Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_048.zip/TC15-048.TXT

Text File | 1995-01-22 | 54KB | 1,399 lines

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 48

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service? (Chuck
Poole)
    Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book? ([e-mail])
    Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet (Tim Curry)
    Re: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS (David Campbell)
    Re: GSM SIM Implementation (Eric Tholome)
    Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Marcus Lee)
    Re: Voice File Formats (Les Reeves)
    Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (Phil Ritter)
    Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (Al Niven)
    Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted (Jim Burkit)
    Re: Always Busy 800 Number? (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Kyle Sloan)
    Re: FCC PCS Auction Information (Bob Keller)
    Re: Cattle Call (Andrew C. Green)

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

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

                 * [e-mail] *

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

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

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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Poole)
Subject: Re: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service?
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:12:11
Organization: Voiceware Systems, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel
Winkowski) writes:

> I subscribe to an international callback service to get lower rates
> from the US to Europe. I need to fax and data connect to US numbers
> vai my modem.  I dial a US number, let it ring once, hang up, get
> called back and upon answering have a US dial tone.

> My timeout problem is with the callback service (if no activity
takes
> place once dial tone is established after ~20 seconds it disconnects
> so - "Changing the S-Register S7" or other modem characteristics
will
> not have any affect.

Most callback companies have come up with a more simplistic soloution
to your problem.  The solution involves playing a dial tone recording
(400-440hz) after the callback has been answered and thus "fooling"
the modem.  This feature was origionally invented so that PBX/Hotel
users could make use of callback services.  In a Hotel application,
the callback system plays "Please connect me with room 1234."  You
want this message to play a dialtone upon connect.

The sequence of events would be something like this:

1.  Initiate Callback (manually)
2.  Prepare your modem to dial as if you were dialing a direct number.
3.  When the callback starts ringing your modem line, command your
modem to go

offhook and dial (ATDT XXXXXXX, etc.)
4.  You modem will go offhook, hear the dialtone being played from the
callback provider, and be fooled into dialing the number.

Always make sure that ATS0=0, so your modem won't try and answer the
phone
automatically.


Best Regards,

Chuck Poole   Voiceware Systems, Inc.
Manufacturers of Custom T1/E1 switching systems.  Including Debit
Card,
Calling Card, 900 systems, and Protocol converters and routers.
407-655-1770 X14.

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

From: [e-mail] (BUBEYE!)
Subject: Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 01:07:25 GMT


[e-mail] (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:

> A typical phone book with both white and yellow pages has a
> map with a large white area surrounding a smaller yellow area.
> What is this map trying to tell me?

If you read the caption, it says "Directory delivery area" or
"Directory Coverage Area."  In other words, the yellow area represents
the geographical area which the directory (white pages) covers.  This
is also the area where the directory is distributed for free to
telephone subscribers.  Also, every business in the yellow area is
entitled to a free straight-line listing in the Yellow Pages, although
many pay a premium for a larger listing or a display ad, and some
decline any listing in the Yellow Pages at all.

> Are all the listed numbers in the white area supposed to be in white
> pages of the phone book?  They don't seem to be.

No, The white (surrounding) area is just for reference so you can see
where the area being covered is located by reference to surrounding
communities, etc.

> Is the phone book sent to all subscribers in the yellow area?

Yes.

> what does the yellow area stand for?  It clearly has little or
nothing
> to do with the locations of businesses that advertise in the yellow
> pages.

Every business telephone subscriber in the yellow area is entitled to
a free "straight-line" listing in the Yellow Pages.  Some businesses
run larger listings or even display ads instead, others opt out of
having any listing.  But any business, regardless of their location,
may purchase space in the Yellow Pages.  For example, some of my
businesses purchase Yellow Page space in directories nationwide even
though the business being advertised is in Seattle.

> GTE has "neighborhood" directories that invade PacBell's turf.

Some Bell Companies, like US West, are beginning to publish books for
distribution in independent areas, like GTE's, too.  Anyone who has
tried to deal with GTE directory sales people (or even find out how to
get a hold of them) finds this welcome news indeed!  Frequently,
though, "neighborhood" directories are published by independent
publishing companies who aren't tied to phone companies.

> A "neighborhood" directory is typically much thinner than a real
> directory.  Why?

Because they will print only paid listings and most businesses feel
that since they already have a listing in the "real" book, either for
free or that they've paid for, and that book is already universally
distributed, why bother?

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Curry)
Subject: Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:30:35
Organization: NBTel


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mark
Fraser) writes:

> -- New Brunswick.  NBTel went from free to 10.00 an hour last year,
> so everyone went away.  Last I heard, only a few came back when they
> reduced it back to five bucks.

