TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jan 95 20:12:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Happy New Year! Administrivia, et al ... (TELECOM Digest Editor) UC Berkely Short Courses on Broadband and Wireless Comm (Harvey Stern) 21 LEC's Violate Comm Act, Ordered To Pay Damages (Alan Boritz) Washington Telecom News (enews@access.digex.net) Need Some Basic Leased Line Information (William E. White) "High-End" Phone Products (Sohail Malik) Bell Atlanta-PA Insert Disclaimer (Peter M. Weiss) Memorized Area Codes (Stephen Denny) Direct Rate Negotiation (VN) (Glenn Foote) Finland Data Transmission (Jack Pestaner) Personal Communcications (Arndt Ritterbecks) Script Translation for TDD/TTY Use (primeperf@aol.com) Cell Phone Programming (Alex McPhail) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 19:36:57 CST From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Happy New Year! Administrivia, et al ... First of all, happy new year to everyone. I hope 1995 is a good year for you, and I certainly hope it is better for me than 1994, which was not one I want to repeat anytime soon. To close out the old year in the style to which I seem to have become accustomed, I discovered that the program I use to update the mailing list was malfunctioning, and had been in a clever, devious and barely discernable way for about a month or more. Quite a few people who had requested addition to the mailing list had not been added, and folks who requested deletion were still getting copies. I spent quite a bit of time manually adding and deleting a few hundred entries over the past couple of days. I *think* everything is now up to date. If you are still getting copies of the Digest and have previously requested deletion, please advise me personally. If you have previously requested addition to the list and have not been added, also let me know. (I hear astute readers asking: if that was the case, then how would they see this message to know they were supposed to ask again? Well, they see it on Usenet in the telecom newsgroup, or one of the other various places where the Digest is distributed. We are getting former Usenetters in droves. Lots of folks there are going strictly with the privately maintained, moderated e-journals.) The Telecom Archives has also been updated. It was getting to be a mess with outdated files and it was very disorganized. A new section of the Archives is devoted to the dozens of book reviews which have appeared here in the Digest over the past couple of years. Suggestion: not all the reviews which appeared here have necessarily been ported to that directory. If you wrote a review or a book which was discussed here, check out the Archives and make sure you are included. If not, and you want to be, let me know. George Gilder has been established in a main directory at the Archives. Previously his writings were mixed in with other reports and essays. The index of authors and subjects in TELECOM Digest has been updated to include all of 1994. You can use these interactively via the Telecom Archives Email Information Service with the SEARCH command or you can pull the entire files, your choice. The index goes back only to 1989. I'd like to go back further, but I need some professional help in figuring out how to extract the desired information from those old files. By now you should have received a copy of the new 1995 Table of Contents/ Index which was distributed earlier Tuesday evening. If not, then ask for a copy. I am told we might have a newly revised telecom FAQ by the end of February, and we might have some updated area code and country code files soon also. In other news: I decided to bite the bullet and as of January 1, 1995 my official employer is The TELECOM Digest, a not-for-profit educational activity registered in Cook County, Illinois. Whether or not I get paid any salary depends upon you, my ultimate employers. I guess you know what that means without further elaboration. Let's get on with this, the first issue of the new year. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: southbay@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: UC Berkely Short Courses on Broadband and Wireless Communications Date: 4 Jan 1995 01:18:38 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley U.C. Berkeley Continuing Education in Engineering Announces 3 Short Courses on Broadband Communications, Wireless Networks MODERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Wide Area Networks, Personal Communication Systems, Network Management and Control, and Multimedia Applications (March 2-3, 1995) This course is designed as a gentle but comprehensive overview of telecommunications including current status and future directions. This course traces the evolution of telecommunications, starting from its voice roots and progressing through local, metropolitan, and wide area networks, narrowband ISDN, asynchronous transfer mode, broadband ISDN, satellite systems, optical communications, cellular radio, personal communication systems, all-optical networks, and multimedia services. Lecturer: Anthony S. Acampora, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical Engineering, Columbia University. He is Director, Center for Telecommunications Research. He became a professor following a 20 year career at AT&T Bell Laboratories, is an IEEE Fellow, and is a former member of the IEEE Communications Society Board of Governors. SONET/ATM-BASED BROADBAND NETWORKS: Systems, Architectures and Designs (March 29-31, 1995) It is widely accepted that future broadband networks will be based on the SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) standards and the ATM (Asynchronous transfer Mode) technique. This course is an in-depth examination of the fundamental concepts and the implementation issues for development of future high-speed networks. Topics include: Broadband ISDN Transfer Protocol, high speed computer/network interface (HiPPI), ATM switch architectures, ATM network congestion/flow control, VLSI designs in SONET/ATM networks. This course is intended for engineers who are currently active or anticipate future involvement in this field. Lecturer: H. Jonathan Chao, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Brooklyn Polytechnic University. Dr. Chao holds more than a dozen patents and has authored over 40 technical publications in the areas of ATM switches, high-speed computer communications, and congestion/flow control in ATM networks. NETWORKS FOR DIGITAL WIRELESS ACCESS: Cellular, Voice, Data, Packet, and Personal Communication Systems (March 6-8, 1995) This comprehensive course is focused on the principles, technologies, system architectures, standards, and market forces driving wireless access. At the core of this course are the cellular/microcellular/ frequency reuse concepts needed to enable adequate wireless access capacity for Personal Communication Services (PCS). Presented are both the physical-level issues associated with wireless access and the network-level issues arising from the inherent mobility of the subscriber. Standards are fully treated including GSM (TDMA), IS-54 (North American TDMA), IS-95 (CDMA), CT2, DCT 900/CT3, IEEE 802.11, DCS 1800, and Iridium. Emerging concepts for wireless ATM are also developed. This course is intended for engineers who are currently active or anticipate future involvement in this field. Lecturer: Anthony S. Acampora, Ph.D., Professor, Electrical Engineering, Columbia University. He is Director, Center for Telecommunications Research. He became a professor following a 20 year career at AT&T Bell Laboratories, is an IEEE Fellow, and is a former member of the IEEE Communications Society Board of Governors. For more information (complete course descriptions, outlines, instructor bios, etc.) send your postal address or fax to: Harvey Stern or Loretta Lindley U.C. Berkeley Extension/Southbay 800 El Camino Real Ste. 150 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: (415) 323-8141 Fax: (415) 323-1438 ------------------------------ Subject: 21 LEC's Violate Comm Act, Ordered To Pay Damages From: drharry!aboritz@uunet.uu.net (Alan Boritz) Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 16:28:13 EST Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861 From ftp.fcc.gov: NEWS Report No. DC-594 COMMON CARRIER ACTION December 23, 1994 DAMAGES AWARDED FOR LEC VIOLATIONS OF RATE OF RETURN PRESCRIPTION In response to complaints filed by several long distance carriers, the Commission has determined that 21 local exchange carriers (LECs) have violated the Communications Act by earning in excess of the rate of return for interstate access services prescribed by the Commission for the period January 1, 1989, through December 31, 1990. The complainants, with the LECs about whom they complained in parenthesis, are American Network Exchange et al. (Pacific Bell); Cable&Wireless et al. (GTE California, GTE Florida, GTE North - Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin, GTE Northwest, Contel West Rate Group, Contel East/South Rate Group, New York Telephone, BellSouth, Ameritech, US WEST); Call-America (US WEST); LDDSMetromedia Communications (United Telephone Company of Florida, United Telephone System - Midwest, Centel - Texas, Centel - Virginia, Cincinnati Bell); MCI Telecommunications Corp. et al. (New York Telephone, BellSouth, Ameritech, East Ascension Telephone Co., Cincinnati Bell, Southwestern Bell); and WilTel, Inc. (Pacific Bell). The Commission awarded monetary damages, plus interest, for the defendants' violations but allowed the defendants to offset the complainants' damages to the extent that the complainants purchased access services from the defendants during the period in question at rates that produced earnings below the Commission's prescribed levels. After taking into account these offsets, the Commission has ordered the LECs to pay monetary damages amounting to $3,435,968, exclusive of interest. The highest single damages award is against US West in the amount of $926,779. US West is also liable in the aggregate for $1,236,709, the highest aggregate damages awarded against any defendant in this proceeding. Action by the December 23, 1994, by Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 94-339). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness and Chong. - FCC - News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet and Maureen Peratino at (202) 418-0500. Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Donna N. Lampert at (202) 418-1500 and Colleen Heitkamp at (202) 418-0960. ----------------- aboritz%drharry@uunet.uu.net or uunet!drharry!aboritz Harry's Place (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861 ------------------------------ From: enews@access.digex.net (enews) Subject: Washington Telecom News Date: 3 Jan 1995 11:42:55 -0500 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA The featured article from the December 26 issue of WASHINGTON TELECOM NEWS looks at the market problems faced by American telecom companies. Here is an excerpt from "THE `ALLURING PARADOX' OF U.S. TELCOS AND FOREIGN MARKETS." According to the Economic Strategy Institute's (ESI) Crossed Wires: How Foreign Regulations and U.S. Policies Are Holding Back the U.S. Telecommuni-cations Services Industry, "The dearth of U.S. participation in key foreign markets can be explained by prohibitive government regulations that restrict U.S. firms from exploiting their competitive advantage in telecommunications services." The report's principal author, ESI Managing Director Larry Chimerine, added that foreign barriers have resulted in a $4 billion trade deficit in phone services and lost opportunities to pursue more that $288 billion in potential revenues. Although some of the deficit may be attributed to the fact that there is more traffic originating in the United States resulting in more access charges to foreign telco providers, more than half of that deficit -- $2.1 billion -- is because of overpayments for that access. "Foreign [companies] use this mechanism to overcharge U.S. consumers and discriminate against the U.S. by charging significantly more for terminating calls from the United States than for calls originating in other countries, despite small cost differentials," said the report's co-author, research associate Erik Olbeter. ESI's Recommendations to Remedy the Situation To rectify the situation, the ESI recommends that the United States complete the deregulation of the domestic market, which would place pressure on foreign governments to liberalize their own under threat of reciprocal restricted market access. In addition, the government must adopt a proactive, incentive- based strategy to open foreign markets. "The U.S. already has one of the most open telecommunications markets in the world, allowing foreign competitors to pursue cellular properties and partnerships," Chimerine said. "If progress is not made, the FCC should consider the home of a carrier when reviewing applica-tions." This approach probably would not hurt U.S. companies in the long run. "We don't have much to lose because we're not there anyway," Chimerine said. "At some point, we have to stand up and do what's right for the U.S. economy." Finally, ESI's Olbeter suggested instituting a cost-based, non- discriminatory international settlement system to determine settlement rates on international phone traffic. -------------- So begins this issue's featured article from WASHINGTON TELECOM NEWS. This article and others from WASHINGTON TELECOM NEWS and additional publications can be viewed at no charge on The Electronic Newsstand, a service which collects articles, editorials, and table of contents from over 220 magazines and provides them to the Global Internet community. Access to The Electronic Newsstand is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via Gopher, an information navigation and retrieval technology from the University of Minnesota. For those without a local Gopher client program, The Electronic Newsstand provides a telnet account which will allow you to use a text based Gopher client to access our service. To access The Electronic Newsstand, via Local Gopher Client: Hostname: gopher.enews.com Port: 2100 via the Gopher Home Menu at U of Minn: Other Gopher and Information Servers/ North America/ USA/ General/ The Electronic Newsstand (tm) via Gopher Link Information: Name=The Electronic Newsstand Type=1 Port=2100 Path=1/ Host=gopher.enews.com