TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Feb 95 20:16:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 75 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Digital Announces Unix Intelligent Delivery Platform (Philippe Ravix) Stand-Alone Fax Box for PC (Yongtao Chen) Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Wes Leatherock) Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Tad Cook) Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Scott Montague) Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Terrence McArdle) Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (John Levine) Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Mike Boyd) Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Patton M. Turner) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 10:21:17 PST From: Philippe RAVIX Subject: Digital Announces Unix Intelligent Delivery Platform DIGITAL ANNOUNCES UNIX INTELLINGENT NETWORK SERVICES DELIVERY PLATFORM February 1, 1995, NEW ORLEANS: Digital Equipment Corporation today announced a UNIX version of it's powerful and flexible Intelligent Network Services Delivery platform. This UNIX platform is the latest addition to Digital's IN Product Portfolio; a full array of Intelligent Network products which are running today in live Telecom wireline and wireless networks world-wide. Building on proven experience in delivering IN revenue producing new solutions, Digital has added leadership UNIX and AlphaGeneration products to produce an unbeatable new IN platform. Digital also announced several new features that will be available on both the new UNIX and existing OpenVMS versions of the IN Services Delivery Platform. Of particular interest to Wireless Network Operators attending CTIA are: * TCAP ITU-T White Book compliance for the support of wireless services implementing MAP Phase 2. * Support of multiple standards (example ANSI and ITU-T) within the same platform enabling creation of services requiring IS41-GSM gateways. In addition, Digital announced price reductions of up to 35% for both the OpenVMS and UNIX versions. This includes the entry level platform which is used for service development or provision of test market or specialized services. This entry level platform is now the lowest priced on the market. Digital's IN Services Delivery Platforms are based on two key elements: the AlphaGeneration family of processors -- the fastest in the world -- plus DECss7, Digital's implementation of world-wide Signalling System Number 7 protocol standards. DECss7 is a unique distributed implementation which provides unsurpassed levels of availability and scalability. Digital's UNIX is the first UNIX to integrate all of the UNIX standards including UNIX System V. The IN Services Delivery Platform is used today as the foundation for implementing a large variety of IN systems such as Service Control Points (SCPs), Intelligent Peripherals (IPs), Mobile Services Platforms providing HLR, VLR, AUC, EIR, and SMSC services plus gateways providing inter-standard connectivity services. The new UNIX version of Digital's IN Services Delivery Platform provides the same proven functionality as the OpenVMS version including: o NON-STOP AVAILABILITY: The IN Services Delivery Platform provides software fault tolerance plus the ability to implement configuration upgrades without service interuption. The platform has passed the strictest availability tests in the telecom industry performed by some of the most discriminating Network Operators in the world. o FULL RANGE OF CONFIGURATIONS: A unique client-server based distributed architecture allows a choice of configurations to match all levels of performance and availability requirements. The range is from an entry level platform (to be used in both a lab environment for development purposes or a live network environment for deployment of pilot or highly specialized services) through to fully distributed, high performance, high availability configurations. Applications running on an entry level platform are transparently upgradable to a distributed IN Services Delivery Platform. o POWERFUL PERFORMANCE AND SCALABILITY: Digital's IN Services Delivery Platform can handle from two to hundreds of SS7 links and thousands of SS7 messages per second. Non-stop addition and removal of machines to the distributed platform allows capacity to be added as requirements evolve. With the IN Services Delivery Platform's distributed architecture, Network Operators can be assured of the smoothest path available to grow the platform as the subscriber base and service success grow. o COMPLETE CONNECTIVITY: The IN Services Delivery Platform is fully SS7 standards compliant, including ITU-T, ANSI, and TTC. In addition, many country variants are supported. Different SS7 standards can be mixed on the same platform enabling the development of inter-standard services and gateways. There is a full array of physical connectivity options. For platforms deployed as Intelligent Peripherals, ISDN protocols and connectivity are supported including ISUP. o EFFICIENT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT: Applications can be developed in C or C++ languages using Digital's leading software development tools. The IN Services Delivery Platform has multiple Applications Programming