From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Wed Sep 13 01:09:59 1995 by 1995 01:09:59 -0400 telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 12 Sep 1995 21:13:28 -0500 1995 21:13:26 -0500 To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu TELECOM Digest Tue, 12 Sep 95 21:13:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 379 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cellular Telephone and Modems (John Grana) NANP Area Codes - History, was Re: Area Code Crisis (Bud Couch) Pros and Cons About Making One Channel of T1 Data Line (Rolland Suh) Wierd Phone Problem (Steve Cogorno) Re: Variable Length Phone Numbers (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Beyond V.34, V.34bis and Rockwell's 33.6 (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Beyond V.34, V.34bis and Rockwell's 33.6 (Lionel Ancelet) Re: T1 Direct to Modem Bank (Jill W. Lander) Re: T1 Direct to Modem Bank (bubba@insync.net) Re: T1 Direct to Modem Bank (Jeff Robinson) Re: T1 Direct to Modem Bank (Roger Fajman) Dialing 911 Instead of Police 7D Number Slowed Things Down (Robert Casey) Dial 10288 for ATT ... Not (mstandrew@aol.com) Re: Bell Canada Calling Cards in the USA (Mark J. Cuccia) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I cannot find much information on hooking up a cellular telephone to a 28.8 modem. The modem is INSIDE my home computer. The reason I would like to connect such a strange combination is two-fold. One, my local cell providers have a deal where I have free airtime from 7 PM to 7 AM weekdays and all weekend. That's pretty much the time I am likely to us my system to dial in work, AOL, the net etc. Two, since my kids are getting older, I really don't want to tie up the house line too much during the above time periods ... so The problem thus far is I am getting the impression that the cable that connects the modem and phone costs over $100! Is this cable "active"? Isn't there just a TIP and RING signal hangin out on the tiny connector (the phone I am looking at is a Nokia 2XX). If its TIP and RING, why couldn't I find a suitable plug and make my own cable? Last but not least, do cellular phone systems have the bandwidth to support 28.8 modems? My Supra usually runs at 26400 with a local provider. Thanks, John Grana, Performance Technologies Incorporated jjg@pt.com 315 Science Parkway, Rochester, New York 14620 uupsi!ptsys1!jjg Phone: (716) 256-0200 Fax: (716) 256-0791 ------------------------------ In article Tony Harminc writes: > This is not different from North America. And unlike the NANP, where > area codes were assigned pretty much at random, the UK codes started Actually, although later codes were "pretty much at random", the first 10 or so codes assigned were not. Remember (well, I do, at least) that in the early fifties, "tone dialing" was MF, only available to operators. The black 300, or 500, or 80 phone out there had a rotary dial. As well, many of the trunks in place still used pulse dialing for signaling information transmission. Therefore, to minimize holding time in the incoming registers, the area codes were assigned so as to have the fewest pulses associated with the highest calling volume. Therefore, 212 was NYC (five pulses), 312 was Chicago (six pulses), LA was 213, Detroit was 313, Pittsburgh was 412, Dallas was 214, Philladelpghia was 413, St. Louis was 314, etc. I remember the hoopla surrounding the introduction of DDD. Our serving CO (Valley -823) was the first DDD exchange in the Pittsburgh area, and the building was just a couple of blocks from home. There were bands, speeches, ballons, etc. One day we lifted the phone to get "Number, please", and the next day we could dial 9 digits (no "1" access) to call my aunt who lived in LA. Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox When correctly viewed, everything is lewd. bud@kentrox.com (192.228.59.2) -Tom Lehrer ------------------------------ Hi, We are thinking about getting 56KB dedicated line to the Internet. We already have a T1 voice line, and wondering if it would be cost effective for us to use one of the channels of existing T1, over getting a new dediccated line. Any idea on this? Thanks, rolland ------------------------------ I have an AT&T Cordless two-line phone, model 4952 and it's acting strangely. Tonight it started doing something I'm calling a double ring -- I've never heard it before from this phone. Both the base and the cordless handset ring two short rings extremely loudly. These repeat at regular intervals, though farther apart than normal phone ringing. Here's the odd part: there is no call coming in and the visual line indicators do not light! So far it has done this four times tonight: three times I was on the line from a different (corded) phone when it was happening, so it can't be a telco generated thing. The battery is completely charged (there's an visual indicator of battery strength, and the audio indicator is just a quiet beep). One time I was able to stop it by returning the handset to the base, but it may be a