Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_075.zip/TC15-075.TXT

Text File | 1995-03-12 | 25KB | 615 lines

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Feb 95 20:16:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 75

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Digital Announces Unix Intelligent Delivery Platform (Philippe
Ravix)
    Stand-Alone Fax Box for PC (Yongtao Chen)
    Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Wes Leatherock)
    Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Tad Cook)
    Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Scott Montague)
    Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Terrence McArdle)
    Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (John Levine)
    Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Mike Boyd)
    Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Patton M. Turner)

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

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

                 * [e-mail] *

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

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

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 10:21:17 PST
From: Philippe RAVIX <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digital Announces Unix Intelligent Delivery Platform


 DIGITAL ANNOUNCES UNIX INTELLINGENT NETWORK
  SERVICES DELIVERY PLATFORM

February 1, 1995, NEW ORLEANS:

Digital Equipment Corporation today announced a UNIX version of it's
powerful and flexible Intelligent Network Services Delivery platform.

This UNIX platform is the latest addition to Digital's IN Product
Portfolio; a full array of Intelligent Network products which are
running today in live Telecom wireline and wireless networks
world-wide.  Building on proven experience in delivering IN revenue
producing new solutions, Digital has added leadership UNIX and
AlphaGeneration products to produce an unbeatable new IN platform.

Digital also announced several new features that will be available on
both the new UNIX and existing OpenVMS versions of the IN Services
Delivery Platform. Of particular interest to Wireless Network
Operators attending CTIA are:

 * TCAP ITU-T White Book compliance for the support of wireless
   services implementing MAP Phase 2.

 * Support of multiple standards (example ANSI and ITU-T)
   within the same platform enabling creation of services
   requiring IS41-GSM gateways.

In addition, Digital announced price reductions of up to 35% for both
the OpenVMS and UNIX versions.  This includes the entry level platform
which is used for service development or provision of test market or
specialized services.  This entry level platform is now the lowest
priced on the market.

Digital's IN Services Delivery Platforms are based on two key
elements: the AlphaGeneration family of processors -- the fastest in
the world -- plus DECss7, Digital's implementation of world-wide
Signalling System Number 7 protocol standards.  DECss7 is a unique
distributed implementation which provides unsurpassed levels of
availability and scalability.  Digital's UNIX is the first UNIX to
integrate all of the UNIX standards including UNIX System V.

The IN Services Delivery Platform is used today as the foundation for
implementing a large variety of IN systems such as Service Control
Points (SCPs), Intelligent Peripherals (IPs), Mobile Services
Platforms providing HLR, VLR, AUC, EIR, and SMSC services plus
gateways providing inter-standard connectivity services.

The new UNIX version of Digital's IN Services Delivery Platform
provides the same proven functionality as the OpenVMS version
including:

 o NON-STOP AVAILABILITY:

  The IN Services Delivery Platform provides
    software fault tolerance plus the ability to implement
  configuration upgrades without service interuption.
  The platform has passed the strictest availability tests
  in the telecom industry performed by some of the most
  discriminating Network Operators in the world.

 o FULL RANGE OF CONFIGURATIONS:

  A unique client-server based distributed architecture allows
  a choice of configurations to match all levels of performance
  and availability requirements. The range is from an entry
  level platform (to be used in both a lab environment for
  development purposes or a live network environment for
  deployment of pilot or highly specialized services) through
  to fully distributed, high performance, high availability
  configurations.  Applications running on an entry level
  platform are transparently upgradable to a distributed
  IN Services Delivery Platform.

 o POWERFUL PERFORMANCE AND SCALABILITY:

  Digital's IN Services Delivery Platform can handle from two
  to hundreds of SS7 links and thousands of SS7 messages per
  second. Non-stop addition and removal of machines to the
  distributed platform allows capacity to be added as
  requirements evolve.  With the IN Services Delivery
    Platform's distributed architecture, Network Operators can be
    assured of the smoothest path available to grow the platform
  as the subscriber base and service success grow.

 o COMPLETE CONNECTIVITY:

  The IN Services Delivery Platform is fully SS7 standards
  compliant, including ITU-T, ANSI, and TTC.  In addition,
  many country variants are supported. Different SS7 standards
  can be mixed on the same platform enabling the development
  of inter-standard services and gateways. There is a full
  array of physical connectivity options. For platforms
  deployed as Intelligent Peripherals, ISDN protocols and
  connectivity are supported including ISUP.

