TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Jan 95 04:29:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 20

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing? (Wally Ritchie)
    Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: ISDN Over Wireless (John Lundgren)
    Re: Erlang Capacity (Phil Ritter)
    Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec - ebcdic.rq [1/1] (John O'Keefe)
    Re: NANP 800 Numbers From the UK (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area (Al Cohan)
    Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Mark Fraser)
    Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code (Joe George)
    Re: More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos Take Advantage? (David
Leibold)
    Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service (jhupf@nando.net)
    Re: MANs in USA (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Cellular NAM and ESN (Eric Tholome)

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 20:55:49 -0500
From: Tim Gorman <tg6124@ping.ping.com>
Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing?


whs70@cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes in TELECOM Digest V15 
#11:

> In article <telecom15.6.11@eecs.nwu.edu>,  <writchie@gate.net> 
wrote:

>> In <telecom15.2.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian 
Weisgerber)

>> writes:

>>> What kind of noise/distortion does American-style bit-robbing 
cause to
>>> voice band signals transmitted through PCM channels?

>> In the U.S., most intermachine trunks are common channel direct
>> connections so only the robbed bit at each end of the IC/EC 
connection
>> introduces the robbed bit (as well as ny non CCS systems in the 
EC).

> Today, most end-to-end voice connections do not include any trunking
> which uses robbed bit signalling.  The great majority of local
> trunking, especially in metro areas, has all been converted to CCS.

> One way to determine the probability of what type of local trunking 
is
> in your area is if caller ID is available.  If you can have caller 
ID,
> then the local trunking is using CCS and thus no robbed bit 
signaling
> is involved at that end of any connection.

This is probably a little misleading. While the robbed bit signaling 
was for 
use in per-trunk signaling for passing supervision information, merely
converting to SS7 signaling (i.e. making caller id available) doesn't
automatically make the robbed bits available. This also requires 
conversion 
to B8ZS/ESF signaling.

I think you will find lots of places that have converted to SS7 still
have the older AMI/SF facilities in place thus limiting circuit 
bandwidth 
to 56kb.


Tim Gorman   Southwestern Bell Tel Co   tg6124@ping.com  

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

From: writchie@gate.net
Subject: Re: Noise Introduced by Bit-Robbing?
Date: 10 Jan 1995 09:11:06 GMT
Reply-To: writchie@gate.net


In <telecom15.18.18@eecs.nwu.edu>, duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan)
writes:

> In article <telecom15.14.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, sohl,william h 
<whs70@cc.bellcore.
> com> wrote:

>> In article <telecom15.11.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, Matthew P. Downs 
<mpd@adc.com> 
>> wrote:

>>> Unless you use ISDN, you are using robbed-bit signalling between 
your
>>> premise and the Central Office. Unless like a previous poster had
>>> stated, the robbed bits only become important during call set-up 
and
>>> tear-down.  Ie. going on-hook and off-hook.  Otherwise the robbed 
bits
>>> will be 1's.

> In a sense, the robbed bits are only important during call set-up 
and
> tear-down.  However, since (a) we don't know when set-up/tear-down
> occurs and (b) we don't have control over where our PCM data goes, 
we
> can't use those bits at all.  Which gets back to why it's called
> robbed-bit signaling in the first place.  Their presence still 
affects
> the bandwidth that can be obtained.

It doesn't matter if the robbed bit is steady 0, steady 1, or 
whatever. 
The robbed bit steals the LSB of the encoded PCM word and introduces
an error.  The effect, though small, is present NOT JUST during call
set up and tear down but wherever Robbed bit signalling is used.

Furthermore, the number of individual signalling links will effect the
total noise introduced. This is because the robbed bits occur every 6
frames and the multiframes of the Local Loop A, EC/IC Trunk A, IC/ED
Trunk B, and Local Loop B are NOT aligned. For MOST (that is more than
50% and much more likely 90%) of all long distance connections in the
US there will be more than 2 and as many 6 Robbed Bit links involved.
The impact on the S/N ratio can range from 2 to more than 10 db.


