A Beginner's Guide to the Internet/INTERNET.ISO/text/telediag/tc13-178.txt

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 20.6 KB | 480 lines

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Mar 93 00:43:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 178

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular System A and B Info Wanted (John Higdon)
    Re: Cellular System A and B Info Wanted (Hal Stitt)
    Re: How do I Order a Leased Voice-Grade Line? (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Summary: Mini-PBX in ISA PC (Dave Levenson)
    Re: The Future of Videophones (Martin Briscoe)
    Re: US Post Office Not Caught up With Common Technology? (John Higdon)
    No 900 in Louisiana? (J. Philip Miller)
    Sprint Counter-Offers (was AT&T Switch Bribe...) (Paul W. Schleck)
    FAQ Notes (Dave Leibold)
    Software For Data Download via High-Speed Lines (Nita Avalani)
    Information Wanted in CTS Datacomm Modems (William Petrisko)
    Caller ID For GTE in NC (Matthew Waugh)
    800 Number Woes (Dave Rand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 21:21 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Cellular System A and B Info Wanted


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

> So, is GTE MobilNet here in San Luis Obispo an A carrier or a B
> carrier?  We are served by Pacific Bell, but the GTE Mobilnet system
> is based in Santa Barbara, where GTE is the local telco.

GTE Mobilnet is the B (wireline) carrier in each of its California
service areas. Whether it is indeed the LEC in any of those places is
irrelavent. It has more to do with timeliness of filed applications
and other matters. As long as GTE does actually supply local dial tone
ANYWHERE in a cellular service area, it can qualify for a B cellular
license. GTE Mobilnet is the Bay Area's B carrier and yet supplies a
very tiny number of exchanges with GTE wired dial tone.

California roaming arrangements are strange. In San Francisco, the B
carrier is GTE and the A carrier is Cellular One (partially owned by
PacTel). If you travel to Sacramento while talking on GTE, your call
will be handed off to PacTel Cellular (B carrier in Sacramento) with
whom you will be roaming. If you travel south from Santa Barbara, your
GTE Mobilnet call will hand off to PacTel Cellular in Los Angeles,
your roaming provider there. Yes, the competing companies actually
hand off calls in progress to each other if the caller travels across
the boundaries. (Billing is handled as if the caller made the entire
call within the area where the call originated.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Hal Stitt)
Subject: Re: Cellular System A and B Info Wanted
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 05:37:18 GMT


[e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Really, the B carriers are owned by the local
>> 'wireline' telephone company in the area. For example, in Chicago,
>> Ameritech Mobile is the B carrier; they also operate Illinois Bell,
>> our telco.  The A carriers are the 'non-wireline' carriers. They will
>> frequently be telephone companies also, but in some other part of the
>> country.  The A carriers often times use the generic name 'Cellular
>> One'. Here in Chicago, Cellular One (the A carrier) is owned by
>> Southwestern Bell, a telephone company in another part of the USA.  On
>> the other hand, the same Southwestern Bell is the B carrier operating
>> in the St.  Louis, Missouri area.  So if a telco goes to the territory
>> of some other telco to operate cellular, they do it as an A carrier.
>> The telco which 'belongs there' (or has historically always been the
>> telco in that community) is the B carrier.  Is all that clear? :) In
>> addition, the A carriers stick among themselves with things like
>> roaming agreements; the B carriers do the same.  PAT]

> So, is GTE MobilNet here in San Luis Obispo an A carrier or a
> B carrier?  We are served by Pacific Bell, but the GTE Mobilnet system
> is based in Santa Barbara, where GTE is the local telco.  The border
> between GTE and PacBell is at the county line, about 30 miles south of
> here.  As I understand the system, GTE does all their cellular
> switching in Santa Barbara and just has cell sites up here, connected
> to SB by T-1 lines.  So, a call across the room goes to SB and back.
> So, is GTE Mobilnet a B carrier here, or do they switch from B to A
> when they cross the Santa Maria River?

