/NZ:
  Griffith University,  University of Adelaide, University of Queensland,
  Macquarie University, Australian National University, University of
  Canberra, University of Canterbury (New Zealand),

SINGAPORE:
  Nanyang Technological University

JAPAN:
  Teikyo Heisei University, Shimane University

EUROPE
  Verimag (France), IRSIP/CNR (Italy),

N AMERICA
  University of Laval, University of Victoria (Canada), SRI,
  Arizona State, Notre Dame (US),

Topics included

 - Dataflow/Parallelism,
 - Intensional logic programming (modal, temporal),
 - Real time/ reactive systems,
 - Higher order functions,
 - Program verification,
 - Versions
 - Object-oriented programming
 - The Web

Mehmet Orgun (Macquarie) did an great organizing ISLIP95, There was
general agreement that the three day format made it easier to take in. Also,
everyone appreciated the informative "Introduction to Intensional Programming"
(by John Plaice) which opened the Symposium.

We were all grateful to Macquarie University and the MPCE department
who supported the Symposium with excellent facilities, high quality
contributions, and incisive comments and questions from the floor.

Finally, let me give a plug for Sydney Australia - a cosmopolitan city
in a spectacularly beautiful setting. With great restaurants; my own
favorite being the Erciyes Turkish restaurant on Cleveland St in
Surrey Hills. (Disclaimer: I have received no considerations for this
endorsement, though I wouldn't say "no" to a nice Iskender Kebab ... :-)

In the next F & S I'll discuss some of the technical highlights.

------------------------------

From: Swenson the Hardware Helper <[e-mail]>
Subject: South American TE (Modem) Approvals
Date: 2 Jun 1995 01:17:34 GMT


If anyone can provide me with or point me to sources of information
concerning the safety/PTT approvals process in South America I would
greatly appreciate it.  I am specifically interested in Brazillian
regulatory approvals to sell a modem-type device.


Thanks-a-lot.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 11:30 EST
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations


[e-mail] (Tom Steegmann) writes:

> I work for Schenectady County, NY E911, and we are having a problem
> with some of the larger centrex operations (including the one for our
> county office building).  The problem is that the ALI information
> coming from any of the trunks is undependable.  The county government
> is based at 620 State St, but has offices in at least seven other
> buildings all on 388-xxxx.  According to NYNEX, it is actually a
> centrex sitting on top of a PBX, if that helps.

The PBX can be the solution to your problem.

PAT writes:

> In the case of a PBX where all the trunks are at one place, and users
> at an OPX (off-premise extension) dial 9 to get an outside line, then
> everyone is going to show up at the address where the switchboard is
> physically located, since usually when the telco central office responds
> to the PBX trunk it has no idea which user the PBX is dealing with.

> Maybe some readers with E911 experience will write in to tell how they
> deal with oddities such as you describe.

Proctor & Associates makes a product that solves this problem with 911
calls from PBXs.  It is called PBX ANI, and here is how it works:

Our product connects to your PBX, and all 911 calls are routed via our
box, instead of going through your regular PBX trunks.  We generate
your own dedicated 911 trunks that go to the answering point, and we
also generate the ANI in standard format, just like a regular 911 or
TSPS trunk.  At the other end (the Public Safety Answering Point, or
PSAP) our dedicated trunks hook up to the PSAP equipment just like
any other 911 trunk.

With 911 calls, the ANI is sent from the originating CO in a 7 digit
MF format.  The number is matched with a location using an ALI
(Automatic Location Identification) database at the PSAP end.

With PBX ANI, you supply the location information for your PBX
extensions to the folks who administer the ALI database so that all
of the extensions in your system show up with a real location.  In
the case where you do not have DID (Direct Inward Dial, where each
PBX extension has its own 7 digit phone number) you work with the
local telco to assign phony, non-dialable 7 digit numbers to
each extension which are just used for ANI signaling and ALI
database purposes.

The reason we use dedicated trunks for this is that there is no
way to send ALI or changed ANI information over a regular POTS
line or PBX trunk on top of a 911 call.  If there were a way to
do this, then hackers would have a field day spoofing locations
on 911 calls.

For more information on the PBX ANI product, contact Proctor & Associates
at 206-881-7000, or call Russ McCarthy at 714-770-0443.


Paul Cook                           206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates           MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.              fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5378      [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bradley Ward Allen)
Subject: Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC
Date: 1 Jun 1995 17:40:13 -0400
Organization: URL:http://www.armory.com/~ulmo/ (see rivers.html for PGP key)


Sort of.  According to a friend of mine, NYNEX has long been known to
be (overly) cooperative with law enforcement.  What you describe has
something to do with the fact that when you dial the number, the
payphones sending the dialed number to the police are not fast enough
to hear all the digits you dial, or their buffer gets overflowed, or
somehow they cannot receive all the data, so it just hangs up on you.
Dial slower.  But I try dialing slower and that sometimes works,
sometimes does not.  I think the theory is also to prevent people from
using pagers.  I just keep trying.  Certain payphones are much more
annoying in this regard than others.

Each and *every* time this happens to me, I arrange for a credit to be
sent from NYNEX to me for the amount I lost (just dial "0" (operator)
from the payphone where you lost your money, or another payphone; also
hit "#" to speed up the connection); if that so happens to be the cost
of a call on my cellular phone, well so be it, they send me a credit
for that amount, and I say that the NYNEX payphone ate that amount in
coins just so we don't have to discuss the matter.  It's best to have
it done to a home phone number if you can in terms of billing because
those checks are so annoying, but when I was between billing accounts
I had them send me checks instead.  (In either case logging each loss
would be a good idea; I should but don't.)

I sent two $.25 checks in for payment with my NYNEX bill one time, and
they forgot to credit one (the other took 10 days more than the main
money order, which took about two or three weeks.)  I was so mad at
them not crediting my account with it that I made four different
billing resentatives track down what happened to it, and about two or
three months later they finally adjusted my bill for the twenty-five
cents.  I was "overdue" by this .25 for a long time and received
disconnect notices, etc. (although the disconnect notices may have
indeed been based on their late processing of the main money order).

I make them eat their own cooperation in terms of the inconvenience it
causes me.  Obviously someone someplace thinks it's worth their while
for me and their company to go through all this extra fighting and
trouble.  Whatever, I still won't let them get me over on this one,
besides the unpreventable loss in time it causes for me to deal with
this all; just part of living in New York I assume (if it weren't for
NYNEX, New York wouldn't be such a bad place).

BTW, I have no surcharge calling cards; these things happen to me when
I use a coin or a TLC prepaid card to (a) check voicemail (b) page
somebody (usually people I'm emotionally attached to) or (c) dialing a
number or two using my prepaid card.

Even with all this trouble, NYNEX payphones are far and away better
than the COCOTs.  (Should I say "not as bad as"??)  Even when normal
phones say things like "1-800-555-1212 is not a number reachable from
this area."  (I always look up and say, "Gee, has midtown Manhattan
been declared a different country?")

Oops I forgot to realize during this post that when I make billing
representatives spend hours looking for twenty-five cents, NYNEX
includes this in their "cost of providing local service" to the PSC
and the PSC allows NYNEX to pass the cost (surprise!) along to the
rate payer.

I still want *my* twenty-five cents.  If some complacent little old
lady (using my social security money and my bank interest payments)
has to pay more because I want *my* twenty-five cents, all the better.
In the case where my peers have to eat the charge, well, I can't
really say I'm winning much.  Hmm.  Maybe that's why most people don't
ask for their credits ...

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 01 Jun 1995 09:37:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Troubles Retrieving Voice Mail in NYC


In TELECOM Digest V15#255, Sven Dietrich <[e-mail]>
writes:

> I went up to a NYNEX pay phone with the keys even with the covering
> metal plate and called the main number for my voice mail via
> 10288-0-516-877-xxxx *bong* <calling card + PIN>. After entering the
> mailbox number and the * key, the phone hangs up on me.

[and similar trouble with other phones disconnecting]

Good luck.  This is a supposed "anti-drug" technique that Nynex uses
in cooperation with law enforcement officials to deter the use of
pagers for drug deals.  I tried my best a couple of years ago to do
something about it and failed.

Even a pocket tone generator won't help you.  These phones are set up
to detect tones _not_ generated by the phone's keypad, too, and will
disconnect you after some number of tones (with special emphasis on
the * and # keys).

It surely must be illegal for Nynex to be monitoring my conversation
and disconnecting me when they don't like what they hear (the tones),
but neither Nynex, AT&T or the FCC seems interested in this.  AT&T
will credit me for calls disconnected because of this "feature,"
though.

My solution has been to use Nynex phones _inside_ business establishments,
which are less likely to be crippled.  I don't think the physical appearance
of the phone will give you a clue.


Steve Kass, [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, if 'the physical appearance of the
phone will not give a clue' then are you saying this is a central office
function?  Is the CO doing something it was programmed to do in the 'War
on Drugs' or whatever?  Its either the phone or the CO; which?     PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed
Date: 1 Jun 1995 17:04:40 GMT
Organization: York University, Ontario, Canada


In can.general, Lester Hiraki complains about and opposes :

> .. decisions by the Canadian Radio-television and
> Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) .. have allowed telephone
> companies to make touch-tone service mandatory. ..

Note: "touch-tone" = brand-name for DTMF (dual-tone multi-frequency).
"tone dialing" vs. "pulse dialing" is better simple usage.

I would like someone with telcom switching knowledge (perhaps a reader
of comp.dcom.telecom, where I have cross-posted this) to give some
technical enlightenment on this.  Please reply to can.general .

    My (limited and perhaps flawed) understanding is that, where the
subscriber has a choice between pulse or tone dialing, there are NOT
two parallel switching systems at the central office, one for pulse
and one for tone, with the pulse system being cheaper.  Rather, the
switching system is tone based, with DTMF tone dialing being the
primary presentation of the system to the subscriber.  The alternate
presentation of pulse dialing is a secondary "front end" for backwards
compatibility with older systems. (Going all the way back to Mr.
Strowger's techno-response to his competitor's wife being the town's
switchboard operator.)  Pulse dialed numbers are stored and then
emitted as a tone burst into the tone switched system.

   Thus, if the above is basically true, the "extra charge" for a tone
subscriber line is a legal-economic artifact.  It is costing the
telcom more to provide pulse dialing and this is not being reflected
in the charge differential between those who have a pulse dialing only
line and those who have a tone dialing line and do not use the pulse
dialing option. (The latter are fast becoming the vast majority).

The issue is not really one of making tone dialing mandatory as much
as it is asking for removal of support for obsolete pulse dialing.

   In theory, the dropping of pulse dialing support should take the
following form:

[1] All "pulse dialing only" subscriber lines are "upgraded" to
    tone dialing at no charge for specifically that upgrade.

[2] Simultaneously, there is a change in regulated subscriber rates.
    Should this appear as an increase to previous "pulse dialing only"
    subscribers and a tiny decrease (if any) to "tone dialing with the
    hardly ever used option of pulse dialing" subscribers, then it is
    _not_ a trick to make more $ , but rather an economically rational
    removal of a subsidy.

[3] Owners/renters of pulse-only telephones are given the choice of
    (a) bearing the responsibility and cost of upgrading the equipment
        at their (subscriber) end of the line, or,
    (b) paying for conversion equipment at the central office end of the
        line.
    Of course, (a) will be so much cheaper that there will be no demand
    for (b).


[e-mail] = Tony Wallis, York University, North York, Canada.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 95 00:21 EST
From: Joseph Norton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long-Distance Carriers and LEC's


Hi all!

     A few years ago, AT&T introduced a service called "VoiceMark"
that would allow a user to record a message and have it delivered to
the destination phone number of choice.  This service was improved and
later renamed "True Messages."  The service continues to expand, and
is now being offered to many users of AT&T's 1-plus service (as
opposed to Calling-Card users only, as was true in the past.

     No doubt, all of you are more than familiar with the services and
other "store-and-forward" services offered by other companies.  I
mention this service in order to point out my recent experiences with
AT&T after ALLTel began providing local service to my area.

     When GTE served our area, we could usually take advantage of new
services offered by AT&T and other long-distance carriers shortly
after the "Baby-Bells" got them.  MCI and Sprint were even offering
"BOC" billing to us.  After ALLTel began serving our area, AT&T (and
other carriers to a lesser or greater extent) could no longer offer
certain services because of having no agreement with ALLTel for them.

     To illustrate:

     I heard about using "True Messages" from a 1-plus line if the
service was subscribed for.  I decided to try it, and since there was
still some confusion as to who my LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) was, AT&T
added the service to my number.  Next day, I got a call from the AT&T
rep who appologized, but, the service was not available to ALLTel
customers and would have to be removed.  I *NEVER* saw AT&T remove a
service as fast as when they found out their mistake in my case :-).
The service was disabled within about an hour after I got the call.

     If GTE still served my area, I could take advantage of this
service, and the "True Connections" service (Which I used as a GTE
subscriber under the name "Easy-Reach").  Other AT&T programs have
been affected, and Long-Distance Carriers (such as MCI and Sprint) do
not seem to be able to offer "BOC" billing on my regular phone bill.

     Anyone have any suggestions as to how I can use the latest
services from the LD Carriers without moving to a major metropolitan
area?  It puzzles me that a company like AT&T (for example) cannot
offer the kind of service it should be able to just because a LEC
can't handle the billing.  I spoke with a member of management at AT&T
who thought he had come up with a solution to this problem.  Simply
set up independent billing arrangements with AT&T and have them bill
me for everything.  This service, however, is not offered in Georgia,
and so that idea fell through.  Maybe when there's competition between
LEC's, I'll be able to use some of the newer services which shouldn't
have much to do with the LEC anyway, although, I bet that opening a
local market to other LEC's is going to be a lot of fun (well, maybe
fun is too strong a word:-).  Any of you had similar experiences?


Thanks!

Joseph (Joe) Norton <[e-mail]>
Dalton, Georgia--The Carpet Capital of the world

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #266
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa07014;
          2 Jun 95 21:25 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA27857 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:37:05 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA27849; Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:37:03 -0500
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 14:37:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #267

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Jun 95 14:37:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 267

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell Canada Files Rates For Business Local Measured Service (Dave Leibold)
    Motorola Three Time Program Limit (Ken Levitt)
    Re: Bell Canada Pulse vs. Tone (Scott Sarty)
    Manipulative Long Distance Marketing (Richard Layman)
    Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone (David Baird)
    Libel Liability Limits? (Mike Wengler)
    Difference Between "A" and "B" Cell Systems? (Greg Tompkins)
    Conference: Commerce and Banking on the Information Highway (D. St. John)
    More, By George! Coming Your Way This Weekend (TELECOM Digest Editor)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Date: 01 Jun 95 22:58:50 -0500
Subject: Bell Canada Files Rates For Business Local Measured Service


Bell Canada announced yesterday (31st May) the tariffed rates sought
for their business local measured service plan. Bell wants approval to
have the charges in place for 1st July 1997, with a prior year-long
"shadow" billing that will inform business customers of how much they
would pay if local measured service were in effect.

This originally began with a CRTC Letter Decision allowing Bell to
harmonise PBX and Key system rates. The result would be that Bell
could file a "threshold" pricing plan affecting all business lines.
The "threshold" plan would have meant that a certain amount of local
calling would be available for a local monthly rate, after which local
measured charges would be applied.

A Business Customer Advisory Panel was subsequently set up by Bell.
This group of representatives from selected small, medium and large
organisations would advise Bell regarding the proposed local rates
revamp. "While the Panel did not support the concept of local measured
service," stated the Bell tariff notice text, "most members felt that
a simplified structure, without a usage threshold, would be
preferable". The panel's reasons, as listed by Bell, were that this
would be easier to manage, would ensure costs only pay for local calls
made, and would minimise cross-subsidisation of heavy users by low
volume users. Bell now seeks straight local measured tariffs without
that initial threshold.

Bell Canada Tariff Notice 5506 contains the specifics of Bell's
Business Exchange Measured Service filing. "TelecomLink" will be the
buzzword given to this fundamental change in local phone service
billing. All of the following are proposed tariff revisions that
require CRTC approval and could be altered or rejected in the process.

Some of the highlights:

* Business 2-party service will be upgraded to individual line service.

* The former "Business Message Rate" service applicable in some business
line cases would be withdrawn in favour of the new pay-per-call scheme.

* 4-party customers would still have a constant monthly local service rate

* Business lines in some northern points, served by exchanges in rate
group 3A, will retain flat-rated local service. These are for
exchanges in northern Ontario or Quebec whose local calling areas are
counted at 1500 phone numbers or fewer, where installation of local
measuring would not be worthwhile.

* Proposal is similar to Ameritech's scheme in Illinois.

The Charges:

The local call charges will depend on the distance between the origin
and destination exchange "wire centres", similar to how long distance
calling is measured (V&H co-ordinates and all). The four bands and
their costs per minute are:

0-15 km    $0.015/min
16-30 km   $0.020/min
31-45 km   $0.035/min
46+ km     $0.055/min

Charging begins with an initial 30 second period (ie. half the
per-minute cost), then charges occur in 6 second increments (each
increment would be one- tenth the per-minute cost). Thus, if you're on
the phone to a local supplier where the rate distance is in the 16-30
km range, and you're on hold for 20 minutes, the call would cost 20 x
$0.020 or 40 cents in peak times (plus applicable taxes).

Discounts would be available depending on the time of day and day of
week. Local charges from 5 pm to 11 pm weekdays would be discounted
10%; local calls between 11 pm and 8 am any day are discounted 30%;
local calls throughout the weekend (from Friday 11pm until Monday 8am)
would also be discounted 30%.

There are discounts proposed for volume usage, starting at $10 of
local usage per month. The percentage of these discounts increases
according to the amount of local usage incurred per month.

Initially, there would be a $60 cap on local usage charges each month,
but Bell will increase this cap and eventually eliminate this limit
after 4.5 years. For competing long distance providers using "line-side"
access, this would mean expected increased costs of 1.6-5.7% initially,
eventually reaching a 16.4-19.9% increase when the price cap is gone.


Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:250/730
Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 Jun 95 01:30:45 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Motorola Three Time Program Limit


In Telecom Digest V13 Issue 842 Telecom Moderator writes to Mark Earle

 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your documentation above is remarkably
 > similar to the way Motorola has programmed their phones for the past
 > several years. Your documentation would work easily on many old phones
 > from Motorola I suspect. My old 600 channel Motorola phone also went
 > into 'local' or 'test/programming mode' with the same grounding of a
 > pin as you describe it above, enabling one to reset the counter which
 > supposedly restricted programming the phone number to three times.
 > Since my Motorola had a 25-pin thing on it which connected to the
 > battery pack, the way I handled the grounding of the pin was to get a
 > 25-pin connector from Radio Shack. I opened it up, shorted the desired
 > lead in there to another lead coming from the pin on the back of the
 > phone known to be a floating ground.

I have the 25 pin connector, but I need to know which pins to short.

I looked through all of the Telecom Archives and could not find the answer.

Any help would be appreciated.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390     UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Volume 13 ??? Issue 842 ??? Geeze, you are
not behind in reading your mail are you?  <grin> Unfortunatly I no longer
have that old phone, and when it left me what documentation I had went
with it. I hope one or more readers with Motorola phones, particularly
the old, big heavy jobs will write you on this with an explanation of the
pinout. I do recall a pin to the floating ground was right next to the
pin which needs to be held low to go into so-called 'local mode'. It was
a simple enough job in the Radio Shack 25-pin gender changer to drop a
bit of solder judiciously between the two pins connecting them. Then to
get into local mode, you pull the battery off, slide in the modified 25-
pin connector sandwhich style, and reattach the battery to the other side
of the connector.  That brings the phone up 'local'. Then you set the
desired register to zero.  Someone with one of those old phones help out
on this, and write back to the requestor with the information.    PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995 11:31:44 -0400
From: SCOTT SARTY <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Pulse vs. Tone


Bell Canada phoned me (for my personal home telephone) to offer DTFM.
What is interesting is that, now it is CHEAPER (approximately $6.00 /
mo.). I was required to turn in my rotary phone, and use a Vista 200
phone. I have until now been a pulse hold out because they wanted to
charge me more for a service which was cheaper for them. Now that Bell
has a more sensible rate, I have switched. I have not received my
first bill yet, so I have not actually verified this (I don't
completly trust Bell's claims).


Scott Sarty   [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 11:36:12 EDT
From: Richard Layman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Manipulative Long Distance Marketing


1.  The Tuesday 5/30/95 edition of the {Wall Street Journal} had a
good article on ONCOR, the alternative operator service owned by
Ronald Haan, which charges up to $9/minute for calling card calls from
payphones where it has the "privilege" of providing long distance
services.  Well worth reading.

2.  Today, I called Dial&Save, which sent me a mailing on the envelope
stating: Important Announcement for all Washington, D.C. telephone
customers.

Inside it says that we are guaranteed savings 25% below AT&T, MCI, and
Sprint basic long distance rates.  Although the fine print says that
"rates and guarantee detailed in Dial and Save FCC tariff #1" I called
the number they provide for customer service 800-787-3333 for specific
mileage band rates, which they refused to provide me.  The representative
stated "I'm not going to go over your phone bill for you."  I said
"You can't give me specific rates?"  She hung up stating "Thank you
for calling."

I guess AT&T, MCI, and Sprint may not be so bad ... they did list a
chart of international rates, but I make very few such calls, so I had
no real basis of comparison.

Dial & Save, 4219 Lafayette Center Drive, Chantilly, VA 22021-1209
1-0-457


Richard Layman, Mgr., Business Development, and Research Producer
Computer Television Network, 825 6th St. NE, Washington, DC 20002
[phone] - [phone] (fax) - [e-mail]
http://www.phoenix.net/~ctn  (... I know, it needs work)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for providing information
on this charming new arrival in the industry. I'm sure our readers
will swarm over there to sign up with such personable customer service
reps on duty taking calls.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David Baird)
Subject: Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 02:43:44 GMT


I hope this does not result in a flame war, but I am interested in the
collective wisdom of the net on the following topic.

The condo association where I live is in the process of installing a
new intercom system between the front gate (fronting on the street)
and the individual units in the association. The system will consist
of a "phone" at the front gate programmed to speed dial the phone
numbers of the residents' apartments. Thus someone at the gate will
l1G$press, e.g., 02, the unit will go off-hook and dial my land-line phone
number (or any number I tell them, I guess). If the number dialed is
busy, the person at the gate is SOL unless the individual's phone line
is programmed with call waiting. Then the individual on the phone
would be notified of a call, but a modem call would be knocked
off-line (and sending *70 at the beginning of the modem session still
leaves the user blissfully unaware of someone at the gate). The system
which is being replaced is a hard-wired intercom (speaker/microphone
at the gate and in the unit) that is hard to maintain and repair. At
the moment, however, I can be connected to the net, and still know
when the pizza guy has arrived.

I wonder how many people and/or buildings have these "phone" units?
How reliable are they? I guess the answer to this question will
ultimately be how will it stand up to the elements and vandalism?

But more on my mind is how do net users who live in buildings so
equipped deal with modems, etc. on the line "tied" to the gate?
Currently, I do not have call waiting, so incoming calls do not knock
me off line in the middle of a session. I do have Ameritech provided
Voice Mail, so messages can be left for us if my wife or I am using
the modem or using the phone. Will a call generated at the gate ring
through to a answering machine or voice mail if not canceled by the
individual at the gate? I would think it would, so I will then have to
pay real money to listen to people at the gate after the fact. Do you
"just live with this state of affairs" and just accept the fact that
when the phone line is in use you will not know anything about what is
happening at the gate?

Some thoughts I have had about the situation:

    *I have a phone installed in my unit for my convenience and
    use. Since the condo association currently supplies the
    intercom service, the condo association should supply a pots
    line for this new service.

    *While I do not have an unlisted phone number, some residents
    in the building do. They are not pleased to have to turn their
    number over to the management company to have the unit
    programmed for speed dialing. How should one respond to their
    concerns?

    *What should be the association's response to an (hypothetical,
    as far as I know) individual who does not have/want a phone
    in their unit? Does the condo association have a responsibility
    to provide the unit owner a way to be notified of a visitor
    or repair/service worker waiting at the gate?

Am I just being a Luddite on this issue, or do I have grounds for
thinking that this solution is not the best way to approach the
problem of remote notification from the gate? The cost for repulling
pairs from the gate to the individual units, and a new intecom system,
is admittedly greater when compared to the "phone" system's initial
start-up costs. But are there hidden costs, and are there other legal
and/or privacy concerns that will come back to haunt this
installation?

As I noted at the beginning, I hope this does not lead to flame wars.
I know I could easily have a second pots line installed in my unit for
my modem/fax. But at the moment I do not have to incur this additional
monthly expense, and would not look favorably to having pay for a
second line if forced to do so.

I am looking forward to hearing the collective wisdom of the net.


David Baird                 [e-mail]
University of Chicago       [e-mail]
Networking Services         [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The association is opting for the cheap
way out on this. *Good* front door/apartment intercom systems which
operate via the telephone use either CO-provided equipment with dedicated
pairs jumpered into your phone line or they use a control box in the
basement of the building (or wherever telco's demarc is for the property.)
I think the former, CO-based system, called Enterphone, and tariffed by
various telcos was ruled against by Judge Greene with the telcos unable to
sell any further systems and existing subscribers grandfathered. I know
Ameritech does not offer it any longer; all they do is maintain the old
customers of Illinois Bell who have had it for years.  The on-premises
version is called 'Interphone', and was manufactured by GTE/Canada for
quite awhile ... maybe still. Either way, the results are the same.

With E(I)nterphone, the control box (or central office) sends dialtone
to the front gate and a phone there. The front gate dials a three digit
code. The control box (or central office) translates that to a given
*house pair* at the premises. That *house pair* (in the case of a control
box on the premises) or *dedicated pair from the central office* (in
the case of a CO-based system) always stays with the apartment, regardless
of what actual phone number is in use. Indeed, the resident need not have
phone service at all, just an instrument attached to the pair in his
apartment.

So the front gate dials a (usually) three digit code. The translation is
done to a pair. The pair is tested for busy, and if it is not in use,
ringing voltage is sent. The ringing cadence identifies the call as sent via
the front gate rather than a 'regular' call. I think it is two short rings
and a pause, then two more short rings. If the pair tests busy then a
unique call-waiting tone is imposed on the line over the existing conversa-
tion. It also is unique so the apartment user can distinquish a central
office call waiting versus a front gate call interupting a 'regular' call.

The apartment dweller answers the phone and is given up to 45 seconds for
a conversation with the gate. This limit can be set by the installer. The
ringing cadence, as mentioned above, allows the apartment dweller to use
the appropriate answer phrase, or to ignore the call entirely without
risking missing a 'real' phone call if desired. If the phone is in use and
the control box (or central office) imposes the special 'front door call
waiting' tone, then the apartment dweller can choose to ignore it or
answer it. If ignored, the gate is automatically disconnected after about
five or six rings. If the apartment dweller chooses to answer, this is
done in the regular way with a switchook flash. The local control box then
puts the central office on hold and connects in the gate call.

As noted above, there can be up to 45 seconds of conversation. To admit
the gate caller to the premises, the apartment dweller dials 7 on the phone.
To deny admission, dial 9. (This varies by installation also). In either
case, the gate is then disconnected and if a 'regular' call was in
progress the central office is reconnected. If not, then the phone simply
goes dead, or returns 'regular' dial tone if left off hook a few seconds.
I(E)nterphone cannot be used for apartment-to-apartment calls. If the
apartment dweller chooses to admit the visitor (by dialing 7), the control
box sends appropriate current to the gate to allow the gate or front door
to unlatch momentarily. If the system is CO-based, then the CO sends
current over a dedicated pair to a relay near the front door which in turn
throws the relay and allows the appropriate current to unlatch the front
door.

Neither version allows calls from the gate to be 'call forwarded'. This
should be obvious since neither system relies on any specific phone number,
but rather, just a pair of wires from the control unit to the apartment
using the existing house pairs. Likewise, neither version will send calls
to voicemail, since there is no call to be withdrawn after a certain
number of rings. The use of *70 does not affect calls from the gate. In
both the premises and CO-based versions, *70 is overridden by the gate.

In most places, there are at least two pairs in every apartment. At the
time of installation, if you have two phone lines, residents ask to have
the front gate system attached to one or the other. It is not necessary
to reveal your phone number to anyone -- all they use are the pairs which
come there.  If a resident has only one phone line, then often times he
will request that the front door system be attached to the idle pair in
his apartment. He then purchases a cheap ten dollar phone somewhere to
attach on that line in his apartment for door-answering purposes only.

If your phone is disconnected for non-payment (or you are new in the
building and don't have it turned on yet) this does not matter where the
front door is concerned. All you need is an instrument on the pair in
question.  In both versions, it is strictly front gate to apartment.
The apartments cannot call each other, nor can they call the gate.
In high security locations where the gate or front door phone is likely
to be vandalized, special phones with armored handset cables, etc can
be used. One installation in Chicago I am familiar with uses a speaker-
phone at the front door, and a touch tone pad with aluminum buttons to
press. Pressing the first button (always a '1' in their application)
turns on the speakerphone with a 45 second timeout. The next two digits
are translated to the apartment in question. They leave nothing for
the 'guest' at the front door to get his greasy filthy hands on except
buttons to push. No receivers to steal or smash, no phone to rip out,
etc. The speaker itself is mounted inside the wall behind a steel plate.

Tell your association to reconsider what they are doing, and to do it
right. Yes, it costs a bit more, but provides excellent security. Many
buildings in Chicago use the system I have described, along with a television
camera which monitors the gate or front entrance. The apartment dweller
need merely tune on 'channel 3' on television to view the front door
while talking on the phone to the person he is viewing on television.
This is the *only* way to go, in my opinion.    PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:20:08 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mike Wengler)
Subject: Libel Liability Limits?


Regarding the court decision holding Prodigy liable for libel for
'publishing' a message from one of its users, PAT writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the decision was fair and proper.
> ...I support Prodigy's right to have full editorial control over every last
> item on their system if they want. ...

> And I'll tell you who I think will be the next one to get their corporate
> neck on the chopping block: America On Line. Those folks lean hard and
> breath heavily on their user/subscribers also with their 'Terms of Service'
> provisions which the Guides are *constantly* reminding people about.
> Say a profane word in a chat room? Read those Terms of Service!  Put up
> something disagreeable in one of the forums? Read those Terms of Service!

All sysops provide an 'editing' function like AOL's.  I have simply NEVER
heard of a system where an abusive user is tolerated indefinitely.  S/He is
kicked off the system, after being warned.  What constitutes 'abuse'
is, of course, an editorial decision, and warning, and kicking the
user off is an editorial act.  AOL formalizes it in codified policies
because they are big, but EVERY system on the net does it.

The implication of PAT's point of view, then, is that ALL system
operators will and SHOULD be liable for the CONTENT of the postings of
their users.  If AOL should be liable for libel, then every University
or company that allows access to the various fora on the internet is a
publisher.  Guess what?  Sue them and they'll yank internet access.
That is the only 'editorial' decision they can afford.  And what gain
to whom then?  PAT?

WHY, oh why should kicking off a consistent curser or other sort of
obnoxious jerk bring the resonsibility on you of checking the facts of
every consumer's opinion of the product they received (or failed to)?
What possible societal good is served by this policy?  PAT?

No one seems to sue printing presses that I'm aware, anyway.  The
author, yes, the publisher, yes if it has deep pockets, but the
printing press, I don't hear of it.  Why can't AOL be more like a
printing press in terms of liability.  Suppose I run a printing press,
and refuse to print up a bunch of pornography.  Do I then have to not
only READ, but CHECK THE FACTS in everything else brought in for me to
print?  PAT?


Mike Wengler

For PGP, research plans, & more information, see web pages starting with:
http://www.ceas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/wengler/home.html

Electrical Engineering Department              Voice:  716 275-9402
University of Rochester                        Fax :   [phone]
Rochester  NY  14627                           Mobile: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is a matter of degree. AOL tries very
hard to police their users rather than waiting for sufficient complaints
*from other users* as a reason to deny service. If no one complains at
all, a Guide on AOL will still write up a user for various things. That
is a little more pro-active than I think would be allowed if it came to
a court test. If a system is going to be something more than just a
hodge-podge of whatever the users happen to write there, then there has
to be some editorial control. As soon as some editorial control gets
underway, you are on the proverbial 'slippery slope' that leads to what
the editor did or should have done to prevent libel, etc. I think in
general though, it is time for BBS sysops to grow up. If you want to
have a genuine e-zine kind of thing, then play by the rules. If all you
want is to have your hobby, that's fine also, but go one way or the
other. I personally think most sysops would opt for some professionalism
in the way their boards are run. I think the electronic online community
has matured to that point in the past decade. In any event, cases like
Prodigy are what keep the courts busy. We have to save some work for
the lawyers and judges don't we?  Should they have to go hungry because
the rest of us behave ourselves so perfectly all the time?  <grin>  PAT]

------------------------------

From: Greg Tompkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Difference between "A" and "B" Cell Systems?
Date: 1 Jun 1995 04:59:20 GMT
Organization: 4-T Acres


What exactly is the difference between "A" and "B" cell systems?  I am
currently on GTE Mobilnet in Portland, Oregon and was just wondering.

Thanks.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "B" systems are those systems owned and
operated by the local 'wireline telco' of record in the community being
served. "A" systems are those operated by 'someone else'; typically a
telco from another town. Ameritech is the "B" carrier in Chicago because
it operates the phone company here; it is the "A" carrier in some other
places. Likewise, Southwestern Bell Mobility is the "B" carrier in
St. Louis where they are also the phone company, but here in Chicago
Southwestern Bell is the "A" carrier, operating under the name Cellular
One. Is that all clear as mud?  Many/most "A" carriers use the franchise
name 'Cellular One' for their activities while the "B" carriers use
whatever name they use.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: David St. John <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conference: Commerce & Banking on the Info. Superhighway
Date: 1 Jun 1995 06:15:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine


           COMMERCE AND BANKING ON THE INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY

                            July 24 & 25, 1995
                          San Diego, California

ICM Conferences, Inc. (http://www.intermarket.com/infowatch/icm/)
announces an executive conference for financial organizations seeking to
develop business in cyberspace. The goal of this event, headed by
Chairperson William P. Anderson, President and CEO, Block Financial
Corporation, and other Key Contributors is to:

  * Bring Financial Services Providers and "Cyber Entrepreneurs" Together

  * Inform Banks how to meet Demands for their Services in Cyberspace

  * Define the Potential for New Banking Business

  * Inform the Banking Executive how to Optimize New Profit Opportunities


You should attend this event if you are involved with:

   o  Chief Executive Officers
   o  Retail Banking Executives
   o  Delivery Systems Managers
   o  Electronic Banking Managers
   o  Professionals in the fields of Strategic Planning, Operations and
         Technology, Smartcards, Telecommunications, Sales and Marketing
   o  Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Chief Information Officers of
         Financial Sales and Marketing
   o  Those who wish to acquire a working knowledge of cybercash on the
         emerging infobahn

Content and Theme:

As more and more commercial information providers, producers,
distributors and consumers come together to do business in cyberspace,
what should banking institutions know about, and how should they
tackle, the opportunities on the infobahn now under construction? How
can they protect and expand marketshare in the face of new and
aggressive non-bank competitors in cyberspace? How can banks use
advances in technology to provide new services and create new ways of
doing business on this wholly new banking delivery channel? After
extensive research, ICM has prepared a program where delegates will
learn:

   o  When the Internet will safely handle cashflow.
   o  How Smartcards and electronic banking will intertwine.
   o  What leading edge technologies non-bank contenders will be using to
           take away bank customers.
   o  How technology will influence buyer behavior for financial
           services.
   o  What products and services are available on the infobahn for
           financial institutions.

If you would like more detailed information, including a list of
actual speakers, sent to you automatically via fax or US post, you can
make an Online Inquiry (http://www.intermarket.com/infowatch/icm/oninq.html).
If you do not have WWW access, or if you have specific questions, you
can contact ICM Conferences, Inc. directly at [phone].

ICM Conference Guide:  http://www.intermarket.com/infowatch/icm/

------------------------------

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: More, By George! Coming Your Way This Weekend
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 1995  14:30:00 CDT


I have two more great items from George Gilder. An eleventh article
in his series is now available, plus another item where he 'answers
his critics'. One will be transmitted immediatly, following this
issue of the Digest. The other will be sent along over the weekend
as well for your reading pleasure. Naturally, both will find permanent
homes in the Telecom Archives, in the sub-directory devoted to
Gilder's work.


PAT

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #267
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa25794;
          6 Jun 95 1:35 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA21545 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 19:12:11 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA21537; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 19:12:09 -0500
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 19:12:09 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #268

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Jun 95 19:12:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 268

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "net.sex" by Rose/Thomas (Rob Slade)
    MCI Purchases Darome Teleconferencing (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    The PBX Owner's Lament (Kevin Fleming)
    "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work, Which Are Good (Donald Burr)
    CTI Application Wanted For Data Collection (William Boswell)
    Billed Party Preference (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Crossed Wires and ANI (Chris J. Cartwright)
    Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
    Cellular Service in Hungary (George F. Levar)
    Bell Canada Applied For Information Service Trial (Dave Leibold)
    LDDS Cost Information and Quality Query ([e-mail])
    NTI Remote Assistant (Allan Bourque)
    NYNEX CallerID Bug (Barry F. Margolius)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 15:20:21 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "net.sex" by Rose/Thomas


BKNETSEX.RVW   950412

"net.sex:  The Complete Guide to the Adult Side of the Internet", Candi
Rose/Dirk Thomas, 1995, 0-672-30702-2, U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#15.50
%A   Candi Rose and Dirk Thomas (oh, really?) [e-mail]
%C   201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN   46290
%D   1995
%G   0-672-30702-2
%I   SAMS Publishing
%O   U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#15.50 800-858-7674 [e-mail]
%O   317-581-3743 [e-mail] [e-mail]
%P   243
%T   "net.sex:  The Complete Guide to the Adult Side of the Internet"

Sex sells.  Because sex sells, it is often used to promote either an
otherwise lackluster product, or a product which has no other value.
It is, therefore, somewhat astonishing to find that careful writing
and a good deal of research have gone into this work.

Part one deals with email and mailing lists.  Descriptions are
thorough, and there are often sample messages.  The list includes not
merely "kinky-girls" and the like, but social and political lists
touching on matters of sex and sexuality.  Part two covers Usenet
news, with chapters on related discussion newsgroups, graphics
postings, personals, sex and politics, and anonymizing servers.  IRC
(Internet Rely Chat) and MUDs (Multiple User Domains) are described in
part three.  The final section discusses looking for file archives,
various available FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions lists), and
companies with sex-related products.  There is an appendix which talks
about file archiving, compressing and encoding software and formats.

The discussions of general Internet tools are brief, but quite sound.
A list of mail-to-Usenet gateways is the most complete I've ever seen.
(Ironically, it includes the defunct decwrl site, but not the
ubiquitous utexas mailer.)  I'm surprised at a "search strategy" which
uses arcane local commands, but doesn't take advantage of archie.  One
point in regard to scanning files should be made--at least one
prosecution for scanning and making available copyright material from
magazines such as Playboy has been successfully completed, and more
are in the works.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKNETSEX.RVW   950412. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]       | Computer user thinks
Institute for  [e-mail]    | the machine just works for him
Research into  Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/| Monkey disagrees
User                      .fidonet.org|
Security       Canada V7K 2G6         |               - virus haiku

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 18:09:31 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Purchases Darome Teleconferencing


MCI Communications has purchased Darome Teleconferencing of Chicago for
$32 million. The deal, which was concluded about a week ago, created
one of the world's largest privately held international teleconferencing
companies.

Darome, which has 12,000 clients worldwide, now gets access to MCI's
extensive customer base. On the flip side, MCI now gets extensive inroads
into the teleconferencing market. Darome was founded in 1969,  the same
year as MCI was making its first major expansion here in Illinois.

The MCI/Darome conferencing unit will operate as a separate entity within
the MCI Business Market group. The agreement still needs stockholder
approval from stockholders of both companies and clearance under the
federal Hart-Scott-Rodino Act.

According to Philip D. Knell, Darome's president and CEO, desktop video
conference units will be quite commonplace within the next three to four
years.


PAT

------------------------------

From: Fleming,Kevin <[e-mail]>
Subject: The PBX Owner's Lament
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 12:31:46


This weekend, the {Arizona Republic} ran an article in the Business
section about how awful it is that business owners in the new Arizona
area code (520) are having trouble receiving calls from their
customers/suppliers.  Never mind that the permissive dialing period
hasn't ended yet (it's scheduled for 7/23), one guy says that he's
already lost 60% of his business.

Of course, the Corporation Commission has already asked US West to
automatically extend the permissive period (right after US West
extended the one in Washington, I believe), but US West said no. Now
they are in negotiations for a non-automatic extension, but US West is
already denying requests for new telephone number blocks, and the
cellular/paging companies are being hurt. They're out of numbers (or
nearly so) and can't get any more until some time after permissive
dialing ends.

Isn't this getting silly? Have any of the new NPAs gone out of permissive
dialing yet?

On another related note: Recently I was at the local Novell office
downtown, which is located at the AT&T office building. This building
is served by some type of Definity/Audix combo and provides tenant
service to all the non-AT&T tenants, including Novell. I needed to
place a call to a customer that has a number of the form 602-906-xxxx,
a form that's been used here since about two days after it was
allowed. The PBX denied me, obviously it hasn't got the proper
exchange/NPA tables set up. Not even at AT&T.


Kevin Fleming, Reliable Networx, Phoenix, AZ
Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Donald Burr)
Subject: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work, Which Are Good
Date: 5 Jun 1995 04:08:01 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Command


My roommate and I would like to be able to receive FAXes.  However,
due to various reasons that would take too long to get into, we cannot
have a second phone line in our apartment, and we can't afford a fax
machine, or to have a computer on 24 hours a day.

I've heard of "fax mailbox" type services that will give you a phone
number that people can send FAXes to.  Then you call in at a later
time and pick up any FAXes waiting for you.  It kinda works like an
answering machine or voice mail, but it's for FAX transmissions.

Since I don't know exactly how they work, if anyone does, and can
explain it to me, I would appreciate it very much.  Also, what extra
hardware do we need to have in order to use this service?  Will it
work with FAX modems hooked to computers, or do you NEED a fax
MACHINE?

Lastly, I have no idea who offers these services, and how much they
cost.  Obviously, we'd want to try and shop around for the best deals,
and if it's more expensive than the system we're using now, it will
probably be best to make do with what we have.

If it matters, we live in the Santa Barbara, CA (southern California)
area, and our local telephone provider is GTE.  We use MCI for our
long-distance service.

Please reply by E-MAIL to [e-mail].  Thank you for your help!


Donald Burr, ComSci major in training :-)  [by 6/95, we hope...]
POB 91212, Santa Barbara, CA 93190-1212 // tel: [phone] // fax:
564-2315
email: [e-mail] // PGP Public Key - use finger or public key servers
http://www.silcom.com/~picard    ** Uphold your right to privacy - Use PGP.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (william boswell)
Subject: CTI Application Wanted For Data Collection
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 11:28:07 MST
Organization: Primenet


I need a reliable (read rock solid) CTI app that will collect data
from callers via the phone's keypad and save that to a file that I can
incorporate into a database I'm designing.

This is my vision: caller dials number and gets message:

"Enter authorization code."

Caller does so and is authenticated.

"Enter daily sales volume"

Caller enters ##### (whatever number) and terminates with pound sign or
whatever.

Application saves input into flat file for later merge into database.

Any help appreciated.


bill

------------------------------

From: Mark J. Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billed Party Preference
Date: 5 Jun 1995 13:36:28 GMT
Organization: Tulane University


Does anyone know what the latest is on 'Billed Party Preference'(BPP)??

A recent FCC Inquiry deals with 'branding' collect calls (reverse
charge) calls via operators/automated-operator-services on BOTH ends
of the call.  The Opr/Opr-Svc. MUST identify itself to the party
placing the call AND to the party receiving (and paying if they
accept) the call.

We all know about the problems of PRIVATE PAYPHONES (euphamistically
called 'COCOTS') and Private Operator services(?), euphamistically
called AOS'.  MOST of us know how to use 10-XXX+ (soon to be
101-XXXX+) access/identifier codes, 950-XXXX and 1-800- access numbers
which are to route the call via the carrier WE as the caller want to
use (and if it is collect/3d.pty., since we probably have a personal
arrangement with the paying party, we know the carrier they would like
us to use) to over-ride the preselected carrier of the private
payphone owner (even the '0' carrier of the Telco payphone, chosen by
the business location owner).

(In an earlier post, I stated that I would like to see ALL local
telcos/inTRA-Lata carriers ALSO have access numbers/codes as above,
preferably a UNIVERSAL/NATIONAL code/access-number for 'the local
exchange carrier' for use on InTRA-LATA calls, since SOMETIMES,
Bell/LocalTelco IS less-expensive than ANY IXC on inTRA-LATA/Local --
THIS would be IDEAL for private payphone and PBX situations where you
cannot get the LEC '0' services)

Billed Party Preference (BPP) is supposed to use 'LIDB' Line-Information-
Data-Bases, something like the 800 Database -- A 'LOOKUP' would be done
on '0' type calls and the call would route over the (primary) carrier
of the BILLED party, rather than the originating-line (calling) party.
The end-user (calling party) CAN, of course, use a 10-XXX+ to
override, or use 950- or 1-800- 'feature-group-B' access for a
DIFFERENT carrier (and of course, the billed party could refuse the
call).  The only catch to this override is that the dialing party
might just dial 0+ at a private payphone (assuming that the
collect/3d.pty's chosen carrier will be the carrier), but the
PAYPHONE'S INTERNAL CHIPS will route the call with its 'dialout' by
doing a 10-XXX+ or 950/1-800 for the ripoff '0' carrier.

BUT I haven't seen anything lately about implementation of LIDB or BPP.
ANYTHING LATELY???


Mark J. Cuccia

CALL/WRITE/WIRE:

HOME:
CHestnut 1-2497 (rolls to cellphone/voicemail)
([phone])

WORK:
[e-mail]
UNiversity 5-6000 (EXT.5954 TEL; [phone])

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:48:16 EDT
From: Chris J. Cartwright - ELF <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Chris J. Cartwright - ELF <[e-mail]>
Subject: Crossed Wires and ANI


If this has been explained previosly I apologize, but curiosity has
gotten the better of me.  I work on a contract to the miliary and in
addition to making all the computers play nice with each other I seem
to be the local telecom guru.  This does not speak well of my talents
but more the lack of talent around me.  In any event I was troubleshooting
some of our incoming modem lines and caused an odd (to me) situation
to occur.

To explain a little we have 600 pairs coming in from a 5ESS and
several strands of fiber.  A few of these are T1 some 56K but mostly
these are POTS/Centrex lines.  I was using MY-ANI-IS to label the
demarc (cursing my predecessor!) when I slipped up.  I was using a
tone butt set to dial out on each of the lines in a 66 block.  My
count was off and I tied across pins 9 and 10 instead of 10 and 11.
This gave me TIP of one line and RING of another, oblivious I hit the
redial.  The call went out and other than the audio being reduced
nothing seemed odd.  Since the AC and prefix are the same the 301-NXX
sounded like the echo supression was bad.  It wasn't until I got to
the extension number that I got a clue something was wrong.  What I
got was a readback of both numbers simultaneosly!  Yes they were off
by a few milliseconds (accounting for the echo) but if I listened
carfully I could hear both numbers being reported.

A little more information.  These lines can also be connect to AUTOVON
so we have two outdial codes. I was using the commercial carrier for
these calls.  It defaults to Sprint if that makes any difference.
There has also been mention of an ORM (Optical Remote Module?) at our
POP.  So far the facilities telco people only tell me "Nah, can't work
like that". As this is a military intallation I can't experiment with
this as much as I would like.  A few of the questions I have are:

    1) Can this happen in a "normal" configuration?
    2) Is it a security problem for us?
    3) What does the billing system do with this?

I'm sure others in the group will have more questions and hopefully
answers to this one.


Chris Cartwright, Technical Engineer
Mail  [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 13:36:38 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Subject: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls


Hello,

Could someone please explain the mechanism that allows cell phones to
*receive* calls while they are out of their home area? I recently had
the need to receive a call while out of my area (Central Indiana via
Cellular One) and according to the friendly representative all I
needed to do was dial some access code ONCE to unlock the block from
my phone.

He said that once the block is released, I can receive calls anywhere
in the US and all people have to do is dial my number in Indiana
(317-xxx-yyyy) and the system will locate me in any state I am,
without me doing anything special or my callers calling funny access
numbers.

I did not try this (I was able to place calls but not receive) and the
obvious question is, is the guy right? will the system search thru ALL
cell networks in the US trying to find me, or I need to register
somehow that I'm in the Chicago area so that I can be reached there ...

Any explanation of the above will be appreciated. It *can't* be as
simple as what the guy said.


Thanks,

Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                  Kokomo, IN 46904   [phone]
Software Development Tools                 [e-mail]
Delco Electronics Corporation             "Reading, 'Rithmetic, and Readnews"

------------------------------

From: George Levar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Service in Hungary
Date: 5 Jun 1995 15:25:34 GMT
Organization: Andersen Consulting


I have some friends visiting the US from Hungary. They have commented
how inexpensive cellular hardware is here compared to Hungary. They
would like to buy a flip phone here and get service for it in Hungary.
Will this work?? Does Hungary have the same type of cellular system as
the US?


George F. Levar              [e-mail]
Andersen Consulting           [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Date: 05 Jun 95 22:59:00 -0500
Subject: Bell Canada Applied For Information Service Trial


The Bell Canada Tariff Notice 5453 back in 15 March 1995 contains the
proposal to test Bell's Local Information Service (LIS). Bell sought
the approval to have this trial from 1 August 1995 to 31 July 1996.
This market trial requires approval from the CRTC if that regulator
has not ruled on this application already.

Instead of the 976 or 900 numbers, there would be new #1xx# format
numbers to dial (such as #123#, including the # signs). These numbers
are intended for access to databases (perhaps voice, perhaps data,
depends on the info provider). Customers could be billed a flat rate
per call.

Those wanting seven-digit numbers for this service can make use of an
option that sets up a 555.xxxx number seven-digit access.

The Tariff Notice states that 30 service providers plan to participate
in this field trial. The numbers will be available throughout Bell
Canada territory except NPA 807 and independent companies (perhaps
also excluding a few exchanges not converted to DMS technology, unless
Bell plans to complete its system-wide switch conversions by the time
the market trial begins).

Bell South and Cox are mentioned as having a similar setup in the U.S.


Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:250/730
Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (ERIC)
Subject: LDDS Cost Information and Quality Query
Organization: Tyrell Corporation - 800-TYRELL-1 - POP's in 504/816/913/316
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 01:12:43 GMT


Info I'd like to share:

I just went through my phone bill, and found that LDDS would save me
more than 50% off my Sprint long distance bill.  For interstate calls,
LDDS charges $.20 per minute during peak times (8-5) and $.10 otherwise.
Note the peak time of 8-5.  Sprint's peak time ends at 7 pm.  However, the
biggest cost factor for me is the fact that there is no surcharge for
the use of the LDDS phone card.  Sprint charges $1 per call...and I end
up paying $1 each for a lot of one minute calls (for reaching an answering
machine, generally!)

Info I need:

So what does one get in terms of quality of connections and customer
service with LDDS?  Sprint is just OK for customer service (on good days!),
but has great quality ... any advice would be appreciated!


Eric

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Allan Bourque)
Subject: NTI Remote Assistant
Organization: Motorola
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 16:43:09 GMT


Hi all,

A few years ago, my NTI rep gave me a disk from Northern with an NTI
program called Remote Assistant.  This program worked along side
Procomm Plus for Windows, and allowed you to highlight an error
message and via a ProWin macro, copy and paste the message into a
search form that would then interpret the message.  I still have the
program, but it is based on information from release 16, and I am
running release 20.  Does anyone know if NTI still supports this
product, or did they ever?


Thanks in advance,

Allan Bourque     [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barry F Margolius)
Subject: NYNEX CallerID Bug
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 16:32:32 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


I just got a flyer in the mail describing my callerid options (though
I've had caller ID for a year or so).  It suggested if I had any
concerns about my privacy options I could call 890-1900 and the
electronic operator would tell me just what restricts I had signed up
for.  Well the electronic operator said I was not in a caller id area!
I then called from line 2 to line 1 just to verify things, and caller id
worked fine.  So it looks like NYNEX's automated caller id information
number is broken.  Hummmm.


barry


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By the way, remember the article last week
about how one can call up and get the balance and payment arrangements, etc
on any phone because of the lack of security? It works that way!  I tried
the 800 number given for NYNEX (even though I am in the Chicago area) and
punched in at random a few 212, 718 and 914 numbers. It cheerfully told me
how much they owed, how much their last payment was, etc. You'd think they
would at least block it from outside their region. It did not even cut me
off after one or two queries, but was willing to sit there and keep talkiung
as long as I punched in numbers at random.  What concerns me is that some
people would make those inquiries in a not-so-random way.   PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #268
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa04766;
          6 Jun 95 4:31 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24180 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 21:27:22 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24171; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 21:27:19 -0500
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 21:27:19 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #269

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Jun 95 21:27:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 269

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "Internet Slick Tricks" by Glossbrenner (Rob Slade)
    Any Experience With African Telecom (Tanzania)? (John Palmer)
    Queueing Theory Book Wanted (Jarun Ngamvirojcharoen)
    USRobotics's FTP Site? Where? (Bradley Yi)
    INMARSAT Modems and Crypto Gear (Everett F. Batey)
    International Telephone Codes (Chris Hendriks)
    Long Distance Rate History Question (Dawn Adler)
    Need Help With Codaphone 4250 (Larry Rachman)
    Long Distance Cordless Phone Needed! (Josh Assing)
    Videoconferencing Experiences (Evan Rosen)
    ANI vs CALLER ID (Greg Tompkins)
    Revised Exon Amendment: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Analysis (ACLU Information)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 12:18:29 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Internet Slick Tricks" by Glossbrenner


BKINTSLK.RVW   950411

"Internet Slick Tricks", Glossbrenner/Glossbrenner, 1994, 0-679-75611-6,
U$16.00/C$21.95/UK#14.99
%A   Alfred Glossbrenner [e-mail]
%A   Emily Glossbrenner
%C   201 E. 50th St., 31st Floor, New York, NY   10022
%D   1994
%G   0-679-75611-6
%I   Random House Electronic Publishing
%O   U$16.00/C$21.95/UK#14.99 212-751-2600 800-733-3000 800-726-0600
%O   [e-mail] [e-mail]
%P   271
%S   Slick Tricks
%T   "Internet Slick Tricks"

First of all, "Slick Tricks" is apparently a series.  The intent of
the series is to provide the "essence" of a given topic.  In other
words, this is supposed to be another beginner's guide based on "the
least you need to know".

