TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Jan 95 14:34:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 58 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Universal International Freephone Numbers (John Carl Brown) Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is (Greg Monti) Wireless Lan FAQ For Campus Networks (Jim Williams) Looking For ISDN in Burlington, Mass (Steve Samler) Old Phone Number Format Question (Andrew C. Green) GSM SIM Format - One Solution (Robert Lindh) Re: Which Countries Have Competition (for FAQ Update)? (Eric Tholome) Re: Question on Call-Back Operators (Eric Tholome) 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: John.Carl.Brown@att.com Subject: Universal International Freephone Numbers Organization: AT&T NSD, Holmdel, NJ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 18:17:02 GMT I thought it would be helpful in the discussion of Universal International Freephone Numbering (UIFN) for people to see what has actually been discussed at the ITU-T Study Group 2, and what is on the table now. As background, I am one of the people representing AT&T in UIFN work in the US and at Study Group 2 in the ITU-T. I'd like to pass on two pieces of information. First, in response to: J. Oppenheimer, Producer@Pipeline.com who wrote: > Bottom line, we agree that there are better options that merit serious > consideration. > So the question for U.S. 800 Subscribers to ask their U.S. carriers > at the ITU is, why isn't this being discussed?!!! I've included a time line we've kept as to what the format proposals and discussions have been at the ITU-T Study Group 2 level. Most of this will look familiar to those who have read this thread thus far. After that is an extract from the current DRAFT recommendation E.169, specifically dealing with the case of duplicate requests for the same UIFN. As background, the procedures specify first-come, first-served. At the start-up of UIFN assignments, a window of a specified number of days is treated as the same time to allow applicants to get their initial requests in and be treated as if they all arrived simultaneously. I'd also like to note that the U.S. standards process is an open process. The State Department Study Group A coordinates the positions and contributions going forward to ITU-T Study Group 2. An Ad Hoc committee on Numbering meets more frequently to discuss the issues in depth. We've had customer participation from associations and from individual companies interested in this issue, and that participation has been welcome and encouraged. We've also encouraged multi-national customers to contact thier carriers in other countries to make their views known. Also, this process is a contribution driven process. Those with views are most effective when documenting those views, and making specific proposals as to positions or text to be deleted, added, or altered. All contributions to the Ad Hoc or Study Group A meetings are discussed. I hope this is helpful. John Carl Brown --------------------------------------------- Universal International Freephone Numbering Timeline Current study period June 1993 through May 1996 GENEVA - JUNE 1993 Study Group 2 (numbering experts group) accepted a liaison from Study Group 1 (service description experts), recognizing the need for IFS to have an easily recognizable universal global code, develop a numbering plan for this Universal IFS Number. The following is an excerpt from that liaison: ... a universal freephone number as a service feature of IFS. This feature allows a customer to be assigned a specific IFS number that would be the same throughout the world, while calls to this number, if required, can be routed to different destination accesses depending on country or point of origin. ... the legitimacy of this IFS service feature, noting increasing customer demand for such a capability, and the significantly increased use of the IFS that would result from the provision of a universal IFS number. Recognizing the current North American 800 Service code has world wide customer identification, country code "800" was reserved as the Universal Freephone indicator. A list of attributes for the numbering plan includes, but is not exclusive of: the plan should provide a substantial capacity, and should be easily recognizable. OTTAWA - OCTOBER 1993 Proposed Numbering Structures: Source: PTT Netherlands 800 0YXXXXX To be issued by Administrations in countries with a 1 digit CC 800 1YXXXXX 800 0YYXXXX To be issued by Administrations in countries with a 2 digit CC 800 1YYXXXX 800 0YYYXXX To be issued by Administrations in countries with a 3 digit CC 800 1YYYXXX Source: Telecom Denmark 800 ZYX XXXX Allocated by countries with a 1 digit CC 800 ZYY XXXX Allocated by countries with a 2 digit CC 800 ZYY YXXX Allocated by countries with a 3 digit CC Source AT&T and MCI 800 YXXXXXX[X][X] A single numbering pool, of variable length where Y=1-9, and X = 0-9 Source US West and Ameritech 2 digit CC + 1 digit Actual CC (1 digit) <8 digit subscriber number " " Actual CC (2 digit) < 7 digit subscriber number " " Actual CC (3 digit) < 6 digit subscriber number Source: Norwegian Telecom 800 - (Administrator code) - Subscriber Number Source: France Telecom 800 XXXXX or, 800 XXXXXX or, 800 XXXXXXX or, up to a maximum of 800 XXXXXXXX All of the above proposals require the international prefix to precede the call. Results of these proposals categorized the numbering formats into three groups (fixed, variable/reusable, and variable non-reusable). Further attributes agreed to: The numbers should be portable so the customers can retain their number and change their service provider. The plan should be stable and support growth. MADRID - JANUARY 1994 The debate over the UFN format continued, discussing as many as seven different formats. Preserving national freephone numbers within a UFN as well as the administration of the numbers compounded the problem of agreeing to any specific format. It was suggested at this meeting that a neutral body administer these numbers, under consideration is the ITU. All participants were asked to only consider two formats for the next meeting; a variable six to eight digit length, or a fixed eight digit length. GENEVA - MARCH 1994 Source: AT&T 800 XXXXXXX (7 digits) Existing customer's seven digit freephone subscriber numbers are retained as the subscriber number of the UFNs for one year. After the one year period all seven digit freephone subscriber numbers that are not identified to be used as the subscriber number of UFNs for IFS would be included in the UFN resource pool and available for assignment. Source: Remaining Representative: 800 XXXXXXXX (8 digits) One representative (Sweden) conclusion for supporting eight digits: Since the seven digit fixed format doesn't give all the countries existing countries customers the ability to either retain or embed their existing numbers in an equal and fair basis, and doesn't offer any way of expanding the capacity, the only alternative left is the eight digit fixed format. A fixed format was agreed to with bracketed text for seven or eight digits. Work will continue on administrative issues. OSLO - JULY 1994 Approximately 30 countries presented a single contribution supporting an eight digit fixed format. The US was the only representative supporting a seven digit format. Acknowledging the need to continue the work, the U.S., restated their support for seven digits but agreed to work on the remaining portions of the document, assuming the format would be eight digits in length. Start up procedures, in particular conflict resolution procedures for that time were debated. The representative from the U.K., offered partitioning the subscriber number with specific leading digits: 800 1Z XXXXXX For further study 800 2Y XXXXXX 6 digit subscriber number migration space 800 3Y XXXXXX 6 digit subscriber number migration space 800 4 XXXXXXX 7 digit subscriber number migration space 800 5Y YYYYYY New 8 digit number 800 6Y YYYYYY " " 800 7Y YYYYYY " " 800 8Z ZZZZZZ For further study 800 9Z ZZZZZZ For further study 800 0Z ZZZZZZ For further study WASHINGTON DC - OCTOBER 1994 (joint experts editing team) To try to progress the work, a small group of representatives met to edit the document. This will be presented to the next meeting in Geneva, December 1994. This document assumes a fixed eight digit subscriber number. The numbers will be assigned on a first come first served basis with no preallocation of space. Priority will be given to those subscribers who are embedding their existing freephone subscriber number. Embedding can be requested by adding trailing or leading filler digits. For example: Subscriber A's 7 digit existing number is 234 5678 Embedding by adding leading filler digits: UIFN requested could be 800 X2345678 Embedding by adding trailing filler digits: UIFN requested could be 800 2345678X When two or more applicants request the same number, the Registrar will communicate with the applicants and notify them of the duplicate request and attempt to resolve the duplicate request by having the applicant(s) change their filler digits to eliminate the duplication. GENEVA - DECEMBER 1994 The meeting agreed that the edited output of TD 1/2-127 (Washington meeting) should be used to advance the work at the meeting and to incorporate any points it thought as appropriate from E.IFSNUM. The TSB had assigned temporary number E.169 to E.IFSNUM. ---------------------------------------------- end of timeline Extract from draft recommendation E.169: Annex A A1 Duplicate Requests 1 The purpose of these procedures is to resolve UIFN conflicts, e.g., when more than one applicant applies for the same UIFN at the same time. 1a) The registrar should advise only the involved applicants when problems are identified, and provide advice to them and cooperate in problem resolution. 1b) The registrar shall give priority to the applicants embedding their subscriber's existing entire national FSN [Freephone Subscriber Number], this is known as priority assignment. 2 The specific procedures are: 2a) The applicant can only request and receive priority assignment based on the intent to embed the entire existing FSN. The embedding can only be requested by adding trailing or leading filler digits to the entire existing FSN, in the manner illustrated below. For example: Subscriber A 7-digit FSN is 234 5678 Embedding by adding leading filler digit: UIFN request 800 X2345678 Embedding by adding trailing filler digit: UIFN request 800 2345678X Subscriber B 6-digit FSN is 654 321 Embedding by adding leading filler digits: UIFN request 800 XX654321 Embedding by adding trailing filler digits: UIFN request 800 654321XX Embedding by adding one leading and one trailing digits: UIFN request 800 X654321X where X = 0-9 Similar principles apply for IFS subscribers with fewer than 6 digit FSNs 2b) When two or more applicants request the same UIFN, and only one of applicants request a priority assignment, the registrar will assign the UIFN to the applicant which requested priority assignment. The registrar will then assign the stated alternative choices, or solicit alternative choices, to the other applicants. 