 o EFFICIENT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT:

  Applications can be developed in C or C++ languages using
  Digital's leading software development tools.  The IN Services
  Delivery Platform has multiple Applications Programming
  Interfaces at TCAP, SCCP, and MTP levels which can be accessed
  simultaneously; a requirement for a number of new services
  such as GSM Short Message Service Center.

 o MANAGEMENT TAILORED FOR YOUR ENVIRONMENT:

  The IN Services Delivery Platform provides powerful and
  complete management functionality.  The complete platform
  including applications, the configuration, and all of the
  SS7 defined Signalling Point functionality can be managed
  in a consistent way from a tailored management application
  using an object-oriented model.

 o WORLD-CLASS SERVICES AND MISSION CRITICAL SUPPORT:

  Digital has provided IN products and services to the major
  Telecom Network Operators in the world, including full
  round-the-clock telecom network mission critical support
  services for some of the highest service revenue producing
  SCPs in the world.

Digital works with a variety of partners to deliver complete computing
systems tailored to customer needs and is actively building an
expanded
global network of value added partners.

Digital's goal is to deliver the highest performance and most
cost-effective platforms for building computer based Intelligent
Network solutions today.  Digital's IN Portfolio enables Software
Providers, Telecom Equipment Manufacturers, and Telecom Network
Operators to produce and implement leading service revenue producing
IN services for today and tomorrow's wireline and wireless networks.

To have more information you can contact:


[e-mail] Phone : [phone]
[e-mail] Phone : [phone]


Philippe Ravix                   E-mail: [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corporation    Phone : [phone]
305 Rockrimmon Blvd., South      Colorado Springs, CO 80919

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

From: [e-mail] (Yongtao Chen)
Subject: Stand-alone Fax Box For PC
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 10:59:53 -0500


I am looking for some kind of "stand-alone fax box" for PC.  The box
should be able to receive and store coming faxes automatically when I
am away from my home, with no need to turn on my computer; and after I
come back, I can turn on my computer and down load the faxes received
from the box to my PC.  Could anybody on net give me some advice about
what machine I should buy, or which company I should contact, or which
magazine I should look for ads?  Any information is very much
appreciated.

Please reply to "[e-mail]" or "[e-mail]"


Thanks,

yongtao

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing
Date: 2 Feb 1995 08:53:50 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway


evan champion <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Recently there has been a lot of talk about having to do ten digit
> dialing to call even local numbers that are in a different phone
> number.

> I have a number of users who are going to be affected by the above
> and am looking for a good explanation for them.  I'm myself am not
> completely sure myself of all the reasons for making the changes to
> out-of-area dialing and would like to get it right the first time :-
)

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, it is eleven digit dialing,
> not ten digit if you count the '1' on the front. However, one would
> think that when this becomes universal all over the USA that we
could
> in fact get by with ten digits since the '1' would no longer be
> needed; there would be no 'local' calls to distinquish from 'long
> distance'. Since everything that we dial would consist of area code
> plus seven digits, there would be no need for a '1' to indicate that
> 'what follows is an area code' -- everything that follows would be
> area codes!

          In the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, you must dial 10
(not 11 digits) if you are dialing a call to a local number in the
other area code.  (Dallas is in the 214 NPA, Fort Worth in the 817
NPA.)

         One-plus dialing in those exchanges does not indicate that an
area code follows, but that the call is a toll call.  (Of course, now
that an area code is required on all One-Plus dialing, there will be
an area code on all toll calls, but at least in the Dallas-Fort Worth
area the 1+ does not indicate anything but that the call is a toll
call.)

         Note that almost all telephone service in the Dallas-Fort
Worth area is flat rate.  A local call generates no billing whatever
(except for the very few message rate customers).  This is true, I
believe, almost everywhere in the United States except in the
Northeast and in the Chicago area.

         The LECs would dearly love to introduce "usage sensitive
pricing" everywhere, but customers with flat rate service generate
such
tremendous protest that even if the commission will consider it, the
state legislature will start considering legislation to make mandatory
message rate charging unlawful in that state.  (The legislature would
probably pass it, too, if the commission itself didn't reject the
idea.)

         Complaining and protests about general rate case activity
pale into insignificance compared to the heat generated by proposals
to
abandon flat rate pricing.