Wally Ritchie    Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

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

From: d92-sam@dront.nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: Christmas Greetings From AT&T
Date: 9 Jan 1995 19:29:57 GMT


In <telecom15.15.7@eecs.nwu.edu> Ari.Wuolle@hut.fi (Ari Wuolle) 
writes:

>> Well, we'll find out how this works over here in a couple of years.
>> Austria just joined the EU, and the EU has decreed the end of 
telecom
>> monopolies by the end of 1996 (or is it 1998)? We will all be faced
>> with the same problems and privileges then.

Ah, but I just read that the Comission has given in to pressure from
the former monopolies in the new member states Sweden and Finland.  It
was a very small article in todays paper that said that there would be
no EU-laws but rather "recommendations" regarding telco competition
issued by the commission.

Can anyone shed some light on the details of this?

> Finland also just joined EU, but our local and long distance 
monopolies 
> ended already 1st January 1994. International call traffic was 
deregulated 
> fully in summer 1994.

Sweden got deregulated mid 93.  In theory Sweden is more deregulated
than Britain, second only to NZ.  However there is still a de facto
monopoly since there is only one operator that offers local calls --
telia (former dept. of telecom).  That might change when Singapore
Telecom gets their Stockholm operation up and running (they just
bought a cable company with 1/4M subscribing households).  Only nobody
knows when that is going to be.

And since there is only one competitor on LD and int'l calls the
prizes aren't really as low as in Finland during office hours.

> You can always choose different carrier by dialling its carrier code
> before telephone number you are calling to. Telcom Finland is 101,
> Telivo 1041 and Kaukoverkko Ysi 109.

> Currently you cannot choose default international carrier - you must
> use correct international access code, which are now carrier
> dependent, 990 for Telecom Finland, 994 for Telivo and 999 for 
Finnet.
> (Old international access code was 990.) Hopefully this will change 
in
> 1996 when new 00 international access code will take over old ones.

We too have carrier dependent access codes.  007 is Tele2 and 009 (the
old access code) is Telia.  To call me using Tele2 would be 007 08 661
3882.  One cannot use Tele2 without being a subscriber, though it
costs nothing and is a pure formality this halts competition a lot.

It's hard to understand that people can't be bothered making *one*
toll free call and sign *one* paper to get 5-10% off their LD and
international calls.


Regards,

Sam Spens Clason   home: 08-661 3882  everywhere: 070-1234567

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

From: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren)
Subject: Re: ISDN Over Wireless
Date: 9 Jan 1995 19:02:30 GMT
Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network


Jared Enzler (jenzler@olympus.net) wrote:

> I live in an area where the telephone co. shows no interest in
> offering ISDN.  But the area is well covered by cellular phone
> systems.

> Questions: There appear to be several varieties of digital cellular 
on
> the way.  Do any of these have the potential to offer ISDN?  Which
> ones?  What sort of technical or other barriers are there to 
wireless
> ISDN?

ISDN is 144,000 bits per second, and that would take an awful lot of
bandwidth to transmit over radio.  I don't think CDPD or whatever they
call digital cellular has channels that are anywhere near that wide.

Find out if the phone company has a newer 5ESS switch.  If not then
they can't offer ISDN.  THe central office may have a 5ESS switch, but
the distance to your phone is too far.  They can get around that by
putting in a T1 line that would serve up to 24 subscribers in the
neighborhood, but it would cost money, and some telcos just don't want
to do that.


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\jlundgr@eis.calstate.edu

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

From: pritter@nit.AirTouch.COM (Phil Ritter)
Subject: Re: Erlang Capacity
Organization: AirTouch Cellular, Los Angeles
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 15:00:15 GMT


In article <telecom15.9.9@eecs.nwu.edu> Tim Gorman 
<tg6124@ping.ping.com> 
writes:

> ERU.ERUDYG@memo4.ericsson.se writes in TELECOM Digest V15 #2:

>> I am looking for information about Erlang Capacity Calculations for
>> land line based telecom networks. My main question is this:

>> In cellular, typical system design is according to Erlang B or 
Erlang
>> C traffic tables, and designed for 2% blocking (.02 G.O.S., Grade 
Of
>> Service).