coincidence because it didn't work the second and third times (eventually it just stopped). The fourth time I was not on the line, but the line 1 light came up as "in use." I activated that line, and the phone stopped ringing but it would not release the line for several minutes. This is very un-nerving because the ring is incredebly loud, and not knowing what it's from is starting to freak me out :-). Any insights? Steve cogorno@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is it possible that some other source of radio interference is causing the phone to think it has a call? PAT] ------------------------------ In article naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) writes: > Recently, comp.dcom.telecom has seen some talk on the viability of > variable length phone numbers within a country (or any specific > network, for that matter). Many posters, especially those from North > America, insist on their belief that phone numbers have to be of > constant length, otherwise one must have timeouts etc. > First, let me state that I see *no reason whatsoever* why there can't be > variable length phone numbers or why a switch would have to know the > total length of the number. If you think there is a need for such > restrictions, please explain why you think so. Your reasons are not > obvious. The "need" is quite simple. In the USA, we do NOT use compelled signaling on trunks. Inter-switch signaling is sent en-bloc. Therefore the originating switch MUST know that the ENTIRE destination number is received, as it cannot "send more digits" when the receiving switch asks. > What must a switch do during call set-up? It receives dialing > information (single or multiple digits) from an inbound trunk (or from > the line card, if it is the caller's switch), and, after collecting > enough of these, selects an outbound trunk. Further dialing info it > receives is passed on to the switch on the outbound trunk. That is how it works on a stepper, and with compelled signaling. In the North American network, with MF (pre-SS7) signaling, CCIS6 or typical US SS7, it is not possible to pass on additional digits. The trunk is selected, the digits are sent, and that's it. This was much easier to implement with crossbar tandems, and is what everything else was designed to meet. > no trunk line has to be actually connected yet. The destination switch > collects dialing info until a line that it serves is identified, then > it initiates a ring signal. Information about this is passed back the > chain of switches to the caller's switch which locally feeds a "remote > is ringing" signal. When the called line answers, again information is > passed back to the caller's switch, and now the speech circuit is > actually activated along the switch chain. Such overlap signaling is part of the ISDN user-to-network interface spec, and is how telephone sets deal with the local CO, but inter-switch trunk protocols in North America don't work like that. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ In article mearley@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew A. Earley) writes: > Is anyone aware of a new or proposed standard that enhances the > capabilities of ITU's V.34? I beleive there may be a V.34bis in the > works. > I recently upgraded my USR V.Everything to 33.6 but have been unable > to connect to the USR BBS at a rate above 21.6. Is the 33.6 a > proprietary USR standard or is it part of the proposed V.34bis? The problem is that you can't actually go 28.8 on most lines, let alone 33.6, because the required signal-to-noise ratio and bandwidth aren't there. The 33.6 is based on running a higher baud (signaling) rate than used at 28.8. This requires either an analog hard-wire connection (say, within a single 1AESS analog reed-relay switch) or a very, very good codec that passes up to 3.7 kHz rather than the more common ones that cut off around 3.4 kHz. In a magazine test of 28.8's a few months ago, the AT&T 33 kbps modem was able to to go that fast on maybe 5% of calls. V.34 is the "end of the line" for the vast majority of modems, and any faster speeds will be of little use to most subscribers. ISDN bashers will, of course, be disappointed. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ mearley@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew A Earley) wrote: > I recently upgraded my USR V.Everything to 33.6 but have been unable > to connect to the USR BBS at a rate above 21.6. Is the 33.6 a > proprietary USR standard or is it part of the proposed V.34bis? Based on what I know, only about 70 percent of the phone lines in the USA are able to handle 28.8 kbps. That means that, if you pick to lines randomly, on average you'll be able to establish a 28.8 kbps connection in less than 50% of the cases. For example, when I use my 28.8 modem at home, I generally get only 26.4 kbps when calling a certain number in the same area code. And, by the way, 33.6 is not a standard yet. Lionel C. Ancelet Houston, Texas --- USA ------------------------------ If you're willing to dump