Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_100.zip/TC15-100.TXT

Text File | 1995-03-12 | 31KB | 809 lines

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Feb 95 09:30:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue
100

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A.
Townson

    CFP: IN Conference in Copenhagen (J|rgen N|rgaard)
    Hollings Bill Available (Jeff Richards)
    Place-a-Call Now Available From AT&T 500 Service (Gary
Novosielski)
    Assistance Wanted With Microwave Communication Network (John Hong)
    Telecom Sales Rep Firms Wanted (Daniel A. Ash)
    Books on SNMP Wanted (Elin Sundin)
    How Can I Get Employment in Telecom Industry? (Mark A. Bentley)
    Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Lars Poulsen)
    Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Jeff Box)

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] (J|rgen N|rgaard)
Subject: CFP: IN Conference in Copenhagen
Organization: Tele Danmark Research, Denmark
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 14:32:11 GMT


        Call for Papers, IFIP IN Conference
        ***********************************

International Working Conference on Intelligent Networks
========================================================

Center for Tele-Information at DTU (Technical University of Denmark)
and Tele Danmark Research are organising the International Working
Conference on Intelligent Networks sponsored by IFIP-TC6 in
Copenhagen, August 30-31 1995. The conference will be hosted by the
Center for Tele-Information at DTU located in Lyngby just north of
Copenhagen.

This CFP is also available on the WWW as
http://www.tdr.dk/~jnp/ifipin.html.

Call For Papers
===============

At the moment there are two major trends in Intelligent Networks (IN)
development:

 o ITU and ETSI based IN
 o and long term development as undertaken by, for example, the TINA
   consortium and the European RACE and ACTS programmes.

The present IN development, based on capability set technologies, is
on the way to the network. The migration path from IN to, for example,
TINA architectures are still under study. But there is a distinct move
towards more open platforms for the functional entities, such as SSP,
SCP, SDF, etc. supported with, for example, the core INAP protocol.

At the same time a number of research projects are defining an IN
architecture to be used in broadband networks as well as in present
networks. The first demonstrations of these concepts are scheduled for
'95. The integration of intelligence in broadband and mobile networks,
and the way in which the service logic is distributed may shake
industries.

The aim of the the Working Conference is to collect state of the art
contributions in the area of IN technology. Topics of interest
include, but are not limited to:

 o Service Provider solutions on Service Creation and Management
 o Applications on Broadband and Mobile
 o Experimental systems and case studies
 o Performance issues
 o Long Term IN Architectures

Papers should not exceed 12 pages including text and illustrations.
Frontpage should contain authors' names, affiliations, address, phone,
fax and e-mail address and an abstract. All submitted papers will be
reviewed.

Contributions must be send to:

  Osa Bennett
  Center for Tele-Information
  Technical University of Denmark
  Elektrovej, Building 371
  DK-2800 Lyngby
  Denmark

at the latest June 9 1995.

Previous Conferences:

The growing importance of Intelligent Networks for Teleoperators and
Service Providers in a competitive market, stimulated IFIP TC-6
(Telecommunication Systems) to establish a task group on IN. The task
group organised IN Workshops in 1993 and 1994 at the Lappeenranta
University of Technology, Finland. Due to the success of these
workshops the event is now proceeding as a Working Conference in 1995
in Copenhagen, Denmark and Conference in 1996 in Dallas, USA.

Program Committee:

 o Andy Bihain, GTE, USA
 o Dominique Gaiti, Columbia University, USA
 o Villy Bfk Iversen, Center for Tele-Information, DTU, Denmark
 o Caroline Knight, Hewlett-Packard Lab, UK
 o Olli Martikainen, Telecom Finland, Finland
 o Jxrgen Nxrgaard, Tele Danmark Research, Denmark
 o Guy Pujolle, University of Versaille, France
 o Kimmo Raatikainen, University of Helsinki,
 Department of Computer Science, Finland
 o Raymond Schlachter, EURESCOM, Germany
 o James White, AG Communication Systems, USA

Organising Committee:


 o Villy Bfk Iversen, Center for Tele-Information, Denmark,
[e-mail]
 o Osa Bennett, Center for Tele-Information, Denmark
 o Jxrgen Nxrgaard, Tele Danmark Research, Denmark, [e-mail]
 o Annegrete Frandsen, Tele Danmark Research, Denmark,
[e-mail]