[stuff deleted]

> Again, it has been a while but I thought Erlang C was not used for
> figuring blockage to offered load on a trunk group but instead for
> figuring holding time in queue while waiting for answer. Are you 
sure
> you use Erlang C in trunk blocking or do I have my tables mixed up :-
) ?

Indeed, Erlang-B is used to predict blocking when a blocked-call is
discarded and Erlang-C is used when a blocked call is queued to wait
for a free trunk.  The ability of a cellular phone to produce a
minimum effort redial (the user just has to press send again -- many
phones will do this automatically) mimics queueing so well that
Erlang-C becomes a better predictor of blocking.


Phil Ritter   pritter@la.airtouch.com

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

From: jgo@cci.com (John O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Need an EBCDIC Spec - ebcdic.rq [1/1]
Organization: Northern Telecom, Network Application Systems
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 14:46:08 GMT


In article <telecom15.14.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, Brent E. Boyko 
<bboyko@brent.llu.
edu> wrote:

> In article <telecom15.12.6@eecs.nwu.edu> is written:

>> I'm working on a project which requires conversion of EBCDIC to
>> ASCII and visa-versa.  Does anyone know where I can find:

>>  1) a spec for the EBCDIC character set,
>>  2) source code which performs such translations and/or
>>  3) a library which performs these translations.

> The Unix utility "dd" can be used to convert USASCII to EBCDIC and
> vice versa.  For example, the following command would read the ascii
> file "text.file" and write it in 80-column EBCDIC format to mag tape
> drive 0, using 8000 byte blocks:

> dd if=text.file of=/dev/rmt0 obs=8000 cbs=80 conv=ebcdic

> Source code is available as part of the GNU fileutils package. Get 
the
> file fileutils-3.12.tar.gz from the GNU ftp archive at 
prep.ai.mit.edu, 
> gatekeeper.dec.com, or ftp.uu.net.

A word of caution with the block translation approach with EBCDIC to
ASCII.  If there are any packed-decimal fields in the record, it will
translate garbage. You need a utility that does field-by-field
translations for these fields.


Highest Regards,  

John O'Keefe   jgo@cci.com     

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

From: Judith Oppenheimer <producer@pipeline.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 08:12:32 -0500
Subject: Re:  NANP 800 Numbers From the UK  


A week or two back, a query was posted by Jan Joris re free phone 
calls.

> What's happening? Is the Dutch PTT blocking calls that could be 
perfectly 
> well completed? Or do the Britsh have a special agreement with the 
Americans
> that not valid in the Netherlands?  Who knows more?

I'm told that most of the decisions on whether to complete calls or
not are based on discussions at the Freephone Fourm.  This is a group
of (mostly marketing) people who provide service around the world.
The Freephone fourm has recently approved a bilateral agreement called
"plus freephone".  To dial a freephone number in an other country, you
dial:

      + (the international access code, 00 is europe 011 in US)
      CC  (the country code of the country the number belongs)
      XXX...XXX (the freephone number.)

So 00-1-800-xxx-xxxx is actually + followed by country code 1 followed
by the number.  If the country has signed up for bilateral agreement,
as soon as it sees 00, it routes to an international gateway function,
then it sees 1 and validates that as a valid country code (USA) and
then looks at the 800 and recognizes that as "suppress billing" and
completes the call.  Otherwise if they don't support this, they
recognize 800 as free and rejects the call after the fourth digit.

All switches must be able to read and route based on the first four
digits.  After Dec 31, 1996 they must be able to read and route based
on the first seven digits.  So it is quite normal for the call the be
rejected after four digits right now, and seven later.  (Dec 31, 1996 
is
called Time-T after which all switches will accept phone numbers up to
15 digits (instead of 12) and route on seven digits instead of four).


Judith Oppenheimer

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

From: ac554@lafn.org (Al Cohan)
Subject: Re: Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area
Reply-To: ac554@lafn.org (Al Cohan)
Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 07:32:57 GMT


In a previous article, henderson@mln.com (Javier Henderson) says:

> I just got off the phone with Sprint's customer service. Their 
special
> offer of one cent per minute for calls within your service area 
applies
> to all of Sprint customers, regarldess of what calling plan you're 
on.

