A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-144.txt

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 21.8 KB | 484 lines

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Mar 93 02:30:15 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 144

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    OSPS and ANI Failures (Andy Sherman)
    Re: OSPS and ANI Failures (John Higdon)
    Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill (John Higdon)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: National Data Superhighways - Access? (Jeffrey Jonas)
    Re: Let's Do a Figure-8 (Ron Dippold)
    Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy (Joseph P. Cain)
    Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed (Eric Pearce)
    Comment About Terrorism (Paul Robinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 23:23:29 EST
Subject: OSPS and ANI Failures
From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)

On Feb 26 at  2:34, TELECOM Moderator noted:

> There are also instances when for some reason or another the
> equipment fails to capture the calling number and an operator will
> come on the line to ask 'may I have the number you are calling from
> please ...'

On 28 Feb 93, [e-mail] (John Higdon) replied:

> I do not think this has been done for decades. If there is an ANI
> failure, then the call is not completed. Maintaining operator
> positions for CAMA-style purposes in this day and age would be most
> silly.

To which PAT replied:

> [Moderator's Note: ANI failures are not all that common, and there are
> no operator positions maintained just for 'CAMA-style purposes'. The
> call just goes to any available operator position and the tube tells
> the operator what is wanted. She types it in, hits a certain key and
> the call is released to go on its way.  PAT]

Well, John, for once we got you.  :^)

The Operator Services Position System (OSPS) is a one size fits all
position that does just about anything imaginable that an operator
would need to do (other than directory assistance).  Your center
handles calls for the LEC?  No problem. OSPS tells you what company
name to brand the call with.  Need to count coins?  No problem, OSPS
will do that, too.  Etc. Etc.

As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an
OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters.  One of
the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call
were the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE.  In those cases you
hand to ask the customer for the number and then complete the call.

The training materials also indicated that there were a few offices
(probably in ICO land) where the calling number had to be collected
for every toll call.  Since AT&T operator services centers cover a
much wider geographic are than those little end offices, nobody gets a
majority of such calls, but we were all trained to handle them.

The only kicker is that I don't remember off-hand whether ONI or ANI
hit our consoles only for 0+ calls or also for 1+ calls.  The only
thing that would argue against Pat's scenario is if ANI failure
bounced the call on a 1+.  I just don't remember.  Certainly nothing
in the features of the OSPS console would preclude collecting the
billing number from a customer-dialed call in the event of ANI
failure.

A digression:

This baby is *very* flexible and *very* well designed.  After the
"two-phase commit" model of collect calls was adopted (operator A
hears you say collect, releases the call, your party answers and
operator B does the name game) these things keep operators very busy,
too.  What used to be holding time for an operator is now holding time
for a switch.


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."


[Moderator's Note: In my employment over the years, granted I've been
on the phone more than many people. If I had to guess, maybe I've
encountered an ANI failure a dozen times in 30+ years of heavy calling
for my employers, etc ... like 80-100 calls per day on occassion. The
ANI failures I experienced were always on 1+ calls to the best of my
memory.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 20:46 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: OSPS and ANI failures


On Mar 1 at 23:23, Andy Sherman writes:

> As you will recall from our private correspondance, I trained to be an
> OSPS operator as part of last summers labor relations jitters.  One of
> the things that could show up on your screen with an incoming call were
> the messages ONI FAILURE and ANI FAILURE.  In those cases you hand to
> ask the customer for the number and then complete the call.

So my question is this: What happens when it is my Trailblazer or fax
modem that is making the call? Even though the Trailblazer and the
Brooktrout are very fine modems indeed, I do not believe they can
answer a "Your number, please" inquiry. Obviously, the call fails at
that point, since the operator just dumps it--probably thinking there
are some kids or a crank at the other end of the wire.

Now, given that the number of calls generated on the network by
automatic devices is increasing exponentially, feeble attempts to
"rescue" a call via operator intervention would seem to be a complete
waste of time and resources.

I guess what I am trying to say is, "why bother?" Just let the call
die; why take up more time?


