DP Tool Club 15/CD_ASCQ_15_070894.iso/vrac/tc14_233.zip/TC14-233.TXT

Text File | 1994-05-18 | 26KB | 603 lines

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 May 94 23:16:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 233

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID ( Dave Thompson)
    Re: Nationwide CID, CLASS, etc. (Mike D. Schomburg)
    Re: Wireless Data Services (Pete Farmer)
    Re: Handy Money Saving Cellular Tip (Terry Gilson)
    Re: Inteljak Wireless Phone Jak System (Marcial Dumlao)
    Re: 'NNX' Area Codes?  I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate (Fred Goldstein)
    Re: SONET Management Standards? (Don Berryman)
    Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? (Don Berryman)
    Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? (K. M. Peterson)
    Re: Bellcore to Assign NPA 500 Codes (Will Martin)
    Re: New Area Codes Assigned (Scott D. Fybush)
    Re: Bellcore NANP Seminars Coming (Alan Leon Varney)
    Re: GTE Analog Pocket Phone (Steven H. Lichter)

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 GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

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

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

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated.

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: Thompson, Dave <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID
Date: Tue, 17 May 94 20:11:00 PDT


In Telecom 14.224 Fri 13 May, [e-mail] (Robert
Berger) replies to:

(telecom14.221.8) [e-mail] (A. Padgett Peterson):

>> Personally, I agree with the basic service being per-call blocking.
>> If you want per-call blocking on YOUR phone that's fine. I don't
>> see why they can't let the customer have his/her choice.

> I don't want any business I deal with to have my home phone number.
> They WILL sell it to telemarketers, and there's no way I can prove who
> did it.

> IF they can't offer per-line blocking then they should drop [CallerID].

I also find free per-call a fair balance, at least for myself, as I am
*usually* willing to give my number when I call, but there seem to be
quite a few who strongly oppose this -- although net users are not a
very random sample -- so I think per-line should be available to those
who request it and pay a nominal premium (as with unlisted number).

In the cited article Padgett went on to say "I doubt that additional
features (just like unlisted numbers) will be available for those who
need them." but from context I think he meant "I don't doubt"; and
although he didn't say "chargeable" most options are.  One proposal
has been to include per-line with the fee for unlisted, or maybe a
discount for unlisted + per-line, as with >1 Custom Calling option.
If so many subscribers get per-line as to make CallerID "worthless",
which I don't expect, I would take that as a referendum reversing the
FCC decision; not all rules are made officially.

I find the arguments *for* requiring per-call convincing anyway, and
well-presented in the Report and Order, but then para 43 jumps from "a
federal per line blocking requirement ... is not the best policy
choice ...." to "Thus, carriers *may not offer* per line blocking ...
on interstate calls."  I think this is the least-supported finding.
And if the originating LEC can't determine in- or out-of-state
termination of inter-LATA calls and given a single-bit privacy
indicator, it apparently prevents per-line for in-state inter-LATA, an
unacknowledged encroachment on state jurisdictions?

However, Robert, if you can successfully do business by phone without
giving *anyone* your number, I'm impressed.  *I* probably wouldn't
accept your calls.  And as has been discussed often, you can't protect
your number from any 800/900 user *unless* restrictions on use of ANI
data like those in the order take effect.

> Emergencies are no excuse; 911's have had number ID for years.

Actually I believe E911 (and B911?) requires special trunks and CPE,
and as the order discussed at some length (paras 32, 35, 37, 43)
although citing only Coast Guard and poison centers, there can well be
emergency services that can only afford/justify POTS connections.
But if you agree to this exception it's easily implemented:
 - originating carrier sets PI, and may be allowed to do so per-line;
 - all carriers still must transport calling number and PI (free);
 - terminating carrier is allowed to override PI on delivery to an
emergency service -- although carriers or FCC/PUCs must then decide
who deserves this, almost the kind of question they seemed unwilling
to handle in paras 39-40 (per-line blocking for "special needs"); on
the other hand, they don't *seem* to have much trouble now deciding
who is a valid law-enforcement agency?