the existing modems, try an integrated T1/channel bank/modem pool product. The two best are made by 3Com Primary Access, San Diego, CA, 619-675-4100, and U.S. Robotics, Skokie, Illinois, 708-982-5200. Modem pools contain every modem speed/type imaginable, plus error correcting protocols, also, excellent diagnostics on the T1, but, it's not cheap. Jill ------------------------------ lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves) wrote: > Gary Secor (glsecor@ix.netcom.com) wrote: >> I have some switched 800 lines now dumping on a centrex hunt group (16 >> lines). I want to look at a T1 that replaces these switched lines >> since it should result in lower cost per minute and some better >> disaster recovery redirection options. What can I connect the T1 to >> that will allow it to connect to 16 modems? I suspect there may be a >> card that goes in a pc that can look like 23 or 24 analog lines. What >> is it called and what might it cost? Who has such an animal? Any other >> suggestions appreciated. I can use existing modem rack or am willing to >> look at a new one if it fits the situation. All thoughts appreciated! > If you want to use your existing modems, you will need a channel bank > with 16 2WFXS (two-wire FX station) cards. > Telco Systems makes excellent channel banks. However, I am somewhat > biased since I sold them for three years . USRobotics makes a rack system that interfaces DIRECTLY to one or two T1 lines into a single chassis which can be equipped with up to 48 modems. ASCEND also makes a similar product, tho it's intended to interface directly with up to 4 PRI ISDN lines (95B+D) It services analog callers as well as isdn callers. Point your web browser to http://www.usr.com or http://www.ascend.com Have your checkbook ready. Both products are deep in the five-figure range. Both products fall into the category of "nifty-keen" albeit somewhat expensive. Definitely a class act and the way to go to get around all the excessive D:A conversions associated with channel bank use. Either product comes highly recommended. ------------------------------ In message - lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves) writes: > If you want to use your existing modems, you will need a channel bank > with 16 2WFXS (two-wire FX station) cards. > Telco Systems makes excellent channel banks. However, I am somewhat > biased since I sold them for three years . Total Control from USRobotics will do what you want also. Jeff Robinson jrobinson@hearst.com ------------------------------ > I have some switched 800 lines now dumping on a centrex hunt group (16 > lines). I want to look at a T1 that replaces these switched lines Check out U.S. Robotics. They sell a modem bank that uses a T1 for the incoming lines. They have a WWW page at http://www.usr.com. ------------------------------ guest) úÿ A week or two ago, an accident occured at a problem intersection near my parent's house in Oradell, NJ. And a few months ago, we had 911 installed in town. So, I reach for the phone to report the accident. Times before, we'd dial 261-0200 and get our town's police quickly. But I dialed 911, and found that there was a delay in getting my report to the town police. Appears the 911 operator has to identify what town I'm in, and then transfer me to my town's police. Takes about 1/2 minute. "911, what's your emergency?" me: "there's an accident at Oradell (ave) and Summit (ave)". "Ah, hold on, I need to transfer you to the Oradell police". Then I told the Oradell police "There's an accident at Oradell and Summit". A couple minutes, the cops show up. I don't know if a half minute is that important in reporting an accident (someone was injured) or a fire or some other emergency. Think I'll dial up the 7D police number when another situation occurs. ------------------------------ This past week I was in Silverton Oregon (503-873, Local exchange carrier: GTE NW) and attempted to call from a residential telephone a number in Portland, Oregon (503-249, Local exchange carrier: US West). Both locations are in the Portland LATA. My experience has been it is cheaper to use my ATT card calling rather than US West. So, I dialed 10288-0-503-xxx-xxxx to use ATT. I was connected to a live operator. I gave the card number and the operator responded: "Thank you for using GTE". Confused, I hung up and dialed again and experienced the same process. On the third try, I dialed 10288-0 and waited. The operator answered GTE! I asked for a ATT operator and was cheerfully connected. I would appreciate any observations. Since the breakup, I have always lived in areas served by a Bell company. I have no personal experience how independent telcos are suppose process calls. Is this the way it is supposed to work? In my mind, at best this is a system flaw and at worst it is fraud. [Telecom Digest Editor's Note: There is no fraud going on nor any system flaws. Local telco operators often times process calls for AT&T. When I went just now to check my bill for last month I found a few calls which were entitled 'local