Phoenix Rising BBS/phoenixrising.zip/phoenixrising/tele-dig/td14-068.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-02-10 | 27KB

From: INTERNET:[e-mail], INTERNET:[e-mail]
To: 71623,2263
Date: Wed, Feb 9, 1994, 6:55 AM
Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #68

Sender: [e-mail]
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.930129sam)
        id JAA28938; Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:54:27 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy)
        id AA26280; Wed, 9 Feb 94 07:53:58 CST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy)
        id AA26271; Wed, 9 Feb 94 07:53:55 CST
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 07:53:55 CST
TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Feb 94 07:35:30 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 68

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing (Robb Topolski)
    Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing (Carl Moore)
    Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing ([e-mail])
    Re: ISDN NT1 Power Source (Stefan Bethke)
    Re: Caller ID/CNAM (Jonathan T. Cronin)
    Re: The IIA "Free" Internet Account (Randal L. Schwartz)
    Information Superhighway Panel Discussion (Esther Yasui)
    Re: New Area Code 281 for Houston (Carl Moore)
    Re: U.S.A. - Cuba Telecommunications (Jack Hamilton)
    Re: 20GHz Wireless is the Future? ([e-mail])
    Re: V&H Report - 15 January 1994 (Carl Moore)
    Caller ID Software With Log (Doug Reuben)
    Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (Michael Dalby)
    Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (John R. Grout)
    Re: Internet Connection via Satellite (Josh Backon)
    Re: Calling 911 on a Cellphone When Out of Area (David S. Taylor)
    Re: GTE is Annoyed With Me (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.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us:  Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: [e-mail].

    ** 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 gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. All
opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:43:32 GMT
From: Robb Topolski KJ6YT <[e-mail]>
Subject: Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing
Organization: Amateur radio KJ6YT


Brief background:

        REMOTE CALL FORWARDING: Your distant callers dial a seven-digit
number which is set to automatically forward to your home or office.

        PRIORITY RINGING: You program a list of up to ten numbers.
When you receive a call from one of those numbers, your phone will
ring in some distictive way (short-long-short).

Question:

        I have remote call forwarding.  Can I set priority ringing to
my remote call-fowarding number so when anyone calls me via that
number I get the distinctive ring?  Or is the calling number reported
to the feature the caller's actual number rather than the forwarder's
number?


Robb Topolski KJ6YT   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 03:32:19 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing


> QUESTION:  If a caller (from 555-1133) dials my Remote Call Forwarding
> number (555-9922) which is forwarded to my home, which number is
> evaluated by Distinctive Ringing?

A non-technical guess (but familiar with call forwarding) is that your
Remote Call Forwarding number (555-9922 in the example) is the one to
be evaluated for Distinctive Ringing.  This assumes that your home
phone can only "see" the call from the Remote Call Forwarding number.
I do know along the same lines that the caller from 555-1133 would get
charged for message units or long distance only to the Remote Call
Forwarding number, which in turn picks up the tab for message units or
long distance from that point to your home.

(I have used forwarding myself.)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 00:29:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([e-mail] email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Robb Topolski <[e-mail]> writes:

> QUESTION:  If a caller (from 555-1133) dials my Remote Call Forwarding
> number (555-9922) which is forwarded to my home, which number is
> evaluated by Distinctive Ringing?

Unfortunately, the RCF number (555-9922) will be forwarded to your
home due to the way the features intereact in the switch software and
the signalling network (SS7).  AT&T is theoretically working on a fix.
Bug your local telco about the improper functioning of these features.

The switched redirect service is the best that you'll probably do.
It's the closest thing to virtual numbering (it uses the Advanced
Intelligent Network platform).  Because the way numbers are allocated
and the out-of-date code in the C.O. switches, it is difficult to give
you numbers allocated to other switches, plus it can tie up a lot of
interoffice facilities.  You could always opt for the "trunk" route,
but you'll pay quite a bit more that way.

