TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jan 95 22:23:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 44

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Help ... Ancient Party Lines Must Die! (Mark Brader)
    Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet (Elliot Schwartz)
    Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging? (Andrew Laurence)
    Re: Long Distance Caller ID (Glen L. Roberts)
    Re: "Dial & Save" Long Distance Service (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Question on Call-Back Operators (Eric Tholome)
    Re: GSM Information Wanted (Eric Tholome)
    Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted (Daniel R. Oelke)
    Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Michael Henry)
    Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (John Lundgren)
    Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Andrew Laurence)
    Re: Small Business PBX/Fax Back Server Needed (Jon Zeeff)
    Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Just Names (Ben 
Carter)
    Re: Where to Find Nice-Looking Phones? (ophidian59@aol.com)
    Re: Wanted: Info on Fax/Modem Hookup For Motorola Lazer Cell (J 
Lundgren)

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:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

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: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

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

From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Help ... Ancient Party Lines Must Die!
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 00:11:12 GMT


Raymond@zed.ca writes:

> Canada has 26 - 27 million people living mainly within 200 miles of
> the 49th latitude.  ....

Make that within 200 miles of the border with the contiguous US 
states.  
That border is the 49th parallel where Raymond lives, but in the east 
it's 
a good deal farther south.

ObTelecom:

    Two or three years ago, a large number of payphones around here
(Toronto) were replaced with the new Millennium model, which has an
LED display of the number being dialed, and accepts credit cards (in a
swiper) and $1 coins as well as the smaller denominations.  They were
introduced rapidaly enough that I thought it must mean that all pay
phones were being changed to this model, but that hasn't happened.
Anyone know what Bell's plans are for the older payphones?


Mark Brader               "It is considered a sign of great 
{winnitude}
msb@sq.com                when your Obs are more interesting than 
other
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto    people's whole postings."      -- Eric 
Raymond

This article is in the public domain.

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

From: elliot@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elliot Schwartz)
Subject: Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet
Date: 19 Jan 1995 01:21:19 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology


In article <telecom15.33.14@eecs.nwu.edu>, Sarah Holland <70620.1425@
compuserve.com> wrote:

> Living as I do in a more remote area of British Columbia, where ALL
> Internet access is long-distance, I find this most frustrating. I 
plan
> to call BC Tel about this -- any bets as to how far I get? <G>

Probably not very far -- why should BCTel do something which won't be
profitable for them? Unlike Saskatchewan, most of the high density
areas in BC (Vancouver, Victoria, etc.) are already saturated with
Internet Service Providers. Furthermore, SaskTel has just taken over
responsibility for the Province's regional network, whereas BC*Net
operates seperately from BCTel.


elliot (a displaced Canadian)

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 18:12:15 -0800
From: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence)
Subject: Re: Is the Pentium Bug Really That Bugging?


> Anthony D'Auria <dauriaa@voyager.bxscience.edu> writes:

>> Question: Does this floating point calculation bug affect system
>> performance? Is that why some Pentiums bottleneck? What and where
>> should a person contact to get the messed up chip replaced? Is it
>> actually worth it?

Whoops! What I meant to say, but somehow my news-posting software
"ate" it, was:

The Pentium bug affects only floating-point calculations, not overall
system performance. Whether you NEED to have it replaced depends on
what type of work you do. Spreadsheets and mathematical modeling, and
to a lesser extent CAD and design work, depend on the floating-point
processor. Network servers, word processing and databases tend NOT to
use floating-point math, so the Pentium bug doesn't affect these
applications.

IMHO, part of the implied warranty for any microprocessor with a
floating-point unit is that it should produce correct calculations
each and every time. For that reason, I would have the chip replaced
if I owned a Pentium.

Intel should be running ads in major trade publications in the next
couple of months, explaining the chip replacement procedure. If you're
comfortable opening the case, you should be able to replace it
yourself in seconds. If not, there will be service stations where you
can take your machine and have the chip swapped out, hopefully while
you wait.

Good luck!


Andrew Laurence, CNA  -->laurence@netcom.com<--    Oakland, 
California, USA
Novell Certified NetWare Administrator        Pacific Standard Time 
(GMT-8)
Phone: (510) 547-6647       Fax: (510) 547-8002       Pager: (510) 308-
1903

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

From: fd@wwa.com (Glen L. Roberts)
Subject: Re: Long Distance Caller ID
Date: 18 Jan 1995 15:23:46 GMT
Organization: WorldWide Access - Chicago Area Internet 312-282-8605 


Paul J Zawada (zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu) wrote:

> I've had a couple of interesting conversations with the folks at
> Ameritech regarading the delivery of interstate Caller-ID 
information.
> I have a question or two regarding the availablity of the above 
service, 
> so let me summarize and pose a question or two to the readers of 
TELECOM
> Digest.

