The World of Computer Software/World_Of_Computer_Software-02-387-Vol-3of3.iso/t/tc13-118.zip/TC13-118.TXT

Text File | 1993-02-22 | 19KB | 489 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Feb 93 21:35:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 118

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Jon Krueger)
    Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get Phone to Ring? (D. Levenson)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Pat Turner)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (John Barcomb)
    Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411 (Bob Goudreau)
    Re: AT&T Are You Listening? (Andy Sherman)
    Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan (John R. Levine)
    Re: 150th Anniversary of FAX (Adrian Godwin)
    Re: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel? (Graham Toal)
    Re: North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers (Carl Moore)
    Re: Directory Services Billing (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (David G. Lewis)
    Re: E1 Lines - What Are They? (Lynne D. Gregg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 17:58:14 -0800
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ingres Corporation, a subsidiary of The ASK Group, Inc.
From: [e-mail] (Jon Krueger)


Andrew Blau writes:

> In fact, the telcos have become *very* involved in this.  During
> President Clinton's Economic Summit after the election, the one moment
> of reported conflict was when Robert Allen of AT&T challenged Mr.
> Gore's contention that the superhighway should be a public works
> project.  Allen said, "I believe I have some points to make about who
> should do what in that respect.  I think the government should not
> build and/or operate such networks.  I believe that the private sector
> can be and will be incented to build these networks...."

Yes, that was a *very* interesting little statement.  Mr. Allen
chooses his words most carefully.  Indeed private enterprise builds
highways.  Does that mean it owns them?  Or that a particular
enterprise could have de facto monopoly via its ownership of
particular routes?  Of course not.  Mr. Allen's speech carefully
glosses over these differences.  As we have seen, they are critical.

> LECs, too ... have made it clear that they believe telcos have a
> _very_ important role to play in the construction and operation of
> tomorrow's 'data superhighways.'

The question of course being: what role.  The role played by my
manager and by my condo's management company, for instance, are
usefully different.


Jon Krueger  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: What Number do I Dial From My Phone to Get My Phone to Ring?
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 01:38:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steve
Forrette) writes:

> Are you sure?  If the stated purpose of this regulation is to provide
> non-telco inside wiring folks a level playing field, then allowing the
> telco to internally use an automated service, while requiring that
> non-telco personnel use a manual service through the operator, is NOT
> providing a level playing field, now is it?

I don't see why the regulation requires that the telco provide such a
service, manually or automatically.

If I choose to be in the telephone installation business, I am free to
employ a person at my office who, at the request of one of my
installation personnel, will dial any number they want to verify
inbound calling.  If it must be a device, rather than a person, I am
free to build a device which allows my installation force to call in
and enter a number at which it subsequently calls them back.  In other
words, the playing field is level.  New Jersey Bell and I are each
allowed to provide ringback services, automated or human, for the use
of our own service personnel.

I am also free to build a device which receives Caller*ID information
and voices it back to the calling party -- thus providing automatic
number identification to assist installers in circuit identification.

(I'm just playing 'devil's advocate' here ... I'm certainly not
opposed to having the telco provide these services, but I don't feel
that it should be required.)


Dave Levenson        Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA    Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 11:36 EST
From: rsiatl![e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?


Pat writes:

>  "First Church, eh? ... I told you people a year ago to get the electric
> wires for the ceiling lights in the office out of *my* conduit! No way
> to get rid of the noise until you vacate the conduit. I'm going to
> have the Business Office write you another letter on it."

> All my arguments about conduit-in-common, and various court rulings
> saying that everyone was entitled to use the *property owner's*
> conduit including but not limited to telco went over his head. "We had
> that conduit first! When we pulled pairs through there it was empty.

Don't know how the rules were in 72, I was only three then.  Today
however, this is taboo.  According to the NEC, 800-52(c):

1) Communication conductors shall not be placed in any raceway,
compartment, outlet box, junction box, or similar fitting with
conductors of electric light or power circuits or Class 1 circuits.

Two exceptions allow this for the case of a partition separating the
conductors or if the electric circuits supply power solely to
communication equipiment.

Pat, if you had problems then, you ought to try that now with all the
switching power supplies and such in modern buildings.

Disclaimer: This is from the 1990 NEC, I haven't purchased a copy of
the 1993 edition yet.  This paragraph was revised in the 90 edition
from the 87 edition.