You can always try MFS (they have recently filed for switched service
capability in the state of MD.)  They may be able to offer a creative
solution for you.


Best of luck.

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

From: [e-mail] (Stefan Bethke)
Subject: Re: ISDN NT1 Power Source
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 03:30:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stefan Bethke)
Organization: Promo GmbH, Hamburg, Germany


In article <[e-mail]>, Bob Larribeau <[e-mail]>
writes:

> You must remember that in the U.S. we use the U-interface, which is a
> two-wire local loop interface.  The U-interface, as implemented in the
> U.S., does not provide power from the network.  Powering is the
> customer's responsibility.

At least for Germany, this is not the case and I understand that in
most other european countries this is the same. In Germany we have a
emergency feed from the switch powering the NT1 (via U interface) and
at most one device on the S bus (i.e. you set a switch on the
telephone for this). Normal power feed to S bus comes from NT1 (by
means of normal line power). Emergency power is indicated by reversed
polarity on the S bus.  [Btw. S0 and T0 are electrically identical.
Normally, the term 'T interface' is used only for the interface
between NT1 and NT2. If there is no NT2, the interface is 'S'.]


Stefan Bethke
Promo Datentechnik: Internet [e-mail], [e-mail]
Systemberatung GmbH    AppleLink: PROMO
Waterloohain 6-8       Vox: [phone]
D-22769 Hamburg        Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jonathan T Cronin)
Subject: Re: Caller ID/CNAM
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 06:58:29 GMT


Caller name is available in various areas served by USWest (and maybe
other places, too. USWest is all I know about.)  C&P (or Bell
Atlantic, if you will) is testing it "in-house" and will, I hear,
first market it in Virginia, so you probably didn't waste your money
on the CNAM feature.


Jonathan Cronin         [e-mail]
Evans, Griffiths and Hart Inc.   Lexington, MA

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

From: [e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: The IIA "Free" Internet Account
Date: 08 Feb 1994 02:55:51 GMT
Organization: Stonehenge Consulting Services; Portland, Oregon, USA


"Paul" == Paul Robinson <[e-mail]> writes:

> The service is called Speedway, and the number -- which has to be
> called via AT&T -- is (10288) 1-503-520-2222.  I have no connection
> with that company other than as someone who has used their service.

Which means that for those of us within the Portland Oregon LATA, we
must look *somewhere else*.  Geez, why couldn't these guys have been
in Idaho or something? :-)

Just another native Portlander,


Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
Email: <[e-mail]> Snail/FAX: (Call) aka: <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 00:53:39 PST
From: Esther Yasui <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Superhighway Panel Discussion


Dear TELECOM Moderator:

    I would like to pass along some information from the Asian
Business League to readers, particularly those in the Southern
California area, about an upcoming panel discussion on the
"Information Superhighway."

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

    The Asian Business League (ABL) of Southern California and the
Asian Business Association - Orange County Chapter will be holding a
panel discussion entitled

               "The Information Superhighway: The Future of
          Interactive Video and Its Impact on Southern Calfornia."

                            February 24, 1994
             Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel in Costa Mesa
                               6 - 8 pm
              Registration and refreshments begin at 6pm
                       Program begins at 6:30 pm

     Representatives of Pacific Bell, Sprint, Knowledge Advantage, UC
Irvine, and the University of Southern California Multimedia Lab will
be presenting their views on what Vice President Al Gore called the
National Information Infrastructure, the vehicle that will allow
America to grow and prosper in the 21st century.

    In fact, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, who introduced the
Vice President at the Electronic Media Summit held at UCLA on January
11th, the U.S. could generate an additional $3.5 trillion in GNP from
the implementation of the Information Superhighway after the year
2000.  Individuals wanting to know more about interactive television,
500 channel multimedia broadcasting, fiber optic digital networks, and
video on demand should attend this informative and entertaining event.

