TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 May 94 23:16:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 233 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID ( Dave Thompson) Re: Nationwide CID, CLASS, etc. (Mike D. Schomburg) Re: Wireless Data Services (Pete Farmer) Re: Handy Money Saving Cellular Tip (Terry Gilson) Re: Inteljak Wireless Phone Jak System (Marcial Dumlao) Re: 'NNX' Area Codes? I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate (Fred Goldstein) Re: SONET Management Standards? (Don Berryman) Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? (Don Berryman) Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? (K. M. Peterson) Re: Bellcore to Assign NPA 500 Codes (Will Martin) Re: New Area Codes Assigned (Scott D. Fybush) Re: Bellcore NANP Seminars Coming (Alan Leon Varney) Re: GTE Analog Pocket Phone (Steven H. Lichter) 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. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 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 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. 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: Thompson, Dave Subject: Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID Date: Tue, 17 May 94 20:11:00 PDT In Telecom 14.224 Fri 13 May, rwb@alexander.alias.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Berger) replies to: (telecom14.221.8) padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson): >> Personally, I agree with the basic service being per-call blocking. >> If you want per-call blocking on YOUR phone that's fine. I don't >> see why they can't let the customer have his/her choice. > I don't want any business I deal with to have my home phone number. > They WILL sell it to telemarketers, and there's no way I can prove who > did it. > IF they can't offer per-line blocking then they should drop [CallerID]. I also find free per-call a fair balance, at least for myself, as I am *usually* willing to give my number when I call, but there seem to be quite a few who strongly oppose this -- although net users are not a very random sample -- so I think per-line should be available to those who request it and pay a nominal premium (as with unlisted number). In the cited article Padgett went on to say "I doubt that additional features (just like unlisted numbers) will be available for those who need them." but from context I think he meant "I don't doubt"; and although he didn't say "chargeable" most options are. One proposal has been to include per-line with the fee for unlisted, or maybe a discount for unlisted + per-line, as with >1 Custom Calling option. If so many subscribers get per-line as to make CallerID "worthless", which I don't expect, I would take that as a referendum reversing the FCC decision; not all rules are made officially. I find the arguments *for* requiring per-call convincing anyway, and well-presented in the Report and Order, but then para 43 jumps from "a federal per line blocking requirement ... is not the best policy choice ...." to "Thus, carriers *may not offer* per line blocking ... on interstate calls." I think this is the least-supported finding. And if the originating LEC can't determine in- or out-of-state termination of inter-LATA calls and given a single-bit privacy indicator, it apparently prevents per-line for in-state inter-LATA, an unacknowledged encroachment on state jurisdictions? However, Robert, if you can successfully do business by phone without giving *anyone* your number, I'm impressed. *I* probably wouldn't accept your calls. And as has been discussed often, you can't protect your number from any 800/900 user *unless* restrictions on use of ANI data like those in the order take effect. > Emergencies are no excuse; 911's have had number ID for years. Actually I believe E911 (and B911?) requires special trunks and CPE, and as the order discussed at some length (paras 32, 35, 37, 43) although citing only Coast Guard and poison centers, there can well be emergency services that can only afford/justify POTS connections. But if you agree to this exception it's easily implemented: - originating carrier sets PI, and may be allowed to do so per-line; - all carriers still must transport calling number and PI (free); - terminating carrier is allowed to override PI on delivery to an emergency service -- although carriers or FCC/PUCs must then decide who deserves this, almost the kind of question they seemed unwilling to handle in paras 39-40 (per-line blocking for "special needs"); on the other hand, they don't *seem* to have much trouble now deciding who is a valid law-enforcement agency? Arguably there is still a privacy violation if you call something without realizing it is a "caller-id override" emergency service. Ideally if distinctive and standard codes could be established, something like 999-xxxx or 811-xxxx maybe, it would solve this *and* be easier to publicize, teach, and use away from home, just as basic 911 was an improvement over 7D for police etc. On the other hand if 911 centers grow to handle more and more of these other functions, as they seem to be gradually doing -- and set up *effective* plans to deal with power outages, equipment malfunctions, and telco network trouble, fer G*d's sake -- the question is moot; that's even more obvious and convenient. There has also been mention of blocking from women's shelters, recently by carlp@teleport.com (Carl B. Page), 6 May, in 14.205. I assume this is only an issue when the women call their batterers; ordinary business e.g. ordering pizza isn't especially private. I don't understand why they want to hide that they're calling from *a* shelter; I should think that adds a sense of official