Hi -- Perhaps I could update Mark's information on NBNet service in
New
Brunswick.  Although it was preceded by an un-priced ("free") market
trial, commercial service was introduced at $9.60 per hour early last
year.  Prices were decreased about mid-year to their current levels,
which are:

 $6.00 per hour from 8AM to 6PM
 $4.80 per hour from 6PM to 11PM
 $3.00 per hour from 11PM to 8AM

Service is available via local seven-digit call from every location in
New
Brunswick, at 28.8 Kpbs.  Other services are also available.

Our customers have not gone away, quite the contrary.  We're very
pleased
with the growth rates.  Thanks for the chance to comment; hope this
helps.


Tim Curry   NBTel
506 658-7100, FAX [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Campbell)
Subject: Re: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS
Organization: CamTek Micro Systems, Inc., Vancouver Washington USA.
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 22:31:28 GMT


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

> I am researching a business opportunity that will require extensive
> use of the AMIS-Analog networkng protocol to send voice mail
messages
> from system (Octel) to a different PC-based voice mail system.

> Any recommendations (or warnings) regarding PC based voice mail
vendors?

Investigate CallWare Technologies NLM for voice and data integration
on LANS.  It should do what you may want to do. Their phone number is
801-496-9922.


Dave Campbell

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Tholome)
Subject: Re: GSM SIM Implementation
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:42:53 +0200


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

> Most of the hand-held GSM phones use a "punched-out" section of the
> Smartcard, being about 1cmx2cm in size. The punch-out dimensions are
> also standard, but I don't know if they are included in ISO-7816.

And this totally ruins one of the nice purposes of the SIM: being able
to have several phones (for instance, one nice vehicle mounted phone,
and a hand held terminal) and still using them with one SIM only. If
two of your phones use different types of SIM, you're out of luck!
I've been told that some companies were now selling adapters, but the
convenience of all this has yet to be seen.

Luckily, it seems that manufacturers have realized this and they now
offer small hand-held terminals that will take normal size SIM cards.
But of course, these models can't be really small, limited as they are
by the size of the card. Would could have guessed that credit cards
would finally happen to be too big? :-)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcus Lee)
Subject: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List
Date: 20 Jan 1995 00:34:34 GMT
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland


[e-mail] (Robert Lindh) writes:

> Australia    Optus
>              Vodafon

That's spelled Vodafone.  You also missed the largest carrier in
Australia, Telecom/Telstra.

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

From: [e-mail] (Les Reeves)
Subject: Re: Voice File Formats
Date: 19 Jan 1995 13:07:44 -0800
Organization: CR Labs


TELEPHONETICS ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Can anyone give me information on the following formats for sound
files:

> VBase, Dialogic, Rhetorex and New Voice

Dialogic uses 4 bit ADPCM at 6 kHz based on an OKI chip.  That is what
the .VOX files are, although newer /D series can do mu-law at 64 kbps.
They are headerless, so just because you find a file with .VOX as the
extension does not prove it is Dialogic.

Rhetorex uses ADPCM, but the format is not disclosed.  It seems to be
something along the line of ITU G.721, or perhaps a bit better.  They
claim better S/N at lower sample rates than Dialogic, and their boards
were designed around more powerful DSP hardware.  My guess is that
they do something similar to Natural Microsystems VBX, which is to
first convert to mu-law or A-law per G.711, and then feed that into
the DSP ADPCM conversion.  Rhetorex also uses .VOX, but their files
have a header of sorts.  The data begins at about 80h, and I assume
index marks can go in the header although no file name or other info
appears to be there.

New Voice uses CVSD.  I can't remember whether it is the Motorola CVSD
or Harris CVSD.  New Voice is 24kbps.

I am not familiar with VBase.

Converting any of these files to something standard, like linear PCM
(WAV), is more involved than you might think.  Converting between two
different IVR formats can be quite involved.  Coverting offline
without one of the source or target systems installed generally uses
quite a lot of FPU MIPS.


Les     [e-mail]       Atlanta,GA      404.874.7806

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Ritter)
Subject: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs?
Organization: AirTouch Cellular, Los Angeles
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:54:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Liron Lightwood
<liron@insane.
apana.org.au> writes:

> Regarding the question of people always having to dial an area code
if
> cellular phone numbers were moved to their own prefix.  This does
not
> have to be the case.

> Here in Australia, we have the best of both worlds.  Our cellular
> phones have their own area code like prefixes, e.g. 018, 015, 041.
> However, when making a local call from a cellular phone, you only
have
> to dial the six or seven digit number, no area code required.

> For example, if you're in Melbourne (03), to dial [phone], you
> would dial 123 4567.  If you were in Sydney (02) and you wanted to
> dial [phone] you would dial 123 4567.

While this may be interesting in areas like Australia, where the
numbering plan areas (or city codes) are large, it breaks down quickly
in the NANP [at least in the dense parts of it].