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


[Moderator's Note: *All types of calls* are increasing in volume. Fax
and voice calls are the way business operates these days: no one
writes letters, at least not in any quantity as they did 30 years ago.
Calls from automated devices (modems, etc) are still just a small minority
of the total. Yes, there are lots more such calls, but the ratio is still
the same. Offices all over the USA have thousands of clerks sitting in
cubicles banging away on the phone all day.  So yes, calls from automated
devices fail to complete and are aborted when the operator can't get a
response she understands from the 'caller'.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:13 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Help Becky With Her 900 Bill


Tony Harminc <[e-mail]> writes:

> You just weren't trying, John!  One of my earliest "playing with the
> phone" discoveries in the 1960s was that it was possible to cause an
> ANI failure (this was SxS into a 4A crossbar) by flashing just after
> finishing dialing.

You have just discovered one of the great, gaping holes in my telecom
experience. I have NEVER had service provided from a SXS office. Yes,
it is true, I have had no service in my name provided from anything
more vintage than crossbar. Now that is not to say that I have not
beat on the telephones of friends and associates that have been served
out of SXS, but it is not the same thing. (Even when growing up, it
was panel, then crossbar.)

I lived in North Carolina for a time in an area served by Southern
Bell step. There was a phone in the house that we all used and it was
interesting to note that most of the time long distance calls went
through without operator intervention, but occasionally an operator
would come on the line and ask for the number of the calling phone.
Your comments explain this little mystery.

Except for some SXS on the peninsula (Mountain View, Palo Alto,
Redwood City, and San Mateo), the Bay Area has been served by crossbar
and panel before the electronic stuff came along. San Jose's first
dial equipment was crossbar; San Fransisco's was panel. In fact, the
only SXS convenient to play with anywhere near me was Los Gatos.
Before GTE swallowed it up, the Western California Telephone Company
had the most rickety SXS the ear has ever heard. It was so stupid that
to call San Jose (a local call), it was necessary to dial '9', wait
for second (tandem) dial tone, and then dial the San Jose number.

When GTE moved in, it became the usual vile directorized SXS that GTE
is infamous for.

But back to the present. Nowadays, I would be willing to bet that ANI
failures (if they occur) would simply cause the call to fail. In an
age of fax machines, modems, and other automatic dialing equipment, an
operator coming on the line to ask, "Your number, please", seems
rather pointless. Gee, I wonder how many times any of my Trailblazers

has been asked for ITS number?

And, of course, it is all moot now. The face of ANI has forever
changed with SS7. There can no longer be any "ANI failure".


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


[Moderator's Note: Of course there can still be a failure to capture
the number and pass it along. As noted above, when that (rarely)
happens -- given the huge amount of network traffic -- an operator
picks up the call, punches in the quoted data and releases the call
back to the equipment which then adopts the operator's forced input as
its own. But I am talking about an infintesimally small fraction of
one percent of all calls having this happen, which is as good as
saying it does not happen, lest the average customer clutch on it as a
way to resolve all billing disputes. It is like the old cliche about
computers 'never making mistakes'. Of course they don't. Of course
they do. Which response would you make to the average (not telecom/
computer-saavy) customer?

One response recieved here when using my SS-7 features (call screening
[add number of last call received], return last call, and Caller-ID)
is 'I am sorry, the number is not available now' (on the ID box, the
message is 'Error' or 'E') as opposed to 'I am sorry, the feature you
are requesting is not available with that number' (on the ID box the
message is 'Outside').  Other times when you try to add a 'last call
received' number to your blocked list, the robot goes away silently
for the longest time (20-30 seconds) and comes back to report "That
number cannot be added *right now* ... try again in a few minutes."
I assume the CO was doing something like trying to 'finger' the number
in the other CO but getting no response to the finger-request.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:13:12 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


Richard Nash <[e-mail]> writes:

> [stuff I originally posted, along with embarrassingly nice things said
> about same by Andre Blau <[e-mail]>, deleted]

> Well, perhaps it was better that I waited before responding to the
> remarks countered to those I had made, that "the telcos are not
> interested in monopoly services."  Have we gone full circle yet?
> Affordable digital service for residential users is something that I
> have long wished for.  Will the private sector have me, the lowly
> residential data highway user, interests, as a fundamental concern?