Secondly, make note of chapter two, and, "The Best Tip in the Book:
Get a Delphi Subscription!"  Ostensibly, Delphi is being promoted
because it was the first of the major commercial online services to
offer a full Internet connection: i.e., ftp, telnet, email and Usenet
news.  (This explains why the World Wide Web only gets peripheral
mention down around page 227 -- Delphi does not support dial-up IP.)

Basically, there is a lot of good information here -- buried in a mass
of text, some jokes, and lots and lots and lots of opinions, all
organized (or, in some cases, disorganized) to present the net to you
in such a manner that certain viewpoints are displayed in the most
favorable light.  Even knowing the material and the key words to look
for, I still found reading this book and extracting the answers to be
very difficult.

I think it improbable that the biases in the work would exactly match
those of any given reader, nor that the book's agenda would correspond
to the reader's needs.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKINTSLK.RVW   950411. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]
Institute for  [e-mail]
Research into  Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/
User                      .fidonet.org
Security       Canada V7K 2G6

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Palmer)
Subject: Any Experience With African Telecom (Tanzania)?
Organization: The Rabbit Network, Mt. Clemens, MI
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 15:39:57 GMT


My company is exploring the possibility of providing IP connectivity
to several concerns in Tanzania (east Africa). Has anyone had any
experience with Telecom in that part of the world? Is there anything
we should watch out for, etc?


Thanks.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jarun Ngamvirojcharoen)
Subject: Queueing Theory Book Wanted
Date: 5 Jun 1995 17:49:12 GMT
Organization: Chulalongkorn University


Could anyone suggest to me a book about queueing theory (a good reference
one)?


Thanks in advance,

Mr.Jarun Ngamvirojcharoen
599/171  Soi Yuedee  Chan Rd.
Bangkolaem  Bangkok 10120
Thailand   Tel. [phone]
E-mail : [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bradley Yi)
Subject: USRobotics's FTP Site? Where?
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 00:52:39 -1000
Organization: FlexNet Inc, HAWAII


Does anyone know where USRobotics's FTP site is? Could you email me the
FTP address?


Thanks!

Bradley Yi     [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Everett F Batey SysAdm)
Subject: INMARSAT Modems and Crypto Gear
Date: 5 Jun 1995 20:57:56 GMT
Organization: NSWC PHD (NSWSES) Port Hueneme, CA, USA


Looking for folks with experience in:

 - Using INMARSAT and similar birds for DS-0 data comms;
OR
 - Using INMARSAT and similar birds for DS-0 data comms with encryption;
OR
 - Folks with long distance packet protocol test info as on sending
of data over 180Deg of terra firma; (eg like Hyper Protocol [Hilgreave]);
OR
 - A better newsgroup in the common distributions (comp, sci, etc) for
Satellite Communications.


Thanks,

/Ev/

[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
[e-mail]   WA6CRE    Gold Coast Sun Users   Vta-SB-SLO DECUS  gnu
Opinions, MINE, NOT Uncle Sam_s | b-news postmaster xntp dns  WAFFLE

------------------------------

From: Chris Hendriks <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Telephone Codes
Date: 05 Jun 1995 01:46:23 GMT
Organization: Kaiser Aluminum


Since the break-up of the old USSR, I understand that all the
component states, now independent, have been assigned new
international telephone dialing codes. I,m sure there exists a listing
of these codes, together with the appropriate city codes ...

I have been unable to find such a list. If someone would point me in
the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated.


Chris Hendriks     [e-mail]


[ELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For starters, take a look at the country
codes files in the Telecom Archives. Carl Moore and David Leibold have
worked quite hard and diligently on these files over the past few years
and we have all benefitted from their work.  Actually, I am sort of
ashamed the archives is a bit disorganized at present due to other very
time-consuming obligations, but I intend to spend much of the day on
Tuesday doing some organization there and getting the files as up to date
as possible regards area codes and country codes, etc. If you would like
to check out the files in the Telecom Archives you can do so using
anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu. When connected, login anonymous, then give your
name@site as password. Then, 'cd telecom-archives'. On the other hand,
wait a couple days and check it out later this week after I have installed
several new files and gotten the code listings up to date.    PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 10:47:18 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Dawn Adler)
Subject: Long Distance Rate History Question


Pat,

I would like to know how much was the average LD rate in the USA back in
early 1900's to 1985? I know right now it is about as low as 11 cents and
as high as 23 cents per minute.

Also what is the average basic rate for a local line? Right now, in
Oakland, Ca (PacBell (: $11.37, Denver, CO (USWest): $18.29, etc. How
much was it in those time frame I mentioned above?

I'm so interested in telecommunications especially with Area Codes,
Prefixs, etc.


Thanks for your time.

Michael Adler    Oakland, CA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In some possessions which belonged to my
grandmother is a small (4.5" wide by about 6" long) ***handwritten***
telephone bill dated March 1, 1927 on letterhead from the Illinois Bell
Telephone Company of 212 West Washington Street, Chicago 6, Illinois,
Telephone OFFicial-9411.  The letterhead was entitled "Invoice For Telephone
Subscription" and it stated in a quite attractive style of handwriting that
the monthly charge for service in advance was one dollar, eighty five
cents. Since I do not know if my grandparents at that time had an extension
phone or non-pub or anything that might have increased the cost of the
monthly service -- and since in those days Bell did not itemize things
on the bill the way they do now -- I cannot tell you what all that
included.  The invoice went on to include the fact that the month before
they had made two Long Lines calls. One, to Whiting, Indiana was billed
thirty cents for two minutes; the other to New York City, New York was
billed ninety cents for three minutes.

At the bottom of the bill was printed the phrase 'your account has been
prepared and verified by Bookkeeper ____ (here was written in the number
397) to whom inquiries, reports of errors and requests for adjustments
should be addressed at the offices of the Company.' Then below that the
printed statement, 'Your account is due when tendered. Payment may be
made by post with your name and telephone number clearly printed on your
check, in person by visiting our Business Office, or to your telephone
man, should he be visiting or working at your premises soon, or that of
a neighbor.' ('Telephone man' was simply the name for a repair tech or
installer -- one and the same person -- in those days.)

Another bill from 1943 was on the same kind of stationary, but had been
prepared by typewriter. The monthly charge that month was two dollars.
There were no long distance calls on the bill. A rubber stamp message
on the invoice had a picture of a very firm looking Uncle Sam with his
fingers crossing his lips, and text saying:

                      Loose Lips Sink Ships!
            When our operator calls you to connect your
            long-awaited call to a loved one overseas --
            a husband, or son, or brother perhaps, please
            do not compromise our Nation's security by asking
            questions your loved ones are not permitted to answer.
            They'd tell you if only they were allowed to do so. And
            when the operator asks you to finish your conversation,
            please do so promptly so that others may speak to their
            loved ones as well. Support our men! Together we'll win!

Overall, telephone rates over the years have not increased nearly as much
as inflation would otherwise indicate. My understanding is that telephone
rates in the very early years of this century were quite high by compari-
son to the 1930-50 period when they came down a lot.

Another peice of literature, apparently inserted with telephone bills in
the 1942-45 era from the telephone company showed a smiling Uncle Sam
and a message saying, "Say brother! Have you got a phone to spare? Since
Western Electric went to war, we just can't keep up with the demand for
instruments to supply to new subscribers. Please help us help your new
neighbors by allowing the telephone man to remove your extension phone
if you have one. That extension phone will be given to another family so
they can have telephone service also. Let's work together in the War
Effort. Together we'll win!" It sounds pretty unbelievable, doesn't it.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 05 Jun 95 13:49:38 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Larry Rachman)
Subject: Need Help with Codaphone 4250


I just bought a used Codaphone 4250, but when I called the Codaphone
customer support line, I was disappointed to hear that they were no
longer in business :-(.

I bought this machine because it has the ability to flash its
'switchook' and transfer the incoming call (assuming the co/pbx
supports this).

If someone out there could explain how to use this feature, I'd really
appreciate it!  You can either email me at [e-mail] or,
ideally, fax me the appropriate portion of the manual or quick
reference card at 516-427-0656.


Thanks in advance,

Larry Rachman, WA2BUX
[e-mail]  -or- [e-mail] - or - 516-427-0656 (fax)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Josh Assing)
Subject: Long Distance Cordless Phone Needed!
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 17:43:49 GMT


I have a problem that I hope someone can help me with.  I live in the
middle of a 5000 acre nature preserve ... (yes it's nice) BUT: I have
no phone (except for the cellular that is way too expensive, especially
when I go online ...), no electricity etc.  (Yes; we have hot running
water and bathrooms ...)

The house itself is nice; and I have 12 volts from a battery bank, and a
generator that is turned on now and then.

I have a neighbor about two miles away (can't see them; but I know he's
there...  over a hill and tress...) that will let me install a phone line
 from the phone company in his garage; and use his electricity to run a
transmitting device so that I can get a phone ... IF I can find a solution.

I would like a 'full duplex' model ... preferably so I can use my
modem and an answering machine; but will live with a simple radio
phone if one exists ...

Requirements: It needs to ring when a call comes in (buzz, jump up and
down, etc is okay too ...) I need to be able to dial out, and use DTMF
tones for long distance carriers and banks ,etc ...  BONUSES: use a
modem with the system; be able to use call waiting; call forwarding
(provided by MaBell); and use an answering machine at home.  it
doesn't need to be 'ultra secure' as I'm using cellular service now;
and anyone can listen in on that ...


Please respond to:
[e-mail]

If you have a solution ... we're ready to pay for a good working solution;
so let me know. I know at least one other house that would be interested
in a similar setup.


 ...josh!    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (EVAN ROSEN)
Subject: Videoconferencing Experiences
Date: 05 Jun 1995 03:04:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom


I am interested in hearing about any experiences -- both good and
bad -- people have had with videoconferencing.  The information is for
articles and presentations on videoconferencing.  I'm particularly
interested in applications, i.e. ways people have used videoconferencing
to achieve results.  Also, I'm interested in cultural issues like
feeling uncomfortable on camera.  This request covers desktop, roll-about
and room systems.  Post your thoughts here and/or mail them to
[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Greg Tompkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI vs CALLER ID
Date: 05 Jun 1995 00:27:55 GMT
Organization: 4-T Acres


The other day, I called a company and requested information.  The lady
said "I have your number as [my phone number] an ANI listing".  How
did she do this?  Is there a device that would let me do this to know
who is calling?  How is this different than Caller ID?

Another question about ANI. I called 1-800-MY-ANI-IS with my cell phone
and it gave a totally different number than what my cell number is.  I
tried to call the number that ANI gave me and it said "You have reached a
disconnected number."  Why doesn't it give my regular number?  I was
roaming once, and it gave me the number of the phone.


GREG


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ANI and Caller-ID are quite similar but not
entirely the same. The end result is the same; the called party gets the
phone number of the caller. From residence phones, for all intents and
purposes the information via Caller-ID and/or ANI is one and the same.

When you call an 800 number, you *cannot* withhold your number from the
called party. The use of *67 is overridden by ANI delivery. Sometimes
ANI is delivered after the fact -- like once a month with the phone bill --
and it can also be delivered in realtime, just like Caller-ID on display
units. Most large companies get it in realtime as well as on their bill
each month.

Cellular phones seem to always deliver 'out of area' messages to Caller-
ID boxes. Where ANI is concerned, they always seem to deliver the number
of the outgoing trunk line on the cellular carrier's system rather than
the actual cellphone number itself. I don't know why. When I used my cell
phone to call my 800 number, the 800 ANI a month later on the bill showed
a number which when traced through the Ameritech Name and Address service
came back listed to something called the 'IBT Company' at a *suburban*
address (even though the cell phone was a 312 number). Further checking
into that address showed it was a telco central office building. Dialing
the number got the message that the number was not in service for incoming
calls.  I don't know why they do things the way they do.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (ACLU Information)
Subject: Revised Exon Amendment: ACLU Cyber-Liberties Analysis
Date: 05 Jun 1995 16:30:19 -0400
Organization: ACLU National Office


ACLU Cyber-Liberties Analysis:
Revised Exon Amendment
May 25, 1995

The American Civil Liberties Union has previously expressed its strong
opposition to the "Communications Decency Act," introduced by Senator
Exon as S. 314 and adopted by the Senate Commerce Committee as an
amendment to the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act
of 1995.

Yesterday, we obtained a revised version of the Exon Amendment, which was
apparently written by members of Senator Exon's staff in consultation with
representatives of online service providers, the Department of Justice, and
pro-censorship lobbying groups.  The following analysis presents the ACLU's
objections to the revised draft and clarifies the ACLU's continuing concern
that the Exon amendment, in its existing or revised form, violates both
free speech and privacy rights.

I. Interactive Cyberspace Must Not Be Constricted by Old Media Models

The most fundamental flaw of the revised Exon amendment is that it still
wrongly attempts to force the new interactive environment of cyberspace and
online services into the censorship straitjacket foisted on old media.  In
fact, the Exon amendment even uses as its model the most restrictive of the
old media.

This is wrong-headed policy. It is also a violation of the Free Speech and
Privacy guarantees of the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

The Exon amendment would make the interactive environment one of the most
censored segments of communications media when logic dictates that
cyberspace, with its emphasis on user-choice and user-control, should make
it the least censored.  At a minimum, the extremely limited rules of
content-regulation for print media, and the safeguards against censorship
for print materials, should be applied to online communications.  The ACLU,
moreover, believes that the characteristics of cyberspace, including the
private and interactive nature of the communication, dictates that
cyberspace should be even more free than print.

We stress that there is no revision of the Exon amendment -- no tinkering
of its censorship provisions -- that eliminates this problem.  The Exon
amendment cannot be "fixed."  It must be rejected.

II.  The Exon Amendment Would Still Restrict Online Communications to Those
Appropriate for Children

Section (d) of the revised Exon amendment would still unconstitutionally
restrict all online content to that which is suitable for children.

Even under existing case law, non-obscene speech that is deemed "indecent"
is protected by the First Amendment.  _Sable Communications v. FCC_, 492
U.S. 115 (1989).  The Government may only regulate indecent speech if it
establishes a compelling governmental interest in the regulation AND
narrowly tailors the restriction to achieve that interest.  _Id._ at 125.
See also _Pacifica Foundation v. FCC_, 438 U.S. 726 (1978); _Carlin
Communications v. FCC_, 749 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1984) (Carlin I); _Carlin
Communications v. FCC_, 787 F.2d 846 (2d Cir. 1986) (Carlin II); _Dial
Information Services v. Thornburg_, 938 F.2d 1535 (2d Cir. 1991).

Indeed, much of what consenting adults prize about some of their personal
communications could well be deemed by outsiders as "indecent" if addressed
to a child.

The revised draft, like the original Exon amendment, is unconstitutional
because requiring users and content providers to reduce their content to
what is suitable for children is not the least restrictive means for
protecting minors from indecent material.  The "justifications" for
regulation of indecency in broadcasting and telephone audiotext services do
not apply to interactive communications, in which users -- including parents
 -- have much more control over the content of the messages they receive.  We
are also prepared to argue that the "justifications" asserted for
censorship in any of the old media, including print, do not apply to
cyberspace.

III. Some Specific Problems in the Revised Exon Draft

Again, the ACLU strongly believes that the anti-cyberliberty Exon amendment
cannot be "fixed."  It needs to be defeated.  So, even if all of these
specific problems were solved, the Exon amendment would still be a terrible
idea.  Still, it may be useful to consider briefly some of the specific
problems in the revised Exon draft.

     *Revised section (d) outlaws the online transmission of obscene
materials without defining "obscenity."  Using the test for obscenity
articulated in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 1 (1973), the federal
government has chosen to stage prosecutions of online obscenity cases in
conservative jurisdictions in order to take advantage of more restrictive
"community standards."  See Thomas v. United States, U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, No. 94-6648 and No. 94-6649.  This trend poses a
severe threat that online users and providers will be forced to reduce
content to that which would be acceptable under the "community standards"
of the most conservative jurisdiction.  The ACLU has filed an amicus brief
in the Thomas case strongly opposing the government's misuse of the
censorship laws.

     *Revised sections (d) and (e) extend liability for transmission of
obscene or indecent communications to non-commercial in addition to
commercial providers.  This change would render the revised draft more
restrictive of free speech than the original Exon amendment.

     *While revised section (f) provides some defenses for online service
providers, these defenses place smaller system operators at risk because
they cannot afford to assert the defenses in court.  Moreover, the defenses
are incomplete and many larger service providers would likely find
themselves in jeopardy at the hands of prosecutors motivated by the
political advantages of currying favor with certain pro-censorship groups.

     *Revised section (f)(2) fails to protect providers who cede editorial
control to an entity "which the defendant knows or had reason to know
intends to engage in conduct that is likely to violate this section."  This
could pose serious problems for Internet providers that may have "reason to
know" that certain sites are likely to contain communications deemed to be
obscene or indecent.

     *Revised section (f)(3) gives the Federal Communications Commission
the power to issue regulations regarding methods in which providers may
restrict access in order to avoid liability. Giving federal regulators the
authority to determine the rules for distributing online content will
radically affect the freedom of cyberspace and will have a severe direct
effect and an equally severe chilling effect on online
speech.

     *Revised section (f)(4) could still make it impossible for users or
content providers to remedy a violation of rights by an online service
provider if the service claimed it was attempting to comply with the Exon
amendment.

Conclusion

The revised Exon draft continues to subject an industry that has blossomed
without government control to an unprecedented amount of interference and
intrusion over content.  It gravely threatens the free flow of information
and the diversity of content transmitted over online networks.

To achieve the liberating potential of the information superhighway,
Congress must ensure that interactive technologies enhance rather than
stifle democratic values.

The American Civil Liberties Union therefore opposes the Exon amendment,
both in its original form and as revised.


ACLU Free Reading Room  |  American Civil Liberties Union
gopher://aclu.org:6601  | 132 W. 43rd Street, NY, NY 10036
mailto:[e-mail]|    "Eternal vigilance is the
ftp://ftp.pipeline.com  |         price of liberty"

** New ** ACLU Constitution Hall on America Online: keyword ACLU


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We'll do that, thank you. Readers: next
time you happen to run into an ACLU lawyer, smile sweetly and tell him
"You know, you look so handsome, so masculine, like such a tuff dude
when you are angry ... "  <grin>.  Quit while I'm ahead?  Okay, but if
they keep sending me these things, I have the choice of pitching them
or passing them along, and long-time readers know I never just pass
things along ... more tomorrow from the pen of yours truly.    PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #269
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa17008;
          6 Jun 95 16:33 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01410 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:35:16 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA01402; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:35:13 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 08:35:13 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #270

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Jun 95 08:35:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 270

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    EMI Issues With GSM (source compilation by Nathan D. Meehan)
    CWA Board Approves Strike Authorization at AT&T (CWA News via Nigel Allen)
    Strange "Crosstalk" Event on the Phone Sunday Night (Robert Casey)
    MCI Jobs Available (MCI Metro)
    Unitel of New Jersey? (Mike Wengler)
    Pacific Territories in NANP? (John Mayson)
    Convergence Research Request (TWarren519)
    SB/SG on Bantam Patch Panel (Peter A. Smith)
    Switchview and Meridian Admin Tool ([e-mail])
    Home ISDN in Canada (Carsten Schafer)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 07:19:36 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nathan D. Meehan)
Subject: EMI Issues With GSM


With the deployment of PCS systems about to begin in the United States and
Pacific Bell, BellSouth, and APC announcing the use of a European digital
technology called GSM, I've read the following articles from Ericsson, text
books and two issues of {PC Week} magazine which discuss an unintended side
effect from GSM called EMI (electro-magnetic interference).

These problems appear to have only become known after GSM systems were
deployed in Europe and portable handsets were in wide use. I wonder what
problems we'll see in the USA with GSM systems?


Nathan Meehan   [e-mail]

                       ---------------

The following is a quote from a new Artech House book entitled, "An
Introduction to GSM" by Siegmund H. Redl, Matthias K. Weber and Malcom W.
Oliphant.

Although the TDMA structure gives the system more capacity, there is a
price to pay.  If a mobile station transmits a burst every 4.615 ms, then
the underlying frequency is 216.6 Hz (=1/4.615 ms), which is within the
audible range.  If, for example, a GSM mobile is operated close to a home
stereo system, this frequency can be heard in the speakers.  More serious
is the impact on electronic devices such as hearing aids, cardiac
pacemakers, or automobiles electronics.  Due to the relativity high power
transmitted in the GSM mobile bursts, they can have significant influence.
Some car manufactures already suggest that a GSM mobile should only be used
with an external antenna, because if used inside, the mobile phone may
block or trigger the air bag or other important systems.  Sorting out and
clearing the risks and nuisances caused by GSM phones adds to the cost of
designing and manufacturing them.

                          ----------------

Risks-Forum Digest is a forum for computer and other technology-related
risks.  This posting is from an Ericsson engineer in Sweden which has one
of the highest usages of GSM.

RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest  Saturday 13 May 1995  Volume 17 : Issue 12

FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks)

ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator

Date: Mon, 8 May 95 10:18:52 +0200
>From: [e-mail] (Torsten Lif - Cyberspace Cyclist)
Subject: Cellular disturbances

I have one to add to the recent article about cellular phones being banned
from hospitals.

A week ago, one of my fellow sysops had to reboot one of our SUN
servers.  He was installing some software on one server when his
cellular phone rang and the console terminal (a VT220-clone) of
another server started "hiccupping" badly. After he power-cycled it,
the server had halted and wouldn't start without a full reboot. As he
was sitting there staring at the row of consoles, his cellular phone
rang (again) and another terminal crashed!  This time it was
sufficient to "c"ontinue the server so there was only a halt of a few
seconds, but the implication is clear.  We carry those cellular phones
to be available quickly in case a server goes down.  Instead, the
phone was the cause of a crash.  The new (European) digital "GSM"
cellular standard produces lots of interference as can be heard on any
radio or even HiFi amplifier within a few feet of a GSM phone in
operation. An apparently "idle" phone next to ny critical electronic
equipment is a time-bomb waiting to go off since an incoming call to
it automatically triggers bursts of transmissions as the phone
acknowledges the call. This means that banning the use of them may not
be enough - people don't tend to think of just carrying a phone as
"using" it.  They must be turned OFF.

As an aside, the previous (analog) cellular standards did not cause
nearly as much interference despite operating in the same 900 MHz
band.  At the worst, they might "blank out" radio receivers
momentarily but we never observed them interfering with digital
equipment. Now, the European Union is pushing GSM as its sole cellular
standard and is trying to force operators to phase out analog systems
to provide more channels for digital.  I think we've only seen the tip
of this iceberg yet ...

Torsten Lif, Ericsson Telecom AB Stockholm, Sweden [e-mail]

                            --------------

Telcos: don't repeat European GSM woes

     PC Week v12, n18 (May 8, 1995):55.

     COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Company 1995

     Europe's personal cellular systems use a signaling and modulation
scheme called GSM. They are technologically advanced, but for one small
problem: They can't be used by hearing-aid wearers. If hearing-aid wearers
come within several feet of a GSM phone they hear a loud buzzing. If they
get closer, the buzz becomes deafening, drowning out even the sound of
their own voices.

     The problem is well-known in Europe, having been reported on the BBC
and other media. With billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure in
place, however, it's too late to change the technology. Modifying the
hearing aids isn't a viable solution, either. With the emphasis on size,
weight, and battery life, there's virtually no hope for improving the
installed base. With new hearing aids the problem can be reduced, but not
eliminated.

     Tragically, it didn't have to be a problem at all. GSM is based on a
TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) scheme that causes the cellular phone
to send out a pulse of radio-frequency energy 217 times per second. That's
what hearing-aid wearers hear. If the system had been built with another
technology, such as CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access), or at non-udible
frequencies or lower power levels, the interference would be eliminated or
greatly reduced.

     The FCC has held its personal communications services license
auctions, and U.S. telcos and wireless companies are selecting their
technologies right now. The builders of European base-station equipment,
giants such as Alcatel and Ericsson, would like to sell their GSM
equipment here, too.

     GSM MoU, the oversight group for GSM vendors, has written to FCC
Chairman Reed Hundt to address the concerns: "Some of the research
suggests that a small percentage of all hearing-impaired persons use old,
inferior-quality hearing aids and therefore may be unable to use high-
power digital wireless telephones, whether they be CDMA, GSM, or AMPs-D."
The letter suggests that hearing aids can be upgraded or replaced, but
doesn't address the attendant cost issues.

     Given what we know about the potential effect of GSM on U.S. hearing-
aid wearers, it's unconscionable that anyone would pursue this option. Yet
BellSouth and Pacific Bell have decided to deploy GSM. I also think it's
inconceivable that the FCC would let each vendor choose a different
standard, yet this appears to be the case.

     GSM appears to have other problems. The power level, combined with
the fast rise time of its pulses, has been reported to cause problems with
other electronic equipment. Sweden bans the phones from its hospitals
because they reportedly interfere with pacemakers and can cause electric
wheelchairs to behave erratically.

     GSM may be a poor choice for mobile computing, too. I wonder about
the potential for confusing the sensitive innards of laptop PCs. I wonder,
too, if there's any chance of interference with emergency communications
equipment used by public-safety officials.

     Why is this important? The technology decisions for the PCS
infrastructure are being made now and are irrevocable once the building
begins. If you're not concerned about the plight of the hearing-impaired,
look at your own situation with enlightened self-interest. If you believe
that GSM is not the right choice, let the FCC know at 1919 M St. NW, Room
814, Washington, D.C. 20554.

                    ----------------------

TDMA phones a bad choice for U.S.

     PC Week v12, n20 (May 23, 1995)

     COPYRIGHT Ziff-Davis Publishing Company 1995

I've seen and heard enough to be convinced. Cellular phones based on
time-division multiplexing are bad electronic citizens. I wrote about the
deficiencies of Europe's GSM standard on May 8, specifically about
interference with hearing aids. The problem is acute, but not limited to
hearing aids. Some common consumer electronics devices are also subject to
interference.

  I've gone into the lab with representative in-ear and behind-the-ear
hearing aids. My tests were brief, but telling. In-ear devices typically
amplify sound only and are aimed at people with moderate hearing losses,
whereas behind-the-ear devices are larger, with more powerful amplification.
Most have a switchable telecoil, which couples magnetically to telephone
handsets so that the hearing-impaired can use telephones.

  I tested the hearing aids with a conventional analog cellular phone,
900MHz and 1,800MHz GSM phones, a U.S.-standard digital phone, and a
prototype phone that uses CDMA, a low-power, spread-spectrum technology.

  The 900MHz GSM phone was the worst offender, causing a raucous buzz in
both hearing aids. With the telecoil on, you could hear the GSM phones'
217Hz buzz from the behind-the-ear aid across the room. The analog cellular
phone caused no interference.

  The U.S.-standard digital phone, which uses a TDMA technique known as NA-
TDMA or D-AMPs, caused a strong 50Hz buzz in both hearing aids when brought
within a couple of feet of the phone. The telecoil could pick up the buzz
from at least 6 feet away. The CDMA phone had no discernible effect on
either aid. With the telecoil on, the aid got nothing from the phone's
antenna but picked up some hash from the internal microprocessor.

  We overrode base-station controls in order to test the phones at various
power levels. The interference diminished at lower power but never
disappeared. It was impossible to use a hearing aid with any of the TDMA
phones at any power level.

  I also tested a variety of laptop computers and a camcorder with the
phones. Standard notebook and subnotebook machines appear impervious, but a
multimedia notebook with a speaker picked up the TDMA phones' 217Hz and 50Hz
mating cries. The CDMA phone and analog phone caused no interference.

  The camcorder, a generation-old, top-of-the-line Sony, turned out to be
very sensitive to the TDMA emissions. Just being in the same room with
either of the GSM phones was enough to utterly swamp the audio circuitry.

  The phones interfered with the video circuitry as well, causing horizontal
bars and tearing of the picture. The 900MHz phone was again the worst
offender, causing almost the entire picture to blank out. The U.S. digital
phone also messed up the picture and its 50Hz growl could be heard.

  The analog phone caused no degradation of the picture, but the camcorder's
audio picked up some of the microprocessor hash from its keyboard. The CDMA
phone caused no discernible interference.

  GSM officials have told FCC Director Reed Hundt that all portable phones,
including CDMA, will cause interference, but that's not what my tests
showed. GSM is a remarkable achievement of standards and technology. But
it's not the best technology anymore. GSM is attractive to some U.S.
providers, but we deserve better.

  Bill Machrone is vice president of technology for Ziff-Davis Publishing
Co. He can be reached at wmachrone (MCI Mail) or 72241,15 (CompuServe).

  Bill Machrone, PC Week

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 01:48:36 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: CWA Board Approves Strike Authorization at AT&T


Here is a press release from the Communications Workers of America.
I downloaded the press release from the U.S. Newswire BBS in Maryland
at [phone].
I do not work for or belong to the CWA.

 CWA Board Approves Strike Authorization at AT&T; Decision Will be
up to President Morton Bahr

 Contact: Jeffery Miller of the Communications Workers of America,
          202-434-1163

   WASHINGTON, June 5 -- President Morton Bahr of the Communications
Workers of America today asked and received authorization from CWA's
executive board to call a strike by the union's 90,000 members at
AT&T.

   Bahr said he will assess the need for possible strike action after
contract negotiations resume tomorrow.  "It will take substantial
progress on some key issues before any settlement is possible," he
stated.

   CWA members at AT&T already have given strike approval to union
leaders by a vote of more than 95 percent, and today's action allows
Bahr to call for a walkout at any time.

   The current union contract between AT&T, CWA and the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers expired on May 27, but the contract
has been extended while day and night bargaining sessions have taken
place ever since.

   However, over this past weekend, "progress was minimal at best,"
said CWA's chief negotiator James Irvine.  "We're still so far apart
on wages and pensions that it looks like AT&T wants to test the
resolve and determination of our members to win a fair settlement."

   The talks were recessed at 5 p.m. Sunday and the parties expect to
get back together tomorrow morning.

   Irvine said other unresolved issues include company subcontracting
of work, transfer rights to non-union job areas at AT&T, union
organizing rights at subsidiaries and retiree health care.

   "AT&T has been investing tens of billions of dollars in new
business enterprises, but they refuse to invest in the employees who
created the corporation's vast wealth," Irvine stated, noting that
AT&T earned a record $4.7 billion net profit in 1994.

   They're nickel and diming active workers and even proposing to
pick the pockets of retired employees on fixed incomes," he said.

                       --------------------

Press release forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by

Nigel Allen
52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]   http://www.io.org/~ndallen
Telephone: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Casey)
Subject: Strange "Crosstalk" Event on the Phone Sunday Night
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 04:01:36 GMT


Had an unusual "crosstalk" incident happen last night (Sunday 6-4,
around 10:30PM) When calling a friend.  I'm at 201-261-xxxx, friend is
at 212-316-xxxx, AT&T long distance company.  Called friend, his mom
answers, says "Dave's not home now, ..." and we terminate the
conversation and she hangs up first, THEN, I suddenly hear, about at
least 3dB higher, one side of some other random phone conversation
(i.e., I hear only one of the two (supposed) parties).  This lasts for
about a minute, then it suddenly cuts out (they didn't end their
conversation, maybe something in the phone system noticed this error
and cleared it?).

Any idea what might have caused this?   I'm sure nothing in my home
(plane ordinary telephone service without any bells-and-whissles,
old Ma Bell touch-tone and rotary phones) could cause this.  And the
computer with internal Zoom modem was turned off.

------------------------------

From: MCI Metro <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Jobs Available
Date: 5 Jun 1995 14:34:46 GMT
Organization: News & Observer Public Access


MCI Network Services is currently looking for qualified  applicants to
fill Mid to Senior level engineering positions in it's Global Network
Operations organization.

These positions are set in a Network Management Center environment
supporting MCIs Customer Networks. Applicants  must have hands on
experience with one or more of the  following:

*Newbridge 3600/3645 Multiplexors
*IDNX 90,70,20's
*Ericsson MD110 Switch
*Wellfleet Routers / Configuration
*Cisco Routers     / Configuration
*Dec Routers       / Configuration
*Remote testing
*Digital/Analog Data products
*Siemens EWSD Switch
*Protocols (TCP/IP, IPX)

Requirements:

Bachelor's degree in engineering, or Computer Science, and  four to
seven years experience in a highly technical test,  development or
design engineering activity. Requires  interpersonal and writing skills.

Positions are available in Cary, NC., Trumbull, Ct., and Rockville, MD.

Please e-mail your resume to:
 [e-mail]-----

or you can snail mail your applications to:
     MCI / GNMC
     7000 Weston Parkway
     Cary, NC   27513

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 11:36:14 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mike Wengler)
Subject: Unitel of New Jersey?


I have just signed an Agency agreement with Unitel of River Edge, New
Jersey.  Like any good salesperson, I wanted to know as much as I
could about this company, so I searched the Telecom Archives for
'Unitel'.

I'll give you the punchline up front: after reading megabytes of archives,
I called 'my' Unitel this morning, and they say they have NO CONNECTION to
the Unitel offering Long Distance up in Canada!  (Which is the only Unitel
that I read about in these archives.)

So now I know a whole lot more about the Canadian long distance market from
reading the archives, but I know NOTHING about the company I've signed up
with.

Anybody know anything about Unitel of 1060 Main St, PO Box 4367, River Edge
NJ 07661-4367?

On the phone, they told me they resell 'Totaltel' long distance on the East
coast.  Telecom archives return nothing searching totaltel.  Anybody know
anything about this?

Thanks for any help in advance!


Mike Wengler

For PGP, research plans, & more information, see web pages starting with:
http://www.ceas.rochester.edu:8080/ee/users/wengler/home.html

Electrical Engineering Department              Voice:  716 275-9402
University of Rochester                        Fax :   [phone]
Rochester  NY  14627                           Mobile: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Mayson)
Subject: Pacific Territories in NANP?
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 12:34:17 EDT


Over the past few of weeks I've seen two telephone numbers for resorts
in the Northern Mariana Islands.  Both listed the numbers as (670)
NXX-XXXX.  Yet when referring to, say, a number in the U.K., they
printed 011 44 ...  Have the USA's Pacific territories been brought
into the NANP?  670 is the country code for the NMI's, BTW.


John Mayson (MS 100/2243) Senior Engineer
Harris Electronic Systems Sector
PO Box 99000, Melbourne FL USA 32902
Voice [phone] | Fax [phone] | Pager [phone]
internet [e-mail] | http://p100dl.ess.harris.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I keep hearing that Guam, etc are supposed
to be changed -- technically at least -- from being 'international' in
the sense of 011 to reach them to being part of country code 1, meaning they
would be dialable like any other area code. I just now tried 1-670-xxx-xxxx
and 1-671-xxx-xxxx. Neither would complete. Of course I know they will
complete with 011 instead, so I did not try them that way. It would be
helpful to find out *where* the literature you were seeing had been edited
and published. I'll bet it was published in NMI, which could account for the
way the number appeared in print, with the writer of the advertisement
thinking to himself 'of course we don't use 011 when calling among ourselves.'
It would be the same kind of thinking which prompts USA companies to advertise
in publications in the UK for example, using only a non-dialable 800 number
as their contact, or possibly to use an area code and number without the
leading '1' as our country code. That being said, I still have heard that
Guam, NMI, Saipan, etc are supposed to 'soon' have their country codes
changes to USA area codes. And don't forget 808: formerly just Hawaii, it
now takes in Midway Island in the South Pacific as well.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (TWarren519)
Subject: Convergence Research Request
Date: 5 Jun 1995 10:12:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (TWarren519)


Does anyone know where I can find information on the 'net regarding
convergence, deregulation, and other market aspects of european telephony?


Please respond to [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Smith, Peter A.)
Organization: Telesat Canada
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 11:12:13 EST
Subject: SB/SG on Bantam Patch Panel


My application involves taking eight wire audio circuits (4W E&M Type
II) from an AMP connector through an audio patch panel to my
communications equipment.  The telco is placing SG on the 4th pair Tip
conductor, however, the test set manufacturers are placing SB on the
Tip of their test sets (bantam or 310 jacks).

Can anyone tell my why the "difference"?  Is it a voltage issue with
respect to monitoring circuits?

I have no problem rolling over the fourth pair of each circuit, but I
was just wondering if there was a reason.


Thanks in advance,

Peter Smith    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Yahoo n CA)
Subject: Switchview and Meridian Admin Tool
Date: 5 Jun 1995 20:53:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Yahoo n CA)


Has anyone had any experience with either Switchview or the Meridian
Administration Tool?  Both are software programs that allow system
administrators to program features (call forwarding, call pick up, x-fer)
on phones off of an SL-1.

These front end programs are Windows based and provides point and click
programming as oppsoed to the arcane switch programing "load" language
used by Northern and other techie types.

Please describe your experience and support by Switchview and Northern
Telcom (Nortel), respectively for each product.  In a nutshell:  does it
work as promised?  Is it work the effort?  Is it buggy?

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Carsten Schafer)
Subject: Home ISDN in Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 21:22:13
Organization: Barrie Internet


My mouth has been watering a while for ISDN at home.  Is there anybody who
is successfully using Bell's ISDN services at home?  How expensive is it?
Do you have problems obtaining drivers for Windows NT?


Carsten Schafer    [e-mail]
[e-mail]
http://www.group.com/cs.html

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #270
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa01693;
          7 Jun 95 2:08 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18905 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 19:35:42 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA18896; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 19:35:40 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 19:35:40 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #271

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Jun 95 19:35:30 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 271

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Bill Seward)
    Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Paul J. Zawada)
    Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Scott Townley)
    Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Tom Steegmann)
    Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations (Mike Wilcox)
    Re: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed (D. O'Heare)
    Re: Telecom History (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Re: Telecom History (Dave Levenson)
    Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Dave Johnson)
    Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Dave Johnson)
    What is: Infotron Supermux 632 (Scott A. McMullan)
    Telnet to Dialout Modem? (Harold Hallikainen)
    Rate of Allocation / Assignment of Area Codes (NPAs) (Ram Chamarthy)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 20:08:17 EDT
Subject: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC


> The Progress and Freedom Foundation <[e-mail]> in Washington has
> released its plan to abolish the Federal Communications Commission.

<snip>

> * Any spectrum that has more than one claimant would be auctioned
> within 180 days. Government would establish standardized spectrum
> parcels for auction.

Oh wonderful.  Rupert Murdoch would own most of the broadcast spectrum,
and public tv and radio would probably disappear.  Along with most
independent tv and radio stations.

< more snip>

> * All restrictions on use of spectrum would be eliminated. Those who
> win title could develop and/or re-sell the spectrum subject to
> antitrust review and geographic and interference boundaries; however,
> legislation would not set forth interference rights in detail.

OK, DOJ would do the antitrust review, but who does the gepgraphic and
indterference boundaries?  Remember, the FCC is long gone.  I guess we
duke it out in the courts?  Like they aren't clogged already.

<yet more snip>

> * Complaint investigation and answering of general inquiries from the
> public discontinued.

So I guess if one of my ridge-runner neighbors decides that he needs a
10 kw booster for his CB, I have to get a lawyer and sue him?  Or should
I just put up with the plumbing picking up his signal.

Sorry if I sould overly sarcastic.  I get annoyed with the FCC at times.
But this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Let's treat the
patient and get him better, not sumarily execute him.


Bill Seward   [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 01:48:30 GMT


Bennett Z. Kobb ([e-mail]) writes:

> * Unless Congress acts to preserve regulations, all FCC rules and
> regulations will be rescinded in three years.
 ...
> * All restrictions on use of spectrum would be eliminated. Those who
 ...
> * Department of Justice would confiscate any devices used in violation
> of communications rules.

Perhaps I don't understand what this means.  All rules and regulations
will be rescinded, and the DOJ will enforce these non-existent rules
by confiscating devices?  Aside from the semantic questions in this
logic, won't the DOJ have to create a special commission which
includes technical specialists and standards definition specialists to
accomplish this mission?  Perhaps it will.  Let's think up a name for
this body...  I know, let's call it the Federal Communications
Commission!

The more things change ...


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 12:15:11 -0500
From: Paul J Zawada <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC


> Highlights from the "comprehensive plan" of particular interest
> to wireless users:

There is clearly not enough "meat" here to accurately comment on this
proposal.  I fear my comments are going to be met by, "OH, but in
section XXX of our plan we propose to..."  Can we have a pointer to
the entire proposal?  Even though I believe my comments are going to
be met with "sudden" answers from this quasi-existant proposal, I will
comment on what's here ... (I've regrouped parts of the proposal in
order to comment on related subjects.)

> * Unless Congress acts to preserve regulations, all FCC rules and
> regulations will be rescinded in three years.

> * Department of Justice would confiscate any devices used in violation
> of communications rules.

> * Complaint investigation and answering of general inquiries from the
> public discontinued.

This is wonderful, especially the last part.  You say the DoJ will
take care of the violators, but the public won't be able to report
anyone?  What would I do if a radio station a block away from my house
upped their power to a jillion watts (by way of the elimination of
regs and restrictions on use policy (below)) and was received by my
radio no matter where the radio is tuned.  (..or if it was received in
my plumbing, for that matter...)  I can't complain about it?  More
importantly, what happens like when a cable operator starts leaking
their signal into the aircraft band endangering lives of air
passengers?  The DoJ is just going to some how know about it without
receiving complaints about it from the public?

It seems the whole idea of "answering of general inquiries from the public
discontinued" seems contratry to the whole basis of "government by the
people" that the US' government it built on!

> * Immediate repeal of all FCC licensing authority.

> * Deeds recorded in a central Spectrum Registry File.

What exactly is the difference between a "deed" and a "license".  Does
taking away the FCC's licensing ability and giving some other
government body "deeding" ability change anything?  The FCC is
actually quite efficent these days in granting licenses. I don't see
why you need to take that funtion away from them (or not give them
"deeding" authority ...)

> * All current FCC license holders would receive property rights in the
> spectrum, enforced by the trespass laws.

> * Any spectrum that has more than one claimant would be auctioned
> within 180 days. Government would establish standardized spectrum
> parcels for auction.

What do you do about Part 15 (unlicensed) and Part 97 (Amateur Radio)
allocations?  Do these bands become a free-for-all?  Will I have to
start bidding against my neighbors to get frequencies for my cordless
phone?  Will I have to give up my Ham Radio hobby since hams won't be
able to compete against big business who want our spectrum?  (We've
already lost spectrum to big business -- opening things up this way
would certainly put an end to Ham Radio above 30 MHz.)

> * Government agencies must "disgorge" their unused spectrum within
> a determined timeframe.

Do local and state government get to keep their allocations?  Or will
my local police and fire deptartments have to end up buying their
spectrum from Motorola/General Electric/Johnson?

> * All restrictions on use of spectrum would be eliminated. Those who
> win title could develop and/or re-sell the spectrum subject to
> antitrust review and geographic and interference boundaries; however,
> legislation would not set forth interference rights in detail.

It sounds like big-business would win this hands down every time.
Antitrust may keep on big company from stepping on the little guy, but
industries with lots of money (can you say "telecom") will be able to
get whatever spectrum they want in order to resell it to the general
public.

This proposal doesn't address how to deal with International Agreements
(which are mainly concerned with shortwave operation under 30 MHz).  What
do we do about that.

I'm also interested in the non-wireless ascpects of this proposal.  How are
wireline carriers going to be regulated if the FCC is eliminated?

Frankly, I think this whole proposal is half-baked and not thought out
at all. (Actually it sounds like its written by someone who has a
really big axe to grind with the FCC.)  I don't think the idea of
renovating the FCC is totally bad but I think this proposal has a long
way to go before it will be serious.  If you can prove me wrong and
show me the whole proposal, that would be great!  (Forgive me PAT, but
I think you've posted one huge piece of flame-bait.)


Paul J. Zawada          Sr. Network Engineeer
[e-mail]    National Center for Supercomputing  Applications
[phone]         http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott Townley)
Subject: Re: Auction All the Spectrum
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:12:03 MST
Organization: Primenet


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael
J Kuras) writes:

> I found this related article in the WSJ:

> SPECTRUM AUCTION PLANS MAY ACCELERATE

> House Republicans are considering a Congressional Budget Office
> recommendation to auction television broadcasters' existing analog
> channel spectrum seven years from now as part of a plan to balance the
> budget by 2002.  By that time, they hope that most broadcasters will
> have moved over to new digital-broadcasting channels.  Current FCC
> plans provide broadcasters the new digital channels for free, allow
> them to use both digital and analog channels for 15 years, after which
> time the analog channel spectrum will be returned to the government.
> Speeding the auction process up, although onerous to the broadcasting
> community, would still be less drastic than another suggested
> alternative, which would force broadcasters to pay billions for the
> digital channels in the first place.  (Wall Street Journal 5/24/95 B8)

Here's a thought ... at least the HDTV vendors will now have a completely
captive market.  Hell, NTSC had to be compatible with B+W so as not to
require all to purchase new receivers, but now ... guaranteed sales, and
up front, too, if you want your MTV (or whatever else).


scott townley   [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 14:56:56 -0800
Subject: Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations


> Maybe some readers with E911 experience will write in to tell how they
> deal with oddities such as you describe. One of the reasons I have not
> bothered with CID Name and Number (we can now get this enhanced service
> if we buy new Caller ID boxes) is that a friend who has it says there
> is little consistency in how the listings come through. Residences are
> almost always consistently correct, but the large companies with DID,
> Centrex, humongous PBX's and other specialized arrangements are likely
> to come through with the 'name' given as whatever someone punched in
> when the order was being installed, if they bothered to punch in anything
> at all. In a few cases here, entire prefixes although working show up as
> 'no information listed' when you try to cross-check through the Name and
> Address service. And my friend with CID Name and Number service says
> in the case of large companies calling him, quite often the number will be
> displayed as one of the lines used for outgoing calls with the 'name'
> given as 'Unknown' or 'Not Listed' -- not to be confused with non-pub
> numbers which are not listed with directory assistance but do show up
> with name and number via Caller-ID.     PAT]

    What your friend told you is correct.  Residences, for the
most part are correct in the NYNEX E911 database maintained in
Syracuse, NY.  On the other hand, any large business is bound to be
screwed up.  This is a big problem here.  We have General Electric at
several locations, with 12 or 15 thousand employees, most of them with
phones.  We also have many other plants and campuses with outdated
phone equipment that returns all sorts of garbage in the ALI E911
database.  Another problem we recently came accross, which I hope is
specific to NYNEX (wouldnt surprise me) is that anywhere you have more
than one payphones owned on a single account (GE, or some of the
hospitals here are good examples), the ALI will never be correct.  Any
time a service change is performed on ONE of the phones, the ALI
information (for my purposes the address and Emergency Service Zone
numer) for ALL of the phones on that account are mass updated.  This
is just plain wrong.  Nobody in NYNEX has offered us a satisfactory
explination as to why this happens, or how to stop it, but if it is a
big problem in a small town like Schenectady, it must be a real pain
elsewhere.  Is this a problem elsewhere?  If so, have any of you dealt
with it?  (turning off the ALI screen, as NYNEX suggests, is not
dealing with it).  Once again, thanks for any help.  From my original
posting, I received some very useful suggestions.


Tom Steegmann
Schenectady County E911
[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Mike_Wilcox <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ALI From Centrex With Many Locations
Date: 6 Jun 1995 01:57:42 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation, Folsom CA, USA


We have an AT&T G3r PBX and are installing 13 ISDN PRI T1s to handle
our local traffic.

Pac*Bell is starting trials of a new service that will allow us to
send calling station ID down the PRI to E911. We are responsible for
updating the E911 database as we add, move, and change stations. We
should be up in the October timeframe.

Let me know if I can help further.


Mike Wilcox    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:37:02 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Northern Telecom


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Anthony
Wallis) wrote:

> In can.general, Lester Hiraki complains about and opposes :

>> .. decisions by the Canadian Radio-television and
>> Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) .. have allowed telephone
>> companies to make touch-tone service mandatory. ..

The problem here is that the CRTC has allowed Bell Canada to make tone
dialing mandatory for all service changes.  If you move, change
numbers, add a new line, whatever, the new service *must be* tone
dial. The subscriber has no choice.

The problem here is that Bell charges *extra* for tone dialing, not
less.  Yep, there's a surcharge on tone dial lines, even though, in
theory, it costs them less to provide.

Disclaimer: I work for Northern Telecom.  The above statements, of course,
do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer or associates.


David O'Heare [phone] (W) [phone] (H)
email: [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Mark J. Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom History
Date: 06 Jun 1995 21:07:22 GMT
Organization: Tulane University


A picture of the 'golden' statue appeared on an AT&T publication on
telecomm.history about 10 years ago, 'Events in Telecommunications
History'.  This book originally was published probably in the late 1950's
as 'Events in Telephone History' and I think that there are still recent
editions/revisions (like a 1993 edition);

AT&T still used the statue logo in the 'masthead'/table of contents of
"Bell Telephone Magazine" in the early 1960's issues.

As for the 'circle' I think that had an older more realisitc looking Bell
with the words Bell System, each word on different line ('Bell' over
'System'), with an outer circle - the inscription between the concentric
circles - American Telephone & Telegraph Company written clockwise on the
top half and 'And Associated Companies' written counterclockwise along
the bottom half.  These inscriptions were discontinued around 1964.  The
present Bell logo came into use around 1969.

In the 30's and earlier, the Bell in the circles, still more realistic,
was more rounded than the 1950's/60's.  In the teens' and probably
earlier, the words 'Bell System' did not appear inside the Bell, but
'Local and Long Distance Telephone' - Bell and AT&T inscriptions usually
appeard near the 'Bell'.

I'm writing from memory (Not that I was around back then -- I'm only
34 -- but I've seen these logos many times over in my reading and
research), but someone else who has these logos in front of them might
give a better description.


MARK

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Telecom History
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 19:35:16 GMT


Greg Schumacher ([e-mail]) writes:

> My question is this: The frontispiece is a photo of a statue labeled
> "Spirit of Communication". The statue is a winged nude male in the
> classic roman style holding up 3 lightning bolts in his left hand and
> holding the end of a thick cable in his right hand. This cable is
> coiled around his arm and midriff providing "some" modesty. Does
> anybody know the origin or location of this statue and where it is
> today?

I saw that statue some years ago in the lobby of the then-new AT&T
Corporate Headquarters building at 550 Madison Avenue in Midtown
Manhattan, New York City.  This is the building designed by Phillip
Johnson, and is distinct on the New York City skyline with its
Chippendale roofline.  The statue was moved to this building from
the former AT&T HQ in downtown Manhattan.

With all of the corporate down-sizing going on, I have heard that
AT&T no-longer requires all of the space available in the 550
Madison building, and has has sold (or wants to sell) the building.
If this happens, and if AT&T moves out, the statue is likely to be
moved again.  (I wonder if we'll see it one day at the AT&T
Communications headquarters building, a couple of miles from here,
in Basking Ridge, NJ.)


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Johnson)
Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dave Johnson)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 02:57:47 GMT


Eric Tholome ([e-mail]) writes:

> I thought I'd let you know that I just bought a CT2 phone (digital
> cordless phone) and I love it. Is it popular in the U.S.?

Well Eric, not yet.  Bandwidth (1.9 GHz range) was only allocated in
the states a few weeks ago.  The protocol to be used has not yet been
determined; however, Canada's NorTel had developed the CT2+ protocol
(& turned down a CT3 protocol from Ericson) about two years ago.
Residential product has not been made available for sale yet, but
private (campus, institutional and corporate) systems have been
available & being sold since then.  The protocol up here includes
handoff between multiple cell sites while in motion (at walking
speeds) with the same quality of signal you enjoy.  The only
difference is that we had allocated the mid-900's MHz bandwidth for
the transmission, and that our regulatory body - the CRTC, has not yet
allocated bandwidth for the public networks (although it is strongly
expected that we will follow the Yanks on Frequency, and NorTel is
already testing 1.9 GHz transceiver elements to work on thier existing
platform).

We do things a bit differently up here but the technology has been
designed to ultimately integrate a portable into all functionality of
a PBX or Centrex service, a future public network (like your
zone-phones) and a personal transceiver for your home.

The ultimate concept here is to create an environment where a single
portable phone can be used at the home, in the public network, or even
at your office (through your PBX, Key System or Centrex).

Pretty Cool, Huh?!?!


David Johnson, Account Manager, TTS Meridian Systems Inc.
Wired and Wireless, Voice, Data and Image Integration.
Internet @:  [e-mail]
Voice:  [phone]   Fax:  [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Johnson)
Subject: Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dave Johnson)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 03:20:23 GMT


Thomas P. Brisco ([e-mail]) writes:

>     I've been working with someone locally to try and get a
> Fax-On-Demand system ("single call" configuration) -- and I'm
> attempting to have it as closely integrated into the existing
> environment as possible.

>     Our Meridian reps aren't making this easy.

>     Our tech rep indicates that our "Meridian SL1 with Option 61"
> can hand off an analog line.  However, I also know that we're running
> some digital protocol between the PBX and our multi-line sets.  When I
> inquire as to what this protocol is, he tells me "Its digital" (big
> help).  This makes me worried about his information regarding the
> ability to do an analog handoff.

>     Additionally; I've been working with a different group here as
> well and attempting to verify the configuration of the switch.  The
> salescritter and tech rep claim "it can't be done".  We're looking for
> some way to "map out" the configuration showing what calls should be
> going where when (this is primarily to verify that the system is
> configured the way that we believe it is.)  To me, this sounds like a
> relatively straight-foward graphing problem.  The tough part is
> getting the configuration data off the blasted machine.  Again, the
> critters we have servicing us indicate that this is some hugely
> complex task -- which (frankly) I just don't believe.  There's backups
>  -- but it's on some seriously screwy *4MB* (yes, 4MB) 3.25" floppy.
> I'd be interested also in finding out where I could get one of these
> drives.

Well it can be done, and actually I too am a sales critter.  There are a
few methods:

1.    Upgrade your Option 61 software (if not current) to accomodate the
    most recent version (9) of Meridian Mail (voice mail platform).
    The release 9 has an inherent fax on demand capability using the
    processor as a server and its associated HD to spool.  You can
    also tack voice forms onto this voice mail platform.  The
    proprietary voice card of Meridian Mail performs the interactive
    voice prompting for the document to fax back.

