500 MB Nyheder Direkte fra Internet 2/500 MB nyheder direkte fra internet CD 2.iso/start/data/text/tc15-232.txt

Text File | 1995-05-12 | 22KB | 550 lines

From [e-mail]  Tue May  9 20:16:46 1995
by
1995
20:16:46 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 9 May 1995 17:17:08 -0500
1995
17:17:05 -0500
To: [e-mail]


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 May 95 17:17:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 232

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Oregon Area 503 Split Details (Stuart Friedberg)
    Re: Oregon Area 503 Split Details (Robert Hansen)
    Re: Oregon Area 503 Split Details (Randal L. Schwartz)
    Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34
([e-mail])
    Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34 (Todd Koenig)
    Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34 ([e-mail])
    Re: Comm Problems With USR Sportster V.34 (Jerry Eckler)
    Re: Good Grief - Caller ID is Back! ([e-mail])
    Re: Rural Phone Companies (Bill Leidy)
    Re: PacBell to Offer CID (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: PacBell to Offer CID (Lauren Weinstein)
    Re: Annoying Calls: Can We Deal With Them? (Benjamin P. Carter)
    Re: Calls From Australia to US 800 Not Delivering DTMF (John Combs)
    Wanted:  Quality Residential LD Program (Bill Egel)
    External Antenna For DPC550 (Ken Levitt)

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



> The new NPA for Oregon was announced today -- 541. It is
> a split, not an overlay, and it will cover all of the state except
> for northwestern Oregon, leaving Portland, its suburbs, Salem,
> Newport, Hillsboro, and St. Helens (among others) in 503.

I found this fascinating, as US West just sent out a few days ago a
subscriber information pamphlet that indicated that the decision
between split and overlay had not yet been made, and inviting public
comment of the choice(s).

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



Oregon will gain a new area code, 541, on November 5.

The following exchanges will remain in the 503 area code (geographic
area defined as roughly the NW corner of the state, south on the coast
to just north of Lincoln City, east through Falls City, Salem, Scio,
Mill City and Detroit, and north through Mount Hood Meadows):

Aloha, Amity, Astoria, Aumsville, Aurora, Banks, Bay City, Beaver,
Beaver Creek, Beaverton, Burlington, Canby, Cannon Beach, Carlton,
Charbonneau, Clatskanie, Cloverdale, Colton, Corbett, Dallas, Dayton,
Detroit, Estacada, Falls City, Forest Grove, Garibaldi, Gaston,
Gervais, Government Camp, Grand Island, Grand Ronde, Gresham,
Hillsboro, Hoodland, Independence, Jewell, Knappa, Lake Oswego, Lyons,
McMinnville, Mill City, Milwaukie, Molalla, Monitor, Mount Angel,
Mount Hood Meadows, Needy, Nehalem, Newberg, North Plains, Oregon
City, Oak Grove, Pacific City, PORTLAND, Rainier, Redland,
Ripplebrook, Rockaway, SALEM, Sandy, Scapoose, Scholls, Scio, Seaside,
Sheridan, Sherwood, Silverton, St. Helens, St. Paul, Stafford,
Stayton, Sunnyside, Tigard, Tillamook, Tualatin, Turner, Valley View,
Vernonia, Warrenton, Westport, Willamina, Wilsonville, Woodburn,
Yamhill.

All other Oregon exchanges (197 in total) will move to 541.

The permissive dialing period will be November 5, 1995 through June 30,
1996.


ROBERT A. HANSEN
Telecommunications Department
Oregon Health Sciences University
Portland, Oregon USA
[phone]

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



Lincoln City went 541 so that the county would be one area code.


Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
flying
Email: <[e-mail]> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger
[e-mail])
Web: <A HREF="http://www.teleport.com/~merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>

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



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says
...

> I am having some problems with my PPP internet hookup. After about
> 10-15 min online, my V.34 Sportster just "hangs up". I use trumpet
> winsock and netscape software, and I have set the internal baud rate
> to 115.200, in order to handle compession. Is this a hardware problem,
> or what?

