TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 48 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service? (Chuck Poole) Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book? (bkron@netcom.com) Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet (Tim Curry) Re: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS (David Campbell) Re: GSM SIM Implementation (Eric Tholome) Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Marcus Lee) Re: Voice File Formats (Les Reeves) Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (Phil Ritter) Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (Al Niven) Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted (Jim Burkit) Re: Always Busy 800 Number? (Peter M. Weiss) Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Kyle Sloan) Re: FCC PCS Auction Information (Bob Keller) Re: Cattle Call (Andrew C. Green) 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 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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: inrworks@gate.net (Chuck Poole) Subject: Re: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service? Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:12:11 Organization: Voiceware Systems, Inc. In article winkowsk@stc.nato.int (Daniel Winkowski) writes: > I subscribe to an international callback service to get lower rates > from the US to Europe. I need to fax and data connect to US numbers > vai my modem. I dial a US number, let it ring once, hang up, get > called back and upon answering have a US dial tone. > My timeout problem is with the callback service (if no activity takes > place once dial tone is established after ~20 seconds it disconnects > so - "Changing the S-Register S7" or other modem characteristics will > not have any affect. Most callback companies have come up with a more simplistic soloution to your problem. The solution involves playing a dial tone recording (400-440hz) after the callback has been answered and thus "fooling" the modem. This feature was origionally invented so that PBX/Hotel users could make use of callback services. In a Hotel application, the callback system plays "Please connect me with room 1234." You want this message to play a dialtone upon connect. The sequence of events would be something like this: 1. Initiate Callback (manually) 2. Prepare your modem to dial as if you were dialing a direct number. 3. When the callback starts ringing your modem line, command your modem to go offhook and dial (ATDT XXXXXXX, etc.) 4. You modem will go offhook, hear the dialtone being played from the callback provider, and be fooled into dialing the number. Always make sure that ATS0=0, so your modem won't try and answer the phone automatically. Best Regards, Chuck Poole Voiceware Systems, Inc. Manufacturers of Custom T1/E1 switching systems. Including Debit Card, Calling Card, 900 systems, and Protocol converters and routers. 407-655-1770 X14. ------------------------------ From: bkron@netcom.com (BUBEYE!) Subject: Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 01:07:25 GMT bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes: > A typical phone book with both white and yellow pages has a > map with a large white area surrounding a smaller yellow area. > What is this map trying to tell me? If you read the caption, it says "Directory delivery area" or "Directory Coverage Area." In other words, the yellow area represents the geographical area which the directory (white pages) covers. This is also the area where the directory is distributed for free to telephone subscribers. Also, every business in the yellow area is entitled to a free straight-line listing in the Yellow Pages, although many pay a premium for a larger listing or a display ad, and some decline any listing in the Yellow Pages at all. > Are all the listed numbers in the white area supposed to be in white > pages of the phone book? They don't seem to be. No, The white (surrounding) area is just for reference so you can see where the area being covered is located by reference to surrounding communities, etc. > Is the phone book sent to all subscribers in the yellow area? Yes. > what does the yellow area stand for? It clearly has little or nothing > to do with the locations of businesses that advertise in the yellow > pages. Every business telephone subscriber in the yellow area is entitled to a free "straight-line" listing in the Yellow Pages. Some businesses run larger listings or even display ads instead, others opt out of having any listing. But any business, regardless of their location, may purchase space in the Yellow Pages. For example, some of my businesses purchase Yellow Page space in directories nationwide even though the business being advertised is in Seattle. > GTE has "neighborhood" directories that invade PacBell's turf. Some Bell Companies, like US West, are beginning to publish books for distribution in independent areas, like GTE's, too. Anyone who has tried to deal with GTE directory sales people (or even find out how to get a hold of them) finds this welcome news indeed! Frequently, though, "neighborhood" directories are published by independent publishing companies who aren't tied to phone companies. > A "neighborhood" directory is typically much thinner than a real > directory. Why? Because they will print only paid listings and most businesses feel that since they already have a listing in the "real" book, either for free or that they've paid for, and that book is already universally distributed, why bother? ------------------------------ From: curryt@nbnet.nb.ca (Tim Curry) Subject: Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:30:35 Organization: NBTel In article mfraser@vanbc.wimsey.com (Mark Fraser) writes: > -- New Brunswick. NBTel went from free to 10.00 an hour last year, > so everyone went away. Last I heard, only a few came back when they > reduced it back to five bucks. Hi -- Perhaps I could update Mark's information on NBNet service in New Brunswick. Although it was preceded by an un-priced ("free") market trial, commercial service was introduced at $9.60 per hour early last year. Prices were decreased about mid-year to their current levels, which are: $6.00 per hour from 8AM to 6PM $4.80 per hour from 6PM to 11PM $3.00 per hour from 11PM to 8AM Service is available via local seven-digit call from every location in New Brunswick, at 28.8 Kpbs. Other services are also available. Our customers have not gone away, quite the contrary. We're very pleased with the growth rates. Thanks for the chance to comment; hope this helps. Tim Curry NBTel 506 658-7100, FAX 506 694-2864 ------------------------------ From: dcampbel@egreen.iclnet.org (David Campbell) Subject: Re: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS Organization: CamTek Micro Systems, Inc., Vancouver Washington USA. Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 22:31:28 GMT In article , David Reeve wrote: > I am researching a business opportunity that will require extensive > use of the AMIS-Analog networkng protocol to send voice mail messages > from system (Octel) to a different PC-based voice mail system. > Any recommendations (or warnings) regarding PC based voice mail vendors? Investigate CallWare Technologies NLM for voice and data integration on LANS. It should do what you may want to do. Their phone number is 801-496-9922. Dave Campbell ------------------------------ From: tholome@dialup.francenet.fr (Eric Tholome) Subject: Re: GSM SIM Implementation Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:42:53 +0200 In article , k22413@kyyppari.hkkk.fi (Harri Kinnunen) wrote: > Most of the hand-held GSM phones use a "punched-out" section of the > Smartcard, being about 1cmx2cm in size. The punch-out dimensions are > also standard, but I don't know if they are included in ISO-7816. And this totally ruins one of the nice purposes of the SIM: being able to have several phones (for instance, one nice vehicle mounted phone, and a hand held terminal) and still using them with one SIM only. If two of your phones use different types of SIM, you're out of luck! I've been told that some companies were now selling adapters, but the convenience of all this has yet to be seen. Luckily, it seems that manufacturers have realized this and they now offer small hand-held terminals that will take normal size SIM cards. But of course, these models can't be really small, limited as they are by the size of the card. Would could have guessed that credit cards would finally happen to be too big? :-) Eric Tholome 23, avenue du Centre tholome@dialup.francenet.fr 78180 Montigny le Bretonneux phone: +33 1 30 48 06 47 France fax: same number, call first! ------------------------------ From: e9321452@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au (Marcus Lee) Subject: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List Date: 20 Jan 1995 00:34:34 GMT Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland etxlndh@eos99.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) writes: > Australia Optus > Vodafon That's spelled Vodafone. You also missed the largest carrier in Australia, Telecom/Telstra. ------------------------------ From: lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves) Subject: Re: Voice File Formats Date: 19 Jan 1995 13:07:44 -0800 Organization: CR Labs TELEPHONETICS (fonaudio@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > Can anyone give me information on the following formats for sound files: > VBase, Dialogic, Rhetorex and New Voice Dialogic uses 4 bit ADPCM at 6 kHz based on an OKI chip. That is what the .VOX files are, although newer /D series can do mu-law at 64 kbps. They are headerless, so just because you find a file with .VOX as the extension does not prove it is Dialogic. Rhetorex uses ADPCM, but the format is not disclosed. It seems to be something along the line of ITU G.721, or perhaps a bit better. They claim better S/N at lower sample rates than Dialogic, and their boards were designed around more powerful DSP hardware. My guess is that they do something similar to Natural Microsystems VBX, which is to first convert to mu-law or A-law per G.711, and then feed that into the DSP ADPCM conversion. Rhetorex also uses .VOX, but their files have a header of sorts. The data begins at about 80h, and I assume index marks can go in the header although no file name or other info appears to be there. New Voice uses CVSD. I can't remember whether it is the Motorola CVSD or Harris CVSD. New Voice is 24kbps. I am not familiar with VBase. Converting any of these files to something standard, like linear PCM (WAV), is more involved than you might think. Converting between two different IVR formats can be quite involved. Coverting offline without one of the source or target systems installed generally uses quite a lot of FPU MIPS. Les lreeves@crl.com Atlanta,GA 404.874.7806 ------------------------------ From: pritter@nit.AirTouch.COM (Phil Ritter) Subject: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? Organization: AirTouch Cellular, Los Angeles Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:54:47 GMT In article Liron Lightwood writes: > Regarding the question of people always having to dial an area code if > cellular phone numbers were moved to their own prefix. This does not > have to be the case. > Here in Australia, we have the best of both worlds. Our cellular > phones have their own area code like prefixes, e.g. 018, 015, 041. > However, when making a local call from a cellular phone, you only have > to dial the six or seven digit number, no area code required. > For example, if you're in Melbourne (03), to dial (03) 123 4567, you > would dial 123 4567. If you were in Sydney (02) and you wanted to > dial (02) 123 4567 you would dial 123 4567. While this may be interesting in areas like Australia, where the numbering plan areas (or city codes) are large, it breaks down quickly in the NANP [at least in the dense parts of it]. For example, in Los Angeles, the metropolitan area is served by six NPAs (213, 310, 714, 805, 818, and 909). There several points where, unless you had an intimate knowlege of the area, you could be "in" any one of three NPAs [in fact, there are at least two locations where movement of only a few blocks can take you from 213 to 310 to 818!]