area calls processed by AT&T on behalf of Ameritech', and I found a couple others entitled 'Calls processed by Ameritech on behalf of AT&T.' I think it has to do with whose calling card or billing you are relying on many times. For example, when I make calls to my own 500 number from around this area, they are always on the *Ameritech* part of my account with the notation, 'processed by Ameritech on behalf of AT&T'. You'd think they would be on the AT&T page since its AT&T's program. Now if I call a 500 number outside this LATA, then the charges show up on the AT&T page. When someone called my 500 number from outside the LATA and used a pin so I would get billed, it showed up on the AT&T page ... and yet when we conducted an experiment with me forwarding my 500 calls to their second line (so that the call stayed totally in their LATA), when they dialed my 500 line and used the same pin, once I got the bill it was guess where? On the AT&T page, despite it starting and ending in the same LATA. However when he dialed it 1-500 so that it rang through direct to his second line, that one showed up on his local telco account as a 'call processed by NYNEX on behalf of AT&T'. PAT] ------------------------------ Terry Flanagan wrote: > A recent post to this newsgroup stated that Bell Canada Calling Cards > will not be validated by AT&T for calls to Canada from the US. This > is not true. From most locations in the United States customers can > reach Canada by dialing 302 plus the number they want to reach. !!! I myself thought that the earlier posts regarding Calling Cards issued by Canada's Stentor (and independent) telcos, namely Bell Canada, not being accepted by AT&T was incorrect (though these days with divestiture, deregulation, and competition, you can't always assume the obvious anymore). *Most* calling cards issued by Canada's telephone companies are line-number based (similar to the local Bell and independent LEC issued line-number based calling cards here in the US), although there can be 'non-line-number' based cards which are rather based on an RAO or CIID code, which is a Bellcore (and Stentor, etc) North American numbering standard which began under the AT&T/Bell-System days. Some competitive Long Distance carriers here in the US *do* issue non-line-number based (CIID) cards which are usually accepted by the local telcos on Intra- LATA calls placed through the LEC's TOPS operator facilities/services. Many LD carriers, however, issue cards or accounts which are NOT interoperable with other carriers, not even the LEC's IntraLATA service. Even AT&T has their 'True-Choice' card which is an optional card one can get and is NOT part of the Bellcore/Stentor/etc. standard, and is accepted ONLY by the AT&T OSPS facility. It can NOT be used for IntraLATA calls which are placed via LEC's TOPS operator services. AT&T DOES accept the standard 14-digit calling cards issued by the local telcos throughout North America (whether line-number-based or not) if they conform to the Bellcore/Stentor standards for Calling Card numbers. AT&T itself continues to issue a CIID format card (CIID is a Bellcore standard, but is NOT based on the line-number). BUT, what is this '302' code plus the (ten-digit?) Canadian telephone number to access Canada from the US that Terry Flanagan refers to? I only know of 302 as the standard North American NPA (area code) for Delaware, although it is assignable as a NXX Central Office Code within NPA's which are now using N0X and N1X codes. I've never heard of 302+ to access Canada from the US! Is 302 reserved as a standard when Canadian card users are calling from Motel/Hotel/Hospital PBX systems (with AOSlime operators and Long Distance) here in the US? I don't travel much, but I know that there ARE many PBX systems in the hospitality industry with special codes to reach the long distance carrier of the calling party's choice. And of course there are 950-XXXX and 1-800- numbers which are 'supposed' to be dialable (and free, but we know otherwise -- many people get an extra charge on their room bill when they check-out) to reach the carrier of their choice. And I think that there are ALSO motel/hotel PBX's (and other business PBX's) which DO allow 9(or 8)+10-XXX(or 101-XXXX) + 0+ONLY plus the ten-digit-number. Those outgoing trunks are also supposed to be screened by the carrier's operator or computer as hotel PBX lines, and not to charge-back to the trunk but rather to a card/collect/ 3rd-Party/etc. Could it be that '302' is really part of a 950-XXXX (fg.B) number or maybe a 10-XXX or 101-XXXX (fg.D) equal access over-ride code? I have seen references to 10-363+ for Bell Canada, and other Stentor members have their OWN fg.B/D access numbers/codes as well! (Competition withIN Canada is here today, too!) MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1- 2497 WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241- 2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865- 5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #379 ******************************