TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Apr 94 15:48:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson What's Up With The NANP (John R. Levine) New NPA For Virginia (Karl Johnson) Re: Ruling on Dark Fiber (Michael P. Herlihy) Re: Bellcore Goes Crypto (Garrett Wollman) Re: Bellcore Goes Crypto (Peter M. Weiss) Re: Dials! (Tom Watson) Re: *999; CB Channel 9 (Chris Sullivan) Re: History: Vail, Monopoly, AT&T (Mike Eastman) Re: Leased Line Connectivity Question (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Is 800 Really Portable Yet? (Terry Eugene Knab) Re: Is 800 Really Portable Yet? (Steve Forrette) Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary? (Matt Silveira) Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary? (Linc Madison) Re: Charges For 800 and 950 Access (Kurt Albrecht) 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 GEnie. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers. To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: ptownson@townson.com. ** 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 gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. 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: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: What's Up With the NANP Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 14:13:30 EDT I just picked up this FCC news release from the fcc.gov ftp server. Despite the date, it's real. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com -------------------------- Report No. DC-2581 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE April 1, 1994 CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATION OF NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN PROPOSED (CC DOCKET NO. 92-237) The Commission has proposed to establish a new, non-government entity to administer the North America Numbering Plan (NANP). Administration of the NANP has evolved from its earlier focus on conventional area codes to include other numbering resources such as service access codes (e.g., 500 and 900 codes), N11 codes (e.g., 411), and carrier identification codes. As a result, the NANP administrator coordinates many of the telephone numbers used in the United States, Canada, and other parts of North America. To explore issues pertaining to future administration of the NANP, the Commission opened this docket with a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in October 1992. The NOI divided the docket into two phases. Phase I requested comment on the identification of an appropriate entity to administer the NANP, future funding for such administration, and how such administration might be improved. Phase II sought comment on the costs, benefits and technical issues associated with expanding Feature Group D (FGD) Carrier Identification Codes (CICs) from a three-digit to a four-digit format. The expanded format has been proposed to avoid premature exhaustion of the current supply of three-digit FGD codes. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission tentatively concluded that ministerial administration of the NANP should be undertaken by a new, non-government entity and that the FCC should impose fees to offset the costs of regulating US numbering resources. The Commission also asked for comment on whether it, in conjunction with other World Zone 1 regulators, should impose numbering charges to finance future international administration of NANP. In addition, the Commission sought comment, on whether a new numbering policy board should be established to assist regulators. With respect to Phase II, the Commission tentatively concluded that FGD CICS should be expanded to a four-digit format. In addition, it proposed to specify a transition period of six years during which subscribers could use both the current three digit and the new four-digit FGD CICs. The Commission also sought comment on whether it should require local exchange carriers in equal access areas to deliver interstate, intraLATA "1+" MTS calls to the carrier preselected by the end user. In addition, the Commission sought comment on the need, if any or for a nationally uniform dialing pattern that would use the digit "1" as a toll call identifier. Action by the Commission March 30, 1994, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 94-79). Chairman Hundt, Commissioner Quello and Barrett. New Media contract: Rosemary Kimball at (202) 632-5050. Common Carrier Bureau contact: Peyton Wynns at (202) 632-0745. ------------------------------ Date: 04 Apr 94 17:59:36 EDT From: Karl Johnson Subject: New NPA For Virginia In the business section of the 1 April 1994 {Washington Post} there is an article "announcing" a split for NPA 703. The Post gives the start date for this split as August (I personaly think that this will occur a year from August). No number or geographic location has been assigned as of yet. The article also states that over the next three months that an economic study will