2.    You can run some of the NorTel IVR products through your switch
    and integrate totally, as well as offer a platform from which you
    can automate many other inbound voice transactions.

3.    You can run either a fax on demand box or IVR system off of an anologue
    line connected to your PBX.  This doesn't integrate very
    completely though.


David Johnson, Account Manager, TTS Meridian Systems Inc.
Wired and Wireless, Voice, Data and Image Integration.
Internet @:  [e-mail]
Voice:  [phone]   Fax:  [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott A. McMullan)
Subject: What is: Infotron Supermux 632
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 19:08:20 GMT


I was poking around at a surplus sale, and one lot contained three of
the above-mentioned "Infotron Supermux 632" boxes.

Anyone know if these are worth anything to anyone?  There were other
items in the lot that interested me, but I wouldn't know what to do
with these.  Each one appeared to contain 8 "channel" cards, and one
"system" card, with a mess of what looked like serial ports on the
back.

Any information appreciated.  If you're interested in buying these,
let me know, and I'll put in a higher bid for the lot.  Condition
unknown, although they seem to be physically undamaged.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Telnet to Dialout modem?
Date: 6 Jun 1995 17:01:07 -0700
Organization: SLONET Regional Information Access


    Years ago i recall seening some postings indicating there were
dialout modems on some systems that were available for local dialout
use.  WWW and Archie searches last night showed only a system in West
Virginia with dial-out modems.  Meanwhile, I spent several hours on
the phone last night sending data with an average throughput of 300
bps or lower half way across the country, debugging a system we have
in Nebraska.  So ... are there some net accessible dialout modems out
there?  Anyone have a list?


Thanks!

Harold Hallikainen        email     [e-mail]
Hallikainen & Friends        www     http://slonet.org/~hhallika/
141 Suburban Road, Building E4    phone    [phone]
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590    fax    [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 11:41 EST
From: Ram Chamarthy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rate of Allocation / Assignment of Area Codes (NPAs)


I need to know the current rate and the projected rate for the next
1/2/3 years at which the Area Codes (NPAs) are being /will be
assigned/allocated in the North American Numbering Plan (NANP).

Similarly, is it possible to get any information publicly (because
it may be considered confidential) related to the projected growth rate
of new exchanges (for each of the LECs) that would deplete the NXX/XXX part
of the NANP.


Thanks in advance.

Ramakrishna
Switch Systems Planning
MCI Telecommunications
Richardson, TX

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #271
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa02104;
          7 Jun 95 2:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19943 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 20:24:03 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19934; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 20:24:01 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 20:24:01 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #272

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Jun 95 20:24:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 272

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    FleXtel Telephone Numbers for Life ([e-mail])
    Telebit and Sprint Team Up (Eileen Lin)
    ITCA Convention (Jim Herbert)
    I Need Ideas For "Quiet" Inter-Canoe-Communications (John Prichard)
    NMS VOX File Format (Dana Lashway)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: FlexTel: Personal Telephone numbers
Date: 6 Jun 1995 22:21:46 GMT
Organization: 700 Telecommunications


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The following, although an openly
commercial message, was of interest to me since it seems that now
the rest of the world is going to begin copying AT&T's concept of
500 service. If any of our UK readers decide to try this, a followup
and review of the service will be most welcome here.   PAT]

            -----------------------------

       <<FleXtel>> : Telephone numbers for life (UK)

STOP PRESS: 7th June 1995: FleXtel launch new '07' numbers
            in the United Kingdom.


FleXtel Personal Telephone Numbers are the unique, cost effective,
'follow-me' telephone service for your business or personal life with
'free call diversion'.

Take complete control of your incoming telephone calls .

Just one number will reach you at any normal telephone in the United
Kingdom but there are no call diversion charges to pay whatsoever!!

FleXtel service provides a network independent telephone number -- your
new 'telephone number for life'.

FleXtel is not yet another telephone operator. It is a completely new
kind of value-added service which complements the service from your
existing phone company.

You could reduce costs and have the freedom to choose the best deals
available, but all the time being sure of keeping the same telephone
number no matter where you may move within the United Kingdom . (N.B.
Your FleXtel number works in **parallel** with your existing phone
service, so you can start using FleXtel without fear of losing any
calls due to a number change.)

FleXtel not only provides telephone numbers for life, but is also a
genuine low cost alternative to cellular phones, delivering superior
call quality, no coverage problems, and no additional call charge
bills for diverted calls.

Using FleXtel, with a single 'telephone number-for-life', you can
change the destination of your calls 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
You are not restricted to doing this from a particular telephone line,
and in fact you can control your FleXtel routing from just about any
telephone in the world (even pulse dialling phones). You simply call
the special re-routing number, enter your FleXtel number and PersonaI
ID Number using either the phone keypad or a pocket tone dialler, and
within just a couple of minutes your calls will start to arrive at the
new destination you have chosen.

Imagine having a single telephone number that directly connects
inbound calls to you wherever in the country you are, whenever you
choose. That number can indeed become your personal 'number for life'
if you so wish!

FleXtel eliminates any need to give out private home or unlisted
numbers. Yet, by routing your FleXtel number/s to your private numbers
you still can receive calls when you want to! And when you do not wish
to be disturbed, simply re-program your FleXtel number to deliver
those calls to your office, secretary, answering machine or other
service.

Only you will be able to change the routing on your FleXtel numbers,
since access to the special re-routing line is protected by a PIN code
of between four and six digits (chosen by you) which you keep secret,
just like a bank card PIN number.

And of course only you will know the actual destination telephone
numbers. Unless you choose otherwise, all your callers will ever need
to know will be your FleXtel number.

As you can see, it's all about choice. Putting you in control of your
incoming calls. Furthermore, for a small additional charge, you can
even choose your own number from within the available number range.
Just like a personalised car registration number! Pick an easy to
remember number or one which uses the letters on new phone dials to
spell a word, like our 0956 700-TEL number (Ask us about Personal
Selection, Silver, Gold , and Platinum numbers.)

First we give you a FleXtel number pre-programmed to the line of your
choice. Thereafter, using FleXtel, your callers will be calling you
(or your organisation), not where you are.

Deep in the telephone system, high-speed digital exchanges translate
your FleXtel number to the current destination line number and
redirect your calls to your actual location, all in the blink of an
eye. No recorded announcements and no delays. It really is that fast!
Your PIN code enables you to re-route FleXtel calls to any wireline
telephone in the UK. and a change of routing takes only a couple of
minutes!

In traditional call-diversion, your callers pay for a call to your
number, and you then pay for another call (from that number to your
actual location). Between you, you and your caller can pay up to twice
the cost of a normal call that way. With FleXtel it's completely
different. You pay NO CALL CHARGES for the redirection. By the use of
Intelligent Network technology, redirection happens at a very early
stage in the call, so effectively you get free call diversion . All
you have to pay is your of two pounds a month, so you are sure there
will never be any surprises on your phone bill! (Note: FleXtel is an
incoming calls facility; outbound calls are made via your usual phone
company (e.g. BT, Mercury or whoever).

As you might expect from a high quality service, FleXtel is fully
compatible with all normal voice, fax and data calls. Such calls can
be routed to any fixed telephone anywhere in the UK no matter which
telephone company (BT, Mercury, cable) provides the actual line.

Organisations do re-locate, often from one end of the country to
another. The beauty of FleXtel numbers is that if this does happen,
you can take your number with you, no matter what the area code of the
new location is!.  Calls will start to arrive at your new location
within a couple of minutes, just as soon as you instruct the automatic
FleXtel system where to deliver your calls.

As you probably know, most UK telephone numbers changed completely on
16th April 1995. But FleXtel subscribers' numbers did not change. So
you can see how the unique FleXtel service protects your organisation
against the ill-effects of involuntary number changes.

Ex-directory? Or do you want your FleXtel number listed?  It's your
choice! If you wish, you get a free entry in the BT telephone
directory of your choice, and a free entry in the Yellow Pages and
Thomson Local directories as well!. (You choose whether or not your
FleXtel listing replaces or is in addition to any existing directory
entries.)

Or you can be completely ex-directory, if you prefer.  Again, the
choice is yours.

The possibilities are endless, but here are a few of the
applications already benefitting from FleXtel:
    Self-employed people and small businesses.
    Out-of-hours 'hotlines' .
    Answering and messaging services.
    International business people who need a UK number.
    (Note: FleXtel service now includes Jersey (+44 1534),
           Guernsey, Alderney and Sark (+44 1481)
    Teleworkers
    Clubs, associations and the voluntary sector.

In addition to all UK fixed (01) telephone numbers, your FleXtel
number can also route your calls to pagers, to BT VoiceBank, Mercury
one2one phones as well as Orange LocalNumber mobile telephones. Of
course you can also route calls to all direct dialled Freephone
(0800/0500) and local call rate numbers (0345/0645).

FleXtel is so powerful that it can even route calls to other
operators' personal telephone numbers (e.g. the 0374 CallMe service!)

And for all this, FleXtel still makes no charge at all for diverting
the call to its destination.

(Note: Calls to your FleXtel number cannot be routed to Vodafone or
Cellnet, to Premium Rate numbers, or numbers outside the British
Isles; as calls to these numbers can cost around two to three times as
much as the cost for calling FleXtel numbers.

Remember, with FleXtel you NEVER pay for incoming calls!

Your callers will appreciate the service, as contacting you will
become that much easier; since there will be just one number to
remember no matter where you choose to take your calls. (For a small
additional fee, you can customise the number to suit your needs!).

People who call your FleXtel number pay the new low Personal
Communications Rate call charge. (On 6.6.1995 this was typically 7p
per minute at cheap rate and between 12p to 13p per minute at daytime
rate).

YOU pay no call charges at all for the added convenience of being able
to receive your calls whereever you are in the country!

FleXtel Classic (09567 number) rental is an amazingly low GBP 2 per
month, paid annually in advance. That's right, just TWO POUNDS PER
MONTH! Connection is GBP 120 (a once-only charge payable at the time
your number is allocated); but if you quote 'TELECOM Digest' at the
time you make your order with us, you may claim a credit against
Personal Selection Fees.

FleXtel Business (07 number) rental is GBP 4 per month (paid annually
in advance). Connection is GBP 99.00 and personal selection is only
12.00/year.

FleXtel Personal (07 number) rental is 3 per month (paid annually in
advance). Connection is 149.00 and includes free Personal Selection.

And don't forget that all these charges include unlimited diversion of
your calls within the UK. There are no call charges to pay whatsoever!
(VAT will be added to all charges, except for non-UK customers who
have a valid EU tax ID number.)

Make 1995 the last time you ever change your phone number!

Still not convinced? We offer a seven-day trial, completely free of
charge. During the trial period we issue you with a new FleXtel
personal telephone number and PIN which will be yours to use as you
wish. At the end of the trial, if you wish to continue using the
FleXtel service, you can either keep your trial number as your new
FleXtel 'number for life' or, if you prefer, we will issue you with a
brand new number, personalised to your wishes.

So you can have a whole week to discover the benefits of FleXtel, with
no connection charge, no rental charge and of course, as always, no
incoming call charges. What can you lose?

Call now on 0956 700 835 or on 0701 0700 835 for your free trial
number!

FleXtel has proved very popular with an increasing number of
customers. As a result of feedback received, and as a result of the
availability of the new numbering ranges, FleXtel is now pleased to
announce the launch (on 7th June 1995) of two new personal numbering
services using the '07' prefix (specially allocated by Oftel for the
purpose).

When the revolutionary FleXtel service was launched 18 months ago,
there was a maximum limit of 100,000 possible customers who could have
personal numbers.Since PhONEday, and with the addition of our two new
tariffs (FleXtel Business & FleXtel Personal) now everyone can have
their own personal telephone number.

We are committed to improving and enhancing services while continuing
to maintain the flexible, value for money service enjoyed by our
existing customers so you can be sure that FleXtel 'Classic' will
continue to provide flexible personal telephone numbers for life in
tandem with our new services.

The first customer for an '07' personal number was the famous racing
driver, Stirling Moss (whose racing number, -incidentally, was the
'7'.)

Watch our WWW pages for further information!  (See
http://www.gold.net/users/cw78)

FleXtel provides value added telephone services and is licensed by the
Department of Trade and Industry to operate telecommunications systems
under Section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

700 Telecommunications is an authorised FleXtel number retailer, and
is a division of an established international software and
communications company which was incorporated in England and Wales in
1984.

Tel:  [phone]          [Just dial 0956-700-TEL]
 or   0701-070 0835         [Just dial 0701-0700-TEL]

Fax  [phone]           [Just dial 0956-700-FAX.]
 or  0701-070 0329          [Just dial 0701-0700-FAX]

Or send Email to: [e-mail]
(We accept MasterCard & VISA for instant connection.)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Eileen Lin)
Subject: Telebit and Sprint Team Up
Date: 6 Jun 1995 17:54:33 GMT
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA


TELEBIT AND SPRINT TEAM UP FOR HIGH-SPEED GLOBAL DATA NETWORKS

Telebit V.34 Modems To Help Sprint Provide Electronic Commerce
throughout 70 Countries across Six Continents for Microsoft and Other
Corporate Clients

CHELMSFORD, Mass. and RESTON, Virg. -- May 22, 1995 -- Telebit
Corporation (NASDAQ:TBIT) and Sprint (NYSE:FON) today announced a
business agreement expansion whereby Telebit will provide high-speed
modems and network management software for international on-line
networks Sprint is developing for corporate clients, including
Microsoft Corp.  Under the agreement, Telebit will supply Telebit(r)
FastBlazer(tm) 8840 modems to Sprint for use in data networks
servicing 70 countries across six continents over which products from
Microsoft and other corporations will be marketed and supported.

This agreement extends a five-year business relationship between the
two companies under which Telebit supplies its remote network access
system products -- high-speed modems, dial-up routers and network
management software -- to Sprint for international and domestic data
services.

"A data network of this scope calls for superior technology and high
reliability in order to successfully manage massive amounts of data
across international sites," said Susan Williams, vice president of
international network solutions at Sprint International, Sprint's
global telecommunications subsidiary.  "We've found Telebit to be an
outstanding source of high-speed, reliable modems, assuring optimum
service and support to our customers."

"This agreement points out the growing importance of remote network
access systems in today's business environment," said James D. Norrod,
president and CEO of Telebit.  "With this agreement, Sprint has again
asserted its role as a global data communications leader by offering
seamless services using advanced remote network access system products
to facilitate electronic commerce.  Moreover, we believe this network
will provide a highly efficient method for Sprint customers to sell,
distribute and support their products and services."

The FastBlazer 8840's data rates are among the highest in the
industry, up to 115.2 kilobytes per second with compression.
Available in both rack-mount and standalone configurations, the
V.34-standard modem provides users with maximum flexibility in data
network design.  The FastBlazer 8840 adheres to worldwide government
and industry data communications standards, helping companies like
Sprint in their rapid deployment of data services.

Telebit Corporation is a global market leader in developing and
manufacturing on-demand, remote-access solutions for multi-platform
computer networks.  The company's dial-up routers and modems are
especially well-matched to five key market segments: telecommuting,
business-to-business on-demand routers, nomadic computing, network
access providers, and industrial WANs.  Founded in 1982, Telebit
invented dial-up routing with the original NetBlazer(r) router,
opening the door to on-demand remote access.  The NetBlazer family and
Telebit's broad line of high-speed modems are used by Fortune 1000
customers worldwide for financial, industrial, medical, retail,
government, and academic applications.  The company has offices in the
United States, Europe and Asia, and markets its products worldwide
through value-added resellers, wholesale distributors and OEMs.

Sprint Corporation is a diversified international telecommunications
company with more than $12.6 billion in annual revenues, and the
United States' only nationwide all-digital, fiber-optic network.  Its
divisions provide global long-distance voice, data and video products
and services; local telephone services to more than 64 million
subscriber lines in 19 states; and cellular operations serving more
than one million customers in nearly 100 cities in 14 states.


Telebit and NetBlazer are registered trademarks and FastBlazer is a
trademark of Telebit Corporation.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 15:41:23 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Jim Herbert)
Subject: ITCA Convention


ITCA '95, Beyond Convergence: Applications for an Interactive Age is
sponsored by the International Teleconferencing Association, and is
taking place June 11 through 16, 1995 at the Sheraton Washington
Hotel.

Of general interest will be over 80 educational presentations on
Desktop Videoconferencing and Collaboration, Distance Education,
Telecommuting, Multimedia, and Telemedicine tracks. Also, the
convention hosts the largest exhibition demonstrating telemedia
applications on the east coast, open to the public June 13-16.

A pre-convention forum entirely on desktop videoconferencing and
collaboration takes place June 11-12.

During the convention, keynote presentations will include CNN's Larry
King interviewing Senators Pressler and Hollings, and Representative
Schroeder, on June 16; Bell Atlantic's Vice Chairman Jim Cullen on
June 14; TeleSpan's Elliot Gold interviewing Dow Jones News Retrieval's
Marty Shanker, AT&T Teleconference's Carol Pasavante, and VSI's Dick
Snelling, on June 15.

A special videoconference with South African President Nelson Mandela,
South African Minister of Education S.M.E. Bengu, and Mexican Trade
Commissioner Sergio Hidalgo discussing how interactive and collaborative
technologies can be used to best advantage for trade and education in
developing countries, on June 15.

For detailed agenda and registration information, dial the ITCA
Fax-on-Demand server at 800-891-8633.


Jim Herbert   Association Management Bureau
1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 200
McLean VA 22102

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Prichard)
Subject: I Need Ideas For "Quiet" Inter-Canoe-Communications
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 15:37:49 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I need some ideas for "quiet" communications for inter and intra-canoe
communications.  The Heard Museum in McKinney,Tx has recently started
a "wetlands" trail tour but hasn't decided how to communicate quietly
from the trail guide to the other boaters.  The whole wetlands tour is
brand-new but what they have in mind is to have three or four canoes in
the water with two people per canoe.  However the people have to be
able to ask questions and listen to the trail guide.  It would have to
be lightweight because they have to portage across a couple levees.

I was thinking about those tour (motor)cyclist that use some
communication.  I think it has to be electronic and has to be a
headset/microphone but I would like lots of ideas to think about. The
reason I think it has to be a headset or earphone arrangement is so
the incoming voice signal doesn't scare/disturb the wildlife (have you
ever heard the walkie/talkies when accidently turned up loud?).

I don't exactly know what their operating budget is but considering
they use volunteers for most everything I am sure it isn't much.
Unfortunately, I don't think they can go out and buy 900Mhz phones.


John Prichard
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Dana_Lashway <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 95 18:35:42 EDT
Subject: NMS VOX File Format


Well, I guess that I should check the Internet more frequently.

1] NMS Vox File Format is hardly proprietary, and we'll be happy to send you
a copy. Its pretty straight forward.  Please call 508/650-1333 and ask Marty
for what you need.

2] The creators of ME/2 and VScript were disturbed to hear that they
had left NMS. They are about 50 feet from me now, busy on future products.
The person who designed the VBX-400 just walked by.

3] Our voice compression schemes are "proprietary".  We adopted one of
the pre-G.726 proposals (there were no adopted standards yet at that
time and we had to get to market) and have stayed with it.  Our
competitors chose a different pre-G.726 proposal, so the compression
schemes are not compatible and hence compressed speech files are not
interchangable.

I hope that this helps.  Feel free to contact us if you have more questions!

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #272
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa12415;
          7 Jun 95 8:44 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24136 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 23:55:20 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24128; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 23:55:18 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 23:55:18 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #273

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Jun 95 23:55:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 273

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    An Open Letter to PageAmerica (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Any Experience With African Telecom (Tanzania)? (Peter J. Kerrigan)
    Telecom Managers Listserver (Paul Cook)
    Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (Philippe Ravix)
    Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (Brian Starlin)
    Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Alex van Es)
    Re: Mike Milken - Two Trillion Dollar Opportunity by Gilder (J. Brad Hicks)
    Re: The PBX Owner's Lament (Eric Hunt)
    Re: Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone (Steve Cogorno)
    Re: Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone (Mike Morris)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 13:41:29 -0400
Subject: An Open Letter to PageAmerica


Re:  A Wonderful PR Opportunity ...

 ... to put your $ where your mouth is.  I am a former PageAmerica
customer, with an old NEC beeper purchased a few years back from
PageAmerica.  Since that time, I have used a different service on the
same hardware, and am ready to change from my current service provider,
a local "sleazy" retail beeper store.

I looked around and found that the beeper services in my neighborhood
use Motorola, and won't do a trade-in on an NEC.  So I went through
the Yellow Pages, and rediscovered PageAmerica.

I called the PageAmerica Wall Street-area office here in New York, and
spoke at length with a sales manager.  During the course of our
conversation, I made it clear that I was currently using the NEC
hardware with another local service, and now wanted to switch service
providers.

To my pleasure and surprise, he responded quite enthusiastically that
PageAmerica would be happy to upgrade my NEC to a newer numeric
beeper.  He offered me a NO-COST trade-in *AND* TRI-STATE service for
ONLY $6.50 per month.

And I thought, gee, these guys are brilliant.  Everyone else charges
for trade-ins, plus $12+ per month for tri-state reach.

I thought, PageAmerica is really on the competitive edge.  I couldn't
get to the nearest location soon enough!  But I called first -- to the
Madison Avenue at 42nd Street location -- and confirmed what I'd been
told by the downtown office.  They added that the $6.50 price tag was
conditional on a three-year contract, but everything else was exactly
the same.

Well, I went to the Madison Avenue location this morning, and it was
another story entirely.  I was (rudely) informed that, with the
trade-in, my cost for a new beeper (similarly numeric) would be $50.

What happened to the NO-COST TRADE IN?  I explained repeatedly what I'd
been told over the phone.  They told me it just didn't matter.

Now, this is New York.  I encounter over-zealous selling -- bait and
switch -- and bad attitudes -- every day.  And it's only $50.  But I
do not do business that way.

Is there a PageAmerica exec out there who's willing back up their
employee's commitment to trade in and upgrade my NEC beeper at NO-COST?

I can be reached at 212 684-7210, or [e-mail].

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 16:21:03 -0500
From: Peter J. Kerrigan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Experience With African Telecom (Tanzania)?


You will be stepping into a nightmare. Go get a copy of Paul Theroux's
_The Mosquito Coast_ (or rent the Harrison Ford/Helen Mirren movie),
multiply it by a factor of ten, and you will get the idea.

In many African countries, the phone system (as is much of the
infrastructure) is a relic of colonial times, and is in a state of
shocking disrepair.

Typically, the PTT is stocked with party hacks who don't know anything
about telecom, and won't do anything without a bribe.

I used to work for a company that made microwave transmission systems
that were sold around the world.  We sold a few to wealthy Africans
who spent >$300K on a point-to-point system, just so they would have a
reliable and secure way to call their office from their home(s).  The
systems were powered by generators and watched at all times by armed
guards.

I could go on, but people on this list have heard it all before ...

Extra Credit question:

What do you think would happen, in a largely Muslim country, the first
time somebody took a peek at alt.binaries.pictures.erotica?


Cheers,

PJK

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 16:57 EST
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Managers Listserver


I heard about the following listserver today, and thought some folks
on this forum might be interested.


Paul Cook                          206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates          MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.             fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5378     [e-mail]


CCMI-L on [e-mail] Telecom Managers Forum

   CCMI-L is an open discussion of management, operations, and technical
   issues among managers responsible for voice and data communications.

   To subscribe, send the following command in the BODY of mail to
   [e-mail]

   SUBSCRIBE CCMI-L

   Owner:  Phil Kemelor  [e-mail]
           United Communications Group
           301/816-8950 x418

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 09:17:53 PDT
From: Philippe RAVIX <"frogs::p_ravix"@csc32.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls


[e-mail] (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) wrote:

> Could someone please explain the mechanism that allows cell phones to
> *receive* calls while they are out of their home area? I recently had
> the need to receive a call while out of my area (Central Indiana via
> Cellular One) and according to the friendly representative all I
> needed to do was dial some access code ONCE to unlock the block from
> my phone.

  In fact this is really simple, and will depend on the type of
cellular network used. The function is called roaming. The following
description is for the GSM network, but I assume that other networks
will do similar things.

   When you are in your Home area, you will use many cells (not just
one). Your phone, when power up or after a timer (5mn?) will send a
message that will be picked by one of the radio equipment. This will
update a database (HLR for GSM) with your location. When someone is
calling you in your home area using the 317 xxx xxxx the database will
have the information of which cell to use to redirect the call.

   When you are outside of your Home area, the same scenario occurs,
but a second database is involved (VLR for GSM). When your phone send
the message (update location), the VLR is updated and because you are
not in your home area, it will update your home database (HLR) also.
When someone call you, your number is tied to your home database,
which will know which area you are in (which VLR) it can send send the
call to the VLR which knows exactly which cell you are in to triggered
the good radio eqipment (MSC)

> He said that once the block is released, I can receive calls anywhere
> in the US and all people have to do is dial my number in Indiana
> (317-xxx-yyyy) and the system will locate me in any state I am,
> ithout me doing anything special or my callers calling funny access
> numbers.

   Depending on the kind of network, you may have to unblock the phone
to allow roaming, but I'm not sure of that.

   and YES, the caller will always dial your own number.

> I did not try this (I was able to place calls but not receive) and the
> obvious question is, is the guy right? will the system search thru ALL
> cell networks in the US trying to find me, or I need to register
> somehow that I'm in the Chicago area so that I can be reached there ...

   The guy is right, the registration is automatic. Remember, the
system knows exactly which cell you are in, and will NEVER scan all
cell networks.

> Any explanation of the above will be appreciated. It *can't* be as
> simple as what the guy said.

   It is really simple for the user (automatic registration).


Philippe Ravix                   E-mail: [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corporation    Phone : [phone]
305 Rockrimmon Blvd., South      Colorado Springs, CO 80919

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brian Starlin)
Subject: Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls
Date: 6 Jun 1995 19:40:22 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.


There are various networks that connect cellular systems to one
another, and the one I am most familiar with is the NACN -- North
American Cellular Network.

The NACN is made up of about 75 cellular service providers who connect
together by way of SS7 signaling.  This allows switches to exchange
messages about their subscriber locations and features.  Take, for
example, a person from Seattle traveling to Denver ...

    1.  Customer turns phone on in Denver and automatically
    initiates a message to their home switch in Seattle.

    2.  Seattle home switch automatically looks up the person's
    profile (features, capabilities, etc. ) and sends the information
    to Denver.

    3.  The Denver switch sets up a visitor location register for that
    subscriber.  The phone is now "registered" and call delivery
    is automatic.

What happens if someone calls the Seattle phone number?

    1.  The Seattle switch "remembers" that the person is in Denver.

    2.  Seattle will automatically send a message to Denver to check
    if the phone is still active and to get a temporary Denver number.

    3.  Denver returns the temporary Denver number to Seattle, and Seattle
    sends the call over the public network to that Denver number.

    4.  The call goes into the Denver switch, and Denver knows the
    temporary number belongs to a particular phone visiting from Seattle.

    5.  The Denver switch routes the call to the cellular phone.

The NACN covers about 4500 cities across America, Alaska, Canada, and
part of Mexico.  Right now, most of the NACN consists of "A-side"
cellular service providers.  However, many B-side carriers are now
connecting too.  The protocol that makes this happen is the "IS-41,
Rev. A" standard protocol.  NACN interconnects to other networks that
provide similar services.  One difference might be that the NACN is a
not-for-profit organization.  It covers its operating expenses and
keeps rates low.

Each cellular subscriber is associated with a "home" switch or
database location.  The network does not need to search through all
systems to find you.  As soon as you turn your phone on, you are
"found."  The visited system needs to have a link to your home system
and has to have an idea where that home system is.  Right now, each
switch has tables that associate a person's phone number with their
home system and routes the signaling messages accordingly.  If you
move into another cellular system that is still on the network, that
system will pick you up and notify your home system of your location.
The location is general (to one switch that covers a large area), and
not down to the cell level.


Hope this helps,

b.s.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards the assignment of a 'temporary
number' which the home carrier then outdials over the public network,
some cellular hackerphreaks have discovered that if you can find out
what block of phone numbers is used by the carrier in your home area
for 'temporary assignments' then you can program a cell phone to one
of those numbers and receive incoming calls and place outgoing calls
via that number at no charge if the carrier is not too smart.

For example, let us say Cellular One in Chicago uses numbers in the
312-659-00xx series for temporary assignment to folks passing through
town. If in Chicago and you program your cellphone to 312-659-00xx,
whatever 'xx' may be, then anyone who dials that number will get
through to you just fine; the cellular switch won't complain about
it at all. There is no ESN checking, of course -- at least there did
not used to be on 'temporary numbers', so with quite a few carriers
you can even make outgoing calls at no charge if programmed to one
of those numbers. So this is a good way, some contend, to use a cell-
phone as a very fancy pager. You can get called, and speak on the
call. If you need to make a call out and you are challenged or
thwarted by the switch, well ... you can always go to a payphone or
whatever. Check out the 'temporary assignment numbers' in your
community and see if this works. Oh, and dudez, don't forget the
reason your landline phone has the "*", "6", and "7" buttons on it
when you dial into the xxx-7626 (xxx-ROAM) port in your community,
although by all means, try direct dial to the temporary number also.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 20:04:24 +0200
From: [e-mail] (Alex)
Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It


After reading several articles on the net regarding CT2 phones
(greenpoint for me here in Holland) I decided to buy one, and so I
went to the phoneshop and bought one last Thursday. Despite the fact
the phone only works in certain area's of town, I already like it very
much. The phone has a build in numeric pager, so people can reach me
anywhere in the country. Here in Holland it's not possible to call a
CT2 phone, only page.  The phone rate on the CT2 phone is two times the
"normal" rate. This way toll-free numbers stay toll free and local
calls are cheaper then long distance ones. This is quite different
from the GSM network here in Holland where you pay a fixed rate per
minute. Also the monthly charge here is lower ($6,00 per month or
$13,00 including the pager subscription). GSM here is at the cheapest
$30,00 a month with a city space subscription.

I can understand some people are sceptic about the whole CT2 network,
especially since it was terminated in the UK and the idea of having to
be in the area of a greenpoint to use your phone. Yet, when you want a
cordless phone and be able to make phonecalls on the street, CT2 is a
pleasant and cheap solution! It certainly beats the analog 30-32mhz
phones.  I have tried to locate the frequency of the phone with my
scanner, but I have been unable to locate it (so far). According to my
information it should be between 864 and 868 mhz or between 1880 and
1900 mhz. Information on this is welcome.


Alex van Es
[e-mail], Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
Phone:[phone]   Pager:[phone] (Greenpoint!)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (J. Brad Hicks)
Subject: Re: Mike Milken - Two Trillion Dollar Opportunity by Gilder
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 13:47:52 -0600
Organization: Discordians for "Bob"


This may be the most terrifying thing I've read in weeks.

Forgive me for using a non-telecom example, it's the only one I'm
thoroughly familiar with. You see, here in St. Louis, we only had one
vivid example of Milken and Boesky's benificence, and here's the way I
remember what I read about it in the papers.

Carl Icahn used a gigantic pile of junk bonds to take over, then take
private, what was at the time one of America's premier airlines, Trans
World Airlines, or TWA.  Everybody in St. Louis, more or less,
followed this story carefully; TWA uses St. Louis as a hub, and it's a
major employer here.

Yeah, there was a management shakeup, and yes, there were dramatic
cuts in costs. As best can be told in retrospect, those cuts that
didn't come from slashing worker's salaries were mostly in aircraft
maintenance and replacement, the bread and butter of running an
airline. The money that was freed up didn't go into improving airline
productivity. It went into the pockets of the bondholders and into
Carl Icahn's pockets. You see, even though (due to obscene interest
expenses) the airline lost money every year he ran it, every year he
ran it he hiked his salary.  When he'd bled every asset out of the
company he could, and it obviously couldn't keep the bills paid and
the planes in the air, he bailed out, taking nothing with him except,
of course, whatever he'd saved from many millions of dollars in
salary.

He would've gotten away with it completely, too, if he hadn't gotten
one step too greedy and looted the pension fund.  The feds made him
pay part of that money back. That took him, if memory serves, from
megamillionaire down to merely a multimillionaire ... for this, we're
supposed to feel sorry for him.

TWA managed to keep the doors open, barely. They went employee-owned,
got some debt forgiveness, and yet more wage concessions from the
employees, made some clever marketing moves, sold off yet more routes,
and against all odds have managed to crawl back into business. They
still haven't figured out how they'll afford to replace planes as they
die, and they're flying one of the oldest fleets in the air. It's a
much smaller and poorer business than it was when Carl Icahn took it
over, but they're justifiably proud of having survived him at all.

This kind of "efficiency," well known also to anybody who's followed
the story of Georgia-Pacific and many other companies that were the
victims of hostile LBOs -- this kind of leverage, the telecommunications
industry does =not= need.


J. Brad Hicks, St. Louis, Missouri
mailto:[e-mail]
http://www.inlink.com/~jbhicks/


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am wondering if George Gilder would be
so kind to provide a response to Mr. Hicks and share it with the rest of
us here reading the Digest.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  6 Jun 1995 09:37:31 -0600
From: Eric Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The PBX Owner's Lament


> Isn't this getting silly? Have any of the new NPAs gone out of permissive
> dialing yet?

I lived in Alabama until late January. My mother is still there.
Permissive dialing ended in May of this year for the 205/334 split in
Alabama. She told me the businesses in South Alabama sued to get
permissive dialing involuntarily extended by BellSouth and that they
lost. Alabama is the first state (to my knowledge) to have the new NPA
system completely in place.  Washington's, which was activated at the
same time, is still in permissive dialing.


Eric in Austin (not scheduled for NPA split for some some time)
metrowerks Corp.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 20:41:45 PDT


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The association is opting for the cheap
> way out on this. *Good* front door/apartment intercom systems which
> operate via the telephone use either CO-provided equipment with dedicated
> pairs jumpered into your phone line or they use a control box in the
> basement of the building (or wherever telco's demarc is for the property.)

Usually I am in agreement with Patrick, but here I completely
disagree.  I live in a complex with security gates at the entrance.
Unlike the system Patrick described above, it is a computerized system
with a digital display/directory. The visitors look up my name from
the directory if they don't already know my code, and punch it in.
The system uses a *regular* POTS line and places a call to my
apartment.

If I'm on the line, the call rolls to the second, just like any other
call.  If I chose to have call waiting instead of two lines, it would
interrupt my call but I would be able to control the interruption with
*70.  What I object to in the scenario above, is that no matter how
you have your lines set up, the gate device will put CW tones onto
your call and (probably) kill a modem.

There's also little flexibility when it comes to call handling.  If
I'm not here and have my calls forwarded to my cell phone, the gate
call will get forwarded too. (Some may say this is a Bad Thing, but I
like being able to let the person know when I'm coming back or where I
am.) If I wanted to have a special ring for gate calls, I could put
Distinctive Ring/Ringmate on the line.  But whatever I decide, it is
ME deciding, not the management deciding for me.

I guess I a) don't trust the management to do the job right, and b)
object to someone else limiting my options on *MY* pairs.


Steve   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original thinking behind this, when
Illinois Bell was marketing Enterphone was that while most people would
probably not object to having their phone line busied out with *70
against another phone call, but probably would object if their choice
was to lose control of their front door in the process. It was also
thought that most people probably would not want their front door calls
to be forwarded to an answering service or wherever they had forwarded
their line in their absence. The thinking was most people would not want
to risk the possibility of a stranger at their door *knowing for certain*
they were not at home. The thinking was also that since many/most apart-
ments have two pairs -- if not necessarily two working lines -- that in
the event a resident demanded the kind of control over his line that you
suggest, they could request the door to be brought up on the idle pair or
(if both in use) the line not usually needed for 'critical' applications
such as modems, etc. In other words, if your residence has at least two
pairs, then you can have your cake and eat it too. Put your modem and/or
more often used line on one pair, with the front door on the other pair
and lesser-used, modem-unlikely line. Whether or not it is a good or bad
idea to let front door visitors know when you will be back home is a matter
of debate and application on a user by user basis I guess.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mike Morris)
Subject: Re: Gate Intercom Tied to Private Phone
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 22:01:33 GMT


[e-mail] (David Baird) writes:

<description of new front-gate autodialer-based system deleted>

> I wonder how many people and/or buildings have these "phone" units?
> How reliable are they? I guess the answer to this question will
> ultimately be how will it stand up to the elements and vandalism?

The commercial Ma Bell supplied equipment is pretty good.  The
signboard/unit directory is OK, and the phone unit is built a lot like
a payphone, except there is a speakerphone instead of a handset.  The
aftermarket stuff I've seen (Nutone/Executone type stuff, etc) is all
over the map -- some is junk, some is better.  (Note -- I am not naming
Nutone or Executone specifically -- just using them as an example of
non-Ma Bell manufacturers)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The association is opting for the cheap
> way out on this. *Good* front door/apartment intercom systems which
> operate via the telephone use either CO-provided equipment with dedicated
> pairs jumpered into your phone line or they use a control box in the
> basement of the building (or wherever telco's demarc is for the property.)

<excellent description of two Ma-Bell systems trimmed>

I've seen several different branded systems in the LA area -- the Ma
Bell systems are the best.  The other ones are "canned solutions" in
that they are sold by local interconnct houses or apartment house/condo
supply companies and are a (big) "black box" that hooks to a pots line
and is programmed and that's it.  They use regular call waiting, and a
"7" (or any other progammed digit) as an open code.  There is no "deny"
code - the recipient just switches back to the other call.  Most use a
"1" as teh start digit, some use "*".

All the non-Ma-Bell systems except one -- yes, ALL but one -- that I have
encountered in the last ten years have been disabled within four years after
I first encountered them (note -- I would have encountered them visiting
friends in buildings equipped with them, as I live in a regular house
and have since 1965).  Generally the cheapie systems get removed, or at
least the electrobagnetic latch in the gate gets removed, and a "out of
order" sign is put over the keypad (i.e. the directory is left in use).

> Tell your association to reconsider what they are doing, and to do it
> right. Yes, it costs a bit more, but provides excellent security. Many
> buildings in Chicago use the system I have described, along with a television
> camera which monitors the gate or front entrance. The apartment dweller
> need merely tune on 'channel 3' on television to view the front door
> while talking on the phone to the person he is viewing on television.
> This is the *only* way to go, in my opinion.    PAT]

Excellnt advice.  Tell your association "You get what you pay for" and
"Pay the price now for a cheapie and pay again for a good one".


Mike Morris   WA6ILQ          PO Box 1130
Arcadia, CA. 91077            ICBM: 34.07.930N, 118.03.799W
Reply to: [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The other thing he needs to do is insist
on very prompt repair when the system is out of order for obvious reasons.
When Illinois Bell was doing it, their guarantee was a FOUR HOUR turnaround
at any time day or night when the circuit to the front door went out of
order (the building owner had to supply the latching mechanism and the
stepdown transfer and wires; all IBT did was maintain the 'door opening
circuit' to that point), and an EIGHT HOUR turnaround on the repair of
any given apartment line. That included Sundays and holidays, overnight,
etc.

And they were good at keeping their word on that part of it when they
could otherwise get their act together, which they did eventually. Let me
explain: The jumpers from the common equipment in the central office to
the frames (except they don't use frames in ESS, but anyway ...) had to
be tagged and clearly marked. The pairs going out from the CO to the
subscribers in that building had to be clearly marked 'front door intercom
service, do NOT remove or reassign'. Every telephone pole and manhole
from there to the subscriber had to have the pairs noted as dedicated.
Every basement of every other apartment building on the block where those
pairs were multipled had to be checked, with the pairs plainly marked
as dedicated to the '<address> building'. Well, in a crowded central
office in an older urban area where the pairs are all in a mess anyway
and no one knows what half of them are for or where they go, you can
imagine how successful IBT was at getting installers to keep their
hands to themselves when they were trying to get a line for a new
subscriber somewhere in the vicinity, etc. A lot of telco installers
think a pair without dialtone on it is fair game.

So in one case for about a month after the installation was complete,
it was an on-again, off-again thing as telco would keep swapping pairs
where an installer had stolen one for someone else. The manager of
the apartment building was very hip and knowledgeable about this, and
he would deliberatly go to vacant units and plug in a phone, then have
someone downstairs at the door signal him. No signal? ... snap! He would
be on the phone to repair in a minute to get 'his' dedicated pair back.
Newer telco service reps would give him the story that 'we only supply
it for occupied apartments with phone service turned on'. No you don't,
he would answer. We pay a dollar per month per apartment regardless
(along with $35 per month for the common equipment in the central office,
$5 per month for the front door phone and $2 per month for the door-
opening circuit), so give me all the pairs I am paying for! Telco would
squirm at that; they dearly needed the dozen or so pairs at any given
time that he was *not* using (vacant apartments) but he said tough ...

Then one day came the big flood ... sewer repair crews excavating in
the street nearby broke a large water main. Water poured into the IBT
hole and knocked out phone service over a two or three block area for
a day; including guess what?  Umm hmm ... the front door service at
that building. So personally I would go with premises equipment any day
over the central office version. Maybe its just as well that kindly old
Judge Greene made Bell quit offering the service. At the building I am
discussing here, when their contract with IBT ran out they bought their
own system from GTE. It took them about a year to amortize it versus
their monthly payments to IBT. In any event, make sure *someone* knows
how to fix it and responds promptly on request. Otherwise you have a
helluva mess; the front door has to be left propped open, etc.   PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #273
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa20795;
          7 Jun 95 16:13 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29399 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 07:16:04 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29391; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 07:16:02 -0500
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 07:16:02 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #274

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Jun 95 07:16:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 274

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Need One Mile PC Communications ([e-mail])
    Re: Need One Mile PC Communications (Greg Tompkins)
    Re: Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Caused by Subscriber (Steve Lichter)
    Re: French Hotels May Overcharge For Phone Calls (Christophe Marcant)
    Re: SS7 <--> MFR2 Conversion? (Gene Delancey)
    Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942 (Scot Desort)
    Re: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed (Jean Airey)
    Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Gary Feld)
    Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Holly Fenn)
    Re: Foreign Exchange Lines in Oregon (Jay Hennigan)
    Re: LDDS Cost Information and Quality Query (Steve Fram)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (news)
Subject: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications
Date: 6 Jun 1995 19:32:39 -0700
Organization: wndrsvr - Public Access for SoCal 1.310.370.3069


[e-mail] (RC) wrote:

> We're using reachout between two PCs, but the nominal 9600-28K baud
> rates available between the machines is not quite fast enough for the
> customers needs. However, the machines are one mile apart, and the
> customer is willing to string his own wire if necessary to gain
> thruput.  Unfortunately, high speed phone lines are simply not
> available in this area. But it seems to me that a mile is not too far
> fetched for the right kind of direct connection. If anyone is
> familliar enough with the possible off the shelf solutions, please
> email me.

PairGain in Cerritos, CA (last time I checked) makes some sort of
thingy that lets you run data up to five miles if I recall correctly.
I think they call it the "Campus-T1" if memory serves.  It's supposed
to allow FDDI over copper.  I can check for more details, but they ran
an ad in {Data Communications} magazine.  I don't know anything about
the product other than what it says in the ad though.


Andy

------------------------------

From: Greg Tompkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need One Mile PC Communications
Date: 6 Jun 1995 20:07:24 GMT
Organization: 4-T Acres


> This sounds like a perfect application for Spread-Spectrum radio.  I
> know Black Box sells stuff for this.  Basically you just put an antenna
> on each building, and you get 2mbps, no FCC licensing.  Furthermore,
> you can get a data compression box on each end and get about 3.5mbps
> out of it.  That should be more than enough speed considering that's
> 1/3 of ethernet.

Spread-Spectrum radio is **VERY** expensive.  I have looked into these
options as well.  Do you know if there are any models that cost under
$1000 each?


Thanks.

GREG

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Caused by Subscriber
Date: 7 Jun 1995 01:38:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


Well I run a BBS and have had to remove subject matter including a now
ex-user who sent everyone on my system a rather filthy note. Does that
mean if someone finds a subject they don't like or claim to be libeless
I'll have legal problems? I hope you have insurance to cover that, I don't.
I think the laws have to be updated to cover electronic media, since
it is a lot different then print in that it appears at once unless the
group is moderated, and even with with this group I have seen that you have
gotten spammed. I check my system several times a day and the users and
other SysOps on the nets are pretty good, with the exception of one
system that seems to have been taken over by its users.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Everything comes in degrees, Steve. Even
the {Chicago Tribune} has had people slip through things on them that
were nasty. They hastened to remove it and it was treated like a simple
accident. For example, any readers of the {Tribune} recall the time a
few years ago when the disgruntled classified advertising counselor --
with access to the computer which prepares the classified ads -- went
through the 'help wanted' ads planned for one Sunday maliciously making
some obscene changes in the wording?  We all know how employment ads in
the newspaper include the line at the bottom saying 'equal opportunity
employer, m/f' ... this fellow went through a dozen or so of the ads in
the computer for the Sunday paper and after the 'm/f' notation added
the statement, 'that means mother-fu__ers'. But he spelled it out. Since
I publish a family-oriented journal here, I have to use blanks for some
letters. The newspaper did not catch this until after it had been printed
and was on the street. They fired the guy who did it and apologized to
the advertisers affected. Things will slip through.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Christophe Marcant)
Subject: Re: French Hotels May Overcharge For Phone Calls
Organization: Objectwise
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 17:09:23 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
wrote:

> An article in the Toronto {Globe and Mail} travel section (page E1,
> May 27, 1995) warns that hotels and restaurants in France are now free
> to charge whatever they want for calls made from pay phones and room
> phones on their premises. The rates are supposed to be posted, but may
> be confusing to people from outside France if they are quoted per
> pulse rather than per minute.

> People travelling in the U.S. have learned to watch out for COCOTs,
> and for hotel phone rates anywhere in the world. Now it seems that
> France has been added to the list of countries with rip-off pay
> phones.

I did not even know that they were not allowed to overcharge in the
past.  Whenever I had to use a phone in a hotel I felt like when
you're taking a taxi ride outside of the airport in a foreign country:
you don't know which road you'll take and you don't know how much
you'll be charge for.

A good suggestion is for you to use your calling card as many LD
providers offer access from France. I remember that some hotel we were
staying at was claiming that there was no way to reach an ATT operator:
that was plain wrong!  19 <wait for tone> 0011 gets you ATT for example.
Some LD companies give you an operator while some others give you a
tone which is more convenient for modem calls


Christophe Marcant   vox: 415-333-1333
Objectwise           fax: [phone]
                     net: [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Anadigicom)
Subject: Re: SS7 <--> MFR2 Conversion?
Date: 6 Jun 1995 11:04:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Anadigicom)


We manufacture a complete line of analog and digital signaling
conversion products.  The unit you require is the Model TSC100 Trunk
Signaling Converter.  Your requirement suggests the need to convert
from the R2 signaling format to possibly a TUP SS7 link.

  In order for us to provide a quotation, we require the following
information:

    1.  Country specific or SS7 signaling plan (i.e. TUP or ISUP,
etc.)
    2.  Specification on the link requirements (i.e. T1 or E1, number
of trunks, redundant signaling link,
                   etc.)
    3.  Specification on input power requirements.
    4.  Numbering plan to be used.

  The TSC100 is a modular rack mounted system consisting of a common
equipment 3U (5.25 inch) rack mounted chassis, DC Converter, CPU and
up to twelve (12) trunk modules which can interface either T1 or E1
links.

  SS7 signaling channels can be extracted from any DSO by user command
via a control terminal link.  This same link offers the flexibility to
configure parameters for both the R2 and SS7 sides.

  Additionally, the same platform allows signaling conversion for R2, C5,
China 1, MF, R1, and many other custom derivatives of the above types.

  Support for primary rate ISDN (i.e. 23B +D and 30B+D) to SS7 ISUP is
also possible along with channel re-mapping with our digital crossconnect
module which supports a full 360 DSO crossconnect within the same chassis
concurrent with the signaling conversion.

  For additional information, contact information is provided below:

  Anadigicom Corporation
  Ph- 703-803-0400
  FAX- 703-803-2956
  EMAIL: [e-mail]
  Attn: Mr. Gene Delancey, Director of Sales

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM
Date: 6 Jun 1995 15:39:42 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kimmo Ketolainen
[phone]) writes:

> According to {Helsingin Sanomat} (25 May) Telecom Finland
> plans to use the 1800 MHz frequencies in the major cities to
> enhance GSM efficiency.  DCS 1800 will only be taken into use
> in the metropolitan areas where the GSM frequency bands
> around 900 MHz are getting more and more populated. The new
> frequency does not require any major capital investment, as
> it can and will be used by the current GSM base stations.

In Sweden a slightly different approach has been taken.  The analog
NMT900 is defined for the same frequency band as GSM.  Telia, which
has a monopoly on NMT service, has been quarreling with the two
independent GSM operators (Telia runs GSM as well) about how to
increase capacity in Sweden's (especially Stockholm's) GSM networks.

Telia wanted 1800 MHz frequencies for DCS but the other two wanted to
dismantle NMT900.  There is an EC directive that says that 900 MHz
should be reserved for GSM and that other analog networks should be
"phased out" but that certain considerations should be made.  A
timeplan for the dismantling of analog netwoks is however required.

There was a compromise and Telia has to hand over some 2.3MHz (about
1/5) from their NMT900 operation to Comviq GSM, Europolitan GSM and
Telia GSM by March 1 1996.  Another revision is scheduled for next
autumn.  But there is still no plan on further reduction of NMT
frequencies.  Most probably 1800 will eventually be used just as in
Finland, but no decisions have yet been made.

Ny reflection to all this is will the introduction of DCS make GSM
cheeper, i.e. will the prices drop to LD rate?  Any experiences from
the UK or Germany?


Sam

www.nada.kth.se/~d92-sam,   [e-mail],   [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 1995 02:55:14 -0400
Subject: Re: How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942


TELECOM Digest Editor noted:

>> The operator's switchboard had two buttons on it marked 'return' and
>> 'collect' and by pressing one button or the other, the money would
>> fall in the box or the table would tip in the other direction and dump
>> the coins back out to the caller.

Then Pete Farmer <[e-mail]> responded:

> A manager I had worked with at Bell Atlantic had once been put into
> service as a PSTS operator in Norfolk, VA, during a strike, and
> handled calls from coin telephones.  Unfortunately, the training she
> got for the position was less than adequate and -- you guessed it --
> for her first full day on the post, she hit the wrong button *every
> time* she handled a call.  Everyone who completed a call got money
> back, and everyone who failed had their money taken.  Nothing like
> getting the public interested in a quick settlement!

I worked for AT&T as a TSPS operator (just after divestiture, AT&T was
still handling dial-0 for RBOC's). The TSPS console can be very
intimidating if you weren't trained properly. Our training, done in
pairs, lasted two weeks. Two mind-numbing, coma-inducing weeks of
repeated interactive audio tapes of people asking different things of
the Operator (actually, the interactive training system was more
technologically advanced than the TSPS console itself <g>).

I worked the "graveyard" shift (11PM to 7AM) in the Rochelle Park, NJ,
NJ Bell Building. We serviced most of Northern NJ, from Union City in
Hudson County, to Hackensack, to Paterson. Do you know what happens to
a TSPS board at 2AM when the bars close -- not a pretty site!

The only reason a coin call would appear at the position was if the
phone was not registering coins, or the call being placed cost more
than $3.00. For the former, we had to listen for the tones made by the
slot mechanism (five for a quarter, two for a dime,etc..). For the
latter, it's as Pat stated -- we would have to stop the caller from
depositing and hit COLLECT to swallow the coins. However, this
sometimes presented a problem. In 1983, the TSPS consoles we used
could *not* split calling party from called party (old plugboards
could do this no problem). So for example, if someone wanted to make a
person-to-person call to Turkey (for say $11.00), policy stated that
we begin the forward dialing, wait for a party to acknowledge, and
then tell calling party to begin depositing, all this while the called
party was on-line and waiting. In fact, they would often start
talking, and we would have to interrupt them and insist that they
continue depositing. Sometimes, they'd get just enough chatter through
our demands to stop, then they'd hangup.  Nothing we could do about it.

If you did happen to hit return and not collect, the display would
show that the money was not collected. Also, the TSPS console was
configured so that it gave you visual clues what to do next. When a
coin call arrived, the display showed amount due and amount deposited
so far. The button labeled POS REL (for POSITION RELEASE) was the
button to release the call for normal timing. It would only light if
the deposited amount equalled the due amount, in which case you'd
press it once. If you needed to override, you'd have to press it twice
as a confirmation.

The mistake I made all too often (to the dismay of the TSPS monitoring
team in Piscataway NJ) was release a call without selecting a rate
class. Before starting forward dialing and pressing POS REL, a rate
could have to be selected (station, DDD, oper,Pers to Pers, etc..).
However, a call could still be released from the position without
selecting a rate (free call). If you were fast, you'd sometimes miss
the rate button and fly right onto POSREL. Lucky caller!

BTW, the correct acronym is TSPS, which stands for Telephone Services
Position System (I think -- nobody actually ever told us -- found out
many years later).

Oh, the stories I could tell ...


Scot M. Desort         Garden State Micro, Inc.
[phone]        [phone] Fax
[e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Feel free. Telephone operators are among
the most abused people in the world.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (jean)
Subject: Re: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 12:47:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Anthony Wallis <[e-mail].
ca> wrote:

> My (limited and perhaps flawed) understanding is that, where the
> subscriber has a choice between pulse or tone dialing, there are NOT
> two parallel switching systems at the central office, one for pulse
> and one for tone, with the pulse system being cheaper.  Rather, the
> switching system is tone based, with DTMF tone dialing being the
> primary presentation of the system to the subscriber.  The alternate
> presentation of pulse dialing is a secondary "front end" for backwards
> compatibility with older systems. (Going all the way back to Mr.
> Strowger's techno-response to his competitor's wife being the town's
> switchboard operator.)  Pulse dialed numbers are stored and then
> emitted as a tone burst into the tone switched system.

I can't speak for any other vendor, but in the 5ESS(R) Switch, the
exact same device, engineered in the same way is used to decode pulse
and tone inputs.  There is no separate engineering input based on how
many customers have one type or the other.