For example, in Los Angeles, the metropolitan area is served by six
NPAs
(213, 310, 714, 805, 818, and 909).  There several points where,
unless you
had an intimate knowlege of the area, you could be "in" any one of
three NPAs [in fact, there are at least two locations where movement
of only a few blocks can take you from 213 to 310 to 818!].  Which NPA
should the wireless carrier use to deliver calls in this area?  Is it
really fair to expect customers to know the intimate details of their
location and which NPA they are now in?  It is not at all uncommon for
a five minute drive on the freeway to pass through five NPAs (many
combinations are possible).

Also, in areas where the terrain is not flat and/or where there are
large bodies of water with irregular shorelines (e.g., the Pacific
ocean on the LA/Orange County coast), the "cellular honeycomb" is not
perfect - it is possbile for calls to set-up on quite unexpected cell
sites [this had interesting implications for delivery of emergency
calls (911) too].  The "caller" and the cell that their call
originates
in may not be in the same NPA (in fact, near the NPA borders, the
calls and the serving cell are not even likely to be in the same NPA).
Using seven digit dialing based upon "caller location" rather than
"the
NPA of the calling mobile MIN" will have quite unexpected results.


Phil Ritter    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Niven)
Subject: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System
Date: 19 Jan 1995 11:31:01 -0500
Organization: The Pipeline

·


We have installed over 15 different brands of Interactive Voice
Response and Voicemail and Fax On Demand and Callback and Telephone
Answering Service Equipment over the past six years all over the
country on over 150 types of pbx's especially pbx's where the
manufacturer said it cannot be done and in circumstances where a
previous vendor had been ripped out.  If you would be so kind as to
provide your phone number we can discuss the info and references sent
via email.


Al Niven    Video, Voice, and Data, Inc.
292 Fifth Avenue, #201
NY NY 10001
212-714-3531 voice
212-714-3510 fax (attention Al Niven)

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

Date: 19 Jan 1995 09:58:09 GMT
From: JIM BURKIT <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted


Ton Engbersen asked:

> In Sonet/SDH multiplexer and section overhead, there are the D1..D12
> bytes, reserved for "network management and supervision". Can anyone
> shed some light on the data transmission protocol which governs
these
> DCC channels?  Is this (already?) standardized? If so which
standard?

The SONET DDC has been standardized.  It is a 7 layer OSI stack.  The
base standard in the US is T1.105 and in the ITU it is G.784.  These
base standards point to other documents.  In the ITU G.784 points to
Q.811 and Q.812.  I am not sure which standards the ANSI standard
points to as the US document is being being revised this week in T1X1.
As you are in Europe I hope the SDH information is enough.


Jim Burkitt

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:12:44 EST
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Always Busy 800 Number?


In article <[e-mail]>, Matt <[e-mail]>
says:

> What's an 800 number that is always busy? (and don't say Gateway
2000
> Tech Support). Something that is guaranteed always busy.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (Suspicious, squinting eyes) Why do
you want
> to know?  PAT]

Hey maybe it's a riddle?

Answer:

When the 800 number terminates on your POTS line and you have called
it from that line (assume no call-forwarding etc.)

I admit, not funny, but the best that I could do.  ;-)


Pete


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a good one for you to figure
out.
I have two 800 numbers. Even though I have call-waiting on the line
where
the 800 numbers terminate, I expect to be unable to dial my own number
and
get call-waiting. We all know when you dial your own number (from that
number) you just get a busy signal.  Okay?  ... well, when I use the
phone
to dial the 800 numbers, one of them does in fact go off somewhere,
set up
the call, come back to me and give me a call-waiting tone. Obviously
it
leaves my switch and returns. Now the other 800 number on the other
hand
is quite a mystery to me -- how it operates, that is. When I dial it
the
call goes through *instantly* as though it were a local call, and if I
dial it from the phone it terminates on, I instantly get a busy
signal.
I do NOT get the 800 number from Ameritech/IBT (from another carrier,
a
little outfit actually), so I do not know how Ameritech can have such
umm, intimate familiarity with it. It would appear to not even leave
the switch at all. Any ideas?  The first 800 number seems to get to
its
own switch somewhere and get outdialed back to me. What is the second
one doing, just getting translated locally somehow in my switch?
PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kyle Sloan)
Subject: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia?
Date: 20 Jan 1995 00:36:13 GMT
Organization: Questar Network Services


chuck lukaszewski ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I received some information from LDDS/Metromedia yesterday about
their
> long distance service. The rates seem entirely too good to be true,
> and I'm wondering if anyone here has experience (good or bad) that
> they would share.

> At the moment, I'm spending a lot of time on the telephone to NYC.
> After a pretty exhaustive evaluation of AT&T, Sprint and MCI we
found
> the lowest we could get was 23.7 cents per minute peak on AT&T.
LDDS
> claims to charge 15 cents per minute with a one year commitment
> (includes a 90-day out clause). I talked to AT&T and they're pulling
> the "we're regulated and can't compete with those numbers" routine.

