TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Oct 94 12:34:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 400 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Finalizes Rules for Big LEO's (Bob Keller) Journal Review: Communications Standard Review (Elaine Baskin) New UK Dialing Codes (Richard Cox) Data Scopes and DSU's (Craig Hollenbaugh) Various Telephone Questions (Andrew A. Poe) NYNEX/MA and NXX Assignments (Scott D. Fybush) T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay (Jeff Buckingham) 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 America On Line. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 17:07:22 EDT From: Bob Keller Subject: FCC Finalizes Rules for Big LEO's Report No. DC-2660 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE October 14, 1994 COMMISSION ADOPTS FINAL RULES AND POLICIES FOR "BIG LEOS" (CC DOCKET 92-166) The Commission has adopted final rules for the licensing and operation of low earth orbit mobile satellite systems above 1 GHz ("Big LEOs") to provide a variety of voice and data mobile services worldwide. The systems will operate in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz frequency bands. Big LEO service can offer an almost limitless number of services, including ubiquitous voice and data mobile services, position location services, search and rescue communications, disaster management communications, environmental monitoring, paging services, facsimile transmission services, cargo tracking, and industrial monitoring and control. This service will help meet the demand for a seamless, nationwide, and eventually global communications system that is available to all and that can offer a wide range of voice and data telecommunications services. In addition to enhancing the competitive market for mobile telecommunications services in areas served by terrestrial mobile services, this new mobile satellite service will offer Americans in rural areas that are not otherwise linked to the communications infrastructure immediate access to a feature-rich communications network. Moreover, Big LEO systems can extend these benefits throughout the world, and can provide those countries that have not been able to develop a nationwide communications service with an "instant" global and national telecommunications infrastructure. This network can be used to provide both basic and emergency communications virtually anywhere in the world. Operation outside the United States, however, will be subject to the regulatory requirements of the countries in which these systems may seek to operate. The United States has led the world in developing and implementing satellite technology and the Big LEO service represents an opportunity for the United States to continue its leadership role. The Big LEO service has the potential to stimulate enormous economic growth both here and abroad. It is potentially a multi-billion dollar industry, with opportunities for economic growth in a variety of markets and sub-markets. Estimated costs to construct the space segments range from $97 million to over $2 billion each. Ground segments will cost hundreds of millions of dollars more. As the service becomes operational, there will be research and development, production, marketing and service administration, as well as related jobs in industries manufacturing the necessary hardware. As of the June 1991 cut-off date, the Commission had received six applications for Big LEOs. The applicants are: Ellipsat Corporation (now doing business as Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc.); Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc.; Constellation Communications, Inc.; Loral Cellular Systems Corp. (now doing business as Loral Qualcomm Partnership); TRW, Inc.; and AMSC Subsidiary Corporation. These applicants will be given an opportunity to file amended applications that conform with the new rules. Amended applications, requesting construction, launch and operating authority, must be filed by November 16, 1994, in order to receive continued consideration. However, applicants will be given until January 1996 to demonstrate compliance with the financial standard adopted by the Commission. The Commission noted, however, that complete applications filed on November 16, 1994 will be processed immediately, with action anticipated by January 31, 1995. The Commission adopted the spectrum sharing plan proposed in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket, which will allow for licensing of five systems. The plan will assign code-division multiple access (CDMA) systems to 11.35 MHz of shared bandwidth at 1610-1621.35 MHz and a time division/frequency division multiple access (TDMA/FDMA) system to 5.15 MHz of dedicated bandwidth at 1621.35 -1626.5 MHz. The Commission also adopted an interim plan to be used in the event that the operations of GLONASS, the Russian Global Navigation System, interferes with MSS operations in the lower frequency portion of the 1610-1626.5 MHz band. The interim plan will permit the CDMA licensees to expand by 1.25 MHz into the designated TDMA/FDMA band at 1621.35-1622.60 MHz. The Commission also stated that if only one CDMA system is implemented, the system's assignment would not be automatically reduced to 8.25 MHz, as proposed in the Notice. Rather, the Commission stated that any decision would be deferred until, and if, the need arises. The plan also allows CDMA systems to share