Arguably there is still a privacy violation if you call something
without realizing it is a "caller-id override" emergency service.
Ideally if distinctive and standard codes could be established, something
like 999-xxxx or 811-xxxx maybe, it would solve this *and* be easier to
publicize, teach, and use away from home, just as basic 911 was an
improvement over 7D for police etc.  On the other hand if 911 centers
grow to handle more and more of these other functions, as they seem to
be gradually doing -- and set up *effective* plans to deal with power
outages, equipment malfunctions, and telco network trouble, fer G*d's
sake -- the question is moot; that's even more obvious and convenient.

There has also been mention of blocking from women's shelters, recently
by [e-mail] (Carl B. Page), 6 May, in 14.205.  I assume this is
only an issue when the women call their batterers; ordinary business
e.g. ordering pizza isn't especially private.  I don't understand why
they want to hide that they're calling from *a* shelter; I should
think that adds a sense of official protection.  In fact unless this
is part of a confidence-(re)building strategy I would wonder if the
woman should talk at all to the abuser.  What I *would* want is maybe
to block harassing callbacks, by outgoing-only service or by listing
under some headquarters office or the police, as they do need to get
calls (unsolicited or referred?)  from potential clients; and more
important to keep their *location* secret to prevent stalking/following,
kidnapping, etc.

Although I have not seen mention in these discussions, I consider
shelters for children to be in the same situation, and know one,
Covenant House, that has widely publicized their 800 number for years.
Am I missing something?  And before someone ties this to a recent
thread, yes, harassing calls are punishable anyway, *if traced*; so is
battering; but I agree prevention is cheaper, faster, and pleasanter,
I just don't think per-line blocking is the only way.

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

Date: Tue, 17 May 94 07:22:39 CDT
From: [e-mail] (Mike D. Schomburg)
Subject: Re: Nationwide CID, CLASS, etc.


In Telecom Digest V14#229, Jim Derdzinski <[e-mail]>
said:

> I have a couple of questions about CLASS services.
> I know that the FCC has issued a ruling making is possible for
> long-distance numbers to work with the Caller ID service that the
> various LEC's are now offering.  Will the long-distance number
> identification work with the other CLASS services like Automatic
> Callback, Call Screening, Repeat Dialing, Call Tracing, etc?

Delivery of the calling number is accomplished by a thing known as
Signaling System #7 (SS7), a sort of packet network (functionally)
independent of the "bearer" channels for voice, data, etc. While the
SS7 connectivity required to provide interLATA caller ID is also
necessary to support the CLASS services mentioned above, it is not yet
sufficient. Various standards bodies are now working on the
enhancements to the SS7 protocol which will bring about interLATA
CLASS (over and above caller ID).

In a nutshell, there are two broad sections of SS7: the Integrated
Services Digital Network User Part (ISUP) which supports call set-up
and tear-down, and the Transaction Capabilities Application Part
(TCAP) which supports messages not directly related to call set-up
(such as the invocation of CLASS features). SS7 needs to be modified
to deal with the presence of multiple signaling networks which may be
encountered across interLATA networks. TCAP messages have no trouble
invoking CLASS services between SS7-capable exchanges within a single
LEC's network, but the situation becomes much more complex when one or
more IXCs are interposed, and the far-end LEC may or may not be
equipped to handle the particular feature being activated.

The mechanism proposed (by Bellcore, I believe) to solve this
signaling problem is called Intermediate Signaling Network
Identification (ISNI) and will most likely involve a coordinated
implementation by LECs and IXCs. As far as I know, there has not been
any scheduling or industry coordinating activity yet.