via Telnet: Hostname: gopher.enews.com Loginname: enews Password: via World Wide Web: URL: http://www.enews.com via electronic mail: Send a blank email message to gophermail@enews.com to retrieve files. We are also available for America Online users in the Gopher area under Literature and Books. If you have any suggestions on how we might improve this service, or need more information, please email staff@enews.com. --The Electronic Newsstand Staff [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is a really great service which I have always been happy to help publicize. They've gone to a lot of effort and work to prepare a very nice system. Check it out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (William E. White) Subject: Need Some Basic Leased Line Information Organization: Ohio University, Computer Science Department Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 21:45:27 GMT A friend and I are interested in getting a leased line to a commercial internet service provider, and have some basic questions that we haven't found decent answers to yet. Specifically, we've contacted OARNet, and received information on ISDN, 56Kb, LVT1, and T1 connections. However, our understanding is that we need to provide the local loop to the nearest OARNet site -- in our case Columbus (we're in Athens, about 100 miles from Columbus). Specifically, what do we *do* to provide this local loop? I'm assuming it's done through our local telco (GTE -- ugh!), but are the costs based on how far it is to Columbus, or how far it is from our site to the phone company? And if the latter is true, would it make sense to find a cheaper provider than OARNet that might be further away? Thank you for your suggestions; my knowledge of telecom stuff is very limited. Heck, I'm not even sure what a T1 line *is*, other than 1.5MBps and around $2.5K per month from OARnet. Bill White +1-614-594-3434 | bwhite@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu 44 Canterbury, Athens OH 45701 | finger for PGP2.2 block http://oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu/personal/bwhite.html (check it out!) ------------------------------ From: malik@access.digex.net (Sohail Malik) Subject: "High-end" Phone Products Date: 3 Jan 1995 03:20:23 -0500 Organization: Alif International I'm looking to purchase a telephone with the following features: 2 or 3 lines Conference facility Speaker phone capability Hangable on the wall Cordless I have not found too many of these on the market, at least not from my favorite manufacturers (AT&T and Motorola). In particular, the confer- ence facility needs to be high quality (many I've tried make it hard for the conferenced parties to hear each other). Would anyone be able to recommend particular brands/models that fit these requirements? Also, are there any mail-order places or magazines that specialize in these types of things that I should look at? Thanks in advance, Sohail ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 10:06:52 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Bell Atlanta-PA Insert Disclaimer Found in my Bell Atlantic-PA December bill: "You cannot use Caller ID blocking to block your number when you call an 800 or 900 number. The number goes to the company who provides this service. We do not have a way to block your number when you call an 800 or 900 number. You should know that some companies use your number for marketing and other reasons. However, after April 12, 1995 the FCC has said that they must first ask you if they can use this information for other purposes." Pete-Weiss@psu.edu (Penn State U) ------------------------------ From: sdenny@spd.dsccc.com (Stephen Denny) Subject: Memorized Area Codes Date: 3 Jan 1995 19:15:07 GMT Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA In the small tourist town of Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, located at the foothills of the Great Smoky Mountains, is an amusement park named Dollywood. It is owned by the well-known singer Dolly Parton who originated from Pigeon Forge. At one of the large theatres at the park, there is a fellow who does an audience warm-up act for a show. As part of his act he has the audience call out their favorite area codes and he tells them their location. He is quite good and is virtually never stumped. I suspect that with all the area code splits, he is going to have his hands full keeping up! Stephen Denny sdenny@sun004.cpdsc.com DSC Communications Corp. Plano, TX, USA **Standard Disclaimer** ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: Direct Rate Negotiation (VN) Date: 3 Jan 1995 01:13:34 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet I need to find out how major telecom providers are charging for High Volume Services. For example, if a company is (or is thinking of) using a Virtual Network (or the like) and is generating well in excess of 150,000 long distance (48 states only) network hours per month, (plus another 20,000 hours of inbound 800) can that company reasonably expect to negotiate rates with the common carriers? If not, at what point, in your opinion, would direct rate negotiations be considered? Does it make any difference in any negotiations if the general types of calls are short, ie; less than 90 seconds for about 80% of the calls. And to what extent does the Time of Day enter into the picture. In general, what cost per minute should any discussion ask for? Is $0.125 too high, is $0.085 too low? Also, What starts the timer? Initial Dial Tone (assuming direct access to LD carrier), End Of Dialing Sequence, Start of Ringing, or Answer by the Called Party. And, what ends the timer? Hang up of Called Party, Central Office indication to Common Carrier, Hang Up of Calling Party, or some combination thereof. Feel free to use E-mail to respond to this one .... Thanks, Glenn L Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us ------------------------------ From: jackp@telecomm.admin.ogi.edu (Jack Pestaner) Subject: Finland Data Transmission Date: 3 Jan 1995 03:48:44 GMT Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute We have been communicating to a site in Finland with autoranging 14.4k modems. On a good day we can run at 9600, but typically at 2400. We have tried AT&T, MCI, and IDB (all are direct digital connections through our PBX), but all seem to be extremely variable. We use NetBlazer modems, same model, on each end. This is really expensive, and we want to move to a more reliable service, as we expect to have longer hold times of three to five hours a day. I checked on a 56k DDS, but cost was about $9K per month. Are there any satellite solutions, or packet solutions that anybody knows of? BTW, we also tried x.25 from Sprint, but service went down often, and Sprint just has the WORST customer service for problem solving. Thanks, Jack ------------------------------ From: eedari@aachen.eed.ericsson.se (Arndt Ritterbecks) Subject: Personal Communcications Date: 3 Jan 1995 19:15:24 GMT Organization: Ericsson Eurolab Deutschland GmbH Reply-To: eedari@aachen.eed.ericsson.se Hello out there! I'm a diploma student at the Ericsson Eurolab in Germany. My final thesis' topic is: "Adaption And Implementation Of UMTS DDB Concepts For PSCS". The goal of the third generation telecommunication system UMTS is the integration of all telecommunication networks taking into account user and terminal mobility. PSCS is a service concept wherein a service provider offers personal communication to an end user. That means: users are able to organize communication to their own preferences. PSCS can be seen as an improvement and continuation of the UPT ideas (UPT: Universal Personal Telecommunication). Both, UMTS and PSCS, are parts of research projects of the European Community. One of my tasks is to develop a database concept for PSCS. For it I have to find all required data to realize PSCS, e.g. data necessary to support the capabilities of different terminals. One of my points of interest is: are there any conventions or standards holding data of users or terminals in a database? Because information about these and related topics is hard to find I would be very pleased about anybody helping me to find newsgroups, mailinglists, ftp servers, WWW URLs, institutes or email-addresses of persons occupied with one of the following topics: UMTS, UPT, PCS, intelligent networks, personal communications, terminal data. Thank you for any help!!! Arndt ------------------------------ From: primeperf@aol.com (Prime perf) Subject: Script Translation for TDD/TTY Use Date: 03 Jan 1995 10:35:31 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: primeperf@aol.com (Prime perf) Could someone direct me to a script translation service, preferably in the Washington-Baltimore-Richmond area, that can translate information scripts for use on an automated information line accessed by TDD/TTY users? Obviously, I would prefer it if you can recommend a service provider that you have used. Please email direct. ------------------------------ From: amcphail@hookup.net (Alex McPhail) Subject: Cell Phone Programming Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 04:45:27 GMT Organization: TeraScope Research Does anyone have information about how to program your cell phone to change your phone number, etc. Thanks in advance, Alex McPhail TeraScope Research amcphail@hookup.net Voice: +1 (613) 730-1416 Fax: +1 (613) 730-1408 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, I'm sure we have all that information among the various readers here. It would help if you would tell us the kind of phone you have. You might also check out the Motorola programming file in the Telecom Archives and the other articles in the cellular sub-directory there. And let's keep it on the up and up, please. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #1 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa22648; 4 Jan 95 1:10 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA28198; Tue, 3 Jan 95 21:04:04 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA28191; Tue, 3 Jan 95 21:04:01 CST Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 21:04:01 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501040304.AA28191@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #2 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jan 95 21:04:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Pat Clawson) Pinouts on RS232 and Echoed Back Characters (Dave Thompson) Erlang Capacit (ERU.ERUDYG@memo4.ericsson.se) Phone Fraud - PBXs (Paul Murray) Phillipines Service Downtime (Al Niven) Netcom in Boston Brea (Vidur Kapoor) Cellular Direct Number (Sanjay Hiranandani) It's Not Tenex Anymore ... (Chris Cappuccio) Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Christian Weisgerber) How Can I Encrypt a T-1? (Quinn Lanus) Where Does ISDN Fit In? (Daniel Ritsma) Need Information on IS-54 (Dharshana P. Jayasuriya) What Magazines do You Read? (Patrick Sukhu) Information Wanted on Munich32 Chip (Matthew P. Downs) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Clawson Subject: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Date: Mon, 2 Jan 95 21:00:58 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) January 2, 1995 An Open Letter to Our Colleagues In the Online Communications Community: The announcement by CompuServe and Unisys that users of the GIF image format must register by January 10 and pay a royalty or face lawsuits for their past usage, is the online communications community's equivalent of the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. The announcement of the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax on December 29, during the lull between Christmas and New Year's Day, was clearly timed to cause maximum damage while an unsuspecting public celebrated the holidays. We at TeleGrafix Communications have no quarrel with those who seek to protect their intellectual property and profit from it. Indeed, we are in business to do the same. We believe those who develop software are entitled to reap financial rewards from their labors. But in our opinion, the timing and circumstances of the CompuServe- Unisys action indicates this is a shakedown of the online communications community by two powerful corporations, rather than a reasonable effort to protect intellectual property. The GIF format has been in widespread public use since 1987. Its widespread use and royalty-free licensing has been encouraged by CompuServe for years. Neither CompuServe or Unisys have made any significant improvements to GIF or its underlying LZW algorithm and compression process to justify charging for what has been free. Giving GIF users only 14 days to comply with sudden, unexpected demands to pay the private CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax or face prosecution for past usage of what had been promoted for seven years as free, open standard software is unconscionable. It is especially outrageous since CompuServe and Unisys admit in writing that they decided to require licensing SIX MONTHS AGO in June, and didn't announce it to the public until now. According to the CompuServe-Unisys GIF licensing agreement, the settlement of the patent dispute was executed on June 21, 1994. CompuServe agreed to implement the agreement "as soon as reasonably practicable and in no case later than six (6) months after the date this Agreement is executed..." That six month period ended on December 21, 1994 -- but CompuServe did not make the licensing terms public until December 28. Indeed, CompuServe appears to have violated the terms of its own settlement agreement with Unisys. While many of the messages we have read online in reaction to the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax decree express both dismay and disbelief, virtually none have analyzed the actual provisions of the licensing agreement. It is in this area that TeleGrafix Communications wishes to contribute to the dialogue. In our opinion, the CompuServe-Unisys licensing agreement is both illogical and overly broad. Let's examine some of its key provisions. All quotes cited are directly from the agreement. 1. CompuServe will license Developers who want to use GIF technology. The term "developer" is defined as "the other undersigned party to the agreement," and it seems to apply to ANYONE who contemplates distributing any product that uses the GIF format. 