I to am experiencing the same problem. This only happens the first
time I dialup after I have powered up my PC. After the auto
disconnect, if I attempt to login again without powering the PC down
completely, the sync. tones sound really distorted and I can not
re-establish the PPP session.

After speaking to the people at US Robotics about this, they informed
me that there is a new ROM chip that should take care of this problem.
They will mail you this new ROM (4 to 6 weeks delivery) if your modem
has an earlier version. Their tech support will walk you through
determining which ROM version your using.

Unfortunately I have yet to receive my upgraded ROM so I cannot tell
you if this fixes the problem. If you here of another possible
solution please let me know.


Regards.

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



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Thor Stromsnes) says:

> I am having some problems with my PPP internet hookup. After about
> 10-15 min online, my V.34 Sportster just "hangs up". I use trumpet
> winsock and netscape software, and I have set the internal baud rate
> to 115.200, in order to handle compession. Is this a hardware problem,
> or what?

Give U.S. Robotics a call.  There was some sort of problem with some
of the sporsters that required and upgrade.  Something to do with
higher speeds and disconnections.

In the mean time, drop your speed down to 19200 and see if that works.

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



USR tech support 1-800550-7800, 0800 - 1800 CST (Chicago).

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



Have you got the upgrade chip for the USR modem? I had the same
problems and after calling USR they sent me a free upgrade chip. No
further problems.


Name: Jerry Eckler   E-mail: [e-mail]

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



No sooner had the FCC prempted California PUC problems, and PacBell
indicated they would go ahead -- finally -- then the STATE of CA has
appealed to the Circuit Court -- Good Grief -- back to ground zero.

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



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

> I would appreciate hearing about technical issues which are unique to
> phone companies serving sparsely populated areas.  I imagine that the
> smaller companies could become quite innovative in dealing with
> problems specific to their business.

This is a subject that would fill a book.  I will try to give a brief
outline of the issues as seen from the perspective of the MIS Director
of an independent telephone co.

1. History

The government decided some 40+ years ago that basic telephone service
was a
necessity, not a luxury, and that affordable basic service should be
made
available in all areas of the United States (The doctrine of "Universal
Service").  Ma Bell showed no interest in pursuing development in rural
areas at the time, so the government encouraged entrepeneurs to develop
service in rural areas.  This was accomplished through two means:

 a.  Low-cost loans made available through the REA.
 b.  The promise of a "return on investment" based revenue model
     subsidised by the Universal Service Fund.

2. Divestiture

Up until 1982, the independents had an informal "child-parent"
relationship with Ma Bell.  Most of the independents were basically
care-takers for their customers, and not too involved with industry
issues.  This has changed!  In the first few years following
divestiture, there was an industry shake-out.  A lot of "Ma & Pa"
companies were bought out by more aggressive independents who realized
that we had progressed from being care-takers to being risk-takers.

The successful independents were quick to learn the industry game,
using the "return on investment" revenue rules to update their plant
and provide the best (and most competitive) service possible.  Also,
the successful companies were quick to form separate corporations to
handle those activities (telephone sales and repair, for example)
which were no longer subject to regulation.  Now, the typical
aggressive independent telephone company may have as many as nine or
ten "sister companies", dealing in everything from long distance to
paging.

3. Technology

The Bell companies today still show little interest in the rural
areas.  Exchanges serves by independents tend to be much more
technologically advanced than rural Bell exchanges (all nine of our
exchanges, for example, are into their second generation of digital
switches, while several neighboring Bell exchanges are still using
step-switching).

The reason you see the Bell companies selling rural exchanges, is that
they are facing fierce pressure from the State Public Utility
Commissions to upgrade all of their exchanges to minimum standards,
i.e. digital switching (Can you imagine that there are still a lot of
people out there with no touch-tone?  Would you believe most of them
are Bell customers?).  In many cases, Bell has decided that it is
easier to sell than upgrade.