> [Moderator's Note: Good question. I don't know anything about that
> part of the country. Where you have two major telcos serving one metro
> area like Los Angeles (Bell and GTE) and they both are in the cellular
> business as well, then I guess some arbitrary decision was made in the
> past.  PAT]

The B carriers are generally the wireline carriers, but not always. If
the wireline carrier didn't build up a system within a specified time,
I believe within two years of being licensed, the area was available
to others via a lottery. In your case, Rt. 101 has a lot to do with
the outcome. GTE, the wireline carrier in Santa Barbara wound up with
an extension as the B carrier up 101 to north of San Ardo. According
to The Cellular Telephone Directory, you don't have an A carrier in
SLO. McCaw/Cellular One has the A license in Santa Barbara, but their
coverage only goes north to Santa Maria. Building systems along major
highways got a high priority early on when most cellular phones were
mounted in cars. It's still a priority in your area. The density of
cellular phone users probably falls off sharply within a few miles
east and west of 101.


Hal Stitt    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: How do I Order a Leased Voice-Grade Line?
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 05:14:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lars
Poulsen) writes:

> I have been asked to provide ordering specifications for a third party
> to lease a full-time voice grade circuit here in GTE-CA territory.
> The line is to be used to connect two V.32bis modems about six miles
> apart (served out of different central offices). The modems are
> designed for operation on the public switched telephone network (i.e.
> they expect a two-wire circuit with battery, dial tone and ring signal
> present).

> It seems to me that this is similar to an off-premise extension for a
> PBX; is that what I should order? If I get a two-wire "private
> circuit" will it have battery, dial tone and ring?

Not quite.  The OSNA line (used for PBX off-premise stations) has
dis-similar ends.  The PBX end is a current sink (looks to the PBX
like a station) while the station end is a current source (looks to
the station like the PBX line circuit).

The telco probably does offer a ringdown line (a service designed to
support two telephone sets -- go off-hook on either end and the other
end receives ringing).  That will support a couple of switched-service
modems if the originating modem can be programmed to go off-hook
without dialing or expecting dial tone.


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] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Summary: Mini-PBX in ISA PC
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 05:16:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Simon Townsend)
writes:

> Not too many replies, but they may be useful. I enclose them all:

>  From: bears![e-mail]

> I'm not sure where to get them, but AT&T makes a voice power card,
> that has Unix driver suport.  It can handle four phone lines.

The AT&T 4-channel Voice Power card has four telephone line
interfaces.  It has no telephone station interfaces, and no capability
to make/break connections between its four ports.  Yes, it can answer
four trunks, but no, it is not a PBX.


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] (Martin Briscoe)
Subject: Re: The Future of Videophones
Date: 14 Mar 93 11:26:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Martin Briscoe)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. [phone]



> I am working on a research project concerning the future of
> videophones and videoconferencing.  Is there a future at all?

ICCTIS (the UK organisation that regulates Premium Rate "chat-lines")
announced last week that they will not allow the use of premium rate
chat-line services ("adult" type) on videophones -- so thats a big
potential market lost!


Martin     * 1st 1.10b #405 * Martin Briscoe
Fort William - Highland Region - Scotland

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

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 21:08 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: US Post Office Not Caught up With Common Technology?


On Mar 14 at 20:11, TELECOM Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Except of course, there are times when original
> documents are required, such as checks in payment, signatures on other
> documents, etc.   PAT]

My unfortunate experience with the Post Office is that if you REALLY
need to get a document from one location to another, you should use
another service. NEVER EVER send an original, valuable document
through the US mail -- certified, registered or otherwise. I have had
irreplacable documents lost and the extra money spent registering or
certifying was literally wasted. The USPS has no way of tracking
anything within its system (unlike Federal Express which can).

All of the fabulous technology notwithstanding, the USPS provides
miserable, not even barely-adequate service. Add to that the miserable
attitude on the part of counter personel and you have an institution
whose demise will draw no tears from me.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (J. Philip Miller)
Subject: No 900 in Louisiana?
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 07:14:15 -0600 (CST)


Having just seen an ad for NBC's weather line (1-900-WILLARD) it
stated it was not valid in Louisiana.  Have they passed a law that
makes all 900 service illegal or only those that give their proceeds
to charity?