    The high-level overviews that the panelists will be discussing are
topics that are in the news daily, from entertainment, cable and phone
company mergers, to a change in direction of the aerospace defense
industry.

    Generous corporate sponsors for this event include the law firm of
Morrison & Foerster, Pacific Bell, Kenneth Leventhal & Co. and Sprint.
Cost for the event is $15 for ABL members, $20 for non-members, and
$25 at the door.  To RSVP by email send message c/o [e-mail].
To RSVP by phone or for more information, call Henry Yee at (310)
769-1604.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 94 12:21:39 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Code 281 for Houston


What do you mean, "probably" 281?  What exactly did the article say
when it mentioned what the new area code will/could be?  (Of course,
there is no surprise about the NNX form of the code.)

The only overlay that has been put into effect so far is area code
917, used for cellular and pagers in New York City (landlines there
are in 212 and 718).  The new-telephone-numbers option has never been
used so far.  In New York City: splitting Manhattan would have aroused
much controversy (according to what I have read); it wasn't enough
just to remove Bronx from the 212 area; and Bronx moved to 718, not
917, because of objections about being lumped in with "nonhumans".

The digest had the suggestion that an overlay be used in area 708 in
Illinois, and also said that if some suburbs were kept in 312 (split
in 1989 to form 708), there'd be complaints from areas which had to
leave 312.  (The later splits for 313 and 215 kept the old area code
in more than just Detroit and Philadelphia respectively.)  708 has a
lot of phones despite the split being so recent there.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: U.S.A. - Cuba Telecommunications
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 07:33:53 GMT


[e-mail] (Raymond Luxury Yacht) wrote:

> Also, any general info about the state of telecom in Cuba and between
> Cuba and the USA would be appreciated.

> No need to post unless someone else shows interest -- just email me.

It's probably a good general rule that someone else will be interested
in it, whatever it is (as long as it's telecommunications and not a
digression into whatever).

So please post any replies, folks.  I don't have any plans to call
Cuba, but I've wondered about the telephone link.

By the way, amateur radio communications with Cuba seem to be taking
off.  There have been several articles in the ham magazines about it
recently.


Jack Hamilton      USMail: POB 281107 SF CA 94128  USA
[e-mail]     Packet: kd6ttl@w6pw.#nocal.ca.us.na

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 20GHz Wireless is the Future?
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 94 00:49:00 GMT
Organization: University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.
Reply-To: Damiano Bolla <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, S. L. Lee  <sllee@bronze.
coil.com> wrote:

> I heard that a technology is available (or becoming available) that
> can transmit voice, data, fax, video, two-way and simultaneous and
> automatically routed. I posted a msg but might have misposted.

> I would like to see professional evaluation of its feasibility.  I
> have the following questions:

> 1. Would there be any health hazard?
> 2. Can the technology be implemented internationally, if not, what are the
>    barriers?
> 3. How long has this idea been around? Why didn't anybody look at it?

> I would like to see discussion on various aspects of this technology.

I personally I would like to ask:

4. How many "transmitters" per square kilometer can operate simultaneously?

This is to understand what is the density of use we can reach before
the entire system stops working.


Damiano

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

Date: Wed, 8 Feb 94 06:09:16 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: V&H Report - 15 January 1994


Not noted in your report was the split in 713, information only having
arrived February 3).  That area ranks BEHIND 708.

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

Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1994 06:18:11 EST
From: [e-mail] (Doug Reuben)
Subject: Caller ID Software With Log


I've seen a few posts recently concerning modem-based Caller ID software
and Caller ID call logs.

In case anyone's interested, we've been working on some software to do
this sort of thing, ie, keep a log, let you know how many rings each
call was, etc.  It also can call you remotely at a pager or telephone
and give out the CID info. (It beeps it into the pager, and uses a
simple code system to "beep" you at a regular telphone.) It can also
(crudely) leave a coded message on a remote answering machine to let
you know that a call was received.