. Which NPA should the wireless carrier use to deliver calls in this area? Is it really fair to expect customers to know the intimate details of their location and which NPA they are now in? It is not at all uncommon for a five minute drive on the freeway to pass through five NPAs (many combinations are possible). Also, in areas where the terrain is not flat and/or where there are large bodies of water with irregular shorelines (e.g., the Pacific ocean on the LA/Orange County coast), the "cellular honeycomb" is not perfect - it is possbile for calls to set-up on quite unexpected cell sites [this had interesting implications for delivery of emergency calls (911) too]. The "caller" and the cell that their call originates in may not be in the same NPA (in fact, near the NPA borders, the calls and the serving cell are not even likely to be in the same NPA). Using seven digit dialing based upon "caller location" rather than "the NPA of the calling mobile MIN" will have quite unexpected results. Phil Ritter pritter@la.airtouch.com ------------------------------ From: alniven@pipeline.com (Al Niven) Subject: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System Date: 19 Jan 1995 11:31:01 -0500 Organization: The Pipeline úÿ We have installed over 15 different brands of Interactive Voice Response and Voicemail and Fax On Demand and Callback and Telephone Answering Service Equipment over the past six years all over the country on over 150 types of pbx's especially pbx's where the manufacturer said it cannot be done and in circumstances where a previous vendor had been ripped out. If you would be so kind as to provide your phone number we can discuss the info and references sent via email. Al Niven Video, Voice, and Data, Inc. 292 Fifth Avenue, #201 NY NY 10001 212-714-3531 voice 212-714-3510 fax (attention Al Niven) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1995 09:58:09 GMT From: JIM BURKIT Subject: Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted Ton Engbersen asked: > In Sonet/SDH multiplexer and section overhead, there are the D1..D12 > bytes, reserved for "network management and supervision". Can anyone > shed some light on the data transmission protocol which governs these > DCC channels? Is this (already?) standardized? If so which standard? The SONET DDC has been standardized. It is a 7 layer OSI stack. The base standard in the US is T1.105 and in the ITU it is G.784. These base standards point to other documents. In the ITU G.784 points to Q.811 and Q.812. I am not sure which standards the ANSI standard points to as the US document is being being revised this week in T1X1. As you are in Europe I hope the SDH information is enough. Jim Burkitt ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:12:44 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Always Busy 800 Number? In article , Matt says: > What's an 800 number that is always busy? (and don't say Gateway 2000 > Tech Support). Something that is guaranteed always busy. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (Suspicious, squinting eyes) Why do you want > to know? PAT] Hey maybe it's a riddle? Answer: When the 800 number terminates on your POTS line and you have called it from that line (assume no call-forwarding etc.) I admit, not funny, but the best that I could do. ;-) Pete [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a good one for you to figure out. I have two 800 numbers. Even though I have call-waiting on the line where the 800 numbers terminate, I expect to be unable to dial my own number and get call-waiting. We all know when you dial your own number (from that number) you just get a busy signal. Okay? ... well, when I use the phone to dial the 800 numbers, one of them does in fact go off somewhere, set up the call, come back to me and give me a call-waiting tone. Obviously it leaves my switch and returns. Now the other 800 number on the other hand is quite a mystery to me -- how it operates, that is. When I dial it the call goes through *instantly* as though it were a local call, and if I dial it from the phone it terminates on, I instantly get a busy signal. I do NOT get the 800 number from Ameritech/IBT (from another carrier, a little outfit actually), so I do not know how Ameritech can have such umm, intimate familiarity with it. It would appear to not even leave the switch at all. Any ideas? The first 800 number seems to get to its own switch somewhere and get outdialed back to me. What is the second one doing, just getting translated locally somehow in my switch? PAT] ------------------------------ From: sloan@qns.com (Kyle Sloan) Subject: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? Date: 20 Jan 1995 00:36:13 GMT Organization: Questar Network Services chuck lukaszewski (clukas@mr.net) wrote: > I received some information from LDDS/Metromedia yesterday about their > long distance service. The rates seem entirely too good to be true, > and I'm wondering if anyone here has experience (good or bad) that > they would share. > At the moment, I'm spending a lot of time on the telephone to NYC. > After a pretty exhaustive evaluation of AT&T, Sprint and MCI we found > the lowest we could get was 23.7 cents per minute peak on AT&T. LDDS > claims to charge 15 cents per minute with a one year commitment > (includes a 90-day out clause). I talked to AT&T and they're pulling > the "we're regulated and can't compete with those numbers" routine. My company uses LDDS as our LD provider. They helped us set up a T1 with a Newbridge channelbank. Our average phone bill is over $3,000 for long distance only. They are giving us the BEST prices of anyone on the market. Our representative is supremely easy to deal with anytime I have questions about our service. We are paying anywhere between $0.075/min. to $0.145/min. Forget the big three ... they just can't come close. kyle sloan sloan@qns.