4. The Future

The independents will always be heavily dependent on subsidies like
the Universal Service Fund.  There is simply no way to maintain the
local loop in rural areas on the revenue produced by reasonably rated
local service.  Competition for local service can be a good thing, but
a completely free market economy for local phone service would mean
the end of universal service.


Bill Leidy    MIS Director
Chickasaw Telephone Co.
Sulphur, OK

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



All the phone companies will have caller ID in California in 1996,
that is if the FCC gets the regulations in place and the fools that
have been holding it up don't manage to go to court and delay it
again.  Though I agree that all have the right to disagree; that is
why the PUC holds hearings which no one can go to except people that
have a financial interest or nothing better to do; but when they go to
court and cause a delay they should be made to pay for all the costs
involved, if they had to do that then they would think twice about
putting everything they own by doing it. I believe both the PUC (ha
ha) and the FCC have looked at all sides the having it is much better
then not having it. By the way all of the GTE offices have the options
in place and all it would take is an update to each customer who wants
it; they same type of command update a customer would need for any
other option they want. All our CO phones have it in place, but there
are only a couple of places that have the phones; these are for
internal use only.


Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS
        Home of GBBS/LLUCE support
[phone] 12/24/14.4 V32/V42bis

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



Greetings.  I posted a longer article with details regarding this over
in my PRIVACY Forum digest.  True, PacBell will be offering CNID.
Note however, that they made this decision following the new FCC order
which apparently now *permits* per-line CNID blocking on interstate
calls.  The earlier FCC decision which was stayed specifically
prohibited per-line ID blocking on interstate calls, which effectively
called into question the ability of states to legislate any per-line
ID blocking at all -- it only allowed (mandated) per-call blocking.

It is expected that in those states where per-line ID blocking
availability has been legislated or otherwise mandated, an extremely
high percentage of subscribers will request it, even among people who
want CNID service for themselves!  In California, where a large
majority of lines are non-published, it is expected that almost all of
them will ultimately request per-line ID blocking.  It could well be
the case that within a couple of years 80%+ of total lines request
per-line ID blocking given responses people give to polls on this
subject.

Since the FCC did not mandate that non-published lines would be
per-line ID blocked by default, it will take a definitive action on
people's part to be blocked.  Percentages will vary depending on
whether or not a charge is associated with such blocking (in
California I *believe* there is to be no charge the last I heard).
The telcos are promising an education campaign to inform people about
these issues.

The upshot of all this is, I predict, that CNID services will
generally be a rather small niche market with limited usefulness for
most of the touted applications.  Whether or not you consider this to
be a good outcome depends on your point of view, of course.


╖_



 --Lauren--

P.S.  For information about the PRIVACY Forum digest, please send the
text:
      information privacy
as the first text in the *body* of a message to:
      [e-mail]

 --LW--

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



heath roberts <[e-mail]> writes:

> I think what happened in California is that when the telcos wanted to
> offer CLID, the California Public Utilities Commission (your
> representative government) placed so many different kinds of
> restrictions on what offering it would allow

The PUC had ruled that an unlisted number would not be disclosed
unless the caller chose to disclose it.  That's all.  Pac Bell
asserted that too few customers would order caller ID under that rule
to make it profitable.  And now the FCC has decreed that the calling
number will be disclosed unless the caller specifically choses to
block it.  This makes a difference because many (perhaps most)
residential customers will ignore the whole issue of caller ID, doing
nothing to either allow or block the display of their numbers when
they make phone calls.  By default, their numbers will be displayed
under the FCC rule.  The rule goes into effect December 1, 1995.  Pac
Bell is happy with this rule and will offer CNID in 1996.


Ben Carter   internet address: [e-mail]

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



Serge Burjak <[e-mail]> writes in TELECOM Digest Volume 15 Issue
226:

> I have a problem getting through to some automated attendants using
> DTMF from Australia. As the title says, after the connection the line
> appears not to pass DTMF tones ie., "press 1 for this service, press 2
> for that service."