Interfaces at TCAP, SCCP, and MTP levels which can be accessed simultaneously; a requirement for a number of new services such as GSM Short Message Service Center. o MANAGEMENT TAILORED FOR YOUR ENVIRONMENT: The IN Services Delivery Platform provides powerful and complete management functionality. The complete platform including applications, the configuration, and all of the SS7 defined Signalling Point functionality can be managed in a consistent way from a tailored management application using an object-oriented model. o WORLD-CLASS SERVICES AND MISSION CRITICAL SUPPORT: Digital has provided IN products and services to the major Telecom Network Operators in the world, including full round-the-clock telecom network mission critical support services for some of the highest service revenue producing SCPs in the world. Digital works with a variety of partners to deliver complete computing systems tailored to customer needs and is actively building an expanded global network of value added partners. Digital's goal is to deliver the highest performance and most cost-effective platforms for building computer based Intelligent Network solutions today. Digital's IN Portfolio enables Software Providers, Telecom Equipment Manufacturers, and Telecom Network Operators to produce and implement leading service revenue producing IN services for today and tomorrow's wireline and wireless networks. To have more information you can contact: p_ravix@csc32.enet.dec.com Phone : +1-719-592-4263 Fennelly@ulysse.enet.dec.com Phone : (33)92-95-62-59 Philippe Ravix E-mail: p_ravix@csc32.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Phone : +1-719-592-4263 305 Rockrimmon Blvd., South Colorado Springs, CO 80919 ------------------------------ From: yongtao@watnow.uwaterloo.ca (Yongtao Chen) Subject: Stand-alone Fax Box For PC Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Thu, 2 Feb 1995 10:59:53 -0500 I am looking for some kind of "stand-alone fax box" for PC. The box should be able to receive and store coming faxes automatically when I am away from my home, with no need to turn on my computer; and after I come back, I can turn on my computer and down load the faxes received from the box to my PC. Could anybody on net give me some advice about what machine I should buy, or which company I should contact, or which magazine I should look for ads? Any information is very much appreciated. Please reply to "cheny@cognos.com" or "yongtao@watnow.uwaterloo.ca" Thanks, yongtao ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing Date: 2 Feb 1995 08:53:50 -0600 Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway evan champion wrote: > Recently there has been a lot of talk about having to do ten digit > dialing to call even local numbers that are in a different phone > number. > I have a number of users who are going to be affected by the above > and am looking for a good explanation for them. I'm myself am not > completely sure myself of all the reasons for making the changes to > out-of-area dialing and would like to get it right the first time :- ) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, it is eleven digit dialing, > not ten digit if you count the '1' on the front. However, one would > think that when this becomes universal all over the USA that we could > in fact get by with ten digits since the '1' would no longer be > needed; there would be no 'local' calls to distinquish from 'long > distance'. Since everything that we dial would consist of area code > plus seven digits, there would be no need for a '1' to indicate that > 'what follows is an area code' -- everything that follows would be > area codes! In the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, you must dial 10 (not 11 digits) if you are dialing a call to a local number in the other area code. (Dallas is in the 214 NPA, Fort Worth in the 817 NPA.) One-plus dialing in those exchanges does not indicate that an area code follows, but that the call is a toll call. (Of course, now that an area code is required on all One-Plus dialing, there will be an area code on all toll calls, but at least in the Dallas-Fort Worth area the 1+ does not indicate anything but that the call is a toll call.) Note that almost all telephone service in the Dallas-Fort Worth area is flat rate. A local call generates no billing whatever (except for the very few message rate customers). This is true, I believe, almost everywhere in the United States except in the Northeast and in the Chicago area. The LECs would dearly love to introduce "usage sensitive pricing" everywhere, but customers with flat rate service generate such tremendous protest that even if the commission will consider it, the state legislature will start considering legislation to make mandatory message rate charging unlawful in that state. (The legislature would probably pass it, too, if the commission itself didn't reject the idea.) Complaining and protests about general rate case activity pale into insignificance compared to the heat generated by proposals to abandon flat rate pricing. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu wes.leatherock@f2001.n147.