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:30:56 EST From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: FCC PCS Auction Information On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Willis H. Ware wrote: > Your discussion of PCS services in the recent T-COM Digest was very > interesting. Thank you. > Your discussion of PCS services in the recent TELECOM Digest was very > interesting. Did I not understand correctly that the GATT legislation > had some sweetheart deals in it apropos of the licenses issued for this > service? Yes and No. See the discussion below. > If this is correct, perhaps some clarifying discussion in the > Digest would be of general interest. Prior to the time Congress granted the FCC auction authority (at which such time the FCC realized it was quite possible that mutually exclusive PCS applications would have to processed via lotteries and/or comparative hearings), the FCC had tentatively decided to award "pioneer's preferences" to three companies: American Personal Communications (APC), Cox Cable Communications, Inc. (Cox), Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (Omnipoint). The pioneer's preference program was an ill-conceived (IMHO) policy designed to reward companies that expended resources developing and advancing new and innovative services and technologies. The pioneer's preferences in PCS were awarded to APC for its development and demonstration of PCS/microwave spectrum sharing technologies, to Cox for its development and demonstration of PCS/cable plant interface technology, and to Omnipoint for its development of 2 GHz PCS equipment. As originally conceived, these pioneer's preferences awards would have meant a "free" license for each of these companies, i.e., they would not have had to take their chances in a lottery. It was decided that 30 MHz licenses would be given to APC for the Washington/Baltimore MTA, to Cox for the Los Angeles/San Diego MTA, and to Omnipoint for the New York MTA. That is why, even though their are 51 MTAs, there are only 99 (rather than 102) licenses up for grabs in the Blocks A and B auction currently underway. But then came the legislation authorizing and (in the case of PCS) requiring auctions. The Commission decided to go back to the drawing board to consider whether the awards made any sense in that context. They eventually decided that the awards would stand, but that APC, Cox, and Omnipoint would each have to pay an amount discounted from the winning bid for comparable licenses in the auction. YAWN ... yes, I am getting to GATT ... be patient . Almost no one was happy with this arrangement. Not potential PCS players who saw three lucrative licenses slipping away with no opportunity to bid on them, not the "pioneers" who were now going to have to pay for licenses they thought they were getting for free, and probably not even the FCC staff who had to listen to all the bitching and moaning. Anyway, the whole mess got stuck into legislation ratifying the Paraguay Rounds of GATT (Don't you just love the Congressional process). Congress blessed the awards and promulgated a formula for calculating how much the pioneers would have to pay. In December of last year, after the GATT legislation, the Commission finally granted the three Block A licenses to APC, Cox, and Omnipoint. These license grants are subject to several conditions, including (1) that each licensee construct a system in the specified MTA substantially using the technology on which its pioneers' preference was based, (2) that each licensee retain control for at least three years after initial licensing or until it has met its five-year build-out requirement, and (3) that each licensee pay to the US Treasury an amount equal to 85% of the adjusted value of the license. Payments will be made over a five year period. Essentially, the GATT legislation requires each of the three pioneers to pay 85% of the adjusted value of its license. The adjusted value will be calculated as follows: At the conclusion of the current Broadband auctions, the FCC will determine the average per pop price for the 20 largest MTAs other than the three in question, and then apply that per pop average to the three MTAs. However, the Commission is required to collect a minimum of $400 Million. If the amount derived by applying the adjustment formula minus 85% is less than $400 Million, the difference is to be spread over the three markets in question on the basis of their relative population. FWIW, the total high bids for the Block B licenses in these three markets currently stands at approximately $760.4 Million. Bob Keller (KY3R) Email: rjk@telcomlaw.com Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C. Telephone: 301.229.5208 Federal Telecommunications Law Facsimile: 301.229.6875 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 16:47:19 CST From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Re: Cattle Call > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A couple of questions for whoever knows > the answers ... is it hard to train a cow to respond to your call? Is > there some sort of protective covering for the pager to keep it out > of the rain and water, etc? Never mind that; I want to know how they push the little button! Andy ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #48 ***************************** ÿ@FROM :telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Message-ID: <9501200217.AA19400@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Thu Jan 19 22:46:13 1995 Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu (delta.eecs.nwu.edu [129.105.5.103]) by coyote.channel1.com (8.6.9/8.6.4) with SMTP id WAA17221; Thu, 19 Jan 1995 22:46:13 