Addresses:

 o Center for Tele-Information, Phone: [phone], Fax: +45 4596
3171,
   Technical University of Denmark, Elektrovej,
   Building 371, DK-2800 Lyngby

o Tele Danmark Research, Phone: [phone], Fax: [phone],
   Lyngsx Alli 2,
   DK-2970 Hxrsholm, Denmark, URL: http://www.tdr.dk/

Important dates:

June 9 1995
   Paper submission deadline
July 21 1995
   Notification of acceptance send to authors
August 18 1995
   Camera-ready copy of final papers due
August 30-31 1995
   Conference

Direct questions to [e-mail]

 jxrgen nxrgaard         |  e-mail: [e-mail]
Tele Danmark Research    |  Phone: [phone]
Lyngsx Alle 2            |  Fax:   [phone]
DK-2970 Hxrsholm, Denmark|URL: http://www.tdr.dk/~jnp/

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

From: Jeff Richards <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hollings Bill Available
Date: 16 Feb 1995 14:25:43 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Internet Service [e-mail] 703-448-4470


Senator Hollings' Staff Working Draft, the "Universal Service
Telecommunications Act of 1995," is now posted on <bell.com> along
with reaction by Gary McBee, Alliance chairman.

Also new today is the Alliance's review of the January 31 Senate
Discussion Draft from Senator Pressler.

You can subscribe to the listserver --> <[e-mail]>

Use four words in the body of the message:
  SUBSCRIBE  BELL  YOUR_FIRST_NAME  YOUR_LAST_NAME

As always, your comments are welcome.


Jeff Richards
The Alliance for Competitive Communications &
Pacific Telesis Group    Internet: [e-mail]
<bell.com> and <http://bell.com>
<[e-mail]>=SUBSCRIBE BELL YOUR_LAST YOUR_FIRSTNAME
[phone] voice     1133-21st NW #700
[phone] TDD       Washington DC 20036-3349
[phone] fax       +1 800 SKY-PAGE pin 8550304
[phone]nd office

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

From: [e-mail]
Organization: Small Business Administration
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 03:10:13 -0400
Subject: Place-A-Call Now Available From AT&T 500 Service


> With True Connections Place-A-Call, you can make calls from almost
any
> touch-tone phone.  Just dial your 500 number, enter your master PIN
> and follow directions.  The rate for using this feature is $.95
> non-peak/$1.05 peak for the first minute and $.15/$.25 for each
> subsequent minute, only for state-to-state calls. (Calling prices
> within a state may vary.)  When making several calls at once, press
> "*R" between calls to return back to the menu.

Woah! $1.05 for the first minute? That's completely different from
what the AT&T rep told me last December when I was inquiring about 500
service. She was explaining all the different service levels, and
mentioned that with the top one or two, I could get this Place-a-Call
service.

"Oh, you mean like a calling card?", I said.

"No, much better than a calling card, because there will be no
surcharge on the first minute of the call. The whole thing will be
billed at the .25/.15 rate."

I said that did sound interesting indeed, but wondered out loud why
AT&T would seemingly undercut their own calling card rates so readily.

"Well," she said, "I guess they reasoned that it would only take a
smart user a moment or two to realize that they could achieve the same
thing by forwarding their 500 number to the place they wanted to call,
calling their own number, and then forwarding it back. They're just
making the process easier, since you can do it anyway."

As she was telling me this, a little voice in the back of my head was
saying, "No, that just makes too much sense. It can't be true. It
implies a level of sophistication on AT&T's part, combined with a
respect for the intelligence of the customer, which are unknown in the
industry." It seems the little voice was right.

But will her alternate scenario work? The only objection I can see is
that someone else may dial the 500 number while you're on the call,
and they would be forwarded to the same destination as your call. But
with a minimum cost of $1.05 per call, it could be worth getting a
separate unpublished 500 number, and using it solely for beating the
calling card surcharges. Come to think of it, an 800 number might be
better for this use, as long as it could be follow-me forwarded toll
free.