> results on Caller-ID for awhile now. Lots of long distance calls are 
having
> their ID shown ... interestingly, even some recent calls from 
California
> in the 415 area code were displayed.  Of course all this is relevant 
to
> *where* most of your calls originate, and maybe I just lucked out 
but I
> would say about 90 - 95 percent of my incoming calls now show Caller-
ID,
> or they show that the caller is blocking it, etc.  PAT]

It is all relevant to what long distance carrier processes your call. 
The 
local switch will pass the Caller-ID to you, if it gets it with the 
call.  
Wiltel is the only long distance company that has so far been 
identified 
as providing Caller-ID from most places. So, if someone uses Wiltel 
Long 
Distance, you'll get their number.


Glen L. Roberts, Editor, Full Disclosure
Host Full Disclosure Live (WWCR 5,065 khz - Sundays 7pm central)
email postal address to fd@wwa.com for catalog on privacy & 
surveillance.
Does 10555-1-708-356-9646 give you an "ANI" readback? With name?
Remember, fd _IS FOR_ Full Disclosure!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, your number read back the number 
and
name listed for the phone I called you from. Others should try it out, 
it
is sort of fun.  Then when I called you back with *67, your recording 
had
some comments on that also. Then when I called back from a number 
which I
knew would be 'out of area' you had nothing to say at all.   PAT]

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

From: producer@pipeline.com (Judith Oppenheimer)
Subject: Re: "Dial & Save" Long Distance Service
Date: 18 Jan 1995 21:26:44 -0500
Organization: Interactive CallBrand(TM)


If you decide to test them, can you post your findings?  I've seen
their pitch too, wouldn't mind finding out of they're legit.


J. Oppenheimer, Producer@Pipeline.com

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

From: tholome@dialup.francenet.fr (Eric Tholome)
Subject: Re: Question on Call-Back Operators
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 22:24:14 +0200
Organization: Private account


Pat,

You wrote:

> [...] The other thing to watch out for where callback systems are
> concerned are the *huge* number of misdialed calls (and/or 
telemarketer 
> calls) to your 'callback number' which result in a call being made 
to
> you at all hours of the day and night (relative to your time of day)
> resulting in many cases in admin charges levied to your account for
> calls you did not make, to say nothing of the inconvenience of
> answering the phone at three in the morning your time to be greeted
> with callback dialtone you don't want merely because some fool in 
the
> USA accidentally dialed your callback number and let it ring a 
couple
> times before deciding he dialed in error.

I just wanted to point out that this is not always the case: I've been
using a callback service for all my personal international calls for
the past six months and I've never had any bogus call, for a good
reason: to get my callback dialtone, I dial a common number; then I
have to enter a six digit pin which tells my operator to call me (not
somebody else) back. I guess there is enough redundancy in the six
digit pin so that the probability of being called in error is very 
low.

Of course, I could see a drawback to this solution: if I want to store
this number in my phone, I need a phone which memory can hold 19
figures and several pauses instead of 13. Well, that is a problem, but
that's the only one I can think about. Personally, I've only stored
the access number, and I have to dial the pin myself.


Eric Tholome                
23, avenue du Centre          tholome@dialup.francenet.fr
78180 Montigny le Bretonneux  phone: +33 1 30 48 06 47
                    France    fax: same number, call first!


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Another problem you did not mention is 
the
cost of your call to the callback center. That call has to supervise 
also,
you see, and that costs you some amount of money. Add that to whatever 
you
pay for the callback part of the connection and let me know how much 
less
expensive it *really* is.  Part of the gimmick that makes callback 
services
so inexpensive is that you usually do not have to pay for a call to 
the
USA. You dial your number and hang up without it answering; thus no 
charge
for that part of the call. Why do you think AT&T was so out of joint 
on
this for quite awhile?  Hey, if people think they can pay for a 
supervised
call to the USA (and enter a password, eliminating random ringbacks) 
and
still get by cheaper than via straight calling through their PTT, 
whoever
it is, then let me know ... I may start a callback service of my own. 
I
have objected to it thus far because I don't want automated callbacks 
with
all the trouble those have, and I cannot pencil in a bottom line I 
could
live with if I offered a supervised (both senses of the word, telco 
charge
for inbound call to set it up and a clerk to oversee it) system.  
Maybe if
someone really cuts a deal with AT&T -- a very good deal -- they will 
be
able to accept inbound collect/800 from the distant PTT, establish a 
call-
back to the distant country and make an outgoing USA call ... and 
still
make money at it while being competitive. I could not figure out how.  
PAT] 