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA19407; Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:04 CST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA19400; Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:00 CST Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:00 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9501200217.AA19400@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #48 TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Jan 95 20:17:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 48 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service? (Chuck Poole) Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book? (bkron@netcom.com) Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet (Tim Curry) Re: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS (David Campbell) Re: GSM SIM Implementation (Eric Tholome) Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Marcus Lee) Re: Voice File Formats (Les Reeves) Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? (Phil Ritter) Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System (Al Niven) Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted (Jim Burkit) Re: Always Busy 800 Number? (Peter M. Weiss) Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? (Kyle Sloan) Re: FCC PCS Auction Information (Bob Keller) Re: Cattle Call (Andrew C. Green) 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 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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: inrworks@gate.net (Chuck Poole) Subject: Re: Dial Modifiers and International Callback Service? Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:12:11 Organization: Voiceware Systems, Inc. In article winkowsk@stc.nato.int (Daniel Winkowski) writes: > I subscribe to an international callback service to get lower rates > from the US to Europe. I need to fax and data connect to US numbers > vai my modem. I dial a US number, let it ring once, hang up, get > called back and upon answering have a US dial tone. > My timeout problem is with the callback service (if no activity takes > place once dial tone is established after ~20 seconds it disconnects > so - "Changing the S-Register S7" or other modem characteristics will > not have any affect. Most callback companies have come up with a more simplistic soloution to your problem. The solution involves playing a dial tone recording (400-440hz) after the callback has been answered and thus "fooling" the modem. This feature was origionally invented so that PBX/Hotel users could make use of callback services. In a Hotel application, the callback system plays "Please connect me with room 1234." You want this message to play a dialtone upon connect. The sequence of events would be something like this: 1. Initiate Callback (manually) 2. Prepare your modem to dial as if you were dialing a direct number. 3. When the callback starts ringing your modem line, command your modem to go offhook and dial (ATDT XXXXXXX, etc.) 4. You modem will go offhook, hear the dialtone being played from the callback provider, and be fooled into dialing the number. Always make sure that ATS0=0, so your modem won't try and answer the phone automatically. Best Regards, Chuck Poole Voiceware Systems, Inc. Manufacturers of Custom T1/E1 switching systems. Including Debit Card, Calling Card, 900 systems, and Protocol converters and routers. 407-655-1770 X14. ------------------------------ From: bkron@netcom.com (BUBEYE!) Subject: Re: Areas Covered by Phone Book? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 01:07:25 GMT bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes: > A typical phone book with both white and yellow pages has a > map with a large white area surrounding a smaller yellow area. > What is this map trying to tell me? If you read the caption, it says "Directory delivery area" or "Directory Coverage Area." In other words, the yellow area represents the geographical area which the directory (white pages) covers. This is also the area where the directory is distributed for free to telephone subscribers. Also, every business in the yellow area is entitled to a free straight-line listing in the Yellow Pages, although many pay a premium for a larger listing or a display ad, and some decline any listing in the Yellow Pages at all. > Are all the listed numbers in the white area supposed to be in white > pages of the phone book? They don't seem to be. No, The white (surrounding) area is just for reference so you can see where the area being covered is located by reference to surrounding communities, etc. > Is the phone book sent to all subscribers in the yellow area? Yes. > what does the yellow area stand for? It clearly has little or nothing > to do with the locations of businesses that advertise in the yellow > pages. Every business telephone subscriber in the yellow area is entitled to a free "straight-line" listing in the Yellow Pages. Some businesses run larger listings or even display ads instead, others opt out of having any listing. But any business, regardless of their location, may purchase space in the Yellow Pages. For example, some of my businesses purchase Yellow Page space in directories nationwide even though the business being advertised is in Seattle. > GTE has "neighborhood" directories that invade PacBell's turf. Some Bell Companies, like US West, are beginning to publish books for distribution in independent areas, like GTE's, too. Anyone who has tried to deal with GTE directory sales people (or even find out how to get a hold of them) finds this welcome news indeed! Frequently, though, "neighborhood" directories are published by independent publishing companies who aren't tied to phone companies. > A "neighborhood" directory is typically much thinner than a real > directory. Why? Because they will print only paid listings and most businesses feel that since they already have a listing in the "real" book, either for free or that they've paid for, and that book is already