They had better have your interests as a fundamental concern.
Granted, huge corporations tend to be rather impersonal.  On the other
hand, they don't reach into your paycheck BEFORE you get it and grab
33%, either.  The only one with enough balls to take bread off your
table before you can eat it is Uncle Sam.

> Is competitive undercutting going to ultimately resolve data transport
> costs to absolute marginal profits and then as perhaps we see in the
> airline industry, consistant uncertianty to their solvency/dependancy
> to deliver?

Look, if what you want is stability, go ahead and nationalize the
network.  Be prepared for zero customer service, high prices, and
outright hostility toward installing new equipment that might
eliminate paying positions.  As Mr. Clinton himself pointed out, the
government isn't interested in change as a way to get rid of
high-paying jobs -- jobs which, if dropped, could also result in the
customer getting the same service at a lower cost.

We all know the two answers the Feds have about reducing the price of
anything: either it gets subsidized, or they install price controls.
For the former, the Feds fondle your money for a while before handing
less of it back to you.  For the latter, you will wait three months to
get service.  Almost certainly, you will get the worst of both worlds:
lousy service AND high prices.

Thomas Sowell recently wrote that the government is a blunt instrument
and its uses should be restricted to those things blunt instruments
can do well.  The last time I checked, a fiber optic pipe was not
blunt.

> What I would be interested in hearing about from {telecom digest}
> readers, is how they foresee the deployment?  Who is gonna do it cheap
> for all of us to enjoy?  National (government funded) programs to
> develop this network, or AT&T and such interested parties, running
> high profile interference to prevent their overpriced technology, from
> being easily overcome by the technology revolution that perhaps even
> they cannot ultimately stonewall?

The telcos do not have much of a choice in the matter if they want to
stay alive.  In the 1950's, the railroads forgot they were in the
transportation business.  The Interstate Highway system created the
long-haul trucking industry, relegating railroads to stale markets and
old technology.  If the telcos now make a similar mistake with the
"data superhighway," they will almost certainly face the same doom.
Gore's proposal should serve as a cattle prod for telephony.

So if the telcos want to keep what they have, they'd better start
laying plans to lay fiber, everywhere and soon.  The payoff is that
they can push video through their newly laid pipes, thanks to a
fortuitous court ruling.  I'm not exactly happy with the telcos
providing content, but the fact is that the cable companies do exactly
that now.  With the world going digital at picosecond speed, cable
operators and telcos look increasingly like the same thing.  The ones
with the best capitalization, customer service, and price will win.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: [e-mail]
                         After June 25 : [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 11:21:10 EST
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Jonas)
Subject: Re: National Data Superhighways - Access?


> I think it is clear that the access problem will get cleared up. The
> question then becomes what do you do with all the information and get
> it into a usable form;

Why, Mr and Mrs. John Q. Public will use their wide screen digital
HDTV surround sound Sear's/IBM TV connected to Prodigy! (Remember
AT&T Sceptre, the TV terminal?)

Jeesh -- just what I needed -- a combination Sega/Nintendo/Mac/PC
compatible color high resolution surround sound stereophonic
multimedia system with CD-ROM, keyboard, mouse, joysticks and power
pad!


Jeffrey Jonas     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
Subject: Re: Let's Do a Figure-8
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 05:12:23 GMT


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

>> Including the cellular system ... MINs are specifically designed for
>> three digits + seven digits.  They would have to remain on a seven
>> digit system, and then the phone company (the switches?) would have to
>> do a seven to eight and eight to seven translation.

> known in advance that I MUST use an area code.  But getting back to
> the excerpt above: I am not sure what it means!

Okay, I also got some mail on this. To elaborate, this is regarding
the AMPS cellular standard (used for North America).  Every phone has
a MIN (Mobile Identification Number) composed of MIN2 (the area code)
and MIN1 (the seven digit phone number).  If you want to send a
message to a phone, such as "There's a call for you!" you identify the
phone by its MIN.  The mobile watches for messages that contain its
MIN and should respond to those.  In addition, the MIN (along with the
ESN) is how the mobile identifies itself to the system.