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

From: tholome@dialup.francenet.fr (Eric Tholome)
Subject: Re: GSM Information Wanted
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 22:24:11 +0200


In article <telecom15.34.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, v.erwig@stud.tue.nl (Vincent
Erwig) wrote:

> Can anybody give me some information on where and how I can find
> information about GSM?  I'm interested in the development of the GSM
> network, and the specific features that GSM / GSM telephone has, 
what
> new technologies have been used, and the advantages / disadvantages 
> compared to other cellular phone systems.

> I need this information for a study project.

I'm not sure which level of detail you need, but I would suggest the 
French 
book (written in English) from Michel Mouly and Marie-Bernadette 
Pautet. 
It is published by the authors themselves (phone: +33 1 69 31 03
18/fax: +33 1 69 31 03 38). It is already rather detailed and quite
expensive (get your Library to buy it!).

There is also a shorter version of this book (probably the ideal for
you) which is 160 page long and also published by the authors (it is
called "An introduction to GSM"). I think this version was done
especially for Nortel Matra Cellular (a joint venture from Northern
Telecom and Matra Communication which manufactures GSM systems) since
it has their name on it. I'm not sure whether you can get it or not.
Give it a try!


Eric Tholome            
23, avenue du Centre          tholome@dialup.francenet.fr
78180 Montigny le Bretonneux  phone: +33 1 30 48 06 47
                    France    fax: same number, call first!

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

From: droelke@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com (Daniel R. Oelke)
Subject: Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted
Date: 18 Jan 1995 19:59:20 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems Inc.
Reply-To: droelke@rockdal.aud.alcatel.com


In article 9@eecs.nwu.edu, news@zurich.ibm.com writes:

> In Sonet/SDH multiplexer and section overhead, there are the D1..D12
> bytes, reserved for "network management and supervision". Can anyone
> shed some light on the data transmission protocol which governs 
these
> DCC channels?  Is this (already?) standardized? If so which 
standard?

Both the Line and Section overhead data bytes -- or the DCC channels
are used with an OSI 7-layer stack.  There are Bellcore and ISO
standards galore to define this.

Of course, this isn't to say that all vendors use a 7-layer OSI stack 
across these channels ... wouldn't like to make life simple you know. 
:-)
There is also the question of the 7-layer stack implementation, and 
all
of the user-definable parameters that might make two implementations 
such that they won't talk to each other.

Disclaimer: I am a software developer on an OC48 product which does
have a full 7-layer stack and it does interoperate with other Alcatel
products.  I have no idea if it works with other vendors products.  Of
course none of this is Alcatel's official position.


Dan Oelke           Alcatel Network Systems
droelke@aud.alcatel.com      Richardson, TX
http://spirit.aud.alcatel.com:8081/~droelke/

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

From: mhenry@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Michael Henry)
Subject: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia?
Date: 18 Jan 1995 18:30:29 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley


In article <telecom15.39.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, dlr@daver.bungi.com (Dave
Rand) says:

> Their rates are very good.  *HOWEVER*

> Having read the fine print on the contract -- it claims that the
> contract term is for service only, and does not guarantee rates -- I
> added a notation on my contract that the Canada rates were to be as
> quoted.  This was a *very* good idea.

> Then the bill came. The calls are rated at 0.37/minute.  Customer
> service says "too bad".  My salesman says "oops -- the rates went up
> *the day after* we signed up, too bad.".  I said, "PUC, fraud,
> bait-and-switch, contracted amount!"  Long discussions followed.  
The
> salesman wasn't allowed to change the contract, according to LDDS --
> their problem, not mine, I pointed out to them.  As of now, we are


> still fighting over credits, but they have agreed to give me the
> contracted rate, for the contracted period (one year).

Absolutely!  Carriers may not like it, but the big four WILL sign
contracts that limit rate increases to less than 4% per year.  It's
always a good idea to include rate stablization clauses that let you
bail with no penalty if the carrier increases rates.