Jean Airey    ATT

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gary Feld)
Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software?
Date: 06 Jun 1995 01:54:33 GMT
Organization: North American Internet Company


> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software
> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be
> voice.  They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and
> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and
> let them know.  It SEEMS like this could be an option on the school's
> phone system (I don't remember who made it), since it does have voice
> mail and all sorts of fancy features.  But I'm wondering if there's
> some simple PC software that could also do it.  I'm running SuperVoice
> 2 with a Maxtech voice/data/fax modem and am quite pleased with it.  I
> spoke with the publisher of SuperVoice yesterday and they did not have
> any voice broadcast software.  So, anything like this around?
> SuperVoice 2 with modem was about $70.  It'd be real nice to find
> something in this price area.

Hello Direct has exactly the device you are looking for.  Native it
stores up to 1,000 phone numbers.  They also make a model that
connects to the PC or MAC.  The base unit, unfortuantely, is $499 and
the PC/MAC model is $699.  You can reach them at 800-444-3556.


Gary Feld
Information Technology Management
Helping People
Use Telecommunications
and Computers
to Create Value

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Holly Fenn)
Subject: Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers?
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 1995 14:55:22 -0400
Organization: The MathWorks, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Thomas P.
Brisco) wrote:

>         I've been working with someone locally to try and get a
> Fax-On-Demand system ("single call" configuration) -- and I'm
> attempting to have it as closely integrated into the existing
> environment as possible.

>         Our Meridian reps aren't making this easy.

>         Our tech rep indicates that our "Meridian SL1 with Option 61"
> can hand off an analog line.  However, I also know that we're running
> some digital protocol between the PBX and our multi-line sets.  When I
> inquire as to what this protocol is, he tells me "Its digital" (big
> help).  This makes me worried about his information regarding the
> ability to do an analog handoff.

Boy, can I relate to this!  We are trying to do the same thing at my
company.  We bought four sight/four link fax server software that was
specifically configured for the Northern platform.  We have it all set
to go but we can't get the PBX to deliver DTMF tones to the server.
Clearly this is not brain surgery! We have had absolutely no help from
Nortel, out service provider.  Please tell me if you get any feedback
from anyone that can answer this problem.  Good luck!  If we get
anywhere I will let you know.


Thanks,

Holly Fenn                                      [e-mail]
The MathWorks, Inc.                          [e-mail]
24 Prime Park Way                           http://www.mathworks.com
Natick, MA 01760-1500                   ftp.mathworks.com
Phone: [phone]  ext. 4395      Fax: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Foreign Exchange Lines in Oregon
Date: 7 Jun 1995 06:52:34 GMT
Organization: RAIN Public Access Internet (805) 967-RAIN


Greg Tompkins ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Any other ideas to have foreign exchange without paying these
> ridiculous rates.  I have checked into leased lines, RF links,
> everything but they are all expensive options.  Maybe I can get right
> of way and string my own wire to someone who lives in the area I am
> trying to call free!  :-)

Pick a friendly location in the "foreign" area where you want a
presence.  Depending on how the telco computes mileage, you might be
better off if this is physically close to your actual location.  This
can be a friend's house or anywhere where you can get two phone jacks
installed.

Tell the Great Telephone Experiment that you're opening an office,
you'll have a PBX, and need an off-premise station from your PBX to
your actual location.  Order a loop-start trunk for the PBX.

The telco will install a jack at the location with dialtone, and a jack
to connect to your "extension".  Get a cord with modular plugs on both
ends.  This is your "PBX".  Plug it in to both jacks (you might have to
reverse the wires on one end).  Done.


Jay Hennigan          Amateur radio: WB6RDV
[e-mail]          Santa Barbara, CA USA

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 01:01:12 -0700
From: Steve Fram <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LDDS Cost Information and Quality Query


We switched about $12,000 of business from Sprint to LDDS, based on
price alone (including both dedicated and dialup service).  The
service is a bit worse than Sprint's (e.g., occasional circuit busies
on the 800 line), but overall is excellent.  The customer service is
not exceptional, but is better than Sprint's -- e.g., it took LDDS 4
hours to isolate the loss of our T1 trunk to Telco on a holiday.  But
once Sprint took 20 hours to isolate a down T1 to the LIU on the channel
bank that we rent from them.


Steve Fram     Technical Director, IGC

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #274
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa18200;
          8 Jun 95 12:06 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23540 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 03:15:20 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23531; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 03:15:15 -0500
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 03:15:15 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #275

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Jun 95 03:15:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 275

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Blind - But Working With ACD - And Some Other Stuff (Joseph Norton)
    A Tour of Your Phone (Netsurfer Digest via Arthur P. Bebak)
    Book Review: "The Internet" by Hoffman (Rob Slade)
    911 From Cellphones in CA (Marty Brenneis)
    Telematic Sculptur 4 ([e-mail])
    National Information Infrastructure Course at MIT (Gillian Cable-Murphy)
    Experience Switching Canadian Cellular Service? (Andy VanGils)
    NTI and Peer to Peer Connection (Allan Bourque)
    Question on ATT Pub 41450 (Brian Gilmore)
    Information Wanted on American Communication Services (Vince Wolodkin)
    Re: CTI Application Wanted For Data Collection (Joe Sulmar)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 20:09 EST
From: Joseph Norton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blind - But Working With ACD - And Some Other Stuff


Hi all!

     Don't know if any of you can shed any light on this problem, but, I
thought I'd put it out there and see what happens.

     I am a blind computer user currently employed by World Carpets as
a Customer Service Representative.  My job involves answering calls
and taking, checking status and otherwise maintaining carpet orders.
I receive the calls from an ACD system.  For the most part, I can use
the telephone set quite well.  I know what and where all the important
buttons are and have a good working knowledge of how the PBX I'm on
handles things like call transfer, forwarding and the like.  Where I
run into the most difficulty is with the little things.

     For example, when I'm working on an order and don't wish to
receive any calls for a short period, I press what all the reps call
the "WORK" button (I've got a manual somewhere in here, but, don't
feel like having someone look in it to get me the proper name).  I
have a light sensor which I can position over the light (or led?) that
indicates the state of the buttons, and it squawks when they're lit.
Sometimes, however, I am working on something and forget to turn off
the "WORK" button.  The guy next to me kind-of keeps an eye out, and
alerts me if he sees that I'm "on WORK", but, sometimes he's too busy,
and I've forgotten about pressing the button to begin with:-).

With the right knowledge in wiring, a person could rig up a device
that would beep every so often if the "WORK" button was on, and
something could be built into the software for this too.  The phone
set already alerts you if a caller is on hold for more than two
minutes (I think) by sounding the ringer every second.  Other problems
may not be so simple, however.  The sets give the other sighted reps
information about which group of lines a call is coming in on, give
Message-Waiting indication, who's calling (from inside the PBX) and
various statistics about call traffic.

     I've heard rumors about blind people working as operators
(probably on TSPS), and would guess that similar problems had to be
met there.  Any of you have any ideas as to how some of these problems
can be solved in my case?  Aside from this, how were they dealt with
back in the days of TSPS?  Are there any blind operators using OSPS?
I've heard that OSPS uses a more graphical interface.  The GUI is
being tackled in the PC and MAC worlds (along with others [I think]),
but, don't know what was done when AT&T migrated to OSPS.  I'd be
interested to hear about that as well.  Were there any blind operators
who's jobs could not be done as efficiently, or did AT&T already have
a solution in place when they started using OSPS?

     Back to the PBX.  I'm using an ACD on a NEC 2400 (according to
the person in charge of telecommunications at World).  That's the only
helpful thing I can provide, but, give me some other questions to ask
and I'll give them a shot.  If we used an AT&T PBX, could a blind user
use the "Remote Agent" system AT&T uses in some offices?  I've talked
to a rep (or two) who was working from his/her home using a "Remote
Agent" system on an ACD on an AT&T PBX.  What kind of feedback and
control could this offer?

     Anyway, that's enough from me:-).  Any suggestions?  Drop me a
line.


Joseph (Joe) Norton <[e-mail]>
Dalton, Georgia -- The Carpet Capital of the world

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Arthur P Bebak)
Subject: A Tour of Your Phone
Date: 8 Jun 1995 07:22:08 GMT
Organization: Portal Communications - 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)


This just appeared in the latest issue of Netsurfer Digest and may be
of some interest to the readers of these newsgroups:

AT&T'S TERRIFIC TOUR OF YOUR TELEPHONE

     With their "Talking Power" pages, AT&T provides an entertaining and
     educational tour through the telephone system, part of their
     multimedia performance support systems. You can learn more about your
     phone line, batteries, the central office, the U.S. telephone network,
     the anatomy of a telephone call, and the training course itself. It's
     all part of the impressive site that AT&T maintains.
     <URL:http://www.att.com/talkingpower/>

You can find out more about the Digest and subscribe at:
http://www.netsurf.com/nsd/


Arthur Bebak                                [e-mail]
Netsurfer Communications                    Netsurfer Digest
http://www.netsurf.com/nsd/index.html       "More Signal, Less Noise"
ftp://ftp.netsurf.com/pub/nsd/

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 14:26:36 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "The Internet" by Hoffman


BKINTPBS.RVW   950414

"The Internet", Paul Hoffman, John Levine ed., 1994, 1-56884-247-3,
U$34.99/C$44.99/UK#33.99
%A   Paul Hoffman
%C   155 Bovet Road, Suite 310, San Mateo, CA   94402
%D   1994
%E   John Levine [e-mail]
%G   1-56884-247-3
%I   IDG Books
%O   U$34.99/C$44.99/UK#33.99 415-312-0650 fax: [phone] [e-mail]
%P   241
%T   "The Internet"

The cover describes this as "the official book of the Public
Television presentation, 'The Internet Show'".  It is a kind of
"computer literacy" level introduction to the Internet, with lots of
pictures and lots of white space, and not much text.  (Some of the
pictures and sidebar comments will make little sense unless you have
seen the show.)

Within the limits of the space allowed, the text is clear and
readable.  Explanations of what the Internet is, and what you can do
with it, are good, but very short on "how".  NetManage's Chameleon
software for Windows is provided with the book, and a set of "Instant
Internet" providers who have agreed to handle billing for both
software and service.  Unfortunately, a) this is only good in areas of
the United States, and b) the book, itself, is far from clear on your
license for use with providers outside this group.  Nevertheless, if
you wish to use one of the providers from the list, the setup is quite
well automated.  (The "registration" number for the software does work
from Canada, and I've been told that a "perpetual license" for the
software costs U$50.  Some of the access providers listed do also
provide access from Canada.)

For those wishing to use the Internet in other ways, the lack of
detail may be frustrating.  As noted above, chapter three, on Internet
tools and applications, does not explain use.  Even more surprising is
chapter four, "Interesting Content", which does describe some
absorbing sites on the net, but, aside from newsgroup names, doesn't
give a single, specific address.  (Neither does chapter five,
"Searching for Information on the Internet".  Not even InterNIC.)


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKINTPBS.RVW   950414. 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 [e-mail], [e-mail], Rob Slade at 1:153/733
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:22:06 PDT
From: Marty Brenneis <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 From Cellphones in CA


I am part of a local government group working on a public information
peice about using cellphones to reach "911". Personally I have had
some bad experiences here in CA with the cellular psap personnel not
being very well trained.

I am seeking personal experiences both good and bad that involve using
cellular 911 for situations that were not the jurisdiction of the
Highway Patrol. (mail to [e-mail]) I am mainly interested in
California, but if you have an interesting tale from another state or
country please chime in.

Background: In California the calls from cellphones to "911" are sent
to the California Highway Patrol dispatch center for that region. The
call taker at that location must determine what jurisction you are in
and what service you need, they then route you to the agency that
handles that situation.  Unfortunatly they can't send you into the
PSAP for that region so you can be handled like a regular 911 call by
someone familiar with that area. They also have some bad phone numbers
in their lists. (I was sent to the SFPD TDD desk when I asked for an
ambulance in San Francisco.)

I have spoken with the supervisor for the Golden Gate region and have
helped clear some of their problems. But they still persist.

I'd also like to hear form persons involved in the design of how future
cell systems can handle 911 calls better.


Thanks,

Marty Brenneis    [e-mail]
Marin County Emergency Medical Care Committie

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telematic Sculpture 4
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 95 19:34:00 GMT
Organization: Joanneum Research


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is something a little different,
to say the least.  PAT]

This mobile sculpture (length 21,8 meters, weight 1800 kg) by
R. Kriesche is physically positioned in the Austrian Pavilion during
the Biennale of Venice.

T.S.4 is driven by the data flow in Internet according to the relation
of the world wide computer newsgroups versus world wide art newsgroups.
According to this relation T.S.4 will transcross the Austrian Pavilion
during the time of the biennale and might even break through the wall
of the Pavilion.

You are invited to become part of T.S.4 by:

  o  visiting its www homepage:
     http://iis.joanneum.ac.at/kriesche/biennale95.html;

  o  discussion about T.S.4 on Usenet news;

  o  sending e-mail to T.S.4 (mailto:[e-mail]).

Your participation will slow down the movement of T.S.4 and prevent it
crashing.

Thank you for slowing down the speed of T.S.4.

According to the momentanous and longterm information flow on
internet's www computer-newsgroups and art-newsgroups and the e-mail
data flow the crash/noncrash forecast of T.S.4. is calculated:

Crash: Aug. 6, 1995  4:58

if you wish further text, audio or video information please get into
http://iis.joanneum.ac.at/kriesche/biennale95.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well! Hmmm ... I certainly get interesting
mail in a day's time.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 17:48:30 -0500
Subject: National Information Infrastructure Course
From: [e-mail] (Gillian Cable-Murphy)


(by way of [e-mail] (Richard Jay Solomon))

COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT

There are still a few places left for participation in MIT's three-day
short course on the National Information Infrastructure: Corporate
Planning and Government Policy, June 20-22,1995. The web site for
further information is:

http://rpcp.mit.edu/Workshops/1995-NIIcourse.html

Please call Dr. Lee McKnight at 617-253-0995 or email: [e-mail]
if you have any questions.


NII Course Agenda, MIT, June 20-22, 1995

*Tuesday, June 20, 1995*

9:00AM Course Introduction and Overview

9:30 Stakeholders and Interests in the NII:
Lee McKnight, Richard Solomon, and Russ Neuman

11:00  Coffee Break

11:15  Inside the Beltway:  Lee McKnight

12:00  Lunch  (Provided)

1:00  Internet and the Global Information Infrastructure:
Richard Solomon, Russ Neuman, and Lee McKnight

2:30 Discussion

3:00 Break: DIIG Demo

3:15 Strategic Alliances and the Blurring of Boundaries
Russ Neuman and Richard Solomon

5:00 Break

6:00 Reception

*Wednesday, June 21, 1995*

9:00AM Digital Architecture: Standards and Interoperability
Branko Gerovac, Richard Solomon, and David Carver

10:15 Coffee Break

10:30 Modeling Interoperability, Symmetrical Access, and Local Access:
David Carver, Joe Bailey, and David Gingold

11:30 Wireless Services: Richard Solomon
      Spectrum Auctions: Lee McKnight

12:30 Lunch Break

1:30 Broadband Architectures and Services
Paul Bosco and Richard Solomon

2:45 Break

3:00 GII Opportunities Roundtable/Participants
Moderated by Richard Solomon

5:00 Break

6:00 Reception

7:00 Dinner

*Thursday, June 22,1995*

9:00AM Assesing Demand for Advanced Communcation and Information Services:
Russ Neuman

10:15 Coffee Break

10:30 Networked Multimedia Information Services Demo,
Tour of CAES, and Discussion of World Wide Web Applications

12:30 Lunch (Provided)

1:30 Business Plan Exercise:
Lee McKnight and Russ Neuman

3:00 Discussion of GII Business Opportunities:
Lee McKnight

4:00  Conclusion

------------------------------

From: VanGils, Andy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Experience Switching Canadian Cellular Service?
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 95 12:05:00 PDT


I am in the process of evaluating national cellular service providers
for my employer, a Canadian company. There are two options: Mobility
Canada (CellNet) and Cantel (Rogers). The cellulars are concentrated
in Calgary, Toronto, and Ottawa/Hull. I would greatly appreciate the
details of any experience readers may have in moving 50+ cellulars
from one service provider to the other. At Pat's discretion, you can
respond to me directly or post to the Digest. Thank you.


Andy VanGils            Email:  [e-mail]
Telecom Coordinator     Fax:    [phone]
Intergraph Canada       Phone:  [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Allan Bourque)
Subject: NTI and Peer to Peer Connection
Organization: Motorola
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 19:25:50 GMT


Hello,

I am looking for information on setting up some NTI PBX's on a peer to
peer connection.  I realize that NTI does not yet have direct support
for ethernet (although it is rumored that the ethernet port on the
Commercial Processor, Option 81, 61C, 51C etc, will give this), I am
more looking at some type of serial protocol converter to allow SDI
input/output to be connected via PTP.  If anyone has tried this, I am
interested in how you did it, and with what type of equipment.


Thanks in advance,

Allan Bourque

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (COASTCOM)
Subject: Question on ATT Pub 41450
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 23:31:13 GMT


I am designing a 56kbps CSU/DSU based on ATT Pub 41450.  My question
is on paragraph 8.2 of the spec - Remote Control of Test Modes from
the DDS Test Center.  What scheme does the test center use to put a
DSU into remote loopback - V.54, a DDS-type loopback, or some other
type?  Is it spelled out in a later spec?


Thanks for your help,

Brian Gilmore     [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Vince Wolodkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on American Communication Services, Inc.
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 95 00:05:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Has anyone ever heard of American Communication Services Inc.  They
trade on the NASDAQ small cap index as ACNS.  They are a developing
CAP operating mainly in the South US. Any information on this company
would be greatly appreciated.


Vince

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Joe Sulmar)
Subject: Re: CTI Application Wanted For Data Collection
Date: 7 Jun 1995 13:48:24 GMT
Organization: Telecommunications Consultant


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (william
boswell) says:

> I need a reliable (read rock solid) CTI app that will collect data
> from callers via the phone's keypad and save that to a file that I can
> incorporate into a database I'm designing.

> This is my vision: caller dials number and gets message:

> "Enter authorization code."
> Caller does so and is authenticated.
> "Enter daily sales volume"
> Caller enters ##### (whatever number) and terminates with pound sign or
> whatever.
> Application saves input into flat file for later merge into database.
> Any help appreciated.

Bill:

I have a lot of experience integrating this kind of system.  I can
build it for you if you wish.

The system configuration will be influenced by the following issues:

1. What is your estimated call volume?  When you install your voice
response unit (VRU), you will need to decide how many concurrent
callers you need to serve.  To do this, you might start with an
estimate of your total daily calls, and the average call duration.
Next, estimate how many total "connect" minutes are expected during
the busiest hour.  Then, specify what service level is necessary (what
percent of the calls should get a busy signal?).  Using Erlang C
formulas, you can then determine how many ports (phone lines,
simultaneous callers) are necessary.  A single fast computer (486 or
pentium) running OS/2 or UNIX can handle up to (approx.) 48
simultaneous callers using modern voice processing hardware.

2. What type of phone number will be used?  The type of phone service
influences the selection of the voice processing hardware.  If you are
using POTS lines, you'll need analog voice processing hardware.  If
you're using DID, you'll need to use specially configured hardware.
If you plan to use "800" type numbers, you might save a lot of money
by using T1 service to the carrier's POP.

3. How will the valid authorization codes be defined?  How often will
they be updated?  This will influence the type of database you'll use.
You'll need to decide whether to use a local database engine running
on the VRU, or if a networked server is best.  Of course, if you try
to use a networked server, performance considerations become critical.
The size of the database is also a consideration.  For many
applications, BTRIEVE is a good, inexpensive choice for OS/2
environments, and Informix should be considered for UNIX environments.

4. Will the VRU be located at a staffed or un-staffed location?  This
will determine the level of remote maintenance capability required by
the system.

5. Will the "merge into database" be performed manually, or automatically?

As I said earlier, you'll probably use a 486/pentium machine, running
OS/2 or UNIX (NT might also be considered, but the available drivers
and tools for the older operating systems tend to be more mature and
stable at this time).  There are some Windows run-time tools
available, but I think Windows is not sufficiently reliable,
especially if you need remote maintenance capability. You will then
need to select what brand/type of voice processing subsystem to use.

Choose from the following list:

Market leaders:
    Natural Microsystems [phone]
    Dialogic [phone]
    Rhetorex [phone]

Other vendors:
    Linkon [phone]
    Pica [phone]
    New Voice [phone]
    Bicom  [phone]

To program your application, you can choose from the following options:

1. Develop from scratch in "C".

2. Use one of the commercially available applicatoins generators.
    (your voice processing hardware vendor can recommend)

3. Use one of the commercially available "scripting" languages.  There
are some"extended Basic-like" languages out there, with hooks capable
of interfacingwith your voice processing hardware.  There also a few
Visual Basic programming tools available, but I have already voiced my
opinion of Windows and NT for run-time reliability.

Of course, you can buy all of the above, already integrated (except
for the specific programming of you application)with a service
contract from a VRU manufacturer, e.g. AVT [phone] or Brite
Voice [phone].

Good luck, and let me know if I can be of further assistance!


Joseph J. Sulmar  ([e-mail])
Computer-Telephony Consultant
Lexington, MA

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #275
******************************


Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa20298;
          8 Jun 95 13:53 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25054 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 04:50:09 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA25046; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 04:50:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 04:50:07 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #276

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Jun 95 04:50:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 276

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Caller-ID With Name From Centrex (Mark Cuccia)
    TSPS Operator Boards (Lee Winson)
    Cord Board Toll and Assistance (Lee Winson)
    Least Cost Routing Question (Masoud Loghmani)
    Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold (Dave Levenson)
    Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold (Gary Feld)
    Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Allan Bourque)
    Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Gary Feld)
    Re: ANI vs Caller-ID (Jeffrey Rhodes)
    Re: Difference between "A" and "B" Cell Systems? (Phil Brown)
    Re: Difference between "A" and "B" Cell Systems? (Bob Wilkins)
    Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Yves Blondeel)
    Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (Patrick M. Mirucki)
    Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (James Dollar)
    Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (Doug Sewell)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID With Name From Centrex
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 95 16:45:00 GMT


About a year ago, the Orleans Parish (county) School Board went to a
'City-Wide Centrex'.

I am an election poll-worker, and the precinct where I work at is at a
neighborhood elementary school.  Prior to the conversion to city
centrex, when I would call someone (locally) with Caller-ID with NAME,
the number of the line I was calling from, plus the name of the actual
school would show up on the box.  Since converting to city centrex,
the name shows up as 'Orleans Parish'.

City Hall's offices are on a centrex within the 'main' SCBell switch.
Calls comming from city council staff offices and other city hall
offices show up as 'City of New Orleans' (I think is is truncated
after so many characters).

Calls from the public (taxpayer supported) hospital's PBX or Centrex
all show up 'Charity Hospital' with a number.  Calls from MOST
hospitals are from a PBX (an outgoing trunk line shows up, with the
name of the hospital).  Calls from hospitals on what I think to be a
Centrex show up with the name of the hospital and the number which
rings right to the room.  Also, those centrex hospitals have no extra
delay when I call in.

*69 WILL quote back the number in all cases, but does NOT necessarily
allow me to *69 'back' to the number - under 'normal' circumstances,
you can 'flash' (dialpulse/rotary '1') or touch (DTMF) '1' and *69
will either ring to that number OR put you in a queue if that number
is 'busy'; *69 also does NOT allow me to ring back to calls
originating via WILTEL or local SCB calls from an SCB Telco payphone,
but in both cases, it does quote the number.

Caller ID does NOT show numbers originating via the 'A' or 'B'
Cellular systems in New Orleans - you get OUT OF AREA. All *69 says
that 'Touchstar' is not available for that number on ANY out-of-area
calls.

A call originating from Baton Rouge LA via Wiltel showed the name with
the number and time on my ID box.

Back to the 'city-wide-centrex' with the Public Schools -- ALL line
numbers were changed when the School Board went to this type of
centrex -- but the numbers were still assigned as part of their
geographic wirecenter switches -- and ALL outgoing calls out of the
Centrex service list had to be prefixed with 9.

Payphones usually show up on caller-ID with the line number and the
name 'PAYPHONE', whether Bell or Private.  In a few cases, if the
payphone is ALSO the directory number of the business it is located
at, the name of the business (sometimes truncated) will show instead
of the word Payphone (again whether Bell or Private).

ALSO, calls from any FED alphabet soup agency locally (Post Office,
FCC, IRS, congressmen offices, etc) show the number of the originating
line (in its geographic wirecenter switch) but the display 'U S
GOVERNMENT' and I think that is truncated at some point.  I don't know
if what agency is calling, but I do have an idea as to where in the
area it is located -- similar to the Public Schools city-wide-centrex
situation.


MARK J. CUCCIA

PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:

Work:
[e-mail]
UNiversity 5-5954 (TEL, [phone])
UNiversity 5-5917 (FAX, [phone])

Home:
4710 Wright Road
New Orleans 28
Louisiana (70128)
USA

CHestnut 1-2497 (Home Tel)
(fwds.on busy/no-answr.to cellphone/voicemail)
([phone])

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lee Winson)
Subject: TSPS Operator Boards
Date: 7 Jun 1995 22:11:34 GMT
Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS


TSPS stood for "Traffic Service Position System".  It replaced an
older system "Traffic Service Position".  To the operators, the
consoles and operation were very similar.  I believe behind the scenes
TSPS was electronic and programmable, while TSP was not.

To customers, when TSP/TSPS came the big change was automated dialed for
0+ calls (collect, credit card, 3rd party, notify, etc) and 1+ calls
from coin.

In other words, before TSP, the only dialable long distance were station
1+ from NON-coin phones.  All other LD calls had to go through the
operator.

With TSP, 1+ (station) calls from coin phones went through fast.  The
operator got a display of the amount due (since the customer already
dialed the number the machine knew what amount to display), and the
operator orally requested and collected the amount.  The machine did
timing, and got an operator back on for overtime.

Likewise for 0+ calls, the operator didn't have to ascertain the calling
data.  For credit card calls, she could merely key the number in

Operator rooms were much more pleasant -- TSP has nice consoles in
carpeted rooms, unlike the cramped noisy cord boards.

However, many veteran operators preferred the manual handling of calls
via cord -- they felt more involved.  Operators enjoyed the
occassional special cord where, despite automation, she had to relay
the call through toll centers the old way.  (Around 1980, I had
trouble placing an LD call, and the operator routed this way -- very
interesting how she called up the various toll centers.  I suppose
this kind of manual handling isn't done any more.)

As time went on, many of these features were further automated -- now 1+
coin calls are handled wholly by machine, as are credit card calls.

In my area (NW Philadelphia), our straight 0 (operator) calls were
handled through a traditional cord board in one location, while our 1+
coin and all 0+ were handled at another.

Are the TSPS consoles still used or have they been replaced with real
computer terminals?  (TSPS had "nixie tubes" displaying just digits.)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lee Winson)
Subject: Cord Board Toll and Assistance
Date: 7 Jun 1995 22:14:40 GMT
Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS


Is anyone familiar with _cord_ board toll and assistance switchboards?
I think the Bell System got rid of the last one around 1985.  There
were plenty around in the late 1970s.

In my area, we had TSPS handle our long distance, but basic 0 still went
to a cord board.

I was wondering what kind of jack options, cord keys, and special keys
the operators had -- how much control did they have over routing calls?

For instance, to connect a local call, did the operator have jack strips
for various local exchanges, or merely dial the whole seven digit number?
(I assume they didn't have jacks for every line.)


Thanks.

------------------------------

From: Masoud Loghmani <[e-mail]>
Subject: Least Cost Routing Question
Date: 7 Jun 1995 23:06:26 GMT
Organization: Digital Technics Inc.


Hi,

I am designing a least-cost-routing function for a switch. I was
wondering whether I should allow separate routing tables on a
per-tenant basis, or whether a single system-wide routing table would
be sufficient. I am kind of hung in the middle, and would appreciate
any suggestion that would help me choose the way to go.


Thanks,

Masoud Loghmani    [e-mail]
http://www.access.digex.net/~dti/index.html

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 00:42:37 GMT


Jerry Aguirre ([e-mail]) writes:

> I am thinking about getting a CD changer and feeding it into the music
> on hold port of our PBX.  Any negative issues to doing this?  I would
> appreciate any experience people have with particular models or
> features that make this more practical.

> Any speculation on how long a CD changer would last in continuous
> loop 24 hour a day use?

I think the broadcast industry uses heavy-duty CD changers that will
last an eternity.

But watch out for the lawyers when you're buying CDs for this use.
Most of the recorded entertainment you can buy is explicitly licensed
only for personal entertainment at home and other very limited uses.
Using it for music-on-hold is probably a violation of this license,
and may result in your being charged for royalties by ASCAP, BMI, or
some similar organization.


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gary Feld)
Subject: Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold
Date: 08 Jun 1995 01:43:56 GMT
Organization: North American Internet Company


[e-mail] (Jerry Aguirre) writes:

> I am thinking about getting a CD changer and feeding it into the music
> on hold port of our PBX.  Any negative issues to doing this?  I would
> appreciate any experience people have with particular models or
> features that make this more practical.

> Any speculation on how long a CD changer would last in continuous
> loop 24 hour a day use?

We normally use a "Walkman" or "Boom Box" type.  I prefer the "Boom
Box" because it gives you both tape and radio back-up to the CD.  The
tape is useful for occasional "advertising on hold" messages, while
the radio is appreciated during crisis periods (ie Desert Storm).
Make sure the tape is the auto-reverse kind.  The first two I
installed were Sony units.  Cutover was in January 1992.  One lasted
about two years of continuous playing, the other is still going
strong.  Not bad for $120 apiece.


Gary Feld

Information Technology Management
Helping People Use Telecommunications
and Computers to Create Value

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Allan Bourque)
Subject: Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers?
Organization: Motorola
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 07:47:48 GMT


[e-mail] (Thomas P. Brisco) wrote:

> Our tech rep indicates that our "Meridian SL1 with Option 61"
> can hand off an analog line.  However, I also know that we're running
> some digital protocol between the PBX and our multi-line sets.  When I
> inquire as to what this protocol is, he tells me "Its digital" (big
> help).

The Digital protocol is a Northen Telecom propriatary interface.  The
Meridian 2000 sets, (2616, 2008 etc.) run through this interface, which
is really a 64k digital circuit speed-wise.

> Additionally; I've been working with a different group here as
> well and attempting to verify the configuration of the switch.  The
> salescritter and tech rep claim "it can't be done".  We're looking for
> some way to "map out" the configuration showing what calls should be
> going where when (this is primarily to verify that the system is
> configured the way that we believe it is.)  To me, this sounds like a
> relatively straight-foward graphing problem.  The tough part is
> getting the configuration data off the blasted machine.  Again, the
> critters we have servicing us indicate that this is some hugely
> complex task -- which (frankly) I just don't believe.

There are several different ways to look at this.  You may want to
investigate your BARS database LD 90, 87, 86.  This is where you will
need to look to see where your trunked calls are going.

You can also look at the CFN in LD 22, this tells you the hardware
configuration.

> -- but it's on some seriously screwy *4MB* (yes, 4MB) 3.25" floppy.
> I'd be interested also in finding out where I could get one of these
> drives.

Check out the high end computer stores.  I know of a few people that
have them, but I don't know where they got them.

Hope this helps, I have been working on Meridian 1 PBX's for several
years, and if there is any other info that I can help with let me
know.


Allan Bourque    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Gary Feld)
Subject: Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers?
Date: 08 Jun 1995 02:07:18 GMT
Organization: North American Internet Company


[e-mail] (Thomas P. Brisco) writes:

>     I've been working with someone locally to try and get a
> Fax-On-Demand system ("single call" configuration) -- and I'm
> attempting to have it as closely integrated into the existing
> environment as possible.

>    Our Meridian reps aren't making this easy.

Some stuff ommitted

> This makes me worried about his information regarding the
> ability to do an analog handoff.

More stuff ommitted.

Thomas, if your question is "Can I hook up a Fax on Demand (or any
other analog service like modem, voice mail, answering machine, etc)"
to analog ports on my SL-1 Option 61 and have it work?" the answer is
yes.

The digital connectivity of proprietary phones deals with how the PABX
communicates with its telephones (lights lights, paints displays, etc)
as well as carries the phone conversation.  An analog port simply
carries the conversation.  If your concerns go deeper, conact me via
E-mail and we may be able to help you out.


Regards,

Gary Feld

Information Technology Management
Helping People Use Telecommunications
and Computers to Create Value

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Subject: Re: ANI vs Caller-ID
Date: 7 Jun 1995 20:20:30 GMT
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


ANI is not CALLER ID. ANI is the billing number; Caller ID is the
Calling Party Number (CPN) delivered by ISUP SS7 signaling.

A cellular call to an 1-800 number is usually delivered on Type 1
trunks to the nearest LEC End Office (EO) using MF trunks without ANI
delivery (FGD is needed for ANI). The EO translates the 800 call and
delivers the call via FGD to a tandem office (TO) which performs a dip
to an SCP to determine the 800 carrier (800 Number portability) and
then routes the call to that carrier who makes another SCP dip to get
the translated number.

The ANI delivered to the carrier is the trunk id of the EO to TO, or
it could be based on the trunk id from the cellular office to the EO.
If the TO uses ISUP SS7 to the 800 carrier, the ANI is passed in the
Calling Party Number. Technically, the ANI is contained in the ISUP
IAM Charging Number when the ANI and the CPN are different. For
example, a call from an ISDN PBX could have a Charging Number of the
PBX and a CPN of the PBX extension number.

1-800 calls can be given from the cellular office to the TO via MF
FGD, in which case the ANI is a dummy for the cellular office. ISUP
SS7 is not available from LEC TOs to cellular carriers for FGD-type
access to long distance carriers. The cellular office indicates
CIC=110 to alert the TO to make the first SCP dip.

AT&T Wireless in Portland, OR has ISUP connections to the LEC TOs.
1-800 calls are routed, per Equal Access Consent Decree, to the LEC's
TOs via MF FGD. In Portland, any CELL ONE subscriber or roamer is able
to deliver their CPN to Portland landlines by prefixing *82 to the
dialed number and then press SEND (or block CPN by default or by
prefixing *67).

So it will be a long time before any cellular caller is able to hear
their ANI from the 1-800-MYANIIS translated number. It will not be a
long time before certain cellular callers are able to deliver their
CPN between carriers (December 1995).


Jeffrey Rhodes at [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Phil Brown)
Subject: Re: Difference between "A" and "B" Cell Systems?
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 10:33:27 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> Greg Tompkins <gregt@4tacres.
com> writes:

> What exactly is the difference between "A" and "B" cell systems?  I am
> currently on GTE Mobilnet in Portland, Oregon and was just wondering.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "B" systems are those systems owned and
> operated by the local 'wireline telco' of record in the community being
> served. "A" systems are those operated by 'someone else'; typically a
> telco from another town. Ameritech is the "B" carrier in Chicago because
> it operates the phone company here; it is the "A" carrier in some other
> places. Likewise, Southwestern Bell Mobility is the "B" carrier in
> St. Louis where they are also the phone company, but here in Chicago
> Southwestern Bell is the "A" carrier, operating under the name Cellular
> One. Is that all clear as mud?  Many/most "A" carriers use the franchise
> name 'Cellular One' for their activities while the "B" carriers use
> whatever name they use.   PAT]

Actually, the difference is even more fundamental than that.  A total
of 50 MHz is available to cellular service providers (25 MHz each for
land and mobile transmitters -- that's how you get full duplex!) in
the 800 MHz band (in North America).  A-band carriers operate at
roughly 824-835 and 869-880 MHz (the details of the channelization
aren't worth bothering with here) and B-band carriers operate at
835-849 and 880-894 MHz.  NOTE: A 1.5 MHz "slice" of spectrum is
reserved for the "A" side toward the end of what I've identified as
belonging to the "B" side).

As Pat pointed out, when the FCC first licensed cellular it assumed
that most -- if not all -- local phone companies would want a
franchise, so the "B" band of frequencies was assigned to them in
those markets where an interest was expressed in operating the
service.  "A" side frequencies were awarded to licensees via a (form
of) lottery, which resulted in some of the Mom & Pop systems still in
operation today.  There were, and are, regulations and restrictions
governing the sale of licenses, but through acquisition many "B" side
carriers also operate "A" side franchises -- such as Southwestern Bell
in Chicago and Boston (outside of its LEC markets, of course), and GTE
in much of the Southeast (through its acquisition of what used to be
Providence-Journal Cellular).  Hope that helps.


Phil Brown   GTE Mobilnet
Manager, Advanced Technology Planning
Phil Brown | Atlanta, GA, USA
[e-mail]  -or-  [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bob Wilkins n6fri)
Subject: Re: Difference between "A" and "B" Cell Systems?
Date: 7 Jun 1995 19:01:20 -0700
Organization: home in the cAVe


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: "B" systems are those systems owned and
> operated by the local 'wireline telco' of record in the community being
> served. "A" systems are those operated by 'someone else'; typically a
> telco from another town.  PAT]

The "B" carrier here in central California is GTE known for its
wireline nothing fancy plain old telephone service in the small Town
of Los Gatos.  The GTE cellular system covers Santa Barbara to
Cloverdale, a seven hour drive local call.  Pac*Bell the RBOC in the
area put their money into the "A" carrier. We allways thought GTE was
a telco from an other town.


Bob Wilkins           work    [e-mail]
Berkeley, California  home    [e-mail]
94701-0710            play    n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam

------------------------------

From: Yves Blondeel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM
Date: 7 Jun 1995 16:39:56 GMT
Organization: T-REGS


[e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason) wrote:

> There is an EC directive that says that 900 MHz should be reserved
> for GSM and that other analog networks should be "phased out" but
> that certain considerations should be made.

Presumably you are referring to Council Directive 87/372/EEC of 25
June 1987 on the frequency bands to be reserved for the coordinated
introduction of public pan-European cellular digital land-based mobile
communications in the Community.

I am not aware of ANY European Union measure calling for the "phasing
out" of older analogue networks. The closest I have seen is the
"whereas" in this Directive which says "whereas on the basis of
present technological and market trends (*back in 1987 I remind you*)
it would appear realistic to envisage the exclusive occupation of the
890-915 and 935-960 MHz frequency bands by the pan-European system
within 10 years of 1 January 1991." Please tell me where you found the
"phasing out" statement.

For information: there is also a Council Recommendation 97/371/EEC of
25 June 1987 and a Council Resolution 90/C 166/02 of 28 June 1990
which relate to GSM frequencies.

*Sam's Comments on Sweden - very interesting*

> Most probably 1800 will eventually be used just as in Finland, but
> no decisions have yet been made.

I was under the impression that Telestyrelsen (the Swedish regulatory
authority for telecommunications) was preparing to grant up to five
specific DCS 1800 licences (some or all of which might be regional
rather than nation-wide).

> My reflection to all this is will the introduction of DCS make GSM
> cheaper, i.e. will the prices drop to LD rate?  Any experiences from
> the UK or Germany?

I am not a market analyst but I would say without much hesitation that
the UK mobile communications market was a fairly cosy duopoly until
the arrival of the two DCS 1800 operators. Mercury One-2-One entered
the market with very innovative tariffing schemes (such as free local
calls after business hours).

As for Germany, tariffs are going down, but I think it's early to attribute
this very clearly to the arrival of E-Plus.

The French Bouygues Telecom network is not yet operational. Bouygues
Telecom has stated in its bid for the DCS 1800 licence that it expects to
use its network infrastructure to compete with France Telecom for the
provision of voice telephony (in the long run).

The use of DCS 1800 frequencies for the provision of public mobile services
in France is reserved exclusively to Bouygues Telecom for a limited period
of 4 years but only in the five largest metropolitan areas of France, i.e.
Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Lille and Nice. During this 4 year period, the two
GSM operators will be excluded from using the DCS 1800 frequencies in the
metropolitan areas of Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Lille and Nice, except if
they can demonstrate and justify that, within a specified geographical area
and within strictly defined technical parameters, the 900 MHz frequency
band is saturated.

France Telecom and Societe Frangaise du Radiotelephone (SFR), the two GSM
and analogue cellular operators, have each been granted an authorisation
for the operation, on an experimental basis, of a DCS 1800 network in and
around a single regional capital (Toulouse for France Telecom and
Strasbourg for SFR).


Yves Blondeel <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Patrick M. Mirucki)
Subject: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work, Which Are Good
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 1995 23:41:51 GMT
Organization: Video Kraftwerks, Inc.


[e-mail] (Donald Burr) wrote:

> My roommate and I would like to be able to receive FAXes.  However,
> due to various reasons that would take too long to get into, we cannot
> have a second phone line in our apartment, and we can't afford a fax
> machine, or to have a computer on 24 hours a day.

> I've heard of "fax mailbox" type services that will give you a phone
> number that people can send FAXes to.  Then you call in at a later
> time and pick up any FAXes waiting for you.  It kinda works like an
> answering machine or voice mail, but it's for FAX transmissions.

Why not use a distinctive ringing service?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you miss the point. If they could
afford a fax machine, or to have a computer turned on at all times, then
distinctive ringing would be a solution since only those 'distinct' calls
would ever reach the computer they left turned on or the fax machine
they cannot afford. But not being able to do those things, a third-party
'fax mailbox' seemed like a solution.

Ameritech offers such services by the way, but only through dealers, not
direct from the company itself.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: Jame$ Dollar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work, Which Are Good
Date: 7 Jun 1995 12:49:03 GMT
Organization: Coca-Cola


[e-mail] (Donald Burr) wrote:

> My roommate and I would like to be able to receive FAXes.

> I've heard of "fax mailbox" type services that will give you a phone
> number that people can send FAXes to.  Then you call in at a later
> time and pick up any FAXes waiting for you.  It kinda works like an
> answering machine or voice mail, but it's for FAX transmissions.

One service that I am evaluating from NetOffice(.com) gives me a fax
number in the Atlanta area and converts the faxes to tiff format. I
then log in with my web browser and view or download the fax.  The
service runs ~$25/month.

I'm sure there are other ways, I just like the ones that use the
Internet!


Good luck!

j$

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Doug Sewell)
Subject: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work, Which Are Good
Date: 7 Jun 1995 09:55:52 -0400
Organization: Youngstown State University


The local "A" cellular service (Wilcom Cellular, Youngstown/Warren OH)
offers fax mailboxes.  I don't have the literature in front of me, and
I've never tried it.

I believe you get a dedicated phone number, just like voice mail.  I
don't remember whether you call your own number, or a special "pick up"
number, to get your own faxes based on your mailbox number and a PIN.

You can pick up messages with a fax machine.  If the interface is
designed "right" there should be no difficulties using a fax modem.


Doug Sewell ([e-mail]) (http://cc.ysu.edu/doug)

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #276
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa01618;
          8 Jun 95 23:11 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA11081 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 17:07:42 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA11071; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 17:07:38 -0500
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 17:07:38 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #277

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Jun 95 17:07:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 277

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (James Dollar)
    Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It (Lim Hui Lin)
    Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software? (Peter Duthie )
    Re: Telephone voice "Broadcast" Software? (Michael D. Sullivan)
    Re: Low Cost Router Alternatives? (John R. Winans)
    Re: Low Cost Router Alternatives? (Kevin Kadow)
    Re: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed (David Hough)
    Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder (David Ofsevit)
    Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Lloyd S. Wilkerson)
    Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold (D. Ptasnik)
    Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold (Brian Smith)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (B.Z. Lederman)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Dave Johnson)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (David K. Bryant)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Patton M Turner)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (David Breneman)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Larry Kollar)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Anton Sherwood)
    Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service (Carl Moore)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jame$ Dollar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It
Date: 7 Jun 1995 12:57:39 GMT
Organization: Coca-Cola


>> I thought I'd let you know that I just bought a CT2 phone (digital
>> cordless phone) and I love it. Is it popular in the U.S.?

> Well Eric, not yet.  Bandwidth (1.9 GHz range) was only allocated in
> the states a few weeks ago.  The protocol to be used has not yet been
> determined; however, Canada's NorTel had developed the CT2+ protocol
> (& turned down a CT3 protocol from Ericson) about two years ago.

> Residential product has not been made available for sale yet, but
> private (campus, institutional and corporate) systems have been
> available & being sold since then.

Is this available Canada or the US as private systems? Who is selling
this product?


Thanks!

j$


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not at the present time I don't think.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 9:31:18 CDT
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It


Alex van Es ([e-mail]) writes:

> I have tried to locate the frequency of the phone with my
> scanner, but I have been unable to locate it (so far).
> According to my to my information it should be between 864
> and 868 mhz or between 1880 and 1900 mhz.

I think "between" is the operative word here; if the phone is configured
the same way Ameritech did it during their PCS test here in Chicago,
you won't find it on your scanner. It doesn't operate on any one fixed
frequency, but rather bounces all over the range.


Andrew C. Green            [phone]
Frame Advanced Product Services
441 W. Huron               Internet: [e-mail]
Chicago, IL  60610-3498    FAX: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lim Hui Lin)
Subject: Re: I Just Bought a CT2 Phone and I Love It
Date: 7 Jun 1995 08:33:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard


We also have CT2 here in Singapore (Callzone) and the product is the
Motorola Silverlink too. The phone itself costs ~S$250 while the
personal base station (for home use as a cordless phone) costs ~S$300.
Calls are 20cents/min (double the cost of public phones but equivalent
to that of cellular phones). I'd like to have one but can't justify it
since you can actually get cell phones for about S$700. (currently
US$1 ~= S$1.5)


Hui-Lin Lim - Singapore Networks Operation, Hewlett Packard Singapore
    telnet: 520 8763    phone: [phone]    fax: [phone]
      mail: [e-mail]
      DESK: Hui-Lin Lim/HPSGIT

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Peter Duthie )
Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software?
Date: 8 Jun 1995 16:32:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David K. Leikam) writes:

>> Harold Hallikainen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>> Anyway, the school where I teach is interested in software
>>> that would do something similar to a fax broadcast, but it would be
>>> voice.  They'd have a list of the students in a particular class and
>>> if the class were cancelled, the system could call each of them and
>>> let them know.   <deletia>

> But I'm wondering if there's some simple PC software that could also
> do it.  <more deletia>

> and paraprasing here, Harold said, for about $70.

Hello Direct markets a gadet called a "Phone Tree".  It can call up to
1,000 people.  For details contact Hello Direct at:

http://www.hello-direct.com/hd/

I haven't tried this device, but it sounds like what you might be
looking for.


Peter

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 13:54:32 EDT
From: Michael D. Sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Voice "Broadcast" Software


For what it's worth, Bell Atlantic has begun offering what amounts to
outgoing voice mail ("T-mail" or telephone mail) in Montgomery County,
Md.  (outside Washington, DC).  You can store up to three lists of 25
recipients and send a recorded message to one or more lists.  Charges
are usage-based, with no monthly charge during the test (I think charges
are about 15 or 25 cents per message, with the lower charge if you
already have their voice mail service).


Michael D. Sullivan | INTERNET E-MAIL TO:  [e-mail]
Bethesda, Md., USA  | also [e-mail], [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John R. Winans)
Subject: Re: Low Cost Router Alternatives?
Date: 08 Jun 1995 12:24:30 GMT
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (ZEI) writes:

> Does anyone swear by a super low cost router alternative that can
> migrate from 56K to T1?

> I am interested in reliability / problems / costs.

> I imagine this working with Linux / ethernet on intel box.

What is your definition of low cost?

I have been using a Proteon RBX-200 to handle connectivity to my house
since January.  It has 1 ether (AUI) and two WAN (V.35) ports on it
that can run up to T1 speeds.  You can find them for $1300 complete
with software and cables.  The full DOCs are extra at about $150.  You
can probably do a PPP or Proteon serial config without the DOCs, but
if you have any trouble, you'll need them.  The RBX-200 talks PPP,
Frame Relay, Proteon-custom serial, and a couple of others that I
don't remember right now.  And it also includes all the fancy routing
software.

I went with Proteon because the backorder on Cisco was insane.  It
seems that there are ALOT of telcos and ISPs out there recommending
the 2501.  It is priced in the same ballpark as the RBX-200.  But
Cisco unbundled the thing and its software to the Nth degree. I found
no reasonable assistance in figuring out what I really needed to
order.  And those that claimed to carry the thing were all out of
stock with a nasty backlog.

*MY* problem has been finding reasonable prices on CSU/DSUs.  But some
telcos require you to use theirs anyway, so you might not need to buy
your own.

If you are REALLY into it, you can poke around a mailing list that I
am on looking for John Paul Morrison. He posted a note on 95-04-30
that included the following snipit:

> What I'm trying to do is write free (GPL? BSD license?) software to
> make the MCU68360 into a bridge or IP router using the ethernet and
> going to one or more of its built in high speed serial interfaces. I
> just want to go from ethernet to T1, but if I get anything working,
> maybe other people can use this for etheret to ISDN or a terminal
> server etc. A PCB will be made later on (basically the '360, DRAM,
> EPROM, ethernet and glue logic).

> I'm using the Motorola QUADS board for testing. I'm hosting the
> compiler on Linux (Intel)

John Paul Morrison's email address is [e-mail].
The list I am on is [e-mail].  It is a forum of
GCC users that are working on things like the Cygnus PD libc code, and
an assortment of embedded OS codes.

I'd be REALLY interested in hearing about what you come up with in
this area.


John Winans          Advanced Photon Source  (Controls)
[e-mail]   Argonne National Laboratory, Illinois

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Kadow)
Subject: Re: Low Cost Router Alternatives?
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS, Chicago
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 03:52:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, ZEI <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Does anyone swear by a super low cost router alternative that can
> migrate from 56K to T1?

> I am interested in reliability / problems / costs.

> I imagine this working with Linux / ethernet on intel box.

Sure -- just get a low-end workstation and add a V.35 serial interface.

This is doable at 56K, but if you go much beyond that, don't expect
the box to be usable for much of anything else. Plus, if the workstation
goes down, so does your network connection.


[e-mail]    Kevin Kadow
Yes, I do speak for MSG.Net -- http://msg.net/

------------------------------

From: David Hough <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Oppose Mandatory Touch-Tone $ervice - Your Action Needed
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 95 13:03:51  GMT
Organization: Chaotic


I have never understood why US companies charge extra for tone
dialing.  In the UK it is available at no extra cost, and is available
in parallel with pulse dialing on all but the oldest exchanges (which
are being replaced).

Have any reasons been given why tone-only is being enforced?


Dave  [e-mail]
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David Ofsevit)
Subject: Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:07:14 EDT


    I had to laugh at George Gilder's attempt to revise history
and make Mike Milken into some sort of hero he never was.  Gilder's
analysis is basically flawed because he only describes successful
companies which he claims benefited from Milken's transactions,
conveniently overlooking the companies brought to ground by similar
transactions, not to mention the social costs of those disasters.  He
also seems to feel that, left to themselves, the various banks and
S&Ls that went belly-up would have come out of it and made oodles of
money.  If he's so smart, where was he when it was happening?  I don't
recall *anybody* suggesting at the time that the banks and S&Ls should
just be left alone and everything would be all right.

    Just my opinion on the piece:  self-serving, revisionist humbug.

    Thanks for the laughs.  :-)


David Ofsevit


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, now this is the second time in as
many days I have receieved negative feedback on a piece by George Gilder
which appeared here. I am hoping he will reply to these two critics.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:57:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC


I watched part of a press conference held by (I think) the Progress
and Freedom Foundation people on C-SPAN over the weekend.  Apparently,
once you buy, lease, or obtain the rights to a frequency or band, and
there is interference to you by someone else (as in CATV leaking over
into the aircraft band), you would have the right to prosecute the
offending party for tresspass.  Seems to me it would give the owners
of today's stations in the East U.S. to sue the owners of stations in
the Midwest or the West U.S. in the event of a band opening, or maybe
in the case of tropo ducting of some signals.  Did anyone else watch
any of this and get the same impression?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: People who talk like that display a
woeful ignorance of how radio waves and radios in general operate. I
recall when the late Ayn Rand used to talk about how there should be
no governmental control of the airwaves and that everyone should be
allowed to do their own thing and 'let the most powerful transmitter
be the one that is heard ...'. She was ignorant about radios also.
I don't care if you are pushing 50,000 watts; if I get up next to some
receiver with a hundred milliwatt transmitter I am going to jam your
signal. I can right now, in the privacy of my home with the limited
stuff I have here prevent the neighbors on either side of me from watching
Channel 2 on television ... or make it pretty miserable for them. So if
your signal comes into my home and I block it out am I 'trespassing' on
your property? All you people who favor private ownership of the airwaves
via auction or selling them to one another, etc, what I want you to do
is get *your property* out of my house. I am going to start charging you
a fee for allowing your property to remain in my house.

While I certainly have complaints of my own with the FCC because of
some aspects of their operation -- their field investigators who used
to drive up and down the streets triangulating on CB'ers they did not
like years ago provided the example of 'jackboot thugs' all other federal
agencies including BATF could only hope to someday emulate -- I still
feel some technical regulation of the airwaves is essential. I don't
think they have much business regulating content, but I think they have
done quite well with technical standards over the years.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (D. Ptasnik)
Subject: Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold
Date: 08 Jun 1995 13:57:24 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


[e-mail] (Jerry Aguirre) writes:

> I am thinking about getting a CD changer and feeding it into the music
> on hold port of our PBX.  Any negative issues to doing this?  I would
> appreciate any experience people have with particular models or
> features that make this more practical.

One of our departments bought an el-cheapo at Radio Shack over a year
ago, still spinning.

Be sure to get non-copyrighted discs.  Obscure European orchestras
performing classics are often not copyrighted.  Just make sure that the
disc and liner notes do not have the C with the circle around it, or the
words ASCAP or BMI on it.

> Any speculation on how long a CD changer would last in continuous
> loop 24 hour a day use?

Couple of years at least, I would hope.


All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of -

Dave Ptasnik     [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brian Smith)
Subject: Re: CD Changer For Music on Hold
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 1995 12:41:48 -0500
Organization: NSC Technologies


Jerry,

I don't know how a CD or regular tape player will do if it's left on all
the time.  You may run into more repair problems than it's worth.

You might do better to get a digital music-on-hold player.  You play
the music you want from a cassette tape once and the player loads it
into its memory.  When you hear the music-on-hold it's being play from
the memory of the player, not a tape that's running all the time.  If
you want different music, you can load a different tape.  I think you
can find these players for around $500 or so.  I think Hello Direct
sells one as well as other catalogs.