be conducted by Bell Atlantic, the local wireless companies, and 14 other local phone companies in the region. I think this will be a normal split with the line somewhere west of the Washington, DC suburbs, with the western part getting the new NPA. ------------------------------ From: mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy) Subject: Re: Ruling on Dark Fiber Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:19:08 GMT In article tsw@cypher.apple.com (Tom Watson) writes: > OK, I'll bite... > What is "dark fiber". > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dark Fiber is, as I understand it, simply > the fiber from one point to another, without the intelligence on either > end of the line **as supplied by the telco** to use it. Dark fiber could > roughly be compared to a wire cable from one place to another without > telco's battery and/or switching apparatus on either end; the customer > left to his own devices on how to use it. Although telcos have for many > years provided so-called 'private line service' -- that is, a piece of > wire from one point to another with the subscriber doing his own thing > on both ends of the wire, I understand they (telcos) are not terribly > enthusiastic about providing fiber under the same conditions. George > Gilder wrote about this, and his essay is in the Telecom Archives for > interested parties to review. PAT] I thought Dark-Fiber was telco run fiber that wasn't being used. An AAV or CAP would lease it from a LEC and provide alternate access using the LEC's own facilities ... ------------------------------ From: wollman@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Bellcore Goes Crypto Date: 4 Apr 1994 10:13:37 GMT Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , PAT writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you Colonel. Tell me this: any ideas > how Colonel came to be pronounced 'kernel' rather than 'call-on-nell'? There is a reason for this, oddly enough. The English word `colonel' is a result of the collision between the French word `colonelle' and the Italian `coronello'. For some unknown reason, English adopted the French spelling and the Italian pronunciation. Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu formerly known as wollman@emba.uvm.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 05:13:30 EDT From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Bellcore Goes Crypto Organization: Penn State University In article , greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) says: > In article vantek@aol.com writes: >> (...) Call Surety Technologies, Inc. at (201) 993-8178; >> fax number is (201) 993-8748. Information is also available on the >> Internet at infonotary.com. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > My system can't seem to find this place ... and whois at internic seems > clueless as well. Anybody have any updated information? Taking a SWAG, I looked up info.notary.com which resolved to an MX host. Pete-Weiss@psu.edu "The 'NET' never naps" +1 814 863 1843 31 Shields Bldg. -- Penn State Univ -- University Park, PA 16802-1202 USA ------------------------------ From: tsw@cypher.apple.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Dials! Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 12:42:59 -0800 Organization: Apple Computer (more or less) In article , Bob_Frankston@frankston.com wrote: > My son (11) confronted a dial phone this past weekend and couldn't > figure out how to use it. He tried pressing the "buttons" but nothing > happened. We finally had to show him the concept of turning the dial. > It took a little practice to get it smooth. Something similar to this is references to "clockwise" and "counterclock- wise" as directions to torn something. It seems that the notion of direction has been "depreciated" since we now have digital clocks. Are first and second graders being taught how to tell time on one of those "old-fashion" "dial" clocks? This is probably not the correct place to discuss this, but surfing over to 'alt.folklore.computers' will probably yield some interesting ideas on this subject ... Tom Watson Not much simpler!! tsw@cypher.apple.com ------------------------------ From: feedle@kaiwan.com (Prof. Feedlebom) Subject: Re: *999; CB Channel 9 Date: 4 Apr 94 17:58:17 GMT Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920) Jonathan (jdl@wam.umd.edu) wrote: > I am wondering why the police do not routinely monitor CB channel 9, > since the primary use of this channel is to report emergencies. A few police departments monitor channel 9 across the country, however even at CB's peak that was not really who was monitoring. A long time ago, there was a group called REACT who's basic purpose was to monitor channel 9, and render assistance as needed by calling the appropriate authorities by telephone and acting as a "relay" for motorists in trouble. Unfortunately, even though REACT still exists, few still monitor channel 9. Most (especially here in LA) just act as roving reporters for the local traffic service. I know of entire TEAMS of REACT members that don't even have one CB radio between them. If you need emergency assistance while travelling, don't depend on your CB radio. Invest the $200 to buy a GOOD cellular phone, or pass the no-code Amateur license and use ham radio. You'll be doing yourself a favor. Chris Sullivan, KD6COS, Santiago REACT #19 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In some places, the REACT people have moved up to the 462 megs area in GMRS. During the height of the CB craze back in the 1970's, channel 9 was abused a lot in many places and what limited police attention it received wained. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Apr 94 08:56:38 EST From: mfe@ihlpm.att.com Subject: Re: History: Vail, Monopoly, AT&T Organization: AT&T In article , haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (James H. Haynes) writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for that great bit of history. > .... Without question, Ted Vail was the man who made AT&T what it is > today, or at least what it was for more than half a century. PAT] AT&T has an employee award called the VAIL Medal of Valor given for acts of bravery (e.g., saving someone in fire). I find it satisfying that it is not given out for technical achievement or monetary achievement, just for HUMAN achievement. Mike Eastman att!ihlpm!mfe (708) 979-6569 AT&T Naperville, IL 60566 ------------------------------ From: Barton.Bruce@camb.com Subject: Re: Leased Line Connectivity Question Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Date: 04 Apr 94 01:49:21 -0500 In article , kostick@umbc.edu (kostick christopher) writes: > I have some questions. I am more of a LAN person and this WAN stuff is > new to me. Before I approach vendors and providers about equipment and > connectivity, I like to have some knowledge of what I'm talking about, > and the net seems to be the place. > Two offices need connectivity. I was thinking through a leased line of > 56Kbps. I'm in the Bell Atlantic region, would I talk to them? AT&T? > MCI? Sprint? Anyone of them? > What kind of equipment would be necessary? I've heard of these CSU/DSU > devices? Do I need one? Bell Atlantic has frame relay in many places and more coming. If you are intralata, compare that to a DDS-II circuit or some FT1 circuits. Whether leased line or frame relay, you will need a CSU/DSU (think of it as a digital modem). The CSU/DSU (also spelled DSU/CSU - your choice) you get depends on speed. DDS to 56 or possibly 64 is one type. T1 or fractions is the other type. If small groups are at either end and this is otherwise suitable, bridge. It will be plug and play -- no configuration hassles. Get a Gandalf 5220 that does screaming good compression. Lists at 2295 each. Wholesales at Ingram at 1513, your street price depends on your bargaining. The base model used to just do 56kb. 2nd wan port is just $150 more. S/W upgrade (flash equipped, no less) to support compression to 384kb and T1 speeds without compression WAS $700, but may now be bundled free due to competition -- ask. DDS DSU/CSU ***SERIOUS QUALITY** try Adtran's DSU-III AR listing at $725. Shopping in the back of "Telecom Gear" may find ads offering it at $479 or less. A BAT brand one that JUST does 56kb and JUST has a v.35 (no rs232) lists at $299. **LARGE** discount %s generally available. A T1 CSU/DSU, oh, probably lists at $1595. There are MANY options -- best get someone you trust. With a little effort current models with reduced chip counts should be available just under $1000 with some careful shopping. If you really MUST route, get cisco's new 250x models. Hardware is 995 for one ethernet to two T1 capable ports. Software is 1500, 2300, or 3000 per end depending on what you need to do. Cisco discounts, though definitely available, are more difficult than othe rbrands. But you are getting 'class' stuff. The csico 250x router MUST be used if you are using frame relay, as the Gandalf doesn't do f/r. Cisco can bridge, too, but lacks compression that is promised in some future s/w upgrade. cisco ALWAYS will need con- figuring. If you must go interlata, then you need an IXC. Same leased line vs frame relay questions should be asked. Try other than the mainstream ATT/Sprint/MCI. Wiltel or C&W should be good. Resellers should be avoided until you get more experience. they tend to want your $s without really getting the service installed properly, and will help precious little later. 56kb is probably all you need, but you didn't give many details. Ignore 8:1 claims. With the gandalfs you probably will get 3:1 or maybe 4:1 compression on average. With a 56kb line, that is VERY nice. Get the v.35 connectorized versions even if just starting at 56kb. One last thing. 