A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-108.txt

Text File | 1993-02-18 | 20.7 KB | 544 lines

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Feb 93 16:06:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 108

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (John Higdon)
    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Cellular Phone Questions (Don Wegeng)
    Re: FX Service Across Area Codes (Mark Blumhardt)
    Re: Running Out of Area Codes (Carl Moore)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Brent Whitlock)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Larry Ader)
    Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring? (Ihor Kinal)
    Re: Need Names of Carrier For 800-xxx Number (Doug Zolmer)
    Re: Does Anyone Know Tellab's Phone Number? (John Anderson)
    Re: Third Party Network Connectivity (Ron Beach)
    Re: High-Speed Dial-Ups (John K Scoggin, Jr.)
    Re: DS0 Portion of a T1 (Fred R. Stearns)
    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Steve Scherer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 04:23 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State


Bob Longo <[e-mail]> writes:

> Californians want CNID, but they also want per-line blocking to be
> available (which is what PacBell is vigorously opposed to). That is
> reasonable in a state where 40% of phone customers have unlisted
> numbers.

Perhaps you could site the surveys and studies that back this up? I am
damn sick of people pronouncing what Californian's want (based upon
absolutely no evidence) when trying to justify the stifling of yet
another useful technology.

I, for one, do not much care what Californian's want; I know what is
useful and desirable and what is available in most of the rest of the
country. I also know that none of the doom and gloom, even in areas
that have no blocking capability, has been demonstrated in any way.

The CPUC is perfectly aware that its restrictions are not standard and
that no other state has required default per-line blocking and
per-call enabling. Please stop pontificating about how it is just the
mean old telephone companies that are being unreasonable. The
restrictions were passed with one purpose in mind: to eliminate the
offering of CNID in California. It succeeded royally. The activists
won this round.


John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   [phone]     |       FAX:
[e-mail] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:11:17 GMT


I don't have an opinion on this issue, but there are some facts I
wanted to clarify.

In article <[e-mail]> jack.decker@f8.n154.
z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker) writes:

> In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert
> L. McMillin) wrote:

>> [e-mail] (Ken Dykes) writes:

>>> Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles.  I
>>> live in southern Ontario CANADA.  My Caller-ID box instead of showing
>>> out-of-area showed PRIVACY.  The call to me was made (and answered)
>>> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of
>>> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell.

>> Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to
>> the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number
>> will show up as PRIVACY-enabled.  After all, privacy is the same thing
>> as anonymity ... NOT!

>>> PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-)

>> It's not Pac*Hell's fault, really.

> I think I would take issue with both of these statements.  First of
> all, it would seem that Pac*Bell would have the choice of not sending
> the number at all, rather than sending the number with a "privacy"
> flag attached.  If Caller ID is not being offered in California, then
> there is no reason they should be sending the number out of state,
> particularly when they're sending it with the "private" flag, which
> means that Caller ID subscribers can't read it anyway.

PacBell doesn't have this choice, because the decision of whether or
not Calling Party Number is sent is part of the IXC interstate access
tariff.  If the IXC subscribes to delivery of Calling Party Number,
the LEC must send it if it is available.  Regardless of whether anyone
can read it, the IXC has subscribed to receive it.

> Apparently the Caller ID software is already installed, so all they
> have to do is turn it on, yet apparently they'd rather do without the
> extra income from Caller ID than to even try it the way the PUC
> allowed it.

The fact that numbers are being delivered to IXCs is not sufficient to
indicate that the Caller ID software is available or active in
PacBell's switches.  Sending CPN does not require the Caller ID
feature; it requires only SS7 ISUP.  Activating the Caller ID feature
requires payment of an additional Right-To-Use fee.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Don Wegeng)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Questions
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Xerox Corp., Henrietta, NY
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 16:27:01 GMT


The replies that I have received about roaming and antennas have been
very useful, and are much appreciated.  There's still one area that
I'm still not clear on, namely emergency use of the phone when I'm
outside my home service area.