Gary Novosielski     GPN Consulting


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of their competition allows
outcalls
via 800, such as MyLine and Arch with no additional first minute
charges.
If you get a second 500 number exclusively for the purpose you
describe,
you must remember there will be monthly service fees on that which
will
offset some of the savings under your scheme. Their ill-fated postcard
which went out in error -- outcalls are not available yet, no date
when
they will be, despite the postcard -- did mention the $1.05/95 rate
for
the first minute. Who knows, maybe that was wrong also. Unless you
expect
your 500 number to get a lot of traffic, I imagine you can get by with
just one. Its unlikely a second call will come in just at the same
moment. What you can do is set it up to forward your call as you
describe
then immediatly when you place your call and the other end answers, if
there is a second phone line handy, you can use it to dial in 0-500
and
take down the forwarding. It won't disturb your call in progress.
PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Yanming Shi)
Subject: Assistance Wanted With Microwave Communication Network
Date: 15 Feb 1995 16:26:51 -0800
Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR


I am looking for One point(HUB) to multiple points(remotes) microwave
telephony system. The system will be used in an area of islands.The
system topology is:

The Hub is in center of several islands with microwave links to the
remotes at the another islands around. The Hub has switching capacity
with 200 lines which provides interconnection for all users among the
islands (Hub to remote and remote to remote).

I am grateful to everyone who read this mail and more indebted to who
will give information on the above issue.

Name, telephone number and fax number of the vendors are appreciated.
Email is even better.

Please reply to me at [e-mail] which is in China.


Thanks and best regards,

John Hong

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel A. Ash)
Subject: Telecom Sales Rep Firms Wanted
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:18:06 GMT


Does a list of US and/or International sales rep firms exist?  The
more detailed the better.  I am interested in telecom equipment sales
only.


Thanks,

Dan    AshCan Engineering - [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Elin Sundin)
Subject: Books on SNMP Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Telia Research AB
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 09:06:45 GMT


Hi,

Can someone please recommend a couple of books on SNMP (from
beginner's
level up to a more advanced level)? I would appreciate ANY
suggestions.

Please email me on [e-mail].


Thanks in advance,

Elin

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Bentley )
Subject: How Can I Get Employment in Telecom Industry?
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:47:18 CST


Greetings fellow telecom enthusiasts.  I'm writing to TELECOM Digest
seeking advice as to how I might best prepare myself to get into a
telecommunications related job.

Through my on-going education at the University of Minnesota, Morris
and
my work experiences at U S WEST (summer intern) I have found that I am
most interested in LAN/WAN technology and connectivity.  I would enjoy
designing, setting up, and administering a LAN/WAN.  I'm an especially
intrigued by the nation-wide (and worldwide) telecommunications infra-
structure, and have put many hours into studying these areas.  I am
also a UNIX enthusiast and have been the SysAdmin for one of the UNIX
boxes on campus for over a year.

Currently I am in the third year at the U of M pursuing a degree in
Computer Science.  If any of you could suggest a course of action that
I
might take (after receiving my CS degree) I would be most pleased.

·


Thank you.

Mark Bentley A.K.A. Seeklore       [e-mail]
(DEC/Ultrix)
University of Minnesota, Morris    [e-mail]
(NeXT)
For WWW, click <A
HREF="http://sci173x.mrs.umn.edu/~bentlema/home.html">
here</a> for my Web Home Page.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:02:55 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing


> [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.

Of course, such a rationale would make sense only in the context of
changing the dialing plan to allow *any* country to be dialed as just
<country-code><area-code><local-number>.  But that idea won't fly
unless we're also prepared to change our existing N11 numbers into
something else (say, 1N11 or 0N11).  The problem is that some
international calls would have the same initial three digits as some
very important N11 numbers (namely 911 and 411), and therefore
timeouts would be required to disambiguate the two.  This might not be
such a big deal in the case of Directory Assistance (411) vs.  Zurich,
Switzerland (41-1-<local-number>).  But it certainly would be a
problem for Emergency (911) vs. Delhi, India (91-11-<local-number>).
I don't think that anyone wants to add delays to the 911 system, and I
also doubt that there will be much enthusiasm for changing the
emergency number and then educating everyone about the new one.


Bob Goudreau  Data General Corporation
[e-mail] 62 Alexander Drive
[phone]  Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have received messages from 911
employees
at one time or another saying there still remains confusion between
the
police emergency line and the code for India. Police have received
calls
on their emergency line and answered, only to hear additional buttons
being
pressed as the person continues dialing a complete number in India.
When
they can get the person's attention, the caller seems very confused
about
why he got the police instead of whoever he was calling. Obviously he
forgot the '011' part, but police dispatchers on a busy night do not
have
a lot of patience to sit and explain that to the confused caller.
PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 04:15:16 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.


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

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not that I am saying your comparison
is
> quite correct, but I would not mind having Ma Bell again. The
competitors
> are fine also, but Ma Bell should have been left intact. I think
Greene
> should have opened the door to competition, absolutely required that
AT&T
> work fairly, at arm's length with all competitors regards
interconnection
> and let it go at that, with a short speech saying something like
this:

That's essentially what they're trying to accomplish in Canada now ...