2. Developers will be licensed to sell or distribute "Products" that "use and exploit GIF ... solely within the Field of Use." The term "Field of Use" is defined as "primarily for accessing the CompuServe Information Service and for manipulating and viewing data received through the CompuServe Information Service." The licensing agreement further defines the term "Products" as being "software that is developed or distributed ... which is designed for and used primarily for accessing the CompuServe Information Service and for manipulating and viewing data received through the CompuServe Information Service." IT APPEARS THAT THE ONLY LAWFUL USE OF GIF WILL BE FOR COMPUSERVE-RELATED PRODUCTS. Using GIF images in any other manner, such as on CD-ROMs or bulletin board systems, is prohibited. Most of the thousands of products that have used GIF in some manner are henceforth contraband. 3. Developers may no longer "use, copy, modify or distribute the GIF specification, except as expressly permitted by CompuServe." This states that the GIF specification can no longer be shared, published or uploaded in any manner without the express consent of CompuServe. 4. Members of the public are prohibited from using any software product containing GIF until they have become a REGISTERED user of the product. The customer also must agree to use the product "primarily for accessing the CompuServe Information Service and for manipulating and viewing data received through the CompuServe Information Service." This virtually eliminates the concept of freeware or shareware containing GIF capabilities, since prospective customers can no longer try out these software products without registering them first. 5. Software developers must pay $1.00 for a license to use GIF, PLUS a fee equal to the GREATER of 1.5% of the selling price of the product, or $0.15 per "Disposition." Disposition is defined as "the sale, lease or license or any other grant of rights to a Product or any new Product." All royalties must be paid quarterly. Noncommercial and freeware usage of GIF technology is NOT exempted from the royalty requirement. Because the royalty provisions and definition of "Disposition" are so broad in scope, it appears that a GIF Tax payment may be due to CompuServe-Unisys each time a GIF image is transmitted via BBS or Internet. The operators of a BBS or World Wide Web site with hundreds or thousands of GIF images online could easily be bankrupted by these licensing requirements. 6. CompuServe must be notified of ANY new product using GIF when it is first offered to customers. 7. Persons using GIF must keep records of its use, and CompuServe has the right to audit those records every year upon seven days notice. Persons using GIF must pay the cost of the audit if a royalty underpayment of 10% or more is discovered, along with 12% interest on any underpaid royalties. 8. Even if the patent is later found by the courts or the U.S. Patent Office to be invalid and unenforcable, or if the patent expires, any developer must "return all copies of the GIF specification and any confidential information of CompuServe then in its possession or control to CompuServe, (ii) stop using the Licensed Technology, and (iii) stop distributing Products." This states that EVEN IF THE PATENT IS OVERTURNED OR EXPIRES, YOU MUST STOP USING OR DISTRIBUTING GIF. 9. Even though CompuServe has publicly disseminated the text of the agreement it wants GIF users to sign, the terms of the agreement are to remain confidential. This is illogical, to say the least, since they have posted it for public download on their own system. 10. Developers have to indemnify and hold CompuServe harmless for any damages if their CUSTOMERS somehow use GIF technology in a way not permitted by the licensing agreement. 11. Unisys has the right to enforce the agreement, as well as CompuServe. Further, Unisys has the right to pursue legal action or seek damages against Developers even after the agreement has terminated. TeleGrafix Communicatons Inc. will not sign such a licensing agreement. We think most other software developers, BBS sysops and Web site operators also will refuse to sign. We encourage our colleagues in the online communications community to evaluate the CompuServe-Unisys action, and to lodge appropriate protests directly with those companies. We believe that the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax drives a stake through the heart of Internet development. It will cripple the World Wide Web, NCSA Mosaic, and other Internet multimedia technologies that rely heavily on GIF imaging. Fortunately, we at TeleGrafix Communications do not depend on GIF imaging in our new RIPscrip 2.0 online multimedia technologies. We chose to implement the JPEG image format and only recently decided to add GIF support as a convienience to our customers. Due to the restrictive conditions of the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax and licensing agreement, we must now reevaluate our plans for supporting GIF use in the upcoming release of RIPscrip 2.0. While our company hopes to profit financially from our advanced RIPscrip 2.0 technology, we will not demand royalties from those who have used the freeware versions of our earlier RIPscrip 1.54 products and/or technical specifications. The RIPscrip 2.0 specification also will be made public for third-party use after it is finalized. We expect that the CompuServe-Unisys action will spell the death of GIF as a commercially viable technology, shifting the attention of the online communications community to JPEG imaging. Sincerely, Pat Clawson President & Chief Executive Officer TeleGrafix Communications Inc. Huntington Beach, CA Voice: (714) 379-2140 Fax: (714) 379-2132 BBS: (714) 379-2133 Internet: rip.support@telegrafix.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The folks at America OnLine must be a bit disgruntled by this news also since a large number of users on that system have GIFs on file for display to the persons they are talking to in the chat rooms, etc. I don't know how many times I have been on Compuserve, for example in the CB program and had someone ask me if I had a GIF of myself they could view, etc. This does seem like very bad news for the online community. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Thompson, Dave Subject: Pinouts on RS232 and Echoed Back Characters Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 02:46:00 PST I've been out of the office and am amazed to see no followup to this, so: In Telecom DIGEST 14.422, 21 Nov 1994 02:07:33 -0500, William Ono asks: > If anyone has the list of pinouts for the RS232 style port, could they > please mail it to me? (news is flakey at my site..) I am using a > DB25 connector, but a DB9 pinouts list would also be helpful (I'm sure > I can dig up a conversion chart almost anywhere). Partly from memory and partly from McNamara 1ed 1977 (!) (one of the few books unpacked after a recent office move) the RS-232 (now -D) STANDARD, to which an "RS-232 style port" should comply IN RELEVANT PARTS, was: 1 Frame Ground 2 Tx data (SD) 3 Rx data (RD) 4 Request To Send 5 Clear To Send 6 Data Set Ready 7 Signal Ground 8 Data Carrier Detect 11,12 apparently used by Bell 202C but not standardized 14 Secondary aka Reverse Tx Data 15 Tx clock from DCE 16 Secondary/Reverse Rx Data 17 Rx clock from DCE 20 Data Terminal Ready 22 Ring Indicator 24 Tx clock from DTE You should also find this somewhere in the manual for almost any decent external modem or indeed serial card. > Also, I was just wondering -- is it possible to echo a character from > the Send Data pin to the Receive Data pin by simply fusing the two > pins together? I mean, if I wanted to just send everything back to > the computer that has been sent down the Send Data line, could I just > connect RD to SD, or do I need to do some processing first? Yes, you can just connect RD to SD, IF: 1) For a direct cable, the out + back distance = 2 * length (and the load of the two receivers combined) does not exceed the source (computer?) end line-driver capacity, typically 50-100ft for faster speeds (19.2, 38.4) and up to thousands of feet for 300, 1200 etc.; for modems or other active equipment each end must already be able to drive a good signal to the other, which is all that is needed, but unless the modems etc. are regenerating (e.g. an ISDN line through a TA) or error-correcting, any noise or timing distortion created on the way out will be added to (probably doubled) on the way back, which may be too much for correct/reliable transmission; AND 2) You DON'T send any data in at the remote end, that is, the ONLY data sent back on SD is that received on RD. If you try to connect RD plus a local RS232 driver to SD, the (actually or virtually) remote driver and the local one will fight each other to death. Thus the only practical use I can see for this is if you are sending a data stream to an output-only device (such as a printer or recorder) which is too dumb to detect and report errors, and you want to confirm that the correct data reached it: if the computer receives an echo that is the same as it sent, either the data actually reached the device's input port correctly, or any errors that occurred on the output path were matched by exactly complementary errors on the return path, which is possible but quite unlikely. However if the echo doesn't match it doesn't mean that the data was definitely NOT delivered correctly, only that it's doubtful; the error could have occurred only on the return path. Also, just because the data was delivered to the end of the cable doesn't assure it was necessarily printed correctly or whatever. And this assumes your computer's serial interface is set up so that it doesn't drop input characters as a result of buffer shortage or software timing problems (causing spurious mismatches), and doesn't echo its input back to its output (as terminal port drivers do on many systems, giving an infinite loop). If you want to return an echo of the received data and also send in data, you need at least to convert the RS232 to and from logic levels e.g. TTL and run them through an AND gate (assuming logic "true" = RS232 "mark"); but with this simple implementation, assuming you are sending characters in the normal fashion (ASCII) if you try to send in data (e.g. begin typing on the terminal) while receiving, the (serialized) characters (codes) will be be garbled; this is effectively what happened in the old days of current-loop Teletypes for telegraph/cable. An alternative would be if both(?) pieces of equipment support some control signals (typically DTR/DSR or RTS/CTS/DCD) and the cable is wired, or modems etc. are capable, to pass them through (e.g. modems use true switched carrier so DCD output at the remote end follows RTS at the computer end). You could then use a couple of logic gates or a 2-1 multiplexer to feed into the SD driver either the received (computer) data or the locally generated data depending on which has its "control" line active, optionally with provision to arbitrate the contention if both are active simultaneously. The next level would be to deserialize RD and echo the characters back into the send serializer, which would typically mean OR'ing or selecting (multiplexing) the UART parallel output, or a buffered copy of it, with the e.g. keyboard data lines, into the UART parallel input, probably with interlock/overrun logic to prevent trying to send while the UART is busy/full. ------------------------------ From: ERU.ERUDYG@memo4.ericsson.se Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 19:46:00 +0100 Subject: Erlang Capacit I am looking for information about Erlang Capacity Calculations for land line based telecom networks. My main question is this: In cellular, typical system design is according to Erlang B or Erlang C traffic tables, and designed for 2% blocking (.02 G.O.S., Grade Of Service). Is this the same for land line?, local PSTN? long distance trunks? international trunks? etc. Any information or source of information for this would be useful. Dan Goldberg ------------------------------ From: ai093@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Murray) Subject: Phone Fraud - PBXs Reply-To: ai093@freenet.carleton.ca (Paul Murray) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 23:01:46 GMT Last year the TV show, 60 minutes, did a feature on phone fraud in the US. They estimated it was costing US phone customers, especially businesses with PBxs, billions of dollars because of fraudulent use by hackers. More recently, CBC Radio in Canada did a news story on phone fraud in which they said a Ministry of the Ontario government had been hacked for $50,000 in one month. Is this becoming a major problem for business everywhere? I'd be interested to hear of incidents as I may know of a solution. Paul J. Murray [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is a very major problem. Let's hear your solution. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Al Niven <71742.1665@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Phillipines Service Downtime Date: 4 Jan 1995 02:22:02 GMT Organization: Video, Voice, ~ Data, Inc. Anybody with ATT service to the Phillipines that experienced downtime between 12/3/94 and today please email or call collect at: 310-273-5891 or 310-273-5175 or 310-453-1414 (ask for Mike Lieber at this number) Thank You. Al Niven, Video, Voice, & Data, Inc. 212-714-3531 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's going on, if you don't mind discussing it here? PAT] ------------------------------ From: vidur@world.std.com (vidur kapoor) Subject: Netcom in Boston Area Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 16:26:34 GMT I would like to know the telephone number (voice) for Netcom in the Boston area. Thanks, Vidur ------------------------------ From: snh1@cornell.edu (Sanjay Hiranandani) Subject: Cellular Direct Number Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 16:06:45 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Network Resources A while ago someone on this group posted a number for Cellular Direct and/or some other mail order source for cellular phones and accessories. Does anyone still have those numbers handy? ------------------------------ From: ccappuc@sefl.satelnet.org (Chris Cappuccio) Subject: It's Not Tenex Anymore ... Date: 3 Jan 1995 19:24:36 -0500 Organization: Public Access in Ft. Lauderdale - SatelNET (305) 587-1930 I haven't seen anything on comp.dcom.telecom about this before so I will explain what I know ... 