56kb DDS *WAS* and in some places still IS the old hubbed MEGA-RIP-OFF obsolete service. You want DDS-II, or BDS (Basic...) or GDS (Generic...) or, in AT&T terms ASDS (Acunet Spectrum of Digital Service). Specifically you want the LOWEST PRICE non hubbed generic digital service available. Check BOTH the in state utility commission tariffs and the FCC ones. *YOU* (in state only) and you alone can pick which you order under. There ARE rules saying which to use. No one polices this and no one seems to really care. Bigest problem if the FCC ones are cheaper inlata may be getting a local telco sales droid that even understands HOW to take your order under FCC pricing! Persist. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 06:01:52 CST From: Terry Eugene Knab Subject: Re: Is 800 Really Portable Yet? I applied for my 800 number (800-900-XXXX) on May 3, 1993 (two days after the new system started. When I enquired as to what was available, (and I was dealing with MCI) they offered me the 800-900- XXXX, 800-417-XXXX, 800-889-XXXX (all of which either ended in double 0 or repeated i.e. 8989) When I asked the MCI rep why I had these choices, she told me that all combinations were opened up for general use. BTW, 889 was a RBOC NNX. Terry Knab tknab01@services.dese.state.mo.us P.O. Box 34 Buffalo, MO 65622 417-345-7979 ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Is 800 Really Portable Yet? Date: 4 Apr 1994 10:10:26 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc. Reply-To: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After portability started, > When it comes to 'good' numbers (i.e. they spell words or end in x000 > or some other desirable combination) which are idle from AT&T, then AT&T > always claims the number is 'reserved' for a pending customer. They never > can produce the name of the so-called customer of course, and although > reservations are theoretically only good for sixty days (at which point > a carrier has to make it available without further hassles) AT&T keeps > on renewing the reservations on the numbers they want. ... > So although portability is the law, it will only work as it should > when the FCC orders all the carriers to start responding promptly to > customer requests for numbers which 'belong' to other carriers and to > quit reserving numbers for customers who do not exist in order to hang > on to desirable numbers. PAT] I had this problem last year. The number I wanted was not in service, but when I tried to get it through AT&T, I was told that it was "reserved" by the original carrier who owned that prefix, Cable & Wireless. So I called C&W, and they told me that it was reserved by themselves for "internal use." Instead of battling with them to get them to release it, I explained to them that I wanted to sign up for 800 service, but I will do so with them only if I can get the number I want, and that if I have to have a number assigned to me other than the one I want, that I might as well go with another carrier. I played dumb and acted like I didn't know anything about portability. Magically, the sales rep was able to get the number "released" and assigned to me. Once the account was set up and working, I filled out the RespOrg switch form and had it moved over to AT&T where I wanted it. Once it was in service in my name, there was no argument about moving it. Although it introduces a bit of a delay, extra work, and perhaps a setup charge and first-month's fee from a carrier you don't want to deal with, it is far easier than trying to battle it out. I'd recommend to anyone to do it this way if at all possible. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You shouldn't have to play games like that however. I've had to do the same thing though. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 10:16:45 PST From: mws1@admin01.osi.com (Matt Silveira) Subject: Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary? Yes, many modems of like bps rate will not "communicate" due to proprietary bit compression schemes. V.fast and MNP are proprietary and will not "sync-up" with a standard modem. And save your money on fancy options for LEC lines or IXC lines and buy a better modem with more robust error correction. With regard to ZMODEM, it is not proprietary and there are many "shareware" programs available for Macs, PCs, and UNIX boxes, check a "mirrored" INTERNET site or sumex.aim at Stanford for Macs. Good Luck. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 18:20:12 -0700 From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) In article you wrote: > I'm trying to determine whether the Zmodem transfer protocol is > proprietary. Specifically, are there any *free* (i.e. non-shareware) > tools for sending/receiving files utilizing the Zmodem protocol? The ZMODEM protocol is definitely NOT proprietary. Particular implementations of it (such as the Mark/Space ZMODEM tool for the Apple Communications Toolbox) are proprietary, but the protocol itself is not. You can obtain complete source code for "sz/rz" for Unix. I don't recall the FTP site, but I'm sure someone on the net can inform you. There are also freeware comm applications for popular micros that supply ZMODEM (e.g., ZTerm for Macintosh). Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 13:31:00 EDT From: National Electric Telephone <0006348890@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Charges For 800 and 950 Access My company provides public telephones for general public use in Southeastern Pennsylvania. Consequently, I'm pretty familiar with access to 800 and 950 numbers from public telephones. I'm going to give you some of the history, rules, and reasons behind the rules. I'm also going to let you know where I think things are going on this issue. In the Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990 (TOCSIA) Congress mandated that telephone aggregators (i.e. public telephone providers, hotels, university provided phones, etc.) must provide access to 800 and 950 at no higher cost than what they charge to access their presubscribed 0+ carrier (i.e. the carrier that you get when you just dial 0). Since most aggregators don't charge to access their presubscribed carrier (they receive a commission from the presubscribed carrier in exchange for sending the traffic their way) they therefore should not be charging for access to 800 and 950 access. They definately cannot block access. TOCSIA also mandated that the FCC decide whether 10XXX should be handled in the same manner. In addition, they also directed the FCC to see if compensation should be granted to the aggregators for allowing the end user to access their carrier of choice. The carrier receives compensation from the end user who pays for the call, why shouldn't the company that provided the equipment from which the call originated also be compensated. In 1992 the FCC decided that 10XXX access should be handled in the same manner as 1-800 and 950 and that aggregators should be compensated on a per call basis. However, they couldn't figure out how to implement a per call compensation plan so they did nothing. At the urging of the American Public Communications Council (A trade group which represents public accessible communication companies) the FCC did implement a temporary plan in which the major long distance carriers pay into a fund. Each aggregator phone receives $6 per month to compensate them for interstate access code calls. Prior to this aggregators received *nothing* everytime someone placed one of these calls. You might wonder why an aggregator should receive compensation for 800, 950, and 10XXX calls when these are free to them to begin with. Well, if you decided to start a business providing public telephones for use by the public you would invest money in equipment, personnel, training, maintenance. Each month you have to pay a phone bill to the LEC (local telephone company) for dial tone service. Each month you have to pay to keep the phones in good repair (handsets, keypads, circuit boards, lamps). And each month you have a payroll you have to meet. Everytime someone uses your phone to make an 800, 950, or 10XXX call they tie up the phone from someone that is actually going to make a paid call. Prior to the per call compensation plan many aggregators felt that it was unfair to give away service for free. Consumers saw this as unfair because it had always been free. Most aggregators have now unblocked access to these codes. Issues that still need to be resolved are compensation for intrastate access code calls, calls to new access services like MCI's 1-800-COLLECT and AT&T's 1-800-OPERATOR, and subscriber 800 calls (ie. Calls to L.L. Bean). The number of 800 subscriber calls far outweighs 1-800, 950, and 10XXX carrier access calls. Basically, any call that is originated from a public telephone should be compensated. This is no different than the LEC's that receive access charges for *all* calls that they send onto an Interexchange carrier (i.e. AT&T, MCI, etc.). They aren't forced to pass any calls onto the long distance carriers for free. It is my opinion that once compensation is awarded on a time sensitive basis for all originated calls, that are not paid by coin at the public telephone, you will start to see rates on operator assisted calls come down. A lot of the cost now in non-dominant operator service calls is from the Premise Imposed Fee (PIF). This is a fee that the aggregator has asked the operator service company to collect on their behalf. Right now, the scales are unbalanced. If you have to give away calls for free on one hand you have to make up the loss elsewhere. Basically, calling card and collect call users are subsidizing callers who make 1-800 calls. Once proper compensation is in place these PIF fees should be greatly reduced or eliminated and the scales will finally be balanced. Hope this was helpful. Kurt Albrecht National Electric & Telephone ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #164 ****************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------