> Now that would have been true competition, and the American way.
Instead,
> Greene nearly guts AT&T. What were they supposed to do, apologize
for having
> been in business for a century, and deny all their accomplishments
over
> that period of time just so MCI could make their money a little
sooner?

 ... but you unfairly (again) attempt to blame Judge Greene for
something that wasn't even his doing!

Here's the historical reality.  AT&T wanted to be broken up.  The
original
case was against Western Electric and AT&T's ownership thereof.  WECo
had an effective monopoly on public network manufacturing in the USA;
with about 84% of the lines (AT&T's). All other manufacturers (GTE,
ITT,
Stromberg, etc.) had to fight for the remaining crumbs. The goverment
sued to have AT&T divest Western Electric.  AT&T countered by
divesting
the local telcos.  The Reagan administration's Justice Department
liked
the idea and handed it to the Judge.  He actually ameliorated some of
its harsher terms; as originally set up, it was (IMHO) to be an out-
and-out
screw job on the to-be-divested local Bells.

AT&T wanted rid of the Bells because everyone knew that computers and
long
distance were the profit items; local telcos received huge subsidies
via the
splifs.  Of course not everything worked out as planned.  AT&T's
initial
forays into the computer business were less than stellar, while the
Bells
have not all done so badly!

I do however agere that the rules need reform nowadays; they're overly
rigid and seem more designed for market allocation than for consumer
protection.  Cellular is just the most obvious, egregious weakness.


Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    [e-mail]
Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA  USA   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away?
Date: 16 Feb 1995 12:42:56 GMT
Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brent
Laminack) writes:

> What is the current thinking on when a PC (powerPC, whatever)
replace
> the PBX? i.e. when can I run my T1 from the telco with my voice
trunks
> on it into one card on a PC and have it route voice over the LAN to
> other desktop computers that double as phones? It will probably be a
> time curve: first available for small offices (ten users) on an
ethernet,
> then a while later available for 200 lines on a faster LAN, etc.
What
> says the net? My Mitel sx200 lite has a 68000 for a processor: it's
a
> MacPlus! Surely the cpu horsepower is available to replace lots of
> dedicated TTL and switching hardware. I was just at a briefing from
> Apple and they're working with the PBX makers for a Geoport Mac to
be
> a voice terminal behind a "big maker" PBX. But who are the startups
> that are out to kill the PBX makers?

A PBX consists of two parts: a switching fabric and a control
processor.  Most switches today have a switching fabric that is
hardwired; the control processor does not need much power; the 68000
that you mention is a good choice. An 8080 would be enough, but has
insufficient room for programs in its 64 KB address space.

It is possible to build a switching fabric entirely of almost-standard
computer hardware plus analog/digital conversion chips. The economics
are definitely headed in that direction. The problem is that the
program
must ALWAYS be running, and the inexpensive personal computers do not
have that kind of stability.

I would expect that someone will soon put a small PBX on a PC plug-in
card in the same way that people are now putting network hubs and even
small routers on such cards. This will become especially attractive as
stable multitasking systems take over from Windows and Mac-OS.

Today, this is commonly done for keysystem-sized ISDN PBXs, which
benefit from being able to install software updates via the PC disk
drive.


Lars Poulsen   Internet E-mail: [e-mail]
Rockwell Network Systems Phone:        [phone]
7402 Hollister Avenue   Telefax:      [phone]
Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Internets: designed and built while you wait

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

From: [e-mail] (JeffB65582)
Subject: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away?
Date: 15 Feb 1995 17:09:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (JeffB65582)


PC's as PBXs?

You've found one of my favorite subjects here.  I'm the VP of Systems
Development for a small switching system manufacturer that's been
around for eleven years.  In parallel with the development of our
business,
I have watched the development of the PC industry and been on the
constant
lookout for how we can benefit from PC technology in our product line.

It's truly a good news / bad news story.  PC's have attractiveness in
that they supply enormous computing power at low cost.  However, they
also have many architectural limitations as well.

If you want to use a PC for a PBX, you should consider some of the
architectural limitations I'm talking about.  Try these as examples:

1.  Not enough card slots.  A big PBX has hundreds of port card slots.
My smallest PBX has forty (to support 288 ports).  PBX port cards are
generally much larger in surface area than PC ISA cards to support the
many interfaces and high voltage spacing requirements.  Don't forget
that the port cards have to deal with the transient surges from
multitudes
of phone lines that all serve as "antennas" during every thunderstorm.

