TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Jun 94 12:41:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 273 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Introducing Incombank and ISKRA-2 (Ibankcom@ustar.msk.su) GSM Question: Power Controllers (Robert Jansen) Unix to Alpha-Numeric Pager (Lester Knutsen) Information Wanted on Satellite BBS (Gary E. Chidester) Re: 716 Now Split Between 7D and 1 + 716 +7D (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Personal 800 Number Availability (Glenn McComb) Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (Kevin Martinez) Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (Jeremie Kass) Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (John R. Haggis) Re: How Can I Ring Up Myself? (Randy Gellens) Re: What's a 1A3B? (David Wuertele) Re: Annoying COCOT Problem (Mark E. Daniel) Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Steve McKinty) Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Clive D.W. Feather) Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s (Peter Campbell Smith) 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: InBankCom Subject: Introducing Incombank and ISKRA-2 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 14:14:36 +0400 Organization: USTAR Moscow Reply-To: IBANKCOM@ustar.msk.su [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The following message was received today in my mail but due to technical problems in the transmission it had to be reconstructed somewhat. I hope I got it all correct. PAT] "InBankCom" (IBC): InComBank (Bank Communications) is a commercial satellite telecommunica- tion systems Company which services the whole territory of Russia, Europe and Asia. International Bank Communications Moscow, is a telecommunications company that services all banking needs of Russia, Europe and Asia. "Inbankcom" System of operations is based on Central Satellite Communications (HUB) Moscow and the system of remote terminal stations (VSAT) distributed throughout the territory of Russia and Community of Independent States. "Inbankcom" offers their customers the following services: digital data satellite communication, telephone, fax and Teleconferencing communication channels in all regions of Russia. - Design, deliver build and operate all equipment in satellite telecommunication service; - "Inbankcom" system uses and operates very sophisticated, modern technical equipment made in USA and Russia that, ensures high quality of communication service and reliability with minimum costs, and rapid connection to the system. - "Inbankcom" offers to reserve capacities at the Moscow HUB Station. Application for survey and service is available. ------------------------------ From: rjansen@rc1.vub.ac.be (Robert Jansen) Subject: GSM Question: Power Controllers Date: 5 Jun 1994 17:49:55 GMT Organization: Brussels Free Universities (VUB/ULB), Belgium After visiting several dealers of GSM phones, I finally found one with the technical know-how about GSM. He told me things like: "Well, I don't recommend booster kits in a car." Probably everyone now goes "HEY, WHAT ??$%#$$". The story is quite simple: He told me that when 8W phones are near a groundstation, the transmit power is trottled by the groundstation, in order to allow the nearby 2W devices to "enter" the groundstation's receiver. This is what he called "GSM phones with a build-in POWER CONTROLLER" (8W phones have this feature, so don't panic :) ) The problem arises when a normal handheld with a car kit is fitted (afterwards) with a normal antenna signal booster. It's a straightforward amplifier, which HAS NO way of being power controlled by the groundstation, nor the 2W handheld. Result: the groundstation kicks you of the net if you get to close to the groundstation and are blasting the full 8W to it's antenna, because you are surpressing the signals from the handheld 2W phones. Many will now ask themselves: why are they selling such boosters? Well, it works fine if the net operator doesn't have very intelligent groundstations. If for some reason or another a net operator implements Power Control in their groundstations, you are out of luck with your antenna signal booster. Q: And what about a handheld with a booster from the same manufacturer? A: well ... that's the point here, I getting the idea that NOT ONE!!! manufacturer of GSM phones (which have a booster kit for their phones) implemented Power Control when you have your handheld in the car, connected to it's booster. The handhelds don't have the control over the booster. Questions arise: 1) Does anyone have more information on this matter? 