Wes Leatherock     [e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing
Date: 1 Feb 1995 23:03:27 GMT
Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA


TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to evan champion
([e-mail]):

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, it is eleven digit dialing,
not
> ten digit if you count the '1' on the front. However, one would
think that
> when this becomes universal all over the USA that we could in fact
get by
> with ten digits since the '1' would no longer be needed; there would
be
> no 'local' calls to distinquish from 'long distance'. Since
everything that
> we dial would consist of area code plus seven digits, there would be
no
> need for a '1' to indicate that 'what follows is an area code' --
everything
> that follows would be area codes!  It would be nice to see the '1'
vanish
> under those cirucmstances. Or maybe they will insist on keeping it
using
> as their rationale that '1' is also -- by coincidence -- the country
code
> for the USA and Canada, and that what we are really dialing is
country code,
> area code and seven digit number. As to *why* they are imposing it
on calls
> within the same area -- as is supposed to be the case in Chicago
beginning
> sometime in 1996 -- I do not know. Various reasons have been given.
PAT]

Chicago is a unique case though.  Chicago will have an overlay area
code, and since someone using a phone within Chicago could possibly
have no idea what area code it is in, this means that all local calls
must dial the area code and number, since phones right next to each
other could be in different NPAs.

In the rest of North America, we are having to dial the area code for
all long distance calls within the area code, so that the system can
handle the new area codes that look like prefixes.


Tad Cook   [e-mail]   Seattle, WA

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

From: [e-mail] (Scott Montague)
Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 15:32:17 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston


evan champion <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Recently there has been a lot of talk about having to do ten digit
> dialing to call even local numbers that are in a different phone
> number.

Bell Canada chose to have it's Toronto customers dial ten digit LOCAL
calls.  This way, two exchanges can be used within a local calling
area.  Example: If you wanted to dial 1050 CHUM Newsroom in Toronto
(416) from Pickering (905) (a local call) you would dial 416-923-1133.
This would allow the creation of a 923 exchange in Pickering, which
could be used for different customers.  Inversely, to call someone
local in (905), you would dial 10 digits 905-xxx-yyyy to call them
from (416).  This has already been implemented.  The reason: Bell
Canada is concerned that they will run out of exchanges in 416, and
want to keep all 905 open for local calls.  (Or else, 416 would have
to omit certain exchanges that their local calls are made to ... it's
so contrived <g> ... and then when they run out again (which they
will)
they'll have to implement the ten digit dialing; let's get it all
over with, they say).  I believe that they now want universal dialing
procedures across area codes for their customers, and subsequently are
implementing this system across area codes that don't necessarily need
it, like the 604-905 boundary.

Always planning for the future, I guess.  BTW, If you Americans want
an example of a world class phone company, look north to Bell Canada.
Great staff, instant repairs, easy access to all services (and tarrifs
:-) ), quickly resolved billing disputes, hardly ever any billing
errors, great business and residential service.  >From the horror
stories in the US, I think some companies could learn alot from Bell
Canada.  (OK, their long distance is a bit more expensive, but it's
worth it.)


Scott

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

From: [e-mail] (Terrence McArdle)
Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 16:15:21 -0500
Organization: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center


Just for clarification's sake, I assume the phrase "local numbers that
are in a different phone number" means dialing a destination existing
in separate exchange, but the same area code, as the originator?
Calls that cross a LATA boundary currently require eleven digit

·
dialing, do they not?

And with regard to Pat's note, who is referred to by "they"?
Standards bodies?  Or a general consensus of the major RBOCs?  Or some
other entity?


Thanks,

Terry McArdle         email    [e-mail]
Mgr, Information Systems      work     [phone]
Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'They' are the people I feel irritated
with
at the time!  <g>   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Levine)
Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 95 07:27:21 GMT


> Local should be charged higher because it is expensive.  You provide
> unlimited free calling for a flat fee instead of charging on a call
by
> call basis.  Of course you lose money.

You're making the increasingly unwarranted assumption that local
bandwidth is expensive.  I make lots of umpteen hour long calls
(computer to computer, of course) but since they're within the same
switch, I find it difficult to identify any basis on which this
actually costs the telco more than if I left the phone on the hook.

> But the LEC doesn't get paid for all the incomplete calls, all the
> dial back calls, etc and that costs money.

Sure they do.  FG B and FG D lines are charged for all off-hook time
both incoming and outgoing.  I believe there is in many cases an extra
per-call charge for the info collected and passed by the LEC.