the entire 16.5 MHz of downlink spectrum at 2483.5-2500 MHz. If all six applicants are found to be qualified, the licenses will be auctioned. The Commission has adopted qualification criteria designed to ensure that those granted licenses are capable of expeditiously implementing state-of-the-art systems that will serve the public interest. The requirements include: -- A low-Earth orbit design; -- The capability of providing global service; -- The capability of providing continuous service throughout the United States; -- A stringent financial showing identical to the one used in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service; and -- A construction timetable with a reporting requirement. If an auction is necessary, the Commission will conduct simultaneous multiple round bidding of small (2.0625 MHz) band segments, in which entities will be permitted to acquire up to four band segments each, assuring at least two licensees. The Commission also adopted technical coordination rules to achieve sharing between MSS and other services operating in the band or in adjacent bands. The Commission plans to begin to issue conditional licenses in January 1995, although it probably will not be able to authorize feeder link frequencies at that time. The Commission also determined that Big LEO space segment capacity may be offered to commercial mobile service providers on a non-common carrier basis, provided that the Big LEO service offering does not meet the definition of a common carrier service. Action by the Commission October 13, 1994, by Report and Order (FCC 94-261). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness, and Chong. News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet or Audrey Spivack at (202) 418-0500. Common Carrier Bureau contact: Fern Jarmulnek at (202) 634-1682. - FCC - Robert J. Keller, P.C. (Federal Telecommunications Law) Tel: 301-229-5208 Fax: 301-229-6875 4200 Wisconsin Ave NW #106-261 Washington DC 20016-2146 finger me for info on F.C.C. Daily Digests and Releases ------------------------------ Date: 17 Oct 94 16:59:00 EDT From: Elaine Baskin <72540.113@compuserve.com> Subject: Journal Review: Communications Standard Review [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This article might be called a 'review of a review' ... a look at two publications from the Communications Standard Review, edited by Elaine Baskin. If you believe Ms. Baskin's work might be helpful in your own, contact her for a subscription. PAT] Two standards journals can help you stay informed about telecom standards-in-progress: Communications Standards Review (CSR) reports on US (Telecommunications Industry Association - TIA) and International Telecommunications Union, Telecommunications Sector (ITU-T, formerly CCITT) Standards Committee meetings in Wide Area Network data communications, both wire and wireless, since 1990. CSR provides detailed technical information to assist in communications product planning and specification. The journal is published ten times per year. Committees covered include: TIA TR-29 Facsimile Systems & Equipment TIA TR-30 Data Transmission Systems and Equipment TIA TR-41 User-Premises Telecom Requirements TIA TR-45 Public Wireless 800 MHz Standards TIA TR-46 Wireless & Personal Comm. 1800 MHz ITU T Study Group 8 Telematic Services (including Facsimile) ITU T Study Group 14 (Formerly SG XVII) Data Communications over the GSTN (PSTN) ITU T Study Group 15 Transmission Systems and Equipment These committees cover: * Facsimile (incl. Class 1 and 2 interfaces) * Telephone line modems (V.34) * Digital interfaces (e.g., EIA/TIA 232) * FCC Part 68 technical issues * Analog/digital cellular standards * Communications Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) * 56 kbit/s & 64 kbit/s DSU/CSUs * Telematic terminals * ISDN rate adaption * Cellular data communications * Personal Communications Systems (800 MHz & 1800 MHz) For even more detail on specific work, subscribers may use the CSR library for a fee. Subscribers may order copies of public work-in-progress documents referenced in CSR. Such orders can be delivered quickly via overnight carrier or facsimile. (Completed standards should be ordered from the appropriate standards organization or distributor.) Communications Standards Summary (CSS) is a TIA-authorized publication, first published in February, 1994. CSS reports the status all TIA TR- committee active projects and recently completed standards four times per year. You can track the standards work of nine TIA committees (and 34 subcommittees), and hundreds of standards projects. TIA Committees projects in CSS: TR-8 Land Mobile Services TR-14 Point to Point Communications TR-29 Facsimile Systems & Equipment TR-30 Data Transmission Systems and Equipment TR-32 Personal Radio Equipment TR-34.2 Earth Station Satellite Antenna TR-41 User-Premises Telecom Requirements TR-45 Public Wireless 800 MHz Standards TR-46 Wireless & Personal Comm. 1800 MHz Information about each project includes: Project Number / committee Title and description of the Project Expected publication ID, if available Editor's name, company affiliation Current project status Related work in other committees In summary: CSR provides timely detailed coverage of the lower layer (OSI layers 1-3) wide area networking (WAN, below 1 Mbit/s) technical standards committee work, in TIA and ITU-T. The price is $795.00 per year. CSS provides a quarterly