TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Jan 95 16:15:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 37

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Japan Earthquakes (Gerald Serviss)
    Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan - Correction (Andrew Laurence)
    FAQ or File on LD Providers Wanted (Ron Parker)
    206 to 360 Experience (Ron Parker)
    900 Providing Advice Sought (ronnie@space.mit.edu)
    INMARSAT Standard Wanted (Glenn Shirley)
    Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Paul Havinden)
    Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Ari Wuolle)
    Re: 800 Numbers and Caller ID (Glenn Foote)
    Re: 800 Numbers from Overseas (Paul Robinson)
    Re: SNA Over Token Ring (K. M. Peterson)
    Re: GSM SIM Implementation (Harri Kinnunen)
    Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Ben Burch)
    Re: New Alert - 911 Access (Seymour Dupa)
    Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Jonathan Mosen)
    Re: ISDN BRI Lines (Ed Goldgehn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: serviss@tazdevil.cig.mot.com (Gerald Serviss)
Subject: Japan Earthquakes
Date: 17 Jan 1995 19:53:52 GMT
Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola


I just received some information on the effect of the Japan
earthquakes on the cellular systems that we have installed. Motorola
has analog cellular systems that cover about 90% of the land mass of
Japan.

This is taken from two different notes:

An excerpt from an internal memo from Motorola Corporate:

Telephone service is out for most of Kansai (Osaka area) which causes
our cellular system to be down in some areas.  Regarding Kansai
Cellular Telephone (KCT), (Motorola's) system, 16 digital sites and 35
analog sites were down due either to electric power failure or the
telephone network.  We have had our entire cellular field force, as
well as our subcontractor, Daimei, at work around the clock getting
the system back into full service.  All JSMR infrastructure is
confirmed to be working, except we do not have information yet in
Kyoto.

An excerpt from a man on the scene in Osaka:

As you may or may not know by now, there was an earthquake measuring
at about 7.2-7.5 on the R scale. Buildings, highways and bridges
collapsed.  Needless to say this caused a dramatic increase in the
call traffic on the KCT system that was running at about 90% capacity.
Our apartment was shaken pretty good but we got lucky to escape with
no damage, but we did get one heck of a scare when we were rudely
awakened at 5:46 am when our bed turned into roller coaster. Almost
all public transportation is out-of-service, I am lucky enough to live
within walking distance of the MTSO so I am one of the priviledged few
who got to work today.

The bad news is, if we had MP16s we probably could of handled the load
with minimal load shedding. However, we had to rough it with MP10s.
The good news is The load has been over 100% of the determined
capacity(Using Load line analysis and confirming CPU usage in the
upper 90s) for about 12 hours now and the system is doing a great job
at shedding load. The percentage of attempts to mobile completions has
remained the same even though the total loading has fluctuated
greatly.  All of these numbers have not been confirmed and are just
based on my preliminary analysis.


Jerry Serviss    Motorola Inc   serviss@rtsg.mot.com

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 13:41:38 -0800
From: laurence@netcom.com (Andrew Laurence)
Subject: Re: Horrible Earthquake in Japan


In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

> Over 170,000 people have died ...

I heard the death toll was 1,700.


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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This error of a extra zero in the
total was caught about five minutes after that issue of the Digest
was released. You and several others pointed it out as well. Now the
count is up to about 1,800.   PAT]  

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

From: parker@olympus.net (Ron Parker)
Subject: FAQ or File on LD Providers Wanted
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 19:55:28 GMT
Organization: Internet for the Olympic Peninsula


Is there a FAQ or file anywhere that compares the services and rates
of different LD providers?

I have been sweet talked into switching to AT&T's Small Business
Advantage plan that was to 'provide the best rates possible for the
small business'.  My costs have gone up by 33% over the flat rate I
was paying, my last bill was dated Nov. something and their customer
service lines are swamped.

I am looking for a better service.


TIA,

Ron P.

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

From: parker@olympus.net (Ron Parker)
Subject: 206 to 360 Experience
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 20:01:31 GMT
Organization: Internet for the Olympic Peninsula


I have just gone thru the area code change from 206 to 360.

One customer said that when she dialed our new area code she was put
into a mailbox in her own company.  I was aware that some PBXs would
not allow a zero or one middle digit to pass but I never thought of
the mailbox problem.

How prevelant is this mailbox numbering problem?


Ron P.