universally distributed, why bother? ------------------------------ From: curryt@nbnet.nb.ca (Tim Curry) Subject: Re: BC Tel, SaskTel, Internet Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:30:35 Organization: NBTel In article mfraser@vanbc.wimsey.com (Mark Fraser) writes: > -- New Brunswick. NBTel went from free to 10.00 an hour last year, > so everyone went away. Last I heard, only a few came back when they > reduced it back to five bucks. Hi -- Perhaps I could update Mark's information on NBNet service in New Brunswick. Although it was preceded by an un-priced ("free") market trial, commercial service was introduced at $9.60 per hour early last year. Prices were decreased about mid-year to their current levels, which are: $6.00 per hour from 8AM to 6PM $4.80 per hour from 6PM to 11PM $3.00 per hour from 11PM to 8AM Service is available via local seven-digit call from every location in New Brunswick, at 28.8 Kpbs. Other services are also available. Our customers have not gone away, quite the contrary. We're very pleased with the growth rates. Thanks for the chance to comment; hope this helps. Tim Curry NBTel 506 658-7100, FAX 506 694-2864 ------------------------------ From: dcampbel@egreen.iclnet.org (David Campbell) Subject: Re: PC-Based Voice Mail and AMIS Organization: CamTek Micro Systems, Inc., Vancouver Washington USA. Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 22:31:28 GMT In article , David Reeve wrote: > I am researching a business opportunity that will require extensive > use of the AMIS-Analog networkng protocol to send voice mail messages > from system (Octel) to a different PC-based voice mail system. > Any recommendations (or warnings) regarding PC based voice mail vendors? Investigate CallWare Technologies NLM for voice and data integration on LANS. It should do what you may want to do. Their phone number is 801-496-9922. Dave Campbell ------------------------------ From: tholome@dialup.francenet.fr (Eric Tholome) Subject: Re: GSM SIM Implementation Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 21:42:53 +0200 In article , k22413@kyyppari.hkkk.fi (Harri Kinnunen) wrote: > Most of the hand-held GSM phones use a "punched-out" section of the > Smartcard, being about 1cmx2cm in size. The punch-out dimensions are > also standard, but I don't know if they are included in ISO-7816. And this totally ruins one of the nice purposes of the SIM: being able to have several phones (for instance, one nice vehicle mounted phone, and a hand held terminal) and still using them with one SIM only. If two of your phones use different types of SIM, you're out of luck! I've been told that some companies were now selling adapters, but the convenience of all this has yet to be seen. Luckily, it seems that manufacturers have realized this and they now offer small hand-held terminals that will take normal size SIM cards. But of course, these models can't be really small, limited as they are by the size of the card. Would could have guessed that credit cards would finally happen to be too big? :-) Eric Tholome 23, avenue du Centre tholome@dialup.francenet.fr 78180 Montigny le Bretonneux phone: +33 1 30 48 06 47 France fax: same number, call first! ------------------------------ From: e9321452@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au (Marcus Lee) Subject: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List Date: 20 Jan 1995 00:34:34 GMT Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland etxlndh@eos99.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) writes: > Australia Optus > Vodafon That's spelled Vodafone. You also missed the largest carrier in Australia, Telecom/Telstra. ------------------------------ From: lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves) Subject: Re: Voice File Formats Date: 19 Jan 1995 13:07:44 -0800 Organization: CR Labs TELEPHONETICS (fonaudio@ix.netcom.com) wrote: > Can anyone give me information on the following formats for sound files: > VBase, Dialogic, Rhetorex and New Voice Dialogic uses 4 bit ADPCM at 6 kHz based on an OKI chip. That is what the .VOX files are, although newer /D series can do mu-law at 64 kbps. They are headerless, so just because you find a file with .VOX as the extension does not prove it is Dialogic. Rhetorex uses ADPCM, but the format is not disclosed. It seems to be something along the line of ITU G.721, or perhaps a bit better. They claim better S/N at lower sample rates than Dialogic, and their boards were designed around more powerful DSP hardware. My guess is that they do something similar to Natural Microsystems VBX, which is to first convert to mu-law or A-law per G.711, and then feed that into the DSP ADPCM conversion. Rhetorex also uses .VOX, but their files have a header of sorts. The data begins at about 80h, and I assume index marks can go in the header although no file name or other info appears to be there. New Voice uses CVSD. I can't remember whether it is the Motorola CVSD or Harris CVSD. New Voice is 24kbps. I am not familiar with VBase. Converting any of these files to something standard, like linear PCM (WAV), is more involved than you might think. Converting between two different IVR formats can be quite involved. Coverting offline without one of the source or target systems installed generally uses quite a lot of FPU MIPS. Les lreeves@crl.com Atlanta,GA 404.874.7806 ------------------------------ From: pritter@nit.AirTouch.COM (Phil Ritter) Subject: Re: Wireless CO's Challenge New NPAs? Organization: AirTouch Cellular, Los Angeles Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:54:47 GMT In article Liron Lightwood writes: > Regarding the question of people always having to dial an area code if > cellular phone numbers were moved to their own prefix. This does not > have to be the case. > Here in Australia, we have the best of both worlds. Our cellular > phones have their own area code like prefixes, e.g. 018, 015, 041. > However, when making a local call from a cellular phone, you only have > to dial the six or seven digit number, no area code required. > For example, if you're in Melbourne (03), to dial (03) 123 4567, you > would dial 123 4567. If you were in Sydney (02) and you wanted to > dial (02) 123 4567 you would dial 123 4567. While this may be interesting in areas like Australia, where the numbering plan areas (or city codes) are large, it breaks down quickly in the NANP [at least in the dense parts of it]. For example, in Los Angeles, the metropolitan area is served by six NPAs (213, 310, 714, 805, 818, and 909). There several points where, unless you had an intimate knowlege of the area, you could be "in" any one of three NPAs [in fact, there are at least two locations where movement of only a few blocks can take you from 213 to 310 to 818!]