> Another question I have concerns an oddity I have encountered here (in
> the land of Ameritech).  It seems that when an older CO is finally
> upgraded to work with CID, the calling numbers originating from it
> will display, but Distinctive Ringing, Automatic Callback and the like
> will not work with these numbers.  Is there some kind of update that
> has to done to the equipment to register new CO's and such?  (This, I
> guess, may be related to the above.)

This probably is simply a delay on Ameritech's part before turning up
the full feature set. Normally, if they can support caller ID, they
can support the rest. Possibly they chose not to include the software
necessary for the other features.

While I've got the channel open, Pat, I would like to mention that I
disagree with your contention that it is absolutely necessary to staff
every office 24x7x365. I spent six years managing Network Operations
at a fairly large (ok, not really large) LEC, and I believe that with
proper management, an operations center can guarantee good service
(and no COs burning down).

The concerns you have stated are quite valid, and obviously many
accidents have in fact happened. What I mean by proper management is
that the concerns of (so-called) peon employees must be heard and
acted upon. As a manager, I always tried to be sympathetic to ALL
employees' ideas, and believe me they are aware of the flaws and gaps
in the best plans that management concocts.  If you integrate the
organization from the (so-to-speak) bottom up, you gain powerful
allies who will look out for you, instead of giving you the
well-deserved reward to your arrogance. I'm sure you have run into
telephone workers who are highly skilled and care deeply about
providing high-quality service.

As has been pointed out many times here in the Digest, when you have a
monopoly there is no real need for management to stress quality. What
recourse does the customer have?


Mike Schomburg   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Pete Farmer)
Subject: Re: Wireless Data Services
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 10:40:41 -0800
Organization: Tetherless Access Ltd.


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

> Just out of curiousity, what does 'Tetherless Access Ltd.' do?  (If
> that's an inappropriate question, Pat, my apologies.)

Tetherless Access Ltd. (TAL) is a Silicon Valley start-up developing
products/services using spread-spectrum packet radio technology to
deliver full-time, high-speed (64 Kbps+) Internet connections over
distances of up to 20 miles.  Our economics are very favorable when
compared to leased-line or frame-relay solutions.

Our product will hit the streets for full-scale commercial trials
later in 1994.

If that's an inappropriate answer, Pat, my apologies!  ;-)


Peter J. Farmer            Internet: [e-mail]
VP, Marketing              Voice:    415-321-5968
Tetherless Access Ltd.     Fax:      [phone]
Fremont, CA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not at all inappropriate. And please
tell us more as the day approaches when you take it public.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Terry Gilson)
Subject: Re: Handy Money Saving Cellular Tip
Date: 17 May 1994 04:59:23 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation


On May 13, 1994 Carl Oppedahl wrote:

> One hopes that some day in the US there will be more than two
> providers for portable phone service, to bring the price down.

In every market area there are presumably two RCC's, however, at least
in California, there are more than two providers to get your service
from.

Cellular resellers buy airtime at wholesale rates from the carriers.
They then sell it, usually at discounted rates, to a user who then has
a choice between the two carriers and a wider choice of rate plans.

In California, resellers file their rates in the form of a tariff with
the Public Utilities Commission. They bill their users directly. The
carrier is basically guaranteed payment since the reseller pays the
carriers whether the customer pays their bill to the reseller or not.
Resellers offer all the services of the carrier (with the possible
exception of a 24 hour 611 answering service for billing questions)
plus a few services of their own.

Since in most MSA's and many RSA's, cellular pricing is controlled by
a "Duopoly", both carriers offering near-identical rates. Resellers
offer a breath of fresh air to users looking for an alternative.

Even though the reseller *should* be considered by the carrier as one
of their best customers (even though it is at a lower rate, it *is*
guaranteed payment), they sometimes regard them as an unwelcome
competitor due to the reseller's pricing advantages.

At least in some areas of the U.S. there are more than two providers
of cellular service.