  J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
      [e-mail] - [phone] [362-2694(FAX)]

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

Subject: Sprint Counter-Offers (was AT&T Switch Bribe ...)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 12:47:40 CST
From: Paul W Schleck KD3FU <[e-mail]>


You may recall my short note on this forum a while ago about AT&T
offering me $75 to switch from US Sprint and my surprise that a
long-distance company would fork over that much hard cash when it's
not clear that would get that much in gross receipts (let alone
profit) from me in a year.

I'd like the thank the general feedback I got from other readers.
Some pointed out that it was based on the assumption that once I
changed I wouldn't want to change back for a while (is the public
realy that passive?).  Others recommended that I keep my secondary
account with Sprint and use the appropriate access codes whenever I
wanted to use Sprint instead (I pretty much surmised that from reading
the Digest over the years, but the replies reminded me to call Sprint
and confirm it, including retention of my FON card).

The switch has already taken place (based on calling 1-700-555-2424),
but no check yet.  Now Sprint has upped the ante by making a
counter-offer.  They'll switch me back for free at the end of 30 days
(the minimum service committment for the AT&T switch), and give me 75
minutes of long-distance the first month (probably a minute per $1
deal).  They assure me I can still pocket the AT&T check. What the
heck?

Now, if anyone calls me to task for this calling-plan ping-pong, I'll
just simply say, "Hey, I'm not the one playing games, you are.  If you
want to offer me all kinds of marketing hype and switching bribes that
profit from the telecom-illiterate, that's your choice.  I'm an
intelligent consumer who views long-distance as a product, and through
the use of tools like 10XXX codes and calling cards (including my
soon-to-arrive Orange Card), makes ongoing and intelligent choices
about what's best for me."

Jon Higdon is right when he says this isn't going to shake out the
market and make any one company the clear winner.  These tricks and
incentives will only cause the consumer to "expect" them and further
muddy the waters about costs and profits.


Paul W. Schleck  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Bear in mind that if anyone chooses to use the long
distance 1+ plans I am selling, I won't send any rebate checks out;
but I will gratefully try to continue sending a quality telecom news-
group feed out each day. :)    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1993 00:28:43 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: FAQ Notes


Thanks to those who offered tips, fixes and ideas following the FAQ
list that was released many weeks ago.

I'm aware of the news.answers group for posting of such list, and I
did make an attempt to post the Telecom FAQ there. Unfortunately, it
was rejected on some technicalities, so another attempt to post there
will have to wait until I can study through the 110 Commandments for
that group and get the whole works right.

Carl Moore did nab some spelling and other errors; I'm now aware that
Ireland switched over to 00+ for overseas dialing.


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We all owe Dave and Carl Moore our thanks for first
starting the telecom FAQ and keeping it up to date. A copy automatically
goes to each new subscriber to the mailing list and it can also be
found  in the Telecom Archives using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Nita Avalani)
Subject: Software For Data Download via High-Speed Lines
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 20:05:01 GMT


Is there any software out there which will allow to download data
between remote mainframes and sun/unix servers at the line speed or
close to the line speed?  The data throughput for Xcom6.2 (LU6.2) was
at about 24kb/sec, and about 2-5kb/sec for IND$FILE (LU2).  What do
people use for T1/T3 lines?  Are there any user-friendly, reliable
software (with 3270 emulators and GUI) capable of downloading daily
from remote mainframes (via T1/T3 lines) at around 1mb/sec - 100mb/sec
(or more)?


Nita

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

From: [e-mail] (William Petrisko)
Subject: Information Wanted in CTS Datacomm Modems
Date: 14 Mar 1993 22:28:17 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I picked up a couple of CTS Datacomm model 9629 leased line modems.

I'm curious if anyone has a manual or knows anything about them (what
are the two db25's ... sync or async, etc ...)