> (Some local companies, especally rural, don't even handle long
distance.
> They just pass it off to someone else to do.)

That's right, but they can make a bundle in doing so since they still
get a
per-minute charge on originating and terminating LD calls. (Some of my
cousins run a small rural telco in Vermont that passes all of its LD
traffic
to NYNEX and AT&T.  Because of their cost structure, they get an
incredible
amount for LD calls, something like 10 cents/minute.)


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail]
Primary perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies"

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike_Boyd)
Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs
Date: 2 Feb 1995 13:09:18 -0500
Organization: Concentric Research Corporation


Judith Oppenheimer <[e-mail]> writes:

> David Lewis of AT&T wrote:

>> Is it just me, or do these numbers (which I'll take on faith for
>> now) demonstrate a massive inefficiency and misallocation of costs
in
>> the current cost structure of telecommunications?

>> If 95% of traffic is local (I'll define as "intraLATA"), Then 95%
of
>> costs (fixed and variable) are due to local traffic.  But the
majority
>> (say, 80%) of LEC revenue is from access charges.  Therefore 80% of
>> revenue is paying for 5% of cost, and 20% of revenue is paying for
95%
>> of cost.

>> Does this make sense?

> Local should be charged higher because it is expensive.  You provide
> unlimited free calling for a flat fee instead of charging on a call
by
> call basis.  Of course you lose money.  Local access charges are
> profitable, and are on a call by call basis.  LEC's don't want to
lose
> that revenue.  With bypass and local exchange competition it could
be
> tough.

Sense has little to do with telecom rate making. The current system is
an evolution of an archaic and arbitrary system worked out between the
phone companies (basically the old Bell System, when it was the
telecom
world) and regulators (FCC and State PUCs). The first step was to
separate the costs, investments, rate base, etc., between the state
and federal jurisdictions.  The FCC then set interstate rates designed
to recover the costs allocated to interstate servivce, and the state
Public Utitlies Commission set rates to recover "intrastate costs".
Interstate services originally were interstate toll. In the good old
days, regulators and the phone companies kept local rates low by
allocating the costs to toll. Growth in LD competition, bypass, etc.,
made this more and more difficult, and made it necessary to shift
costs
to local.

Now, the FCC regulates the access charges LECs charge IXCs to
originate
and terminate interstate tolls calls. The FCC has also instituted a
Subscriber line charge (SLC) to recover some of those "interstate
costs"
directly from the end users. This is the $3/month on your residential
phone
bill.

Intrastate costs were recovered from local service and from intrastate
toll.  In the late 80's, intrastate access charges were added. These
are charges to IXCs for originating or terminating intrastate
(interLATA)
toll calls.  Because of the way that the costs are separated
jurisdictionally,
and given the subsequent wide discretion of the PUC in setting rates,
intra-
state and interstate access charges for a given LEC may vary greatly.
For
example, terminating a minute of switched traffic from IXC "A" to end
user "Z" may cost the IXC 3 cents if the call is interstate and 8
cents if
it is an intrastate call.  Given a "revenue requirement" for
intrastate
services, the PUCs are faced with the dilemma of juggling rates
between
access and local, between residential and business, etc.  Set access
rates too high, the IXCs bypass the network. Set local too high, you
don't
get reelected or reappointed. While specific costs are a
consideration, rate
making is a highly charged political game.

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

From: [e-mail] (Patton M Turner)
Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 03:41:08 GMT


[e-mail] (Ed Goldgehn) writes:

> All fees charges for LD termination can normally be found in the
> Feature Group tariffs.  Normally, LD carriers fall under (last I
> heard) Feature Group 'D' tariffs due to their method of termination.
> You can request a copy of these tariffs from each of the RBOC's or
> from the PUC in any State.

Feature Group D accounts for at least 99% of interLATA calls, but FGB
trunks can still be found.

> BTW, the method of charges is entirely different for LD service in
the
> cellular industry.  With cellular, it is not unusual for local
cellular
> carriers (RBOC's or otherwise) to provide FREE or flat rate
termination
> charges to LD carriers.

Why not, if they extend the T1s to your MTSO?  It's that many less
erlangs going out on the other (paid) trunks.  I assume the B carriers
probally must provide this for free or are limited to some max rate by
Da Judge (that's Greene, not Ito :-))


Patton Turner  KB4GRZ  [e-mail]  FAA Telecommunications

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #75
*****************************