My company uses LDDS as our LD provider.  They helped us set up a T1
with a Newbridge channelbank.  Our average phone bill is over $3,000
for long distance only.  They are giving us the BEST prices of anyone
on the market.  Our representative is supremely easy to deal with
anytime I have questions about our service.  We are paying anywhere
between $0.075/min. to $0.145/min.  Forget the big three ... they just
can't come close.


kyle sloan  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:30:56 EST
From: Bob Keller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC PCS Auction Information


On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Willis H. Ware wrote:

> Your discussion of PCS services in the recent T-COM Digest was very
> interesting.

Thank you.

> Your discussion of PCS services in the recent TELECOM Digest was
very
> interesting.  Did I not understand correctly that the GATT
legislation
> had some sweetheart deals in it apropos of the licenses issued for
this
> service?

Yes and No.  See the discussion below.

> If this is correct, perhaps some clarifying discussion in the
> Digest would be of general interest.

Prior to the time Congress granted the FCC auction authority (at which
such time the FCC realized it was quite possible that mutually
exclusive PCS applications would have to processed via lotteries
and/or comparative hearings), the FCC had tentatively decided to award
"pioneer's preferences" to three companies: American Personal
Communications (APC), Cox Cable Communications, Inc. (Cox), Omnipoint
Communications, Inc.  (Omnipoint).  The pioneer's preference program
was an ill-conceived (IMHO) policy designed to reward companies that
expended resources developing and advancing new and innovative
services and technologies.  The pioneer's preferences in PCS were
awarded to APC for its development and demonstration of PCS/microwave
spectrum sharing technologies, to Cox for its development and
demonstration of PCS/cable plant interface technology, and to
Omnipoint for its development of 2 GHz PCS equipment.

As originally conceived, these pioneer's preferences awards would have
meant a "free" license for each of these companies, i.e., they would
not have had to take their chances in a lottery.  It was decided that
30 MHz licenses would be given to APC for the Washington/Baltimore
MTA, to Cox for the Los Angeles/San Diego MTA, and to Omnipoint for
the New York MTA.  That is why, even though their are 51 MTAs, there
are only 99 (rather than 102) licenses up for grabs in the Blocks A
and B auction currently underway.

But then came the legislation authorizing and (in the case of PCS)
requiring auctions.  The Commission decided to go back to the drawing
board to consider whether the awards made any sense in that context.
They eventually decided that the awards would stand, but that APC,
Cox, and Omnipoint would each have to pay an amount discounted from
the winning bid for comparable licenses in the auction.

YAWN ... yes, I am getting to GATT ... be patient <g>.

Almost no one was happy with this arrangement. Not potential PCS
players who saw three lucrative licenses slipping away with no
opportunity to bid on them, not the "pioneers" who were now going to
have to pay for licenses they thought they were getting for free, and
probably not even the FCC staff who had to listen to all the bitching
and moaning. Anyway, the whole mess got stuck into legislation
ratifying the Paraguay Rounds of GATT (Don't you just love the
Congressional process). Congress blessed the awards and promulgated a
formula for calculating how much the pioneers would have to pay.

In December of last year, after the GATT legislation, the Commission
finally granted the three Block A licenses to APC, Cox, and Omnipoint.
These license grants are subject to several conditions, including (1)
that each licensee construct a system in the specified MTA
substantially
using the technology on which its pioneers' preference was based, (2)
that each licensee retain control for at least three years after
initial
licensing or until it has met its five-year build-out requirement, and
(3) that each licensee pay to the US Treasury an amount equal to 85%
of the adjusted value of the license.  Payments will be made over a
five year period.

Essentially, the GATT legislation requires each of the three pioneers
to pay 85% of the adjusted value of its license. The adjusted value
will be calculated as follows: At the conclusion of the current
Broadband auctions, the FCC will determine the average per pop price
for the 20 largest MTAs other than the three in question, and then
apply that per pop average to the three MTAs. However, the Commission
is required to collect a minimum of $400 Million. If the amount
derived by applying the adjustment formula minus 85% is less than $400
Million, the difference is to be spread over the three markets in
question on the basis of their relative population.  FWIW, the total
high bids for the Block B licenses in these three markets currently
stands at approximately $760.4 Million.


Bob Keller (KY3R)   Email: [e-mail]
Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C.    Telephone:  [phone]
Federal Telecommunications Law    Facsimile:  301.229.6875

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 16:47:19 CST
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cattle Call


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A couple of questions for whoever
knows
> the answers ... is it hard to train a cow to respond to your call?
Is
> there some sort of protective covering for the pager to keep it out
> of the rain and water, etc?

Never mind that; I want to know how they push the little button!