> You need to dial 10333, but considering the savings, I don't mind. 
The


> charge is the same regardless of mileage.

> The offer will expire on Feb 28, 1995.

> I'm not associated with Sprint, other than as a mostly satisfied 
customer. 
> The above applies to residential lines in Southern California. Other 
areas 
> within California may have the same deal, you'd better check.

Most of what you say is *not* true. In response to several of my 
telecom 
clients, I called Sprint (800 877-4040) on several occasions.  I was
misinformed 8 out of 10 calls.

No, I am not kidding. 

The first few calls I was told just dialing 10333 is all that I had to
do.  Then I was told "I'm sorry, our promotion is for Sprint Customers
Only"!  In short, they didn't want my business. I never heard of a
"promotion" for existing customers ...

Finally I got a hold of a Sr. Supervisor after two days. The upshot of
what I was told is that you have to subscribe and be validated in
their switch or otherwise the LEC will get the billing at standard
(15c per minute) rates.

Also, the rate outside of the LATA 730 is standard rates and does not
carry the 1 cent per minute charge ... it only applies to residential
customers only, but they are working on a business customer plan to
roll out shortly.

After my account was validated, I called Sprint two more times, got
the name of the telemarketer, confirmation code and was lied to
again ...

I'd hate to be at the end of customer service when all of these 1 cent 
calls come in at 15 cents and appear on the LEC billing!

I suggest you call Sprint three times and see if you get three
answers, then verify with a supervisor. I did this twice and both
times was told misleading information. I sure hope that they get this
straightened out because an organization the size of Sprint will have
tremendous problems unraveling this misinformation. Most of there
telemarkets are *not* located in California.

Good Luck. Please e-mail me with your results.

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

From: mfraser@vanbc.wimsey.com (Mark Fraser)
Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code
Date: 10 Jan 1995 04:41:31 GMT
Organization: Wimsey Information Services


And while we're at it, are there any 10XXX[X] codes assigned in
Canada? Mexico?  Since at least Canada is part of the historical
numbering plan, and since we have begun to experience the joys of
competitive toll calling, and since the "dominant" carriers must give
equal access to other carriers when a subscriber dials a leading "1",
it seems sensible that these carriers might just want to have 10XXXX.

Anyone comment?


Mark

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 09:45:54 GMT
From: Joe George <jgeorge@nbi.com>
Subject: Re: Procedure for Obtaining a 10XXX Code


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is this any stranger than a newspaper
> having a three digit number of its own, ie 311, like that newspaper
> in, where is it, Georgia?    PAT]

Yup, in Atlanta the local rag (also known as the {Atlanta Journal-
Constitution} bought 511 from BellSouth for a classified search 
service 
(and other services). It's 50 cents a call but you get three free
calls per month.  BellSouth also sold out on 711 to a job search
company, but I don't know much about it.


Joe George (jgeorge@nbi.com, jgeorge@crl.com) 
(Please don't use 'jgeorge@twiglet.nbi.com' anymore.)

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

From: aa070@torfree.net (David Leibold)
Subject: Re: More CO Codes For Each NPA - Any Telcos Take Advantage?
Organization: Toronto FreeNet
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 1995 07:18:14 GMT


A correction and a clarification on my article on NXXes in NPAs 
(originally posted from gvc.com instead of here) ...

1) While St. John's is the capital of the Canadian province of
Newfoundland, there is the oft-confused Saint John, New Brunswick
which I was a bit too hasty to proclaim as a provincial capital. That
privilege, I believe, actually goes to another of the New Brunswick
cities.

2) There have been N0/1X exchanges in some area codes already, of
course (212, 213, 312, etc). The focus of the posting, to clarify, was
those area codes that did *not* have N0/1X CO codes before now, such
as NPA 506 or 807 where there aren't that many NXX in service. In
other words, will telcos in those cases assign N0/1X codes because
they are now able to, rather than because they have to?