10XXX codes are being changed to 1010XXX (e.g. AT&T @ 10288 is now 1010288) and new carriers are being assigned to 1015XXX to 1016XXX. I don't know how the rest of it is going to be assigned, but this change is quite interesting. It was planned sometime in 1993 and I don't know when it was actually implemnted, but it already works if you dial 1010XXX around Michigan (at least with Ameritech, I don't know if some of the smaller 'alternative' carriers in mid-michigan have adapted to this yet). I imagine that 10XXX dialing will be discontinued sometime in the future (or at least there will never be any 101XX codes) If anyone else has information on this subject, please post it! Peace, Chris ------------------------------ From: naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 00:14:43 MET What kind of noise/distortion does American-style bit-robbing cause to voice band signals transmitted through PCM channels? (The reason I ask is that I wonder how much bit-robbing affects V.34 modems.) Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber, Germany naddy@mips.pfalz.de ------------------------------ From: qlanus@sigg.com (Quinn Lanus) Subject: How Can I Encrypt a T-1? Organization: The Signature Group Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 02:47:45 GMT I have a requirement which calls for encrypting the data which crosses our T-1. I would prefer this to occur "transparently" with respect to existing equipment installed. Has anyone heard of a product which can do this? Thanks in advance, Quinn Lanus qlanus@sigg.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 02:11:06 EST From: Daniel Ritsma Subject: Where Does ISDN Fit In? When talking about telecommunications in computer-networking, people often talk about t-1,2,3 or other type of line that specifically define the bandwith of the connection. What about ISDN, how do you fit that in these terms? What is the standard bandwith of ISDN, and how is it when you only use it for computer-data transfer when we speak about t-1s. Is it like an 15kHz analoge line, that is used for Radio Signal transfer. In short when do I use ISDN, over other alternatives? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Dharshana P. Jayasuriya Subject: Need Information on IS-54 Date: 3 Jan 1995 15:44:52 GMT Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway I would appreciate very much if someone can recommend a good book or some other material which has sufficient information on the architecture and protocols of the US digital standard IS 54. Is it possible to buy a copy of the standard itself? (I mean not the whole thousands of pages but a summary.) Or is it strictly proprietary? Thanks in advance, Dharshana Jayasuriya, Dept.of computer systems and telematics, Norwegian Institute of technology, Trondheim, Norway ------------------------------ From: psukhu@Starbase.ingress.com (Patrick Sukhu) Subject: What Magazines Do You Read? Date: 2 Jan 1995 00:38:28 GMT Organization: Ingress Communications (info@ingress.com) What are some of your favorite telecom magazines that you read? Thanks, Patrick [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You mean of course, in addition to everyone's favorite, TELECOM Digest? :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) Subject: Information Needed on Munich32 Chip Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:26:28 GMT Organization: ADC Telecommunications I need some help with a chip made by Siemens the Munich32. We are trying to run it in HDLC and have some problems. If any one has used this, any pointers would be appreciated. Matt ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #2 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa23168; 4 Jan 95 2:31 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA29538; Tue, 3 Jan 95 22:13:03 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA29531; Tue, 3 Jan 95 22:13:00 CST Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 22:13:00 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501040413.AA29531@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #3 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jan 95 22:13:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission (Gene Retske) Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission (Wm. Randolph Franklin) Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Evan Gamblin) Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Mike Morris) Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Robert Hazen) Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack (Scott Falke) Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Jim Hupf) Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Steve Cogorno) Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? (Steven King) Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? (Alan Shen) Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Sean E. Williams) Re: Watching the Area Codes Split (Mike Morris) Re: '500' Numbers Finally Available (Dave Levenson) Re: Prepaid Telephone Debit Cards (Gerry Gollwitzer) Re: Newbridge Channel Bank (Ethan Henry) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gene Retske Subject: Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:02:48 GMT Organization: Tachyon Communications Corporation -- Tach-Net PAT, you wrote: > In my phone box in the basement there are pairs going back to the > telephone exchange ... a distance of some three thousand feet. So let's > attach the antenna from our old Philco receiver turned transmitter to > one of the pairs ... no one will ever know the difference, seriously. > RF can travel on the phone pair; it gets along fine with telco's thing. > So we found an idle pair and hooked it up. This may work, but did you really connect the output of a tube type receiver to telephone pairs? This is very dangerous and, in my opinion, irresponsible. If the DC blocking capacitor in this old receiver were to short, which is highly likely, you could deliver a lethal shock to an unsuspecting telephone worker. I normally enjoy your commentaries, but I object to you publishing information that could be so deadly! Please think about how many children and unsophisicated adults could read this and jeopardize someone's life. Shame! Gene Retske [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, for all of about 30 minutes. You are correct it is not a very good idea. I certainly would not put up something like that on a regular or permanent basis. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Subject: Re: FM Subcarrier For Data Transmission Date: 4 Jan 1995 01:40:52 GMT Organization: ECSE Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180 USA Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Ramsey, and possibly other kit makers, sell kits to decode SCA transmissions. The Ramsay ones cost from $28 to $60. The lo end is for only an SCA kit. The hi end is for an FM receiver kit also, and a case. I bought a Ramsey kit for a lo powered FM transmitter, to transmit my CD player around the house, and was quite satisfied with it. It was better than Heathkit, IMHO. If I'd known about their TV transmitter kit, I wouldn't have had to pull coax thru my heating ducts. According to Ramsey, these things are legal provided you don't interfere with anyone. Ramsey Electronics 793 Canning Parkway Victor NY 14564 (716) 924-4560 I found out about them from a 373-line list posted to sci.electronics some time ago. If you'd like it, to minimize traffic on this group, I put it up on the Web. It's accessible indirectly from my home page, or directly at: http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/wrf/mailorder_electronics Wm. Randolph Franklin, wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077; Fax: -6261 ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA More info: (1) finger -l wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (2) http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/wrf.html ------------------------------ From: egamblin@ott.hookup.net (Evan Gamblin) Subject: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 12:50:25 -0500 Organization: Mary Ellen Carter Salvors Inc. In article , jpoulin@nt.com wrote: > I need help of a person who know a US or Canadian supplier (name and > phone number) for the following type of equipment: Standard 19 inch widths > open frame rack (network relay rack with universal EIA hole spacing) > certified for earthquake Zone 4 (california). Saunders Brothers in Santa Fe Springs, CA: 310 945-1038 voice, 698-6510 fax. Evan Gamblin, RCDD The Halifax Group 903-275 Sparks St Ottawa, Ontario K1R 7X9 Canada ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 02:38:33 GMT Call Harris-Dracon in Chatsworth, Calif. Don't know the number of the top of my head, but 818 information should have it. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 ICBM: 34.12N, 118.02W Reply to: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us ------------------------------ From: supra@pnw.net (Robert Hazen) Subject: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack Date: 03 Jan 1995 19:05:05 -0800 Organization: Pacific Northwest Net jpoulin@nt.com wrote: > I need help of a person who know a US or Canadian supplier (name and > phone number) for the following type of equipment: Standard 19 inch widths > open frame rack (network relay rack with universal EIA hole spacing) > certified for earthquake Zone 4 (california). Pardon? Nobody at Northern Telecom knows where to obtain these? Really? Naaaahh... :) If you don't have answers by 1/9/95, remind me via email. I'll be back to work then where I can look up our suppliers. We sell equipment into California that has been certified to Bellcore TR-EOP-000063 zone four seismic requirements. I'm sure I can help you out. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 13:35:41 -0800 From: scott@csustan.csustan.edu (Scott Falke) Subject: Re: 19 Inch Network Relay Rack Organization: CSU Stanislaus Two manufacturers of 19" racks are: Hoffmannn Engineering @ 612 421-2240 fx-1556, and Hammond Manufacturing @ 716 631-5700 fx-1156. As for seismic rating, Hoffmann makes a lot of specials, but any rating would be absolutely dependent on the rack load; i.e., what's mounted in it. This may have to be indpendently determined by a third party, meaning mucho bux. If you can't get anywhere on this, *as time permits* I would be willing to do some minor research on the subject. scott@csustan.csustan.edu ------------------------------ From: Jhupf Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 20:20:23 EST Organization: News & Observer Public Access On Thu, 29 Dec 1994, Alan Boritz wrote: Paul Robinson writes: >> I would recommend to the father that he call his local telephone >> company and tell them to switch service back to MCI; don't even >> mention this check to the son; assuming anyone even notices, if AT&T >> complains, ask for a copy of the signed order from the subscriber. This is not necessary -- I got to the local telco before they made the change! As suggested below at the time I put the local telco on notice NOT to make any changes in my LD carrier without my authorization (for what good that will do, but they are on written notice to that effect.) > And who's going to pay for the PIXC change? His lazy son? The son is not lazy, he has two jobs and is paying off $22,000+ in student loans -- he appreciated getting teh Xmas present from AT&T (;-> >> The son is not the subscriber and has no authority to change the >> service. It is not your position to prove you didn't authorize it, >> it's theirs to prove they have an authorization from someone who can >> issue the authorization. That's what I told my phone company and they understood where I was coming from. > But it's not going to stop AT&T from issuing ANOTHER PIXC change just > like the did the first unauthorized change. The subscriber should > first issue an order to the local telco to not accept account changes > from anyone but HIM. As I said above I did that before the bogus change could be put in effect! >> Or just ignore the whole thing and dial 10222 to get MCI before every >> call, which is what I used to do when I wanted to use AT&T on the line >> I had switched to MCI in order to get the free bag from them; I dialed >> 10288 to get AT&T before calls, or I just use the other line which is >> still on AT&T. It's not in me to ignore anything like this, and besides how would I be able to accumulate more MCI Points to get me a free Round-Trip Coach-Class ticket on American Airlines (;-> while I rack up all of the Friends and Family savings! > Absolutely do NOT ignore it. Slamming is a sleazy way of doing long > distance business, and no one should have to put up with it. State > public utilities regulatory agencies are usually interested in > investigating such incidents. The father should file a simple > complaint against his local telco requesting that they be ordered to > change his PIXC back to the original LD carrier, that AT&T be charged > for all costs associated with the PIXC changes, and that the local > telco be ordered to refund to the subscriber any additional long > distance charges (and lost discounts) due to the unauthorized change. Even though there was nothing to complain to the state about the local phone company -- they were very cooperative with my concerns and I guess the fact that they may be facing direct local competition in my area may have had some influence on wanting to make sure I was a happy camper! (For other reasons it is my intention to drop them like a hot potato(e) when the new phone company makes their first contact with me!) I did drop a note to the state about this matter for whatever that is worth as well as sending a copy to the FCC, again for whatever tha is worth. I also will be discussing it with a consumer affairs specialt in the State Attorney General's Office of Consumer Protection early in the New Year when I meet with her concerning some sleezy advertising practices the local Cable company has been into - (Since the new phone company is running a fiber optic line, I wonder if I might be able to dump the Cable company too??? (8->>> The thought that I might be able to give it to two "Evil Giants" with one stone!) Jim Hupf Permanently Unemployed by Choice jhupf@nando.net jhupf@nyx.cs.du.edu j.hupf@genie.geis.com ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 15:29:53 PST John D. Borrows said: > In article , Jhupf wrote: >> Now my son is one of those adult children who happened to return to >> our empty nest. He takes full advantage of his return to the nest >> including the use of MY telephone, he doesn't now have a phone he can >> call his own, nor for that matter has he ever been a customer of any >> phone company. But still Ray Drake in his generosity has decided to >> give him 40 bucks for Christmas -- hold on there are strings seems when >> the kid cashed the check he changed _MY_ LD carrier from MCI to AT&T! >> This annoyed me because I'm happy with MCI and don't want AT&T as my >> LD carrier! > WAIT, where your LD goes is a matter between you and your local > telephone company. They will presubscribe you to whomever you direct > them to. All you have to do is contact them and tell them you want > MCI. There may be a charge for the change. They are not in a > position to arbitrate any dispute between you and AT&T (or you and It may be a matter between the LEC and the customer, but as soon as AT&T finds out that the Easy Access carrier has been changed, they will issue an order to change it right back. I would call the LEC (in my case Pacific Bell) and tell them AT&T is "slamming" your line. When they hear "slam" they take your complaint very seriously. Tell them you want a password on your account, and not to authorize any changes made without that password. You might want to call AT&T up and tell them you don't appreciate them slamming your line. (Their ears perk up nicely when they hear "slam" too). Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: king@wildebeest.cig.mot.com (Steven King, Software Archaeologist) Subject: Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? Date: 3 Jan 1995 15:25:00 GMT Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There has been discussion of this topic > here in these very columns in the past. Generally speaking, it is a > non-issue. It takes a lot more power than a cellphone antenna can > radiate before it matters. If John Higdon sees this, he may well decide > to respond. He did so the last time this topic arose here. He has worked > around RF radiation for years, and lots of it at that. PAT] So, PAT, is this an argument *for* or *against* brain damage due to RF? (Just kidding, John. This one was too good to let by. :-) Steven King -- Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When this came up last year, someone said John Higdon had a bald head caused by his hair falling out which was caused by his proximity to the radiation, etc. John protested that he did not have a bald head. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan Shen Subject: Re: Cellphone Radiation Danger? Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 14:40:23 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On 29 Dec 1994, Chuck Campbell wrote: > Someone told me that cellular telephones have antenna radiation > danger, being in such close proximity to the brain. Is there any > discussion or literature regarding such claims, or can they all be > immediately dismissed as garbage? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There has been discussion of this topic > here in these very columns in the past. Generally speaking, it is a > non-issue. It takes a lot more power than a cellphone antenna can > radiate before it matters. If John Higdon sees this, he may well decide > to respond. He did so the last time this topic arose here. He has worked > around RF radiation for years, and lots of it at that. PAT] Let's just say this. Your microwave is more powerful then your cellular phone. The TV gives of EMR. Your computer; a cop using a radar gun. I'm not trying to sound mean or anything, and that isn't what I'm trying to imply here. If you are going to live in fear of radiation, reality says that you'll never escape it. If using a portable phone with the antenna two or so inches (about six cm for your metric people ) away from your brain putting out 0.6 watts (this is according to US Standards. I know other standards put out 10X that much) is going to give you a BRAIN TUMOR, then don't use one! We're thoroughly aware of the fact that it may not be healthy for you. We're taking a chance. Why don't you just buy a mobile phone and put the antenna 20 feet away from you. That'll *technically* get rid of anyone's radiation worries. Daniel Kao ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 1995 14:49:36 -0500 From: Sean E. Williams Subject: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split John Lundgren wrote: > Someday there might just be a database that has your name, and the number > associated with it, and all people will have to do is punch up your name, > and not have to worry about a number. And it will be current. Just like the internet Domain Name System. It could have been implemented years ago, and then we wouldn't be having all the problems associated with the NANP -- your neighbor could be in a different area code, and you wouldn't even have to know or care, so long as you could remember his name! How about a system which provides a menu of available options? Start out by entering a person's name. Okay, so there are thousands of "Jim Smiths" in the US. At first, you are presented with the one who lives closest to you (the city / street would be displayed) or you could specify a specific location at the start if you are calling a "Jim Smith" who lives several states away. When you finally select the appropriate "Jim Smith", a menu appears listing the following options: home, cellular, pager, fax, data, etc. Select the option you wish, and you are connected to that service. I don't know much about ISDN, but it's probably capable of doing this right now if the appropriate software were to be written. Sean E. Williams (sean@epix.net) Harrisburg Area Community College, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA Mobile/Voicemail/Pager: +1 717 580-5187 FAX: +1 717 834-5236 ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Watching the Area Codes Split Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 02:36:44 GMT wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) writes: > In article Neal McLain edu> writes: >> My question: given that all three cities are centers of rapidly-growing >> metro areas, why not a three-way split: >> Nashville retains 615. >> Knoxville gets 423. >> Chattanooga gets something else. > Suppose area code 666 is to be asigned somewhere, maybe in the Bible > Belt. (there's some sort of connection with 666 with the devil). > Just imagine all the complaints you'll hear if this happens. The perfect location for area code 666 is Washington DC. Give the entire code to the federal government. Keep all the non-goverment stuff in the old area code. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 ICBM: 34.12N, 118.02W | Reply to: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We went through this once before, a couple years ago, and someone posted a list of all the places where the 666 exchange appeared around the USA, in which area codes, etc, and if there were any special users such as centrex accounts, etc on them. It seems to me somewhere some government offices were on 666 in that area code; maybe it was the IRS, I'm not sure. In Chicago, MONroe, MOnroe-6 and 666 has been a working exchange on the west side of Chicago for seventy years or more. In the old days when it was Monroe (and in fact there is a central office named for it, called 'Chicago-Monroe') no one seemed to notice it. Now pronounced 'six six six', a few people get sore about being assigned to it. Until they changed to the new number 312-TAXICAB a couple years ago, the Yellow/Checker Taxi radio dispatch office had the longest term number of any business in Chicago: 666-3700, which they held for seventy-plus years along with their other number of equal longevity for radio dispatched cabs, CALumet-6000. In my collection of pictures from Chicago's past, I have a picture of a Model-J Ford, taken about 1915, with the inscription on the side, 'Yellow Taxicab Service, Monroe 3700'. The devil you say! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: '500' Numbers Finally Available Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 15:53:48 GMT Jack Hamilton (jfh@crl.com) writes: [regarding 500 service from AT&T] > - They count the number of times per day you change the forwarding phone, > and if you exceed that number something happens (I don't know what). How can the number of times per day you change the forwarding phone exceed the number of times per day you change the forwarding phone? Was Jack trying to say that they impose a limit? Does anybody know what it is? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: gerryg@earth.execpc.com (Gerry Gollwitzer) Subject: Re: Prepaid Telephone Debit Cards Date: 03 Jan 1995 16:57:17 GMT Organization: Exec-PC Kevin J. Sullivan (ksully@telerama.lm.com) wrote: > I'm looking for information on setting up a business selling prepaid > calling cards. Is there anyone who knows what you need to do this? I > have heard it is relatively easy, however I'd like to know some > specific details. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you'll find there are so many > people doing this -- as well as selling long distance in general through > various multi-level marketing schemes -- that the profit margin is very > very thin. I think you will work long and hard hours for a very small > commission. PAT] Hmmm ... we are finding the prepaid calling card programs to be very lucrative, especially for fund raising and company promotions. Gerry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, let me know which company you are selling for, and something about the profit you are making on them if you don't mind. I may start handling it again. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 14:31:03 EST From: ehenry@Newbridge.COM (Ethan Henry) Subject: Re: Newbridge Channel Bank Organization: Crosskeys Systems Corporation In article is written: > tague@cwinc.win.net (Michael Tague) wrote: >> where is the Newbridge company located (or phone number)? > The listing in the new Dallas Yellow Pages shows the following: > [deleted] > I think this is the home office. If not they should be able to give > you the number. Gosh, I hope it's not the home office. The engineers are going to have an awfully long commute from their homes in Ottawa ... Newbridge's HQ is in Kanata, Ontario, but here is a list of their sales offices I got off of a '4602 MainStreet' poster. UNITED STATES Newbridge Networks Inc 593 Herndon Parkway Herndon, Virginia U.S.A. 22070-5241 Tel. 1 800 343-3600 1 703 834-3600 FAX 1 703 471-7080 CANADA Newbridge Networks Corporation 5580 Explorer Drive Suite 100 Mississauga, Ontario Canada L4W 4Y1 Tel. 1 416 238-5214 FAX 1 416 238-0581 LATIN AMERICA ASIA PACIFIC & RUSSIA Newbridge Networks Corporation 600 March Road P.O. Box 13600 Kanata, Ontario Canada K2K 2E6 Tel. 1 613 591-6300 FAX 1 613 599-3611 There's also an address in the UK. Newbridge has (I believe) local sales offices in various large cities, but I don't know anything about these. DISCLAIMER: Don't believe my email address, I don't work for Newbridge. Nice company though it is, I work across the street, at Crosskeys. Ethan Henry ehenry@newbridge.com CrossKeys Systems Corporation ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #3 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa24683; 4 Jan 95 3:25 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA01122; Tue, 3 Jan 95 23:29:11 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA01114; Tue, 3 Jan 95 23:29:07 CST Date: Tue, 3 Jan 95 23:29:07 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501040529.AA01114@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #4 TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jan 95 23:29:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: British Telecom Information Superhighway (Yves Blondeel) Re: Portability of 800 Number When Bill Not Paid (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Telephone Tariffs for 1995 California (John Covell) Re: What is a T1 Line? (James Carlson) Re: Handshaking: Computer-Computer or Modem-Computer? (Alain Fontaine) Re: NYNEX Ringmate and Modems (Steve Cogorno) Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service (Jim Hupf) Re: Need Info on LD Marketing to College Students (Benjamin L. Combee) Re: Its Here Again! FCC/Modem Tax (Jerry Whelan) Re: Information Wanted on NEC 2000 Switch (chazworth@aol.com) Re: GSM in U.S. (Lynne Gregg) Re: How to Find Your Number (Greg Tompkins) Looking for Pager Operators for Tampa/Ft. Myers Area (Mark Huang) Phone Card Reader Wanted (Keith Jason Uber) Last Laugh! IBM Buys Episcopal Church (John Shaver) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Yves Blondeel Subject: Re: British Telecom Information Superhighw Date: 3 Jan 1995 12:32:20 GMT Organization: FUNDP, Namur, Belgium etxhbt@tnll.eua.ericsson.se (Henrik Bergqvist) wrote: > In article 2@eecs.nwu.edu, Yves Blondeel > writes: >> The prohibition only applies to the delivery of entertainment >> services directly to residential customers as end-users in a local >> loop. The conveyance of signals within the network, for example to >> cable TV head-ends and also to individual business users, is permitted. > What is the definition of entertainment services? There is no formal definition of entertainment services. This is left to interpretation by the regulatory authorities (Department of Trade and Industry and Office of Telecommunications - OFTEL). These two authorities have shied away from formulating rigid definitions. Relevant reading material on this subject: March 1991 White Paper (see my previous posting). OFTEL Annual Report 1993 (available from OFTEL for 15 pounds). > Is there a difference in the regulation between point-to-point > services and broadcast services? There is no formal distinction from a *telecommunications* regulatory point of view. However, a broadcasting service would fall under the specific broadcasting regulations in addition to telecoms regulations. The Independent Television Commission (ITC) would be involved. > What would the regulatory issues be if the PTO (i.e. BT) only made > the bit transport service to the residence and another company > provided the actual service (e.g. videoserver)? In my opinion, in the case you suggest, the PTO would NOT be providing "entertainment services in their own right" since it would have no involvement