Andy

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #48
*****************************



 @FROM   :[e-mail]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From [e-mail]  Thu Jan 19 22:46:13 1995
Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu (delta.eecs.nwu.edu [129.105.5.103])
by
coyote.channel1.com (8.6.9/8.6.4) with SMTP id WAA17221; Thu, 19 Jan
1995
22:46:13 -0500
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy)
 id AA19407; Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:04 CST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy)
 id AA19400; Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:00 CST
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:00 CST
From: [e-mail] (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson))
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #48


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 48

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service? (Chuck
Poole)
    Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book? ([e-mail])
    Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet (Tim Curry)
    Re: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS (David Campbell)
    Re: GSM SIM Implementation (Eric Tholome)
    Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Marcus Lee)
    Re: Voice File Formats (Les Reeves)
    Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (Phil Ritter)
    Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (Al Niven)
    Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted (Jim Burkit)
    Re: Always Busy 800 Number? (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Kyle Sloan)
    Re: FCC PCS Auction Information (Bob Keller)
    Re: Cattle Call (Andrew C. Green)

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

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

                 * [e-mail] *

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

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

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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Poole)
Subject: Re: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service?
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:12:11
Organization: Voiceware Systems, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel
Winkowski) writes:

> I subscribe to an international callback service to get lower rates
> from the US to Europe. I need to fax and data connect to US numbers
> vai my modem.  I dial a US number, let it ring once, hang up, get
> called back and upon answering have a US dial tone.

> My timeout problem is with the callback service (if no activity
takes
> place once dial tone is established after ~20 seconds it disconnects
> so - "Changing the S-Register S7" or other modem characteristics
will
> not have any affect.

Most callback companies have come up with a more simplistic soloution
to your problem.  The solution involves playing a dial tone recording
(400-440hz) after the callback has been answered and thus "fooling"
the modem.  This feature was origionally invented so that PBX/Hotel
users could make use of callback services.  In a Hotel application,
the callback system plays "Please connect me with room 1234."  You
want this message to play a dialtone upon connect.

The sequence of events would be something like this:

1.  Initiate Callback (manually)
2.  Prepare your modem to dial as if you were dialing a direct number.
3.  When the callback starts ringing your modem line, command your
modem to go

offhook and dial (ATDT XXXXXXX, etc.)
4.  You modem will go offhook, hear the dialtone being played from the
callback provider, and be fooled into dialing the number.

Always make sure that ATS0=0, so your modem won't try and answer the
phone
automatically.


Best Regards,

Chuck Poole   Voiceware Systems, Inc.
Manufacturers of Custom T1/E1 switching systems.  Including Debit
Card,
Calling Card, 900 systems, and Protocol converters and routers.
407-655-1770 X14.

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

From: [e-mail] (BUBEYE!)
Subject: Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 01:07:25 GMT


[e-mail] (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:

> A typical phone book with both white and yellow pages has a
> map with a large white area surrounding a smaller yellow area.
> What is this map trying to tell me?

If you read the caption, it says "Directory delivery area" or
"Directory Coverage Area."  In other words, the yellow area represents
the geographical area which the directory (white pages) covers.  This
is also the area where the directory is distributed for free to
telephone subscribers.  Also, every business in the yellow area is
entitled to a free straight-line listing in the Yellow Pages, although
many pay a premium for a larger listing or a display ad, and some
decline any listing in the Yellow Pages at all.

> Are all the listed numbers in the white area supposed to be in white
> pages of the phone book?  They don't seem to be.

No, The white (surrounding) area is just for reference so you can see
where the area being covered is located by reference to surrounding
communities, etc.

> Is the phone book sent to all subscribers in the yellow area?

Yes.

> what does the yellow area stand for?  It clearly has little or
nothing
> to do with the locations of businesses that advertise in the yellow
> pages.

Every business telephone subscriber in the yellow area is entitled to
a free "straight-line" listing in the Yellow Pages.  Some businesses
run larger listings or even display ads instead, others opt out of
having any listing.  But any business, regardless of their location,
may purchase space in the Yellow Pages.  For example, some of my
businesses purchase Yellow Page space in directories nationwide even
though the business being advertised is in Seattle.

> GTE has "neighborhood" directories that invade PacBell's turf.

Some Bell Companies, like US West, are beginning to publish books for
distribution in independent areas, like GTE's, too.  Anyone who has
tried to deal with GTE directory sales people (or even find out how to
get a hold of them) finds this welcome news indeed!  Frequently,
though, "neighborhood" directories are published by independent
publishing companies who aren't tied to phone companies.

> A "neighborhood" directory is typically much thinner than a real
> directory.  Why?

Because they will print only paid listings and most businesses feel
that since they already have a listing in the "real" book, either for
free or that they've paid for, and that book is already universally
distributed, why bother?

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Curry)
Subject: Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:30:35
Organization: NBTel


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mark
Fraser) writes:

> -- New Brunswick.  NBTel went from free to 10.00 an hour last year,
> so everyone went away.  Last I heard, only a few came back when they
> reduced it back to five bucks.