Consider the following scenario.  At home I have a contract with the A
carrier, and have the phone programmed to only roam with A carriers.
Now I'm travelling in another state, and come upon a serious car
accident.  My phone says that there's no cellular service in this
area, so I can't use it to summon help, regardless of whether this
particular area was covered by a B carrier.

In the above scenario, had I programmed the phone to roam on B
channels (or roam on both, with priority to A channels) would I have
been able to make an emergency call?  In other words, will carriers
accept emergency calls from any telephone, or will they only accept
emergency calls from phones that they recognize?


Thanks,

Don    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Blumhardt)
Subject: Re: FX Service Across Area Codes
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 19:03:07 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: FX service becomes expensive when it has to run
> between two central offices which connect direct to each other.

> A modern alternative is 'remote call forwarding'. Ask telco to
> terminate your current 201 number right in the CO where it is now and
> put it on permanent call forwarding to your new number. That will only
> cost $15-20 per month plus all calls it forwards at direct dial rates.

Let's make this a little more complex:

Let's say that I move from location A to B, and A and B are in the
same calling area (no toll).  Let's also say that C is in the same
calling area as B.  But C and A are not in the same calling area and
would have a toll charge if they called each other.  So, if I call
forward from A to B, and C calls A, would C be charged for a toll
call?  Sorry if this is too difficult to follow; a diagram would be
easier ...


Mark


[Moderator's Note: Yes, C would have a toll call to reach A and A
would have a local call to reach B. Likewise, if D was a phone sitting
right next to C and you had A forwarded to C, then when D called A,
the call would wind up on the same desk where it started and you would
have two toll charges; one going and one coming back. What A and B do
is of no concern to C. C wants to place a call to A, then C pays for a
call to A. The fact that A says 'send all my incoming calls to B' is
not important. C wants to talk to A, and A is making sure that will

occur, but via B. C gets what C paid for, with the added expense
charged to A because A wants coverage of his line. Each part of a
forwarded call is charged to where it *expects* to wind up; that is
the fallacy behind the idea that you can forward your phone to 'some
expensive 900 service' and stick the originating caller with the
charge. Do it and the joke will be on you.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 13:57:46 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Out of Area Codes


 From the message sent by [e-mail]:

> "It is my understanding that only the areas that are in the City of
> Los Angeles;"

I don't understand what this means.  Other sources indicate that the
City of L.A. is much bigger than just the Los Angeles exchange or the
900xx zipcodes.

> "downtown only remained 213 and the others went to 310. Those
> areas are West LA and such."

Montebello stayed in 213, and the central Los Angeles exchange (which
includes downtown, Hollywood, etc., plus the "foreign" L.A.  exchanges
appearing in what is now 818 and 310) also stayed in 213.  Yes, West
L.A. is among the exchanges which moved to 310.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 11:31:55 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?


[Moderator's Note: What a convenient arrangement!  I had heard these
devices get back as far as the transformer serving the neighborhood,
and I guess your experience shows this is true.  PAT]

Oh Pat, what a sense of humor you have!  In areas of private houses,
the pole transformers serve perhaps 3-10 homes (perhaps 20 - I'm not
sure).  That's hardly the entire neighborhood - just the block or
apartment building.  I don't think the signals cross between the
phases either -- that's why the X10 modules needed some capacitor
between the house's phases to let the signal propagate throughout the
house.

Yes, I agree that the signals are getting out of the house and into
neighbors' homes, but like a cordless phone, it's limited enough in
range that the risks are acceptable to many people (but certainly not
to us!)


Jeffrey Jonas    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brent Whitlock)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 21:38:42 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


[e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:

> >[Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights

> Hmmn, flourescent lights?  I've been able to get flour to explode, but
> never to glow continuously.  Have you told the USDA about this? Surely
> price supports are needed.