David Leibold     aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca

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

From: Jhupf <jhupf@nando.net>
Subject: Re: Flat Rate Cellular Phone Service
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 13:09:07 EST
Organization: News & Observer Public Access


On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Andrew Laurence wrote:

> Jhupf <jhupf@nando.net> writes:

>> Cellular One of Triangle here in the Triangle in North Carolina 
offers
>> full local access on weekends for $10 a month.  We were considering
>> going for it until we realized we had an accmulation of more than 
575
>> minutes of local calling credit we haven't been able to use during 
the
>> past 14 months.

> Are you saying that Cellular One lets you carry unused minutes from
> your allowance over to future months? GTE Mobilnet here in the San
> Francisco Bay Area has a "use 'em or lose 'em" policy.

Sorry for any misunderstanding; the 60 minutes a month I get with my 
calling 
plan are on a "use 'em or lose 'em" basis. What I have accumulated are 
the 
balance of the bonus time I got when I initially signed on to 
CellularOne 
plus what I got when I renewed my service with them after the first
year. I was surprised when I got my bill to see that they carried the
balance of the first years bonus forward and added to the new bonus!

The balance is available to use after I have gone through my monthly 
allocation under the plan I have.

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

From: fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: MANs in USA
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 12:09:10 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.


In article <3ej414$d7@galaxy.uci.agh.edu.pl> rumian@uci.agh.edu.pl 
writes:

> I need some help in getting info about Metropolitan Area Networks 
> in USA.

You may note that none of the early replies came from the USA, which 
is
all you asked for!

This is because there are essentially no MANs in the USA.  They aren't
a major commercial force.  The telephone companies cannot offer 802.6
MANs because 802.6 requires that the telephone company own the bridge
at the customer site, but US telephone companies are prohibited from
owning customer premise equipment.

Some US telephone comanies offer SMDS, a connectionless data service
which was originally run over 802.6 facilities.  But most SMDS
nowadays is run over HDLC point-to-point circuits.  Some companies own
private MANs, often using FDDI which may be using "dark fiber" leased
from a telephone company, and in a few cases telephone companies offer
FDDI MAN services.  But none of these amount to a lot of business.
The major high-bandwidth carrier services are DS3 leased lines and,
coming Real Soon Now, ATM.


Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    fgoldstein@bbn.com
Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA  USA   +1 617 873 3850

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

From: tholome@dialup.francenet.fr (Eric Tholome)
Subject: Re: Cellular NAM and ESN
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 1995 21:35:44 +0200


In article <telecom15.12.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, gsegalli@ic1d.harris.com 
(Greg 
Segallis) wrote:

> Can two cellular phones be programmed to the same NAM, while their
> ESN's are different, so that either phone can be used on one number?
> Assume only one phone can be on at a time (e.g.  I have a car phone 
I
> use while on the road and a portable I use when I'm away from my 
car).
> Does the cellular carrier use the NAM to connect calls or the ESN, 
or
> both?  If the ESN must be the same, can I alter the one to match the
> other?  This would not be done to steal anyone else's service, just 
to
> allow me the convenience of using both my phones as the situation
> requires/allows.  What are the legal issues in doing this?

To which Pat replied that it would be a very bad idea to do it, 
leaving the 
door open for theft of airtime (well, Pat did say many other things, 
but let 
me get to my point :-)

GSM solves the problem of two phones (or more) for one line in a very 
nice 
way: the subscriber identity is totally separated from the terminal: 
it is 
located on a SIM (Subscriber Identity Module) card.  This way, you can
have as many phones as you mant and still have one single phone 
number: 
simply plug your card in whatever phone you intend to use! You may 
even plug 
your card in somebody else's phone, or in a rented car phone, for 
instance. 
Very convenient, indeed. Of course, the terminal still has an 
identity, and, 
if reported stolen, can be blocked by the carrier, no matter who is 
using it.
And thanks to sophisticated algorithms, it is not easy to steal 
airtime by 
mimicking a SIM card (at least that's we're all being told!).

Does anybody know whether there are other types of cellular networks
offering such a feature (i.e. being able to use different mobile
phones with the same number, without opening the door to phreaks)?


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!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #20
*****************************

                                