Hi -- Perhaps I could update Mark's information on NBNet service in
New
Brunswick.  Although it was preceded by an un-priced ("free") market
trial, commercial service was introduced at $9.60 per hour early last
year.  Prices were decreased about mid-year to their current levels,
which are:

 $6.00 per hour from 8AM to 6PM
 $4.80 per hour from 6PM to 11PM
 $3.00 per hour from 11PM to 8AM

Service is available via local seven-digit call from every location in
New
Brunswick, at 28.8 Kpbs.  Other services are also available.

Our customers have not gone away, quite the contrary.  We're very
pleased
with the growth rates.  Thanks for the chance to comment; hope this
helps.


Tim Curry   NBTel
506 658-7100, FAX [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Campbell)
Subject: Re: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS
Organization: CamTek Micro Systems, Inc., Vancouver Washington USA.
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 22:31:28 GMT


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

> I am researching a business opportunity that will require extensive
> use of the AMIS-Analog networkng protocol to send voice mail
messages
> from system (Octel) to a different PC-based voice mail system.

> Any recommendations (or warnings) regarding PC based voice mail
vendors?

Investigate CallWare Technologies NLM for voice and data integration
on LANS.  It should do what you may want to do. Their phone number is
801-496-9922.


Dave Campbell

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Tholome)
Subject: Re: GSM SIM Implementation
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:42:53 +0200


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

> Most of the hand-held GSM phones use a "punched-out" section of the
> Smartcard, being about 1cmx2cm in size. The punch-out dimensions are
> also standard, but I don't know if they are included in ISO-7816.

And this totally ruins one of the nice purposes of the SIM: being able
to have several phones (for instance, one nice vehicle mounted phone,
and a hand held terminal) and still using them with one SIM only. If
two of your phones use different types of SIM, you're out of luck!
I've been told that some companies were now selling adapters, but the
convenience of all this has yet to be seen.

Luckily, it seems that manufacturers have realized this and they now
offer small hand-held terminals that will take normal size SIM cards.
But of course, these models can't be really small, limited as they are
by the size of the card. Would could have guessed that credit cards
would finally happen to be too big? :-)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcus Lee)
Subject: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List
Date: 20 Jan 1995 00:34:34 GMT
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland


[e-mail] (Robert Lindh) writes:

> Australia    Optus
>              Vodafon

That's spelled Vodafone.  You also missed the largest carrier in
Australia, Telecom/Telstra.

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

From: [e-mail] (Les Reeves)
Subject: Re: Voice File Formats
Date: 19 Jan 1995 13:07:44 -0800
Organization: CR Labs


TELEPHONETICS ([e-mail]) wrote:

> Can anyone give me information on the following formats for sound
files:

> VBase, Dialogic, Rhetorex and New Voice

Dialogic uses 4 bit ADPCM at 6 kHz based on an OKI chip.  That is what
the .VOX files are, although newer /D series can do mu-law at 64 kbps.
They are headerless, so just because you find a file with .VOX as the
extension does not prove it is Dialogic.

Rhetorex uses ADPCM, but the format is not disclosed.  It seems to be
something along the line of ITU G.721, or perhaps a bit better.  They
claim better S/N at lower sample rates than Dialogic, and their boards
were designed around more powerful DSP hardware.  My guess is that
they do something similar to Natural Microsystems VBX, which is to
first convert to mu-law or A-law per G.711, and then feed that into
the DSP ADPCM conversion.  Rhetorex also uses .VOX, but their files
have a header of sorts.  The data begins at about 80h, and I assume
index marks can go in the header although no file name or other info
appears to be there.

New Voice uses CVSD.  I can't remember whether it is the Motorola CVSD
or Harris CVSD.  New Voice is 24kbps.

I am not familiar with VBase.

Converting any of these files to something standard, like linear PCM
(WAV), is more involved than you might think.  Converting between two
different IVR formats can be quite involved.  Coverting offline
without one of the source or target systems installed generally uses
quite a lot of FPU MIPS.


Les     [e-mail]       Atlanta,GA      404.874.7806

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

From: [e-mail] (Phil Ritter)
Subject: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs?
Organization: AirTouch Cellular, Los Angeles
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:54:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Liron Lightwood
<liron@insane.
apana.org.au> writes:

> Regarding the question of people always having to dial an area code
if
> cellular phone numbers were moved to their own prefix.  This does
not
> have to be the case.

> Here in Australia, we have the best of both worlds.  Our cellular
> phones have their own area code like prefixes, e.g. 018, 015, 041.
> However, when making a local call from a cellular phone, you only
have
> to dial the six or seven digit number, no area code required.

> For example, if you're in Melbourne (03), to dial [phone], you
> would dial 123 4567.  If you were in Sydney (02) and you wanted to
> dial [phone] you would dial 123 4567.

While this may be interesting in areas like Australia, where the
numbering plan areas (or city codes) are large, it breaks down quickly
in the NANP [at least in the dense parts of it].