> Regards,

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

> PS: :-)

Actually, virtually any material can be made to emit photons if enough
power is pumped into it.  I refer you to the paper on the first edible
laser, the "Jello" laser.  T. A. Hansch, M. Pernier, and A. L.
Schalow, "Laser Action of Dyes in Gelatin," {IEEE Journal of Quantum
Electronics} QE-7, 47, January 1971.

So, here's to those flourescent lights! :-)

    * * * * * * --> DISCLAIMER:  I speak only for myself. <-- * * * * * *
Brent Whitlock        Beckman Institute for Advanced Science & Technology
[e-mail]    Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering
            University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Ader)
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Date: 17 Feb 93 06:13:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, CA


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

> My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a
> product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is.

> Anybody hear about this product?  Any comments?  Does it actually
> work?  What's the signal/noise ratio via this method?  Would this
> actually be a recommended way to add additional phone lines into a
> house?

I tried using a pair of them myself.  The intent was to be able to use
it for connection to a modem in one of my rooms that doesn't have a
phone jack.  Unfortunately, when I "listened to the line" through a
telephone (after dialing one digit) there was a detectable hum on the
line.  I was able to discover the source of the hum -- I also have
several (formerly BSR) X-10 modules in my place.  If I disconnected
them, the hum went away.  I decided that that inconvenience wasn't
worth it.

I did try to make a modem connection anyway, and I guess the hum was
just too much for it (the modem).  Anybody want to buy a pair of them
(barely used)?


 Larry Ader    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
 2550 Garcia Ave.  M/S  MPK03-201   Mountain View, CA   94043-1100
 amdahl!echidna!lra  (home) ph. 415/688-9721

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 13:46:10 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Lines via Electrical Wiring?
Organization: AT&T


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

> My mom was asking me about an ad she read recently that was selling a
> product that allowed a phone jack anywhere an electrical outlet is.

> [Moderator's Note: They work okay unless you have flourescent lights
> or other noise making conditions in the power lines.   PAT]

What concerns me, is the capability that someone could grab the line
remotely.  I remember that allegedly people use to cruise neighbor-
hoods looking for cordless frequencies to dial out on.  Nasty hassle
to resolve.

Is that possible with these devices?

Inquiring minds want to know ...  Standard disclaimers apply.


Ihor Kinal   att!trumpet!ijk

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

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:33:00 +0000
From: Doug (D.W.J.) Zolmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Names of Carrier For 800-xxx Number


> I am trying to find out how to get a custom 800 number, say
> 1-800-268-xxxx.  I was told that each carrier owns certain blocks of
> numbers.  How do I find out this one in particular, and in general?

> It was pleasing to here that you will soon be able to take your 800
> numbers with you to another carrier.

> If anyone know anything about this, please help!

Bell Canada - Ontario region "owns" 800-268-XXXX.  There are a lot of
doubt very much if Glenn will be able to obtain an 800 number in that
exchange since it's in Canada.


Doug Zolmer     Internet: [e-mail]     Disclaimer: my opinions only
        Bell-Northern Research Limited, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
     Dept. 7N61 - Service Control Point - Routing Services Design
            Voice: +1 613.763.8217   FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Anderson)
Subject: Re: Does Anyone Know Tellab's Phone Number?

Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 20:33:46 GMT


[e-mail] (John V. Jaskolski) writes:

> Does anyone know Tellab's phone number?

Tellab's Headquarters: 708-969-8800

Tellab's Technical Assistance: 708-505-0099


John D. Anderson, M.S.      |Internet:  [e-mail]
Motorola                    |uucp:      uunet!motcid!andrsonj
1501 W. Shure Drive         |Phone:     [phone]
Arlington Heights, IL 60004, Mail Stop: IL27-2237

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Third Party Network Connectivity
Date: 17 Feb 93 07:30:02 -0600
Organization: BP Research, Cleveland, OH (USA)


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

> I'm looking for someone to help me research the issue of one business
> directly connecting it's internal network to that of another company
>  - a supplier, a business partner, a vendor, etc. We call that 'third
> party connectivity' within BP (British Petroleum, ne Standard Oil).