. Which NPA should the wireless carrier use to deliver calls in this area? Is it really fair to expect customers to know the intimate details of their location and which NPA they are now in? It is not at all uncommon for a five minute drive on the freeway to pass through five NPAs (many combinations are possible). Also, in areas where the terrain is not flat and/or where there are large bodies of water with irregular shorelines (e.g., the Pacific ocean on the LA/Orange County coast), the "cellular honeycomb" is not perfect - it is possbile for calls to set-up on quite unexpected cell sites [this had interesting implications for delivery of emergency calls (911) too]. The "caller" and the cell that their call originates in may not be in the same NPA (in fact, near the NPA borders, the calls and the serving cell are not even likely to be in the same NPA). Using seven digit dialing based upon "caller location" rather than "the NPA of the calling mobile MIN" will have quite unexpected results. Phil Ritter pritter@la.airtouch.com ------------------------------ From: alniven@pipeline.com (Al Niven) Subject: Re: Planning to Purchase a Voice Mail System Date: 19 Jan 1995 11:31:01 -0500 Organization: The Pipeline úÿ We have installed over 15 different brands of Interactive Voice Response and Voicemail and Fax On Demand and Callback and Telephone Answering Service Equipment over the past six years all over the country on over 150 types of pbx's especially pbx's where the manufacturer said it cannot be done and in circumstances where a previous vendor had been ripped out. If you would be so kind as to provide your phone number we can discuss the info and references sent via email. Al Niven Video, Voice, and Data, Inc. 292 Fifth Avenue, #201 NY NY 10001 212-714-3531 voice 212-714-3510 fax (attention Al Niven) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jan 1995 09:58:09 GMT From: JIM BURKIT Subject: Re: Sonet SDH DCC Information Wanted Ton Engbersen asked: > In Sonet/SDH multiplexer and section overhead, there are the D1..D12 > bytes, reserved for "network management and supervision". Can anyone > shed some light on the data transmission protocol which governs these > DCC channels? Is this (already?) standardized? If so which standard? The SONET DDC has been standardized. It is a 7 layer OSI stack. The base standard in the US is T1.105 and in the ITU it is G.784. These base standards point to other documents. In the ITU G.784 points to Q.811 and Q.812. I am not sure which standards the ANSI standard points to as the US document is being being revised this week in T1X1. As you are in Europe I hope the SDH information is enough. Jim Burkitt ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 11:12:44 EST From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Always Busy 800 Number? In article , Matt says: > What's an 800 number that is always busy? (and don't say Gateway 2000 > Tech Support). Something that is guaranteed always busy. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (Suspicious, squinting eyes) Why do you want > to know? PAT] Hey maybe it's a riddle? Answer: When the 800 number terminates on your POTS line and you have called it from that line (assume no call-forwarding etc.) I admit, not funny, but the best that I could do. ;-) Pete [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a good one for you to figure out. I have two 800 numbers. Even though I have call-waiting on the line where the 800 numbers terminate, I expect to be unable to dial my own number and get call-waiting. We all know when you dial your own number (from that number) you just get a busy signal. Okay? ... well, when I use the phone to dial the 800 numbers, one of them does in fact go off somewhere, set up the call, come back to me and give me a call-waiting tone. Obviously it leaves my switch and returns. Now the other 800 number on the other hand is quite a mystery to me -- how it operates, that is. When I dial it the call goes through *instantly* as though it were a local call, and if I dial it from the phone it terminates on, I instantly get a busy signal. I do NOT get the 800 number from Ameritech/IBT (from another carrier, a little outfit actually), so I do not know how Ameritech can have such umm, intimate familiarity with it. It would appear to not even leave the switch at all. Any ideas? The first 800 number seems to get to its own switch somewhere and get outdialed back to me. What is the second one doing, just getting translated locally somehow in my switch? PAT] ------------------------------ From: sloan@qns.com (Kyle Sloan) Subject: Re: Anyone Have Experience With LDDS/Metromedia? Date: 20 Jan 1995 00:36:13 GMT Organization: Questar Network Services chuck lukaszewski (clukas@mr.net) wrote: > I received some information from LDDS/Metromedia yesterday about their > long distance service. The rates seem entirely too good to be true, > and I'm wondering if anyone here has experience (good or bad) that > they would share. > At the moment, I'm spending a lot of time on the telephone to NYC. > After a pretty exhaustive evaluation of AT&T, Sprint and MCI we found > the lowest we could get was 23.7 cents per minute peak on AT&T. LDDS > claims to charge 15 cents per minute with a one year commitment > (includes a 90-day out clause). I talked to AT&T and they're pulling > the "we're regulated and can't compete with those numbers" routine. My company uses LDDS as our LD provider. They helped us set up a T1 with a Newbridge channelbank. Our average phone bill is over $3,000 for long distance only. They are giving us the BEST prices of anyone on the market. Our representative is supremely easy to deal with anytime I have questions about our service. We are paying anywhere between $0.075/min. to $0.145/min. Forget the big three ... they just can't come close. kyle sloan sloan@qns.