For example, in Los Angeles, the metropolitan area is served by six
NPAs
(213, 310, 714, 805, 818, and 909).  There several points where,
unless you
had an intimate knowlege of the area, you could be "in" any one of
three NPAs [in fact, there are at least two locations where movement
of only a few blocks can take you from 213 to 310 to 818!].  Which NPA
should the wireless carrier use to deliver calls in this area?  Is it
really fair to expect customers to know the intimate details of their
location and which NPA they are now in?  It is not at all uncommon for
a five minute drive on the freeway to pass through five NPAs (many
combinations are possible).

Also, in areas where the terrain is not flat and/or where there are
large bodies of water with irregular shorelines (e.g., the Pacific
ocean on the LA/Orange County coast), the "cellular honeycomb" is not
perfect - it is possbile for calls to set-up on quite unexpected cell
sites [this had interesting implications for delivery of emergency
calls (911) too].  The "caller" and the cell that their call
originates
in may not be in the same NPA (in fact, near the NPA borders, the
calls and the serving cell are not even likely to be in the same NPA).
Using seven digit dialing based upon "caller location" rather than
"the
NPA of the calling mobile MIN" will have quite unexpected results.


Phil Ritter    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Niven)
Subject: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System
Date: 19 Jan 1995 11:31:01 -0500
Organization: The Pipeline

·


We have installed over 15 different brands of Interactive Voice
Response and Voicemail and Fax On Demand and Callback and Telephone
Answering Service Equipment over the past six years all over the
country on over 150 types of pbx's especially pbx's where the
manufacturer said it cannot be done and in circumstances where a
previous vendor had been ripped out.  If you would be so kind as to
provide your phone number we can discuss the info and references sent
via email.


Al Niven    Video, Voice, and Data, Inc.
292 Fifth Avenue, #201
NY NY 10001
212-714-3531 voice
212-714-3510 fax (attention Al Niven)

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

Date: 19 Jan 1995 09:58:09 GMT
From: JIM BURKIT <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted


Ton Engbersen asked:

> In Sonet/SDH multiplexer and section overhead, there are the D1..D12
> bytes, reserved for "network management and supervision". Can anyone
> shed some light on the data transmission protocol which governs
these
> DCC channels?  Is this (already?) standardized? If so which
standard?

The SONET DDC has been standardized.  It is a 7 layer OSI stack.  The
base standard in the US is T1.105 and in the ITU it is G.784.  These
base standards point to other documents.  In the ITU G.784 points to
Q.811 and Q.812.  I am not sure which standards the ANSI standard
points to as the US document is being being revised this week in T1X1.
As you are in Europe I hope the SDH information is enough.


Jim Burkitt

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:12:44 EST
From: Peter M. Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Always Busy 800 Number?


In article <[e-mail]>, Matt <[e-mail]>
says:

> What's an 800 number that is always busy? (and don't say Gateway
2000
> Tech Support). Something that is guaranteed always busy.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (Suspicious, squinting eyes) Why do
you want
> to know?  PAT]

Hey maybe it's a riddle?

Answer:

When the 800 number terminates on your POTS line and you have called
it from that line (assume no call-forwarding etc.)

I admit, not funny, but the best that I could do.  ;-)


Pete


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a good one for you to figure
out.
I have two 800 numbers. Even though I have call-waiting on the line
where
the 800 numbers terminate, I expect to be unable to dial my own number
and
get call-waiting. We all know when you dial your own number (from that
number) you just get a busy signal.  Okay?  ... well, when I use the
phone
to dial the 800 numbers, one of them does in fact go off somewhere,
set up
the call, come back to me and give me a call-waiting tone. Obviously
it
leaves my switch and returns. Now the other 800 number on the other
hand
is quite a mystery to me -- how it operates, that is. When I dial it
the
call goes through *instantly* as though it were a local call, and if I
dial it from the phone it terminates on, I instantly get a busy
signal.
I do NOT get the 800 number from Ameritech/IBT (from another carrier,
a
little outfit actually), so I do not know how Ameritech can have such
umm, intimate familiarity with it. It would appear to not even leave
the switch at all. Any ideas?  The first 800 number seems to get to
its
own switch somewhere and get outdialed back to me. What is the second
one doing, just getting translated locally somehow in my switch?
PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kyle Sloan)
Subject: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia?
Date: 20 Jan 1995 00:36:13 GMT
Organization: Questar Network Services


chuck lukaszewski ([e-mail]) wrote:

> I received some information from LDDS/Metromedia yesterday about
their
> long distance service. The rates seem entirely too good to be true,
> and I'm wondering if anyone here has experience (good or bad) that
> they would share.

> At the moment, I'm spending a lot of time on the telephone to NYC.
> After a pretty exhaustive evaluation of AT&T, Sprint and MCI we
found
> the lowest we could get was 23.7 cents per minute peak on AT&T.
LDDS
> claims to charge 15 cents per minute with a one year commitment
> (includes a 90-day out clause). I talked to AT&T and they're pulling
> the "we're regulated and can't compete with those numbers" routine.