Pat Turner KB4GRZ   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 20:09:12 GMT


    It seems to me that the conduit should be available for other
compatible uses, and AC power distribution would not be a compatible
use on two counts: The first is the crosstalk you observed from
running several amps at 120 volts in the same conduit as 600 ohm 1 mW
voice signals.  The second concern would be safety.  Is it legal to
run AC power in the same conduit as telephone wiring?


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (John Barcomb)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
Date: 20 Feb 93 21:41:38 GMT
Organization: U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc.


Roaming is a really strange animal when it comes to making emergency
calls.  I recently read an article in a trade magazine where the
editor of the magazine was roaming and watched a really bad accident
occur.  She picked up her phone and dialed "9-1-1" and got nowhere.
Next she dialed "0" and had the operator connect the call.

The operator assisted call did charge her account for the call.  If
she were in her "home" area, she generally* would not have been
charged if she dialed 9-1-1.

I have roamed on both the A and B carriers in different cities
depending on coverage and availablity of cells.  Your best bet is to
call your cellular carriers Roaming Department (if they have one) to
find out all of this information BEFORE you leave your home area so
that you know.  GENERALLY $3.00/day and $1.00 a minute are rates that
you can count on for roaming.


John

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


Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 19:49:57 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Charging For 411


Charles Stephens writes:


>> In most parts of the US it's a fact of life. You're allowed roughly
>> five free calls, and then after that it's around 25 cents a pop.

> Well Southern Bell only gives you three freebies before they charge
> you US$.30!!!

Perhaps in Georgia.  Here in NC, Southern Bell allots five monthly
freebies, after which the charge is *fifty* cents per call.

This is just another example of the dangers of generalizing about a
particular Baby Bell's activities in the states it covers.  Just
because something is true in state A doesn't mean it will apply in B
or C.  State public utilities commissions often have the final say.


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

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 13:24:58 EST
Subject: Re: AT&T Are You Listening?
From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)


On 13 Feb 93 20:02:50 GMT, [e-mail] (Jack
Decker) said:

> AT&T spends a LOT of money on advertising to convince you that their
> quality is better.  In my mind, this is just about as valid as the
> advertising that oil companies used to run to convince you that one
> brand of gasoline was better than another.  In many cases, all the gas
> stations in a town got their gas from the same source!  It was the
> same gas, yet they all tried to convince the public that theirs was
> better!

But the analogy doesn't hold.  Phone companies don't get their
infrastructure from the same source.  They lay their own transmission
lines, and they deal with different vendors for switching and
transmission equipment.  To say that with all the variation in supply
and design that quality is obviously identical is arrent nonsense.

While the local exchange carrier (the fall-guy for quality problems in
Jack's original post) is a common factor for all long distance
carriers, that doesn't mean that all interconnections are the same.
It depends upon what the carrier is willing to pay for.  A small
carrier may have only one point of presence in a LATA with trunks to
only one tandem office while a large carrier may have several, with
redundant routing to several tandems.  Carriers choose to buy
different numbers of trunk groups to the LECS, which may be digital or
may still be analog.  Their equal footing with the LEC is that they
all *may* buy they exact same services, not that they all *do*.

If all carriers provide equal quality, why does one carrier have
consistantly faster call set-up times?

If all carriers provide equal quality, why does one carrier usually
provide faster modem and fax throughput?

Could it be that all carriers don't provide equal quality?  Naaah,
there must be some other explanation ...


Andy Sherman
Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
[phone]  -  [e-mail] or [e-mail]
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: AT&T Billing Practices --> Illegal?
Date: 20 Feb 1993 21:02:07 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
Niebuhr) writes:

> PAT - Wasn't it the late U.S. Senator Dirksen who complained one day
> on the Senate Floor about "a million here, a million there, and it
> soon adds up to real money."

> [Moderator's Note: Yes, it was Everett Dirksen who coined the phrase.]

I thought it was "a billion here, a billion there, ..."


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I'm sure it was millions; I don't think I ever
heard it expressed as billions.  Maybe I'm wrong, it was years ago,
but the sentiment is true in either case.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Future of North American Numbering Plan
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 20 Feb 93 16:32:07 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


> In January 1995, there will be a new "interchangeable" area code format,
> where area codes are no longer restricted to having 0 or 1 as the
> middle digit.

Are there any hints yet about who the lucky winners will be who get
the very first interchangable area code?  I imagine that they may find
themselves hard to call for a while.