Presently, it's Mac-based, but we are working on a PC version as well.
I'm not sure how much interest there is in this sort of thing on the
net, but from the recent postings it seems that a few people may care.

(We originally developed this in-house for our own use [and just to
play around with Cable & Wireless's 800 service that USED to *reliably*
show CID -- they seem to have turned it off from many areas after a few
people mentioned it to them -- AND , they simply WON'T talk about it
-- they never return a call on this subject! :( ],...but, perhaps
others may be interested as well.)

If anyone is interested in getting a demo version to see if it works
for them, lemme know.


Doug
[e-mail] (129.133.29.81)
[e-mail] (129.133.10.10)

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

Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 19:43:19 -0800
From: Michael Dalby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are LATA Maps Available?


Do you know whether LATA maps are available, eg. from the FCC?  I know
about the useful list of LATAs in your telecom archive, but I am
wondering about LATA boundaries, and, for that matter, the principles
by which telcos establish LATAs and those (if any) by which the
regulators approve them.  I have "enjoyed" trying to find this out
through the FCC public info system, but have had no luck.

Separately, there is a movement at the FCC to put information of some
sort on line.  The phone number is 202 254-6040. The guy's name is
Vincent.  He thinks the machine at fcc.gov should be in business some
time in the first or early second quarter.  However, he didn't know
anything about LATAs.

Thanks, and best regards.


Michael Dalby ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (John R. Grout)
Subject: Re: Are LATA Maps Available?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:02:45 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Tony Harminc <[e-mail].
edu> writes:

> Apart from the missing provinces, it should be pointed out that there
> are no LATAs in Canada.  Why Bellcore has chosen to assign some magic
> numbers to certain groupings of CO prefixes in Canada is a mystery to
> me.  LATA is not a technical division -- it is purely a political
> concept set up to match certain US politics of the early 1980s.

This sounds like a confusion between the LATA concept as a representation
of the physical plant of AT&T's regional telephone subsidiaries (e.g.,
New York Telephone, New England Telephone) and various independent
telcos (e.g., Rochester Telephone) at the time of divestiture and the
_use_ of the LATA concept (by Judge Greene) to divide provision of
telephone service _using_ the LATA concept.

The claim that LATA _layout_ was "not a technical division" is clearly
false.  For example, _all_ the cases of LATAs for independent telcos
or those which cross state lines _exactly_ represent physical plant.
Also, the AT&T divestiture was not a "political" one taken by the
Administration or the Congress, but was ordered by a Federal Judge.

> The forces shaping LD competition in Canada in the 1990s are quite
> different.  It seems extremely unlikely that an artificial split
> between IXCs and local telcos as in the US model will ever happen
> here.

Having grown up in Rochester, NY, home of what was then the largest
single-area independent telco in the USA, I don't think it was an
artificial distinction at all.  AT&T's monopoly on long distance
service and the cross-subsidization it allowed was draining money out
of our area to subsidize New York Telephone's local telephone rates
(so Rochester Telephone's local telephone rates were _far_ higher than
NY Tels before divestiture): that was simply _WRONG_.  Rochester
Telephone consistently fought AT&T's monopoly, was on the winning side
(against AT&T) of the Carterfone decision in the late 1960's, and
divestiture finally corrected the gross injustice of cross-subsidy for
the benefit of another company's customers.

I might not object to the RBOC's providing inter-LATA long distance
service to their own local-service customers, but I would want them as
_additional_ players, not dominant players, right from the beginning;
that is, no automatic cutover of customers to _their_ service, no
cross-subsidy of their long distance service by their local service,
and so on.  This is how both Rochester Telephone (which is allowed to
provide unlimited inter-LATA service through their RCI subsdiary) and
New Jersey Bell (which provides limited service to New York and to
Philadelphia from nearby New Jersey counties) market such services.