protection. In fact unless this is part of a confidence-(re)building strategy I would wonder if the woman should talk at all to the abuser. What I *would* want is maybe to block harassing callbacks, by outgoing-only service or by listing under some headquarters office or the police, as they do need to get calls (unsolicited or referred?) from potential clients; and more important to keep their *location* secret to prevent stalking/following, kidnapping, etc. Although I have not seen mention in these discussions, I consider shelters for children to be in the same situation, and know one, Covenant House, that has widely publicized their 800 number for years. Am I missing something? And before someone ties this to a recent thread, yes, harassing calls are punishable anyway, *if traced*; so is battering; but I agree prevention is cheaper, faster, and pleasanter, I just don't think per-line blocking is the only way. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 94 07:22:39 CDT From: mschomburg@ltec.com (Mike D. Schomburg) Subject: Re: Nationwide CID, CLASS, etc. In Telecom Digest V14#229, Jim Derdzinski <73114.3146@CompuServe.COM> said: > I have a couple of questions about CLASS services. > I know that the FCC has issued a ruling making is possible for > long-distance numbers to work with the Caller ID service that the > various LEC's are now offering. Will the long-distance number > identification work with the other CLASS services like Automatic > Callback, Call Screening, Repeat Dialing, Call Tracing, etc? Delivery of the calling number is accomplished by a thing known as Signaling System #7 (SS7), a sort of packet network (functionally) independent of the "bearer" channels for voice, data, etc. While the SS7 connectivity required to provide interLATA caller ID is also necessary to support the CLASS services mentioned above, it is not yet sufficient. Various standards bodies are now working on the enhancements to the SS7 protocol which will bring about interLATA CLASS (over and above caller ID). In a nutshell, there are two broad sections of SS7: the Integrated Services Digital Network User Part (ISUP) which supports call set-up and tear-down, and the Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP) which supports messages not directly related to call set-up (such as the invocation of CLASS features). SS7 needs to be modified to deal with the presence of multiple signaling networks which may be encountered across interLATA networks. TCAP messages have no trouble invoking CLASS services between SS7-capable exchanges within a single LEC's network, but the situation becomes much more complex when one or more IXCs are interposed, and the far-end LEC may or may not be equipped to handle the particular feature being activated. The mechanism proposed (by Bellcore, I believe) to solve this signaling problem is called Intermediate Signaling Network Identification (ISNI) and will most likely involve a coordinated implementation by LECs and IXCs. As far as I know, there has not been any scheduling or industry coordinating activity yet. > Another question I have concerns an oddity I have encountered here (in > the land of Ameritech). It seems that when an older CO is finally > upgraded to work with CID, the calling numbers originating from it > will display, but Distinctive Ringing, Automatic Callback and the like > will not work with these numbers. Is there some kind of update that > has to done to the equipment to register new CO's and such? (This, I > guess, may be related to the above.) This probably is simply a delay on Ameritech's part before turning up the full feature set. Normally, if they can support caller ID, they can support the rest. Possibly they chose not to include the software necessary for the other features. While I've got the channel open, Pat, I would like to mention that I disagree with your contention that it is absolutely necessary to staff every office 24x7x365. I spent six years managing Network Operations at a fairly large (ok, not really large) LEC, and I believe that with proper management, an operations center can guarantee good service (and no COs burning down). The concerns you have stated are quite valid, and obviously many accidents have in fact happened. What I mean by proper management is that the concerns of (so-called) peon employees must be heard and acted upon. As a manager, I always tried to be sympathetic to ALL employees' ideas, and believe me they are aware of the flaws and gaps in the best plans that management concocts. If you integrate the organization from the (so-to-speak) bottom up, you gain powerful allies who will look out for you, instead of giving you the well-deserved reward to your arrogance. I'm sure you have run into telephone workers who are highly skilled and care deeply about providing high-quality service. As has been pointed out many times here in the Digest, when you have a monopoly there is no real need for management to stress quality. What recourse does the customer have? Mike Schomburg mschomburg@ltec.com ------------------------------ From: petef@well.com (Pete Farmer) Subject: Re: Wireless Data Services Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 10:40:41 -0800 Organization: Tetherless Access Ltd. In article , rlockhart@aol.com (RLockhart) wrote: > Just out of curiousity, what does 'Tetherless Access Ltd.' do? (If > that's an inappropriate question, Pat, my apologies.) Tetherless Access Ltd. (TAL) is a Silicon Valley start-up developing products/services using spread-spectrum packet radio technology to deliver full-time, high-speed (64 Kbps+) Internet connections over distances of up to 20 miles. Our economics are very favorable when compared to leased-line or frame-relay solutions. Our product will hit the streets for full-scale commercial trials later in 1994. If that's an inappropriate answer, Pat, my apologies! ;-) Peter J. Farmer Internet: petef@well.com VP, Marketing Voice: 415-321-5968 Tetherless Access Ltd. Fax: 415-321-5048 Fremont, CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not at all inappropriate. And please tell us more as the day approaches when you take it public. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tgilson@delphi.com (Terry Gilson) Subject: Re: Handy Money Saving Cellular Tip Date: 17 May 1994 04:59:23 GMT Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation On May 13, 1994 Carl Oppedahl wrote: > One hopes that some day in the US there will be more than two > providers for portable phone service, to bring the price down. In every market area there are presumably two RCC's, however, at least in California, there are more than two providers to get your service from. Cellular resellers buy airtime at wholesale rates from the carriers. They then sell it, usually at discounted rates, to a user who then has a choice between the two carriers and a wider choice of rate plans. In California, resellers file their rates in the form of a tariff with the Public Utilities Commission. They bill their users directly. The carrier is basically guaranteed payment since the reseller pays the carriers whether the customer pays their bill to the reseller or not. Resellers offer all the services of the carrier (with the possible exception of a 24 hour 611 answering service for billing questions) plus a few services of their own. Since in most MSA's and many RSA's, cellular pricing is controlled by a "Duopoly", both carriers offering near-identical rates. Resellers offer a breath of fresh air to users looking for an alternative. Even though the reseller *should* be considered by the carrier as one of their best customers (even though it is at a lower rate, it *is* guaranteed payment), they sometimes regard them as an unwelcome competitor due to the reseller's pricing advantages. At least in some areas of the U.S. there are more than two providers of cellular service. Terry Gilson tgilson@eis.calstate.edu DCN Cellular tgilson@delphi.com Westlake Village CA 71220.2040@compuserve.com 805-379-3333 805-379-9779 F ------------------------------ From: dumlao@cs.nps.navy.mil (Marcial Dumlao) Subject: Re: Inteljak Wireless Phone Jak System Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 07:20:39 GMT In article bigbob@netcom.com (Lord of Love!) writes: > I bought this thing and it was completely useless! Save your money > and aggravation by buying a good cordless phone. > bigbob@netcom.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Care to elaborate on the main problems > you were having? PAT] I bought a wireless phonejak and it's okay if no other noise pro- ducing appliance (i.e., blender, central heater, etc) is on. I'm using it to connect my modem and have two surge protectors connected to it before connecting to the house circuit. You will get static (noise) when a major appliance is turned on, so if you do decide to get one, plan on working late night when nothing else is on. Phones work but again, you'll pickup alot of noise when something is energized. Marcial B. Dumlao mbdumlao@nps.navy.mil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except that even late at night, in the winter for example the furnace will be operating, or in the summer the air conditioning will be on. Apparently there is never an escape from the noise sources. PAT] ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein) Subject: Re: 'NNX' Area Codes? I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate Date: 17 May 1994 21:41:20 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Reply-To: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk]) In article , dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) writes: > Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 00:16:50 GMT > From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) > Subject: Re: 'NNX' Area Codes? I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate > Organization: Crackpots for a Better Tomorrow > Speaking of NNX and NXX, is there a letter for the set {0,1}? I > haven't seen one used. If (strangely) there isn't a convention, how > about B for Bit, so old-style area codes are NBX? Sometimes the set 0, 1 is represented as "Y", thus an old-style number was NYX-NNX-XXXX, and a new-style number is NXX-NXX-XXXX. Also "R" means "2-8", and is used in private networks where the ETN topology reserves 9; thus some on-net dialing is RNX-XXXX. Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 ------------------------------ From: Don Berryman Subject: Re: SONET Management Standards? Date: Tue, 17 May 94 14:36:20 CDT > Can some knowledgeable soul throw light on the following questions: I'll try ( I couldn't find a knowledgeable soul) -- > - What protocol stack is specified by the SONET standard for > Operation, Administration, Maintainence & Provisioning? [I suspect the > answer is full blown CMIP, ACSE, ROSE as in Bellcore TR-303] Yes a full blown CMIP, ACSE, ROSE but with a full 7 layer protocol stack (Not a short stack with non-standard convergence function as defined in Bellcore TR-303). Bellcore TA-NWT-000253 Issue 8 has Bellcore's latest view (adapted from the SSSI). The latest draft of ANSI T1.105.04-199x "American National Standard for Telecommunications Synchronous Optical Network (SONET): Data Communication Channel Protocols and Architectures" Defines the following 7 layer protocol stack: --------------------------- CMISE-ISO 9595/9596 ROSE: X.219/X.229 ACSE-X.217/X.227 --------------------------- X.216/X.226 - ASN.1 Basic Encoding Rules: X.209 --------------------------- X.215/X.225 --------------------------- TP4: ISO 8073/8073 ADD 2 --------------------------- CNLP:ISO 8473/ISO 9542 --------------------------- LAPD: ITU Q.921 --------------------------- DCC s--------------------------- The SONET Interoperability Forum (SIF) is actively working on interoperability issues for SONET. Don Berryman don_berryman@adc.com +1-612-936-8100 ADC Telecommunications, Inc. Minneapolis, MN 55435 ------------------------------ From: Don Berryman Subject: Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? Date: Tue, 17 May 94 16:00:05 CDT > Does anyone know what an SME or synchronous modem eliminator does?? A synchronous modem eliminator allows two local synchronous DTEs to be connected to each other without modems by swapping signals and providing a clock signal. This is basically the same logical function as a null modem cable in the async world. Don Berryman don_berryman@adc.com +1-612-936-8100 ADC Telecommunications, Inc. Minneapolis, MN 55435 ------------------------------ From: kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson) Subject: Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? Date: 17 May 1994 22:01:25 GMT Organization: KMPeterson/Boston In article vmatho@mason1.gmu.edu (Victoria Matho) writes: > Does anyone know what an SME or synchronous modem eliminator does?? An SME is used in connecting two "DTE"s (computers) that use a synchronous communications method like SDLC or BSC. Synchronization between that type of equipment is generally handled by the modem generating a "clock pulse". The SME allows you to connect together two computers without using a modem. If you're used to using asynchronous communications (like terminal or PC to simple modem), you'd just use a "null modem cable" to connect them, because they don't require clocking. But synchronous equipment needs an external clock to keep them in phase, and the clock in the SME takes care of that. Clear 'nuff? K. M. Peterson email: KMP@TIAC.NET phone: +1 617 731 6177 voice +1 617 730 5969 fax ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 94 8:47:26 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Re: Bellcore to Assign NPA 500 codes > From: Gregory P. Monti > Bellcore will need to negotiate with (and adjudicate conflicts among) > the 126 carriers who have requested 437 of the possible 792 NXX codes > within the 500 NPA. Bellcore would probably start assignments within > a few months. This makes me wonder about the "792 NXX codes". Since these numbers will ALWAYS be dialled with the preceeding "500", why should the exchange codes be limited to being NXX? They could easily be XXX format, giving 1000 (000 thru 999) possible "A/C 500" exchanges. As I thought of that, it also caused me to wonder the same thing about 800 numbers. They, too, are always dialed with the leading "800", and so that number-space could be a full XXX-XXXX range too. The only thing stopping it is the expectation of the users and how the software is written. Are there 800-XXX exchanges in use now? Will ------------------------------ From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush) Subject: Re: New Area Codes Assigned Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 01:51:05 GMT gaypanda@pinn.net (Tom Ward) writes: > Other new NXX NPA's assigned but not listed in this handbook are: >217 630 Illinois ^^^ Is this new? All the postings thus far about the new 630 NPA have suggested that it will be a split or overlay from 708, not 217. Is 217 that crowded already? I know 708 is. Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Alan.Leon.Varney@att.com Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 16:43:29 +0500 Subject: Re: Bellcore NANP Seminars Coming Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article Gregory P. Monti writes: > The May 13 issue of the newsletter {Communications Daily} reports that > Bellcore will hold seminars on the changes to the North American > Numbering Plan over the next six months. They will be in Washington > June 16-17, Chicago Aug. 4-5, Dallas Sept. 15-16, and San Francisco > Nov. 10-11. > The story quotes North American Numbering Plan Administration Director > Ronald Conners as saying that, "telephone company switches and > customers' PBXs may need software or hardware upgrades or, in some > cases, may have to be replaced." The story doesn't mention costs, but > gives a number for information: 800 TEACH-ME (800 832-2463). The Bellcore Digest from April 94 indicates the seminar fees are $765, including one lunch and materials. They appear to be 1-1/2 day seminars. FAX requests for seminar information can be made to: (708) 960-6360 Send name, mail address, telephone and title. You can also request contact by a representative. ------------------------------ From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: GTE Analog Pocket Phone Date: 17 May 1994 22:43:39 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) That sounds a lot like the PCS systems being tested by GTE and other companies around the US. GTE, Amertech, ATT, OKI and Motorola have been testing. From what I have read it is as a lot like the cellular phone of today and in the tests it does become a Cellular phone away from its base. What I believe is planned is a lot of cells that are closer then the ones today. There is a real operating system in Texas becasue of the distance from anything. There have been several articles here and in print on it. Steven H. Lichter Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS (909) 359-5338 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #233 ******************************