2.  No ability for hot maintenance.  Try adding a new card or
replacing a
card in your PC without turning it off and without interrupting its
operation.  Sure, you can pay technicians overtime to work after hours
but
that eats up the savings that drive the PC idea in the first place.

3.  Inadequate power systems.  Remember, the PBX has to power the
ports,
usually with -48VDC.  Its important to keep the phones running all the
time.  Existing PC power supplies, voltages, backplanes, and
connectors
aren't up to it except in small cases.

4.  PC technology is in a constant state of flux.  Part of the PBX
vendor's task is configuration management.  Reliability partly stems
from
doing a good design, testing it, and then replicating it with
identical
copies.  PC's change so rapidly that its very difficult to put them
into a
product that has a ten year plus service expectation.  You need to
have a
continuous ongoing engineering process just to deal with PC design
evolution.

Try the desk top view point: How many PCs had your phone seen come and
go from your desk top?  What was the average PC cost?  Convert that to
dollars per year and see if you still think the PC will save money.

5.  No hardware aid for software reliability.  PBX systems do not have
perfect software.  They achieve high reliability through a combination
of
excellent software, testing,  and certain hardware features designed
to
make the total combination have better reliability characteristics.
Redundancy, load sharing,  watch dog timers, and distributed
intelligence,
when properly applied, all contribute to this.  If PC software vendors
have a solution for this, they're keeping it well hidden.

These are but a few examples of the problems we have faced trying to
use
PC technology in the switching business.  Dealing with the customer
requirements reflected above is a major ingredient to our survival in
a
market where many other start-up companies have vanished.

Of course, it is said that PC's can evolve to meet any objections I
raise
for use at telephone equipment.  You must decide, however, when you
cross
over the line where the "PC" you started with has changed so much that
it
can no longer be recognized as a "PC".

It may surprise some to hear that PBX vendors are not ignorant of PC
developments.  Over the last several years, PC technology has had a
significant impact on PBX design.  Processors, chip sets, PCMCIA
memory,
and many other components that were pioneered by the PC industry have
found their way into modern PBX design where they save cost and do not
compromise reliability.  If you look "under the hood" of some PBX's,
you
might identify what you see as an evolved PC.  Perhaps they only
reason
they are not considered to be PCs is because they "don't do windows".

These comments would be incomplete if I didn't mention that there are
some
products on the market that identify themselves as PC based PBX
systems.
In each case, they have found a niche where they try to work around
the
issues raised above with a combination of modified PC hardware and
external equipment.  Two systems I'm familiar with can not support
ground
start, direct inward dial, and T1 trunk connections.  They use
external
devices to convert the phone trunks to loop start lines they support.
Some also use external power supplies yielding a collection of boxes
to
support the PBX function.   The PC technology disk storage gives them
good
capabilities in voice messaging and the VGA display can yield a single
nice attendant display.  Some of the other points I made above are
simply
not addressed in these products and time will tell what portion of the
small line size market can accept the compromises.

I applaud their pioneering approach while at the same time I know that
their products can not meet many of the customer bid specs that I see.
One of the neat things about the telecommunications marketplace is the
enormous room for different ideas and products.  If there is a
significant
class of customers that accept these systems, it should become
apparent in
the next year or two.

My own company uses PCs as data collectors and report processors for
PBX
based automatic call distributors.  If these PCs go down, the phone
switch
continues to process calls.

We also have a blended architecture ACD (automatic call distributor)
product which uses an industrial PC coupled with existing switching
equipment shelves (of our own design) to produce an advanced call
center
system some of the best features of both.  This product provides ACD
call
functionality, voice messaging, IVR, and fax server functions
integrated
together.  These systems focus the PC into the areas where it is
strong
and cost effective while allowing the benefits of the existing switch
equipment to be retained.  If necessary, the entire PC can be
duplicated
in a redundant configuration.

We continue to look for and innovate with PC technology.  But the PC
technology needs to blend with many other elements to make a good
telecommunications system.

I tend to agree with "[e-mail]" that the PBX vendors of today
will still be the providers tomorrow no matter what the technology
evolves
to.  Users still need the service & maintenance expertise of these.
When
something breaks, they NEED it fixed with on-site persons very quickly
and
the PC industry has done little to address this.


Jeff Box, Shared Resource Exchange, Inc. (SRX)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #100
******************************