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

Subject: 900 Providing Advice Sought
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 95 14:01:08 EST
From: ronnie@space.mit.edu
Reply-To: ronnie@space.mit.edu


I was hoping someone could tell me the most cost-effective way to set
up my own 900 service given the following:

  1. It will use touch-tone, menu-driven prompting, with the
     ability to transfer to a live operator.

  2. I am technically knowledgable enough to set this up on
     a PC, and I have sources of voice-mail cards, etc.

Is it more cost-effective to do it myself, or can I deal with one of
those 900 resellers?  If I go the reseller route, can I customize the
menus, and set up transferring, etc?  I will also probably want to
allow people from payphones to call an 800 number and give their CC.


Thanks for any help,

Ron

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

From: shirleyg@stanilite.com.au
Subject: INMARSAT Standard Wanted
Date: 16 Jan 1995 04:05:22 +1100
Organization: Stanilite Electronics Pty. Ltd. Sydney, Australia


The subject nearly says it all.

I'm after the standard for INMARSAT.  I know there are ITU docs that
have interface specs to INMARSAT but what is the standard that defines
frequencies, air word protocol, call states etc?

Also is there anyone out there that knows rough estimates of prices of
GSM mobiles. Seems to me Australians are paying about double what
everyone else in the world is (and I want to get one next time I'm
overseas).


Glenn

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

From: paulh@uk.gdscorp.com (Paul Havinden)
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas
Date: 17 Jan 1995 10:53:57 GMT
Organization: Graphic Data System Ltd, Cambridge, UK


Judith Oppenheimer (producer@pipeline.com) wrote:

> The call being completed with the message "this is not a free 
> call" are being done by Sprint.

Since the caller is paying the normal call charges and I assume the
800 owner will be paying their normal rate for the call, does that
mean that Sprint are in fact getting paid twice for that call?


Paul Havinden          Email: Paulh@uk.gdscorp.com
Graphic Data Systems   Tel: +44 (0)1223 371855
Cambridge,UK           Fax: +44 (0)1223 371898


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, it means they are getting paid 
once,
in two parts by two subscribers. One subscriber pays for the overseas
call to the USA gateway; the other subscriber pays *what he agreed to
pay all along* for a domestic 800 call from the USA gateway to 
wherever
the call is terminated.   PAT]

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

From: Ari Wuolle <awuolle@snakemail.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 16:51:06 +0200
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas


> Well I just tried it from the UK via British Telecom and got the 
usual
> message "800 numbers from outside the **US** are not free ..." and
> then I got the ringing tone, so I guess it works. Didn't stay on the
> line to see who answered though!

Maybe you should have stayed on line for few seconds longer. I tried
to call that Canadian number at home and got:

990-1-800-668-2355 (800-NOT-BELL)
{3 seconds silece}
{One short US-style ringing tone}
 
Female voice 1 :"Access to the 800 number you have dialed is not free
of charge outside the United States. If answered, you will be charged
international direct dialing rates for this call. If you do not want
to proceed with this call please hang up now."
 
{One normal US-style ringing tone}
 
Female voice 2 : "We are sorry your call cannot be completed as
dialed. Please check the number and dial again or call your operator
for assistance. This is a recording 702-7."
 
{US-style busy tone}
 
This call didn't cost anything.

I also tried this again few hours later from a different location. On
my first try the line went dead after the first announcement. But when
I tried immediately again, I got the same response as I got when I
called that number at home.


Ari Wuolle

E-mail          Ari.Wuolle@hut.fi    Mail    Kolkekannaksentie 10 B 4
Telephone       + 358  0 509 2073            02720  ESPOO
Cellphone       + 358 49 431 140             FINLAND
Fax (temporary) + 358  0 428 429  


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It probably went dead because at the
gateway point -- wherever that is -- after the first announcement the
call was re-dialed to be sent to its destination. Most likely there 
was
some error there which caused it to abort at that point.   PAT]

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

From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote)
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers and Caller ID
Date: 15 Jan 1995 04:08:03 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet


Jonathan Bradshaw (Jonathan@IQuest.Net) wrote:

> In article <telecom15.18.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, 
glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us 
> asks:

>> Can someone explain IF, not why, full telephone numbers of people
>> calling 800 numbers are shown (either on the bill, or as part of 
the
>> call) to those who OWN the 800 numbers?

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer is yes. People who have 
800
>> numbers receive the ANI -- not the Caller-ID, 

> I get Caller ID NOT ANI through my 800 number depending on the
> origination. From Indianapolis, I know I get full Caller ID from 
South
> Bend and Bloomington, IN where I have tested it. This shows up as 
the
> NAME and Number (so its NOT ANI) but if the caller dials me 
directly,
> I see "OUT OF AREA". I don't know how far this extends but it does
> seem to be quite extensive in Indiana.