Also, you might want to remember that legally you are supposed to pay a
music licensing fee to play CDs or tapes as your music-on-hold.  You might
want to contact BMI or ASCAP and get more information.  When you buy a
digital player, it usually comes with some generic licensed music.

If you want more information, you can E-Mail me directly.  I know more
about music-on-hold than I would like to.


Brian Smith

------------------------------

From: B. Z. Lederman <lederman@intransit_tsc.vntsc.dot.gov>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service
Date: 08 Jun 95 17:49:24 EST
Reply-To: Lederman@intransit_tsc.vntsc.dot.gov
Organization: INTRANSIT (VNTSC)


> remember when ITT referred to 'International Telephone and Telegraph',

        You forgot to mention the reason ITT was named "International
Telephone and Telegraph" in the first place, instead of staying with
the names of the parent companies (there were several): the director
was deliberately trying to get people to confuse it with "American
Telephone and Telegraph" so he would get more business.  Apparently it
worked.


B. Z. Lederman.   (Former employee of ITT World Communications)

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 95 17:09:26 EDT
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service


Re: mining in 3M

There was an article earlier this year in Am.Heritage/Science&Technology
on the story of MMM.  The founder had claimed mining rights in
northern Minnesota where he thought he had a deposit of raw abrasive
material, and he wanted to make and sell sandpaper.  The minerals were
not hard/ abrasive enough to be competitive, and carborundum was just
around the corner, so they foundered until coming up with a decent
waterproof adhesive to make wet/dry sandpaper.  The rest is history.


Dave Johnson   [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David K. Bryant)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 13:13:03 GMT


Gordon S. Hlavenka <[e-mail]> writes:

> I know you're talking telecom here, but what about the Minnesota
> Mining and Manufacturing Company?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MMM, or 3-M as they are sometimes called,
> makes a variety of tape products, including 'Scotch Tape' and other
> tapes used for sealing boxes, etc. They also make computer diskettes and
> tapes used to back-up computer data. I can see where all that would be
> considered manufacturing, but where does the mining part come into it?  PAT]

Pat: You forget that another one of 3M's products is sandpaper.  They
mine silicates.

In fact their entire product philosophy is bonding things to a substrate ...
sand to paper ... glue to paper or tape ... oxide particles to mylar ...  etc.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Patton M Turner)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 01:57:25 GMT


3M is a big player in the (telco) outside plant business.  At one time
they almost owned the market for wire splices (Scotchloks), at least
for those not still clinging to the B wire connectors.  They still
make a lot of copper wire splices, splice enclosures, ecapsulants,
mechanical fiber optic splices, and electrical tape.


Patton Turner  KB4GRZ  [e-mail]  FAA Telecommunications


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess it does not matter after so many
years and with their 'Scotch' trademark as well-known as it is, but I
was told that the slection of the term 'scotch' for their products long-
ago (when it was basically Scotch-Tape and a few similar items) was sort
of degrogatory. An old ethnic myth says that Scottish people are tight-
fisted and stingy with their money. The theory was that 3-M's tape was
inexpensive and very little of it would last a long time. i.e. a roll of
their tape would last you almost forever, and just cost a few cents to
purchase (in those days). Therefore you could be 'scottish' about spending
your money and 'scottish' in the amount of tape needed to put together
or repair whatever it was you were working on. If they wished to be
politically correct at all times -- like myself -- they would probably
rename their products. Imagine how awful it would sound for example if
they called it 'Jewish Tape' or something like that.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service
Date: 08 Jun 95 19:08:38 GMT
Organization: Digital Systems International, Redmond WA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (With huge gratuitous deletions ...)

> In the case of Sprint, the company was originally the telecom department
> of the old Southern Pacific Railroad.  Until about 1970, the railroad (and
> most other railroads for that matter) operated their own telecommunication
> links between their terminals by stringing wires on poles along the right
> of way where the tracks were laid.

Another interesting case of a long-distance company's unique way of
acquiring right-of-way for their lines is Metromedia (the same folks
who brought you "Truth or Consequences" with Bob Barker in the 60s).
They purchased bankrupt pipline companies at bargain-basement prices
and ran their cables along the pipelines.

> Likewise, 'Telex' and TWX were originally the 'telegraph exchange' and
> <T>ype<W>riter e<X>change services. I do not know why the one got an 'ex'
> on the end and the other only an 'x'. Telex was Western Union's version
> of a public switched network for telegraph machines and TWX was the Bell
> System's version of the same thing. AT&T and WUTCO got in a big fight
> about 1960 with WUTCO claiming Bell had no right to be in the telegraph
> business. AT&T lost and had to divest themselves of the TWX business, but
> the name stayed with the equipment.

The theme song to "Wall Street Week" is "TWX in 12 bars."  That's a
real Teletype ASR-33 in the band.

> And by the way, that was a very unkind comment about Bill Gates. I have
> no authoritative word on this, but I beleive the name came from the
> combination of micro-computers and software. My first introduction to the
> company was about 1977-78 when I had my Ohio Scientific C-1-P computer.
> It used Microsoft Basic

Yes, two things that were "up and coming" in the 70s -- microprocessors
and off-the-shelf software.  Maybe it's just me, but MicroSoft sounded
like a stupid name in the 70s and it still sounds stupid today.  It
could be a brand of toilet paper, ferchrissake.


David Breneman                                       [e-mail]
Unix Systems Administrator                          Voice: [phone]
Corporate Network Operations                          Fax: [phone]
Digital Systems International, Inc.      Redmond, Washington,  U. S. o' A.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 11:07 EST
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service


This is getting off track, but it's been a refreshingly silly thread.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: MMM, or 3-M as they are sometimes called,
> makes a variety of tape products, including 'Scotch Tape' and other
> tapes used for sealing boxes, etc. They also make computer diskettes and
> tapes used to back-up computer data. I can see where all that would be
> considered manufacturing, but where does the mining part come into it?  PAT]

Well, all that iron oxide has to come from *somewhere*.  Most likely
Minnesota iron mines.

It's kind of frightening to think about -- all your data, backed-up or no, is
stored on what is essentially rust ...


Larry Kollar    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Anton Sherwood)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service
Organization: Loose Cannon
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 01:13:34 GMT


> She went on to say that other companies' names had far more colorful
> origins.  [ humorous yarns snipped ]

I heard that NBI was once named something really obscure like Neoteric
Balonium Institute (not really that, but I've long forgotten the real
name), and a venture capitalist said "You can't call it that! Call it
Nothing But Initials."


disclaimer: the above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence.
Anton Sherwood   *\\*   [phone]   *\\*   [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 08 Jun 95 15:10:41 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Mike and Terry's Lawnmower Service


Probably a small item, but appearance of "ITT" just now reminded me of
Cousin Itt, a minor character on the Addams Family TV show.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah yes, the dimwitted Cousin Itt. I
think I'll have him edit this Digest for awhile when I take my
vacation this summer. That should be an improvement, eh?  Well, now
I am off to see the movie 'Johnny Mnenomic' at the Old Orchard Theatre
5:30 pm showing. Anyone else seen it?  If it is any good, I may review
it here in a day or so.   ITT  oops, I mean PAT].

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #277
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa18975;
          9 Jun 95 6:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17828 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 23:11:13 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17817; Thu, 8 Jun 1995 23:11:10 -0500
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 23:11:10 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #278

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Jun 95 23:11:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 278

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 911 From Cellphones in CA (Robert Levandowski)
    Re: A Tour of Your Phone (Mike Parker)
    Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (Mark Smith)
    Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers? (Vidya Gopaul)
    Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Bennett Z. Kobb)
    Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (Ronald Reiner)
    Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work (Jack Bzoza)
    History of TSPS/TOPS/OSPS (Mark Cuccia)
    HumanNets and WorldNet - Are Earliest Posts Archived Anywhere? (R. Hauben)
    Trillium Telephone Systems - TalkTo 616 (Renny Koshy)
    Re: Mike Milken - Two Trillion Dollar Opportunity by Gilder (Larry Riedel)
    Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (TELECOM Digest Editor)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Robert Levandowski)
Subject: Re: 911 From Cellphones in CA
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 95 00:03:55 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Marty Brenneis <[e-mail]> writes:

> I am seeking personal experiences both good and bad that involve using
> cellular 911 for situations that were not the jurisdiction of the
> Highway Patrol. (mail to [e-mail]) I am mainly interested in
> California, but if you have an interesting tale from another state or
> country please chime in.

I recently got the chance to visit the 911 Center for Monroe County,
New York.  (Monroe County includes Rochester, NY, home of Kodak,
Bausch and Lomb, and Paychex, among others.)  The county's new 911
center is certainly something to behold!  Among the details I remember,
it is constructed with bulletproof glass and Kevlar-composite wall
panels, as well as being earthquake- and flood-proof and having its
own power supplies and redundant communications links.  The impression
that I got was that if there were ever an earthquake that flooded
town, cut off power, and caused people to start emptying their illegal
assault rifles into the comm center, 911 would be able to ignore it
and go on taking calls. :)

They also have specially-designed acoustic walls.  They deaden the sound
from the calltaker's workstations, so it's not noisy; but the supervisors
in the center of the room can still be heard clearly at each station,
and a standing operator can easily be heard by the supervisor.  The
acoustic properties of the room were amazing!

Anyhow, in Monroe County -all- 911 calls are routed to this center, unless
an outlying community fields its own landline 911 calls at its police
station.  This includes all cellular 911 calls made to towers within
Monroe County.  The one center has call takers and dispatchers for
police, fire, and ambulance, for local, county, and state forces.  They
also handle the occasional odd cellular traffic, like boaters on Lake
Ontario, and the soon to be documented on "Rescue 911" case of a small
plane pilot whose radio went out while on approach, who called 911 on
his cellphone from the plane to talk to the tower ...

The call-takers and dispatchers use a special call system running on
Digital PCs with touchscreens.  Besides the usual enhanced-911 capabilities,
they can easily hand off calls to local and state agencies with a quick
touch of one of their three video screens.  They can call up detailed
life-saving information on another screen to assist a caller.

The tour guide did mention the bane of their existance: the cellular phone.
The problem is that cellphones don't pass Caller-ID or ANI here in Monroe
County.  Therefore, the staff can't even determine your name and phone
number, never mind your location.

The things that the 911 tour guide mentioned regarding cell phones were:

* BEFORE you place the call to 911,
    - find out what road you're on.
    - find out what the nearest cross street, exit, or mile marker is.
    - PULL OFF THE ROAD! and don't make matters worse by juggling the
      handset.  (NY does not yet have a law requiring the use of a
      handsfree microphone while the vehicle is in motion, but one
      is expected to pass and take effect real soon now.)
    - if you are calling because of an accident or an injury to
      another party, investigate the situation and assess the status
      of everyone else involved before calling.  If anyone is in
      immediate danger, help them before calling.
    - if the emergency involves a car anywhere near traffic, set out
      flares or triangles to warn oncoming traffic.  (You do have
      flares in your car, right? :)

* When you call 911,
    - try to remember the calltaker's name in case you are cut off.
    - remember that they have no idea where you are or who you are.
    - give your name and your cellular telephone number.
    - state the nature of the emergency:
        - what happened?
        - is anyone injured?
        - is a crime in progress?
        - is a gun involved?  etc.
    - DO NOT hang up until you are told to do so.

If you're like me, you're probably thinking that most of this seems
pretty common-sense.  However, it was made excruciatingly clear during
the tour that most cellular 911 callers screw up most of this.  The
guide had a lot of contempt for people who call in and say "I just
passed a broken down car."

911:    Where are you?
Caller:    On the highway.
911:    Which highway?
Caller:    I don't know, I'm not from around here, the big highway.
911:    Do you know the mile marker or the nearest exit?
Caller:    Geez, I wasn't paying attention, can't you send someone?
911:    Well, what kind of car was it?
Caller:    It was a white car, I don't know what kind, it went by fast.
911:    Was anyone hurt?
Caller:    I couldn't tell, I didn't stop...
911:    Do you know the license plate number of the car?
Caller:    I told you, I didn't see!
[etc.]

That's something I made up, but it's the kind of thing the tour guide
described as being a fairly typical cellular 911 call, and the reason why
911 hates cellular. :)

I'd say, if you're trying to educate cellular users, the absolute best
thing you can do is write a short, simple, and to the point guide about
what to do in a cellular emergency.  It'd be good if it were small enough
to fold into a door pocket, the pocket of a bag phone, or even a wallet.


Rob Levandowski
Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester
[e-mail]     [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mike Parker)
Subject: Re: A Tour of Your Phone
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 19:18:10 -0400
Organization: News & Observer Public Access


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Arthur
P Bebak) wrote:

> This just appeared in the latest issue of Netsurfer Digest and may be
> of some interest to the readers of these newsgroups:

> AT&T'S TERRIFIC TOUR OF YOUR TELEPHONE

> With their "Talking Power" pages, AT&T provides an entertaining and
> educational tour through the telephone system, part of their
> multimedia performance support systems. You can learn more about your
> phone line, batteries, the central office, the U.S. telephone network,
> the anatomy of a telephone call, and the training course itself. It's
> all part of the impressive site that AT&T maintains.
> URL:http://www.att.com/talkingpower/>

And don't forget NORTEL's equally entertaining and educational 'Telecom 101'.
It can be found on the impressive site that NORTEL maintains.
<URL:http:// www.nortel.com>


Totally objective,

Mike Parker
Product Manager DMS 100 Remotes
NTI,  RTP, NC
[e-mail] / [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Mark Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 95 19:16:49 EDT
Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
writes:

> Could someone please explain the mechanism that allows cell phones to
> *receive* calls while they are out of their home area? I recently had
> the need to receive a call while out of my area (Central Indiana via
> Cellular One) and according to the friendly representative all I
> needed to do was dial some access code ONCE to unlock the block from
> my phone.

Basically, most cellular systems will allow "Follow-Me Roaming" when
out of area.  You dial *18 when you reach a new system (not a new cell
 -- a new system) and that tells the cellular network "I'm here!".
Then, they can route calls to you.

If you're driving, this generally translates into dialing *18 every 50
miles or so.  If your carrier covers a large area, or has agreements,
this may not even be necessary.  Bell Atlantic has a deal where
Automatic Call Delivery (no extra code required) works for Philly
customers all the way from NYC to Washington DC.

You also have to activate Follow-Me Roaming once per day, as it
automatically deactivates at midnight.  If you want to deactivate it
on your own, dial *19.

I've used it, and it works when I remember to activate it.


Mark

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 17:47:00 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject:  Re: Meridian SL1 - Information Pointers?
Organization: Bell Northern Research


[e-mail] (Gary Feld) wrote:

> The digital connectivity of proprietary phones deals with how the PABX
> communicates with its telephones (lights lights, paints displays, etc)
> as well as carries the phone conversation.  An analog port simply
> carries the conversation.  If your concerns go deeper, conact me via
> E-mail and we may be able to help you out.

Just to add to this response. Fax-On-Demand will work on analog line
as long as the correct Meridian Mail software release is installed in
the M/Mail and PBX systems.


Vidya Gopaul  [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bennett Z. Kobb)
Subject: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC
Organization: New Signals Press
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:17:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

> Sorry if I sould overly sarcastic.  I get annoyed with the FCC at times.
> But this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Let's treat the
> patient and get him better, not sumarily execute him.

My thoughts exactly.

Few if any of the concerns addressed in this thread are addressed in
the "comprehensive plan" I summarized. Enforcement issues, treatment
of noncommercial licensees, unlicensed devices, and many other issues
are ignored, trivialized or dismissed.

Most of the plan deals with general and non-wireless issues and
historical review (or revision). I tried to pick out only the most
concrete proposals affecting radio communications and to paraphrase
them briefly. Anyone is welcome to ask [e-mail] for a copy of the
plan, titled "The Telecom Revolution -- An American Opportunity."

I would urge anyone reading it to take it with a grain of salt.
Readers unfamiliar with the FCC proceedings described might be tempted
to believe the accounts as presented.

The downsized Executive Branch agency that would remain after the FCC
is eliminated would retain some duties, many of these for a limited
time.  International coordination of allocations and orbit assignments
and representing the U.S. in international fora, for example, would be
retained for three years and then subject to review.

Such functions, however, as technical standards for equipment and
services, authority to assign bands of frequencies to various
stations, and many other fundamental functions would be repealed,
period.


Bennett Kobb


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I think that would be absolutely
terrible ... a real disaster.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ronald Reiner)
Subject: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work
Date: 8 Jun 1995 13:53:23 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA


Donald Burr ([e-mail]) wrote:

> number that people can send FAXes to.  Then you call in at a later
> time and pick up any FAXes waiting for you.  It kinda works like an
> answering machine or voice mail, but it's for FAX transmissions.

> Since I don't know exactly how they work, if anyone does, and can
> explain it to me, I would appreciate it very much.  Also, what extra
> hardware do we need to have in order to use this service?  Will it
> work with FAX modems hooked to computers, or do you NEED a fax
> MACHINE?

I work for a company which manufacturers the equipment for setting up
fax mailboxes.  In general, our equipment is used by service providers
to offer general store and forward fax service.

Our equipment allows people to sign up for something we call Direct
Access to Mailbox.  Under this arrangement, you are given a special
phone number which your correspondents use to send faxes to you.
These faxes are received and stored on a fax mailbox on one of our
machines.  At anytime you want, you call up your subscriber service
number and request that your faxes be sent to you.  You hang up the
phone and pretty soon all of the stored faxes are faxed to you.  It
doesn't matter whether you have a PC or fax machine.  There are may
different ways of using the service depending upon the facilities
offered by your phone company.  Our equipment allows you to forward
any stored faxes to any destination you desire.  This is especially
handy if you travel a lot and want to be able to retrieve your faxes
no matter where you are.

For example, you can give your correspondents your normal fax number.
If the the line is available when they call, their faxes will end up
at your site.  However, you can forward your phone to the service
number if your line on busy or if you feel like turning off your PC.
Another option is to give your correspondents the service number but
put the mailbox in autoforward mode.  Any faxes coming into the
mailbox, will automatically be forwarded to your normal fax number.
If it is unavailable, they will be left in the mailbox for later
manual retrieval.

I am sure that AT&T, the Baby Bells etc. offer these kinds of
services.  Unfortunately they do not use our equipment.  Our equipment
is used throughout the world by other countries such as Korea,
England, Denmark, etc.  Somethimes, you may find service providers
with fax mailbox offerings who cater to high volume corporate
accounts.

I hope that this helps.  I'm sorry I can't be more specific about
seeking service providers.  If you lived in Denmark, I could give you
a number and user's manual.


Ron Reiner

------------------------------

From: Jack Bzoza <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Fax Mailbox" Type Services - How They Work
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 95 10:36:00 PDT


[e-mail] (Donald Burr) wrote:

> My roommate and I would like to be able to receive FAXes.

> I've heard of "fax mailbox" type services that will give you a phone
> number that people can send FAXes to.  Then you call in at a later
> time and pick up any FAXes waiting for you.  It kinda works like an
> answering machine or voice mail, but it's for FAX transmissions.

Call Delrina at 1-800-268-6082.

They have exactly such a service which gives you fax mailboxes on a
1-800 telephone number.  About $9.95/mo gives you a fixed number of
pages of fax and so many cents per page after that.

Paging notification and voicemail are also options.

------------------------------

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: History of TSPS/TOPS/OSPS
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 95 09:24:00 GMT


When 1984 (so appropo' considering Orwell's year) came around, TSPS
operators who had previously been employees of the local Bell Op.Co's
were then employees of the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (AT&T
Long Lines became AT&T Communications, too).

I'm not quite sure about the larger Indeps (GTE, etc) who had their
OWN toll switches and operator centers.  Some Indeps had TSPS (a
Western Electric standard) but the Indeps had GTE-Automatic Electric
manufacture TSPS.

Canada was PRIMARLIY TOPS (Traffic Operator Positions Systems), which
Northern Electric (Telecom) developed in the 1970's.  This was MORE
DIGITAL than TSPS and usually homed on a DMS switch.  Many Indie's in
the US also used TOPS.  The terminals were just like a computer
terminal and NOT designed like a TSPS board.  There is a video monitor
and a keyboard (alphanumeric).  However, the OPERATOR FUNCTIONS (KP,
KP card, KP back, POS-REL, T&C, INTL, etc.etc.etc.) were ALSO labelled
on the alphanumeric keys (along with the regular letters & numbers).

Sometime around 1986, AT&T here in Louisiana began adding video
monitors and keyboards to their TSPS positions.  This were a SEPARATE
operation, to search a database for NamePlace (NPA-NXX), Rate & Route,
Rates, Operator Codes, Numberings, etc.  They were NOT directly tied
in with the traditional TSPS.  Around Christmas 1986, local TV showed
how AT&T's operators were busy handling Holiday calling volume, and
you saw the traditional TSPS board along with the video monitor
suspended on a pole from the ceiling and the keyboard sitting on top
of the flat shelf directly in front of the operator.

One of the MFJ stipulations was that the local BOC's were going to
'take-back' operator services for local/inTRA-LATA calls.  The CBS
Evening News one nite in 1985 showed Seattle (Pac.NW Bell/USWest) with
the differences between 0 (InTRA-Lata Bell) and 00 (InTER-Lata via
AT&T or whatever carrier).  AT&T was still using TSPS while the local
Bells were unanimously going to NT's TOPS equipment.  Louisiana had
Bell taking back the '0' (for InTRA-Lata) in the Spring of 1986.  The
SCBell Operator could always transfer you over to AT&T, but AT&T
cannot transfer you back to Bell.  (Today, SCBell can also try to
transfer you over to MCI and Sprint and probably others, at the
customer's request).  From 1986 to 1989, AT&T could ALSO complete
calls within the LATA at the Bell Tarriffed rates, and Bell got all of
the revenue.

Around 1989/90, AT&T began to introduce OSPS (Operator Service
Positions Systems), a Western Electric manufacture, DIGITAL,
associated with #5ESS.  AT&T operators would NOT assist on InTRA-LATA
calls (unless tarriffed by the local body to do so).  You could NOT
place a 'sequence call' on your calling card within the LATA if the
original call was InTER-Lata via AT&T.  OSPS 'boards' look very much
like TOPS- a monitor and keyboard.

In September, 1991, the Louisiana PSC 'permitted' InTRA-LATA
competition.  Why I put this in quotes is that MCI, Sprint, etc.
ALWAYS completed InTRA-LATA calls when placed with fg.A or B access
using 950-XXXX or 1-800- numbers.  AT&T had ALWAYS respected Bell's
revenue/territory and since AT&T did not get any revenue on InTRA-LATA
calls but their operators were doing work, they discontinued
InTRA-LATA when they implemented OSPS. When InTRA-LATA competion was
then allowed, AT&T started completing calls again, and here in
Louisiana, their per-minute toll rates ARE NOTICEABLY LESS than Bell
(except on weekends/nites, where Bell is a penny cheaper per minute
than AT&T).

SHORTER DISTANCE Intralata (toll) points are OPTIONALLY available as an
extended monthly package plan - similar to measured/metered rate and even
some of these points are 'capped' as if it were monthly flat rate.  AT&T
handled (such as calling card) calls which are in the TRADITIONAL LOCAL
CALLING AREA are timed rate - Bell's card and opr.asstd.local rates are FLAT
here in Louisiana - approx.88cents (63cent opr.assistance surcharge even
tho' it can be fully automated, plus the quarter you WOULD have dropped in
the payphone).  If you have several calls, mixed inTER-Lata, InTRA-LATA
TOLL, and LOCAL to all be billed on a calling card, you should try to
determine the rates BEFOREHAND, and probably NOT want to do a simple string
of 'Sequence Calls'.

I'm NOT getting into private payphone situations in the above - we
know that they do NOT conform to traditional Bell System standards.

A FEW MORE POINTS - when you were connected to a TSPS operator, both
the caller AND the operator heard a 'zip' tone beep for a split second
- you do NOT hear that when the OSPS or TOPS operator answers - AND -
AT&T has been doing MAJOR consolidation of their Operator centers (the
Bells have done some too) - When I dial 00 from New Orleans, I started
to get TSPS or OSPS operators in Jackson MS or Memphis TN in 1989/90.
TODAY, I get AT&T operators in Atlanta, Florida, the Carolinas, and
Virginia (yes, I ask them where they are located), a different time
zone than mine, and if the OSPS opr.doesn't check our times, she HAS
quoted me the wrong rates such as when I have 7am and she has 8am - of
course, I know what the rates are approximatly and I usually say
'check-again ... I'm in the CENTRAL time zone'.

ALSO, when one dials (10(10)288)+00 (or AT&T's 800 access) today, you
first get the jingle and logo, followed by a recorded 'If you'd like
to place a call, please enter the Area Code and number now - If you
need Operator assistance, please say OPERATOR now' to which you can
also touch(DTMF) 0 or 0# or 00, to which you hear 'Please hold for an
operator'.  AS THE OPERATOR COMES ON THE LINE, most of the time, a
standard recording (usually female) states 'AT&T-How may I help you?'.
They do have a standard MALE recording, but sometimes the female voice
recording states the above, with a MALE operator on the line.
Sometimes the recording does NOT come in and the operator answers
LIVE.  I HATE THAT RECORDING and the waits and prompts - When I dial
00, I want to talk to a LIVE OPERATOR.  If I am making an automated
tupe of billed call, I will dial (10288)+0+ (and other code strings)

A LONG WAY AWAY FROM "NUMBER PLEASE"


MARK J. CUCCIA    PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:
WORK:     [e-mail]
UNiversity 5-5954,TEL[phone])
UNiversity 5-5917,FAX[phone])
HOME:             CHestnut 1-2497
4710 Wright Road | fwds.on busy/no-answr.to cellphone/voicemail
New Orleans 28  | ([phone])
Louisiana (70128) USA

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: HumanNets and WorldNet - Are Earliest Posts Archived Anywhere?
Date: 8 Jun 1995 11:20:00 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


Does anyone know if the earliest issues (before May, 1981) of the
HumanNets Mailing list have been archived and are available anywhere?

I have come across posts or digests from the 1981 - 1983 period, but
wondered if the earlier posts have been saved.

It seemed to be an important and popular Mailing List on the ARPANET
and also was of great interest to Usenet pioneers when they were able
to have a gateway to the ARPANET Mailing Lists like HumanNets and
Scifi lovers.

Also, I am interested in knowing more about how it started and
how it came to be called HumanNets.

The early posts I have read indicate that folks on it were interested
in exploring what Human Nets connected by computers would make possible.

I wondered if anyone had any of the early posts that described the
vision of a WorldNet that folks discussed in the early 1980's.

I am working on a draft article about early Usenet and it would be
helpful to have more background on both the vision of WorldNet and
how Usenet fit into that.


Ronda    [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Ronda Hauben       The Amateur Computerist    [e-mail]
vol 6 no 2/3       "The Netizens and the Internet"       free via email
"Net Cultural Assumptions"     "What Is a Netizen"        "Licklider's Vision"
"Ethics and the Internet"   "The Internet: Maintaining Diversity" etc.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This Digest began as an offshoot of the
Human Nets mailing list. It was more general in nature, and when a group
of several people on the mailing list wanted to have a more technical
discussion of telephones, it was decided to create this Digest for that
purpose. TELECOM Digest began in August, 1981. All the back issues of
this Digest, with a few exceptions, have been archived for interested
parties, but I don't know about anything from the late 1970's or 1980.

If anyone knows the answer to this, it might be some of the charter
subscribers to this Digest. Yes, there are a half-dozen or so of the
people who were on the list in 1981 who are still on it today. Perhaps
they know something about it.

Just as this Digest came from Human Nets, other e-zines have had their
origin here in telecom. The Computer Privacy Digest was started by
Dennis Rears as a result of a large volume of messages on Caller-ID
that I did not want to handle here. He has since passed the Digest on
to the professor in Milwaukee. Then Computer Underground Digest, or CuD
was 'born' here under much the same circumstances: a net scandal several
years ago involving a couple of (at the time) well-known net people
which resulted in prison sentences also resulted in a massive overflow
of mail and a great deal of controversy in this Digest and elsewhere on
the net. CuD started as a result, to continue that discussion. Bill
Pfieffer began his Airwaves Radio Journal with my assistance, although
not as a direct offspring from telecom.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Renny Koshy)
Subject: Trillium Telephone Systems - TalkTo 616
Organization: Integrated Environments, Inc
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 09:47:17 GMT


I recently purchased a TRILLIUM 616 KSU.  It's a 6x16 system with seven
sets.  However, I didn't get any docs, and the guy claimed that he would
send it to me. I have yet to receive anything ... I don't even know
his phone number.

ANyway, if you have any information on the company or the unit, PLEASE
HELP.


Renny

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Larry Riedel)
Subject: Re: Mike Milken - Two Trillion Dollar Opportunity by Gilder
Date: 9 Jun 1995 00:34:39 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University, College of Sciences


TELECOM Digest Editor responded to J. Brad Hicks ([e-mail]):

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am wondering if George Gilder would be
> so kind to provide a response to Mr. Hicks and share it with the rest of
> us here reading the Digest.  PAT]

I certainly hope not.  The last thing I want to see in this newsgroup
is the resurrection of ancient flame wars over anecdotal evidence of
the evil 80's.  Whether or not Mike Milken is evil has nothing to do
with telecom.

Isn't this a moderated group?  Is this alt.politics.economics?


Larry


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nor is it my intention to provide a
forum here for alt.politics.economics ... however try as I may, it
becomes very difficult at times to separate the technology of telecom
from the politics of telecom. So much of the reason for *why* things
are done the way they are in the industry today has to to do with the
history and politics of the industry in the past. There is no clean
place to break it off. And if Milken is 'evil', then the very last
place we want to see him is getting involved in telecom, particularly
in the telecom industry of the century approaching. Let him ransack
and loot a few other industries instead. I am NOT saying he is 'evil',
just that it all seems rather 'iffy' and chancey to me; problematic
to say the least, and that is where I also had to take some issue
with Gilder this time around. I just don't know if he could be trusted
or not. I'm still hoping GG will favor us with a response; maybe GAJ
can prevail on him to do so.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 21:29:02 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money


As I mentioned here Thursday afternoon, I went to see the movie Johnny
Mnemonic at the Old Orchard Theatre. I had to rush over there in time
for the 5:30 pm show, stopping at the cash station to get money for a
ticket, my popcorn, etc. The popcorn and soft drink cost almost as much
as the ticket. ($7 for ticket; $6.25 for huge box of popcorn and large
Coke, and that was with a one dollar off coupon for refreshments they
gave me when I went in.)

Well, such a waste of my time and money. The movie lasted about ninety
minutes and by 7:30 pm I was back home again.

I *thought* it was going to have something more to do with the 'net'
in a realistic way, but this movie was nothing but violence and sheer
fantasy, taking place in the year 2050, or somewhere around that time.
Throughout the whole movie there are people fighting, killing each
other, chopping off each other's arms and heads, etc. They start fires,
set off bombs, etc. For quite a few of the characters in the movie their
vocabulary is limited to mostly four letter words.

This fellow Johnny is engaged as a courier between people on one side
and people on the other.  He travels between Bejing and a place known
as 'Free Newark'. He has chips implanted in his head which hold 'data'
to be conveyed from one side to the other. He goes to the one side where
a massive amount of 'data' is uploaded into his brain and then goes to
the other side to have it downloaded. He literally plugs some wire in
the back of his head at one end where they upload to him, then the
same thing is supposed to happen in reverse on the other end.

Well, it turns out the people on both sides are pretty nasty. After
the people on one side upload to him he barely escapes with his life
to get to the other side. Naturally he has to kill or maim at least
a dozen people by that point. When he gets back, the people on the
other side renege on their deal to pay him and restore his brain to
its normal operation. To make matters worse, no one can seem to find
the password needed to commence the download, so a decision is reached
that it will be necessary to chop off his head, then use brute force
to extract his brain from his severed head and pick the data out
byte by byte.

Well Johnny does not like that idea at all, and a few dozen more
people wind up either dead or set on fire. Johnny does all this
singlehandedly of course except for when his obligatory girl friend
assists him with dispatching a couple of the bad guys. You always
have to have a girl friend in these movies, someone with enough
intelligence to think of some last minute rescue tactics. She gets
Johnny hustled off to this place where the good guys are going to
let him 'hook into the net' so the download can take place. By now
Johnny is getting some awful headaches from the information overload
he has been carrying around for a couple days and we are told he will
die unless the data can be downloaded to the 'net' immediatly.

Trouble is, they still cannot remember the password needed so a hacker
in the form of a fish in a large aquarium tank (yes, that's what I
said; it is unclear to me how exactly the hacker got that way) is
called upon to find the password using brute force if needed. Even
the hacker fails at his task. Now everyone feels certain the only
thing left to do is chop off Johnny's head so the data can be saved.
In fact, complain the good guys, because of the information overload
in his head, there has already been some 'leakage' and most likely
the data is corrupted.  They convince Johnny that since he 'is going
to die anyway' if they don't manage to download the data very soon,
he might as well go along with their plan to try a lobotomy first in
the hopes the data can be saved without killing Johnny completely in
the process.

Well wouldn't you know it, at the very last minute, someone comes up
with a scrap of paper where the password had been written down and
all turns out well. Johnny gets plugged into the 'net' through this
connection on the back of his head, and the good guys announce that
the download will commence. He doesn't have to have a hole drilled
in his head -- or worse yet, his head cut off -- and of course there
is the obligatory scene with his girl friend at the end where they
are kissing, smiling and happy.

I think over the course of this ninety minute talking/motion picture,
there were about sixty different people who were killed or seriously
wounded either by being shot, stabbed, chopped up, set on fire or
by being in a place that was bombed or set on fire, etc. We got to
see how a 'sound cannon' works, and how if a person cannot get away
in time it causes blood to squirt out of their eyes, nose and ears,
a lot like the desease Ebola.

Before this spectacle started, we were treated to a preview of coming
attractions, and another major motion picture of this same genre
called 'Internet - 2051', which will soon be Coming to a Theatre
Near You. It appeared to be just as trashy and crude as Johnny Mnemonic,
although it might be worse since for the preview of coming attractions
they have to cut out all the sex and profanity.

So now, not only do we have an endless supply of newspaper editors and
reporters who make up *lies* about the internet, it looks like Hollywood
has discovered us also.

The popcorn wasn't that good either.


PAT

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #278
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa02734;
          9 Jun 95 18:28 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24496 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 9 Jun 1995 09:08:23 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24488; Fri, 9 Jun 1995 09:08:20 -0500
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 09:08:20 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #279

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 9 Jun 95 09:08:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 279

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Now Four Local Players in Chicago (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: Crossed Wires and ANI (Roger Atkinson)
    Phone Mail Jail (Lee Winson)
    Need Information on BT Datelmux 7200 (Brian McGinty)
    Information Wanted on Smart Cards (David Payne)
    TCOM Assistant Professor (One Year, Ph.D.) (Bruce Klopfenstein)
    E3 interface needed (Gian Enrico Paglia)
    Merging Phone Company Test Boards ([e-mail])
    Baseball All-Star Ballot Available on the Internet (Stephen Goodman)
    Question For Analog Mobile Guru (Glenn Shirley)
    V5.2 Question (Masoud Loghmani)
    Multiplexer software control (Albert Helberg)
    Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From? (Joel Upchurch)
    Request for Async Simplex Mux (Peter A. Smith)
    TSPS (was "How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942") (Paul Cook)
    Re: Blind - But Working With ACD - And Some Other Stuff (Allen Greenwalt)
    Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Joel Kolstad)
    More Laughs and Not the Lawnmower Man (A. Padgett Peterson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Now Four Local Players in Chicago
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 1995 08:00:00 CDT


LCI International, the nation's sixth largest long distance company has
filed an application with the Illinois Commerce Commission to offer local
phone service in Chicago.

Based in McLean, Virginia, LCI now joins AT&T and MCI Metro (a division of
MCI Telecommunications) in competing with Ameritech for customers in the
Chicago area.

What makes this particularly interesting is that LCI is specifically
aiming for the residential market. In the past, competitors to the 'phone
company' seemed to always be interested in the business market, and in
particular the largest of the business customers.

LCI has promised to make a vigorous attack on Ameritech's residential
customer base with flat long distance rates and six second billing. Their
application is under review now by the Illinois Commerce Commission and
some decision is expected later this summer.

Does any other community have four companies interested in local service?
Does any other community have a long distance telco with a specific interest
in agressively signing up the residential customers?

They'll be doing it, they say, by purchasing space and resources in bulk
through Ameritech for resale.  It should be an interesting summer.


Patrick Townson

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Roger Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Crossed Wires and ANI
Organization: R. F. Atkinson & Co.
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 1995 08:15:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Chris J. Cartwright - ELF
<[e-mail]> writes:

> I was using MY-ANI-IS to label the demarc (cursing my predecessor!)
> when I slipped up.  I was using a tone butt set to dial out on each of
> the lines in a 66 block.  My count was off and I tied across pins 9
> and 10 instead of 10 and 11.  This gave me TIP of one line and RING of
> another, oblivious I hit the redial.  The call went out and other than
> the audio being reduced nothing seemed odd.  Since the AC and prefix
> are the same the 301-NXX sounded like the echo supression was bad.  It
> wasn't until I got to the extension number that I got a clue something
> was wrong.  What I got was a readback of both numbers simultaneosly!
> Yes they were off by a few milliseconds (accounting for the echo) but
> if I listened carfully I could hear both numbers being reported.

It would appear that by drawing loop current from one side of each
line circuit, you placed two simultaneous calls, and therefore got two
responses.  The type of equipment providing the local service
certainly has an affect on whether or not such a situation would
result in two calls (or even one), but how the calls are routed
through the network after the local switch should be immaterial.

Hope this helps.


Roger

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lee Winson)
Subject: Phone Mail Jail
Date: 9 Jun 1995 02:36:30 GMT
Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS


I got a business tonight and got stuck in "phone mail jail".  I wanted
to leave a message, but the option didn't work and I kept looping.
There was no way to reach a human.

Also frustrating are automated PBX systems.  Suppose I know neither a
person nor extension number?  I need an operator to connect me to the
accounting department.  In the old days, a company's switchboard
operator was trained in the company, and knew whether to connect to
general accounting, accounts-payable, accounts receiving, payroll,
etc., as set up by that company.  This was known as good business, and
strongly encouraged in PBX training by the Bell System.

I wish that phone mail system manufacturers would help their customers
design decent, standardized, easy-to-use, and fail-safe systems.  The
stuff out now stinks.

First, a lot of customers still have rotary dials.  Given voice
recognition technology, it should be a no-brainer to pick up dial
pulses (if they can decipher voice, they can decipher precisely timed
clicks).

Second, there should be ALWAYS an exit to a human operator, and without
waiting six hours for one.  Pressing 0 should instantly switch to a human.
If the company is closed, there should be a recording option.

Third, systems should try to use standardized key functions.  * and #
should do the same thing.  If you have recording or transfer options,
the keys should be uniform across systems.  It would save so much time.

Lastly, systems should be carefully designed so that no customer ends up
in an infinite loop, or phone mail jail.

BTW, Ted Koppel did a story on this on ABC's Nightline.  Not a good item
for the Telecommunications product industry.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brian McGinty)
Subject: Need Information on BT Datelmux 7200
Date: 9 Jun 1995 06:10:30 GMT
Organization: The Direct Connection


Anyone have any info or sources for info on the BT Datelmux 7200 ... please
don't say 'BT!'


Cheers,

Brian

------------------------------

Subject: Information Wanted About Smart Cards
From: [e-mail] (DAVID PAYNE)
Date: 08 Jun 95 22:50:55 EDT


Pat,

Does anyone know of some resources that are available on smart card
technology?  I work for a hospital in London, Ontario that is looking
into different multi functional smart card applications.  Are there
any hospitals in North America or Europe that are using this technology?
Does anyone know of some people I could talk to or articles I could
read?  What about books?

The hospital would like to explore implementing a multifunctional smart
card for the hospital staff.  The application that is being explored is
to provide one card that serves as a parking card, staff ID card, a long
distance debit/calling card, and a debit card for cafeteria food.  Is
this possible and affordable today?  Ideally, we would like the card to
access payroll or the hospital credit union's bank accounts.

We understand that debit technology will often increase sales for a
vendor by as much as 20%.  Has anyone ever heard this and if so does
anyone know of any research that has been published on the benefits of
this technology?

I will share my results with this group!

Thanks again!


David Payne     [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One place I have seen these recently is at
Northwestern University. They have something called the 'Wild Card' which
can be used in all the vending machines, copy machines and such around
the campus. You purchase it in the book store there, and when it runs out
you can load it up again at machines where you insert the card, then put
in money -- up to twenty dollars I think -- and retrieve your card with
the new value stored on it. You might ask Northwestern about it.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Klopfenstein)
Subject: TCOM Assistant Professor (One Year, Ph.D.)
Date: 9 Jun 1995 03:08:52 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University


The Department of Telecommunications, Bowling Green State University,
seeks candidates for a one year faculty replacement position at the
assistant professor level.  Candidates must have a completed Ph.D. and
preferably professional telecommunications experience (broadcasting,
cable, telephony) and teaching and research interests related to new
media and society. Areas of particular interest include multimedia,
communication technology in organizations, and social impacts of
technology.  The successful candidate can expect to work with graduate
students (M.A. and Ph.D.) and should have a record or strong promise
of scholarly research.  *Experience writing equipment and other grant
proposals highly desirable.* The position is open until filled but
duties commence on August 22.

Nominations/applications with current references should be sent to:

Dr. Bruce C. Klopfenstein, Chair  |  [e-mail]
Department of Telecommunications  |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University    |  [phone]; 372-2224
Bowling Green, OH  43403-0235     |  fax [phone]
http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/tcom/INDEX.html

Bowling Green State University is an affirmative action and equal
opportunity employer and welcomes applications from minorities, women,
veterans and persons with disabilities.

------------------------------

From: Gian Enrico Paglia <[e-mail]>
Subject: E3 Interface Needed
Date: 9 Jun 1995 11:41:29 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment SpA, Italy


Hello,

    I'm looking for an E3 interface board for PCI or ISA or EISA.
DO you know of any such product on the market?


Thanks a lot,

Gianni Paglia    Digital Equipment SpA, Milano

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 16:08:11 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Merging Phone Company Test Boards


I am interested in hearing some stories or experiences from those who
worked in the residential repair (particularily test board) for phone
companies that merged various test centres together to create a 'super
test centre'.

Our test centre started on the old #14 test boards and about ten years
ago migrated up to CALRS.

The test centre originally looked after just one city, then took over
a few others and eventually the entire areacode.  Now, it is proposed
that it be merged with four other test centres to create a large
centre that covers several reasonably large areacodes.

I was told New England Tel did this as did some others, and we are
curious to hear your comments on how well it went ... did customer
service benefit or suffer?  How well were you able to handle all the
different (and large number of) switches and all the new various types
of customers and environments they were in (IE Big cities, to small
four party service).  It could mean several people have to move to a
new city to continue their current job.

Any thoughts you have to offer on this topic are appreciated.


[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 14:03 EST
From: Stephen Goodman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Baseball All-Star Ballot Available on the Internet


CONTACT: Paul Sims                      Carole Coleman
         MCI                            Major League Baseball
         1-800-644-NEWS                 212-339-7865
         [e-mail]

                  INTERNET FANS TO VOTE FOR
BASEBALL ALL-STARS IN CYBER-SPACE MCI AND MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL
                PROVIDE HISTORY MAKING SERVICE

-- Web Site Features On-Line Balloting Plus Daily Scores and  Baseball News

Atlanta (June 6, 1995) -- Baseball's best will thank their lucky stars
when named 1995 Major League Baseball All-Stars, since many of the votes that
put them in the prestigious game will come from Cyber-space.  For the first
time in baseball history, baseball fans around the world can vote for their
favorite players via the internet, with the simple click of a mouse.

Major League Baseball @BAT, a new baseball info-site/venue, is providing the
first-of-its-kind high-tech All-Star ballot that may be reached through MCI's
Internet supersite (www.internetMCI.com) and at Major League Baseball's new
direct line on the internet at (www.majorleaguebaseball.com/mlb).

"All-Star internet voting will introduce fans of one of America's favorite
pastimes -- baseball, to America's fastest growing pastime -- exploring the
internet," says Scott Kurnit, president of MCI Information Services Company.
"MCI is thrilled to help Major League Baseball take All-Star balloting
and the sport itself to a whole new level of play."

"Major League Baseball @BAT is happy to welcome baseball fans all over
the world to the internet for the chance to vote for their favorite
players, using their computer," says Michael Bernstein, vice president
of business development and new ventures, Major League Baseball.
"Internet All-Star voting is a true innovation in a game so full of
history and tradition."

Once at the @BAT internet site, fans will discover daily, on-line baseball
news and information available throughout the season, including box scores
and player stats, team standings and league leaders, team schedules and
rosters, todays games and scheduled pitchers, American League and National
League Player of the Week Announcements complete with photos, color team
logos and weekly features on players, coaches and teams.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Glenn Shirley)
Subject: Question For Analog Mobile Guru
Date: 8 Jun 1995 18:17:37 +1000
Organization: Stanilite Electronics Pty. Ltd. Sydney, Australia


Does some knowledgeable person out there know if AMPS (EIA-553) mobiles will
respond to the IS-54 (Dual Mode AMPS) message waiting order?

Is there anyone involved in mobile firmware from any manufacturers reading
this newsgroup?


Glenn     [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Masoud Loghmani <[e-mail]>
Subject: V5.2 Question
Date: 8 Jun 1995 13:59:21 GMT
Organization: Digital Technics Inc.


Hi,

I am looking for information about V5.2 trunk concentration standard. Do you
know what this standard is, or where I can find some information about it?
I appreciate your help.


Masoud Loghmani

[e-mail]
http://www.access.digex.net/~dti/index.html

------------------------------

From: Albert Helberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multiplexer Software Control
Date: 8 Jun 1995 14:24:59 GMT
Organization: Eskom


Hi there!

I am currently trying to formulate some form of guideline for software
version control and maintenance to be used as a specification.  I am
running into all kinds of snags such as the difference between "bug
fixes" and "added features" in new versions and who should pay for
what.

Could someone please give me some tips on which software maintenance
and version control procedures work and which traps should I avoid?

As shown in the subject line, this has all to do with MUXes
and related telecomms equipment, but if this is not the correct news
group, please advise me.

I would appreciate all the help I can get!


Thanks!

Albert Helberg   [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Subject: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From?
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 95 15:28:14 GMT
Organization: Civilization


I have a pretty basic question. When you place a call from a cellular phone
does the cellular company record which cell(s) actually handled the call? I
know they could if they wanted to, but do they?

In something like the Simpson case it might be interesting if it turned out
that his ex-wife's house was in a different cell from his house.


Joel Upchurch @ Upchurch Computer Consulting [e-mail]
718 Galsworthy Ave. Orlando, FL 32809-6429  phone [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That Simpson trial is the biggest travesty
of justice I have ever seen. Who wants to bet with me that it will last
at least until the end of this year, and probably well into 1996?  Who
agrees with me that there will probably be a mistrial as a result of all
the jury commotions and it will have to be started over from the beginning
and last another year after that?  To answer your question, yes I think
sometimes they do keep a record of the cells involved in a call when they
have reason to need or want that information.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Smith, Peter A.)
Organization: Telesat Canada
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 13:47:38 EST
Subject: Request for Async Simplex Mux


Hi.  I'm in search of a product that can provide for four async channels
aggregated into a single *async* output.  The aggregate must support 8-1-N
word characteristics and operate at either 19.2 or 38.4 kbps.  Also, the
mux must operate in a *simplex* mode ie. there is no return path.  I also
require the demux hardware to return the four async channels.

The application involves broadcasting over satellite to multiple receive
stations.  Unfortunately, the vendor of the satellite hardware is not at
all flexible with their async interface.

Please don't shoot the messenger!  But thanks for any and all suggestions.


Peter Smith    [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 95 11:06 EST
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: TSPS (was "How to Make a Long Distance Call in 1942")


Scot M. Desort [e-mail] writes:

> BTW, the correct acronym is TSPS, which stands for Telephone Services
> Position System (I think -- nobody actually ever told us -- found out
> many years later).

Thanks for the interesting story about TSPS.

Actually, TSPS stands for Traffic Service Position System.  According
to the glossary in ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS IN THE BELL SYSTEM (my
copy is the 1982 Seventh Printing, copyright 1977 by Bell Labs) TSPS
means:

"That type of Traffic Service System, having stored program control,
that provides for the processing and recording of special toll calls,
coin station toll calls, and other types of calls requiring operator
assistance.  It includes traffic service positions arranged in groups
called traffic offices where operators are automatically connected in
on calls to perform functions necessary to process and record calls
correctly."


Paul Cook                        206-881-7000
Proctor & Associates        MCI Mail 399-1080
15050 NE 36th St.           fax: [phone]
Redmond, WA  98052-5378   [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (AGreenwalt)
Subject: Re: Blind - But Working With ACD - And Some Other Stuff
Date: 8 Jun 1995 17:15:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


Sorry, I can't help you with your need for an audible notification
when you have inadvertantly remained in the *WORK* state, but I am
fascinated to know how you read your e-mail. I hope this question does
not offend you, but in an effort to better understand the world around
me, I'd sure like to know.


Best regards,

Allen Greenwalt


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think most visually disabled people who
participate in Usenet and/or receive email use a talking device which is
attached to their computer. A fellow in Kansas who is visually disabled
and the vice-president of a bank there has been a subscriber to this Digest
for a long time. A sound card in his computer reads it to him along with
his other email. It is not a big deal, conversion of printed text to
speech has been around for years.  It does not always do very well at
translating things like net addresses to speech with 'at' symbols and
'exclamation' or 'bang' symbols, and these systems try to pronounce
abbreviations as words rather than spell them as what they are, but it
can generally be understood.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 22:39:10 -0700
From: Joel Kolstad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money
Organization: CS Outreach Services, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA


Hi Pat,

I say this waste of money a couple weeks back.  I could have told you to
save your money. :-)

You're right that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Internet.  The
Internet is still nebulous and unknown enough that movie makers can do
whatever they want to with it.  Heck, witness Seaquest's "Innernet," which
is a direct rip-off of what sci-fi authors would like the Internet to be.

Some remarks about Johnny M ...

-- It was obvious to me from the start that Johnny's data had to connected
with the plague.  Why else would it exist?

-- I was disappointed that the cause of the sickness was never really given
other than "all this technology."  Yeah, right, what in the world does that
mean?  We should all go back and live in caves?

-- The plan is to disseminate Johnny's information as widely as possible,
right?  So why not just duplicate the cute little disc that's uploaded to
Johnny's brain a thousand times and send it to all the newspapers?  Oh,
because we wouldn't have a story then.  Oops.

-- How does Johnny ever get his childhood memories back (wasn't than an
ironic twist...)?  The company has them -- not the dolphin!  Heck, I'd
demand a copy of my memories on disc before I even became a courier. :-)

In article <[e-mail]> you wrote:

> ($7 for ticket; $6.25 for huge box of popcorn and large
> Coke, and that was with a one dollar off coupon for refreshments they
> gave me when I went in.)

$7 for a 5:30 show!?  I hate to think what they charge for the non-matinee
shows!

> I think over the course of this ninety minute talking/motion picture,
> there were about sixty different people who were killed or seriously
> wounded either by being shot, stabbed, chopped up, set on fire or
> by being in a place that was bombed or set on fire, etc.

Yes, it was excessive, but is it any worse than, e.g., True Lies or Rambo?


Joel Kolstad


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, it was no worse that those other two
farces you named, but I did not like those and did not go to see them
in the first place. I was not tricked into thinking that they had something
to do with the internet. I got there thirty minutes too late for the price
change from matinee to evening. They have a very low price -- about two
dollars -- from when they first open at 9:00 AM until early afternoon,
then the matinee price, then finally the evening prices. There were quite
a few things left unexplained in the movie. How the hacker-fish came to
have all those childhood memories he reloaded into Johnny's brain was a
mystery to me also.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 95 08:42:57 -0400
From: [e-mail] (A. Padgett Peterson
Subject: More Laughs and Not the Lawnmower Man


Larry Kollar rites:

> It's kind of frightening to think about -- all your data, backed-up or no, is
> stored on what is essentially rust ...

Why? In the old car hobby a common saying is "steel does not last long
but rust is forever". In general oxides are very stable. Can still
play my reel- reel Scotch tapes made in the 60's, the oxide is fine
but the acetate is becoming quite brittle -- couldn't afford the mylar
often then.

BTW the "Post-It" notes from 3M are also said to have been an
accident. In looking for an adhesive, a researcher came across a
not-very-good adhesive and a whole new industry was born.

Also, as a Douglas, I do not find the term "Scotch Tape" to be
derrogatory even if they do have red in the tartan. "Scot's Tape"
might have been but "Scotch" refers to whisky and is never out of
order.


Warmly,

Padgett

ps ObTelecom - have a pink ITT box about 2x3 ft x 18" deep that seems to
   support four pushbutton telephones. Big power supply in the bottom.
   Card rack in top with plugins (looks like each card handles two telephones).
   Anyone know what it is and where I can get specs/operating instructions?

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #279
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa25953;
          12 Jun 95 23:08 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02291 for [e-mail]; Mon, 12 Jun 1995 22:08:08 -0500
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 22:08:08 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #280


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 12 Jun 95 09:20:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 280

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Reaches Labor Agreement (Steve Geimann)
    Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder (George Gilder)
    Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder (David K. Leikam)
    Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder (Mark Fraser)
    Book Review: "Running a Perfect Web Site" by Chandler (Rob Slade)
    Phone Monopolies in Europe (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 03:31:33 -0400
Subject: AT&T Reaches Labor Agreement


AT&T REACHES TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT WITH TWO UNIONS

By STEVE GEIMANN
Senior Editor, Communications Daily

   WASHINGTON -- AT&T and its two labor unions, the CWA and IBEW,
reached tentative agreement Friday on a three-year contract with 10.5
percent in pay raises, $3,400 in cash-stock bonuses, incentives to
join a managed health care plan and improved relations in future
organizing.

   The agreement covers 101,000 AT&T workers at the national level,
while local units have one week to wrap up bargaining on local issues
within the next week.  Ratification will begin when local talks end
and will take several weeks.  AT&T employees have been working without
a contract since May 27.

   Both sides said agreement is in best interests of company and union
members.  CWA represents 81,000; IBEW covers 20,000.

   Employees will get $1,000 bonus upon ratification, $800 in AT&T
stock annually through 1998 and wage increases of 3.6 percent
immediately, 3.5 percent next year and 3.4 percent in 1987.  When
compounded, the effect is 10.8 percent.

