TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Jun 94 03:29:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 293
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Optical to Electrical Converters Wanted (Paul A. Lee)
Re: Optical to Electrical Converters Wanted (David Kirsch)
Re: v.35 (T1) Board for Linux Available Soon (Jan Allbright)
Re: Calling Number ID for Cellular Users (John Gilbert)
Re: Demand Linux Support for v.35 (56kb - T1) Interface! (Morten Reistad)
Re: Cell One/Boston <-> Manchester/Nashua New Connection (John R. Covert)
Re: Nine Track IBM Standard Labels (Tony Harminc)
Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted (Wes Leatherock)
Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Garrett Wollman)
Re: AT&T Mail to Charge for Internet Reception in Canada (Danny Burstein)
Re: Pointers Wanted to TDD Specifications Please (Jon Sreekanth)
Re: Information WANS Requested (Richard Layman)
Re: New Player in the 800 Game (Doug McDonald)
Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (Pete Farmer)
Re: International Callback Services (Gene Retske)
Re: Can I Use Deactivated Cellular Phones For Emergency Calls? (B.
Roberts)
Internet Access in France - State of the Art (Jean-Bernard Condat)
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: Paul A. Lee
Subject: Optical to Electrical Converters Wanted
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 04:00:00 GMT
Organization: Woolworth Corporation
In TELECOM Digest Volume 14 Issue 282, Carl Silva wrote:
> ...who provides optical to electrical converters?
Try contacting the following firms:
Opticom Corporation
5505 Morehouse Drive, #150
San Diego, CA 92121
619 450-0143
619 450-0155 FAX
Math Associates Inc.
5500 New Horizons Boulevard
Amityville, NY 11701
516 226-8950
516 226-8966 FAX
Optelecom
9300 Gaither Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
301 840-2121
301 948-6357 FAX
Please note that I am simply aware of the product lines of these
firms; I don't have any direct experience with them or their products.
Paul A. Lee Voice 414 357-1409
Telecommunications Analyst FAX 414 357-1450
Woolworth Corporation CompuServe 70353,566
INTERNET
------------------------------
From: dkirsch@coolhand.East.Sun.COM (David Kirsch - SunNetworks Manager)
Subject: Re: Optical to Electrical Converters Wanted
Date: 15 Jun 1994 15:28:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Reply-To: dkirsch@coolhand.East.Sun.COM
You might try Canoga Perkins ... they have some of these type
products.
21012 Lassen St.
Chatsworth, CA 91311
818.718.6300
Try Paul Stennes, VP Sales/Marketing
David K.
------------------------------
From: jallbrig@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Jan Allbright)
Subject: Re: v.35 (T1) Board for Linux Available Soon
Date: 16 Jun 1994 07:05:54 GMT
Organization: Information Networks Division: Hewlett Packard
Humm ... I thought T1 ran at 1.544 Mbps ...
------------------------------
From: johng@ecs.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: Calling Number ID for Cellular Users
Organization: Motorola, LMPS
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 00:51:27 GMT
In article , Lynne Gregg wrote:
> Steve, I like the way you think! McCaw operations will start offering
> Calling Number ID Service to its Digital cellular subscribers
> beginning in September. When Digital was launched by Cellular One in
> New York, Calling Number ID was heralded as one of several enhanced
> services to come.
Caller ID service is among several services that have been available
to analog subscribers on narrow band AMPS (NAMPS) systems since 1991.
See the April 1991 issue of {Communications} magazine for more on
NAMPS.
John Gilbert johng@ecs.comm.mot.com KA4JMC
------------------------------
From: mrr@Hadrian.Boers.no (Morten Reistad)
Subject: Re: Demand Linux Support for v.35 (56kb - T1) Interface!
Date: 16 Jun 1994 01:47:56 +0200
Organization: OBI A/S Personal employee account
In article kruckenb@sal.cs.utah.edu
(Joseph Kruckenberg) writes:
> [Soapbox on]
> Over the past few days, I've been in discussion with a company called
> SDL (sdl@world.std.com) which builds a v.35 board for the PC.
[clip]
> you let them know of your interest. Now that gated has been ported to
> Linux, Linux is a very viable alternative to the traditional
> computer/router gateway. With a v.35 interface, you could achieve
> speeds of 56kb up to 3Mb/sec (with their dual-port version), while
> still keeping your costs below a few thousand dollars (the SDL boards
> are priced at about $550) by avoiding the purchase of a router.
Wow. What is so special about a synchronous, plain V.35 card? Why does
it have to cost as much as the rest of the PC? All the cards I have
seen are fully equipped with a processor requiring downloaded code;
roms and what have you.
The complexity of this is not much greater than a vanilla asynch board
for a PC. OK, you have to pull forward a few extra pins and make an
ugly cable for V.35, but the card should not require more than a USRT
and some driver chips. After all; rather braindamaged ethernet cards
run just fine at twice this speed over a plain ISA bus. And a plain
sync card just has to push frames, no CSMA, transceiver, etc.