Dear all -

Thanks to those that have replied to me. As hindsight, I should have
made it clearer that I meant data networks, not telephone networks.
There are no issues with connecting voice systems.

We have an international internal data network, and, of course, a
secure Internet gateway. We have quite a few current network
connections to things like banks, accounting firms, etc , and are
considering opening our data network by plugging into the networks of
business partners -- for instance joint operation of facilities and
sites. The head audit group is helping with the process, and currently
supportive. Cost is the issue. If it costs more to the whole
organization to open the network than to leave it closed,then we
probably won't do it. The businesses are fragmented -- with differing
needs for data connectivity. If our network is declared open and
insecure, then those business portions who don't like it, or are
sensitive (as finance, trading, etc) must spend money to close
themselves off. If the aggregate total cost for internal security is
greater than the aggregate total of costs of external 'firewalls'
needed, and there are no offsetting benefits, then we'll likely not
proceed.

Any leads to other companies who might have gone through this for
direct inter-business links (not via the Internet) would be
appreciated.


Thanks again,

Ron Beach            Manager, Telcom and Information Strategy
BP Research          4440 Warrensville Ctr. Rd
Cleveland, Ohio  44128  [e-mail]

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

From: John K Scoggin Jr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: High-Speed Dial-Ups
Date: 17 Feb 1993 12:31:57 GMT
Organization: Delmarva Power & Light Company
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (John Biederstedt) writes:

> We have some T1 circuits and would like to provide high-speed dial
> backup capability.  It would be nice to get 56 kb dial-ups.  Codex
> makes such a modem, but it is compressed.  Dissapointingly, they are
> moving to higher-speed asyncronous modems rather than syncronous
> modems. :-(  Does the Internet have any suggestions?

Western Datacom makes a 56KBPS Synchronous modem that will run over
dialed lines or leased lines.  It uses compression, but they seem
pretty confident in it ...


John K. Scoggin, Jr.            Email: [e-mail]
Supervisor, Network Operations       Phone: [phone]
Delmarva Power & Light Company       Fax:   [phone]
500 N. Wakefield Drive               NOC:   [phone]
Newark, DE 19714-6066
The opinions expressed are not those of Delmarva Power, simply the
product of an over-active imagination...

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R Stearns)
Subject: Re: DS0 Portion of a T1
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 12:14:24 GMT
Organization: Dickens Data Systems, Inc.


> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred R
> Stearns) writes:

>> Please excuse my math, but if one bit of every 6th byte is stolen,
>> doesn't that make 62.667 kbps?

Thanks to all of the following people:

Steve Forrette, [e-mail]
Brett    ([e-mail])
Al Varney
[e-mail]
John Levine, [e-mail], {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl

For pointing out to me that you don't know which of the bytes has a
bit stolen, so you must assume that they all do.


Fred R. Stearns -- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Scherer)
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones
Organization: CSU Fresno
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 15:23:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mike.riddle%inns@
axolotl.omahug.org writes:

> [e-mail] (John Higdon)) writes:

>> Scanner laws will be just about as effective as gun laws -- only much
>> sillier. The FCC is seriously deluded if it thinks it can win a
>> technological war with anyone. The below-average moron outguns the FCC
>> in the brain cell department.

> This may well be true, :-), but as the original post noted, the FCC is
> under a mandate from our Congre$$ Critter$ to promulgate reguations on
> this subject.  Now if anyone wonders about the collective I.Q. of
> Congre$$ on technological matters ... PAT has some perfectly dry
> tunnels under Chicago to sell.

QST Magazine recently published an article on how to build a
modification to an existing scanner that would allow scanning of the
800 meg band. There was the usual disclaimer, but we all know how far
that will go.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #108
******************************