  "We made substantial improvement in the areas of wages, health care,
pension benefits, employment security and training and education for
our members," said CWA President Morton Bahr.  Retiree health care was
"protected" against out of pocket payments former employees got three
options for coverage.

   IBEW President John Barry said "hard bargaining" led to a "fair
agreement" that provides a "good economic base" for members and sets
foundation for "true cooperative effort between AT&T and the unions to
stop job losses and ensure more opportunities for its existing work
force."

   Company officials held a late night news briefing in Washington to
outline the tentative agreement, agreeing talks were difficult b but
produced satisfactory agreement for the company.

   "Overall, these talks have been the most objective and focused
labor negotiations in our recent history," said William Ketchum, vice
president-labor relations.

  On key issue of health care, agreement includes new managed care
network starting in January that provides coverage without deductibles
or coinsurance costs, but requires flat fees for doctor visits,
prescription drugs and some hospital stays. Coverage would extend to
prenatal and well-baby care, immunizations, routine physical exams and
hospice care, along with costs for preventative care, such as
mammograms, company said.

   Retirees could elect coverage in managed networks, beginning in
1997, by having some costs paid from a fund created for each retiree.
They would have two options: Plan without deductibles and coinsurance
charges and low flat fees, with monthly cost of $5 to $20.  Or, second
option with same coverage, no monthly payment, but higher co-payments
for doctor visits and hospital stays.

   Retirees since March 1990 also have option to remain outside
managed care network, company said.

   AT&T said retirees would receive a company-paid care account of
about $250 annually that would be used to cover monthly payments for
health care and other expenses, such as hearing exams and prescription
drug co-payments.

   On financial issues, the 401(k) saving plan would be expanded to
include additional investment options, more frequent statements and
cash balance updates, and speedier loan processing.  Employees could
but AT&T stock at 15 percent discount by shifting up to 10 percent of
their salaries, with company paying any commissions.

   Employees would get $800 in the first quarters of 1996, '97 and '98
which will be converted into stock at a price pegged to average during
week of Aug. 28, 1995, or the current price, whichever is lower.
Stock payments also were part of the just-expired contract.

  Other key elements:

  --Company would provide $7.5 million to a Family Care Development
Fund to improve the quality of senior and day care options, added to
$15 million contributed in the last three years.  Adoption expense
reimbursement would jump to $3,000 from $2,500.

  -- Employees could take one-third of their five excused work day in
two-hour segments, to handle family emergencies or other business
without taking a full day.

  --College scholarship program would be expanded to 70 awards of
$6,500 for each of a student's four-year college career.  Under the
program begun in 1992, 40 scholarships of $10,000 per year were
provided.

 -- A new "living benefits insurance option" would allow terminally
ill employees and retirees under age 64 to secure up to 50 percent of
their death benefits when they have less than six months to live.

  --Pension will increase 12 percent and for first time minimum
pension benefit was raised, to $400 a month, which will boost benefits
for more than 5,00 longer term pensioners, union said.

 --Employee transfer program was improved to give employees facing
plant shutdown or layoff better access to available jobs.

  -- Expands "Workplace of the Future" concept, which allows parties
to sit down and discuss key issues outside of normal contract
bargaining.  "Both the unions and management believe that success in
the marketplace is the only way to create real job security and help
people have productive and challenging careers," Ketchum said.

    Ketchum said agreement also spells out management and union "code
of conduct" during organizing efforts at three non-union AT&T
businesses: AT&T Universal Card, AT&T Transtech and AT&T Paradyne.
"There will be a more fact-based approach" by management when
unionization efforts are underway, Ketchum said.  Union said company
won't hire union consultants in campaign.

  A union dues deduction progress will be established at Global
Information Solutions union, formerly NCR, the first time such a
check-off system has been extended to unorganized unit within the
company, the unions said.

  Talks bogged down shortly after expiration of last agreement on May
27, with both sides spending more than three days trying to resolve
the health care issue.  Ketchum said company misjudged the complexity
of the health issue before bargaining began.

  "We underestimated how much time it would take to work through the
details and intricacies of reshaping our employee health care plan,"
Ketchum said.  Each detail had to have agreement from 12 people
sitting around bargaining table, he said.

   Talks opened April 3 and continued past expiration, with 10- to
14-hour bargaining sessions daily through last week.  Bahr and Ketchum
held talks earlier this week to move negotiators off certain issues
and move toward settlement.  Earlier Friday, both sides announced
likely tentative agreement had been reached.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 00:10:00 EDT
From: George Gilder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder


Milken's critics all imply that they know the facts, when they are
instead parroting all the slanderous fictions prevalent in the media
during the late 1980s, in turn amplifying the innuendos and leaks from
government prosecutors who assumed that anyone making as much money as
Milken must be stealing.  My article showed that the total gains from
the merger and acquisition movement spearheaded by Milken and Drexel's
junk bonds totalled $899 billion.  This is net gains and includes all
the failures (few of which were Milken's).  Very few S&Ls bought any
junk at all (less than one percent of S&L holdings were junk) but the
few that did buy junk were among the most prosperous of all S&Ls.

If the government did not pass laws forcing them to sell their
holdings into a falling market, they would indeed have made hundreds
of millions on their portfolios.  There were some shysters and crooks
involved in 1980s deals.  But Milken wasn't one of them. He was forced
to settle with the government when they threatened RICO suits against
his younger brother just brought into the company and against his
firm.  The fact that Milken could not resist this full court press
against him, despite his millions, merely illustrates the tremendous
power of prosecutors pursuing political eminence. Milken's nemesis
rode Boesky's lies into the New York City mayoralty, while later
investigations by the courts showed that the total cost of Milken's
violations was some $316K and that at least two of his confessed
offenses involved no criminal activity at all.


George Gilder


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you for taking time to respond to
the various comments published here from readers in recent days. As a
reminder to new reaaders and others, I want to point out that several
of George Gilder's essays are on file in the Telecom Archives, located
at lcs.mit.edu.    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David K. Leikam)
Subject: Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder
Date: 11 Jun 1995 20:11:37 -0700


David Ofsevit <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I had to laugh at George Gilder's attempt to revise history
> and make Mike Milken into some sort of hero he never was.  Gilder's
> analysis is basically flawed because he only describes successful
> companies which he claims benefited from Milken's transactions,
> conveniently overlooking the companies brought to ground by similar
> transactions, not to mention the social costs of those disasters.  He
> also seems to feel that, left to themselves, the various banks and
> S&Ls that went belly-up would have come out of it and made oodles of
> money.  If he's so smart, where was he when it was happening?  I don't
> recall *anybody* suggesting at the time that the banks and S&Ls should
> just be left alone and everything would be all right.

I thought Gilder's article was fascinating, and very thought-provoking.
Dismissing it in a couple of sentences, without research or evidence,
is just not there.

*I* remember quite a *lot* of screaming and hollering, at the time, that
if the feds would just leave the S&L's alone, they would recover nicely.
Many heated articles and letters in the financial press ( I mostly read
"Forbes" at that time) said over and over, that the crisis was created by
the regulators and the press, not by the institutions. This was drowned
out in the witch-hunt for somebody to blame the economic crisis on.

This doesn't take a whole lot of thought, you know. Today, Barnes &
Noble/Bookstop, and MCI, look like the bluest of blue-chip investments.
Then, they looked like the bleeding-edge of high flyers. Milken did that.
And a S&L that had a lot invested in their junk-bonds would be a very
rich S&L today.

>    Just my opinion on the piece:  self-serving, revisionist humbug.
>
>    Thanks for the laughs.  :-)

Mine: Profound, insightful, well-researched, and true.

Thanks for the wake-up call.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fraser)
Subject: Re: Mike Milken and George Gilder
Date: 12 Jun 1995 06:06:10 GMT
Organization: Wimsey Information Services


Well, MY take on it was that Gilder was illustrating that the
leverage on the money raised for expansion permitted a whole lot
of growth without the same tax [and some other] burdens that more
"conventional" [quotes to emphasize my sarcastic slur on the "old"
money that really doesn't like TCI, MCI etc...] utilities and other
bluechips have to endure.  I don't recall reading any endorsement of
S&L fraud.  Listen to the "Holders Of Obsolescent Capital" whine.


Mark

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 05:46:59 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Running a Perfect Web Site" by Chandler


BKRNPFWB.RVW   950502

"Running a Perfect Web Site", David Chandler, 1995, 0-7897-0210-X,
U$39.99/C$53.99/UK#37.49
%A   David Chandler [e-mail]
%A   Bill Kirkner
%A   Jim Minatel
%C   201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN   46290
%D   1995
%G   0-7897-0210-X
%I   Que Corporation
%O   U$39.99/C$53.99/UK#37.49 800-858-7674 [e-mail]
%P   457
%T   "Running a Perfect Web Site",

World Wide Web, variously abbreviated as Web, WWW or W3, is the name
for the comprehensive and interlocking system of computers, networks,
daemons, languages, browsers, servers, protocols, clients and
documents.  HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol) is the standard for
requests from Web clients (or browsers) and data from Web servers (or
sites or daemons).  HTML (HyperText Markup Language) is the formatting
code that specifies the display and functions of Web documents (or
files).  A Web browser is the program that runs (relatively) locally
and which is your interface to the W3.  And a Web site is that
combination of computer hardware, network links, daemon software, and
HTML files which you need in order to provide information to the World
Wide Web.

I was going to define client and server, too, but, believe me, W3 is
*not* the example to use if you want to portray a clear understanding
of client/server.  Oh, you think so, eh?  Then, which is the server,
the program that fulfills the data request, or the one that fulfills
the display request?  Or, if you're using SlipKnot, which of httpd,
lynx and SlipKnot is the client and which the server?

At any rate, you had better keep the definitions in the first
paragraph clear in your mind if you are going to use this book.  It
does provide an overview of the entire system, but it doesn't provide
an awful lot of information about any one topic.  After reading the
book you may still not, for example, be completely comfortable with
setting up an Internet router or firewall.  You will know basic HTML,
but not all the functions, by any means.  Examples for forms and
applications use Perl scripts, but Perl, itself, is not discussed.

The CD included with the book contains a very comprehensive and useful
set of tools, clients, utilities and references.  Programs for Windows
include such sought-after items as WIN32S; Trumpet Winsock; Lynx;
Perl; SlipKnot; HTML editors and assistants; viewers; email, news,
Gopher and IRC clients; and Netmanage's Chameleon.  There are DOS and
UNIX applications, as well as Internet FYI, RFC and STD reference
files.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKRNPFWB.RVW   950502. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver      [e-mail]    | "A ship in port is safe,
Institute for  [e-mail] |  but that is not what
Research into  Rob.Slade@f733.n153/|  ships are for."
User                .z1.fidonet.org|   Adm. Grace Murray Hopper
Security       Canada V7K 2G6      |      after John Parks

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo)
Subject: Phone Monopolies in Europe
Date: 11 Jun 1995 15:06:20 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany


After reading about phone monopolies in TELECOM Digest for some time,
it would be interesting to hear what Americans think of the European
way of "monophoning".

As a Norwegian living in Germany, I beleive and suppose I have both
used and "felt" the two extremes in the world of West-European
monopolies.  Here in Germany, we have the highest phone-rates in
Europe (subjective opinion, which likely is fals :), local calls are
not that expensive, but calling further than 50 kms (about 30 miles)
places your call in the "Weit-Tarif" or "Far-tariffe" if one could
call it that. Daytime, these calls cost 66 pfenning or about 47
cents/minute. Calls to neighbouring countries or countries within the
European Union cost 82 cents/minute, calls to other countries in
Europe cost 92 cents/minute, calls to USA and Canada cost $1.40/minute
and calls to other countries world-wide cost $2.23/minute (all with an
exchange rate 1US$=1.40DEM).

Calls to cellular-phones are charged 82 cents/minute from a regular
phone. Calls from cellulars to cellulars and cellulars to regular
phone are charged very different tarrifes depending on operator,
day-time and type of agreement. Now when you all are starting to feel
sorry for me, having to cope with all this, I could continue telling
that it took Deutsche Telekom AG (German ...) ten weeks to install a
phone-line in my appartment, and that after a really nasty letter
where I told them excatly what I meant (not suitable for quoting
here).  At the time of installation (early November 1994) I had
already noted, that they had misspelled my name, and called DT to tell
them that, and ask them to correct it. But, alas, such an important
matter, had to be reported in writing to a completely new adress. So I
did, and my name was for the first time correct on the bill for March
this year (with monthly bills).

Yesterday I got a new copy of the local phonebook, and as of March
1995, they had managed to misspell my name in the phonebook.  What a
wonderful life. I would welcome all foreign providers to offer
competing services as the monopoly-rights will be withdraw from 1 January,
1998.

Now to Norway. To get my point here right, I guess some facts of
Norway and Germany have to be laid on the table. Germany has about
90 million inhabitants, and an area of 700 000 squarekm, which should
be about 270 000 square miles, if it's normal to meassure land in
such units. Norway has 4 million inhabitants and an area of 350 000
squarekms/140 000 square miles. With some dividing and multiplication,
I find out that the population-density in Germany is about ten times
higher than in Norway, and with some more reasonable thinking, I
would assume, that running a telecom in Germany would be much cheaper
for the customers than in Norway.

But, I'm wrong. Norwegian Telecom provides one of the cheapest
services in Europe, although it has perhaps the most "difficult"
market to serve. Long distance calls cost in Norway (again more than
30 miles) 11 cents/minute, calls to neighbouring countries cost 35
cents/minute, calls to Western Europe cost 65 cents/minute and calls
to Eastern Europe, USA, Canada and Australia cost 72 cents/ minute
(with an exchange-rate of 1US$=6.50 NOK). Calls to cellulars cost 55
cents/minute. Now you have probably right if you claim these rates to
be far higher to what you can find in the US, and proving that one
monopoly is cheaper than an other, doesn't make theese clamps right.
Well, might be correct, but services from Telenor (Norwegian Telecom)
are excellent. If a physical line is already present in the appartment
you would like to have a phone, the line is normally conncected and
running within hours, all to wait for is a credit check. After buying
my cellular in Norway, it was up and running before I got home after
registering it, and most (covering 95% of the lines) exchanges are
digital, and connected with each other with digital fiber-links,
providing excellent speach-quality.

In Germany (also the former West) analogue trunks with dead lines,
switching problems and cross-talk are still the reality for many
phoners, and with lines making even 9600 bps-calls difficult, one
should wonder how the government can keep the monopoly on telecom-
services. But again, back to Norway. Norway has a pop.density of 30
inhabitants/square-inch and most live along the coast in more or less
larger cities. That means, that in the inland, and northern parts, you
can drive a few hours between each small group of houses.  Still these
people can enjoy the same services provided from Telenor to people in
the larger cities like Oslo, Trondheim and Bergen. What would happen
if the Norwegian telecom-monopoly is withdrawn, and other providers
would start competing for the money.  Would they use a lot of money
and time to cover the less populatet areas of Norway, or would they
smash down in the denser areas? And what would happen if Telenor,
which actually is obligated to do so, was left as the only company
serving the areas of Norway where noone or only a few people live, and
they loose a lot of income from the other parts, would Telenor then be
able to provide such cheap services? I don't think so, and I guess a
lot of people agree on this.  The Norwegian parliament (Stortinget) is
at the moment discussing if they shall withdraw the monoply-status of
Telenor from 1. January 1998 like in EU, but have not yet agreeded.
The center and socialistic parties are heavily against the withdrawal,
and with their vast majority, Telenor is likely to keep it's status.

Hope all of this could enlighten some people with the idea that all
what's monopolistic is only greedy and providing lousy services, and
that we one day all may live together in peace.


Regards,

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo, [e-mail]
Steinbach's Guideline for Systems Programming:
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #280
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa17933;
          13 Jun 95 19:52 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13932 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:28:56 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13924; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:28:53 -0500
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:28:53 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #281

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Jun 95 11:28:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 281

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: "Using Netscape" by Ernst (Rob Slade)
    Modem Function Challenge! Guru Help Needed (David Weiss)
    Calling MCI Blacklisted Numbers ([e-mail])
    Lecturer in Information Engineering - Massey Univ, New Zealand (J.Y. Khan)
    Line Charges in Alberta (Todd Reashore)
    Conference on VLSI and Mobile Communications (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
    Recycling Telephone Poles in British Columbia (Nigel Allen)
    More TSPS Stories (Scot M. Desort)
    Will Cable Commpanies Dominate Internet Access Market? (Michael Wilshire)
    BICOM Two Port Voice Processing Board Not Needed (Mike Buffa)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 13:57:18 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Using Netscape" by Ernst


BKUSNTSC.RVW   950501

"Using Netscape", Warren Ernst, 1995, 0-7897-0211-8, U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#18.49
%A   Warren Ernst [e-mail]
%C   201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN   46290
%D   1995
%G   0-7897-0211-8
%I   Que Corporation
%O   U$19.99/C$26.99/UK#18.49 800-858-7674 [e-mail]
%P   357
%S   Using ...
%T   "Using Netscape"

Ernst keeps insisting that Netscape is a lot easier to install than
Mosaic.  I strongly suspect that this is because the *real* work
involved is getting your SLIP (Serial Link Internet Protocol) account
and socket layer running.  I further suspect that Ernst is writing for
an audience that already has Mosaic, and is planning to upgrade.  In
fact, installation doesn't get a mention until chapter fifteen.  Then,
after a few pages of ftp session in order to download Trumpet Winsock
and Netscape, almost the next thing you read is, "After the Winsock
software is installed and running correctly ..."

OK, so we won't get much help with installation.  Other than the
obligatory list of Web sites and history of the Internet, there are
two chapters on the functions of Netscape, itself, and six chapters on
using ftp, Gopher, telnet, Usenet news, email, and search tools via
Netscape.  Most of those chapters deal with the Internet tools rather
than the Netscape interface.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKUSNTSC.RVW   950501. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.

[e-mail], [e-mail], Rob Slade at 1:153/733 [e-mail]
    "So, concerning the above message, you think Rob Slade is responsible?"
        "Heavens, no!  I think Rob Slade is terribly *ir*responsible!"
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (David Weiss)
Subject: Modem Function Challenge!  Guru Help Needed
Date: 12 Jun 1995 14:36:42 GMT
Organization: Dataprobe Inc.


I am a manufacturer of wide area communciations products, mostly
automatic and remote switching equipment.  We make a product, the Call
Director which basically works in a similar fashion to home office
voice/fax switches; that is, that it allows a single telephone line to
be shared by multiple devices.  Most of our customers are large
comerical and industrial users who need to access multiple modems.

Reciently, several of our customers have asked for the ability to
access multiple modems during the same telephone call.  Now, our
device will allow calls to be 'transfered' ; holding up the line and
ringing another modem, but several problems remain:

1) Getting the far end modem to hang up.  Our device works on DTMF and
it is not reliable to send DTMF over the modem tones.  We need a way
to force the modem connected to our Call Director to hang up.  We have
looked into 'Long Break Disconnect', but this does not seem to be
universally supported.

2) Local Modem Retraining.  What we have not been able to do at all is
to get a modem to retrain, so to be able to re-establish a link with a
new modem.  The ATO command only returns from Command State to
On-Line, but that is not enough to sync up with the newly answering
modem.

Please give this matter some thought.  If you have any suggestions, I
would be greatful and thank you in advance for your assistance.  If
you would like more information on our Call Director product, please
feel free to get in touch with me.


David Weiss           V. 201.967.9300 | Dataprobe, When every bit counts.
Dataprobe Inc.        F. 201-967-9090 | Source for Data Circuit Switching,
[e-mail]  CIS. 72007,2462 | Disaster Recovery, Alarm Management

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Calling MCI Blacklisted Numbers?
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS Chicago
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 15:40:12 GMT


Since the first of May MCI blacklists Telefonenumbers, that means you
can't call a blacklisted number by billing the call to your Calling Card.

Isn't that a shame? Like for me, I only have an MCI Calling Card and
don't want to change my LD company. Is there any legal way to force
MCI to stop that blacklisting?

                         ================

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let's take it from the top, because I am
not entirely sure of a couple things in your message.  I did not edit the
'word' "Telefonenumbers" in your message because I am not sure if you
meant 'certain telephone numbers' or if there is some type of service
known as 'Telefonenumbers' that MCI is no longer billing for, or what.

All the telcos claim their cards are usable anytime, to call anywhere
using any phone. In fact, all of them have various unofficial, unstated,
unwritten rules they follow blacklisting certain kinds of calls. For
example, AT&T blacklists entire countries when called from 'certain types'
of inner-city neighborhoods at payphones. Nice middle class neighborhoods
are permitted to use calling cards at payphones to call the UK, other
European countries, Australia, New Zealand, etc. On the other hand, if
you are living in the USA as a citizen of Pakistan, Israel, Iraq, most
other middle east countries, India, etc, and live in an ethnic neighborhood
of Chicago, try using a calling card to call *your* country.  <snicker>.

Is it illegal? The telcos claim it is not illegal discrimination in an
extension of credit. Calling cards are technically just 'billing instructions'
rather than an extension of credit, and telco is simply saying they are not
going to honor your billing instructions. A case could be made that they
are engaging in false advertising by claiming their card can be used at
any phone to call anywhere. Quite a few people however claim that when you
permit people to call one country using their calling card but refuse them
the right to call another country, you are in effect discriminating based
on ethnic origin; a big no-no in the USA. AT&T says they do not discriminate
against *selected callers* wishing to bill via calling card to call the
middle east, Israel, India, etc ... they deny *everyone* the right to do
that. The catch is, the people most likely to call those countries on a
regular basis are people who *come from that country*. Since AT&T also
blacklists the payphones of entire neighborhoods with 'certain kinds' of
ethnic people being in residence, it amounts to defacto discrimination.

AT&T refuses to explain their formula for who gets to call where from which
payphones via calling card because they know they are acting illegally, in
the interests of fraud prevention. MCI and Sprint do the same thing. You
want to sue them, go ahead. They get sued all the time; it means nothing.

In addition to denying calling card calls from point A to point B where
they distrust the people in neighborhood A and the people in country B,
some telcos deny calling cards completely -- regardless of destination --
at phones where they have experienced a high degree of fraud. Still other
times, they deny calls to point B regardless of where the call originates
for the same reason: no matter who calls B, they say, no matter where they
call from, it appears B gets mostly fraud calls. I wish the FCC would
address this issue, and force the telcos to improve their calling card
fraud prevention techniques rather than simply inconvenience everyone who
happens to be at the wrong payphone for a call to the wrong place. Yes,
that sort of blanket approach makes it easier for telco, but I believe
it is wrong, and quite possibly illegal in many instances.

Memories: Anyone remember the stink back about 1980-81 when Sprint was
first getting started? They were very high and mighty in those days about
their calling cards and made no attempt to hide their discrimination based
on who calls who from where. At least now-days the telcos are all sneaks
about it; they lie, blame it on the computer, blame it on 'an operator
who was not trained properly', or their old standby, 'the Telecom in
<country> won't accept our calling card' (big guffaw from your editor at
this point) as if it mattered since we are talking *paid* calls to the
other end.  Anyway, back in 1980-81 Sprint was disallowing calling card
calls pretty much as they pleased, with no real uniformity; just whatever
they felt like doing.

Sixteen year old kid and his buddy from Podunk are allowed to go on a
summer vacation by themselves to the Rotten Apple. Loving and worried
mother gives son a Sprint calling card to be used in case he gets into
trouble or wants to call home. After all, that's what the Sprint customer
service rep told her the cards were for ... silly mother, she took Sprint
at their word ... gets a calling card and gives it to her son when he and
his buddy set out for a little adventure on their own that summer. Well the
first day, the kids land at the New York Port Authority Bus Terminal; they
get an adventure alright. Their luggage gets stolen, they lose all their
money and probably their innocence as well. But dutiful and obedient child
remembers that nice card his mother gave him, and tries to call home to
report this misfortune. Bingo! Sprint would not accept the card from the
Port Authority payphones or anywhere else within about a mile. It turns
out mother was the county prosecutor in Podunk -- or something similar with
a lot of influence and power. *She* sued Sprint alleging false advertising
and fraud on Sprint's part and they paid her off to get her to shut up.
I guess you could probably sue on the 'from anywhere to anywhere' claims
telcos make about their calling cards.

Let me guess -- are the blacklisted numbers you are trying to call numbers
with a lot of phraud traffic such as phreak BBS lines and such? Is Ripco
being blacklisted also on inbound calls using calling cards?  <grin> ...
As I see it, you have two choices: the subscriber whose connection is
being refused AND the subscriber whose calls are being withheld from
receipt can sue MCI. MCI knows you are not going to do that; at least the
odds are very much against it. Your other choice?  Shape up and fly right!
Behave yourself!  <grin> ... not much to choose from is it?     PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dr J.Y. Khan)
Subject: Lecturer in Information Engineering at Massey Univ, New Zealand
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:54:32
Organization: Production Technology, Massey University, Palmerston North


MASSEY UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
LECTURER IN INFORMATION ENGINEERING AND COMMUNICATIONS

Applications are sought for a new position created in support of
teaching and research in the fields of information engineering and
computer systems engineering.  Candidates should be able to teach in
the fields of communications engineering, electronic engineering,
digital signal processing and computer network engineering; an
interest in radio systems would be an advantage .  The successful
candidate would be expected to be active in research in one or more of
the above fields.  An interest in applications would be appropriate as
the Department has a multidisciplinary staff with strong industrial
links.

The ideal candidate will have a PhD in an appropriate field, industrial
or project experience and a demonstrated ability as a teacher.

Enquiries of an academic nature contact Professor R M Hodgson,
Department of Production Technology, fax [phone], e-mail
[e-mail].

Reference number DEPT 73/94 must be quoted.

Closing Date:    7 August 1995.

As a condition of application the University reserves the right to
make enquiries of any person regarding any candidate's suitability for
appointment, not to make an appointment or to appoint by invitation.

An information package including Conditions of Appointment are
obtained by telephoning 06-356-9099, extension 7318.

Applications, including a full curriculum vitae and the names,
addresses and facsimile numbers of three referees should be sent to
Miss Lynette Hensman, Human Resources Section, before the closing date
specified.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Line Charges in Alberta
Date: 13 Jun 1995 06:09:04 -0600
Organization: Logical Solutions


Good day ALL,

We presently have a minor war brewing here in Alberta. AGT is getting into
the Internet Provider game.

Presently they supply five or six Inet providers with "Centrix" (?)
lines at $ 30.00/month each.

The game plan is to start charging these providers for "business" class
lines at $ 70.00/month each. This will soften up AGT's competition.

All this is with the CRTC's blessing, given their rules that these low
priced Centrix lines are not allowed to have -data- on them in the first
place.

My question is; How does the CRTC justify this - No data on Centrix lines -
rule, given the fact that these lines can handle my 14,400 modem with no
difficulty?

2nd: Is this ruling just a method of sucking up to the Telco's?

IMHO, the resulting higher prices being imposed, will only take
Internet access farther out of reach of the average dude. Exactly the
opposite of the governments intended plan.


    -=Yurs in humble reticence...from CALGARY/Alberta/Canada=-
[e-mail]           [e-mail]
              [e-mail]
---------------------Fido: 1:134/160----------------------------

------------------------------

Subject: Conference on VLSI and Mobile Communications
From: [e-mail] (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 12:49:43 IST
Organization: Deus X Machina


               THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON VLSI DESIGN
                    January 3-6, 1996, Bangalore, India
                   THEME : VLSI IN MOBILE COMMUNICATION

Sponsored By:
VLSI Society of India (VSI)
Department of Electronics, Government of India

In Co-operation With:
IEEE Computer Society -  DA-TC and VLSI-TC
IEEE Circuits and Systems Society
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
ACM SIGDA
STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIR
CALL FOR PAPERS AND PARTICIPATION

Vishwani D. Agrawal
 e-mail: [e-mail]

GENERAL CHAIR
Biswadip Mitra
Texas Instruments (India)  Ltd.,
71, Miller Road, Bangalore 560 052, INDIA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE CHAIR
Sattam Dasgupta
Texas Instruments (India)  Ltd.,
71, Miller Road, Bangalore 560 052, INDIA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

PROGRAM CHAIRS
Michael L. Bushnell
Dept. of Elect. & Comp. Engineering,
Rutgers University,  Frelinghuysen Road,
P.O. Box  1390, Piscataway, N.J. 08854, USA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

Lalit M. Patnaik
Indian Institute of Science,
Microprocessor Applications Lab,
Bangalore 560 012, INDIA
Tel: [phone]  Fax : [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

PUBLICITY CHAIRS
N. Ranganathan
University of South Florida,
Dept. of Computer Sc. & Engineering,
Tampa, FL 33620, USA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

Victor Jayakaran
Wipro Infotech Ltd, 88, M.G. Road,
Bangalore 560 001, INDIA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

TUTORIAL CHAIRS
Prithviraj Banerjee
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
1308, W. Main St., Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

Mahesh Mahendale
Texas Instruments (India)  Ltd.,
71, Miller Road, Bangalore 560 052, INDIA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

EXHIBITS CHAIR
Arya Bhattacherjee
Arcus Technology, 201, Embassy Chambers,
5, Vittal Malya Rd, Bangalore 560 001,INDIA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail: 72324,[e-mail]

DESIGN CONTEST CHAIR
Amul Atri
Semiconductor Complex Ltd.,
SAS Nagar, Punjab 160 059, INDIA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail: [e-mail]

PUBLICATION CHAIR
Sreejit Chakravarty
226, Bell Hall, SUNY at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]
e-mail : [e-mail]

FINANCE CHAIR
Johann Andrew Bhagyanathan, TI, INDIA

ACM LIAISON
Sharad Seth, University of Nebraska, USA

IEEE LIAISON
Y. K. Malaiya, Colorado State Univ.  USA

EUROPE LIAISON
Bernard Courtois, INPG/TIMA, FRANCE
Mario Kovac, Univ. of Zagreb, CROATIA

ASIA LIAISON
Hideo Fujiwara, Meiji University, JAPAN

VSI  LIAISON
A. Prabhakar, Bangalore, INDIA

The  conference  is  a  forum for researchers  and  designers  to
present and discuss various aspects of VLSI design. The theme  of
the conference will be VLSI in Mobile Communication. The four day
program will consist of regular paper sessions, special sessions,
posters, tutorials, panel discussion and industrial exhibits. The
conference  proceedings will be published by  the  IEEE  Computer
Society.

TOPICS  OF  INTEREST:  Topics of interest include,  but  are  not
limited to: concurrent engineering, distributed CAD environments,
DSP  design  and  applications, hardware-software  codesign,  low
power design, mixed analog-digital designs, packaging technology,
performance  driven  design, placement and routing,  programmable
devices,   submicron   design  issues,   synthesis,   simulation,
standards, test, user experience with design automation tools.

PAPERS:  Please  submit  eight copies of  previously  unpublished
papers  to  either of the Program Co-Chairs by June 1, 1995.  The
manuscript  should  clearly state the novel  ideas,  results  and
applications  of  the contribution. Please identify  the  contact
author  and include the complete mailing address, e-mail address,
telephone  and/or fax numbers of the authors. Papers  should  not
exceed  15  double-spaced pages including figures and references.
Authors  will  be  notified of acceptance  by  August  15,  1995.
Camera-ready  papers  should  reach  the  Publication  Chair   by
September 15, 1995.

TUTORIALS:  The  conference  runs  a  very  successful   tutorial
program.  Topics are open at this time and speakers on the  theme
area  are  encouraged  to  submit their  proposals.  Other  areas
include:  DSP  architectures and applications,  FPGA,  synthesis,
test,   mixed  analog-digital  CAD. Please  submit  proposals  to
either of the Tutorial Co-Chairs by May 15, 1995.

SPECIAL  SESSIONS/PANEL:  In  addition  to  regular  papers   and
tutorials, submissions to the conference can be proposals  for  a
special session (a set of related papers on a subject). Proposals
for  special sessions and panel sessions based on the  conference
theme  are  particularly encouraged. All  proposals  for  special
sessions  and panels should be sent to either of the Program  Co-
Chairs  by  June 1, 1995. Special session papers go  through  the
same peer review process as regular papers.

EXHIBITS:  The  conference provides a unique opportunity  to  the
vendors  of CAD/CAE systems to display their products. Since  the
available   space   may  be  limited,  those  interested   should
immediately contact the Exhibits Chair.

AWARDS FOR OUTSTANDING PAPERS AND VLSI DESIGN: A Best Paper Award
(Prof. A.K. Choudhury Award) of  Rs. 10,000, a Best Student Paper
Award  of Rs. 4,000 and two Honorable Mention Awards of Rs. 2,000
each  will be given. Student authors should be identified on  the
manuscripts  since  all papers with at least one  student  author
will  be  eligible  for the Best Student Paper  Award.  A  Design
Contest open only to participants from India carries a Rs.  3,000
award.  Please  submit  entries to the Design  Contest  Chair  by
September 15, 1995.

FELLOWSHIPS: The Steering Committee will award fellowships, based
on  need and merit, to partially cover expenses of attendees from
India. Application forms are available from  Publicity Co-Chairs.

IMPORTANT DATES:
Regular papers/proposals for special session
and panel to reach Program Chair                       June 1, 1995
Acceptance notification to authors                     August 15, 1995
Camera-ready papers to reach Publication Chair         September 15, 1995
Tutorial proposals to reach Tutorial Chairs            May 15, 1995
Design Contest entries to reach Design Contest Chair   September 15, 1995
Conference Dates                                       January 3-6, 1996

For any additional information regarding the conference, contact
Publicity Chairs.


Rishab Aiyer Ghosh          [e-mail]
[e-mail]         Vox [phone] Voxmail 3760335
H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 10:10:33 -0400
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Organization: 52 Manchester Ave., Toronto, Ont. M6G 1V3
Subject: Recycling Telephone Poles in British Columbia


Here is a press release from BC Tel, formerly known as the British
Columbia Telephone Company. I found the press release on the company's
Web site at "http://www.bctel.net". I don't work for BC Tel. (By the
way, the company is about 51% owned by GTE Corporation.)


June 7, 1995

TELEPHONE-POLE RECYCLING PROJECT LAUNCHED

Burnaby, B.C. - Old telephone and hydro poles are getting new life
thanks to a joint venture involving B.C.Hydro, BC TEL and B.C. Wood
Recycling Ltd.

The three companies are partners in a project to recycle thousands of
old poles into marketable lumber. Every year, about 5,000 poles in the
lower mainland are removed. Now, instead of being disposed in landfill
sites, many of the poles are being shipped to a wood-recycling
facility in Surrey.

First, any embedded nails, bolts or other metallic objects are removed
from the poles. The outer part of the pole, which may have been
treated with preservatives, is then stripped away. Finally, the inside
wood -- usually high-quality untreated cedar -- is cut into a variety
of widths and lengths.

"Approximately 70 per cent of each pole is saved and manufactured into
wood products such as 2x4s, 4x4s, siding, fencing and lumber for
landscaping, said Ray Miller, president of B.C.  Wood Recycling.
"Our sawmill operation employs five people now and we may be expanding
soon to keep up with the demand."

Custom orders can also be arranged. The lumber is available for about
25 per cent less than prices at a retail lumber yard.

"This project is a good example of BC TEL's commitment to reducing and
recycling waste," said Greg Rideout, BC TEL's director of environment.
"In 1994, our company diverted approximately 32 million pounds from
the waste stream through recycling and reusing materials."

B.C.Hydro's manager, safety and environment, Roy Staveley said, "In
addition to maximizing environmental benefits and reducing costs to
both B.C.Hydro and BC TEL, the wood-recycling operation has created
an employment opportunity that supports Hydro's leadership role in the
economic and social development of the province."

B.C. Wood Recycling may be reached at [phone].

June 5 - 9 is Environment Week in Canada. For more information, please
contact:

Joanna Wyatt                            Verne Prior
BC TEL media relations manager          B.C. Hydro senior communications
coordinator
[phone] (office),                [phone] (office)
1-604-975-0524 (pager)


press release forwarded by
Nigel Allen
52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]   http://www.io.org/~ndallen
Telephone: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 02:13:17 -0400
Subject: More TSPS Stories


In case anyone was wondering, the rather amatuer sketch below sorta
represents what an AT&T TSPS operator console looked like in the early
80's:


              |-------------------|
              |      DISPLAY      |
              |                   |
---------------------------------------------------
|                                                 |
| BLV  EMER   ------------------    SPV  BY       |
| RB   RF     | LINE TYPE LAMPS|                  |
|             ------------------   -------------- |
|             (Reg,Coin,Hotel,etc) | Rate Class | |
|                                  | Selection  | |
|                                  -------------- |
| XXXXXX   CALL1   CALL2    CALL3                 |
| XFLIPX    |-|      |-|     |-|                  |
| XCHART    | |      | |     | |       --------   |
| XXXXXX    | |      | |     | |       | Dial |   |
| XXXXXX    | |      | |     | |   ST  |  Pad |PR |
| XXXXXX    |-|      |-|     |-|       |      |   |
|                                      --------   |
----------------------------------------------------
            CALL 1,2 & 3 CONTAINED
            SUPERVISION LAMPS  FOR
            ORIG AND CALLED  PARTY

KEY:
BLV - Busy Line Verification
BY - Position Busy (Do not accept calls)
EMER - Emergency Interrupt Key
PR - Position Release (ie HANGUP)
RB - Ring Back (Calling) Party
RF - Ring Forward (Called) Party

Next to each of the CALL Keysets were slots in the console to store
keypunch cards when manually "timing" a call. The "Rate Selection"
keys were more commonly called "timing" keys, since they determined at
what rate the system was to time and bill the call (Operator Assist,
Pers to Pers, Collect, DDD).

There were quite a few more keys, some of which have faded into
memory. But the above is a fairly good representation of what the AT&T
TSPS console looked like. Their locations may also be slightly off,
but you get the picture.

The dial pad, in addition to accepting a valid dialable number, could
accept other numbers and codes not dialable from normal telephone
lines, such as "121" for example to reach the 201 inward operator (to
assist on in-area-code calls), and trouble codes that were supposed to
alert traffic control personnel about possible trouble (such as
repeated reorders, echo, no ring, etc).

There were two sets of headset plugs on the left edge of the console,
one for the operator, and one for a supervisor or trainee. In addition,
supervisors could sit at actual terminals and log onto TSPS in such a
way as to have their console mimmick every lamp lit and every key
pressed from any console while listening to your call, to act as a
monitoring and evaluation tool. The catch was that this terminal was
in the same room, and all you had to do was watch that terminal
briefly to see if the lamps went on and off in sync with yours.

By the way, AT&T had a strict policy to complete every call in an
average of 30 seconds. Trying to bring your average call time down
after a three minute person-to-person coin-sent-paid call overseas was
no small feat! We found a trick -- since we worked the night shift
most of the time, we would go into the lounge, where there was a
payphone, and dial 0, wait for one of our associates to answer, then
hang up. We would do this for about five or ten minutes, and the
averages would come back into sync. Kinda sneaky, but it worked.

Finally, there was the dreaded "RED LIGHT OF DOOM" as we liked to call
it. It was a blaring red lamp on the wall that lit when there where
more than five callers waiting in the queue to be answered. When that
light lit, it meant you better hustle and get those calls handled. On
Mother's Day, the lamp almost never went out.


Scot M. Desort      Garden State Micro, Inc.
[phone]     [phone] Fax
[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Michael Wilshire <[e-mail]>
Subject: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market?
Date: 13 Jun 1995 10:58:51 +0100
Organization: Demon Internet News Service


Given the large number of cable companies who are reported to be
trialling cable modem technology, I wondered whether other Internet
Service Providers can be viable in the long term. These modems are
reported to offer speeds of between 500kbps to 10Mbps, which is
clearly well beyond that avaiable down an ordinary copper wire, and
would enable all sorts of high bandwidth video applications.

My question is this. The current Internet service providers' business
is based on having open access to the telephone infrastructure --
anybody can dial in to their points of presence via the telephone
network for the cost of a local or national call.  The cable
companies, however, will have little incentive to open up their
networks to allow third party access, unless they are forced to do so by
regulation -- and can furthermore offer a superior service.  So what
happens to the internet service providers once cable modems take off --
and customers start migrating to the cable companies?

I would be very interested in any views on this topic -- particularly if
you believe another outcome is possible.

------------------------------

From: Mike Buffa <[e-mail]>
Subject: BICOM Two Port Voice Processing Board Not Needed
Date: 13 Jun 1995 15:07:54 GMT
Organization: TTM


I have a brand new Bicom two port Voice Processing board that I would
like to get rid of.  Call 407 620 1372, Fax [phone].


Mike

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #281
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa04738;
          14 Jun 95 5:15 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27837 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 22:19:06 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27829; Tue, 13 Jun 1995 22:19:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 22:19:03 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #282

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 13 Jun 95 22:19:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 282

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Help With Accessing X.25 Network to UK (Doug Reuben)
    BT to Takeover Cable & Wireless? (Adam Ashby)
    VLSI Circuits For GSM Hand-Held Terminal (Riccardo Mariani)
    What Does Mike Harris Election in Ontario Mean For Telecom? (Nigel Allen)
    OFMC'95 (Frederic Vecoven)
    Want to Start Phone/CATV Installation Business. Any Advice? (Brent Young)
    GSM Management (Lubos Elias)
    Current Issue of Federal Communications Law Journal (Chris Roth)
    Voice Recognition in Security Application ([e-mail])
    GSM Networks of the World, June 1995 (Kimmo Ketolainen)
    How Many Novell TSAPI Servers Exist? (Lucky Green)
    Broadband Radio For the Local Loop (P.A.Williamson)
    "Transfer" to Voice Mail With POTS (John Nestoriak)
    Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible? (Charles Buckley)
    Help Needed Extending a Call via Modem Re: Centrex (Dave Sieg)
    Manufacturing Opportunity in India (RCPeel)
    Last Laugh! Are You Perverted? (Matthew Iuculano)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Doug Reuben)
Subject: Help With Accessing X.25 Network to UK
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 06:36:01 EDT


After a somewhat extended absence from the Digest, I return with a
question:

We are trying to connect with a number of paging systems in the UK via
X.25. Currently, we page our customers in the UK (as well as elsewhere
around the world) by placing an actual phone call to their paging
system, and relaying alpha/numeric data that way.

While we have a number of very competitive long distance providers
(compared to AT&T, MCI, et. al.), we still have to charge UK customers
something on the order of 20 - 25 cents per page in order to access the
various paging systems there.

However, a number of paging and SMS companies in the UK have indicated
that they would be willing to allow us to access their paging terminals
(the equipment that they use to send out pages to their customers) if we
could connect to them via X.25 and send out our paging information that
way.

With that in mind, I made a number of inquiries with local telephone
companies, LD companies, and even British Telecom (whose US office did
not return any of my phone calls, BTW :( ). All of them were met with
"You want to do what?!", or "No one uses X.25, we're phasing that out"
(quote from NYTel...). Rather than waste my time with this nonsense
(and so that I can begin to catch up on some more work so I can start
posting about cellular service again on the Digest! :) ), I figured
I'd inquire here.

Basically, what we need is a means to send X.25 messages to the UK on
a rather sporadic basis. Although we have a number of customers there,
we do not by any means have a steady, 24-hour flow of traffic which
would justify a dedicated line.

Ideally, I'd like Interpage to be able to pick up a phone, dial out to
some "X.25 port", enter an access code, etc., and then transmit a
message to a paging company in the UK, or elsewhere. After the message is
transmitted, we hang up, and do not connect again until we need to send
out another page.

After looking over BT's literature, it seems like they offer such a
service, and yet they were the ones who never phoned back. Additionally,
although we may know a thing or two about the Internet (maybe :) ), we
don't really know too much about X.25. So we are sort of in the dark on
this one, and could use some help.

Thus, first off, is there any good, brief, non-technical explanation
of the X.25 protocol, what X.25 networks exist, how X.25 networks are
interconnected, and how one would access a given network or set of networks?

Secondly, is our idea a workable/practical solution to these high
per-page costs? That is, could we transmit alpha pages of 240 characters
(or numeric pages if the distant terminal permits) via X.25 at less than
20 cents per page, with a reasonable monthly access rate?

We would also be willing to explore giving free access to our system to
a firm which will allow us to connect to their X.25 network providing
(and perhaps I don't understand this correctly) that we can use their
X.25 connection to send pages to the UK and elsewhere.

Again, sorry for my lack of knowledge regarding both the form,
organization, and structure of X.25 networking and it's current
implementations. Any help would be greatly appreciated!


Thanks in advance,

Doug Reuben  *  [e-mail]   *  (203) 499 - 5221
Interpage Network Services -- http://www.interpage.net, telnet interpage.net
E-Mail Alpha/Numeric Paging, News, Weather, Network Monitoring, and Fax Svcs]

P.S. It's been too long ... I just can't resist! :)

- Cell One/Boston's cutover to AT&T's Autoplex switches is STILL not
complete, despite having one month now after the conversion to correct
all the bugs.  Some bugs aren't small: CO/NY customers roaming in
Boston can *forward* their calls, but are unable to unforward them.
Different CO/Boston accounts (ie, 617/508, etc.) have different
feature codes which do not work properly.  Call delivery at night
continues to be spotty at times.

- Cell One/VT customers again have lost the use of their *28/*29
feature codes. They can not reliably turn on and off automatic call
delivery. Two weeks ago, CO/VT customers could not use feature codes
in the Boston 00007 system, but the could in CO/Boston's NH 01485
system, the only remaining portion of CO/Boston's service area
operating directly under a Motorola EMX.

- Metro Mobile/CT (BAMS) 00119 customers as a result of the above can
not force calls back to voicemail anywhere in the CO/VT 00313 system,
including Franklin County, which used to be part of the Metro Mobile
system. (A good way to get out of your MM service contracts!)

- SNET/CT has almost completed through-service along US-7 in Western
CT.  US-7 extends from Norwalk, CT on Long Island Sound due North to
Mass, VT, and the Canadian border. It is almost totally covered in VT
by CO/VT, and in Mass by both the A (Metro Mobile) and B (SNET and
NYNEX, soon to be SNET only) carriers. CT's portion of northern US-7,
however had no coverage until recently. SNET now covers most of US-7,
to about 10 miles south of the Mass border. On southern sections of
US-7, covered by Metro Mobile and SNET, coverage is adequate, but the
McCaw-owned Cell One/Litchfield County has no service whatsoever along
US-7 (or most anywhere else for that matter) in Litchfield County.
SNET's progress in that area has totally eclipsed the service
offerings that the "A" side currently provides, as they continue to
take advantage of being the only carrier in CT to cover all of the
state. IMHO, Cell One/Litchfield should be acquired by Metro Mobile to
create a statewide, unified A-side to compete with the "B".

Anyhow, got that out of my system ...! :) More on these topics and others
later, when I get a minute.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 06:51:25 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: BT to Takeover Cable & Wireless?
Organization: Nortel Ltd., Maidenhead. England


There is a rumour floating around London today that BT will launch a bid
to takeover Cable & Wireless.

The major monopoly issue that would arise -- BT would now own the main
competition, Mercury -- would be averted by BT immediately selling Mercury.

C&W shares have risen 12 points this morning on the news.


      Adam Ashby      | [e-mail]  |     Nortel Ltd.
[phone]      |                 |     Maidenhead, U.K.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Riccardo Mariani)
Subject: VLSI Circuits For GSM Hand-Held Terminal
Date: 13 Jun 1995 07:22:23 GMT
Organization: Universita' di Pisa


I'm looking for news and literature references about VLSI circuits for
GSM hand-held terminal.


Dr. Riccardo MARIANI
Dep. Ingegneria Informazione
Universita' di PISA - ITALY

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 05:17:43 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: What Does Mike Harris Election in Ontario Mean For Telecom?


On June 8, Ontario voters elected the Conservative party, headed by
Mike Harris. (Harris has not yet been sworn in as premier, but that
will happen in a few days.)

Telecommunications policy is primarily a federal responsibility in
Canada, but the new government's plans to reduce welfare payments
may lead to a lot of welfare recipients having their phone service
disconnected because they are unable to pay their phone bills.

Bell Canada does not currently have means-tested "lifeline" local
service for low-income subscribers, although two-party service is
available at lower rates than conventional service. But I suspect the
combination of cutbacks by the provincial government in social
assistance payments (and by the federal government in unemployment
insurance benefits) and increases in monthly local service rates and
installation charges will make some kind of lifeline telephone service
necessary in Canada.

A less visible consequence of the new Ontario government's cutbacks
policy may be the layoff of some or all of the telecommunications
policy experts within the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.
Computer and telecommunications operations personnel within the
Management Board of Cabinet may also see their jobs vanish if they
work they do is turned over to an outside contractor.

All in all, it's not a good time to be poor or a government employee
in Ontario.


Nigel Allen
52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada
Internet: [e-mail]   http://www.io.org/~ndallen
Telephone: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Frederic Vecoven)
Subject: OFMC'95
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:32:21
Organization: Universit de Lige


Second Announcement and Call for Papers:

              OFMC'95
           Liege, Belgium
      25 and 26 September 1995

3rd Optical Fibre Measurement Conference

FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE :

http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be
http://www.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/congres/congres-en.html

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Want To Start Phone/CATV Installation Business. Any Advice?
Date: 13 Jun 1995 10:26:36 GMT
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA


I'm currently with an RBOC, movement is slow to non existant to
backwards.  I've decided to branch off and start my own company
installing phones, catv, jacks, extra lines, and some light modem/
computer set-ups.  This decision also includes relocating to the
Greater Cincinnati area so I may be closer to my daughter.

Anyone out there have a similar business or does this kind of work,
and can offer advice on the operations, etc., my sincere thanks in
advance.

Post or preferably email direct.  Brent Young.

[e-mail]    Pittsburgh, PA   412-481-0118

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lubos Elias)
Subject: GSM Management
Date: 12 Jun 1995 18:33:37 +0200
Organization: UAKOM Banska Bystrica


Hi,

Could you advice me where to get info about GSM management (billing)
software and hardware?


Thanks,

Lubos Elias    [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Chris Roth)
Subject: Current Issue of Federal Communications Law Journal
Date: 13 Jun 1995 00:09:37 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway


FORWARDED FROM: /professional/law/first/tech(#105) From:croth(Chris Roth)
The new issue of _Federal Communications Law Journal_ includes:

* an article on space billboards and the law. Space billboards
  are orbiting objects designed to reflect light to Earth. A
  constellation-like pattern is then visible just after sunset
  and just before sunrise. Astronomers oppose such advertisements
  on scientific grounds.

* an article on vertical integration and program access
  in the cable TV industry.

* an article on the controversial dividing line between state
  regulation of electronic communication and federal preemption.

_Federal Communications Law Journal_ now receives "generous" funding
from three Regional Bell Operating Companies [RBOCS]: Ameritech, Bell
Atlantic, and NYNEX.


Chris Roth
The First Amendment Teach-In

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (DMatthewF)
Subject: Voice Recognition in Security Application
Date: 12 Jun 1995 21:20:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (DMatthewF)


Is there software available to allow a PC to have voice recognition
capabilities for a security application?  I want to be able to
definitely identify a person's "voice print" along with a password
(spoken or DTMF).  I don't need this package to handle the call, just
voice recognition.


Thanks,

Matt     [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Kimmo Ketolainen)
Subject: GSM Networks of the World, June 1995
Organization: Turun yliopisto =B7 University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 05:29:05 GMT


Here is a listing of countries that have adopted GSM. Please send any
updates or corrections to me and [e-mail].

Country       Operator name                  Net id Customer service
-------       -------------                  ------ ----------------
Andorra       STA
Argentina
Australia     Optus                          505 02 [phone]
Australia     Telecom/Telstra                505 01 [phone]
Australia     Vodafone                       505 03 [phone]
Austria       PTV Austria                    232 01
Bahrain       Batelco
Belgium       Belgacom                       206 01 [phone]
Brunei
Cameroon
China         Beijing Telecomm Admin
Croatia
Cyprus        CYTA                           280 01
Denmark       Sonofon                        238 02 [phone]
Denmark       Tele Danmark Mobil             238 01 [phone]
Egypt
Estonia       Eesti Mobiil Telefon           248 01 [phone]
Estonia       Radiolinja Eesti            248 02 [phone]
Fiji
Finland       Radiolinja              244 05 [phone]
Finland       Telecom Finland                244 91 [phone]
France        SFR                            208 10 [phone]
France        France Telecom                 208 01 [phone]
Germany       DeTeMobil                      262 01 [phone]
Germany       Mannesmann                  262 02 [phone]
Gibraltar     GibTel                266 01
Greece        Panafon                         202 05 [phone]
Greece        STET                            202 10 [phone]
Hong Kong     SmarTone                     454 06 [phone]
Hong Kong     Telecom CSL                    454 00 [phone]
Hong Kong     HK HTCLGSM                     454 04
Hungary       Pannon GSM                     216 01 [phone]
Hungary       Westel 900                     216 30 [phone]
Iceland       Post & Simi                    274 01 [phone]
India         PT SATELINDO
Indonesia     TELKOMSEL                      510 10
Iran          T.C.I.
Ireland       Telecom Eireann                272 01 [phone]
Israel        Cellcom Israel
Italy         Italia Telecom            222 01 [phone]
Italy         Omnitel
Japan
Jersey          Jersey Telecom                 234 50 [phone]
Kuwait        MTC
Laos
Latvia        LMT                           247 01 [phone]
Lebanon       Libancell
Liechtenstein                                228 01
Luxembourg    Telekom                        270 01 [phone]
Macao
Malaysia
Malta         Advanced
Marocco
Monaco        France Telecom                 208 01
Monaco        SFR                            208 10
Namibia       MTC
Netherlands   PTT Telecom            204 08 [phone]
New Zealand   Bell South                     530 01
Nigeria
Norway        NetCom                         242 02 [phone]
Norway        TeleNor Mobil                  242 01 [phone]
Oman
Pakistan
Phillipines
Portugal      Telecel                        268 01 [phone]
Portugal      TMN                            268 06 [phone]
Qatar         Qatarnet                427 01
Romania
Russia        Mobile Tele, Moscow                       [phone]
Russia        North-West GSM, St. Petersburg
Saudi Arabia
Singapore     Singapore Telecom              525 01
Slovenia
South Africa  MTN                            655 10 [phone]
South Africa  Vodacom                        655 01 +27 82 111
Sri Lanka
Spain         Telefonica Spain               214 07
Spain         Airtel
Sweden        Comviq                         240 07 [phone]
Sweden        Europolitan                    240 08 [phone]
Sweden        Telia                          240 01 [phone]
Switzerland   PTT                     228 01 [phone]
Syria         [SYR-01]                       223 01
Syria         [SYR MOBIL[SYR-01]                       223 01
Syria         [SYR MOBILE SYR]               263 09
Taiwan
Thailand      AIS GSM
Turkey        Telsim                         286 02
Turkey        Turkcell                       286 01 [phone]
UAE           UAE Etisalat                  424 01
UAE           UAE Etisalat                   424 02
Uganda
U. Kingdom    Cellnet                        234 10 [phone]
U. Kingdom    Vodafone                        234 15 [phone]
Vietnam


Kimmo Ketolainen <[e-mail]> [phone]
Studentville 84 A 10 B B7 FIN-20540 Turku B7 Finland

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Lucky Green)
Subject: How Many Novell TSAPI Servers Exist?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 19:42:52 GMT


I need to know how may Novell TSAPI servers are out there in operation.
Please respond by email.