> Somehow One Call is picking up and transferring the CID data along
> with the call.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think however we can correctly 
answer 
> the original query by stating that yes indeed, the persons who own 
800
> numbers do get identifying data on all or almost all calls they 
receive.
> If there is some reason they want to make an issue out of it, they 
nearly
> always can backtrack to the source of the call. I think that is what 
our
> original writer was asking about.   PAT]


Pat,
 You are right.  That was what I wanted to know.  However, this
issue is going to raise some interesting questions among that portion
of the public which is a little "touchy" about Caller-ID and 
"privacy".

 It does seem like the telephone companies are trying to have it both 
ways ... you pay for Call Blocking and it works, UNLESS someone else 
has paid 
for the right to see the numbers of everyone who calls ...

 Sooner or later I expect some group will bring this matter to
court, or at least make a major public relations issue out of it.
There WAS a time when those 800 numbers did not have access to the
numbers calling them, they had to take "Ma Bell's WORD" on the
accuracy of the bill.  For that matter, the current practice of
providing the ANI to the 800 number is not (to the best of my
knowledge) founded in any tariff.  On the other hand, those with Call
Blocking are PAYING FOR a SPECIFIC service, the right NOT TO HAVE
their phone numbers disclosed to those whom they wish to call.
Therefore, one could argue that the Telephone Companies are in direct
violation of their contract with the customer, that this situation
took place with the full knowledge and INTENT of Telephone Company
management personnel ... etc..

 It will be interesting to see what will happen when (not, I
expect if) this challenge takes place ... makes me kind of glad I
retired from the Consulting business ... ;-).


Glenn L Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are NOT 'paying for the right to
see your phone number'; they are *paying for the phone call*, period.
The person or company or whatever paying for a phone call is entitled
to know where -- to what telephone number -- the connection was 
extended.

For example, you have a non-published number and you call me collect
through the operator. In all probability your number will not be 
displayed
on my Caller-ID box. When I get my bill at the end of the month 
however
your number will be listed there in the long distance portion of the 
bill
saying something like 'From Columbus, OH xxx-xxx-xxxx' and the time of
day and number of minutes, etc.  Are you suggesting because I get this
information I 'paid to get your number'?  All I paid for was the phone
call, which legally means the call *belongs to me*, and I am entitled
to know the uses made of my phone when I am charged for those uses. 

Any 'contract' with telco regards blocking of ID is governed by 
tariff.
Furthermore, in my phone book where the enhanced custom calling 
features
are explained in detail, it says plainly 'although you may choose to
block delivery of your number to the telephone you are calling, you 
may
NOT block delivery on calls to 800 numbers or collect calls.'  I would
think that 'contract' is rather plain. So people can be as 'touchy' as
they like -- and I know a few who are -- but that is really their 
problem.
*They* are the ones who want things both ways at the same time:  *you*
pay for my phone call, and *you* don't have any right to know what you
are paying for, because I am a prima-donna about such things. Har har 
har!
Then start dialing my seven digit number and paying for it yourself, 
bozo.
Either that, or handle those calls similar to 'blocked number 
blocking'
with an intercept saying 'the 800 number you have dialed requires your
phone number. Since you wish to not give it, please hang up and dial 
the
regular number, paying for the call yourself.'    PAT]

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

From: Paul.Robinson@f417.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Paul Robinson)
Date: 17 Jan 95 09:50:48 -0500
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers from Overseas  
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring MD USA


Mr Robert Hall <robhall@HK.Super.NET> writes:
 
> What about calls from the U.S. to other countries' toll-free


> numbers? Since Hong Kong is a small country and local calls are
> free, the use of 800 numbers here has been pretty much limited to
> accessing a particular foreign carrier's "home direct" service. 
> For example, from within Hong Kong, I dial 800-1111 to get the AT&T
> "bong" to place calls charged to my AT&T card.  If someone
> Stateside dials 011-852-800-1111 do they loop back to AT&T's "bong?"
 
They're smarter than that.  I called it from Montgomery County, in
Maryland and got a recording saying my International Call could not be
dialed, probably the same as if you, in Hong Kong, tried to dial
1-703-950-1022, the access number for MCI here in the Washington, DC
area.


Fidonet:  Paul Robinson 1:109/417
Internet: Paul.Robinson@f417.n109.z1.fidonet.org

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

From: kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson)
Subject: Re: SNA Over Token Ring
Date: 17 Jan 1995 15:48:18 GMT
Organization: KMPeterson/Boston


In article <telecom15.27.8@eecs.nwu.edu> Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com>
writes:

> Timothy S. Chaffee <tchaffee@crl.com>, writes:

>> I am looking into moving our print traffic from a SDLC/SNA 
>> connection to run over our Token Ring network. Can this be done? 
Any 
>> pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated! 