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: tadc@seanet.com (Tad Cook) Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing Date: 1 Feb 1995 23:03:27 GMT Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to evan champion (evanc@bnr.ca): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, it is eleven digit dialing, not > ten digit if you count the '1' on the front. However, one would think that > when this becomes universal all over the USA that we could in fact get by > with ten digits since the '1' would no longer be needed; there would be > no 'local' calls to distinquish from 'long distance'. Since everything that > we dial would consist of area code plus seven digits, there would be no > need for a '1' to indicate that 'what follows is an area code' -- everything > that follows would be area codes! It would be nice to see the '1' vanish > under those cirucmstances. Or maybe they will insist on keeping it using > as their rationale that '1' is also -- by coincidence -- the country code > for the USA and Canada, and that what we are really dialing is country code, > area code and seven digit number. As to *why* they are imposing it on calls > within the same area -- as is supposed to be the case in Chicago beginning > sometime in 1996 -- I do not know. Various reasons have been given. PAT] Chicago is a unique case though. Chicago will have an overlay area code, and since someone using a phone within Chicago could possibly have no idea what area code it is in, this means that all local calls must dial the area code and number, since phones right next to each other could be in different NPAs. In the rest of North America, we are having to dial the area code for all long distance calls within the area code, so that the system can handle the new area codes that look like prefixes. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca (Scott Montague) Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 15:32:17 GMT Organization: Queen's University at Kingston evan champion wrote: > Recently there has been a lot of talk about having to do ten digit > dialing to call even local numbers that are in a different phone > number. Bell Canada chose to have it's Toronto customers dial ten digit LOCAL calls. This way, two exchanges can be used within a local calling area. Example: If you wanted to dial 1050 CHUM Newsroom in Toronto (416) from Pickering (905) (a local call) you would dial 416-923-1133. This would allow the creation of a 923 exchange in Pickering, which could be used for different customers. Inversely, to call someone local in (905), you would dial 10 digits 905-xxx-yyyy to call them from (416). This has already been implemented. The reason: Bell Canada is concerned that they will run out of exchanges in 416, and want to keep all 905 open for local calls. (Or else, 416 would have to omit certain exchanges that their local calls are made to ... it's so contrived ... and then when they run out again (which they will) they'll have to implement the ten digit dialing; let's get it all over with, they say). I believe that they now want universal dialing procedures across area codes for their customers, and subsequently are implementing this system across area codes that don't necessarily need it, like the 604-905 boundary. Always planning for the future, I guess. BTW, If you Americans want an example of a world class phone company, look north to Bell Canada. Great staff, instant repairs, easy access to all services (and tarrifs :-) ), quickly resolved billing disputes, hardly ever any billing errors, great business and residential service. >From the horror stories in the US, I think some companies could learn alot from Bell Canada. (OK, their long distance is a bit more expensive, but it's worth it.) Scott ------------------------------ From: mcardle@paccm.pitt.edu (Terrence McArdle) Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 16:15:21 -0500 Organization: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Just for clarification's sake, I assume the phrase "local numbers that are in a different phone number" means dialing a destination existing in separate exchange, but the same area code, as the originator? Calls that cross a LATA boundary currently require eleven digit úÿ dialing, do they not? And with regard to Pat's note, who is referred to by "they"? Standards bodies? Or a general consensus of the major RBOCs? Or some other entity? Thanks, Terry McArdle email mcardle@paccm.pitt.edu Mgr, Information Systems work (412) 648 9218 Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care University of Pittsburgh Medical Center [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'They' are the people I feel irritated with at the time! PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine) Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs Date: Thu, 02 Feb 95 07:27:21 GMT > Local should be charged higher because it is expensive. You provide > unlimited free calling for a flat fee instead of charging on a call by > call basis. Of course you lose money. You're making the increasingly unwarranted assumption that local bandwidth is expensive. I make lots of umpteen hour long calls (computer to computer, of course) but since they're within the same switch, I find it difficult to identify any basis on which this actually costs the telco more than if I left the phone on the hook. > But the LEC doesn't get paid for all the incomplete calls, all the > dial back calls, etc and that costs money. Sure they do. FG B and FG D lines are charged for all off-hook time both incoming and outgoing. I believe there is in many cases an extra per-call charge for the info collected and passed by the LEC. > (Some local companies, especally rural, don't even handle long distance. > They just pass it off to someone else to do.) That's right, but they can make a bundle in doing so since they still get a per-minute charge on originating and terminating LD calls. (Some of my cousins run a small rural telco in Vermont that passes all of its LD traffic to NYNEX and AT&T. Because of their cost structure, they get an incredible amount for LD calls, something like 10 cents/minute.) Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com Primary perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" ------------------------------ From: Mikeboyd@voyager.cris.com (Mike_Boyd) Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs Date: 2 Feb 1995 13:09:18 -0500 Organization: Concentric Research Corporation Judith Oppenheimer writes: > David Lewis of AT&T wrote: >> Is it just me, or do these numbers (which I'll take on faith for >> now) demonstrate a massive inefficiency and misallocation of costs in >> the current cost structure of telecommunications? >> If 95% of traffic is local (I'll define as "intraLATA"), Then 95% of >> costs (fixed and variable) are due to local traffic. But the majority >> (say, 80%) of LEC revenue is from access charges. Therefore 80% of >> revenue is paying for 5% of cost, and 20% of revenue is paying for 95% >> of cost. >> Does this make sense? > Local should be charged higher because it is expensive. You provide > unlimited free calling for a flat fee instead of charging on a call by > call basis. Of course you lose money. Local access charges are > profitable, and are on a call by call basis. LEC's don't want to lose > that revenue. With bypass and local exchange competition it could be > tough. Sense has little to do with telecom rate making. The current system is an evolution of an archaic and arbitrary system worked out between the phone companies (basically the old Bell System, when it was the telecom world) and regulators (FCC and State PUCs). The first step was to separate the costs, investments, rate base, etc., between the state and federal jurisdictions. The FCC then set interstate rates designed to recover the costs allocated to interstate servivce, and the state Public Utitlies Commission set rates to recover "intrastate costs". Interstate services originally were interstate toll. In the good old days, regulators and the phone companies kept local rates low by allocating the costs to toll. Growth in LD competition, bypass, etc., made this more and more difficult, and made it necessary to shift costs to local. Now, the FCC regulates the access charges LECs charge IXCs to originate and terminate interstate tolls calls. The FCC has also instituted a Subscriber line charge (SLC) to recover some of those "interstate costs" directly from the end users. This is the $3/month on your residential phone bill. Intrastate costs were recovered from local service and from intrastate toll. In the late 80's, intrastate access charges were added. These are charges to IXCs for originating or terminating intrastate (interLATA) toll calls. Because of the way that the costs are separated jurisdictionally, and given the subsequent wide discretion of the PUC in setting rates, intra- state and interstate access charges for a given LEC may vary greatly. For example, terminating a minute of switched traffic from IXC "A" to end user "Z" may cost the IXC 3 cents if the call is interstate and 8 cents if it is an intrastate call. Given a "revenue requirement" for intrastate services, the PUCs are faced with the dilemma of juggling rates between access and local, between residential and business, etc. Set access rates too high, the IXCs bypass the network. Set local too high, you don't get reelected or reappointed. While specific costs are a consideration, rate making is a highly charged political game. ------------------------------ From: pturner@netcom.com (Patton M Turner) Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 03:41:08 GMT edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) writes: > All fees charges for LD termination can normally be found in the > Feature Group tariffs. Normally, LD carriers fall under (last I > heard) Feature Group 'D' tariffs due to their method of termination. > You can request a copy of these tariffs from each of the RBOC's or > from the PUC in any State. Feature Group D accounts for at least 99% of interLATA calls, but FGB trunks can still be found. > BTW, the method of charges is entirely different for LD service in the > cellular industry. With cellular, it is not unusual for local cellular > carriers (RBOC's or otherwise) to provide FREE or flat rate termination > charges to LD carriers. Why not, if they extend the T1s to your MTSO? It's that many less erlangs going out on the other (paid) trunks. I assume the B carriers probally must provide this for free or are limited to some max rate by Da Judge (that's Greene, not Ito :-)) Patton Turner KB4GRZ pturner@netcom.com FAA Telecommunications ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #75 *****************************