Any info would be appreciated.


bill petrisko   current address:   [e-mail]
aka n7lwo            soon to be:       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Caller ID For GTE in NC
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 93 01:31:31 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.



GTE in NC included a little insert on Calling Number Identification
with my phone bill this month. I thought a fairly good explanation of
CID, and promising it for us soon. By default we will get Per-Call
Blocking on *67 (1167 for pulse dialers). You can get Per-Line
Blocking (by which they mean by default your line will not be
identified) if you ask, at no charge. When you have Per-Line Blocking,
you use, you guessed it, *67 to allow your number to be passed.

They request that you return their card to sign-up for Per-Line
Blocking by April 23rd, if that tells us anything about their schedule.

They also included information on their SmartCall package, that
provides all those goodies like Call Return. They note: "Limitation:
These services now work on most calls, but only from within your local
calling area, and between the NNXs listed on the map." The map lists
the 2 GTE service areas in Durham and Monroe. From this, I surmise,
perhaps incorrectly, that GTE and Southern Bell aren't talking SS7
yet, and so Caller ID may well have these limitations for a while when
it is rolled out.


Matthew Waugh        [e-mail]
RTP Network Services     Data General Corp.
RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Rand)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 15:57:28 PST
Subject: 800 Number Woes


For those wanting to make changes to their 800 numbers, with 800
number portability just around the corner, here is a tale of woe.

A few months ago, I ordered a personal 800 number. Pacific Bell in
Northern California has an excellant plan, with nation-wide and
international (Canada) access available for only $5 per month.  The
only problem is that Sprint is the carrier for the IXC portion.  Sigh.
Well, I ordered the service. It was turned on the day promised, but
only the local area worked. Sprint will only reload their switches at
Midnight, so it was the next day before calls outside the area were
available. International calls were not available until several days
(and many telephone calls) later. Getting billing information from
Sprint was almost impossible, and (when I finally got it), wrong.  I
was quoted the rate of "$0.36 to 0.60 per minute" for daytime calls
from Canada ... but I digress.

With the service from Sprint getting more and more erratic, and with
AT&T offering its Win-Back promotion (install free, and one free month
of calls), I decided to switch to AT&T. Pacific Bell agreed to refer
my old 800 number to the new one, and Sprint indicated that they would
do the same, both at no charge. AT&T was up, with international
access, before 9am of the morning the service was due to be turned on.
The old Pacbell/Sprint number was scheduled to be shut off the next
day (a Friday). On Friday evening, Pacbell had a refer message on, but
with the wrong 800 number listed as the referal. That was fixed early
Saturday morning. Sprint, however, claimed that it was impossible to
do the referal service free, but that they would be able to do it in
3-5 days, for "only" $125 extra, per month.

What?

After a long talk, and extracting the SA number from Pac Bell (the
number that actually issues the referral message), Sprint agreed to
translate to the same SA number that Pacific Bell was using. That was
on Saturday. By Sunday, international calls were still not working,
but calls outside of California (within the US) were. Calls inside of
California, but outside of Pacific Bell's territory still aren't
working, and Sprint is claiming Pacific Bell is to blame. Pacific Bell
(and me!) are claiming Sprint is to blame. Sigh!!

The moral of the story: If you have an 800 number, and want to change
carriers, wait until portability (May 1). Or have lots of time to
waste with service reps at your long distance provider.


Dave Rand   {pyramid|mips|bct|vsi1}!daver!dlr
Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I am hoping that 800 portability will be the
occassion for many Digest readers with 800 numbers to allow that
traffic to be handled through my program, at rates ranging from 17 to
23 cents per minute depending on volume. There is no monthly fee, and
this, plus the Orange Card is a way Digest readers can help with the
expense of this publication in a painless way. I can now supply 800
numbers at the above rates, but will gladly accept your existing 800
number in my program if you prefer. If my prices are too high, please
don't sacrifice anything on my behalf, but if the rates are better
than or about the same as you pay now, please consider me.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #178
******************************