Terry Gilson         [e-mail]
DCN Cellular         [e-mail]
Westlake Village CA  [e-mail]
805-379-3333     805-379-9779 F

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcial Dumlao)
Subject: Re: Inteljak Wireless Phone Jak System
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 07:20:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lord of
Love!) writes:

> I bought this thing and it was completely useless!  Save your money
> and aggravation by buying a good cordless phone.

> [e-mail]

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Care to elaborate on the main problems
> you were having?   PAT]

I bought a wireless phonejak and it's okay if no other noise pro-
ducing appliance (i.e., blender, central heater, etc) is on.  I'm
using it to connect my modem and have two surge protectors connected
to it before connecting to the house circuit.  You will get static
(noise) when a major appliance is turned on, so if you do decide to
get one, plan on working late night when nothing else is on.  Phones
work but again, you'll pickup alot of noise when something is energized.


Marcial B. Dumlao   [e-mail]


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except that even late at night, in the
winter for example the furnace will be operating, or in the summer the
air conditioning will be on.  Apparently there is never an escape from
the noise sources.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred Goldstein)
Subject: Re: 'NNX' Area Codes?  I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate
Date: 17 May 1994 21:41:20 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk])


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Anton
Sherwood) writes:

> Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 00:16:50 GMT
> From: [e-mail] (Anton Sherwood)
> Subject: Re: 'NNX' Area Codes?  I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate
> Organization: Crackpots for a Better Tomorrow

> Speaking of NNX and NXX, is there a letter for the set {0,1}?  I
> haven't seen one used.  If (strangely) there isn't a convention, how
> about B for Bit, so old-style area codes are NBX?

Sometimes the set 0, 1 is represented as "Y", thus an old-style number
was NYX-NNX-XXXX, and a new-style number is NXX-NXX-XXXX.  Also "R"
means "2-8", and is used in private networks where the ETN topology
reserves 9; thus some on-net dialing is RNX-XXXX.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
k1io             or [e-mail]   voice:[phone]

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

From: Don Berryman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SONET Management Standards?
Date: Tue, 17 May 94 14:36:20 CDT


> Can some knowledgeable soul throw light on the following questions:

I'll try ( I couldn't find a knowledgeable soul) --

> - What protocol stack is specified by the SONET standard for
> Operation, Administration, Maintainence & Provisioning? [I suspect the
> answer is full blown CMIP, ACSE, ROSE as in Bellcore TR-303]

Yes a full blown CMIP, ACSE, ROSE but with a full 7 layer protocol
stack (Not a short stack with non-standard convergence function as
defined in Bellcore TR-303). Bellcore TA-NWT-000253 Issue 8 has
Bellcore's latest view (adapted from the SSSI).

The latest draft of ANSI T1.105.04-199x "American National Standard
for Telecommunications Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Data
Communication Channel Protocols and Architectures" Defines the
following 7 layer protocol stack:

 ---------------------------
 CMISE-ISO  9595/9596
 ROSE: X.219/X.229
 ACSE-X.217/X.227
 ---------------------------
 X.216/X.226 - ASN.1 Basic Encoding Rules: X.209
 ---------------------------
 X.215/X.225
 ---------------------------
 TP4: ISO 8073/8073 ADD 2
 ---------------------------
 CNLP:ISO 8473/ISO 9542
 ---------------------------
 LAPD: ITU Q.921
 ---------------------------
 DCC
 s---------------------------

The SONET Interoperability Forum (SIF) is actively working on
interoperability issues for SONET.


Don Berryman   [e-mail] [phone]
ADC Telecommunications, Inc.  Minneapolis, MN 55435

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

From: Don Berryman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator?
Date: Tue, 17 May 94 16:00:05 CDT


> Does anyone know what an SME or synchronous modem eliminator does??

A synchronous modem eliminator allows two local synchronous DTEs to be
connected to each other without modems by swapping signals and providing
a clock signal.

This is basically the same logical function as a null modem cable in
the async world.