2) Are there manufactures who have a "handheld booster" which is Power Controlled whenever you have your handheld in the car? (The handheld communicates with the booster.) Thanks for any replies at all, I'm still puzzled on what I should buy. Robert Jansen Computer Center VUB/ULB Brussels Belgium (Europe) VUBnet email: rjansen@vnet3.vub.ac.be Tel: +32-2-650.37.29 Secr: +32-2-650.37.38 Fax: +32-2-650.37.40 ------------------------------ From: lester@access.digex.net (Lester Knutsen) Subject: Unix to Alpha-Numeric Pager Date: 6 Jun 1994 00:39:39 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Is there any Unix software that can send messages through a modem to an alpha-numeric pager? Does anyone have recommendations on set-ups and paging services that work well? Thanks for any information. Lester ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 10:49:48 -0700 From: GARYC@cc.snow.edu (Gary E. Chidester) Subject: Information Wanted on Satellite BBS? I read an article the other day about BBS via satellite and how it would be cheaper because there would be no long distance charges accrued. How is this possible? I can see how you could receive information via satellite, but unless there is two-way communication how can you request the information you want? Is there somewhere that I can get more information? Gary Chidester Instructor of Broadcasting Snow College ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 06:56:20 EDT From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: 716 Now Split Between 7D and 1 + 716 +7D In TELECOM Digest V14 #269 Carl Moore writes: > I have been assuming statewide uniformity in these dialing changes, > and this is the first I have heard of a split of this nature. That is because area code 716 is split between NYNEX and Rochester Telephone and each may (and probably does) have different tariffs for the same thing as well as dialing plans. I don't know how this will be affected in 1995 when the changeover occurs in dialing local vs. long distance starts. This could also affect another area code that is split between two companies: NYNEX (516) and Fisher's Island Telco which gets its feed from Connecticut (probably SNET). Fisher's Island is strange: closer to CT than Long Island but part of Long Island and therefore New York. In TELECOM Digest V14 #271 jg2560@cesn4.cen.uiuc.edu (John Robert Grout) wrote: > If a state's PSC didn't enforce uniformity (probably forcing 1+AC+7D), > setting a "de facto" standard within a LATA would usually fall to the > "Baby Bell" providing service within it. > I expect that New York's PSC will eventually bully Rochester Telephone > into uniformity with NYNEX. Nah. It's more busy approving outlandish rate hikes for the Long Island Lighting Company and it's exeutives ($41k+ bonus for the Chairman in 1993) plus the defunct Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant (we, the ratepayers had to pay for it to be built). It never was put into use and now the fuel is being transported to Pennsylvania. The PSC allowed the plant to be sold to the state for $1.00 (US) and the ratepayers have to pay to dismantle it in addition to bulding it. For that we pay $.22 (US) for basic kilowatt usage up to a little over 800. What makes anyone think that the PSC will be harsher on NYNEX than it is with LILCO? Dave Niebuhr Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (preferred) niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 1+(516) 282-3093 FAX 1+(516) 282-7688 ------------------------------ From: gmccomb@netcom.com (Glenn McComb) Subject: Re: Personal 800 Number Availability Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 06:58:55 GMT William Y. Lai (lai@seas.gwu.edu) wrote: > A while back I remember that several LD companies were offering plans > for personal 800 numbers. Does anyone know of availaibility/details > of these plans today? I've been using AT&T's 800 Starter Line service, which recently dropped from $6/mo + 0.31/min to $5/mo + 0.26/min, billed in six-second increments. Just the other day, I added 800 call forwarding, which lets me point my 800 number to any other number from any phone in the world. Cost was $20 setup, plus $1.00 for every change. I needed the portability primarily because AT&T wouldn't point my 800 number without me giving them the street address where the phone is located. Since I wanted my personal (800) number to point to my pager company's voicemail number, I didn't know the street address, and neither did the pager company! So, I'll point the number myself and give the goobers $20 for the privilege. Since they charge $10 for any service change anyway, it works out pretty good. Glenn McComb +1-408-725-1448 | McComb Research Fax +1-408-725-0222 | 10440 Mann Drive Internet gm @ mccomb.com | PO Box 220 Compuserve MHS:gm@mccomb | Cupertino, CA 95015 ------------------------------ From: lps@rahul.net (Kevin Martinez) Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" Organization: a2i network Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 08:06:29 GMT judson%linex@uunet.UU.NET (Michael L Judson) writes: > I saw in a news report about a new service from Pacific Bell called > "ISDN Anywhere." When I called up Pac Bell, they had no idea what I > was talking about. The news report didn't give much more information > other than they would start offering it in about a month. > Does anybody else have any ideas about what is so different about "ISDN > Anywhere?" Same Old Stuff: Marketing Hype. When I finally found a Pac Bell representative that knew what ISDN was and the procedures for having it installed, I was told it was not available in my exchange (Milpitas, Ca., near the heart of Pac Bell). It appears that whatever switching mechanism they have is not up to the claims of their Marketing, Advertising and Sales force. Maybe next year ... Still waiting for the '90s, Kevin Martinez lps@rahul.net Work: 1 800 50 SATAN Home: 1 510 676 1111 ------------------------------ From: kass@tacout.army.mil (Jeremie Kass) Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 7:25:27 EDT What that service does is that Pac Bell will provide ISDN to any customer whose switch doesn't provide ISDN itself via foreign exchange, or FX. This involves running a T1 type line to the nearest switch that supports ISDN and can get quite pricey. Ameritech, in the metro Detroit area, will do all FX'ing for free as they will upgrading all the switches in the near future. But, for a client that I have who is 25 miles from an ISDN capable switch, it will cost around $700 to install the FX, and a mileage charge of $25.75/month that will be add to the regular $147 install and $35/month ISDN charges. Hope this helps! Jeremie Kass Internet: kass@tacout.army.mil Information Systems jk914s2187@sycom.mi.org Consultant jkass@cati.CSUfresno.edu JPK Computer Consulting jkass@jpkcomp.detroit.mi.us Huntington Woods, MI, U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: haggis@netcom.com (John R. Haggis) Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" Organization: Millennium Research Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 11:28:21 GMT In article bluewtr!tom@orca.mbari.org writes: > ISDN Anywhere means that you can have ISDN anywhere in the Pacbell > area for the price of local ISDN. If your serving CO does not offer > ISDN Pacbell will provide the FX for free. Could've fooled me. I've been trying to get straight talk out of PacBell for months about ISDN. Latest word is that they can't even take it out to my house because it's greater than 15K (or 18K?) network feet away from the CO (measured by a hand-meter). They hinted that if I twisted arms I might be able to get them to put in repeaters and stuff but I would really have to stroke people to do this special thing just for me ... And what about the basic service? I can't get anyone there to tell me in plain English what I get. It's all acronym-soup, and PB speaks one language and all the Internet providers speak a totally different one! Tower of Babel here we come (those who do not learn from history ...). For you PacBell flame afficionados: I tried to call in last week and find out what their BBS number was (hinted in a post about Scott Adams of Dilbert fame). I called 15 times, got rerouted 23 times, and got absolutely nobody who even knew what a BBS was. Sheesh ... this is the future? JohnR (haggis@netcom.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you describe is quite common. Telco will run an advertisement on television or the radio, or maybe in the newspaper for some new and advanced service, then when you call any of the front line people for more information, none of them have the foggiest idea what you are talking about or what you want, etc. Too bad their advertising people don't send memos to the Business Office people telling them the kinds of things the public will be asking about. PAT] ------------------------------ From: RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM Date: 06 JUN 94 02:35:00 GMT Subject: Re: How Can I Ring Up Myself? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After dialing do you get a busy signal or some special tone? If we here dial our own number, in some exchanges we get a busy signal and in other exchanges get an intercept that 'your call cannot be completed as dialed, please check the number and dial again, etc ..." Even if we have call waiting installed, dialing our own number produces a busy signal or the above recording. PAT] In most GTE areas, when you dial your own number you hear a soft beeping. Hanging up causes the phone to ring. Two people in a house can talk to each other this way. It is free. I understand it is a carry-over from the party line days. PacBell offers a functionally equivalent service as part of their home Centrex service (I think that is the name. I just checked the new phone books, and the several pages that used to be there on these features have been replaced by information on their automated information lines (which don't mention this service) and the Message Center). Randall Gellens randy@mv-oc.unisys.com (714) 380-6350 fax (714) 380-5912 Mail Stop MV 237 Net**2 656-6350 ------------------------------ From: dave@sparc4-5.gctech.co.jp (Dave) Subject: Re: What's a 1A3B? Organization: Graphic Communications Laboratories (GCL) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 10:17:39 GMT In article jvz@pt.com (John Zambito) writes: [question about an acronym] And the TELECOM Digest Editor appends: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ESS = Electronic Switching System. So > named because the telephone exchanges of the past were electro-mechanical > in operation. This acronym along with lots of others which puzzle > readers from time to time can be looked up in our interative glossary > program at the Telecom Archives. If you can use anonymous ftp, then > access the archives and pull the glossary files to your site. You did not mention where the Telecom Archives are. I looked for the glossary files on rtfm.mit.edu, but did not find them there. David Wuertele [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I nearly always do mention where to find the archives. Try anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 00:30:52 EST From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel) Subject: Re: Annoying COCOT Problem In TELECOM Digest Volume 14 : Issue 260 Stu Jeffery writes: > do wonder, however, how they can get away with detecting DTMF generated > outside the instrument and disconnecting a call as a result. Is this > any different from disconnecting a call when vulgar words are spoken? Since COCOT = Customer Owned perhaps the FCC and or has not set any regula tions on what a Customer can do with the service they are providing. I've seen evverything. Most COCOTs have fake everything. The tones you dial are generated for the benifit of the user only. For that matter a COCOT dial tone is even generated for the benifit of the user. I have the ability to identify touch tones based upon the sounds I'm hearing. I recently used a CO: COT which I have no idea how it works unless it just mutes everything. This COCOT used touch tones but the tones did not equal what I dialed. In this case service calls had a code. Repair (you were told to dial 211 by the card on the phone) produced "#21" when dialed. That's easy. It just routes to a preprogrammed number when it hears. #21. But for things like calling card calls it truly *was* one digit behind me. Ditto for local calls which produced # + phone number digit -1 yet still went through. The only logical thing to conclude then is that it just uses a contacting system to know which buttons (as in electronic circuit or something; I don't know too much about this) are being pressed and cares noting about what they are really supposed to sound like, yet still produces "tone" sounds because pushbutton phones are supposed to beep when you hit the button. The tone patterns likely have nothing to do with how this phone routes calls. Then it mutes the sound and dials it on the real line (another oddity is that the phone number printed on the phone could not have been it's real "line". That CO serves the a much farther south part of town that where this phone is located. Plus the number on the phone rings and rings when dialed. Perhaps they paid big bucks or use some kind of leased line to route outbound calls on that number. And when you make a 0 + call the phone "clicks" and instantly you get "Telecall USA" and a non-standard bong. Almost too instantly to be produced externally. His COCOT has my curiosity poised. I wonder if I am absolutely incorrect about the way it works ... :) Mark E Daniel (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS) Inet: mark@legend.akron.oh.us ------------------------------ From: smckinty@sunicnc.France.Sun.COM (Steve McKinty - SunConnect ICNC) Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s Date: 6 Jun 1994 11:08:05 GMT Organization: SunConnect In article , Andrew C. Green writes: > Randall Gellens (RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM) writes: >> He picks up his phone [...] and dials three digits. He says >> "Operator? This is WHitehall xxxx. My name is John Steed. I will >> be away for the next three weeks. Please forward my calls to the >> usual number." >> What sort of call-forwarding was offered by British Telecom in the >> 1960s? > At the risk of over-analyzing a fictional scene, I get the impression > he wasn't speaking to the telephone company operator, but to some sort > of government operator at the other end of a private line. I base this > conclusion on the fact that he dialed only three digits (I would have > expected contemporary numbers in the London area to be at least five), Except the public operator, for whom you dial 100 in the UK > and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not > fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix. Could be a genuine one, the phone number for Scotland Yard was WHItehall 1212, and I believe the present day New Scotland Yard still has the equivalent all-numeric number. It still doesn't, of course, explain how such call forwarding would have worked. Prior to direct dialing asking the Operator to forward calls manually would be the thing to do, but the mid-60s seems late for that. Steve McKinty Sun Microsystems ICNC 38240 Meylan, France email: smckinty@france.sun.