on the entertainment side. I invite comments on this opinion. Yves Blondeel yves.blondeel@fundp.ac.be (e-mail address will change) ------------------------------ From: producer@pipeline.com (Judith Oppenheimer) Subject: Re: Portability of 800 Number When Bill Not Paid Date: 3 Jan 1995 15:22:18 -0500 Organization: The Pipeline Portabilty isn't in the regs. Portability was an FCC ruling in response to a carrier application. There is nothing in the original ruling about billing disputes. Beyond that, it depends who the carrier in question is, and the tariff (contract with the customer) under which they operate. For example, the AT&T tariff says 800 portability can only be blocked if there is in excess of $1000 in UNDISPUTED billing unpaid. J. Oppenheimer, Producer@Pipeline.com Interactive CallBrand(TM) ------------------------------ From: senator@well.sf.ca.us (John Covell) Subject: Re: Telephone Tariffs for 1995 California Date: 3 Jan 1995 03:32:29 GMT Organization: University of San Francisco In article jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) writes: >> Where might I find a listing of the new tariffs that will be effective >> 1995? Is there a California PUC Web site? The CPUC has only a gopher site so far as I know: cpuc.ca.gov John Covell McLaren School of Business University of San Francisco ------------------------------ From: carlson@xylogics.com (James Carlson) Subject: Re: What is a T1 Line? Date: 3 Jan 1995 13:17:52 GMT Organization: Xylogics Incorporated Reply-To: carlson@xylogics.com In article , jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes: >> In article , James Carlson > com> wrote: >>> In article , mpd@adc.com (Matthew P. Downs) >>> writes: >>>> These filters are not to limit your modem >>>> speeds, but to protect you 64 kbps channel from others. So you don't >>>> hear the cross talk on your line! >>> Not quite; there's no way one DS0 can interfere with another, and >>> there's no such thing as cross-talk at the digital level. >> Wrong; digital is always a statistical quantity in this analog world. >> Cross-talk certainly is possible between digital lines. If you put >> two wires next to each other, there is always some amount of >> cross-talk between them. As the cross-talk interference increases, >> the probability of a pulse being screwed up (or the digital error >> rate) increases. I'm afraid you'll have to re-read what I wrote. There is no such thing as "cross-talk" at the *digital* level. One DS0 channel cannot affect another within a T1 line; there just is no path for this to happen. Any signal at all can be carried on a DS0, and the others will be blissfully unaware that it exists. They are separated in time. Of course, digital signals are carried in the analog world, and, thus, the analog representation of the digital signal is possibly subject to cross-talk. This could increase the error rate if you've got multiple physical wires which are magnetically or capacitively coupled. But it won't appear as "cross-talk" in the traditional sense, since it would affect clock recovery and framing as well as the encoded data. >> In fact Pulse Code Modulation (digital) without any error detection >> has almost the same interference properties as FM radio. If two FM >> stations are close, there will be noise. If they are really close, >> you'll hear both stations at once and lots of noise. The two are very different. PCM is a digital signal; if you can recover it from the noise on the line, you'll get a "perfect" copy of the data. Line hits will produce a decidedly non-analog type of noise, with random data points being generated. To produce traditional "cross-talk" effects, you'd have to do an arithmetic average on the values of the data points between two lines. This is highly unlikely to occur. If you had two AMI lines next to each other, you'd need to have the extraneous cross-talk signal exceed the pulse detection threshold of the receivers in order to be able to detect *anything* at all. Anything below this value would simply be invisible at the digital level. FM, due to the nature of analog demodulation techniques, exhibits a capture effect. If two signals are broadcast on the same frequency, the "louder" signal will be heard to the exclusion of the "quieter" signal. You won't hear both stations at once. If the received amplitude of the two signals are varying with respect to each other, then all sorts of interesting effects (depending on the type of demodulation used) occur, but hearing both at once isn't one of the options. >>> The analog filters are there to prevent aliasing, which is an objectionable >>> beat frequency which appears in the spectrum when the Nyquist limit is >>> exceeded by any component of the signal. >> There's a 4KHz low pass filter before the A/D converter for this. Right. And it has nothing to do with cross-talk, which was the poster's original assertion. >> There's also a ~100KHz low-pass filter between the A/D converter and >> the line to limit the edge rate of the digital pulses. Cross-talk is >> more severe at higher frequencies, so limiting the unnecessary high- >> frequencies caused by fast edges helps reduce cross-talk. Any filter placed in the DS0 data path after quantization and before multiplexing has no effect on the bandwidth of the signal that the user of that DS0 sees. This has nothing to do with the poster's original statements. James Carlson Tel: +1 617 272 8140 Annex Software Support / Xylogics, Inc. +1 800 225 3317 53 Third Avenue / Burlington MA 01803-4491 Fax: +1 617 272 2618 ------------------------------ From: fontaine@sri.ucl.ac.be (Alain Fontaine) Subject: Re: Handshaking: Computer-Computer or Modem-Computer? Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 10:14:52 +0100 Organization: Universite Catholique de Louvain In article (Dans l'article) , jon_sree@ world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) wrote: > Fascinating. If I understand right, the second parallel interface was > required because any character sent on the first would just get modulated > and sent out on the phone line, instead of being interpreted as a > command? Exactly. There was nothing but an frequency-modulated oscillator behind the serial interface (or a more complicated circuit in modems faster than V.23, but still a circuit and no intelligence). > And the intelligent modem breakthru was to make a moded modem, to be > in command mode initially, go into data mode upon carrier detection, > and drop out upon carrier loss or upon seeing the infamous escape > sequence? Is this how Hayes got their start? Right. In article (Dans l'article) , jlundgre@ kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) wrote: > whatever, the dropping of the RTS may not really mean no carrier. It > may just mean to stop sending data from the modem to the PC, and the > carrier may not be affected. In this case, I would call the signal 'Ready to receive' (ITU V.24 circuit 133) instead of RTS. The fact that it is still on pin 4 of an ISO2110 physical interface notwithstanding ... just call me a nitpicker. AF ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: NYNEX Ringmate and Modems Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 13:17:31 PST John Lundgren said: >> I've called Pac Bell several times and asked when I can get ringmate/ >> and they tell me they have no idea. >> I tell them what it is and they say that the system can't do it. I >> tell them that it has been available all over the country for over a >> year and they are speechless. Is there any other "magic words" I can >> use to enlighten them? If it helps any I'm northeast of downtown L.A. >> by about 12 miles, in the 818-447 exchange. > Ask for a supervisor and pursue the issue. Ive heard it called distinctive > ringing, but it might be called something else by P.B. Whatever you > do, don't give up if you get the same 'idunno' from the stupidvisor. Distinctive Ringing is a _very_ different service; you select up to ten numbers, and your phone will ring with a different cadence when any one of those 10 people call you. Sort of like a poor man's Caller ID. As I posted previously, Pac Bell does not offer "Ringmate" because they perceive that there is a shortage of numbers. Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Jhupf Subject: Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 20:32:19 EST Organization: News & Observer Public Access On Thu, 29 Dec 1994, Lawrence The Dreamer Chen wrote: > I don't know how wide spread the service is, but up here (Canada) they > have packages where you get unlimited weekend calling, and for $10 a > month more you get unlimited evening calling (7pm-7am). CelularOne of Triangle here in the Triangle in North Carolina offers full local access on weekends for $10 a month. We were considering going for it until we realized we had an accmulation of more than 575 minutes of local calling credit we haven't been able to use during the past 14 months. Between this balance of "bonus" time and the 60 minutes included in our calling plan we are able to Call, Talk, listen and home rate roam without any significant reduction in our accumulated balances. ------------------------------ From: combee@prism.gatech.edu (Benjamin L. Combee) Subject: Re: Need Info on LD Marketing to College Students Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 20:24:26 -0500 Organization: ROASF Atlanta Reply-To: combee@prism.gatech.edu In article is written: > I'm researching a magazine article on how the long distance companies > market their services to college students. You would be helping me > considerably by providing me with any of the following information: > o The size (budget, number of employees) of AT&T's, MCI's or Sprint's > student marketing departments. > o Any recent promotions, giveaways or advertising targeting college > students. > o Any weird, frightening or amusing stories or incidents related to > this subject. Hello. I'm down at Georgia Tech, and we've seen a number of different marketing schemes. MCI has been doing a lot: just recently, they came along with lots of other companies to do a Campus Fest where they were pushing their 1-800-COLLECT line. Also, around Thanksgiving, they were handing out hundreds of cards that each gave ten minutes on 1-800-COLLECT using a special code. My roommate last year had a Sprint calling card, and he got several promotions. For Halloween, he got a postcard with a mask on one side that said he could make unlimited free long distance calls for one hour on Halloween night. Tech itself has contracted with Sprint for the LD service in all the dormatories. Most rooms only have local service turned on, but if you want, you can get LD enabled but only with Sprint as your carrier. The housing department gets a kickback on any Sprint calls made from the rooms. I hope these help you out. If you've got more questions, let me know. Name=Ben Combee E-Mail=combee@prism.gatech.edu URL=http://www.gatech.edu/acm/combee.html ------------------------------ From: jerryw@abode.ccd.bnl.gov (Jerry Whelan) Subject: Re: Its Here Again! FCC/Modem Tax Date: 3 Jan 1995 18:47:41 GMT Organization: Brookhaven National Lab, CCD > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, he did not mark it 'not for > publication' and in any event, I think it does us good to air out > this thing once in awhile and re-emphasize the nonsense of it all. PAT] 'Not for publication' ... Take a look at Brock Meeks's `CyberWire Dispatch' at: http://cyberwerks.com:70/0h/cyberwire/cwd/cwd.94.12.09a.html The root of the dispatch tree is at: http://cyberwerks.com:70/1/cyberwire ------------------------------ From: chazworth@aol.com (Chazworth) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on NEC 2000 Switch Date: 3 Jan 1995 00:35:03 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article , Jason Davis writes: > I just installed one, nice system. This one was equiped with 256 > ports and three T1 interfaces. SMDR and voice Mail also. Great looking > rack mounted with patch panels. In the interest of keeping this string going: Have you or anyone installed the Ethernet card on the 2000IVS yet? Let me know, I am curious as to how it works, or may work. ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: GSM in U.S. Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 09:46:00 PST jjfai@alertnet.com recently inquired about GSM support in the U.S. Recently McCaw's New York operation, Cellular One began an International Roaming service involving GSM phones. One TD responder to the original post pointed out that there are NO cellular carriers supporting GSM on their U.S. systems. This is absolutely correct. However, if you choose local service with Cellular One in New York, you can retain your GSM unit and can have your GSM calls (if you roam back in Europe) billed back to a single account -- your Cellular One account. If you have questions about this service you can talk to cathy.oshea@ mccaw.com, reply to me, or contact the Cellular One office near you. Best regards, Lynne Gregg ------------------------------ From: gtompk@teleport.com (Greg Tompkins) Subject: Re: How to Find Your Number Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 19:31:18 GMT Organization: Teleport What is a number beside the 1-800 thing that I can dial? I thought there was one from the local exchange. I can dial 311 and it gives me my phone number. GREG [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It varies from one community to the next. It even varies from one central office to the next in the community. When one gets published or widely known, it gets changed soon thereafter. From time to time here in the Digest we have had lists of these things that had been collected from all over the USA, but time and again about half the numbers on the list were incorrect by the time the list got printed. Really, the only way to find out about this is to ask locally in your own community. The one I gave earlier of 1-800-MY-ANI-IS seems to be the only one that works from anywhere and has been in service for awhile. Our old faithful 1-577-your last four for ringback does not even work here in Skokie any longer as of a month ago. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Huang Subject: Looking for Pager Operators for Tampa/Ft. Myers Area Reply-To: Organization: National Institutes of Health Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 15:04:30 GMT Hi, all: I'm looking for paging system operators interested in 929MHz licenses for Tampa/Fort Myers area. Please call (301) 770-6417 or e-mail: mhuang@capaccess.org. Thx! Mark L. Huang, Ph.D. E-mail: mhuang@capacess.org E-mail: rin0mxw@bumed30.med.navy.mil (expire: 31 January, 1995) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jan 1995 10:53:31 EDT From: Keith Jason Uber <942576@edna.cc.swin.edu.au> Subject: Phone Card Reader Wanted Pat, Firstly - thank-you for your newsgroup/archives/digest - fantastic reading! I am looking for an article on building a Phone Card Reader that connects to a pc. I saw it two or three days ago when browsing gopher or WWW (I can't remember) and thought "That's cool ... but Australia doesn't use Smart-cards for their phones". The very next day, I met a German exchange student who gave me a German phonecard! Subsequently I've spent about four hours searching through veronica, wwww etc with no luck. Any help or direction would be great ... I intend to modify it to use it as an electronic key to start my car! Thanks again, keith [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, it sounds like an interesting application if it can be done. Let us know how it progresses. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jan 95 11:02:51 MST From: John Shaver Subject: Last Laugh! IBM Buys Episcopal Church For Immediate Release The Chairman of IBM announced today that, in response to Microsoft Corp.'s acquisition of the Roman Catholic Church, IBM has bid for and acquired the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America for $1 billion. "We are the oldest and most prestigious computer company in the world," he said, "and we cannot be seen to be lagging behind in the race for preeminence in the religious software and hardware markets. We have tendered an offer to the Most. Rev. Edmund Browning, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and Pamela Chinnis, President of the House of Deputies of General Convention, and they have recommended acceptance to the shareholders / communicants." The Episcopal Church is one of the oldest and most respected denominations in the United States. Many current and former officeholders, including many Presidents, have been communicants. Although its membership was declining in recent years, the latest figures show a slight increase in membership. A combination with IBM will probably be beneficial in terms of putting "fannies in the seats" in Episcopal Churches across the United States. There will also be great benefits to IBM in terms of international connections through the Episcopal Church. The Church is one of the most senior members of the international Anglican communion by way of its separation from the Church of England after the Revolutionary War and the consecration in 1784 of its first Bishop, Samuel Seabury. IBM hopes to gain a foothold in the international religious business through these connections, and perhaps tender a bid for the entire Anglican Communion by the time of the next meeting of the world Anglican bishops in London in 1998 (Lambeth Conference). The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Reverend George Carey, could not be reached for comment. IBM and Episcopal Church are "good fit" IBM has had the distinction of being the first and, up until several years ago, the most successful computer company in the world. It was founded by Herman Hollerith, the inventor of the computer card, in the late 1800, and concentrated on business machines such as adding machines and typewriters until the invention of the computer in the 1940. They invested heavily in this new technology, and became rich from selling and maintaining them in the 1950's through 1980's. However, IBM's stodgy corporate culture prevented it from taking advantage of newer technology. It almost entirely missed the value of personal computer technology in the late 1970's, allowing other companies to use processes it developed to make so-called "clone" personal computers. It therefore lost out on the billions of dollars spent on this technology over the past 15 years. IBM has recently spun off its typewriter and printer businesses and concentrated on PC building and software, and has even resorted to layoffs for the first time in its history. The slogan, "No one was ever fired for buying IBM" has become a bitter joke in the business world. The Episcopal Church was, for a long time, considered the most successful of the Protestant Churches in terms of wealth and power. Many of the rich and famous swelled its numbers, and its liturgy was noted for its archaic beauty as much as its treasury was noted for its gilt-edged bonds. However, in recent years, with the dying-off of the elderly rich and the fall in the birth rate among the bluebloods who remained, the Episcopal Church has suffered both a decline in numbers and in influence and wealth. Notwithstanding the slogan, "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You," numbers have only recently begun to increase again as the Church begins to be seen as a place where outcasts can take part in its life. Along with IBM, the Episcopal Church has had to resort to layoffs to balance its budget, and the merger will allow both organizations to trim even further their personnel costs. IBM's chairman said today, "We have been known as the place where the white-coated mystics take charge of computers in sealed rooms. As a direct result of this merger, our white-coated mystic roster will be cut by half and merged with the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church. After all, they also wear white garments when celebrating their mysteries. The similarities outweigh the differences, and we think that we can bring their white-suited mystics up to speed in JCL and C++ within a few months." The Presiding Bishop and Ms. Chinnis issued a joint statement saying: "We welcome this merger as a meshing of two great but sometimes old-fashioned institutions. The merger will allow us to cut our technical staff by half again, and concentrate our resources on becoming the largest and most successful Protestant Church in the United States. Our first IBM mainframe is already being installed in the basement of 815 Second Avenue, the Episcopal Church Center in New York." They continued: "So that we can assure ourselves that the Apostolic Succession will be continued, the Bishops of the Episcopal Church will lay hands on the Board of IBM in a ceremony at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. Then, the entire House of Bishops will travel up to Armonk, where they will be instructed in the use of the personal computer." The business writers of most US newspapers will join the religion correspondents in recording this momentous occasion. Both the business and the religious communities are awaiting the new developments that this historic merger will make possible. His Eminence Bill Gates, had no comment. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #4 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa04467; 4 Jan 95 18:11 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA08053; Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:33:20 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA08043; Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:33:17 CST Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:33:17 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501041433.AA08043@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #5 TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Jan 95 08:33:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax (Jack Hamilton) Re: What is a T1 Line? (Joseph H Allen) Re: Britain-Japan Fiber Cable (Wally Ritchie) Re: Finland Data Transmission (Wally Ritchie) NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Clive D.W. Feather) Cellular Billing Services (Raymond S. VanderBok) Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges (Stan Schwartz) Summary: Telecom Texts (David P. Wiltzius) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jfh@crl.com (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: Protest of New Compuserve-Unisys GIF Usage Tax Date: 3 Jan 1995 23:28:03 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest] There have been many articles on this topic posted in the comp.infosystems. www.* groups, You should read all these articles yourself, but a reasonable summary, I think, is this: - Compuserve was charged by Unisys with a patent violation for the LZW compression algorithm used in GIFs. Compuserve had used the algorithm believing it was in the public domain, but in fact Unisys had applied for a patent. - Compuserve decided to license the technology rather than fight the patent. - Compuserve doesn't seem much happier about this than anyone else (except the people at Unisys, I guess). - Unisys clearly seems to be the villain here. - Compuserve has to pay royalties to Unisys. - The patent doesn't apply to GIF files themselves. Here's part of a message from Tim Oren, who claims to be a vice-President of Compuserve. CompuServe has not and is not asserting a proprietary interest in the GIF spec. Even if we wanted to, there are enough sharp attorneys here who could remind us that it has long been publicly disclosed with no patent filing or attempt to assert other rights. However, in developng GIF, we did use the LZW compression scheme. Unknown to us at the time, Unisys had filed for a patent on that algorithm, even though we found it in a public source. We were approached regarding the matter long after GIF had been widely released on CompuServe and to the market at large. Regardless of what you may think about software patents in general, or the tactic of waiting until substantial infringment has occured, we were in an infringing position and had no option to seek a license. Since we have a substantial base of developers who were not only creating clients to Compuserve, but had used GIF in good faith in their own products, we also needed to in some way protect their interests by developng a pass through license. The text of that license, or portions of it, are what's circulating around the nets. Because it has been taken out of context, many are taking it as an assertion, by CompuServe, of an intent to prosecute proprietary rights in GIF against all users, including developers of Web clients and other software. This is not the case. CompuServe has no intent of pursuing rights in GIF in such a fashion, and I am writing this with the knowledge and consent of our CEO. Unisys, of course, may follow whatever they see as their best interests in the matter. For better or worse, as a patent attorney can tell you, selective enforcement is allowed by the letter of the law. Tim Oren Vice President CompuServe and more from Mr Oren: Re GIF, I can talk about it, and if the impression being left is that we are trying to make big bucks, I definitely need to talk about it, because we've left the wrong impression. Here's the story, which you CAN repeat, WITH my name attached: GIF was originally developed at CompuServe by Steve Wilhite, who currently works for me. As part of it, he used with the LZW compression scheme, which had been openly published by Unisys engineer in a journal. A number of other developers picked up and used LZW as well. None of us knew that Unisys had filed for, and eventually received, a patent on the LZW scheme. I believe this is called a 'submarine' patent - it can surface and get you later. We were got. Unisys proposed an infringement suit, and we had no recourse but to settle. We are paying licensing fees in a manner which IS a nondisclosure item. One of the things we needed to be able to do is to 'pass through' a license embodying both LZW & GIF to those developers who create their own client programs to CompuServe, such as TAPCIS and Mac Nav, since they 'practice' LZW as well. The reason that GIF is included as a conditional in such licenses is that we can't pass through an unrestricted LZW license, and the reason there is money involved is that we in turn have to pay Unisys. If anyone is taking the impression that we are asserting proprietary rights in GIF additional to the LZW patent, that is wrong. Neither are we attempting to assist Unisys in enforcing their patent with respect to non-CompuServe environments, such as the Internet, though 'buying into' our license would be one way of Internet based vendors in avoiding possible action from Unisys. This is far more headache than it is worth, believe me, and we are actively engaged in looking at migration strategies that will get us and our customers off the hook. Our reputation has been damaged by being an unwitting partner to Unisys during those 7 years of encouraging proliferation, and we are not happy about it. (I'm sure Stallman - rms - could find a moral in here somewhere... ) ------------- Jack Hamilton jfh@crl.com KD6TTL '92 K75RTA co-moderator, sci.med.aids ------------------------------ From: jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) Subject: Re: What is a T1 Line? Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 08:01:22 GMT In article , James Carlson wrote: > I'm afraid you'll have to re-read what I wrote. There is no such > thing as "cross-talk" at the *digital* level. One DS0 channel cannot > affect another within a T1 line; there just is no path for this to > happen. Any signal at all can be carried on a DS0, and the others > will be blissfully unaware that it exists. They are separated in > time. For a DS0 as defined as a TDM channel on a T1, this is true (excluding inter-symbol interference on a bad line). The original poster was concerned about a filter on a 56K copper pair, which prevented it from being used at any higher rate. In this case there is filter to prevent cross-talk between 56K copper pairs. An entire T1 can also go on a copper pair, but not with that filter. The fact that the line is a DS0 which eventually gets multiplexed onto a T1 also limits his bandwidth. If this is not the filter which the poster was referring to, then pardon me. >>> In fact Pulse Code Modulation (digital) without any error detection >>> has almost the same interference properties as FM radio. If two FM >>> stations are close, there will be noise. If they are really close, >>> you'll hear both stations at once and lots of noise. > The two are very different. PCM is a digital signal; if you can > recover it from the noise on the line, you'll get a "perfect" copy of > the data. Line hits will produce a decidedly non-analog type of > noise, with random data points being generated. To produce > traditional "cross-talk" effects, you'd have to do an arithmetic > average on the values of the data points between two lines. This is > highly unlikely to occur. > If you had two AMI lines next to each other, you'd need to have the > extraneous cross-talk signal exceed the pulse detection threshold of > the receivers in order to be able to detect *anything* at all. > Anything below this value would simply be invisible at the digital > level. If there are two PCM signals going at the same rate with no error detection, no sequence randomization, and out-of-band syncronization, and there is enough interference to mess with the detection threshold, you will here actual cross-talk. It will be very bad, and the original signal will also be almost completely munged. Yes, this is different from linear additive cross-talk, but it's still cross-talk. > FM, due to the nature of analog demodulation techniques, exhibits a > capture effect. If two signals are broadcast on the same frequency, > the "louder" signal will be heard to the exclusion of the "quieter" > signal. You won't hear both stations at once. If the received > amplitude of the two signals are varying with respect to each other, > then all sorts of interesting effects (depending on the type of > demodulation used) occur, but hearing both at once isn't one of the > options. This "capture" effect has nearly the same effect as two PCM signals on top of each other. The stronger one will get through if the weeker one doesn't mess with it too much. If they have the same signal levels, you'll have real cross-talk plus lots of noise (to the point where they are both nearly indistinguishable, same as PCM). This really happens, try it. >>> There's also a ~100KHz low-pass filter between the A/D converter and >>> the line to limit the edge rate of the digital pulses. Cross-talk is >>> more severe at higher frequencies, so limiting the unnecessary high- >>> frequencies caused by fast edges helps reduce cross-talk. > Any filter placed in the DS0 data path after quantization and before > multiplexing has no effect on the bandwidth of the signal that the > user of that DS0 sees. This has nothing to do with the poster's > original statements. It does, because the original poster was concerned about that bandwidth of the actual copper pair that came to his house. It's my understanding that an ISDN DS0 is 56K digital line on a copper pair between your house and the local office, not a shared T1 (although a multiplexer at the local office my put it on a T1). jhallen@world.std.com (192.74.137.5) Joseph H. Allen ------------------------------ From: writchie@gate.net Subject: Re: Britain-Japan Fiber Cable Date: 4 Jan 1995 06:31:23 GMT Reply-To: writchie@gate.net In , nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes: > wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) writes: >> AT&T will build a cable from Britain to Japan for $1.2G. It'll be >> 17,000 miles long, 5Gbps, and carry 320,000 "voice and other messages". >> That looks like only 16Kbps per circuit (which looks low). The >> current longest cable is a 9,000 mile one from France to Singapore, >> completed a year ago. >> Fun math: That works out to a capital cost per circuit of only $3750. >> Assume that a phone call from Britain to Japan costs $2/minute. If >> all 320,000 channels were in continuous use, then the cable would be >> paid for in the first 31 hours. >> Alternatively, if we assumed that the cable is good for ten years, >> or 100,000 hours, then amortizing the capital cost would be three >> cents per hour, or $5e-4/minute. This is a factor of 4,000 less >> than the price of the call. > The numbers for the newer transantlatic cables look like that, > too. You really should be able to buy a full-time transatlantic > circuit for about $100/month, and at the rate cable is being laid, you > probably soon will. > Not having to acquire property rights is a big win. Fortunately, > the UN didn't think of this for the Law of the Sea conference. There is no question that the "cost" to the carriers of the international circuits is declining toward zero. That cost, however, has very little to do with what you pay for an int't private-line or switched service. An international circuit is two "half circuits" with the price at each end completely controlled by the carriers at each end, one or both of which is normally a monopoly PTT. Only US/Canada and US/UK circuits are priced at anything even reasonably related to cost. Until PTT's discover what price elasticity means, or they are forced by large private bypass users, tariffed rates are unlikely to reflect the low costs actually involved. The U.S. Model is informative. For interstate long distance the "costs" are $0.03 originating access (paid to LEC), $0.03 terminating access (paid to LEC), and $0.01 or less TOTAL operational cost for the IXC. Because the IXC has to pay the LEC's the $0.06, it has about $0.07 total cost resulting in a retail pricing on the order of $0.11 - $0.16. The IXC of course has to absorb credit risk on all of the true cost (including the LEC which gets its money in any case. The IXC also has marketing and other costs. Nevertheless the true cost of long distance is on the order of a penny a minute and that includes the switches. If access costs were reduced to the same magnitude as the long distance, the total retail price would be on the order of a nickel a minute. Intrastate is even worse. I actually pay less to call Ft. Lauderdale to London than I pay to call from Ft. Lauderdale to Miami. The fact is that most PTT's subsidize their large and politically powerful employee bases by maintaining the highest possible overall charges for international calling both in collection rates (charged to those in their country) and in accounting rates (charges to U.S. or other foreign carriers). The same true for private lines. In fact the "price" guideline for a private line is oftern based on 9000 minutes of switched usage, no relataion to cost. Wally Ritchie Ft. Lauderdale ------------------------------ From: writchie@gate.net Subject: Re: Finland Data Transmission Date: 4 Jan 1995 06:50:24 GMT Reply-To: writchie@gate.net In , jackp@telecomm.admin.ogi.edu (Jack Pestaner) writes: > We have been communicating to a site in Finland with autoranging 14.4k > modems. On a good day we can run at 9600, but typically at 2400. We > have tried AT&T, MCI, and IDB (all are direct digital connections > through our PBX), but all seem to be extremely variable. We use > NetBlazer modems, same model, on each end. > This is really expensive, and we want to move to a more reliable > service, as we expect to have longer hold times of three to five hours > a day. I checked on a 56k DDS, but cost was about $9K per month. > Are there any satellite solutions, or packet solutions that anybody > knows of? BTW, we also tried x.25 from Sprint, but service went down > often, and Sprint just has the WORST customer service for problem > solving. You might want to try different modems including some newer V.34's You might also investigate the nature of the analog loops at both your end and the Finland end. V32bis and V34 depend on effective cancellation of echo. Not all modem models are equally effective with circuits that have long delays. The types of echo cancellers and echo suppressors used on individual connections can also be a significant factor. Since you will be spending several $K per month, it should be worthwhile to investigate different modems and possibly some conditioning of the analog loops in Finland. How is your voice quality? Are you getting satellite circuits all the time?. What happens US/UK with the same modems? What happens Finland/UK. With the money your spending, the capital costs of the best modems money can buy are insignificant. Wally Ritchie Ft. Lauderdale, Florida ------------------------------ Subject: NANP 800 numbers from the UK Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 12:57:52 GMT From: Clive D.W. Feather All of a sudden, I can now dial 1-800 numbers from the UK. There is a few seconds of silence, and then an American female voice tells me that this call will *not* be free, but charged at standard direct-dial rates. If I don't want to pay, I should hang up now. Just for fun, I tried 1-800-MY-ANI-IS. It told me: "702 000 5555" ! Clive D.W. Feather | Santa Cruz Operation clive@sco.com | Croxley Centre Phone: +44 1923 813541 | Hatters Lane, Watford Fax: +44 1923 813811 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom ------------------------------ From: rvb@iti.org (Raymond S. VanderBok) Subject: Cellular Billing Services Date: 4 Jan 95 13:02:09 GMT Organization: Industrial Technology Institute Are there service companies that provide custom billing for cellular service? I would like to be charged for service in a way different from what my cellular provider offers. Ray VanderBok Metalforming Manager NIST / Midwest Manufacturing Technology Center (313)769-4131 internet: rvb@iti.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 22:35:58 EST From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Cell One NY/NJ Eliminates Daily Roam Charges It was buried in small print in the copy of their ad in Monday's {New York Newsday}, so I called customer service and verified it. As of 1/2/95, Cell One NY/NJ (00025) has FINALLY followed NYNEX Mobile's lead and eliminated the $3.00 daily "nag" roamer charge everywhere in North America. This applies to both NACN and Non-NACN cities (it was unclear in some cases whether some NACN cities charged the fee). At any rate, the only charges for roaming outside the NACN are 99 cents per minute airtime (still higher than NYNEX, for the most part). CellOne's customer service rep explained that some areas are 83 cents per minute instead of the 99, but they are few and far between - one should assume that it will be 99 and be pleasantly surprised if the bill is 16 cents less (per minute). A small celebration is in order! Stan ------------------------------ From: wiltzius@anduin.ocf.llnl.gov (David P Wiltzius) Subject: Summary: Telecom Texts Date: 4 Jan 1995 00:00:06 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab. I had several requests to post a summary so here goes. I haven't found a good textbook in telecom, but I think Newton's Telecom Dictionary is a very useful substitute. Because it is structured as a dictionary, one must piece together information from various entries, but I did pretty well on your test sentence. All the technical terms in your sentence were in Newton and they clearly pointed me toward the SONET entry, which is almost two pages long, and did a decent job of explaining your sentence, I think. I teach a course on information and communication technology (for industrial engineers); I use a collection of up-to-date articles on uses of telecom (Network World is one great source) and have the students use Newton to help them read these articles. I saw a book in Barnes and Noble called "Digital Telephony", Second Edition, by John Bellamy. Publisher is John Wiley, (c) 1991. IBSN 0-471-62056-4 After perusing the book, I came to the conclusion that it contains much of the information I am looking for (the same sort of thing you are looking for). The first chapter covers analog systems. The rest is digital. There is a chapter on SONET. I am still debating whether or not to get it (it was $75). I am interested but I could also spend $1000 on software engineering books (my occupation). Consider it requested. BTW, I bought some of the Telephony BASIC series. Haven't had a chance to look at them yet but they are THIN. I suspect they are VERY basic and not a good bargain. Happy Holidays, (Ed: I bought two of them (SONET and Wireless) months ago and I think they are worth their modest price. They are basic, as advertised.) McGraw-Hill, Delran, NJ 08075, publishes a series of reference books called Datapro. The series covers everything from how modems work, T-1 history, to vendor and product analysis. William Stallings has written several books on communications media and equipment. Titles slip my mind but I'm sure you should be able to find something by author search. -------------------Start off with "Digital Telephony" 2nd Ed. by John Bellamy ISBN 0-471-62056-4. He has a chapter on SONET that will give you a taste. Since the field is still emerging, many issues with SONET and SDH are still evolving. ------------------- RADIO SHACK CARRIES A BOOK CALLED "UNDERSTANDING TELEPHONE ELECTRONICS" WHICH EXPLAINS SUBJECTS FROM THE SIMPLE POTS TELEPHONE TO CENTRAL OFFICE EQUIPMENT. TELLABS, INC. PUTS OUT A TEXT BOOK COMPLETE WITH TESTS AT THE END OF EACH CHAPTER. HOPE THIS HELPS. IF YOU HEAR ABOUT OTHERS PLEASE LET ME KNOW. ------------------- You're welcome! I recently purchased an excellent telecom book from Artech House Inc.: "Service Management in Computing and Telecommunications." Artech specializes in telecom material. Their number is: 617-769-9750, call for a catalog. I've found them pleasant to do business with, but their prices, as with Computer Literacy, are full list (read: high). Speaking of price, if you're in the San Jose area, there is a large store near the corner of Hilsdale and Camden, across Hillsdale from Target, that buys close-out books from publishers. They sell most for under $5.00, and many for $3.00! Many books are college texts, and on some very good subjects. I was there this afternoon and picked up the "Artifial Inteligence Handbook ($3.00), Spencer Johnson's "Yes or No" ($3.00), "Voodoo Dos" ($8.00), Jimmy Carter's "An Outdoor Journal" ($3.00), Stanley Davis' "Managing Corporate Culture" ($2.00), and the "Pocket Guide to Phrasal Verbs" ($2.00). These are all hardbound editions. I didn't see any telecom material, but I have in the past. the place is huge, and I didn't look at everything. It's definately worth a visit if you're in the neighborhood, and you have the time. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #5 **************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa06229; 4 Jan 95 20:27 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA23108; Wed, 4 Jan 95 15:23:13 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA23100; Wed, 4 Jan 95 15:23:09 CST Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 15:23:09 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501042123.AA23100@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #6 TELECOM