> This happens with both Telecom and OPTUS. The customer service droids
> will not escalate the problem to anyone at an 'Engineer' level, but
> only to techs who make comments like, well "the US is probably
> translating these into something different, sorry cannot help you".

> Am I being unreasonable asking to pass in voice band information? I
> know it's not my phone, I can use Cyberlinks dial back for this or
> AT&T's USA direct with a credit card. The Cyberlink solution is not
> totally satisfactory for other resaons. The attendant requires a # key
> after the some transactions and Cyberlinks interprets this as a new
> call request.

The DTMF receivers in automated attendants are usually not up to the
same quality as a Central Office DTMF receiver.  It sounds as if there
is more loss on the Telecom and OPTUS connections than there is on the
AT&T USA direct.  This surprises me, as I would assume that all are
using digital transmission systems, which are "lossless!"

In North America, network design guidelines call for a maximum local
loop loss of 8.5dB, although 9dB isn't too unlikely.  A digital CO has
0dB through-loss, and an older, analog CO, such as a GTE #1 or #2 EAX
will have a through-loss of 0.8dB.  Then, don't forget, we have a loop
on the other side of the CO going to the called modem, so our maximum
dB loss on a local call using a pair of loosely-engineered loops
through an analog CO is (9+0.8+9) = 18.8dB.  These numbers come in
part from EIA/TIA-464-A, which describes the North American Loss Plan
for analog and digital PBXs.  I don't know if Australian loop design
is identical to this or not, but let's assume it is.

Now, single line DTMF phones typically sends tones at levels of 0dBm
to -6dBm. -6dBm through a facility loss of 18.8dB gives us a received
signal level at the automated attendent of -24.8dBm.  Even a
poorly-designed DTMF receiver on an automated attendant should be able
to handle this.  But, what if the DTMF tones are lower, as might be
true from a digital phone on a PBX, as the PBX could possibly send
DTMF tones as low as -12dBm.  In this case the DTMF level reaching the
receiver would only be -30.8dBm, and many automated attendants, as
well as answering machines, would have a problem with this.

So, Serge, the only thing I can suggest is to call from a single line
telephone, not a PBX, and try to pick a phone with a "hot" DTMF pad.


John Combs, Project Engineer, TestMark Laboratories,
[e-mail]

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



I am looking for a quality Residential LD Program that can meet the
following criteria:

1.  Preferrably LEC billed (although this is not critical);

2.  Prefer WilTel as underlying carrier, however will consider others;

3.  Competitive rate (nothing over 16 cents peak - and that is
stretching it a bit - unless the night/evening rate is great);

4.  No monthly fees over $1.00;

5.  Calling card with no bong and rate no more than 25 cents/minute;

6.  6 second billing  (if not, it better have a great rate);

7.  Personal 800 numbers with no monthly fees and competitive rates;

8.  Easy enrollment procedure.

This program is to be offered to employees as a value-added service
and to organizations as a fund-raiser.

I have not found the ideal program in any one package, although there
must be one out there.

Thanks, in advance, for all responses.  Please direct your response to
my E-mail address - no direct phone calls please.


Bill Engel

P.S.  If you have spoken to me about Residential programs in the past,
and your program can meet the above criteria, please contact me again.

P.P.S.  No Excel agents need respond.


Engel Strategies Group, Inc. * 11414 N. 69th Street, Ste. 103 *
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
E-mail: [e-mail]  Phone:  [phone]  Fax:  [phone]

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



I have a Motorola DPC550 cell phone.  My car power adaptor connects to
an
8 pin connector at the bottom of the phone.

I would like to connect an external antenna to the phone and I'm
guessing
that one or two of those eight pins are for that purpose.

I know they make docking stations for cars, but I don't want the
external
mike and speaker.  And I also want to use this same setup while not in
the
car.

Is there a connection for an external antenna?  If so ...

What pin(s) is it on?   From which side are pins counted?
Can the plug that plugs into the phone be purchased separately?

If not, is there any way or product that will connect external power
antenna and not cost me over $100?


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390     UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #232
******************************