summary of all TIA TR-committee active projects and recently completed standards. The price is $250.00 per year. To request a sample copy of either or both journals (no obligation), contact Elaine Baskin at: Communications Standards Review 757 Greer Road Palo Alto, CA 94303-3024 USA Tel: +1 415 856-9018 Fax: +1 415 856-6591 e-mail: 72540.113@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:02:54 -0400 From: richard@mandarin.com Subject: New UK Dialing Codes adam ashby wrote: >> I was wondering if anyone has yet updated the UK area codes >> and made them available. We are working on this now. Unfortunately Oftel keep announcing new codes, and as soon as we have a definitive list, we find it is out of date! That wouldn't be too bad, since all lists of codes suffer from a similar problem, but there are a block of allocations which Oftel haven't yet published (allegedly because the allocations were made by BT before Oftel took over responsibility for the allcoation process). We'll have a new list out on the 'Net, just as soon as we can. For geographic codes, in most cases the translation is to put a "1" before the active part of the code. For example, 0222 becomes 01222. In five of our larger cities (Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds, Nottingham and Leicester) the code changes completely and local numbers will also change from six to seven digits. In Hull and Jersey local numbers also change from five digits to six. >> As a related aside -- all NT DMS switches in the UK were ready >> for the new codes before August 1st. But were they ready for Caller ID, due to be introduced here in just a few weeks time (November 5th) ? >> OfTel (the regulatory body) is currently discussing a new >> (proposed) numbering plan for the UK :- >> 00 - International (current) >> 01 - PSTN (current) >> 02 - possible netowrk expansion (new) >> 03 - New mobile allocations (new) >> 04 - New mobile allocations (new) >> 05 - FreePhone numbers (new) >> 06 - FreePhone numbers (new) >> 07 - Personal numbers (new) - what are those??? >> 08 - Premium rate (new) >> 09 - Premium rate (new) I suspect there are a few inaccuracies here. 02 is intended for a new form of "regional" numbering to run in parallel with 01, rather than for expansion (in fact there is very little room for expansion on 01 (a fact that worries many of us because we see it as a way to force people to change against their will to 02, due to another "shortage of numbers" - and 02 numbers may well be on a different tariff basis). Mobile and Pagers were to go to 03 but this has now been changed to 04. 07 is indeed for personal numbers: i.e. numbers that translate to other numbers, where the translation can be changed remotely by the customer. 08 will be used for all specially tariffed services, whether Freefone (our 0800), or Premium Rate: with 03, 06, and 09 being kept in reserve. The jury is still out on what will happen to 05. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, PO Box 111, Penarth, South Glamorgan CF64 3YG Voice: 0956 700111; Fax: 0956 700110; VoiceMail: 0941 151515 e-mail address: richard@mandarin.com; PGP2.6 public key on request ------------------------------ From: csh@alert.com (Craig Hollenbaugh) Subject: Data Scopes and DSU's Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:24:03 GMT Reply-To: csh@alert.com Organization: Alert Centre, Inc. Help - I've been doinking with this one for a while, hopefully, someone has seen it before. I'm using Comsphere 3610 DSU's for a 56k SDLC circuit. My problem is: The only way I can keep the circuit up (RTS/CTS) is to have the datascope plugged into the circuit and turned on. Turn off the scope, RTS goes away. Has anyone seen this kind of reaction before? I've BTW - Host is MVS, my end is an R/S 6000 running SNA. Craig Hollenbaugh csh@alert.com 303-488-7738 Alert Centre, Inc ------------------------------ From: Andrew A. Poe Subject: Various Telephone Questions Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:36:25 EDT Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept. OK, I've got some questions here about this wonderful device known as the telephone. 1. 800 numbers. I got this letter from Ameritech (my local phone company) apologizing profusely for the fact that certain 800 numbers are now billable. From what I've read here, I get the impression that the calls themselves are not billable, but the information received through such calls are. Is this true? This makes sense. Ameritech announced that an 800 number must describe its rates in the first minute of the conversation, and that if you hang up before the rates are described, you will be billed nothing. 2. 900/976 numbers. What's the difference here? The only thing I know about these numbers is that I've seen commercials for them, some phone sex lines, some astrology hotlines, and so forth. Who determines the rate? The carrier? The service? 900 is an "area code," right? While 976 is an "exchange?" 3. Every so often, I see an ad for a phone service that doesn't have a 900 or a 976. What are these? I've heard stories that these places will take your number and call you back collect, or will take a credit card number and bill to your credit card (sounds risky to me). If they call you back collect, who determines the rate of the call? The carrier? The service? How can you call someone collect and charge more for the call? Or is there some way you can use some non-900, non-976 number to charge the caller an exorbitant sum? 4. How old are area codes/direct dialing? 