2c) When two or more applicants requesting the same UIFN based on their entire FSN, request priority assignment, the registrar will communicate with the applicants and notify them of the duplicate request and attempt to resolve the duplicate request by having the applicant(s) change their filler digits to eliminate the duplication. During this procedure, the registrar will inform the applicants that they are in contention for their selected UIFN. Identities of other applicants involved in the contention will only be divulged with the consent of all the involved applicants, for the purpose of resolving the contention. 2d) When two or more applicants requested the same UIFN, and none have requested priority assignment, the registrar will communicate with the applicants and notify them of the duplicate request and attempt to resolve the duplicate request by having the applicant(s) choose an alternate UIFN if applicable. During this procedure, the registrar will inform the applicants that they are in contention for their selected UIFN. Identities of other applicants involved in the contention will only be divulged with the consent of all the involved applicants, for the purpose of resolving the contention. 2e) Absent agreement to resolve the duplicate request with the applicants the registrar will, after 15 days, do a random selection to resolve duplicate request. The applicants not receiving the number will be assigned one of their alternate choices or the registrar will solicit another choice, if not provided. -------------------------------------------- End of E.169 extract. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 12:04:57 EST From: Greg Monti Subject: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is A story in the January 23, 1995, issue of {Communications Daily} says that an Illinois Commerce Commission hearing examiner has "endorsed" a úÿ plan to create the 630 area code to relieve 708. Presumably, the endorsed plan is the overlay that has already been discussed because the story notes that it wouldn't require existing customers to change their telephone numbers. The story then says, cryptically, that the plan also would "create 'permissive and mandatory dialing arrangements' that wouldn't jeopardize new competitors". And that the City of Chicago "opposed the stipulation on ground that eleven-digit rather than seven-digit dialing requirement was 'onerous' and might predetermine similar fate for 312 area code where customers are used to seven-digit intraLATA calls." --------------------- Monti interprets shakily: Isn't this a little late for "endorsements" with the new code already created? Callers between the three Chicagoland area codes will need to dial eleven digits to reach local subscribers in the other two codes, which is the same as now. Allowing seen digit dialing between 312 and 630 would require that the prefix codes used in 630 not be usable in 312, which would exhaust 312 faster. Allowing seven digit dialing *within* your own area code may be -- or may not be -- permitted. Others who'd like to try their hands at translating this story into English are welcome to do so. Greg Monti, Tech Mgr, FISPO, Distribution Division National Public Radio Phone: +1 202 414-3343 635 Massachusetts Av NW Fax: +1 202 414-3036 Washington, DC 20001-3753 Internet: gmonti@npr.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 09:50:19 -0800 From: routers@halcyon.com Subject: Wireless Lan FAQ For Campus Networks 1. What Bandwidth is available for campus area Wireless LANS? Ans. 2Mbps 2. What distance's can they do? Ans. From 3 miles to 10 miles (line of site) 3. Are they secure? ANS. Spread Spectrum Radio technology is Proven and Secure. Options are available for Encryption ie 64 bit DES chip. 4. What type of management is available? ANS. SNMP MTll compliant. 5. Do they reguire a FCC license? ANS. No 6. For Large installations is there support for on site surveys and installations? ANS. Yes Airlan offers a S.W.A.T. Team of Professional field engineers. 7. How about support after installation? ANS. Toll free support is always available for all Airlan products 8. Is this technology World Wide? ANS. As of today it is available in The USA, Canada, and South America. 9. Can this technology be used to connect inside of Buildings PC's, Desk Tops, and Laptops, at the same 2Mbps? ANS. Yes it supports all the above at 2Mbps, No matter what the size (5 doors, to 4 floors, to 5 miles or more. 10. What type of Lap Top adaptors are available? ANS. Parallel/Pcmcia. 11. Does the inside technology support Roaming? ANS. The Airlan Access point (Hub) creates a 50,000 Square foot "cell" area of connectivity, Access cell to Access cell maintains a seamless connectivity to a network. 