Regards,

John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

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

From: [e-mail] (Adrian Godwin)
Subject: Re: 150th Anniversary of FAX
Date: 20 Feb 93 15:36:05 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, UK


In article <[e-mail]< [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

<  From: [e-mail] (Bill St. Arnaud)
<  Subject: 150th Anniversary of FAX

< For more information on the past, present and future of FAX there is
< an excellent article in this month's issue of {New Scientist} by Tim
< Hunkin.  Mr. Hunkin has built a replica of Bain's first FAX machine
< which is now on display at the British Science Museum.  Mr. Hunkin
< will also be talking about the past and future of FAX on the
< television show "The Secret Life of Machines" on the Discovery
< Channel, Tuesday night, February 23 at 9:30 PM EST.

The TV program was shown last night (18th feb) on Channel 4 in the UK
 -- it's great -- don't miss it!  Especially the lathes ... look
particularly for the sign on the wall behind them :-).


Adrian Godwin : [e-mail] : [e-mail] : g7hwn@gb7khw
ObDisclaimer  : I believe this rubbish .. don't imagine that anyone else does.

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 21:41:08 GMT
From: Graham Toal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A "Handy" Risk for AirTravel?


Monty Solomon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> FTP. "Downsizing" CCC seems to be in interesting contrast to US
> hackers (2600) which become more active, as visible from the Pentagon
> raids.

> [TELECOM Moderator's Note: I don't think he meant 'Pentagon raids'. I
> think he meant the Justice Department/FBI activities.  PAT]

I think he was referring to a raid of a 2600 meeting *held in* the
Pentagon Mall, not a raid by the Pentagon itself ...


G


[Moderator's Note: Good point, and I stand corrected.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 17:49:23 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: North Korea Appears To Have Changed Most Telephone Numbers


The message says there are two area codes in North Korea: 2 and 81.
Compare this to the archive file which has country code 850 for North
Korea, with only city code 2 listed (that's for Pyongyang, the

capital); it says other locations are only reachable via the operator.
Where would calls to this area code 81 be coming from?

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Directory Services Billing
Date: 20 Feb 1993 20:20:51 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Just a quick question.  When you use directory assistance (1+411),
> where is billing initiated?

> [Moderator's Note: It is billed by your CO, based on the charge for
> the service made by your one-plus carrier (if an inter-lata call) or
> the local telco (in the case of 411).

This is not entirely correct.  Most inter-LATA calls have the records
used for billing purposes recorded within the IXC network.  However,
it is likely that the originating local CO records the information as
well.  The IXC has the option of purchasing the records from the local
telco, or recording it themselves.  US Sprint used to purchase them
from the local telco (around 1985), and this contributed to the delays
in getting billed for calls that was common back then.  Sprint would
have to wait for the local telco to process the billing tapes and
generate tapes just for Sprint calls and mail them to Sprint.  These
days, it is much cheaper and more convenient for the IXC to do this
themselves.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 19:21:32 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Richard Nash) writes:

> Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

>> It seems that telcos (such as Pacific Bell) which do not yet offer
>> Caller ID in their regions, and are marking all calls that leave the
>> LATA as PRIVATE so that they don't show up in other areas, are
>> creating a major impediment for the usefulness of Caller ID.  What if
>> a users in another area subscribes to "block blocking," whereby their
>> telco will reject any call that's market PRIVATE.  This will prevent
>> any incoming calls from anyone in California!  Similarly, I would
>> imagine that a great deal more people who have Caller ID boxes choose
>> to ignore calls that come in as PRIVATE.  How are you supposed to
>> differentiate between people who have specifically requested that
>> their numbers be blocked (who I most certainly DON'T want to talk to)
>> from those who just happen to live in a state who's PUC knows what's
>> best for its citizens (many of whom I do want to talk to)?

> Easy! Demand that Californians have the right of not having their
> calls blocked with blocked blocking.

Hey, alright!  So now we'll have Calling Number Delivery, Calling
Number Delivery Blocking, Calling Number Delivery Blocking Rejection,
and Calling Number Delivery Blocking Rejection Override! ;-)

You *are* kidding, right?

> Demand that the telcos must insert a tag number to be used instead
> of marking as PRIVATE.  ACB and AR would utilize this tag number to
> look up the real number to be used. Just think of all the new telecom
> headaches that could be created! :)

Great -- let's blow the NANP numbering space even *more* out of the
water.


David G Lewis                              AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail] or !att!goofy!deej     Switching & ISDN Implementation

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

From: Lynne D Gregg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E1 Lines - What Are They?
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 10:58:00 PST


[e-mail] (Danny Bielik) asked:

> Could somebody please tell me what an E1 line is?

E1 is the Euro equivalent of a T1 line.


Regards,

Lynne

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #118
******************************