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 12:56:00 BST From: Clive D.W. Feather >> He picks up his phone [...] and dials three digits. He says >> "Operator? This is WHitehall xxxx. My name is John Steed. I will >> be away for the next three weeks. Please forward my calls to the >> usual number." > At the risk of over-analyzing a fictional scene, I get the impression > he wasn't speaking to the telephone company operator, but to some sort > of government operator at the other end of a private line. I base this > conclusion on the fact that he dialed only three digits (I would have > expected contemporary numbers in the London area to be at least five), > and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not > fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix. WHItehall (note the capitalization) was indeed the exchange for much of the Civil Service, and many government offices still have 071-944-XXXX numbers. At the time in question, local dialing would have been seven digits. On the other hand, to reach the Post Office (this pre-dates BT by a long way) operator would only be three digits: 100. On the other other hand, I can't quite see this being real either way. If it was a PBX operator, then they would have had no control over the routing of directly dialed calls (this was before the days of DDI; a person's phone was either a direct line or via a switchboard, and if necessary you had two phones on your desk). If it was the GPO operator, then she would have had a major effort to organise a redirection (WHItehall was almost certainly a Strowger exchange). Clive D.W. Feather Santa Cruz Operation clive@sco.com Croxley Centre Phone: +44 923 816 344 Hatters Lane, Watford Fax: +44 923 210 352 WD1 8YN, United Kingdom ------------------------------ From: campbellsm@lish.logica.com (Peter Campbell Smith) Subject: Re: British Call Forwarding in 1960s Organization: Logica, London Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 13:59:46 GMT In article , Andrew C. Green wrote: > Randall Gellens (RANDY@MPA15AB.mv-oc.Unisys.COM) writes: >> He picks up his phone [...] and dials three digits. He says >> "Operator? This is WHitehall xxxx. My name is John Steed. I will >> be away for the next three weeks. Please forward my calls to the >> usual number." > At the risk of over-analyzing a fictional scene, I get the impression > he wasn't speaking to the telephone company operator, but to some sort > of government operator at the other end of a private line. I base this > conclusion on the fact that he dialed only three digits (I would have > expected contemporary numbers in the London area to be at least five), > and referred to his own number as "Whitehall", an inspired (if not > fictitious) choice for a British government phone network prefix. Had > he called whatever the local equivalent of 611 was (for repair or some > other service), I don't think he would have addressed the other party > as "Operator". A sort of call forwarding was offered by BT - or rather Post Office Telecommunications - in the 1960s. You had to set it up in advance, ie tell them what 'the usual number' was, and then you called the operator (by dialing 100 or maybe 151, which was and is the repairs number) to have it turned on or off. Or, you could have it turned on and off at fixed times of the day. The number you forwarded to had to be in the same exchange. The service was mainly used by doctors and was not cheap, and I imagine it was implemented by plugging and unplugging a hardwired connection between the two outgoing subscriber loops. Whitehall was indeed a real exchange. Most of us over the age of 40 remember that Scotland Yard's number was Whitehall 1212 (dialed as WHI 1212), much more memorable than the current 230 1212. But judging by the scenery around Steed's pad I'd say he was in BELgravia or KENsington rather than WHItehall. Peter Campbell Smith, Logica plc, London. Voice: +44 71 637 9111 Fax: +44 71 344 3638 Internet: campbellsm@lish.logica.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A curious coincidence discussed in the Digest in the past involved a demented fellow here in the United States about thirty years ago who was fond of making lewd and threatening telephone calls to Queen Elizabeth. After authorities in the UK traced the calls back to overseas circuits to the USA and asked AT&T to help with the investigation, the calls were found to originate here in Chicago on a north side phone exchange then known as WHItehall. As Mr. Smith points out, the investigators in the UK were using WHItehall 1212 and the offender here in the States was calling from WHItehall 6211, then and now (944-6211) the switchboard at the Lawson YMCA. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #273 ******************************