John R. Grout    INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Internet Connection via Satellite
Date: 8 Feb 94 16:52:03 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem


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

> What is the best way to connect to Internet from a location (in Asia)
> where there is no phone? A friend of mine is trying to setup via
> satellite but he has no idea of anything that involves in this
> connection. He is doing some research, and I am going to pass any
> information I get.

The first thing one must do is to see whether a private satellite
teleport is allowed to be set up in that country. If it is, then
depending upon bandwith requirements, you can get away with a cheap
VSAT or a $400,000 teleport. The interesting news is that new VSAT's
are being developed that will allow uplink/downlink of T1 bandwith and
these are expected to be marketed by first quarter 1995.

Once you have your teleport up and arrange for space segments, you'll
need to arrange for a US (or other) teleport for uplink/downlink
services. Be prepared to pay big bucks for this. Last but not least,
you'll have to arrange Internet connectivity through a provider.


Josh    [e-mail]

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

From: lhdsy1!chevron.com![e-mail] (David S. Taylor)
Subject: Re: Calling 911 on a Cellphone When Out of Area
Date: 9 Feb 94 05:38:19 GMT
Organization: Chevron Information Technology Company


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Galloway)
writes:

> When I call 911 on my cellular (having seen an accident just happen)
> it appears that I get forwarded to a fixed site that just dispatches
> the call to the proper 911 officem i.e. the first person answers "911
> emergency" but just asks where you are, and then the phone rings a
> second time and you get another "911 emergency".  This seems silly
> since obviously the provider has the necessary info about where you
> are to do this automatically.  I have not ever called 911 when out of
> my area. Would I still get the same (Northern CA) based dispatch
> operator who would then have to send me to (e.g.) Austin Texas 911???
> (I am using Cellular-One).

I would guess that the reason that "911 calls" are sent to a "fixed"
location and then transfered to the proper local agency is due the
wide geographic areas that most cellular systems cover.

For example, the coverage in Southern California runs from Santa
Barbara to San Diego and inland towards the Arizona border.  Since all
cellular calls route through the carrier's switch (probably located in
LA), it would be difficult to route the call to the proper agency
without knowing exactly where you are.  Cell sites overlap city and
county bondary lines.  There is a cell site near my house that I can
reach from either Irvine, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, or Santa Ana
because they all come together at the airport.

Hope this helps,


David S. Taylor   Texas A&M '87       Engineer, RF Systems
Chevron Information Technology Co.    Base Technology Dept.
1300 South Beach Blvd. Rm 2187        [e-mail]
La Habra, CA 90631                    310-694-7280

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven H. Lichter)
Subject: Re: GTE is Annoyed With Me
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria, B.C.
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 03:56:31 GMT


I'm breaking my long silence and will try and answer the statement
about GTE selling off Contel. What I know about the sales is what has
been published in company bulletins and from the news. I sure hope
they don't consider the bulletins to be private.

GTE has sold former Contel properties where they were small and not
near other larger or other GTE properties. This goes for the sales you
have mposted about plus others in Georga and the Decota's.  Some more
have been sold in Eastern Arizona, not Western Arizona. And the desert
area are not for sale in California, at least I have not heard. Also a
section up in the delta area of California was sold along with some
GTE areas, there maybe more that I have missed and I'm sure maybe a
few more. These sales make business sense since they are in the areas
of other companies that they were sold to.

Here is a list of areas of GTE Telephone Operations that are listed
for sale or trade, they are former ConTel areas as well as some GTE
operations. This list has been compiled from various sources and as
far as I can tell is correct, but I can't be responsible for such.
These are small areas that would not fit in with other GTE operations
and would be better served by other local operating companies. Also so
of these have been sold or traded for other properties as of 6/93.

Small section in Northern Calif.
Sections of Oregon and Idaho
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Kansas
Utah
Eastern Arizonia
Georgia
Tennessee
West Virgina
New York
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine

There could be more or some maybe incorrect.

This posting was made using my own Internet account on my own time
using my own computer and has nothing to do with my employer whoever
that might be.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #68
*****************************