12. What networking operating Systems (NOS) is the Airlan compatable? ANS. Airlan is compatable with all Major network operating systems (NOS) including all versions of Netware and Netware-life, Microsoft-Lan Manager, 3 Com 3 Com+, Dec Pathworks, Banyan Vines, IBM Lan Manager, and Artsoft Lantastic 13. Can more that one Remote Bridge be connected to a single Host Bridge? ANS. Yes with a Omni attenna, You can connect more than one Remote Bridge with an agregate of 1.544Mbps. 14. How difficult is the Airlan Bridge Plus to install? ANS. Menu driven diagnostic Software for the installation and alignment of attenna's make Airlan/Bridge/Plus easy to setup, and SNMP makes it easy to use. 15. How does the Airlan compare in cost to a T-1 circuit? Ans. Airlan/Bridge/Plus costs less than a T-1 bridge, and performs up to 40 X faster than leased lines. For more information contact: Jim Williams 1-800-837-4180 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 13:00:03 EST From: Steve Samler Subject: Looking for ISDN in Burlington, Mass Does anyone have any information on ISDN from the Burlington (Mass) CO. We've been told that since we are two miles from the switch, we can't get ISDN. True? Anyone know when this might be available? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:20:05 CST From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Old Phone Number Format Question The following question appeared recently in the Old Time Radio Digest mailing list, and seems tailor-made for an answer from this forum. Anyone care to comment or reminisce? Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:17:25 -0500 From: "Richard M. Weil" To: otr@airwaves.chi.il.us Subject: PaperMate Ball Point Pens I was listening to a 1953 episode of The Hall Of Fantasy last night, and there was an ad for Philco TVs being sold through a store called CET in Rockford, Illinois. The main store was in Chicago. The pitchman promised a FREE PaperMate Ball Point pen, without obligation, to anyone who called the store to set up an appointment for a salesman to visit your home to give you info about Philco TV's. The pitchman said the new pen was "sweeping the nation", ... "a $1.59 value!" For those interested, and maybe the offer still holds (hee hee), the number for the store in Chicago was MOhawk 4-4100. The number for the store in Rockford was curiously 8-22-47. I'm too young to know anything about 5 digit phone numbers. Is that how it was back then in small cities? I'd also be curious to know if anyone remembers this store and if it's still around. (I could call directory assistance myself, but this is more fun.) I'd also like to know if a ball point pen was such a novelty that you'd let a salesman into your home for a free one, or was it the TV, or both? Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. Internet: acg@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: CET = Central Electric Television. They were a big distributor of television sets in the 1950's here. Both television and 'throw away when used' ball-point pens were new and unusual items in those years. Pocket calculators had never been heard of. When I was in high school, 1956-60, the school gave us the 'option' of using ball-point pens instead of fountain pens, although the latter were preferred. Desks in school classrooms had a little holder near the top for the bottle of ink used to fill the little rubber bladders inside fountain pens. The schools and all progessive educators of the era preferred that children use fountain pens, as it was believed they helped develop better penmanship. Television sets were becoming more common by then; maybe a third to half the households in the USA had one, mainly if the owner lived in a large city where television stations could be received. A few people had television sets as early as 1946-47. Our family got one in 1949; it had a two or three inch screen that was totally round with a very large magnifying glass attachment which hooked on the front of it. It was in fact a Philco (for anyone interested, that was our friends at Phillips) and stood in a large cabinet about four feet tall and two feet wide. We got three channels on it, one being WGN Channel 9; and there were two others. MOHawk was a central office in Chicago from shortly after the turn of the century. Now it is known as 312-664, and then as now serves the near-north side of the central Chicago area. In addition to CET, which was located on Chicago Avenue at Halsted Street (now for thirty plus years the site of a housing complex operated by the Chicago Housing Authority known as 'Cabrini-Green Homes'), other notable subscribers on the MOHawk exchange included the Chicago Rapid Transit Company, MOHawk-4-7200 for administrative offices, (7000 for transit information) which in 1947 became the Chicago Transit Authority. They still use 312-664-7200 for Transit Authority offices, but 836-7000 for general transit information throughout northern Illinois in a consolidated phone room operated jointly by all the commuter railroads and local/suburban bus lines. Since CRT Company had that number as of about 1921, I guess that makes 664-7200 one of the longest continuing subscribers on the same number; 74 years of it now. Five digit numbers were common in communities which had automatic dialing systems in those days but only one exchange in the community. Since the exchange name was always the same, it was assumed when dialing. In your example you parsed the number incorrectly. It was 8-2247, or to be complete about it, ROckford-8-2247. Gary, Indiana had the same kind of setup. The company town named after William Gary, president of US Steel at the turn of the century had several exchanges, but they were all TUrner, as in TUrner 2,3,4,5,6 or 7. Therefore five-digit dialing (or five digit asking of the operator, prior to 1955) was allowed in the form of 2-xxxx through 7-xxxx. Someone once asked who was Turner ... he was a vice-president of US Steel about the same time, and highly revered for his contributions to the civic life in Gary. In the early 1920's, the United States Supreme Court required US Steel to divest itself of the Gary Municipal Corporation. But some things did not change; the town name was retained and the phone exchanges continued to be Turner. Today they are 219-882 ... 