These things should cost $50, not $550.
Have a nice day!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 09:02:33 EDT
From: John R. Covert 15-Jun-1994 0854
Subject: Re: Cell One/Boston <-> Manchester/Nashua New Connection
DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU wrote:
> I think the Manchester 00445 system in New Hampshire is also linked up
> now, although the serivce was so poor I couldn't really try it. I know
> that hitting *28 or *29 got me dead air for two seconds, and then the
> switch hung up on me, as it if were processing the call but just
> didn't want to send confirmation tones back to me. Previously, this
> used to get an error recording.
This just started working, with fits and starts. On the days on which
*28 did not return a confirmation tone, it was not working. It
started working for the first time about three weeks ago on Friday,
did not work all the following week until that Friday, and then was
broken again the following week for a few days but has been working
since.
The connection, for now, is actually only Boston->Nashua/Manchester.
It is no longer possible to call a Boston customer roaming in New
Hampshire via the Merrimack roamer port (345-ROAM). What seems to
happen if the Boston phone is active in NH is that the roamer port
goes on-hook after the number is dialled. Customer service claims
this will always be the case now; it will be necessary to send all
calls via Boston.
/john
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 15:21:57 EDT
From: Tony Harminc
Subject: Re: Nine Track IBM Standard Labels
aoj@access3.digex.net (aaronjones) wrote:
> I'm trying to deal with Bell Canada's SYGMA (Bell's Computer Systems
> Group) to exchange information on 9-track magnetic tapes. They
> require that the tapes that we ship to them have (drum roll please) ...
> "Standard IBM Labels"
> Bell SYGMA has said that we should contact IBM for the format of these
> labels. I've tried to do so and failed most miserably (sigh). I did
> get to talk to a rather large number of nice people at IBM, but
> unfortunately none of them were able to help me.
The "official" answer is that you need a copy of the IBM publication
commonly called "Tape Labels". There are several editions for the
various operating systems, but the basic information in all of them is
the same. A fairly recent version is "MVS/ESA Magnetic Tape Labels
and File Structure Administration", publication number SC26-4511. Any
IBM office should be happy to order you a copy for an appropriately
outrageous price, or -- if someone is in a good mood -- copy the few
relevant pages.
Now it may be that you are facing a bureaucratic rather than a
technical problem at Bell, and there may therefore be a bureaucratic
response. It is perfectly valid not to have labels on an IBM tape.
This is often loosely called "label type NL" (i.e. No Labels). So if
you ship your tape to Bell, with the specifications (on paper) that it
has Label Type NL, LRECL (Logical Record Length) ll (where ll is the
(fixed) length of each record), BLKSIZE bb (where bb is the size of
physical blocks the records are grouped into), plus the actual layout
of data within each record, then you may be OK with no labels.
There are operational reasons why their life is easier if you do have
standard labels, so you might want to write them anyway. They are
quite simple, 80-byte records.
Tony Harminc
------------------------------
From: Wes.Leatherock@tranquil.nova.com (Wes Leatherock)
Date: 15 Jun 94 09:52:14 -0600
Subject: Re: Average Data Speed of Wire Telegraphy Wanted
Organization: Fidonet
Quoting nduehr@netcom.com (Nathan N. Duehr):
Quoting wes@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu (Wes Leatherock):
WL> Press operators were, I think probably the elite of operators
WL> sending in the wire telegraph days. Perhaps those working for
WL> brokerage wire houses could also put in a claim to this, but
WL> I'm not sufficiently familiar with them to be able to judge.
nd> Don't forget the railroad ops ... they had their fair share of
nd> traffic as well!
I certainly didn't mean to ignore them. They were generally
outstanding operators and most of them were very fast and exceptional
under pressure.
But I'm not sure they had the steady, continuous stream of
traffic that press and probably wire house operators had. You're
probably better informed on this than I am, and I'd be interested in
knowing more.
Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@tranquil.nova.com
wes@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu
------------------------------
From: wollman@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion
Date: 15 Jun 1994 22:31:35 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
In article , Carl Oppedahl wrote:
> Huh? I memorize my card number. Then it does not matter what is or
> is not written on it since I don't carry the card. Why would any one
> carry the card around?
Well, since you asked ...
I don't often have a need to use my calling card, as I am very rarely
away from a free phone in circumstances where I actually would /want/
to make a phone call. So, I have a calling card account mainly for
security -- that is to say, I keep the account because some day I might
get lost in darkest Somerville and want to call a cab to bring me back
into civilization.
Under these circumstances, I'm not likely to remember the number,
since I never use it, and those circumstances in which I'm likely to
need it are precisely the ones that would send my memory on the fritz.