Don Berryman   [e-mail] [phone]
ADC Telecommunications, Inc.  Minneapolis, MN 55435

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

From: [e-mail] (K. M. Peterson)
Subject: Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator?
Date: 17 May 1994 22:01:25 GMT
Organization: KMPeterson/Boston


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Victoria Matho) writes:

> Does anyone know what an SME or synchronous modem eliminator does??

An SME is used in connecting two "DTE"s (computers) that use a
synchronous communications method like SDLC or BSC.

Synchronization between that type of equipment is generally handled by
the modem generating a "clock pulse".  The SME allows you to connect
together two computers without using a modem.  If you're used to using
asynchronous communications (like terminal or PC to simple modem),
you'd just use a "null modem cable" to connect them, because they
don't require clocking.  But synchronous equipment needs an external
clock to keep them in phase, and the clock in the SME takes care of
that.

Clear 'nuff?


K. M. Peterson   email: [e-mail]
phone: [phone] voice
       [phone] fax

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

Date: Tue, 17 May 94 8:47:26 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore to Assign NPA 500 codes


> From: Gregory P. Monti <[e-mail]>
> Bellcore will need to negotiate with (and adjudicate conflicts among)
> the 126 carriers who have requested 437 of the possible 792 NXX codes
> within the 500 NPA.  Bellcore would probably start assignments within
> a few months.

This makes me wonder about the "792 NXX codes". Since these numbers
will ALWAYS be dialled with the preceeding "500", why should the
exchange codes be limited to being NXX? They could easily be XXX
format, giving 1000 (000 thru 999) possible "A/C 500" exchanges.

As I thought of that, it also caused me to wonder the same thing about
800 numbers. They, too, are always dialed with the leading "800", and
so that number-space could be a full XXX-XXXX range too. The only
thing stopping it is the expectation of the users and how the software
is written. Are there 800-XXX exchanges in use now?


Will

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott D Fybush)
Subject: Re: New Area Codes Assigned
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 01:51:05 GMT


[e-mail] (Tom Ward) writes:

> Other new NXX NPA's assigned but not listed in this handbook are:

>217 630 Illinois
 ^^^

Is this new?  All the postings thus far about the new 630 NPA have
suggested that it will be a split or overlay from 708, not 217.  Is
217 that crowded already?  I know 708 is.


Scott Fybush - [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 16:43:29 +0500
Subject: Re: Bellcore NANP Seminars Coming
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> Gregory P. Monti <gmonti@cap.
gwu.edu> writes:

> The May 13 issue of the newsletter {Communications Daily} reports that
> Bellcore will hold seminars on the changes to the North American
> Numbering Plan over the next six months.  They will be in Washington
> June 16-17, Chicago Aug. 4-5, Dallas Sept. 15-16, and San Francisco
> Nov. 10-11.

> The story quotes North American Numbering Plan Administration Director
> Ronald Conners as saying that, "telephone company switches and
> customers' PBXs may need software or hardware upgrades or, in some
> cases, may have to be replaced."  The story doesn't mention costs, but
> gives a number for information: 800 TEACH-ME (800 832-2463).

   The Bellcore Digest from April 94 indicates the seminar fees are
$765, including one lunch and materials.  They appear to be 1-1/2 day
seminars.  FAX requests for seminar information can be made to:

 [phone]    Send name, mail address, telephone and title.
               You can also request contact by a representative.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: GTE Analog Pocket Phone
Date: 17 May 1994 22:43:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)


That sounds a lot like the PCS systems being tested by GTE and other
companies around the US. GTE, Amertech, ATT, OKI and Motorola have
been testing. From what I have read it is as a lot like the cellular
phone of today and in the tests it does become a Cellular phone away
from its base. What I believe is planned is a lot of cells that are
closer then the ones today. There is a real operating system in Texas
becasue of the distance from anything. There have been several articles
here and in print on it.


Steven H. Lichter

Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS
[phone] 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #233
******************************