TIA,

Lucky Green <[e-mail]>
PGP encrypted mail preferred.

------------------------------

From: cairns![e-mail] (P.A.Williamson)
Subject: Broadband Radio for the Local Loop
Date: 13 Jun 1995 14:44:19 GMT
Organization: The University of Hull, UK
Reply-To: [e-mail]


  There has been alot of talk lately about Video on Demand and High
Bandwidth Internet access via the telephone system. There are
technologies developed/ing such as fibre-to-the-home and ADSL (via
copper pairs) which can provide tele- phony links capable of
transferring 2Mb/s.

  I would be grateful for any information concerning the use of
Broadband Radio to provide the last drop to the home (thus avoiding
the expensive installation costs and the limited bandwidth of the
copper pair.)

  So far I have come across the following systems which could be used;
Cellular Vision, Liberty Communications (Milicom), Time Space Radio
and a couple of BT systems.

  There are also quite a few systems for Radio in the Local Loop which
are capable of providing a basic ISDN line (or less) such as Ionica,
CT2, DECT and the many mobile technologies such as IS-54/95, GSM,
AMPS. I am interested to know if any of these systems could be
altered, say by using the technologies at a microwave frequency to
provide a high bandwidth and smaller cell size for re-use.

  I would like to know about systems for the UK/Europe and about other
systems from countries such as USA (even though the frequencies used
may be unavaliable here.)

  Any information, discussions on the above, or pointers to systems
which I have not come across would be most welcome.


Cheers,

Paul Williamson

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Nestoriak)
Subject: "Transfer" to Voice Mail With POTS
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:50:18 EDT


I am looking for a way (either a PC voice card and software or answering
machine) to send an already answered call to "voice mail".

The way I'd like it to work is this:

  1) Answer the call and determine it's not for me (ie for roommate).

  2) Press keypad digit (or a button on an answering machine) to
take over the call and take the message.  I should be able to hangup the
extension at this point.

Ideally it would work from any phone in the house but if it worked
only from the machine it would be ok.  Also multiple (3+) mail boxes
would be great.  Does anyone know of an existing machine that can do
this?  Alternatively is there a voice card that could be programed to
do the same?  I could probably handle the programming myself if I had
documentation.

If I go the voice card route I'd like a card that can detect when
another extension on the same line is off hook.  That would enable me
to know when the voice card should be "listening".  Alternatively it
could probably be done with timers and such but not as cleanly.

Any ideas?


John Nestoriak

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 10:22:56 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Ch. Buckley)
Subject: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible?


I was looking in to adding a second line to a house build in the early
1960's in GTE-land in NC.  The house is wired throughout with three-wire
(not three-pair) cable, i. e. red-green-yellow.  Line number one uses red
and green.

My question is, is it possible to get GTE to run a second line down
the yellow, using one of the previous wires as a common return?  Is
there something special I need to do to get them to do this?  How does
one determine which is the common return?  I spoke to their customer
service reps about this, but it seems that GTE is sitll hiring people
who cannot even effectively put people on hold while they ask up the
chain of command something they don't know (I was cut off), so I tend
to a priori distrust the answer I might get from them.

Add to that that they're trying to aggressively sell inside wiring
service, whereby they run the wire from the demark point to "a new
jack".  I wouldn't mind paying the extra money so much, it's just that
the quality of the wiring I tend to get from them is ugly and bad -
wires in plain site, poorly tied down, exposed to elements, and/or
fatigue failure through repeated motion, ignoring previous conduit and
wire passageway infrastructure, etc.

The second line would be used for data transmission, so this may mean
that FDM multiplexing is not an option.  The equipment for that is not
usually readily available for customer-side wiring, anyway.  Please
reply also by e-mail, if you would.

Thanks for any information you may have.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Sieg)
Subject: Help: Extending a Vall via Modem Re: Centrex
Date: 13 Jun 1995 18:22:58 GMT
Organization: Tri-Cities Connection
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am having an argument with my local telco regarding centrex lines.
We operate an ISP that requires dozens of incoming telco lines which
allow our users to dial a local number and connect to our analog
modems on a free local call basis.  In examining our tariff, we found
that Centrex lines with no features were very inexpensive.  The tariff
says you only need a NAR for outgoing calls.  Obviously since all
calls on these lines are incoming only, no long distance is involved,
and we would only need the minimum of one NAR as per the tariff.

The tariff does state that we would be required to have one NAR
per line if the line will be connected to terminal equipment
capable of "extending" the call (ie an electronic key or PBX system).
The local telco has now told us that they interpret our connecting
modems to these lines as "extending" the calls, and therefore
the requirement of one NAR per line (which makes the centrex lines
even more expensive than a regular line) applies.

In my humble opinion, the "call" terminates in our modem.

Do any of you telecom experts know of a test case where this concept
has been judged to be either valid or invalid?

They seem to think that because a user has access via our host to
the Internet via the modem, the call is being "extended".

The cost difference between a regular line, and a centrex line with no
features and no NAR is substantial.  At one point a telco manager
said "Well, the tariff may say you can get this, but we can't make
any money selling it to you, so we won't."

I won't mention any names here, but please email me if you can help!


David W. Sieg      The Tri-Cities Connection           [phone]
[e-mail]    1008 Executive Park Blvd #102  Kingsport, TN 37660

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (RCPeel)
Subject: Manufacturing Opportunity in India
Date: 13 Jun 1995 23:15:13 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (RCPeel)


Turnkey Manufacturing Opportunity in India:

Joint venture sought for a turnkey manufacturing venture in India.  We are
looking for a partner than can provide:

1.  40 % equity investment;
2.  Complete technology package;
3.  Buy and export the major portion of products;
4.  Arrange for financing to purchase major machinery.

We offer:

1.  A well qualified partner;
2.  Partner has a B.S. in Botany and B.S. in Pharmacy;
3.  Partner currently owns and manages a joint venture with a large German
    company;
4.  60% equity investment up to $1.5 million US;
5.  Necessary influence to complete the project expediously;
6.  Land available in Hyderabad.

For consideration send your concept including the following:

1.  Product and technology envisioned;
2.  Estimated total cost, capital investment, and operating costs;
3.  Schedule for planning and construction;
4.  Expected annual production rate;
5.  Acceptable buy-back price;

We are particularly interested in petrochemical related or telecommunica-
tions products, but will consider any good project.


Respond by to [e-mail] or [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Matthew Iuculano)
Subject: Last Laugh! Are You Perverted?
Date: 13 Jun 1995 04:06:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Call this number 1-800-770-6130.


Mark


[TELECOM Digest Pervert Editor's Note: Ah, but be careful fellow perverts!
It is one of those thirty dollars for the first minute lines, with *very
little* mention that the charge will given to the caller who presses
certain buttons on the phone. They do not ask for any credit card
number, nor do they refer you to a 900 number, etc. They just start
breathing heavily and telling you about the kinds of things they're
going to do to you and would like you to do to them. If you press a
couple buttons on your phone once they answer apparently the charges
commence at that point. Best use a payphone to call this number rather
than risk having the charges come through to you, or else call it from
your office or a hotel switchboard, etc. And remember, where 800
numbers are concerned, the use of *67 means nothing, so take care
these ladies don't get their hands in your wallet or purse without you
realizing it. No true pervert ever wants to have to pay for it. Let's
check and see if they were smart enough to block payphones and COCOTS
from reaching them.  Reports experiences back here please.  PAT]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #282
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa10732;
          14 Jun 95 10:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00816 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:10:15 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00807; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:10:12 -0500
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:10:12 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #283

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Jun 95 01:10:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 283

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Curtis Wheeler)
    Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Russell Blau)
    Re: Plan to Abolish FCC ([e-mail])
    Re: Plan to Abolish FCC (Mike Curtis)
    FCC Part 90/88 Refarming June 15 Open Meeting ([e-mail])
    Re: Auction All the Spectrum (Pat Martin)
    Remodeling the FCC (David G. Cantor)
    Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Matt Ackeret)
    Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Michael Hejtmanek)
    Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money (Hovig Heghinian)
    AT&T 'True(?) Messages' (Mark Cuccia)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Curtis Wheeler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC
Date: 14 Jun 1995 01:03:44 GMT
Organization: Chevron, La Habra, CA


[e-mail] wrote:

> I watched part of a press conference held by (I think) the Progress
> and Freedom Foundation people on C-SPAN over the weekend.  Apparently,
> once you buy, lease, or obtain the rights to a frequency or band, and
> there is interference to you by someone else (as in CATV leaking over
> into the aircraft band), you would have the right to prosecute the
> offending party for tresspass.  Seems to me it would give the owners
> of today's stations in the East U.S. to sue the owners of stations in
> the Midwest or the West U.S. in the event of a band opening, or maybe
> in the case of tropo ducting of some signals.  Did anyone else watch
> any of this and get the same impression?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: People who talk like that display a
> woeful ignorance of how radio waves and radios in general operate.
> [stuff deleted]
> While I certainly have complaints of my own with the FCC because of
> some aspects of their operation -- their field investigators who used
> to drive up and down the streets triangulating on CB'ers they did not
> like years ago provided the example of 'jackboot thugs' all other federal
> agencies including BATF could only hope to someday emulate -- I still
> feel some technical regulation of the airwaves is essential. I don't
> think they have much business regulating content, but I think they have
> done quite well with technical standards over the years.   PAT]

The FCC is probably in dire need of "process re-engineering".  But the
idea of eliminating an agency that keep telecommunications in order is
nuts.

The "Progress and Freedom Foundation" plan to abolish the FCC seems to
have been created by a group of people that do not understand the
first thing about radio based (wireless) communications.  There is an
entire list of people involved with the proposal whose titles give no
indication they are qualified to propose ideas that have any impact on
"technology".  These people seem to primarily be lawyers and
economists.

While they make some good point abouts technology being slowed by
regulation and the cost of compliance, their proposal would be a
technical nightmare.

The PFF has a web site.  http://www.pff.org
The "Plan to Abolish the FCC" is in a document titled "The Telecom
Revolution - - An American Opportunity".
http://www.pff.org/telecom_revolution.html

Happy reading.


Curtis Wheeler - San Ramon, CA      KD6ELA / GROL / Pvt. Pilot


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In fact, someone from PFF wrote me to
say that their plans had been misrepresented in this forum, and they
hoped people would contact them for a more accurate and truthful
version. I guess anyone interested in sorting all this out will
go get the document in question.   PAT]


------------------------------

Subject: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC
From: [e-mail] (RUSSELL BLAU)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 02:20:00 -0400
Organization: Online Technologies, Inc. - Modem:  301-738-0000
Reply-To: [e-mail] (RUSSELL BLAU)


Quoting Paul J Zawada <[e-mail]> re: Plan to Abolish FCC:

PJ> This proposal doesn't address how to deal with International Agreements
PJ> (which are mainly concerned with shortwave operation under 30 MHz).  What
PJ> do we do about that.

It also doesn't seem to (based on published reports, I haven't read
the original document) deal with ITU-T regulations which establish
permitted uses for virtually the entire spectrum.  Those regulations
have the force of law under international treaties that the U.S. has
ratified.  The PFF proposal apparently would turn the U.S. into an
international outlaw by allowing uses of the spectrum that are
inconsistent with the ITU-T rules.


Russell Blau               Tel: [phone]
Swidler & Berlin, Chtd.    Fax: [phone]
Washington, D.C.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)
Subject: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC
Date: 12 Jun 1995 23:16:50 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)


The idea is that DOJ will handle complaints or enforcement issues as
you describe -- kind of hard to believe that an interferrence issue
would be resolved through them -- in the courts?? Even Newt couldn't
dream up something like this. It boggles my mind. They see the 150+
people in the FCC's licensing division and see this as a great
reduction in cost. I am amazed.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mike Curtis)
Subject: Re: Plan to Abolish FCC
Date: 10 Jun 1995 11:16:27 -0700
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310-527-4279,818-756-0180)


[e-mail] wrote:

> I watched part of a press conference held by (I think) the Progress
> and Freedom Foundation people on C-SPAN over the weekend.  Apparently,
> once you buy, lease, or obtain the rights to a frequency or band, and
> there is interference to you by someone else (as in CATV leaking over
> into the aircraft band), you would have the right to prosecute the
> offending party for tresspass.  Seems to me it would give the owners
> of today's stations in the East U.S. to sue the owners of stations in
> the Midwest or the West U.S. in the event of a band opening, or maybe
> in the case of tropo ducting of some signals.  Did anyone else watch
> any of this and get the same impression?

I didn't see this program, but am reasonably familiar with the problems
and how FCC handles them.

Occasionally there will be band openings on VHF and UHF bands.
Fortunately, these are rare.  When this happens, the stations simply
must accept the interference, as I'm certain a perusal of the FCC
regulations will show.  They don't "own" the frequency -- they're given
the use of it IN A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREA.  If through no fault of
their own Mother Nature decides to "change the rules" for a while,
they just have to tolerate it.

Broadcast stations are under very strict rules regarding antenna radiation
patterns and such.  Also, in areas frequently subject to propagation (i.e.
Los Angeles and San Diego, 120 miles apart), TV stations are made on
adjacent channels (LA has 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13; San Diego has 8 and 10,
and maybe others??  I live in LA), which minimizes interference potential.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: People who talk like that display a
> woeful ignorance of how radio waves and radios in general operate. I
> recall when the late Ayn Rand used to talk about how there should be
> no governmental control of the airwaves and that everyone should be
> allowed to do their own thing and 'let the most powerful transmitter
> be the one that is heard ...'. She was ignorant about radios also.
> I don't care if you are pushing 50,000 watts; if I get up next to some
> receiver with a hundred milliwatt transmitter I am going to jam your
> signal. I can right now, in the privacy of my home with the limited
> stuff I have here prevent the neighbors on either side of me from watching
> Channel 2 on television ... or make it pretty miserable for them. So if
> your signal comes into my home and I block it out am I 'trespassing' on
> your property? All you people who favor private ownership of the airwaves
> via auction or selling them to one another, etc, what I want you to do
> is get *your property* out of my house. I am going to start charging you
> a fee for allowing your property to remain in my house.

Along these lines, I've heard that an old CBer "trick" to shut up
"channel hogs" was to get a cheap CB walkie-talkie, move the transmit
crystal to receive (placing maybe a few hundred microwatts on the
selected channel), tie it to a piece of twine, put a two ounce sinker on
the other end, and toss it "bolero style" into the offending antenna,
with the result that the affected station heard nothing but a loud
heterodyne on that channel until the battery ran down.  By using 6
penlight cells, this could be weeks.

> While I certainly have complaints of my own with the FCC because of
> some aspects of their operation -- their field investigators who used
> to drive up and down the streets triangulating on CB'ers they did not
> like years ago provided the example of 'jackboot thugs' all other federal
> agencies including BATF could only hope to someday emulate -- I still
> feel some technical regulation of the airwaves is essential. I don't
> think they have much business regulating content, but I think they have
> done quite well with technical standards over the years.   PAT]

While I certainly don't like "gestapo" type operations, I don't see the
FCC's enforcement of CB violations in this light.

Illegal CB operation is a serious problem.  CB requires no electronic
knowledge (and most CBers do their darndest to meet this requirement
 :-), and is therefore restricted to four watts and 40 channels.  When
CBers use 100 or 1000 watt amplifiers that they don't know how to
properly tune for minimum interference to other services, and
overmodulate their CBs with so-called "power mikes" (actually simple
preamplified microphones that drive the AM modulation amplifier to
more than 100% of the RF amplifier power, thereby causing splatter
into other channels -- not unlike splashing water out of the bathtub by
moving it too hard), it generates RF outside the CB frequencies.

Because of this illegal operation, much trouble has been caused for
others.  The most obvious are users of other services, i.e.
telephones, broadcast radio and TV, and even home audio equipment.

But IMO the most serious is the "guilt by association" that has
affected the Amateur Radio Service (HAM radio).  For example, many
housing owners associations and such now have restrictions against ANY
type of antennae because of illegal CB activities.  While there are
exceptions, most amateur radio (HAM) operators are good neighbors.
Hams are important to their communities, as they provide emergency
communications when everything else is down -- but they can't do it
without decent antennas.  We have entire communities where outside
(inside antennas are pretty well worthless for serious reliable long
distance communications) antennas are prohibited.  And when "the big
one" hits (whichever "big one" your area might be prone to), it's
likely that people will pay with their lives because of this
misunderstanding regarding CBers and hams.

The FCC has cut back on enforcement of illegal CB operation.  There
was a recent story on TV about a CBer running illegal power who
rendered a home-operated business phone unusable for most of the day.
It's hard for me to view the FCC as some kind of "Gestapo" operation
if this is the kind of thing they're enforcing.

As far as I'm aware, the FCC has never just "gone out looking for
CBers".  They would usually respond to specific complaints, and only
after sending written notice to the concerned parties.

My experience has been that, the more I know about the FCC and its
actions, viewed in the light of understanding, the more they tend to
make sense.  Yes, some of the things they do are wrong, out of date,
not in keeping with modern day technology, etc., but these tend to be
in the minority.


Mike Curtis    [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anymore -- since around 1985 or so? --
the FCC apparently couldn't care less what the CB'ers do. Please note
that licensing isn't even required any longer; it is voluntary. I guess
they finally gave up on it. Not so in the 1970's though; you are correct
it was mostly in response to complaints from others that the FCC police
would go out looking for people in ernest. There were a few pretty well
publicized raids where they kicked the door in, went in and started
pulling out wires, seizing the radios, etc. It was not much different
than what we have seen with Secret Service/FBI raids on errant computer
sites during the past decade.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)
Subject: FCC Part 90/88 Refarming June 15 Open Meeting
Date: 13 Jun 1995 00:32:55 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (SJSlavin)


For those interested in the ongoing restructuring of the spectrum
under 512 MHz, Part 90 replaced by Part 88, aka "Refarming," it has
finally made it to the June 15 public meeting agenda. The Commission
will implement the rulemaking order and initiate yet another NPRM
regarding migration to the new offset channels. Summarized, Refarming
splits the channels in to thirds eventually, requiring existing 25KHz
channels to go to 12.5, and eventually 6.25 KHz. The order will
require all equipment sold as of 1-1-96 to be 25/12.5 compatible, for
starters. If you are a private land mobile user under 512 this will
effect you. It also does away with 1/4" of pages containing outdated
administrative regulations.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Pat Martin)
Subject: Re: Auction All the Spectrum
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 18:04:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Scott
Townley) wrote:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael
> J Kuras) writes:

>> I found this related article in the WSJ:

>> SPECTRUM AUCTION PLANS MAY ACCELERATE

>> House Republicans are considering a Congressional Budget Office
>> recommendation to auction television broadcasters' existing analog
>> channel spectrum seven years from now as part of a plan to balance the
>> budget by 2002.

It seems to me that this *idea* that the Federal Government is going
to balance the budget by selling off radio spectrum is one of the most
ridiculous ones to come down the pike in some time. The recent sell
off of 120 MHz of Private Microwave spectrum (about 20 TV channels
worth?)  generated something like $7 billion. That is a lot of money,
until you start dealing with the Federal Government. I do not have all
the figures, such as what this years deficit is, but I beleive the
best comparison is that this is much like someone giving me enough
money to pay one month's house payment. I will gladly take it but six
months from now it will have made no difference at all. The government
is going to have to stop spending so much money. Even if they do
manage to balance the budget one year, which is doubtful, what about
all of the years after?


Patrick L. Martin       [e-mail]

------------------------------

Subject: Remodeling the FCC
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 11:59:21 -0700
From: David G. Cantor <[e-mail]>


While recent proposals to abolish the FCC may seem extreme, they do
suggest that the purpose and function of the FCC should be re-evaluated
and revised.  The FCC has numerous functions including:

1. Assigning spectrum, historically at no charge, but recently, at
auctions.

2. Setting standards.

3. Establishing and enforcing regulations.

4.  Setting, in large part, US Government communications policy

How successful has the FCC been in these and other areas?  For
example, is its assignment of spectrum rational?  Is it fair?  Is
spectrum used efficiently?  Does the assignment serve the best
interests of the US public?

Are the standards set by the FCC reasonable?  How do they compare
with private standards?  The latter include, for example, standards
for VCRs, CDs, PCs, etc. Are the standards consistent with modern
technology?

Are the regulations enforced adequately and fairly?

Is US policy clear?  Is it appropriate?  Is it adequate?

My personal belief is that the FCC is deficient in all of the above,
areas but I believe that these and numerous other questions should be
examined.  What do other telecom readers think?


David G. Cantor       Center for Communications Research
[e-mail]       4320 Westerra Court
           San Diego, CA 92121

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 17:26:08 -0700
From: Matt Ackeret <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

> So now, not only do we have an endless supply of newspaper editors and
> reporters who make up *lies* about the internet, it looks like Hollywood
> has discovered us also.

    I'm not really defending the movie, I haven't even seen it
yet ... (Though I know I'll definitely see it, at least as a rental.
I see most "mainstream" movies eventually. The most recent movie I
saw I recommend very strongly -- "Forget Paris".  Shmaltzy romantic
movie(*), but absolutely hilarious also.)

    I presume you are aware that this is based on William Gibson's
short story, and he wrote the script (possibly with other people doing
some revisions).  It's not like I like lies about _anything_, though
it's just a movie!  Do people really believe that Forrest Gump was
involved in Watergate?  Hopefully not, but it was a hilarious gag.
(As well as him investing in Apple -- "some fruit company or
something".)

    Plus, the idea of the moderator of a newsgroup totally bashing
a movie seems odd.  It seems that usually you don't take sides for/against
other people's stuff as much.

(*) That's not really an insult.  I really liked "When Harry Met Sally" and
"While You Were Sleeping..." too.  But they are generally considered sappy
sweet movies and "women's" movies.


[e-mail]   Apple II Forever


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I resented the false and misleading
advertising I saw about that movie. All the advertising I saw had some
reference to the 'net' and his use of the 'net'. I wasted fifteen
dollars of my money to go see a stupid and very violent movie. I don't
like stupidity and I don't like violence. There is supposed to be
another movie in the next month or so called 'Internet - 2050' or
something like that. I imagine it will be just as bad but I will
reserve judgment until I go see it. Then when I do, I shall review
it here also if you don't mind.  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (MICHAEL HEJTMANEK)
Subject: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money
Date: 13 Jun 1995 18:40:09 GMT
Organization: Bossard AG, CH


In <[e-mail]> TELECOM Digest Editor noted in respnse to
[e-mail]:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, it was no worse that those other two
> farces you named, but I did not like those and did not go to see them
> in the first place. I was not tricked into thinking that they had something
> to do with the internet. I got there thirty minutes too late for the price
> change from matinee to evening. They have a very low price -- about two
> dollars -- from when they first open at 9:00 AM until early afternoon,
> then the matinee price, then finally the evening prices. There were quite
> a few things left unexplained in the movie. How the hacker-fish came to
> have all those childhood memories he reloaded into Johnny's brain was a
> mystery to me also.  PAT]

You loser.

Who the hell told you that JM was about the internet? Haven't you read any
William Gibson?  Do you know who Longo is and what sort of art he makes?
Silly ... but the best is that if you are really TELECOM Digest Editor and
you are *interested* in the internet, then you might want to read WIRED
Magazine ... it had an o.k. article about the film this month.


Michael Hejtmanek // Switzerland // Earth // [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Hovig Heghinian)
Subject: Re: Johnny Mnemonic - Waste of Time, Money
Date: 13 Jun 95 16:01:10 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Joel Kolstad responded to PAT:

> You're right that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Internet.  The
> Internet is still nebulous and unknown enough that movie makers can do
> whatever they want to with it.  Heck, witness Seaquest's "Innernet," which
> is a direct rip-off of what sci-fi authors would like the Internet to be.

  Both of you failed to follow the first rule of consumption: caveat
emptor; let the buyer beware.

  I read this story when it appeared in Omni magazine back ten years
ago, and I tried reading it two or three times, but could never get
into it, and didn't understand all the hype associated with it.  That
Omni is probably collecting dust back at Mom's house.  Maybe I can
sell it now.  =)

  William Gibson is a non-tech person who writes about technology in a
philosophical way that seems literarily or poetically palatable.
Translation: he knows nothing, and makes it all up to be dramatic,
like those Gothic, overdramatic Victorians did (e.g., Frankenstein, &c.).

  He did not, by his own admission, even know what a disk drive was
until a few years ago, *after* writing the works that made him famous.

  This is a view of technology from a non-technologist, written for
non-technologists.  His fans don't read Dilbert, and we don't read his
books.  =)  And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

  You know something is skewed in the universe when Rogert Ebert looks
at Gene Siskel on their weekly review show and yells something like,
"why the hell didn't they just use some satellite transmission with a
sophisticated encryption scheme, something which you can do today,
deliver this data, and end the movie in about two seconds?"

  'Nuff said!


Hovig Heghinian <[e-mail]>         |     A witty saying
Department of Computer Science              |     proves nothing.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  |      -- Voltaire

------------------------------

From: Mark Cuccia <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T 'True(?) Messages'
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 10:26:00 GMT


Due to my call-forwarding situation (my home phone forwards on
no-answer (three-rings) and busy to my cellular, and my cellular
forwards to Bell South Mobility's Mobile Memo voicemail after about
five-rings), many friends and relatives calling via AT&T from out of
the local calling area were telling me that they were 'cut-off' after
about three to four rings.  I told them that they really weren't being
cut-off that soon and to just stay on the line and wait anyway for my
voicemail to pick-up - IGNORE that DAMN recording from AT&T stating
that they could 'forward' a message (for an extra CHARGE) by entering
#123.  They did not realize that my cellphone or mailbox was still
ringing in the connection (but not indicated to them, the caller)
while the AT&T recording was playing.

I have NEVER used #123 to leave a 'forwarding message'.  If the
message did not get through, does AT&T still charge the caller?  And
what about answering machines & voicemail on the receiving end - The
AT&T automated message forwarding would already start playing the
caller's prerecorded message while the called party's voicemail/answering-
machine was playing out ITS outgoing message and not yet in the record
mode for incomming calls. Machine-to-Machine does NOT always work as well
as Machine-to-Human or vice-versa, or Human-to-Human.

I also find it INSULTING when, after I hear the standard busy I have heard
all my life, the AT&T True Message prompts you with 'The Line is Busy- to
leave a message...'; I KNOW ITS BUSY - I JUST HEARD A BUSY SIGNAL!!!!

When I press # on an unanswered or busy AT&T calling card call, I am NOT
going to enter 123 -- I will enter the next sequence call.

I called AT&T this morning and demanded a supervisor- I was connected
with a pleasant lady who told me that she has worked for 'The Telephone
Company' since 1964. (It's always nice to speak with someone from the
old Bell System days). She told me that they would program the system
so that anyone using AT&T to call me at my home phone number would NOT
get the 'True Messages' prompts. It will work the way I want it within
four days. (of course, they could 'time-out' to a disconnect due to an
unanswered call, but in my situation described above, if someone calls
even my home number first and lets it roll over to the cellular and
continues to let it roll over to voicemail, it is within the
threshold.

I also requested that my calling card numbers be flagged so that when
*I* place an outgoing AT&T call charged to these valid AT&T accepted
telecommunications cards (I also keep my South Central Bell card), *I*
would not be insulted with 'True Messages'.  She told me that they do
not offer this feature but would take my comments and forward them to
'Headquarters'.

I also thanked her but told her that I would post this on Internet and also
sent a comment about this to the Common Carrier Bureau of the FCC.  If AT&T
(and local telcos) can flag a line as 3d-pty-bill-back RESTRICT or collect
RESTRICT, or if they can flag a calling card account-number Plus PIN as
restricted to calling specific numbers, then why couldn't they flag MY card
numbers in their Database as 'NO True Messages'.

I also informed her about my dislike of the way AT&T operators are presently
connected to the line and the different time-zone situation (see my article
in TD v.15#278, 'History of TSPS/TOPS/OSPS').  She also politely said that
my complaints/suggestions in THIS matter would also be forwarded to
'Headquarters'.

Of course, 'no-true-messages' on calls comming TO my home phone number will
only work on calls via AT&T- I don't know if any other carriers or local
telcos also offer this ANNOYANCE 'feature'.  I DO remember several posts to
this Forum back in April on 'Annoying Feature on Payphones'.  While Bell
doesn't semm to offer that on its payphones DURING the connection, Bell HAS
posted a 'messaging forwarding' 800 service on the instruction cards on its
payphones (but I haven't seen that for the past six years).

Scum-of-the-Earth-Private-Payphones are another matter, of course.


MARK J. CUCCIA    PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:
WORK:     [e-mail]
UNiversity 5-5954,TEL[phone])
UNiversity 5-5917,FAX[phone])
HOME:             CHestnut 1-2497
4710 Wright Road | fwds.on busy/no-answr.to cellphone/voicemail
New Orleans 28  | ([phone])
Louisiana (70128) USA

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #283
******************************



Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa15896;
          14 Jun 95 12:54 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02182 for telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 03:01:08 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02174; Wed, 14 Jun 1995 03:01:05 -0500
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 03:01:05 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #284

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Jun 95 03:01:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 284

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    June COOK Report Announcement (Gordon Cook via Monty Solomon)
    Alphanumeric Paging Software (David R. Coelho)
    Switched DS3 (D.J. Jones)
    T1 Data Transfer Rate (Nancy Hoft)
    North American Bell (Dave Levenson)
    MCI's Success in Business (John David Galt)
    Out of Town Dial Tones (John Mayson)
    ATM over T3: RFI (John Amenyo)
    From a Byte to Yottabyte (Ben Heckscher)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 01:50:19 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: June COOK Report Announcement
Reply-To: [e-mail]


FYI

   Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 13:37:20 -0400 (EDT)
   From: Gordon Cook <[e-mail]>
   Subject: June COOK Report Announcement

Gordon Jacobson says that he believes I forgot to post my announcement
of the June issue to inet access.  He is the author of a critique of
the NYNEX position and wants to make reference to that if I understand
him correctly.

so ...

The June COOK Report on Internet -> NREN is published today.  At
NYNEX's request we have embargoed this issue since we completed it on
May 18.  We present a lengthly exclusive intreview with NYNEX on its
Internet plans, a lengthy critique of same, and a review of ANCS as
AT&T's Internet strategy.

NYNEX Internet Plans  pp. 1-9

We interview Carl Ford, Staff Director Product Development, NYNEX
Business Markets.  Carl has been responsible for the development of
NYNEX's Internet strategy which is expected to have a formal launch in
the autumn.  NYNEX is planning an IP dial tone.

To ISPs in its service area it will say let us provide your modem
pools and terminal servers.  It suggests that this will save new ISPs
some of their capital start up costs and benefit NYNEX by avoiding it
having to install 50 and 100 pair cables into homes and residential
neighborhoods.  At the same time such a dial tone will also enable
NYNEX to be a player in connecting telecommuters to corporate
networks.  This could be done by AT&T's Netware Connect Services
(ANCS) or "by other means" which is how he phrased his response when
we asked him if ANCS was in the picture.

He talks about solving the inter LATA MFJ restrictions by creating an
Internet hub within each LATA and inviting entities like NEARnet and
NYSERnet to connect to each of them. He indicates that NYNEX is
plainly interested in moving into network management services for
ISPs.  Levels 3 through 5 will provide NYNEX with financial
oppportunities that basic transport does not.

Yet he says it is not NYNEX's intention to try to move into areas
where existing ISPs are comfortable in providing their own services.
Rather he wants to provide services to enable new and less experienced
ISPs to test the marketplace.

NYNEX services will be provided through frame relay PVCs.  Basic
services with be provided through what NYNEX is calling Open Net.
Safe Net would add commercial web servers and strong network security
of the type that would interest large commercial clients.  NYNEX Net
would be a full blown NYNEX internet service.

Ford considers NYNEX Net unlikely in the near term.  He paints NYNEX's
philosophy as Jeffersonian and decentralized in contrast to a head end
strategy that says we know best what the whole world needs.


NYNEX Critique

pp. 10 - 16

Gordon Jacobson is a New York City based telecommunications consultant
who has been studying the ISP marketplace very closely.  We asked him
to read and comment on our interview with NYNEX.  He did so
extensively providing an overview and annotated commentary that is
only about 20% shorter than the original interview.

Basically Gordon finds NYNEX's strategy to be one of setting itself up
in businessto become a giant ISP in a couple of year's time.  He
asserts that the cost savings to an IP startup of not having to
provide its own modem pool and terminal server are not that great.  He
warns that ISPs who buy the NYNEX service are in effect placing their
customers in NYNEX hands - ripe for the taking when and if NYNEX
introduces a full blown NYNEX Net.

He states: "While it may be true that NYNEX's offer may allow all of
the Tom, Dick and Harrys to become ISPs, that possibility begs the
question: "Should the marketplace become so fractionalized by little
providers servicing ten and twenty customers that there are not enough
substantive providers around to stand up to the majors if and when
they try to "corner the market?"

He vigorously disagrees with Ford's discussion of regulatory and
technical issues that will influence the pricing of NYNEX servcices.
He paints the strategy as that of the wolf in sheep's clothing and
despite Ford's protestations of being a Jeffersonian finds his model
to be one of top down design.  He takes Ford's assertions about
backbone bandwidth weaknesses and an inherent need for settlements and
shows why he believes them to be technically inaccurate.

He is not impressed by Ford's assertion that while NYNEX would not
charge users for megabytes sent and received, it likely would place a
hourly charge on port usage beyond some to be defined limit.  He does
find NYNEX's designs for a Safe Net to be a desirable business market
place niche for it to fulfill.  Overall he feels that Ford may have
floated some trial balloons with us and suggests that NYNEX needs to
do a much more thorough job of researching what subscribers and ISPs
are asking for, what they actually need and what the time frames are
in which their needs realistically must be met.


AT&T's Internet Strategy pp.1, 17 - 20

We present a literature review of AT&T's partnership with Novell in
the development of AT&T NetWare Connect Services (ANCS) now in beta
test with Ziff Davis, Hallmark Cards, and Millard Refigeration.

By moving TCP/IP into the Netware kernel, ANCS promises to offer
corporate, university and governmental LAN managers a seemless and
easy way to connect their LANs into a wide area network, one which,
because it can be run across AT&T's huge global network, offers the
prospect of a private Internet with better security services than the
publicly available global Internet. A niche market for AT&T.  But a
huge and lucrative one.

AT&T also has a WAN version of Lotus Notes called Network Notes.
According to one of the trade journals AT&T is positioning it to
compete with the Microsoft Network.

Why is ANCS important?  As explained in the March 27 Computer Reseller
News, TCP/IP has been given "equal footing with IPX in NetWare
environments by unbundling IPX from the NetWare Core Protocol (NCP) so
that IP can be tightly coupled with NCP ... "

We were surprised by the general lack of awareness of ANCS among
technical Internet sources whom we querried. Connecting NetWare LANs
to the Internet is done all the time.  However under the IPX version
of NetWare, the process is kludgy and time consuming.  If ANCS works
as advertised, and if AT&T prices it attractively, it should create a
potentially major market, they all agreed.  Another unknown is the
kind and extent of linkage to the global Internet that ANCS will offer
its customers. There will surely be some linkage.  However, the ANCS
developments represent yet another fragmentation of the Internet into
private value added services.  We wonder if a time may be reached when
the public internet becomes a less valuable commodity because of this
fragmentation?

We have also heard rumors that AT&T is going to launch a major dial up
gateway to the Internet and other AT&T network services before the end
of the summer.  Tom Evslin VP of Network Services and Marni Ehrlich,
ANCS Marketing Director were frequently mentined in the trade
literature on ANCS.  Erik Grimmelmann the PI on AT&T's portion of the
InterNic and the AT&T insider we have known as responsible for AT&T's
Internet strategy since February of 1992 was never mentioned. Yet when
we called into AT&T we found that Ehrlich reports to Grimmelmann who
in turn reports to Evslin.  This confirmed our belief that AT&T at
last does have an internet strategy worth noticing and that it is
ANCS.

Colorado Study Part 3

pp. 21 - 22

This two page installment concludes our interview with the State
Librarian.  It contains the interview with Guy Cook of Colorado
Supernet and begins the interview with Ken Klingenstein.


Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher       Subscript.: Individ-ascii  $85
The COOK Report on Internet -> NREN        Non Profit.          $150
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618          Small Corp & Gov't   $200
[phone]                             Corporate            $350
Internet: [e-mail]              Corporate. Site Lic  $650
http://www.netaxs.com/~cook <- Subscription Info & COOK Report Index

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (david r coelho)
Subject: Alphanumeric Paging Software
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Personal Productivity Tools, Inc
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 06:43:47 GMT


David Coelho       Personal Productivity Tools, Inc      [e-mail]

ALPHANUMERIC PAGING SOFTWARE NOW SHIPPING

Fremont, Calif., June 13, 1995 -- PERSONAL PRODUCTIVITY TOOLS, Inc
today announced the availability of version 2.2 of the ETHERPAGE(TM)
alphanumeric paging solution for Unix workstations. ETHERPAGE is the
first commercial product to provide an enterprise-wide alphanumeric
paging capability for unix workstation networks.  Targeted at
organizations that require a client-server solution, EtherPage
provides exceptional robustness to insure that messages are delivered
efficiently and without fail. Priced from $595 to $2195, the product
is shipping now for SunOS 4.1.X, Solaris 2.x and HP-UX.

INTEGRATION

EtherPage supports automatic generation of pages from email, from user
written scripts, and user written programs. A C application
programming interface makes it possible for users to add a robust
paging capability to their applications. EtherPage can be integrated
tightly into numerous network monitoring environments including SunNet
Manager, HP Openview, Tivoli, Boole & Babbage, and numerous others.

FEATURES

The following summarizes key features of the product:
    Command line interface, suitable for user written scripts
    GUI interface, available for Openlook and Motif
    Pager aliases which allow messages to be sent to multiple pagers
    Extremely powerful filtering capabilities which allow messages to
      be sent to different pagers based on time of day, day of
      week, recipient, sender, message content, etc
    Automatic insertion of sender identification into messages
    Automatic suppression of duplicate messages
    Automatic splitting of long messages into multiple pages
    Automatic forwarding of messages between multiple servers
    Support for multiple concurrent modems
    User definable per paging service message size limits
    Automatic email confirmation
    Automatic truncation of messages
    Job logging and accounting
    User definable shell scripts with macro expansion for handling
      successful/failed delivery of messages
    User definable retry limits
    Robust handling of modem errors
    Robust handling of phone line problems including busy, no answer
    Robust handling of paging service errors such as invalid pager id
    Error recovery including automatic email of problem report
    Job batching for rapid delivery of jobs in a single phone call
    Client-server architecture for centralized management
    UUCP style tty locking for shared tty/modem usage
    User definable modem configuration
    Symbolic configuration files for easy maintenance
    Support for IXO, TAP, PET protocols
    Support for SNPP (RFC 1645) protocol
    Support for touch-tone message delivery

ROBUST, EFFICIENT, DEPENDABLE

EtherPage provices extremely robust delivery of messages. A message
queuing system insures that messages are always delivered.  Messages
are batched for efficient delivery to the paging service.
Sophisticated error recovery insures that messages are delivered
reliably. EtherPage will work with most Hayes compatable modems, and
utilizes industry standard protocols used by virtually all paging
services.

EASE OF USE

A graphical user interface makes sending messages easy. A real-time
graphical display of job status gives users feedback on the status of
their jobs. Jobs can be removed from the queue if desired. A command
line interface is available which makes integration with user written
scripts, and programs easy. The product is easily integrated with
email and network monitoring tools for automatic generation of
messages.

30 DAY EVALUATION

    If you would like to evaluate EtherPage for 30 days, send email
to [e-mail].

PERSONAL PRODUCTIVITY TOOLS, Inc

    PERSONAL PRODUCTIVITY TOOLS designs, develops and markets software
products which enhance the productivity of open systems users. PERSONAL
PRODUCTIVITY TOOLS headquarters is located at 43000 Christy Street,
Fremont, CA, 94538. Telephone [phone]. Email [e-mail].


david r. coelho                        email: [e-mail]
personal productivity tools, inc
43000 christy street                   voice: [phone]
fremont, ca 94538-3198 usa             fax:   [phone]

------------------------------

From: D.J. Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Switched DS3
Date: 14 Jun 1995 01:56:49 GMT
Organization: a2i network


Anyone using switched DS-3 for their applications out there?

Please respond privately to:
[e-mail]


Thanks,

D. J. Jones <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 22:29:53 EDT
From: Nancy Hoft <[e-mail]>
Subject: T1 Data Transfer Rate


Hi,

Sorry to ask such a basic question, but I'm writing an article and
would like to include the average T1 data transfer rate in bps or
whatever the correct units are. I'd appreciate it if you could email
me directly. Many thanks in advance for any information you can offer!


Nancy Hoft, [e-mail]
    INTL TECH COMM SVCS
  RR2 Box 493 Moran Road
     Temple, NH 03084
 Telephone: [phone]
       Fax: [phone]
CompuServe: 71614,1574

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Information Wanted on North American Bell
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 03:01:49 GMT


Can anybody tell me anything about a company in Houston, Texas called
North American Bell, Inc.?  Any good/bad/interesting knowlege of this
firm or its management?


Thanks.

Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: MCI's Success in Business
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 21:42:20 PDT


> This doesn't take a whole lot of thought, you know. Today, Barnes &
> Noble/Bookstop, and MCI, look like the bluest of blue-chip investments.
> Then, they looked like the bleeding-edge of high flyers. Milken did that.

Specifics please?  To my knowledge, Amway is responsible for MCI's success.
(They were involved in marketing MCI for a long time.  Maybe still are.)


John David Galt

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Mayson)
Subject: Out of Town Dial Tones
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 15:17:06 EDT


Several years ago I worked in New Jersey.  I dialed my company's (a long
distance company no less) 1-800 service number to dispatch a tech to our
Chicago office.  However, since I was dialing from NJ, I got the dispatch
that serviced that particular section of that state.  In order to dispatch
a tech to Chicago, someone would need to place the call from Chicago.  We
temporarily got around it by calling our systems administrator in Chicago
and asking him to forward us to that 1-800 number.  My boss and I wondered
if there was a way to call a particular number to get a Chicago or Atlanta
or Pittsburgh, or what have you dial tone.  We never did get an answer.
However, I'm still curious, is this possible?


John Mayson (MS 100/2243) Senior Engineer
Harris Electronic Systems Sector
PO Box 99000, Melbourne FL USA 32902
Voice [phone] | Fax [phone] | Pager [phone]
internet [e-mail] | http://p100dl.ess.harris.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can install in your Chicago office or
wherever you please a device known as a 'call extender' to do what you
want. Connect an incoming phone line to its front end, and an outgoing line
to its other side. Now, when you call into the device, it goes off hook and
gives you the dial tone from the other side. Of course, you get stuck with
paying for two phone calls; one to the device and the one out from the
device.  It might help if you passcode it, to prevent everyone else who
discovers this from abusing it for their own purposes. Generally call
extenders (also known as WATS extenders) are only practical if they are
located in the same local calling area as yourself. That is, do you want
to pay for two phone calls instead of one? When used as WATS extenders,
they used to make sense for people away from the office who wanted to
make long distance calls at the cheaper rate they got in the office via
WATS than the rate they would pay from a payphone.

If you absolutely must have the dialtone of a distant community for
your call rather than the existing long distance network to get where
you want, something like this would work. If you require only access
to one single number in the distant community, but it is only
reachable via local dialtone, then you can also have a number at that
end permanently left on call forwarding to wherever it is you want.
You can get this from the telco in the distant community or by
arrangement with some associate in the desired place. This of course
restricts your options to just the one number; if you want the
flexibility of calling several places in that community, then use the
call extender described above.

You can also get what telco calls 'foreign exchange service' where dial
tone from the desired community is brought directly to you over leased
wires via your local telco. The cost on this is horrendous; they charge
by the mile for the connection and it is very rare these days that FX
service makes any sense at all with long distance rates as cheap as they
are. FX simply gives you phone service, i.e. dialtone, from the telco
and community of your choice rather than the telco in the community
where you are located.

This all seems to have come up because a vendor you were dealing with
(in this case, your own employer -- how embarassing!)  had no
provision for serving customers who were not in the right place at the
right time apparently; and that is a shame. It should be the job of
the vendor to notify his other offices of customer needs and requirements
and not your obligation to dance around like this trying to get phone
calls through in obscure ways at considerable expense to yourself. 800
numbers which are restricted by locality are rather rare these days.
It used to be a big thing to get your 800 IN-WATS number 'banded' for
what areas you wanted to receive calls and did not want them. Now most
800 numbers can be reached from anywhere, and if a vendor chooses to
use time-of-day and/ or location routing on his 800 line, he also
needs to be responsible for getting customers correctly routed who
wind up at the wrong center for whatever reason.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 15:30:05 EDT
From: John Amenyo <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATM Over T3: RFI


Has anyone done any work (or even speculated) on carrying ATM over n x
T3 (n > 1), where the presence of the multiple T3 circuits is
"visible" at or above the ATM level?

What about ATM over n x T1 (n > 1)?

Could you please email me ([e-mail]), even if you reply to the list.
Thanks.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 17:17 EST
From: Ben Heckscher <[e-mail]>
Subject: From a Byte to Yottabyte


Patrick,

Here's an interesting chart for your readers.

Source: http://www.ccsf.caltech.edu/~roy/dataquan/

Data Powers of Ten

The following list is a collection of estimates of the quantities of
data contained by the various media.  Each is rounded to be a power of
10 times 1, 2 or 5. Most of the links are to small images. Suggestions
and contributions are welcomed, especially picture files or pointers
to pictures, and disagreements are accepted at [e-mail].

The numbers quoted are approximate. In fact a kilobyte is 1024 bytes
not 1000 bytes but this fact does not keep me awake at night.

The etymology of these words used for very large numbers
is explained here.

Bytes (8 bits)
      0.1 bytes     : A binary decision
      1 byte        : A single character
      10 bytes      : A single word
      100 bytes     : A telegram OR A punched card

Kilobyte (1000 bytes)
      1 Kilobyte    : A very short story
      2 Kilobytes   : A Typewritten page
      10 Kilobytes  : An encyclopedic page OR A deck of punched cards
      50 Kilobytes  : A compressed document image page
      100 Kilobytes : A low-resolution photograph
      200 Kilobytes : A box of punched cards
      500 Kilobytes : A very heavy box of punched cards

Megabyte (1 000 000 bytes)
     1 Megabyte     : A small novel OR A 3.5 inch floppy disk
     2 Megabytes    : A high resolution photograph
     5 Megabytes    : The complete works of Shakespeare OR 30 seconds
                      of TV-quality video
     10 Megabytes   : A minute of high-fidelity sound OR A digital
                      chest X-ray
     20 Megabytes   : A box of floppy disks
     50 Megabytes   : A digital mammogram
     100 Megabytes  : 1 meter of shelved books OR A two-volume
                      encyclopedic book
     200 Megabytes  : A reel of 9-track tape OR An IBM 3480
                      cartridge tape
     500 Megabytes  : A CD-ROM OR The hard disk of a PC

Gigabyte (1 000 000 000 bytes)
     1 Gigabyte     : A pickup truck filled with paper OR A symphony
                      in high-fidelity sound OR A movie at TV quality
     2 Gigabytes    : 20 meters of shelved books OR A stack of
                      9-track tapes
     5 Gigabytes    : An 8mm Exabyte tape
     10 Gigabytes   :
     20 Gigabytes   : A good collection of the works of Beethoven OR
                      5 Exabyte tapes OR A VHS tape used for digital data
     50 Gigabytes   : A floor of books OR Hundreds of 9-track tapes
     100 Gigabytes  : A floor of academic journals OR A large ID-1
                      digital tape
     200 Gigabytes  : 50 Exabyte tapes

Terabyte (1 000 000 000 000 bytes)
     1 Terabyte     : An automated tape robot OR All the X-ray films
                      in a large technological hospital OR 50,000 trees
                      made into paper and printed OR Daily rate of EOS
                      data (1998)
     2 Terabytes    : An academic research library OR A cabinet full
                      of Exabyte tapes
     10 Terabytes   : The printed collection of the US Library of Congress
     50 Terabytes   : The contents of a large Mass Storage System

Petabyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)
      1 Petabyte    : 3 years of EOS data (2001)
      2 Petabytes   : All US academic research libraries
      200 Petabytes : All printed material
      500 Petabytes : All online data by the year 2000

Exabyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)
      5 Exabytes   : All words ever spoken by human beings.

Zettabyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)

Yottabyte (1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 bytes)

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #284
******************************

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29273;
          16 Jun 95 5:30 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13031 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:59:23 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13023; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:59:20 -0500
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:59:20 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #285

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Jun 95 21:59:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 285

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Decency Act Passes Senate 84-16 (TELECOM Digest Editor)
    Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market? (John Higdon)
    Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market? (Joel Upchurch)
    Book Review: "World Wide Web Unleashed" by December/Randall (Rob Slade)
    CO/Boston New Hampshire Billing Errors (Doug Reuben)
    "Information superhighway" -- End of Local Loop (David G. Cantor)
    Design Project: Telephone Cost Meter (Jim Reynolds)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Digest Editor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Decency Act Passes Senate 84-16
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:10:00 CDT


The widely debated bill to regulate obscenity on the Internet passed
through the United States Senate Wednesday evening by a vote of 84-16.
This is also known as the 'Exon Bill' after its author, Sentator Exon.

Now it goes to the House of Representatives for debate and vote. I've
an idea that it will also get passed in the House, then go to President
Clinton for signature, and at each step of the way we will be bombarded
with messages asking us to email/phone the appropriate people. Eventually
President Clinton will sign it into law -- after receiving a huge volume
of email in protest -- and then the ACLU and others will file legal
challenges to it with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will sit on
it for awhile, and finally announce that the law is constitutional. And
that, as they say, will be that.

You must know that if this passes the House of Representatives, President
Clinton *won't dare* veto it. He is in enough hot water as it is with
Whitewater, and if he and Hillary have not been indicted by the time the
next election comes around (rumor has it she already has been indicted),
he is going to need to kiss and makeup with all the various Christian
Coalition people, the Contract With America people and the rest of them.
He changes directions the same way the blowing wind changes directions,
and he owes *those people* a lot if he does not want to get put out of
office next year. So once Exon/Decency passes the House, it'll be all
over except for the signing of the bill (count on it!) and the usual court
challenges, etc. (count on those also!).

I guess we will learn to live with it.


PAT

------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 21:25:06 -0700
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market?


Michael Wilshire <[e-mail]> writes:

> My question is this. The current Internet service providers' business
> is based on having open access to the telephone infrastructure --

[...]

> So what happens to the internet service providers once cable modems
> take off -- and customers start migrating to the cable companies?

I believe you are asking the wrong question. What happens when EVERY
common carrier begins offering Internet connectivity? It was recently
revealed that Nynex, Bell Atlantic, and Pacific Telesis are laying
plans to bundle 64Kbps Internet service as part and parcel of ISDN. In
other words, if you have a telco ISDN line, you will be able to
connect to the Internet as easily and cheaply as calling the Time
Lady. This offering is projected to start up within eighteen months.

You may have noticed that the big ISPs: Netcom, PSI, and the like have
stopped providing part-time SL/IP connections. This would be the very
product that would be targeted by the telcos and the cable companies,
and there is no way on Gawd's Green Earth that ANY of them could
compete with a common carrier such as an LEC or a cable TV company.
The smaller companies will probably be hurt big time by this, as most
of them do a large part-time SL/IP business.

There is another issue that has not been addressed. With a part-time
Internet connection, one still needs a mail drop and DNS (if he even
has a static address or addresses). Given the RBOCs marvellous history
of attention to fine detail in non-telecom enhanced services, there
could be a gaping hole in their plans to offer part-time Internet
services.

(Leaving the connection up full-time could be expensive. Pacific Bell
charges for local usage during business hours, even on residential
ISDN.  People needing full-time Internet services will still need an
ISP that provides dedicated access through leased lines.)

Remember, "content is the key". Carriers such as the RBOCs realize
that the most profitability in the future will come from being the
provider of the "program" rather than just the transport agent. ISPs
have demonstrated demand and marketability of the Internet. It would
only be expected to have the RBOCs say, "Thanks, guys. Now if you
would just kindly step out of the way so we can take over your
business, we would be most appreciative." In this case, it would
appear that the cable TV companies have a shot at this market as well.

> I would be very interested in any views on this topic -- particularly if
> you believe another outcome is possible.

The days of small ISPs are numbered.


John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | [phone]
             |         http://www.ati.com/ati             |

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Subject: Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market?
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 05:06:41 GMT
Organization: Civilization


In article <[e-mail]>, Michael Wilshire <mwilshire@
anchor.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Given the large number of cable companies who are reported to be
> trialling cable modem technology, I wondered whether other Internet
> Service Providers can be viable in the long term. These modems are
> reported to offer speeds of between 500kbps to 10Mbps, which is
> clearly well beyond that avaiable down an ordinary copper wire, and
> would enable all sorts of high bandwidth video applications.

When they talk about running 10Mbps ethernet over regular cable TV, my
first thought is have they looked at the condition of a lot of the
cable in this country. My second thought is how many customers are
going to be sharing each loop. 10Mbps is fast, but not if I'm sharing
it with 1000 people. My third thought is that they're going to need a
lot more technical sophiscation in their local service.