> There is a company -- the name escapes me -- selling a product 
called
> the "Hydra" which connnects in place of a terminal controller, and
> allows RS232 connections to look like 3270 terminals, allowing a
> person on a PC or a modem to call into an SNA terminal network as if
> their terminal WAS a 3270 terminal. If they can do this, they 
probably
> have something that will do what you want.

Yes, but no.

Token Ring runs SNA natively.  If you're running in an IBM host
environment (mainframe), it's just some configuration and hardware
changes.  If you're running TCP/IP on that Token-Ring, you have the
changes above and a change of protocol.

Remember the idea of a protocol stack: which layer is giving you a
problem, the physical media or the higher layers?  If you use SNA for
printing, then you have an LU type that needs to be converted to
LPR/LPD in the worst case... which is not a pretty picture.  If it's
only a physical layer change (running over the Ring v. SDLC), it's
simple.


K. M. Peterson    eMail: KMP@TIAC.NET     WWW:
http://www.tiac.net/users/peterson/home.html
Phone: +1 617 731 6177 voice   +1 617 730 5969 fax

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

From: k22413@kyyppari.hkkk.fi (Harri Kinnunen)
Subject: Re: GSM SIM Implementation
Date: 17 Jan 95 14:35:29 GMT
Organization: Helsinki School of Economics


In <telecom15.25.8@eecs.nwu.edu> johnl@ctin.adelaide.edu.au (John
Leske) writes:

> It is a Smartcard (ISO-7816). That is, a single chip micro with its
> own ROM, RAM and non-volatial storage. The specific implementation 
for
> GSM is defined in the GSM specs. There are multiple manufacturers of
> this card. The specific characterisitics vary from manufacturer to
> manufacturer. I believe some companies are looking at up to 16k or
> 32kbit on the chip. The GSM-related data lies in a sub-directory on
> the chip.

Most of the hand-held GSM phones use a "punched-out" section of the
Smartcard, being about 1cmx2cm in size. The punch-out dimensions are
also standard, but I don't know if they are included in ISO-7816.


Harri

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

From: Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com (Ben Burch)
Subject: Re: New Alert - 911 Access
Organization: Motorola, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 21:47:07 GMT


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.


Ben Burch     Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com      

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

From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa)
Subject: Re: New Alert - 911 Access
Date: 17 Jan 1995 10:14:47 -0500
Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc.


Gerald Serviss (serviss@tazdevil.cig.mot.com) wrote:

> The use of the strongest signal is no guarantee of routing the call
> correctly, especially if you are in a building.

As I understand it, the cell site receiving the strongest signal locks
on to it, but all of the surrounding cell sites still receive the
signal, althought at a lower level.

If this is correct, could some sort of 'triangulation' be done to
narrow down the phones' location?  I know true triangulation requires
directional antennas to determine from what direction the signal is
comming, but in this context, couldn't the signal strenghts received
by the surrounding sites be used somehow to narrow down the location?

For example, if the signal received by three cell sites was almost 
equal,
wouldn't the phones' location be at the center of the area between the
sites?

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

From: jmosen@actrix.gen.nz@actrix.gen.nz (Jonathan Mosen)
Subject: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List
Reply-To: jmosen@actrix.gen.nz
Organization: Actrix Networks -- NZ Internet Service Providers.
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 01:24:01 GMT


In article <telecom15.18.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, etxlndh@eos99.ericsson.se
(Robert Lindh) wrote:

> Luxemburg    Telekom
> Norway       Tele-Mobil
>              Netcom
> Portugal     TMN

New Zealand also has a GSM network, run by Bell South.


Jonathan Mosen,   Manager Government Relations,
Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind,
jmosen@actrix.gen.nz

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

From: edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn)
Subject: Re: ISDN BRI Lines
Date: 17 Jan 1995 06:25:58 GMT
Organization: The INTERNET Connection, LLC


In article <telecom15.29.14@eecs.nwu.edu>, 0006718446@mcimail.com 
says:

> GTE South has offered ISDN service here in Lexington, KY for the 
last
> two years.  However, when I enquire about a BRI line, they tell me I
> must PREDETERMINE what I want to do with the two B-channels.  For
> example, B1 will always be used for voice calls, and B2 will always 
be
> used for switched 56 data.  I don't consider this true ISDN.  Has
> anyone else run across anything like this?

This is quite standard ... in fact there are many additional questions 
you'll
need to answer before you get your line (terminal type and switch 
settings to
name a few).

For more info, read the ISDN FAQ which can be found on comp.dcom.isdn


Ed Goldgehn                         E-Mail:  edg@ocn.com
Sr. Vice President                  Voice:   (404) 919-1561
Open Communication Networks, Inc.   Fax:     (404) 919-1568

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #37
*****************************

                                                                                              