Furthermore, there are a lot of people (of which I am one) who simply
are unable to memorize numbers except as a process of using them. For
example, when I lived in Vermont, I at one time had a calling card
number ending in 2644. I can tell you that now not because I
memorized the number (indeed, I don't even remember which phone it was
attached to), but because I remember the hand motions involved in
dialing it. (That's how I remember all of those numbers which I
actually use regularly.)
Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein)
Subject: Re: AT&T Mail to Charge for Internet Reception in Canada
Date: 15 Jun 1994 09:40:22 -0400
[good article/bad news piece about how ATT Mail in Canada will soon
start charging for -reciept- of internet mail deleted]
I've been waiting for this shoe to drop. I've been a long-time
customer of a competitor of theirs here in the US (not on this
account, but a different address) and expect it to happen there
anyday.
This other system charges only for the -sending- of msgs with -no-
online time fee, and no charge for receiving msgs. They also have an
800 number for logging in (at no fee).
In the old days, when their system was a standalone, this made sense
since any message you read was paid for by -someone- on their system.
But once the internet gateway came about, all bets were off.
So currently it is possible to pay just the annual fee ($25) and log
in, via an 800 number, and get hours of email reading/day. Obviously
at some point they will have to do something ...
dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com)
------------------------------
From: jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth)
Subject: Re: Pointers Wanted to TDD Specifications Please
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 05:55:37 GMT
In article josephc@cco.caltech.edu
(Joseph Chiu) writes:
> After looking through various journals and computer-rags (all the way
> back to mid-80's!), and looking around at FAQ's and such, I'm still
> stumped in my search for technical information on TDD's.
The closest thing to an official TDD spec is an older draft standard
by EIA. Here is an excerpt of a letter from TIA:
May 16, 1988.
In 1981, the EIA Engineering Committee TR41 undertook the writing of
a voluntary industry standard for telecomm devices for the deaf.
... As commercial interest in these devices has diminshed, we now
find ourselves in a situation where only two manufacturers remain in
the market, and they seem unwilling or unable to agree on the terms of
the standard. .. Accordingly, ... (TR41) voted to abandon PN 1663 and
directed me to place the existing document Draft 9 in the public
domain ... EIA and its successor organizations will no longer
maintain this draft, but will continue to make copies available to
qualified persons and organizations for a reasonable period of time ...
--------------
So the summary is: Telecommunications Industry Association, TIA, at
202-457-4936 can provide PN 1663, Draft 9, if you ask nicely.
Jon Sreekanth
Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc. Fax and PC products
5 Walden St #3, Cambridge, MA 02140 (617) 876-8019
jon_sree@world.std.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 00:50:09 EDT
From: Richard Layman
Subject: Re: Information WANS Requested
Matthew Scott Weisberg had a query about linking city government
agencies in a WAN. Here are some suggestions for resources. Public
Technology Inc. is a technical consulting group for local governments.
It is a nonprofit group created by the National League of Cities, the
Intl. City/County Management Assn., and the National Assn. of
Counties. They provide assistance to local governments on telecommun-
ications, cable, computing, utilities and other issues. They are at:
1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004, 202-626-2400.
Another option to consider besides an RBOC is the local cable company.
I have read articles in publications concerning local government about
this. I think San Jose may have used a cable company for such a project.
{Governing Magazine} runs a column on information technology and a
yearly feature on leading telecommunications-computing projects in
government. {Government Technology}, based in Sacramento, is a
monthly tabloid (similar to {NetworkWorld}) for local and state
government IT/telecom peopole and may be a good resource as well.
Richard Layman, Marketing Director, Computer Television Network
rlayman@cap.gwu.edu
------------------------------
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: New Player in the 800 Game
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:27:10 GMT
Organization: UIUC
In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM
Digest Editor) writes:
> I had a very pleasant conversation earlier today with Steve Betterly
> about a new 800 service available to small and medium size users.
Sounds interesting and perhaps popular. That brings up the question:
what happens when 800 fills up? Will they just add 820, 830, 840, etc?
Doug McDonald
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know what they will do. Has anyone
yet announced the code to be used when 800 runs out of space? PAT]
------------------------------
From: petef@well.com (Pete Farmer)
Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere"
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 17:54:43 -0800
Organization: Tetherless Access Ltd.
In article hardiman@cbnewst.att.com
writes:
> PacBell runs an ISDN BBS.
> 510-277-1037 for pokey old modems.
> 510-823-4888 for speedy new BRI or SDS 56/64K access
Pac Bell also has a gopher server:
gw.pacbell.com
I think this has much of the same information that's on their BBS.