Now here's where the fun begins.  MIN1 and MIN2 are actually special
representations of the digits in their numberical forms.  In other
words, 619-555-1212 isn't stored as a MIN2 value of 619 and a MIN1
value of 5551212.  They each go through a "massage" of the digits that
is totally dependent on the form of the data (i.e., three digits in
one, seven digits in another).  This is a standard, and it is not
flexible.

work.  They would have no idea how to decode the numbers.  If you used
a somewhat compatible scheme they might be able to get the seven
digits they are used to, but that's about it.  And, of course, all the
switches and cells that are out there are probably wired for
seven-digit AMPS as well.  It's not like a regular phone system where
the phone company figures out which line to ring, then rings it -- in
this case it's up to the phone itself to decide when to ring.

The only thing I can think of on short notice that would be minimal
pain would be for the switches (MTSOs) to be modified to convert from
eight digit format (external world) to MIN1/MIN2 format (mobile world),
and then to use an extended data field so that those mobiles that did
know about eight digit format could use it.


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

Subject: Re: Quebec Yellow Pages Controversy
From: oldman![e-mail] (Joseph P. Cain)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 17:07:56 -0500
Organization: Joseph P. Cain


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> I have a business associate in Canada who tells me that businesses in
> Quebec (or some part thereof) are forbidden to answer the phone in
> English.  Reportedly, even a mixed French/English greeting is not
> allowed -- the person answering can't use English until the caller
> indicates that they want to speak English.  And, (perhaps in the
> "Office de la Langue Francaise) there are Phone Police (tm) that call
> businesses at random in order to ensure compliance with these
> regulations.

I can see that if you give those separatists an inch they will take a
mile. Let them get their foot in the door with a stupid sign law and
they will do everything else possible to try and ruin english business
in Quebec. The government rule is not to protect the French but to
ruin the English language. I am no longer proud of my Quebec heritage.

In the name "Office de la Langue Francaise" why is it Office and not
Bureau?  They might as well use every nail in the English Language
coffin.


Joe Cain VE3ANJ    UUCP: joe@oldman   Tel:  [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 20:19:25 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Eric Pearce)
Subject: Re: Current Switched56 (tm) DSU/CSU Vendors Needed


I recently bought an Adtran DSU 2AR for this purpose.  I was pleased
when the PacBell "Special Services" guy showed up to install the SW56k
line and his "test equipment" turned out to be the same Adtran box.


Eric Pearce | [e-mail] | O'Reilly & Associates
Publishers of Nutshell Series Handbooks and X Window System Guides
103 Morris St, Sebastopol, CA 95472  1-800-998-9938 or 707-829-0515

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Paul Robinson <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993  19:50:01 EST
Subject: Comment About Terrorism


Pat Townson's comments about the future of America were something that
hit home.  I was once asked by a bus driver about things to come:

  Count on it; the violence in the cities will not get
  better and will get worse.  The recent incident will
  be just a taste of the kind of thing that will happen
  so often that the papers won't even report them until
  the body count goes above 100 or more.  Count on
  random acts of violence without purpose or reason.
  And expect the imposition of Martial Law in major
  cities.  Making a prediction like this is about as
  difficult as predicting an egg will crack while it's
  on the way to the floor.

When I said it, it was *1980* and I was referring to the
*Miami Riots*.

The real question I wanted to ask, if you knew it, was the name of the
Made for TV movie written by either Woodward or Bernstein, about a
group of major terrorist attacks upon the United States, when they
finally begin to take place.


[Moderator's Note: I forget the name of that movie, but another one
which comes to mind is 'Escape From Manhattan' which came out several
years ago. As the movie starts, we are informed the year is 1993, that
'violent crime in the USA has increased 400 percent in the past two
years', and that because the government had run out of prison space,
the island of Manhattan had been evacuated and was now used exclusively
as a penal colony, with the prisoners left to their own devices about
how to survive, what to eat, etc. All bridges or other exits leaving
Manhattan had been sealed or were heavily guarded. An airplane flew
overhead once a week and dropped out food supplies.

America changed last Friday. The land where the only battles on our
own soil were those we fought amongst ourselves is gone. Expect the
nineties to be the decade of random killing and violence for its own
sake.  And wait until next month when The Jury finds the police officers
innocent ... social order in urban America will erode completely. I
rather suspect we may be living under martial law by this summer.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #144
******************************