> My question is this. The current Internet service providers' business
> is based on having open access to the telephone infrastructure --
> anybody can dial in to their points of presence via the telephone
> network for the cost of a local or national call.  The cable
> companies, however, will have little incentive to open up their
> networks to allow third party access, unless they are forced to do so by
> regulation -- and can furthermore offer a superior service.  So what
> happens to the internet service providers once cable modems take off --
> and customers start migrating to the cable companies?

I have to regard having a lot of little ma and pa internet access
providers as a temporary aberration of the market. There will be a lot
of consolidation down the road, but that might be five years or so
away.  Right now a lot of the little guys are offering more value for
the money.  With my local IAP I get unlimited 14.4 PPP for $15 a
month. Also keep in mind that a lot of places you can call up the
phone company and have a 128kb ISDN link put into your home. And you
aren't sharing that with anybody. ISDN is already good enough for a
lot of things and it will get better. Most of the local access will
move to ISDN eventually. There will be a big shakeout and most of the
business will belong to a few big nationwide providers.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that the cable companies are going to
standing around and figuring what to do, while the Direct Broadcast
Satellite, the wireless cable and the phone companies steal their
business out from under them.


Joel Upchurch @ Upchurch Computer Consulting [e-mail]
718 Galsworthy Ave. Orlando, FL 32809-6429  phone [phone]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 13:50:41 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "World Wide Web Unleashed" by December/Randall


BKWWWUNL.RVW   950427

"The World Wide Web Unleashed", December/Randall, 1994, 0-672-30617-4,
U$35.00/C$47.95
%A   John December [e-mail]
%A   Neil Randall [e-mail]
%A   [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]
%A   [e-mail] [e-mail]
%C   201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN   46290
%D   1994
%G   0-672-30617-4
%I   SAMS Publishing
%O   U$35.00/C$47.95 800-858-7674 [e-mail]
%P   1058
%S   ... Unleashed
%T   "The World Wide Web Unleashed"

This is the most complete work on the World Wide Web that I have seen
to date.  It definitely contains more information than other works on
the topic.  Be aware, however, that the content quality is not
consistent throughout.

Parts one and two are the usual introduction both to the Internet, and
to Web browsers.  Coverage of browsers is broader than most (although
not as exhaustive as, say, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the World
Wide Web" (cf BKCIGWWW.RVW)).  The discussion of different programs
has, though, little analysis.  Mosaic is presented as "not the only"
browser, but its weaknesses in handling email and forms are not
mentioned.

Part three gives some very insightful tips on W3 concepts, operation
and use.  Searching techniques and tools are only part of the scope of
what should be required reading for serious Web users.

Part four is the obligatory list of Web sites, complete with
page-filling screen shots from each.  The material on education,
science, communications and government brings up a lot of new content.
Part five, on Web design and creation, may be considered overlong for
those wanting to plan a simple W3 server.  The "case study" indicates
that a project of larger scope is envisioned, and, from that
perspective, there is a lot of valuable material here that you will
not find elsewhere.

Part six, on future trends, is disappointing.  Two chapters touch on
security and its importance to commercial use of the net.  Neither
addresses the inherent security loopholes of the Web, nor the
difficulty imposed by the fact of two competing encryption technologies.
(Nor, indeed, the use of technologies in a "World Wide" system where
one country refuses to let secure systems be exported, while others
simply refuse to allow their citizens encryption at all.)

Certainly quite comprehensive, and extremely valuable in places, there
are still some holes to be plugged, and repetitive sections that should
be reduced.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKWWWUNL.RVW   950427. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


[e-mail], [e-mail], Rob Slade at 1:153/733 [e-mail]
      If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94311-0/3-540-94311-0

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Doug Reuben)
Subject: CO/Boston New Hampshire Billing Errors
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 17:09:26 EDT


After reviewing my most recent CO/Boston bill, I noted an odd problem.

In April, I placed a one-minute call in the SID 01485 system of New
Hampshire.

This system is a "partnership" system between both Cell One/Boston and
Cell One/VT (Atlantic Cellular.) To the best of my knowledge, it is the
only system in the country which is jointly operated by two carriers on
each of their respective switches.

Initially, roaming was crazy: Customers who belonged to the 01485
partnership service paid different rates depending on who's tower they
were connected to. Thus, a 01485 system customer who was billed from
CO/Boston, would receive one rate (lower) for use of Boston towers, and
another (higher) rate for use of CO/VT towers! This was quickly remedied
for all 01485 customers, and they presently enjoy a unified rate
throughout their service area in NH.

However, until about a year ago, roamers were still faced with the
question (or impossibility) of knowing when they were on a CO/Boston
tower and when they were on a CO/VT tower. If they were on a CO/Boston
tower, they paid "New England Network" rates (.44 peak, .29 off-peak.) If
they were on a CO/VT tower, they would pay $3 per day, .99 per minute,
and CO/Boston's (then $2) and now $4 *outrageous* "Roamer Administration
Fee", which is nothing less than a pathetically transparent attempt to
gain as much revenue out of their higher-volume customers as they can.

After I (and doubtless others) complained that this was inherrently
unfair, ie, we had no idea of knowing when a call came in or when placing
an outbound call what rate I would be paying, CO/Boston reduced rates in
the CO/VT section of the New Hampshire 01485 (ONLY) system, and now the
rates reflect New England Network prices in all of SID 01485.  (But be
careful not to hit a CO/VT 00313 tower, which covers the rest of western
NH, VT, northern MA, and eastern upstate NY. If you do, as a Boston
customer, you'll be hit with $3.00 per day, $4.00 roamer admin, and $.99
per minute fees for a 1 minute call! [Hey Southwestern Bell, you want to
tell me how come we pay *EIGHT DOLLARS* for a one minute call on SID 00313
in VT when the SAME call on the SAME switch on the SAME system, which
happens to be on a SID 01485 tower costs only 29 cents? I'd love to hear
the explanation for this (rest assured, they don't have one other than
greed...)]

However, on my most recent bill, a two minute call in the New Hampshire
01485 SID resulted in the full roam charge "barrage", that is, $3.00 day
and $4.00 roamer admin fee. The actual roaming rates for the call were
New England Network, but the billing system for some reason billed the
call with the full $7.00 roamer surcharge. (Note that the $4 is per
month, ie, if you roamed elsewhere outside the NE Network, even in another
SWBell Market, you will pay that per month, but only once for any given
month.)

If you note this $7 roaming charge on your bill, and you haven't roamed
outside of the New England Network (which includes New York (00025), CT
(00119), the 00119 sections of CT but NOT Franklin County (now owned by
CO/VT, 00313), Rhode Island (00119), NH 00345, NH 01485, and I believe
Vanguard/ME 00499 (or is it the 00501 system?), then you should refuse to
pay BOTH the $3 daily charge, and the $4 roamer admin surcharge. DO NOT
let them tell you that the $4 charge is for roaming "somewhere else",
and DO point out to them that you have not been "somewhere else".

To their credit, CO/Boston customer service is quite friendly and polite,
but, unfortunately, they seem to use this "amiability" to persuade
unaware customers that the roamer admin $4 charge should stay, because
"you must have roamed somewhere else". DEMAND (politely) to know where
and when.

CO/Boston simply loves to nickel and dime it's customers -- from charging
airtime for voicemail (so much so that they created a system so landline
callers will also have to pay airtime to deposit messages in a cellular
mailbox through the voicemail port instead of dialing the cellphone
direct), to charging $1 per bill for a "call detail" -- a decreasingly
rare billing item in the cellular industry today, to charging roamer
prices anywhere outside it's nearby coverage area, and of course the $4
roamer administration fee. These petty policies are bad enough without
allowing them to get away with billing these charges for calls which do
NOT warrant them. Check your bills!

Note that NYNEX, for all the flakiness of their utterly comical call
delivery network, provides similarly priced local service (no free
airtime as part of a regular, ongoing service plan, though), does not
charge you a local access fee for local calls, and does not try to
play games and insult the intelligence of its customers by levying
what appears to be a relentless series of additional charges.

When I think about CO/Boston's policies in this regard, I'm reminded of
(and pardon the digression) one of the Warner Bros. "Looney Tunes"
cartoons, where Porky, after a long night's drive, stops by a very
modern looking hotel run by Daffy. Porky is very pleased to find that all
he has to pay is one dime (10 cents) for a night's stay. After Porky goes
to bed, Daffy releases a mouse into the room which noisily chews on
celery and wakes Porky up. Porky complains, and Daffy immediately appears
with a cat, who will chase away the mouse, for a mere $5 charge. Needless
to say, the cat then creates a problem, and Daffy brings a dog (for
$10), then a lion, an elephant, etc., all at substantially higher charges.

Somehow, I feel like Porky every time I get my Cell One/Boston bill! :(.

Someone at SWBMS must have been pretty dumb as a kid and never realized
that the cartoon was a JOKE, and not a model of a way to do business
(if you want to keep your customers). They got me with the free airtime
(which they've raised rates for anyhow), and now they do whatever else
they can get away with to make even more money. Prototypical greed, plain
and simple.

It's too bad McCaw took over Nextel. Eventually, they or some other
similar carrier would bury petty, miserly dinosaurs like CO/Boston, which
is rapidly approaching runner-up position to by far the worst carriers in
the nation: Los Angeles Cellular and PacTel/LA (yeah, yeah, "Airtouch" ...
whatever ...).


Doug Reuben  *  [e-mail]   *  +1 (203) 499 - 5221
Interpage Network Services -- http://www.interpage.net, telnet interpage.net
E-Mail Alpha/Numeric Paging, Voice & Fax Svcs, News, and "Follow Me" Weather

------------------------------

Subject: "Information Superhighway" - End of Local Loop
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 14:32:19 -0700
From: David G. Cantor <[e-mail]>


PacBell is introducing its "information super-highway".  In my area,
they expect it to be installed by the end of 1995 and they expect to
complete the installation for their part of California by 2010.

In a "dog and pony" presentation, PacBell stated that it will consist
of a fiber-optic link from the switch to a "box" serving 480 residences.
Coaxial cable will leave the box, in a star network to individual
homes.  A small interface unit will be mounted at each home.  This is
a completely two-way network.

This system will, among other things, replace the local line loop.
They do not expect much maintenance at the "box".  In particular the
constant search for available pairs for new services will end.  Extra
lines will be configured by software.

In addition to POTS, PacBell plans to provide both video service and
computer communications.


David G. Cantor         Center for Communications Research
[e-mail]         4320 Westerra Court
             San Diego, CA 92121

------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Design Project: Telephone Cost Meter
Date: 14 Jun 1995 05:00:19 -0400
Organization: Villanova University


Greetings, all ...

   In the fall I'll be building a telephone cost meter as a design
project for a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering. Basically,
the device will accumulate the charges for long a distance phone call
and continually display the current cost while you're talking. Since I
have some extra time over this summer, I'd like to get started early.

   First and foremost, I need some way to estimate the per-minute cost
of a long distance phone call. With all the different calling plans
available, this could be a major headache. I contacted AT&T, and
someone was supposed to "get back to me" -- that was three months ago.
Next on my list is MCI ...

   I don't expect the cost algorithm to be exact, but I would like the
projected cost to be somewhat close (+- 10-20%) of the actual cost. My
goal is to have the most popular calling plans programmed in, and have
the user configure the telephone meter by selecting the plan/company
they use.

   In addition, I'd be curious as to what kind of "information" is
available through the telephone wires, if any. For example, would the
user need to program the area code where the call is being placed from,
or is that somehow available from the telephone line itself(ala caller id)?

   The next order of business is the DTMF decoder. Granted, there are
many different brands available, but I can't seem to find a single
one. I have electronic catalogs from Mouser and DigiKey, but under
semi-conductors and IC's they have pages and pages of numbers, yet
none seem to correspond to the numbers I'm looking for. Using catalogs
(as opposed to textbooks) is new to me, and I appreciate any and all
the assistance I can get.  :-)

   I'm also looking for other cost meter devices which are already on
the market. I've heard some rumors, but haven't been able to find
anything. Just curious as to how they operate, and what people are
paying for them.

So, in conclusion ...

   If you're at all familiar with how LD billing works, or know alot about
phone technology in general, or feel you have some worthwhile
suggestions -- please send me some e-mail!  :-)

   Oh, and BTW ... does anyone know if Stephen Bigelow, the author of
"Understanding Telephone Electronics" has an e-mail address?


Thanks in advance.

Jim

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #285
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa00254;
          16 Jun 95 7:12 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14112 for telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 23:22:22 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14104; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 23:22:19 -0500
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 23:22:19 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #286

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Jun 95 23:22:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 286

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI's Success in Business (Lynn Betts)
    Re: MCI's Success in Business (Michael Henry)
    Re: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible? (S. Satchell)
    Re: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible? ([e-mail])
    Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market? (Mike McKinney)
    Re: Phone Monopolies in Europe (Eric Tholome)
    Re: Videoconferencing Experiences (Wilson Cheng)
    Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls (John R. Covert)
    Re: 911 From Cellphones in CA (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Caused by Subscriber (Steve Satchell)
    Re: Now Four Local Players in Chicago (Dan Crimmins)
    Re: T1 Data Transfer Rate ([e-mail])
    Re: Phone Mail Jail (Ed Ellers)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 15:22 EST
From: Lynn Betts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's Success in Business


[e-mail] writes:

>> This doesn't take a whole lot of thought, you know. Today, Barnes &
>> Noble/Bookstop, and MCI, look like the bluest of blue-chip investments.
>> Then, they looked like the bleeding-edge of high flyers. Milken did that.

> Specifics please?  To my knowledge, Amway is responsible for MCI's success.
> (They were involved in marketing MCI for a long time.  Maybe still are.)

Read the article again, John.  The specifics are right there.

Due credit should be given Amway for marketing MCI services to its
constituency (and, yes, they still do), but I know of no one in the
investment community or telecommunications industry who considers
Amway's contributions as "responsible for MCI's success."  The
Drexel/Milken junk bond sale literally saved MCI's neck at a time when
conventional lending channels were closed to them.  Sales volume
didn't matter; they needed a capital infusion.  Most consider that
infusion to have been pivotal in MCI's continued existence (i.e.,
their salvation).

    "Twelve years ago, they had a cash shortage with billions of dollars
of capital expenditures to make.  They had a clear understanding of what
their business was.  We supplied them with billions of dollars of
capital..."

This, from Gilder's article, is quoting Milken.  Yet I know of no one in
either the investment or telecommunications industry who disputes this
description, as far as it goes.  (Effect on the fiber industry is
further described and important for other reasons, but not relevant to
the benefit the capital provided to MCI.)

In saying this, to use MCI as an example of a positive derivative of
Mr. Milken's work, which it indisputably is, should lend no moral weight
(either good or bad) to anyone's opinion of the man on a personal
level, nor any legal weight to whether he broke the law.  He was not
convicted of recognizing great potential and raising capital for it
(regardless of how that money was ultimately used by company
management), he was convicted of violating certain specific laws in
the process of doing that  (the end not justifying the means).  Most
people are emotionally mixing the issues.  Perhaps they failed to
note Gilder's very manner of pointing out the irony -- in the way he
started the description of the "evil Milken" and the way he ends it.

Not to speak for Mr. M., but we need to get a little humility instead
of righteous indignation: How many of us have never/would never "cut
any corners" when we see something we believe has tremendous potential
for so many people, but needs a boost to make it a reality?


Lynn Betts   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards Amway/MCI, it is quite interesting
to me how things can get twisted around the more they get discussed. I've
heard a couple times in the past that Amway's assistance to MCI was more
than just the 'usual relationship between sales rep and company'. The
way it was explained to me, MCI was 'really very, very pleased with the
performance and bottom line as a result of Amway's efforts'. In other
words, its not that Amway 'saved' MCI, but that Amway was -- ummm -- let's
say well ahead of whoever is in third place on MCI's list of commission
agents. It is not that MCI couldn't have made it without Amway; just that
Amway made them a tidy little bundle of cash and continues to do so. There
is still plenty of work for the other sales reps at MCI; Amway just gives
the icing to the cake, or at least they used to.  Would that be a fair
assessment?   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael Henry)
Subject: Re: MCI's Success in Business
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 14:49:12 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley


[e-mail] wrote:

> Specifics please?  To my knowledge, Amway is responsible for MCI's success.
> (They were involved in marketing MCI for a long time.  Maybe still are.)

Oh Barf!  Amway hacks will have you believing they've saved the world
just because they live here.  MCI agreed to provide discounts to Amway
resellers, and the next thing you know, Amway saved their business?
What does MCI need with all of their salespeople then?  With pros like
Amway, it should've sold itself right past AT&T in no time.

Sorry ... I'm just particularly disgusted by poor information.
If we do not succeed, then we face the risk of failure. D. Quayle


Michael Henry                       Sr Analyst,Telecommunications
University of California, Berkeley                   510-643-8353


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my note above. Perhaps JDG was a
bit 'over-ethusiastic' in describing the Amway/MCI thing, but I've
been told it is nothing to mock or ignore; that they have a very
cozy and comfortable working arrangement with lots of money for all
concerned.  And that's the bottom line, isn't it?   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (ssatchell on BIX)
Subject: Re: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible?
Date: 16 Jun 95 01:48:55 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation


[e-mail] (Ch. Buckley) writes:

> My question is, is it possible to get GTE to run a second line down
> the yellow, using one of the previous wires as a common return?  Is
> there something special I need to do to get them to do this?  How does
> one determine which is the common return?  I spoke to their customer
> service reps about this, but it seems that GTE is sitll hiring people
> who cannot even effectively put people on hold while they ask up the
> chain of command something they don't know (I was cut off), so I tend
> to a priori distrust the answer I might get from them.

> Add to that that they're trying to aggressively sell inside wiring
> service, whereby they run the wire from the demark point to "a new
> jack".  I wouldn't mind paying the extra money so much, it's just that
> the quality of the wiring I tend to get from them is ugly and bad -
> wires in plain site, poorly tied down, exposed to elements, and/or
> fatigue failure through repeated motion, ignoring previous conduit and
> wire passageway infrastructure, etc.

> The second line would be used for data transmission, so this may mean
> that FDM multiplexing is not an option.  The equipment for that is not
> usually readily available for customer-side wiring, anyway.  Please
> reply also by e-mail, if you would.

You want to run data communications over *unbalanced* telephone
cabling?  First, the line quality would be such that you would be
lucky to get a 212A modem to work reliably, because the crosstalk and
noise would be a huge component.  The huge longitudinal imbalance
would kill any attempt to use echo-cancelling modes of operation at
any speed.

We are talking transmission lines, designed to run in pairs with the
only ground being at the central office.

Frankly, installing your own wiring isn't that big a job.  There are
many sources for three-pair wire which can do the job just swell, and
you sound like you are already aware of the pitfalls of inside wiring.
The only thing that you would need to do that's out of the ordinary is
to buy a T-25 staplegun, the one with the round nose and the smaller
staples.  The T-50 is just too large and shoots square staples instead
of the T-25's round ones.

Further, try to avoid daisy-chain runs; use separate home runs and
bring them to a terminal block -- and then take a single run out to
the demark points.  Even better, if you can stand the cost, use 66M
blocks and, in the case of your data line, only put in bridge clips
for the jacks you use.  This limits the effect of the stubs.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (TKC)
Subject: Re: Question: Two Phone Lines on Three Wires; is it Possible?
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 15:16:19 GMT
Organization: INS Information Services, Des Moines, Iowa, USA


[e-mail] (Ch. Buckley) wrote:

> I was looking in to adding a second line to a house build in the
> early 1960's in GTE-land in NC.  The house is wired throughout with
> three-wire (not three-pair) cable, i. e. red-green-yellow.  Line
> number one uses red and green.

> My question is, is it possible to get GTE to run a second line down

The answer is No  but Maybe Yes....

They could run what is called "subscriber line carrier"; that's running
two lines down one wire.  They put a little box in your back room that
is self powered off the line and it will divide the two signals ...

You will still have to rewire your house with two pair wire or more.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I've heard -- and people have written
here -- that those things, sometimes called 'slick' or SLC are just
horrendous when it comes to handling data. Just awful.   PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 04:54:05 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Mike McKinney)
Subject: Re: Will Cable Companies Dominate Internet Access Market?


        First off let me say that being a Telco employee does not mean I'm
knocking Cable for the benefit of my company.  These are purely practical
observations.

        IMHO, cable companies will only dominate those services where
speed and price are more important than reliability.  My opinion is
based on the fact that cable television's plant, at least in Austin,
TX, has never been built as if it were a critacal service.  And it's
still not being built to the same standards as telephone plant.  The
most obvious sign of this is in the fiber optic cable they are
currently installing around the city.  We (Southwestern Bell
Telephone) hardly ever place fiber aerially, but the cable company is
doing it almost exclusively.  What's more, the cable they are using
appears to be a single sheath design, about .5 inch diameter.

    In my younger days I made my living as an outside repairman:
trees, squirrels, kids with pellet rifles, etc. are going to tear this
stuff up.  In the one case I have seen of aerial fiber placed by us,
the cable on the pole was nearly two inches in diameter.  Under a
U-gaurd coming down the pole to a buried conduit, the outer sheathes
were removed, leaving an inner cable the same size as what the cable
company was putting up on the poles!

    I have a question for the group in general: cable is not my
career so perhaps someone can tell me HOW cable is going to deliver
all the wonderous things they promise.  I know that cable has a HUGE
bandwidth, but it's just huge, not infinite, and their facilities are
essentially single runs feeding large geographical areas. I do know
quite a bit about frequency and digital multiplexing, but I would
really be interested if someone could enlighten me or point me towards
a good reference source on the subject.

        One last question I have is how will security be addressed?
If, as I believe, cable plant is essentially a single route all the
way to the house, how can privacy of information be accomplished?  I'm
sure much can be done with digital encoding, but any coding can be
broken and I'd personally rather not have my communications accessable
from any house in the area.  Again, any info would be appreciated.


Mike McKinney     SW Bell
Austin, TX        [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Eric Tholome)
Subject: Re: Phone Monopolies in Europe
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 23:13:02 +0200


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Tor-Einar Jarnbjo) wrote:

> [...] And what would happen if Telenor,
> which actually is obligated to do so, was left as the only company
> serving the areas of Norway where noone or only a few people live, and
> they loose a lot of income from the other parts, would Telenor then be
> able to provide such cheap services? I don't think so, [...]

The European Union has been pondering this point for quite some time.
As far as I know, they now have to choose between the following two
solutions to provide universal phone service:

 - require that the original monopolistic operator provides universal
service. Other operators would have to pay access charges when accessing
this network, to compensate for the cost of universal service;

 - create a common "solidarity" fund that all operators must contribute to,
either financially, or by providing universal phone service.


Eric Tholome
23, avenue du Centre           [e-mail]
78180 Montigny le Bretonneux   phone: [phone]
                    France     fax: same number, call first!

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Wilson Cheng)
Subject: Re: Videoconferencing Experiences
Organization: The University of Hong Kong
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 13:22:13 GMT


EVAN ROSEN ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I am interested in hearing about any experiences -- both good and
> bad -- people have had with videoconferencing.  The information is for
> articles and presentations on videoconferencing.  I'm particularly
> interested in applications, i.e. ways people have used videoconferencing
> to achieve results.  Also, I'm interested in cultural issues like
> feeling uncomfortable on camera.  This request covers desktop, roll-about
> and room systems.  Post your thoughts here and/or mail them to
> [e-mail]

Application :

    - Big boss meeting.
    - Advertising, proposal with VCR, still picture display.
    - Textile industry, showing samples e.g. jeans, shirt ... color
    and texture.
    - Toys, model samples.
    - Cross country meeting.

Common uncomfortable feeling :

    - Eye contact, the way the camera is positioned, the far end
        may feel the other end not looking at them while meeting.
    - Audio problem, even many system equipped with echo cancellor,
    echo occurance is common when the mic is being moved around by
    the boss.
    - Poor picture quality when running at low rate , e.g 128K , as
    some people expect the video quality will be the same as TV
    (Real time respond).

The above are my experience with roll-about and room system.  Just
some thoughts, I hope it helps!


Nick

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 09:32:38 EDT
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Inbound Out-of-Home-Area Cellular Calls


> Basically, most cellular systems will allow "Follow-Me Roaming" when
> out of area.  You dial *18 when you reach a new system (not a new cell
> -- a new system) and that tells the cellular network "I'm here!".
> Then, they can route calls to you.

1. That was "B" carriers only.  "A" carriers used a system called
   "Roaming America" or "Nationlink" that was activated differently, and
   somewhat more automatically, but at differing levels depending on
   both your home and remote service provider.  The code to activate
   it was *31.  But most "A" carriers now participate in the "North
   American Cellular Network" which is fully automatic.

2. Follow-Me-Roaming (a service of GTE Data Services Corporation) has
   been replaced by Follow-Me-Roaming-Plus.  This activates automatically
   when you enter a new area.  Some, but not all, home carriers may want
   you to dial "*78" once to initially activate it; others will have it
   initially activated by default.

Almost all "B" carriers now participate in Follow-Me-Roaming-Plus, and
calls can be delivered automatically essentially everywhere in the
U.S.  and Canada without any need to dial anything.


/john

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 00:20:15 GMT
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 From Cellphones in CA


In <[e-mail]> Marty Brenneis <[e-mail]> writes:

> I am seeking personal experiences both good and bad that involve using
> cellular 911 for situations that were not the jurisdiction of the
> Highway Patrol. (mail to [e-mail]) I am mainly interested in
> California, but if you have an interesting tale from another state or
> country please chime in.

This morning's {Chicago Sun-Times} contains a short item on page 4 which
is _extremely_ unrelated to the Highway Patrol, but which I'm reprinting
here anyway, in its entirety:

CALL FROM THE WILD

Montain climber Dick Muchow broke his ankle at 12,700 feet on Lizard
Head Peak in the Rockies.

His partner did what any climber would do. He pulled out a cellular
phone and dialed 911.

A helicopter team was sent.

[end quote]

Too bad you can't get Enhanced 9-1-1 Name and Address readouts on a
portable cellphone call; I'd love to see what address would display
for a call like that...


Andrew C. Green            [phone]
Frame Advanced Product Services
441 W. Huron               Internet: [e-mail]
Chicago, IL  60610-3498    FAX: [phone]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Those of you who read the Chicago papers
may have noted in the past three days our brand new emergency communications
center was turned on. It is being phased in over the next four months and
by the end of 1995 all central offices in Chicago will be funneled in there.
The pictures in the newspapers of the place were fantastic. Extremely
futuristic workstations for the call takers combined with giant projection
screens on the walls which show very elaborate street maps. These giant
screens can also show television news reports of whatever the disturbance
outside happens to be.

Each 911 operator will have four different monitors, a couple of keyboards
and the phone equipment. Individual lighting and climate controls at each
position.  Some of the terminals will show detailed diagrams of the inside
of large buildings, detailed street maps, underground utility lines, more.
The new building, on the near west side of Chicago is designed to withstand
every kind of disaster. It will serve as a command center for police and
city officials in the event of riots, natural disasters, etc.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (ssatchell on BIX)
Subject: Re: Prodigy Held Liable in Libel Case Caused by Subscriber
Date: 15 Jun 95 17:24:09 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation


[e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter) writes:

> Well I run a BBS and have had to remove subject matter including a now
> ex-user who sent everyone on my system a rather filthy note. Does that
> mean if someone finds a subject they don't like or claim to be libeless
> I'll have legal problems? I hope you have insurance to cover that, I don't.
> I think the laws have to be updated to cover electronic media, since
> it is a lot different then print in that it appears at once unless the
> group is moderated, and even with with this group I have seen that you have
> gotten spammed. I check my system several times a day and the users and
> other SysOps on the nets are pretty good, with the exception of one
> system that seems to have been taken over by its users.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've been following the Prodigy case as closely
as I followed the Cubby/CompuServe case and, for what it's worth, here
is my opinion.

Prodigy is different from virtually every other service in that they
make an attempt to perform "prior restraint" on postings, similar to
the way that comp.dcom.telecom and other newsgroups are moderated in
NetNews.  In Prodigy's case, there are claims that they use software
to identify "suspect" messages, and a human being has to "OK" those
suspect messages before they can appear.  Not all details are
available right now, although anyone who can point to an electronic
archive with the case transcript will get a hearty "thank you" from
me.

In the case of CompuServe, other information service providers with
messaging services, and BBSes, the moderation is "after the fact", at
least for the regular users.  This means that a user, one vetted, can
in fact post freely -- the system operator can yank messages from view
only after they become public.  This is akin to a cork bulletin board
in which you can tack up your own messages.  Prodigy is more like the
cork bulletin board where you have to submit your message to the owner
and *s/he* tacks it up.

The Court held that Prodigy operates more like a newspaper or
magazine, where agents of the owner (editors) decide whether to
publish the item or not.  That active selection is why Prodigy is
liable for the statements of its subscribers.

If there is a lawyer in the house: are there any useful cites of
magazines and newspapers being sued for libel based on the publication
of a letter to the editor?


Stephen Satchell

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dan Crimmins)
Subject: Re: Now Four Local Players in Chicago
Organization: VNP Software, Inc.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 00:33:10 GMT


Don't forget Teleport Communications Group, Chicago.  Their slogan is
"The Other Local Phone Company".

I don't think they go after the residential market yet, but who knows ...


Dan Crimmins   VNP Software   Chicago

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (VPMC)
Subject: Re: T1 Data Transfer Rate
Date: 16 Jun 1995 22:08:57 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (VPMC)


Nancy,

     Unless I misunderstood your question, T1 service operates at
1.544 mega (million) bits per second.


Vinny C

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ed Ellers)
Subject: Re: Phone Mail Jail
Organization: IgLou Internet Services
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 02:53:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lee
Winson) says:

> First, a lot of customers still have rotary dials.  Given voice
> recognition technology, it should be a no-brainer to pick up dial
> pulses (if they can decipher voice, they can decipher precisely timed
> clicks).

Won't work -- most switches will drop the call if you pulse-dial a
digit higher than three or four after the last digit of the called
number, because of the way they scan lines to tell when you've hung
up.

> Third, systems should try to use standardized key functions.  * and #
> should do the same thing.  If you have recording or transfer options,
> the keys should be uniform across systems.  It would save so much time.

Why should two keys do the same thing?  I'd rather see everybody
standardize on using # for enter (since it's to the right, where an
enter key would be expected) and perhaps * for escape.

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #286
******************************


Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa02833;
          16 Jun 95 11:53 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15652 for telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 01:40:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15644; Fri, 16 Jun 1995 01:40:15 -0500
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 01:40:15 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #287

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Jun 95 01:40:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 287

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Mexican Telecom Wiring (John Schmidt)
    International Dialing to Alternate Local Company (Timothy D. Hunt)
    Re: AT&T 'True(?) Messages' (Steve Cogorno)
    Dianatel EA24 and SS96 Wanted (Vance Shipley)
    Pre-Paid Phone Card Questions (Barry Caplan)
    Please, Help Me If You Can! (Yoshi Mizumo)
    Re: Phone Monopolies in Europe (Yves Blondeel)
    Re: Now Four Local Players in Chicago (Dave Bernardi)
    How Will Local Competition Infrastructure Be Done? (Eric Hunt)
    Re: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From? (James Bellaire)
    Re: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From? (John Murray)
    Re: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From? (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Cellular Service in Hungary (Jalil Latiff)
    Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: EMI Issues With GSM (Sam Spens Clason)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Schmidt)
Subject: Mexican telecom wiring
Date: 15 Jun 1995 19:24:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site


I'll be spending about a week in Mexico this summer, and will be taking
a laptop/modem combination for connections from inside Mexico to
destinations both inside and outside the country. I've a few questions:

1. How universal (if at all) is DTMF dialing, as opposed to pulse?

2. Can I expect to find RJ-11 jacks, wired the same as U.S. jacks, in
businesses, hotels, etc? If not, is there any particular color code
convention I should be aware of when hooking up my alligator clips?
That is, can I expect the red/green pair to work?

3. Any differences in line voltages, ring voltages, etc. that
would make life difficult for the modem or computer?

4. Are there any "standard" dialing conventions such as "9" for
outside line, "1" before long distance numbers, etc.?

5. Any recommendations on calling cards/procedures for making
long-distance calls within Mexico? (I plan to use AT&T USA Direct for
calls back to the States, but I've no clue how to best handle billing
for long-distance in-country calls.)

Thanks for any help,


John Schmidt   [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Timothy D. Hunt)
Subject: International Dialing to Alternate Local Company
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 16:54:27 GMT
Organization: Fusion Systems Group, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


We are using MFS Intelnet in New York as our local phone company.
Recently a customer calling us from Sweden told us that he tried
calling our main number and was getting a "number out of service"
message. He finally got through by calling our old (NYNEX) number
which we have forwarded to our new (MFS) number.

I told MFS about this and their response was that it was a problem
with the long distance carrier being used to call us and there was not
much they could do.

Somehow, I feel somebody needs to know to fix this. The question is
who?


Tim Hunt   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you can't call NYNEX, that's for
sure. You're not their customer any longer. (chortle!) Let me see if
I understand: when you went to MFS you got a new number? I had heard
that when you switched local companies it was supposed to be transparent;
that is, you got to keep your existing number. In other words, just like
portability with 800 numbers. So why did you give up your published,
well-known and (presumably) desirable number with NYNEX to begin using
a different number with MFS?  Or isn't how I have described the way it
works there?  Or if you did keep your established number and part of the
deal with MFS is that calls are being routed through it to the number(s)
that MFS set up for you, then why are you publicizing or giving out those
numbers used for call-forwarding purposes via your new local carrier?

Second, why would any other telco, domestic or international, care what
number was being called in New York?  I can understand that if MFS has
some 'new' exchanges in service that possibly other telcos around the
globe have not yet updated their tables to include the new prefixes or
exchanges, but otherwise I cannot imagine why they would care one way
or the other. Try these experiments:

   1. Use your MFS lines to dial your MFS number. Does the call go
      through? If you have more than one incoming line via MFS in
      a hunt group for example, attempt to dial into *each line*
      independently. Maybe calls hitting one of the back lines are
      not getting through because one of the back lines has a problem.
      Anyway, if yes, an MFS line can be used to call *all* the other
      incoming MFS lines, then proceed to #2. If not, then the fault
      would seem to be in the MFS equipment somewhere.

   2. Now use a NYNEX line somewhere to dial your MFS number. Does
      the call go through?  If yes, then proceed to #3. If the call
      to your MFS number does go through from MFS but does not go through
      when NYNEX is handling the call, then NYNEX is at fault.

   3. Try using NYNEX lines to dial two, three or more incoming
      calls to your MFS lines *at the same time*. Then use NYNEX
      lines to try several calls at the same time to your NYNEX number.
      Any one or more of the calls get blocked or intercepted?

   4. Have someone outside your area/areacode but sitll within NYNEX
      territory call your MFS number(s). Then have someone totally
      outside the territory, such as in Chicago or Denver try your
      MFS number then your NYNEX number. Know anyone else at some
      international point who can also try it?

Throughout all the above, please note *who* is giving the intercept
message, if any occur. Is it an MFS or NYNEX recording?  If it is not
a recording from either of those companies, then neither one is at
fault. Is the 'not in service' recording coming from a local telco
somewhere who is not even passing the call (because their tables say
no such exchange/prefix exists in 212?)

In 'normal' call forwarding from one line to another, you can dial either
the original number or the number it is forwarding to directly. I am not
sure in the new-fangled local competition schemes if you are *supposed*
to be able to directly address the 'forwarded-to' number or not. In
other words, the 'number' MFS assigned you may be only internal to their
system and used by agreement with NYNEX, but not a 'true' telephone number
for elsewhere. That's why it would be interesting to see if other long-
distance callers around the USA and the world experience the same results
as the Swedish people.

Finally, there is the possibility that your Swedish customer dialed the
wrong number. He transposed a couple digits (either because you gave him
the number incorrectly) or he wrote it down wrong, etc. Now he won't
admit it, or still does not realize that earlier he had it wrong. How
about some additional specifics from you on this?    PAT]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Re: AT&T 'True(?) Messages'
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 10:43:09 PDT


Mark Cuccia said:

> I have NEVER used #123 to leave a 'forwarding message'.  If the
> message did not get through, does AT&T still charge the caller?  And

No.  There is no charge if the message is not delivered (or if the sender
cancels the message before it is sent).

> what about answering machines & voicemail on the receiving end - The
> AT&T automated message forwarding would already start playing the
> caller's prerecorded message while the called party's voicemail/answering-
> machine was playing out ITS outgoing message and not yet in the record
> mode for incomming calls. Machine-to-Machine does NOT always work as well
> as Machine-to-Human or vice-versa, or Human-to-Human.

The service actually works quite well with answering machines; I have
never had any trouble with it.  It waits through the outgoing messsage
and waits for thre "record" tone. If you prefer, you can have a live
operator introduce the message.  You can also have the message
delivered only to the person you specify (ie not an answering machine,
and not to anyone else who might pickup the phone).

It's interesting that your callers have trouble with this; I've never been
given the 123 message unless I'm at a pay phone.  BTW, you can call
TrueMessages directly at 1-800-562-6275 to schedule messages, listen to
replies, or cancel messages.


Steve     [e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 95 16:53:35 EDT
Subject: Dianatel EA24 and SS96 Wanted
Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 20:53:24 GMT


I need a Dianatel EA24 ISDN PRI interface card and a SS96 switch ASAP.
If anyone is sitting on some please give me a call.


Vance Shipley   Zenox Communications Corp.
200 Ronson Drive, Suite 612
Toronto, Ontario  CANADA M9W 5Z9
Tel [phone]  Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

------------------------------

From: Barry Caplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pre-Paid Phone Card Questions
Date: 16 Jun 1995 00:10:18 GMT
Organization: Aiki International Software Services


Hello readers of the Digest,

A friend just called and said he was interested in getting in the
business of selling pre-paid phone cards via vending machine. I am not
sure why, but I can't help feeling that something would be amiss.

Apparently, long distance service providers large and small (small =
resellers) will sell cards at say US 11 cents/minute, and you can then
resell them at what the market will bear.

I have a few questions about such an arrangement:

1) Are there some phone companies providing services that are, shall
we say, of dubious value?  Are some "here today/gone tommorrow"?

2) Do people really use these cards to save a few cents on calling
card surcharges?

3) If the answer to #2 is yes, do they buy new cards when the old one
is used up, or is it just a novelty? (I have been carrying a Sprint Five
Minutes Free promotion card for a year now "in case of emergency".
Come to think of it, it is about to expire this month, I better call
someone!)  This is important because the vending machines cost approximatly
US $2500, so you have to sell a lot of cards to recoup that investment.

4) If people do make regular use of these cards, who are they? Are
there some locations for the machines that have proved successful?
What are some successful pricing strategies?

5) Do various phone companies restrict the use of the cards to or from
particular areas, regions, or countries?

6) I would be interested in knowing from each of you why or why not
you would buy such a card.

7) Is there anyplace I can go to get more solid information about this topic?

I am too busy these days to promise to be able to read the Digest
regularly. I would appreciate if you e-mail your responses to me as
well as post them to the group. After a week or so, I can post a
summary to the group.


Thank you very much,

Barry     Aiki International Software Services
89 Longwood Avenue  Brookline, MA 02146 USA
[e-mail]   <----- note new address


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To answer just a few of your questions,
have you ever had to take a number and wait in line to buy one of those
cards?  I get around quite a bit to places where those cards are sold,
and I have yet to ever see anyone in line ahead of me asking to buy one.
I have waited in many lines for some non-related thing while the people
in line ahead of me were purchasing vast quantities of Illinois State
Lottery tickets, and in the places I frequent, the kind of people who
purchase large amounts of lottery tickets are the same people who would
be quite likely otherwise to use prepaid phone cards. If you were a
reader of this Digest three years ago, you'll recall I assisted in the
promotion of one such card (the 'Talk Ticket') with the Digest readership
as my base of customers. It went nowhere fast. Any of you still around
who bought those and tried them out?  How about sharing some experiences
here now a couple years later?

And no, they don't restrict where you can call except possibly you can't
use them for 900 numbers and it would be a waste of the card to use it
for 800 numbers. Why should they care where you call since they have
already been paid -- long ago in fact, by two earlier generations of
wholesalers/distributors/door-to-door salespeople who are now eager
to sell the card to you (and recoup their money) -- they have no potential
fraud and/or collection problem. In fact, you wind up paying the telco
more for giving them less headaches collection-wise. I liken prepaid
phone cards to American Express money orders: AMEX makes a killing on
those; in effect you loan Amex money they don't have to account for for
a few days until its time to pay off someone. Would *you* like to have
a float of a couple million dollars to play with on any given day?
And the shame is, they charge you an administrative fee of a dollar or
so on money orders; you pay them money on the money you loan them for
a few days or a few weeks until someone else cashes it in.  Any of you
want to loan me a million dollars just for a day? I'll return it to you
tomorrow *with interest*.  See my point?    PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 17:02:50 +0300
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Please, Help Me If You Can!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Will some one or more of you answer
this next letter for me?  Just respond direct to the writer. You
can copy the response here if you think it of general interest.   PAT]


Dear Mr. Townson,

I have brosed through telecom previously, but we are not set-up for news
posting.  Please excuse me for this direct e-mail.

I am serving as a member for a commitee at Japanese PTT ministry.  At
this committee, we are about to write up the report, comparing the
telecommunication cost between Japan and the US.

As of now, DS-1 local hook-up (point to point at 0 km) costs us about
$4,000 US per month !!!  I have been trying to tell the ministry that
it is crazy, but they say they do not have any foreign data on local
hook-up, they cannot say anything in the report.

Is it possible for you to point me to the sources of this information
(price ranges for DS-1 local hookup, for example).  Or, better yet,
can you just tell me the cost ranges just off the top of your head ?


Thanks in advance.

Yoshi Mizuno, Pharm.D.       e-mail:         [e-mail]
Mizuno Pharmacies            WWW:  http://www.drug.COM/
4-1-24 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku    TEL :      [phone]
Tokyo 113 JAPAN              G3 FAX:    [phone]

------------------------------

From: Yves Blondeel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Monopolies in Europe
Date: 15 Jun 1995 18:52:21 GMT
Organization: T-REGS


Comment from Europe:

Norway is quasi *obliged* to end the remaining Telenor monopolies:

Norway is a party to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement.

The general principle of the EEA Agreement is that all European
Community (EC) directives and regulations concerning the internal
market apply not only to the European Union Member States, but also to
the EEA countries from the date of entry into force of the Agreement,
i.e. from January 1, 1994 (with a six-month transition period for
competition law).

The implication is that the EC's telecommunications liberalisation
directives became applicable in Norway on July 1, 1994.

The "Services Directive" -90/388/EEC-, as amended by Directive
94/46/EEC applies to Norway today and will be amended again in 1995 or
1996 in order to oblige the EC countries to enable competitive
provision of the voice telephony service and competition for the
establishment and operation of telecommunications infrastructures from
January 1, 1998 at the latest.

New measures in the telecommunications sector (for example the
forthcoming amendment to the "Services Directive") are considered for
adoption by the so-called EEA Joint Committee on a directive-by-directive
basis. According to the EEA Treaty, the process of adopting directives
by the EEA requires ratification by the European Parliament as well as
by the parliaments of the individual EEA Member States (such as
Norway).

As you can see, Norway would have to take pretty radical steps in order to
escape from mandatory demonopolisation of its telecommunications sector. It
could either refuse to ratify a particular directive (which would lead
to high-profile court cases), or it could withdraw from the EEA.


Yves Blondeel   <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

From: Dave Bernardi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Now Four Local Players in Chicago
Date: 15 Jun 1995 21:07:35 GMT
Organization: Morgantown Energy Technology Center, US DOE


> They'll be doing it, they say, by purchasing space and
> resources in bulk through Ameritech for resale.  It should
> be an interesting summer.

Is Ameritech required to sell resources to their competitors by law?
Why would Ameritech "give away" business if this is not the case?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech wants to be rid of the
regulation which is keeping them out of long distance and other
lucrative enterprises. They are willing to allow competition -- and
even help the competition to some extent -- in exchange for the
freedom they will gain. Anyway, they know that in real practice
the competition  will be on paper only for many years to come, if
it materializes at all as any sort of threat (unlikely).  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 03:52:38 GMT
From: Eric Hunt <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Will Local Competition Infrastructure be Done?


I've been very interested in the emergence of competition for our local phone
business. The only question I've not seen answered is this:

How will the infrastructure be managed? Who will control it?

Will there be an exponential explosion in the number of overhead wires
as each company installs their own?

Will the current phone company remain "protector" of the infrastructure
and simply resell capacity?

Will the current phone company be forced to GIVE capacity to the incoming
competitors, much like IPPs are going to get an almost free ride on the
transmission facilities of the power companies?


Thanks,

Eric in Austin    metrowerks Corp.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:12:18 -0500
From: [e-mail] (James E. Bellaire)
Subject: Re: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From?


In TELECOM Digest #269 [e-mail] (Joel Upchurch) asks:

> I have a pretty basic question. When you place a call from a cellular
> phone does the cellular company record which cell(s) actually handled
> the call? I know they could if they wanted to, but do they?

> In something like the Simpson case it might be interesting if it turned
> out that his ex-wife's house was in a different cell from his house.

The only use of cell phone tracking in the Simpson case was to find OJ
during the ride in Al Cowlings bronco.  The issue of a cell phone call
originating from Nicole's house or OJ's is not relevant.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:

> To answer your question, yes I think sometimes they do keep a record of
> the cells involved in a call when they have reason to need or want that
> information.   PAT]

The use of a cell trace to find OJ was done in real time, not later as
'records' would infer.  Any good telecom tech with the right computer
could tell you which cell was serving a particular customer and signal
strength (to estimate distance from the cell).  Handoffs would be the
key to tracking, unless you put people on the street with directional
tracking devices.  Of course ANY INFORMATION is subject to being recorded
at some point, but the reason of WHY would have to be answered.

Just my opinions.

James E. Bellaire (JEB6)  [e-mail]
Twin Kings Communications  -  Sturgis, MI

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (John Murray)
Subject: Re: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From?
Date: 15 Jun 1995 13:56:07 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <[e-mail]>, Joel Upchurch <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I have a pretty basic question. When you place a call from a cellular phone
> does the cellular company record which cell(s) actually handled the call? I
> know they could if they wanted to, but do they?

There was a proposal some years ago in the Intelligent Transportation
world to use the cellular phone location information as a way to
determine feasible speeds along stretches of freeway. [Essentially,
the reasoning system would infer "Phone X got from cell 1 to cell 2 in
Y minutes, so therefore the feasible speed for that piece of the
freeway network is at least Z mph".] I think that the system would
work provided the phone was turned on, regardless of whether calls
were made or not.


John Murray   Univ of Michigan

------------------------------

From: Ed Ellers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does Phone Company Record What Cell Call Placed From?
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 23:18:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Joel Upchurch <[e-mail]> writes:

> In something like the Simpson case it might be interesting if it turned out
> that his ex-wife's house was in a different cell from his house.

The problem there is that cell coverage overlaps to some extent (it
has to in order to assure uninterrupted calls as you travel), and it's
sometimes possible to hit different cell sites from points only a few
feet apart.

------------------------------

From: Jalil Latiff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Service in Hungary
Date: 16 Jun 1995 02:06:27 GMT
Organization: Universal Telecom


In article <[e-mail]>, George Levar <Georgel@mailgw.
doyne.edu> writes:

> I have some friends visiting the US from Hungary. They have commented
> how inexpensive cellular hardware is here compared to Hungary. They
> would like to buy a flip phone here and get service for it in Hungary.
> Will this work?? Does Hungary have the same type of cellular system as
> the US?

If I recall correctly, Hungary uses NMT standard and if you could get
a US phone to work in that system, quickly, go buy yourself a lottery
ticket.

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: Telecom Finland to Use DCS 1800 to Back up GSM
Date: 16 Jun 1995 04:45:16 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Yves Blondeel <[e-mail].
be> writes:

> [e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason) wrote:

>> There is an EC directive that says that 900 MHz should be
>> reserved for GSM and that other analog networks should be
>> "phased out" but that certain considerations should be made.

> Presumably you are referring to Council Directive 87/372/EEC
> of 25 June 1987 on the frequency bands to be reserved for the
> coordinated introduction of public pan-European cellular
> digital land-based mobile communications in the Community.

Yes.

> I am not aware of ANY European Union measure calling for the
> "phasing out" of older analogue networks. The closest I have
> seen is the "whereas" in this Directive which says "whereas on
> the basis of present technological and market trends (*back in
> 1987 I remind you*) it would appear realistic to envisage the
> exclusive occupation of the 890-915 and 935-960 MHz frequency
> bands by the pan-European system within 10 years of 1 January
> 1991." Please tell me where you found the "phasing out"
> statement.

I didn't, that my translation of Post & Telestyrelsen's (Post &
Telecom board) desicion of May 18.  For those of you that speek
Swedish I recommend you read it:

        http://www.et.se/elektronik(arkiv/9510/beslut.html.

Maybe that is a poor translation, but that's what its about.

> For information: there is also a Council Recommendation
> 97/371/EEC of 25 June 1987 and a Council Resolution 90/C
> 166/02 of 28 June 1990 which relate to GSM frequencies.

Don't know much about that one I'm afraid.  But I'm all ears.

> *Sam's Comments on Sweden - very interesting*

>> Most probably 1800 will eventually be used just as in
>> Finland, but no decisions have yet been made.

> I was under the impression that Telestyrelsen (the Swedish
> regulatory authority for telecommunications) was preparing to
> grant up to five specific DCS 1800 licences (some or all of
> which might be regional rather than nation-wide).

A decision is to be made very soon, but until then one can only
speculate.  The scenario you describe does resemble an interview given
by Telia Mobitel's managing director about a month ago (Mobitel is
Telia's telecom-over-radio division).  Telia's been pushing very hard
for DCS since that would leave their analog NMT900 system in the
clear.  They were hoping that NMT would be left intact and that the
future GSM customers would have to buy dual-mode handsets.

France Telecom is one of the actors that wants DCS freq's in Sweden
but they don't want to give Telia access to DCS because of Telia being
the dominant player on the Swedish market.

>> My reflection to all this is will the introduction of DCS
>> make GSM cheaper, i.e. will the prices drop to LD rate?  Any
>> experiences from the UK or Germany?

> I am not a market analyst but I would say without much
> hesitation that the UK mobile communications market was a
> fairly cosy duopoly until the arrival of the two DCS 1800
> operators. Mercury One-2-One entered the market with very
> innovative tariffing schemes (such as free local calls after
> business hours).

Now here is were the interesting part is.  According to my knowledge
there exists no GSM/DCS networks in the same country with roaming
between them, ie capcaity roaming.  Would that be in contrast to what
you say 1-2-1 (& Orange) achieved in the UK?

If there were five Swedish DCS licenses and licenses one through three
went to Telia, Comviq and Europolitan (Swedish GSM operators) how would you
compete?

> The French Bouygues Telecom network is not yet
> operational. Bouygues Telecom has stated in its bid for the
> DCS 1800 licence that it expects to use its network
> infrastructure to compete with France Telecom for the
> provision of voice telephony (in the long run).

> The use of DCS 1800 frequencies for the provision of public
> mobile services in France is reserved exclusively to Bouygues
> Telecom for a limited period of 4 years but only in the five
> largest metropolitan areas of France, i.e.  Paris, Lyon,
> Marseille, Lille and Nice. During this 4 year period, the two
> GSM operators will be excluded from using the DCS 1800
> frequencies in the metropolitan areas of Paris, Lyon,
> Marseille, Lille and Nice, except if they can demonstrate and
> justify that, within a specified geographical area and within
> strictly defined technical parameters, the 900 MHz frequency
> band is saturated.

The aim seems to be to give current GSM operators an ability to offer
only capacity but not a full (nationwide) DCS service.

Maybe that's what's going to happen in Sweden to ...

Sweden has some 750 000 NMT900 users (Telia monopoly) and 500 000 GSM
users.  A total of 800 000 phones are expected to be sold during 1995.
Between 600' and 700' of those'll be GSM.  Sweden also has some 250
000 NMT450 users but they aren't affected freq reallocations.  Sweden
has 8.5 M inhabitants.


Sam    www.nada.kth.se/~d92-sam,   [e-mail],   [phone]

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: EMI Issues With GSM
Date: 16 Jun 1995 04:08:16 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nathan D. Meehan) writes:

The European Commission outlaws any equipment that isn't properly
shielded as of January first this year.  Medical equipment is excepted
-- but only during 1995.

There was something about Sweden and Sweden having banned all GSM
phones from hospitals.  Truth is that cellphones were banned from
Swedish hospitals long before GSM.

In the future there will be so much more noice on the airwaves that
we'll have to protect ourselves much better regardless of choice of
technical standard for our PCS/PCN system (that was what the previous
article was about wasn't it?).


Sam    www.nada.kth.se/~d92-sam,   [e-mail],   [phone]

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #287
******************************

Received: from ns1.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa06499;
          20 Jun 95 4:32 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16809 for telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 20:13:18 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16801; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 20:13:16 -0500
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 20:13:16 -0500
From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #288

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 19 Jun 95 20:13:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 288

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    800 Service - Out of Numbers? ([e-mail])
    FCC Acts to Conserve 800 Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Book Review: "Hotlinks" by Eppley/Hakala (Rob Slade)
    Book Review: "International Callback Book" by Retske (Rob Slade)
    Manual Exchanges - Historical Question (Lee Winson)
    Computer Viruses Banned from Finnish Internet (Kimmo Ketolainen)
    Satellite Channels to England, France and Canada (Emin R. Gabrielian)
    European Payphone Survey; Help Please (John D. Smith)
    USA Payphone Survey; Help Please (John D. Smith)

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:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Service - Out of Numbers?
Date: 19 Jun 1995 18:53:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I talked to AT&T today to set up an 800 number, and their response
was: "the government has shut us down .... there are NO 800 numbers
left for us to sell you".

Is this just AT&T?  Anybody have any info?  Any guesses as to when
this situation will be worked out?


Mitch        ([e-mail])


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is correct. If you do not have an
800 number at this point -- or several 800 numbers like some people! --
then you are pretty much out of luck getting one. They will be handed
out very, very tightly from now on. In the main message in this issue,
Judith Oppenheimer will give a full report, coming up next.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 09:00:27 -0400
Subject: FCC Acts to Conserve 800 Numbers


On June 13, 1995, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, LDDS Worldcom and other Resp Orgs
across the country were notified that as of June 14, 1995, 12 AM, the
FCC ordered the 800 National Database to limit the number of 800
numbers a Resp Org can as