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System
Date: 18 Jan 1995 18:30:24 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Paul Hebert (paul_hebert@powershare.markem.com) wrote:

> My company is doing research for selection of a voice mail system. 
We
> have presentations scheduled with Octel and Centigram. Would anyone
> have some technical or user related insight into these systems? We
> have an NEC 2400 switch. Any interface issues we should be aware of?

We purchased a system from Phoneby which was bought out by VMX.  The
system works, but has less features than Pacx Bells's system.  We
tried to upgrade it a year or so ago, but they wanted an arm and a leg
to put a larger hard disk in it.  The hard disk is a regular Maxtor
MFM disk drive, something like 170 MB.  They wanted thousands to
upgrade it.  The only thing special is that it's formatted in a
proprietary format.

Finally, what we did is have messages fall into the bit bucket in two
weeks if they're not erased.


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs 
Rancho Santiago Community College District 
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706  
jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com

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

From: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence)
Subject: Re: New Alert - 911 Access
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 17:28:22 GMT


Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com (Ben Burch) writes:

> In article <telecom15.25.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, laurence@netcom.com 
(Andrew
> Laurence) wrote:

>> Recently I saw someone who appeared to be trying to steal a car, 
so,
>> being a good citizen, I ducked around the corner out of sight and
>> dialed 911 on my handheld cellular phone. Though I was standing on 
a
>> street three blocks from San Francisco City Hall, I was connected 
to
>> the California Highway Patrol. I waited several minutes for an 
operator 
>> to come on the line, and finally gave up.

>> Good thing no one's life or safety was in danger.

> This bad result is because you did the wrong thing!  How many time 
do
> people have to be told to dial the cellular operator, and say;

> "Operator, this is an emergency, please connect me with the 
<location>
> police department emergency line."

> This takes a few seconds longer, but reaching help was the job here, 
not
> airtime minimization.

Well, I assume that airtime to 0 is free, as is airtime to 911, so I
wasn't concerned about the cost. However, my cellular carrier advises
me to call 911 in an emergency.  


Andrew Laurence laurence@netcom.com | | Certified NetWare
Administrator (CNA) Oakland, California, USA | | CD-ROM Networking
Consultant Pacific Standard Time (GMT-8) | | Phone: (510) 547-6647
Pager: (510) 308-1903 Fax: (510) 547-8002 |

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

From: zeeff@eecs.umich.edu (Jon Zeeff)
Subject: Re: Small Business PBX/Fax Back Server Needed
Date: 18 Jan 1995 22:18:01 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept.


Music on hold would also be nice.  And ISDN instead of the POTS lines
would be ok too.

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

From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Subject: Re: Looking up Addresses and Phone Number From Just Names
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 07:33:45 GMT


[TELECOM Digest Editor Noted:

>   ...  why don't you ask the telco serving the local calling
> area for a copy of their directory.  Most telcos will send it free 
of
> charge, or they may get some small handling/postage fee.  ...

I recently tried ordering some phone books from various cities.  I
found that the price depended a lot on where I wanted the phone books
sent.  One book would cost over $50 if sent to one house, but only a
few dollars if sent to another house about 1.5 miles away.


Ben Carter  internet address: bpc@netcom.com

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

From: ophidian59@aol.com (Ophidian59)
Subject: Re: Where to Find Nice-Looking Phones?
Date: 18 Jan 1995 12:35:36 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)


If you want an inexpensive high quailty phone, try buy a plain
telephone at the parts counter of your local Greybar, a telephony
supply house.

While on the subject of phones, I'd really like to find one of those
old yet very mod (e.g. 60's) British phones with the dial and the
hook-switch on the bottom. Anyone?

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Info on Fax/Modem Hookup For Motorola Lazer Cell 
Phone
Date: 18 Jan 1995 17:32:14 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Mike Chapman (mike@chimera.med.virginia.edu) wrote:

> I got a Motorola Lazer pocket cell phone hoping to use it with my
> notebook, but when I asked how much the device to do this costs, I 
was
> very shocked to find that it was almost $300!!

> Is this price ridiculous?  Is there a cheaper place to get the
> Motorola device?  Are there any other options?  

Shocked?  Just walk down the aisle at your local computer store.
Anything that fits into a laptop, such as PCMCIA or proprietary buss
device, modem, NIC, whatever.  They all cost a couple hundred more
than the AT buss devices of the same type.  It's just because they are
smaller, they are newer, they are supplied in lower volume, and they
require the most up-to-date technology.  TANSTAAFL.

Motorola?  Anything with that name on it costs more.


John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs
Rancho Santiago Community College District
17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 
jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #44
*****************************

                 