5. 800 numbers overseas. My overseas calling card has an AT&T 800 service, where you can call AT&T 800 numbers from anywhere in the world; of course, the calls are not toll free overseas, which seems perfectly reasonable. Is there a way to dial any 800 number overseas, provided you're willing to pay for the call? How about 900 numbers? 6. Toll lines specifically by carrier. Getting back to phone ads; I've seen some phone sex ads that say just dial 10333-1-xxx-xxx-xxxx. As this is the Sprint access code, I assume that Sprint is the one that charges you an arm and a leg. But what if I were to dial that number via AT&T? Would it even work, or would I get some message saying "You may only dial this number via Sprint!" 7. How come there aren't any area codes numbered x11? Are they forbidden, or is it just that no one has gotten around to assigning them yet? 8. Does Mexico have area codes or doesn't it? I have two 1993-4 phone books, from different companies. One has the country code of Mexico as 52. The other has it as 1, like the US and Canada, and lists area codes for different parts of Mexico. Thanks for responses to this rambling information. I greatly appreciate it. Andrew A. Poe 522 HILL ST ANN ARBOR MI 48104-3223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA +1 313 665-4920 andrew.poe@umich.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you certainly squeezed a lot of questions into one message. Let me try to answer a few for you. I will defer on question one (billable 800) simply because later today or tomorrow I shall have an issue of the Digest devoted to that topic. The main difference between 900/976 is that 900 is usually (but does not have to be) national in range, while 976 is usually limited in reachability to a specific community. 976 is usually limited to one- way outbound recorded messages while 900 can be interactive. 900 is a service code, not technically an 'area code'. 976 is a 'prefix'. Information Providers who use regular numbers have to have some way of billing the caller. They do so by credit card frequently, and some have an arrangement with a telephone company to enter the charges into the telephone billing system. With credit cards, as you point out, it is quite risky: the information providers are constantly being defrauded by people using bogus card numbers, etc. Oh? You meant it the other way around; that there is a risk to the consumer of the services? Yes, that happens also. If they collect their money by calling back 'collect' then they have an arrangement with some telco or long distance carrier to put the 'collect charges' into the billing system at whatever amount is specified. Area codes were devised in the late 1940's and came into common use during the middle to late 1950's as automatic phone service (that is, subscriber dials call) became common and manual service was being phased out. A lot of carriers have gateway points in the USA where you can connect for the purpose of dialing an 800 number in the USA. 900 numbers are strictly for use in the USA; there is no way to call one from outside this country. If an information provider can guarentee to a long distance carrier a certain amount of traffic per month on an *exclusive basis* -- typically many thousands of dollars per monnth in traffic -- the carrier may find it to its advantage to bypass the local telco in the process, and the resulting termination fees the local telco gets paid. The carrier then is wired direct to the subscriber and the carrier shares the savings with the IP. The IP makes his living from this sharing of the savings the long distance carrier receives on termination fees. In turn, the IP must refuse to accept calls sent through any other carrier; he won't get paid for those calls. There are no area codes numbered 'x11' because it is a dumb idea. How would you like to live in area code 911 or area code 411? As far as Mexico is concerned, I have no idea what they do there and anyway, this response is getting too long. Next time you write, please confine your message to one topic at a time. That applies to other writers also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush) Subject: NYNEX/MA and NXX Assignments Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 04:15:34 GMT As with every other telco, NYNEX here in Massachusetts has been assigning a lot of new NXX's lately, what with all the fax machines and cellular phones and pagers and such. But I have to wonder sometimes whether anyone's awake at the switch when it comes to deciding WHICH NXX to assign where. 617-647 has long been assigned to the Waltham CO (my home CO, as it happens, though I'm on one of the old TWinbrook/89X NXXs). The Waltham CO serves the entire city of Waltham and much of the adjacent town of Weston, Mass. Weston shares a small, but significant boundary with the town of Natick. That boundary is also the 508/617 line. And now, NYNEX has assigned 508-647, in, you guessed it, Natick! I can only imagine the confusion this is likely to cause among the many people who travel between the Natick area and the Waltham area daily. It's even possible that two adjacent homes along Mass. Route 30 could end up having similar or even identical 647-XXXX numbers, one in 508, the other in 617. What makes it all the more puzzling is that there are so many available NXXs left in 508, including 652, 654, and 659, all of which would fit the established 65X pattern for Natick exchanges (651, 653, and 655 are the current Natick NXXs.) Anyone have a good explanation for this one? Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The line has to be drawn somewhere, and invariably some people in one area code will sit fifty feet away from some people in the other area code. In large metropolitan urban areas, there is no easy way to avoid some very arbitrary boundary lines these days. It would be different had there been some advance planning forty years ago in how prefixes were assigned and boundaries laid out. But now, to avoid massive confusion for everyone, things are done the way they are done. I could show you as an example the northwest side of Chicago (the city itself) were a very ragged and at times obscure boundary line separates the city itself (312) from the suburbs (708). It should be so simple that one side of the street is 312 and the other side is 708; that would be easy ... and in fact that is usually how it occurs, but as you inch right up on the boundary line itself you'll find (in our case here on the northwest side) the city limits and thus the area code for the subscriber goes house by house, with the boundary cutting down alleys and through the middle of a block. Sometimes even between two houses side by side where for whatever reason one is in the city and the other is technically in a suburb or perhaps an unincorporated area. We have two small villages (Harwood Heights and Norridge, Illinois) which are completely surrounded on all sides by the city of Chicago, yet are not part of the city and thus are in area 708, completely surrounded on all sides by area 312. David Tampkin is much more knowledgeable than I on the precise boundary lines on the northwest side of the city and I would defer to him for any specifics in the event anyone is interested. There is also a little community with people, and stores, etc which is not part of anything over there -- neither the city or a suburb -- called 'Unincorporated Norwood Park Township' -- serviced governmentally by Cook County. Some of it is considered 312 and some 708. To compound matters, there are two telcos in the area: Illinois Bell and Centel. Both telcos use both area codes; both telcos have a very arbitrary boundary line for who services what area geographically, to say nothing of *which area code* each one uses. So Unincorporated Norwood Park Township has two telcos interchangeably using two area codes serving a couple thousand people at most over an area maybe a mile wide by a mile long. So imagine if you will that you are on Illinois Bell in 312 and the house next door to you is in Centel 708. Across the street is a guy in Illinois Bell 708 and next to him is someone in Centel 312. All the Illinois Bell customers regardless of 312/708 are serviced out of a central office known as 'Chicago-Newcastle'. Centel also refers to their 312 customers as 'Newcastle', but they are serviced out of a central office in Des Plaines, Illinois that is otherwise strictly 708. But where IBT treats some of the Unincorporated Norwood Park Township people 'as though' they were in Chicago for numbering purposes, they have to have an exchange all their own not otherwise available in area 312. Why? Well because of the hook to 911 and Chicago police. On that sole exchange in 312, calls to 911 have to go to intercept since the county sheriff does not have 911 service as do many of the individual police departments. One of the reasons serial killer John Wayne Gacy got away with -- well, murder -- for so long was the fact that the block of Summerdale Avenue on which he lived is mostly unincorporated. A couple houses on the block are within the city of Chicago and I think maybe part of the block is within Des Plaines, Illinois, but not his house. It was finally the Des Plaines police who put him away; Chicago police had no involvement in the case at all. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jbucking@pinot.callamer.com (Jeff Buckingham) Subject: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay Date: 18 Oct 1994 02:29:58 GMT Organization: Call America, San Luis Obispo CA USA Earth Sol We had an interesting experience at Call America triing to buy Frame Relay. We needed to connect offices in Salinas, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Santa Barbara with our Main office in San Luis Obispo. We had planned to connect to frame relay at the T-1 level from San Luis Obispo. The other offices were going to be connected at the 56k level. The bids we got from AT&T, MCI, and Sprint were about $6700.00 per month. We then discovered that we can purchase T-1's to each office for about $2000.00 per month. This was very interesting because we were able to buy 24 times the bandwidth for 1/3 of the price. We are a long distance carrier and we do purchase T-1's for about 7-15 cents per circuit mile (each T-1 has 24 circuit miles per mile of distance) so our situation may be different from some end users but I really think that the whole frame relay thing is vastly over hyped and many companies are being sold frame relay who do not really need it. Jeff Buckingham (jbucking@callamerica.com) Call America 4251 South Higura Street, Suite 800, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-545-5100 (Voice) 805-541-7007 (Fax) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #400 ****************************