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 14:30:56 EST From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: FCC PCS Auction Information On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Willis H. Ware wrote: > Your discussion of PCS services in the recent T-COM Digest was very > interesting. Thank you. > Your discussion of PCS services in the recent TELECOM Digest was very > interesting. Did I not understand correctly that the GATT legislation > had some sweetheart deals in it apropos of the licenses issued for this > service? Yes and No. See the discussion below. > If this is correct, perhaps some clarifying discussion in the > Digest would be of general interest. Prior to the time Congress granted the FCC auction authority (at which such time the FCC realized it was quite possible that mutually exclusive PCS applications would have to processed via lotteries and/or comparative hearings), the FCC had tentatively decided to award "pioneer's preferences" to three companies: American Personal Communications (APC), Cox Cable Communications, Inc. (Cox), Omnipoint Communications, Inc. (Omnipoint). The pioneer's preference program was an ill-conceived (IMHO) policy designed to reward companies that expended resources developing and advancing new and innovative services and technologies. The pioneer's preferences in PCS were awarded to APC for its development and demonstration of PCS/microwave spectrum sharing technologies, to Cox for its development and demonstration of PCS/cable plant interface technology, and to Omnipoint for its development of 2 GHz PCS equipment. As originally conceived, these pioneer's preferences awards would have meant a "free" license for each of these companies, i.e., they would not have had to take their chances in a lottery. It was decided that 30 MHz licenses would be given to APC for the Washington/Baltimore MTA, to Cox for the Los Angeles/San Diego MTA, and to Omnipoint for the New York MTA. That is why, even though their are 51 MTAs, there are only 99 (rather than 102) licenses up for grabs in the Blocks A and B auction currently underway. But then came the legislation authorizing and (in the case of PCS) requiring auctions. The Commission decided to go back to the drawing board to consider whether the awards made any sense in that context. They eventually decided that the awards would stand, but that APC, Cox, and Omnipoint would each have to pay an amount discounted from the winning bid for comparable licenses in the auction. YAWN ... yes, I am getting to GATT ... be patient . Almost no one was happy with this arrangement. Not potential PCS players who saw three lucrative licenses slipping away with no opportunity to bid on them, not the "pioneers" who were now going to have to pay for licenses they thought they were getting for free, and probably not even the FCC staff who had to listen to all the bitching and moaning. Anyway, the whole mess got stuck into legislation ratifying the Paraguay Rounds of GATT (Don't you just love the Congressional process). Congress blessed the awards and promulgated a formula for calculating how much the pioneers would have to pay. In December of last year, after the GATT legislation, the Commission finally granted the three Block A licenses to APC, Cox, and Omnipoint. These license grants are subject to several conditions, including (1) that each licensee construct a system in the specified MTA substantially using the technology on which its pioneers' preference was based, (2) that each licensee retain control for at least three years after initial licensing or until it has met its five-year build-out requirement, and (3) that each licensee pay to the US Treasury an amount equal to 85% of the adjusted value of the license. Payments will be made over a five year period. Essentially, the GATT legislation requires each of the three pioneers to pay 85% of the adjusted value of its license. The adjusted value will be calculated as follows: At the conclusion of the current Broadband auctions, the FCC will determine the average per pop price for the 20 largest MTAs other than the three in question, and then apply that per pop average to the three MTAs. However, the Commission is required to collect a minimum of $400 Million. If the amount derived by applying the adjustment formula minus 85% is less than $400 Million, the difference is to be spread over the three markets in question on the basis of their relative population. FWIW, the total high bids for the Block B licenses in these three markets currently stands at approximately $760.4 Million. Bob Keller (KY3R) Email: rjk@telcomlaw.com Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C. Telephone: 301.229.5208 Federal Telecommunications Law Facsimile: 301.229.6875 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 16:47:19 CST From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Re: Cattle Call > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A couple of questions for whoever knows > the answers ... is it hard to train a cow to respond to your call? Is > there some sort of protective covering for the pager to keep it out > of the rain and water, etc? Never mind that; I want to know how they push the little button! Andy ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #48 *****************************