Peter J. Farmer Internet: petef@well.com
VP, Marketing Voice: 415-321-5968
Tetherless Access Ltd. Fax: 415-321-5048
------------------------------
From: gretske@delphi.com
Subject: Re: International Callback Services
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 22:36:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
As info, my company, Transglobal Telecom, has recently begun offering
"non code calling" calback type services. If we can be of assistance,
call me at 800-633-3882.
Gene Retske
------------------------------
From: bruce.roberts@greatesc.com (Bruce Roberts)
Subject: Can I Use Deactivated Cellular Phones For Emergency Calls?
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 10:41:00 GMT
Organization: The Great Escape - Gardena, CA - (310) 676-3534
John R. Covert writes
CC> Remember that in some areas 911 is STRICTLY reserved for life-and-death
CC> emergencies. Los Angeles is particularly strict about enforcing this, I'm
CC> told. In Massachusetts, 911 or *SP from cellular doesn't go to 911,
Cellular 911 calls in Los Angeles (at least on AirTouch [PacTel]) go to
a special, cellular/mobile phone operator who will take traffic
problems and up. We have this number (which I can't recall at the
moment) programmed into the auto-dialer on our Amateur Radio
repeater/phone patch because they deal very well with half duplex radio
calls and "yes, I'll give you my number and, yes, I know it doesn't
even come close to matching the number you have in your 911 database"
conversations. They will take information and pass it on or connect
you with any police department, fire department or the California
Highway Patrol. An excellent service in my humble opinion. TTFN -br-
Bruce Roberts, bruce.roberts@greatesc.com
* RM 1.3 01036 * Redundancy is prohibitively disallowed again.
------------------------------
From: cccf@altern.com (cccf)
Subject: Internet Access in France - State of the Art
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 7:46:56 GMT
INTERNET IN FRANCE
For a long time, I dream to have an Internet address. For an US guy,
it's easy to answer to this request. For me, France-born teenager, I
must have a friend that give me an email box on the computer of a rich
university. At this time, a lot of controls stop like a solution.
The second solution is to access via my free videotex terminal called
Minitel on a gatheway connected to an UUCP or Internet node. The cost
is between FF 1.25 (for 3615 Internet) and FF 9.46 (for 3619 USnet)
per minute ... but for email and news only. Some videotex services
don't like ftpmail requests or more than 520-caracters messages (like
3617 Email) and refuse sending my mails :-8
The third solution is to buy a commercial access: MCIMail have an
"experimental connection with Internet" at this time; AT&T give you an
address in Netherlands and CompuServe ask for my parent's MasterCard
number :-]
Some good associations (like French Data Network, Fnet or Frmug) send
me a little package with a good service, but the guys that don't live
in Paris paid a lot of money for an incredibly expensive phone call
(FF 0.73 all 12 seconds) to access to the service.
The only solution is 3619 USnet (a joke developed by Intelmatique, a
subsidiary of France Telecom that gives you a user-ID on Delphi
domain), the really crazy Audiotel service called FranceNet (that stop
the service all 20 minutes), the last baby born today and called
World-net or, at least, the uncredible 3619 Inet that give you an
email box on "on101"-domain in the USA.
Internet is a real *problem* at this time in France, not a solution.
This message cost me FF 25.00 to be send to you. A little expensive,
no?
Listing of (Un-)useful Addresses
Altern (3616)
Valentin Lacambre, 29 rue de Cotte, 75012 Paris
Tel.: (1) 42 79 81 38
Email: sysop@altern.com
Calvacom (RCI-Calvacom)
175 rue J.-J. Rousseau, 92138 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex
Tel.: (1) 41 08 11 00, Fax: (1) 41 08 11 99
Email: rci1@calvacom.fr
CompuServe
Centre Atria, Rueil 2000, 92566 Rueil Malmat, 92410 Ville d'Avray
Tel.: (1) 47 50 62 48, Fax: (1) 47 50 62 93
Email: sales@teaser.com
EUnet France SA
52 av. de la Grande Armee, 75017 Paris
Tel.: (1) 53 81 60 60, Fax: (1) 45 74 52 79
Acc}s Utopia: (1) 39 63 50 22 ou NUA 17827026961
Email: contactne@rain.fr
USNet (3619)
Intelmatique SA, 16-18 rue du Dome, 92300 Boulogne-
Billancourt
Tel.: (1) 47 61 47 61, Fax: (1) 46 21 22 40
Email: jperd@delphi.com
World-NET
SCT, 20 av. Daguerre, 77500 Chelles
Tel.: (1) 60 20 85 14, 3617 SCT, Fax: (1) 64 21 65 35
Email: info@World-net.sct.fr
Jean-Bernard Condat, General Secretary hc, Chaos Computer Club France
Internet: condat@altern.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, I know it is expensive for you to
participate in this Digest, which is one of the reasons I always
appreciate hearing from you with news from France. Perhaps someday
things will improve for you there. In the meantime, do the best you
can to stay in touch with us. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #293
******************************