887. Why yes ... ballpoint pens were quite a novelty in 1953, and the better quality ones were quite expensive, in the $7-10 range. 'Cheaper' ones, like the free gifts from Central Electric Television ranged in price from a dollar to a dollar and a half. But don't worry, they made out like bandits since the television sets sold for several hundred dollars each; three-inch round screens which looked like oscilliscopes. CET had as a commercial, a jolly man singing "Cee Eee Tee .... for television! (and concluding) Mohawk four, four one hundred!" They've been out of business for about thirty years now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: etxlndh@eos99.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) Subject: GSM SIM Format - One Solution Organization: Ericsson Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 14:03:04 GMT At least one GSM-operator here in Sweden (Europolitan) automatically gives you 2 SIM-cards per subscription, one small and one full-size. Originally, the incoming calls go to the cellular phone that have the small card inserted. If you want to change that, you insert either one of the cards in a cellular phone and use a code ("333") to switch incoming calls from the card now receiving them to the other card. ------------------------------ From: tholome@dialup.francenet.fr (Eric Tholome) Subject: Re: Which Countries Have Competition (for FAQ Update)? Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 22:36:14 +0200 In article , dleibold@gvc.com (Dave Leibold) wrote: > As the FAQ update is under way, one section dealt with the various > countries that have introduced telecom competition in some form or > other. I've heard of a European Community directive to the effect that > its member countries are to open up telecom markets by a given date. > Competing local networks are also emerging (including UK, US > developments). Indeed, competition will be introduced no later than 1998 in most European countries (except in countries that specifically asked for a delay). Actually, we need to be more precise: for instance, we tend to think that the French public telecoms are still under a monopoly, which is almost true, except for international and mobile communications, which have long been open to competition (and there has indeed been competition for quite some time). I don't recall what exactly will be opened to competition in 1998. I believe the story says that all services will, but not infrastructures, though many countries are willing to open *everything* to competition by 1998. Can someone be more precise on this point? Otherwise, I'll have to look up my archives. Hope this helps! 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: tholome@dialup.francenet.fr (Eric Tholome) Subject: Re: Question on Call-Back Operators Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 22:36:10 +0200 Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Another problem you did not mention is the > cost of your call to the callback center. That call has to supervise also, > you see, and that costs you some amount of money. Add that to whatever you > pay for the callback part of the connection and let me know how much less > expensive it *really* is. Part of the gimmick that makes callback services > so inexpensive is that you usually do not have to pay for a call to the > USA. You dial your number and hang up without it answering; thus no charge > for that part of the call. Why do you think AT&T was so out of joint on > this for quite awhile? Hey, if people think they can pay for a supervised > call to the USA (and enter a password, eliminating random ringbacks) and > still get by cheaper than via straight calling through their PTT, whoever > it is, then let me know ... I may start a callback service of my own. Well, let me give you some figures: France Telecom's rate to call the U.S.A. varies between $0.95 and $1.27/minute depending on the time of the day. My ATT calling card isn't much cheaper, especially because of the $2.50 initial charge. My callback operator does not require a minimum monthly charge, nor does it impose a monthly fee. It charges $0.66/min at any time for the same call. You're right that I'm also charged $0.14 for my call to the callback center. Moreover, my callback call is timed from the moment I get the American dial tone (only if the call is answered), which adds another $O.15 (approximately). Still, if the call lasts a minute or more (which is almost always the case, even for calls that reach an answering machine), my callback service is a good deal; a very good deal. I called an American friend last month and we stayed 70 minutes on the phone. I saved around $25 thanks to my callback operator. Not bad, right? To be totally honest, I must add that my callback operator times the call in 30 second periods, whereas France Telecom uses circa 7.5 second periods. Who cares? The service is so much cheaper. I'm looking forward to signing up for your new callback service (still to come), which will have to beat mine! :-) 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! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #58 *****************************