My company uses LDDS as our LD provider.  They helped us set up a T1
with a Newbridge channelbank.  Our average phone bill is over $3,000
for long distance only.  They are giving us the BEST prices of anyone
on the market.  Our representative is supremely easy to deal with
anytime I have questions about our service.  We are paying anywhere
between $0.075/min. to $0.145/min.  Forget the big three ... they just
can't come close.


kyle sloan  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:30:56 EST
From: Bob Keller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC PCS Auction Information


On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Willis H. Ware wrote:

> Your discussion of PCS services in the recent T-COM Digest was very
> interesting.

Thank you.

> Your discussion of PCS services in the recent TELECOM Digest was
very
> interesting.  Did I not understand correctly that the GATT
legislation
> had some sweetheart deals in it apropos of the licenses issued for
this
> service?

Yes and No.  See the discussion below.

> If this is correct, perhaps some clarifying discussion in the
> Digest would be of general interest.

Prior to the time Congress granted the FCC auction authority (at which
such time the FCC realized it was quite possible that mutually
exclusive PCS applications would have to processed via lotteries
and/or comparative hearings), the FCC had tentatively decided to award
"pioneer's preferences" to three companies: American Personal
Communications (APC), Cox Cable Communications, Inc. (Cox), Omnipoint
Communications, Inc.  (Omnipoint).  The pioneer's preference program
was an ill-conceived (IMHO) policy designed to reward companies that
expended resources developing and advancing new and innovative
services and technologies.  The pioneer's preferences in PCS were
awarded to APC for its development and demonstration of PCS/microwave
spectrum sharing technologies, to Cox for its development and
demonstration of PCS/cable plant interface technology, and to
Omnipoint for its development of 2 GHz PCS equipment.

As originally conceived, these pioneer's preferences awards would have
meant a "free" license for each of these companies, i.e., they would
not have had to take their chances in a lottery.  It was decided that
30 MHz licenses would be given to APC for the Washington/Baltimore
MTA, to Cox for the Los Angeles/San Diego MTA, and to Omnipoint for
the New York MTA.  That is why, even though their are 51 MTAs, there
are only 99 (rather than 102) licenses up for grabs in the Blocks A
and B auction currently underway.

But then came the legislation authorizing and (in the case of PCS)
requiring auctions.  The Commission decided to go back to the drawing
board to consider whether the awards made any sense in that context.
They eventually decided that the awards would stand, but that APC,
Cox, and Omnipoint would each have to pay an amount discounted from
the winning bid for comparable licenses in the auction.

YAWN ... yes, I am getting to GATT ... be patient <g>.

Almost no one was happy with this arrangement. Not potential PCS
players who saw three lucrative licenses slipping away with no
opportunity to bid on them, not the "pioneers" who were now going to
have to pay for licenses they thought they were getting for free, and
probably not even the FCC staff who had to listen to all the bitching
and moaning. Anyway, the whole mess got stuck into legislation
ratifying the Paraguay Rounds of GATT (Don't you just love the
Congressional process). Congress blessed the awards and promulgated a
formula for calculating how much the pioneers would have to pay.

In December of last year, after the GATT legislation, the Commission
finally granted the three Block A licenses to APC, Cox, and Omnipoint.
These license grants are subject to several conditions, including (1)
that each licensee construct a system in the specified MTA
substantially
using the technology on which its pioneers' preference was based, (2)
that each licensee retain control for at least three years after
initial
licensing or until it has met its five-year build-out requirement, and
(3) that each licensee pay to the US Treasury an amount equal to 85%
of the adjusted value of the license.  Payments will be made over a
five year period.

Essentially, the GATT legislation requires each of the three pioneers
to pay 85% of the adjusted value of its license. The adjusted value
will be calculated as follows: At the conclusion of the current
Broadband auctions, the FCC will determine the average per pop price
for the 20 largest MTAs other than the three in question, and then
apply that per pop average to the three MTAs. However, the Commission
is required to collect a minimum of $400 Million. If the amount
derived by applying the adjustment formula minus 85% is less than $400
Million, the difference is to be spread over the three markets in
question on the basis of their relative population.  FWIW, the total
high bids for the Block B licenses in these three markets currently
stands at approximately $760.4 Million.


Bob Keller (KY3R)   Email: [e-mail]
Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C.    Telephone:  [phone]
Federal Telecommunications Law    Facsimile:  301.229.6875

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 16:47:19 CST
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cattle Call


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A couple of questions for whoever
knows
> the answers ... is it hard to train a cow to respond to your call?
Is
> there some sort of protective covering for the pager to keep it out
> of the rain and water, etc?

Never mind that; I want to know how they push the little button!

Andy

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #48
*****************************