TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Feb 95 16:46:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 77 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Online with Procomm Plus for Windows 2" by Wolfe (Rob Slade) MCI Strikes Again (Mike Jenkins) NIST Workshop on Synchronization in Telecom (Marc A. Weiss) MCI Gave me a Deal (Glen Ecklund) France Telecom as a Real Caller ID Provider (JeanBernard Condat) Re: Adoption of New Technologies (J.P. Wollersheim) Adoption of Technology Products (sb@interamp.com) Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Evan Champion) Facsimile Protocol Analyzer Demo Program Available On-Line (Mike Rehmus) Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (rta) Re: Stand-alone Fax Box For PC (Kyle Cordes) Re: Old Phone Number Format Question (Tony Harminc) 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: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 13:48:42 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Online with Procomm Plus for Windows 2" by Wolfe BKOPPL2W.RVW 941212 "Online with PROCOMM PLUS for Windows 2", Wolfe, 1995, 0-471-10612-7, U$22.95 %A David Wolfe david.wolfe@mecheng.fullfeed.com %C 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012 %D 1995 %G 0-471-10612-7 %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O U$22.95 800-CALL-WILEY 212-850-6630 Fax: 212-850-6799 Fax: 908- 302-2300 %P 370 %T "Online with PROCOMM PLUS for Windows 2" If you find the documentation for Procomm Plus for Windows 2 to be difficult, this may present an alternative. Wolfe's material is technically sound, but the utility is sometimes questionable. Chapter three, "Telecommunications Principles", is correct but disjointed. Chapter nine, on writing Procomm scripts, gives much detail on the script editor but nothing on the "Aspect" script language, itself. Quite acceptable replacement documentation if you don't need the script language. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994 BKOPPL2W.RVW 941212. Permission granted for distribution in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca Research into rslade@cue.bc.ca User p1@CyberStore.ca Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ From: jenkins@visar.wustl.edu (Mike Jenkins) Subject: MCI Strikes Again Date: 3 Feb 1995 20:46:45 GMT Organization: Washington University School of Medicine The moral of the story is DON'T MOVE. Last April, we moved from St. Charles, Missouri to Hillsboro, Missouri. Not far, only 65 miles. I had contacted SouthWestern Bell to get a new number, a local number. No problem. Our long distance carrier for the previous three years was Telcom*USA. I had explained that I wanted this to remain as it was. In Hillsboro, we got our first bill. Along with a bill from MCI for long distance calls. We had NEVER contracted with MCI. Our LD company was bought by MCI, but bills us separately. First I called SouthWestern Bell, then MCI, then SWB, ... Turns out the previous "owner" of the phone number had used MCI, but had neglected to stop the service when she moved. Six months and 30 phone calls later, I contacted the PSC. With that kind of help, it appeared to be straightened out ... until last month. With the SWB bill came another MCI bill -- in a chopped-up version of my wife's name (the original name we had the old number under!). I called MCI. "No problem, we'll fix it right away." I did tell them that if I got another bill from them, I'd call the PSC and, probably, the State's Consumer Affairs Division for an in-depth investigation. Which I will. Eight months of listening to two companies declare "It's not my fault. Call the company." What happened? 1) Southwestern Bell dropped the ball in not closing the previous user's accounts when the number was closed. They did not inform the LD carrier. 2) Southwestern Bell didn't check the billing statement to notice TWO different names on the statement. 3) MCI missed the boat. When I called, they seemed to think nothing of the fact that the long-distance service was not in my name. 4) Telecom*USA, when informed of the whole proceedings, declared that I had a "$5 minimum usage" charge on my acount. When in reality, I didn't. 5) Southwestern Bell AND MCI don't compare notes when user's start complaining about mis-billing. Only when state agencies get in the act, do they begin to resolve the problem. Is it over? I don't believe it will end until the PSC gets involved again. This is a time that makes me wish there were two local companies. That way the competition would force them to be as caring of their users as they are about their money. On the other hand, I believe that Murphy was an optimist. Michael W. Jenkins Computing Support Services Dept of Internal Medicine Washington Univ. School of Medicine Old Childrens Annex, Room 621 St. Louis, MO 63110 314/362-8238 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 10:04:36 MST From: mweiss@central.boulder.nist.gov (Marc A. Weiss) Subject: NIST Workshop on Synchronization in Telecom NIST TIME AND FREQUENCY DIVISION WORKSHOP ON SYNCHRONIZATION IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS FEBRUARY 22-24, 1995, BOULDER, CO SEMINAR REGISTRATION FEE - $850 WHO SHOULD ATTEND This workshop is designed for engineers, systems analysts, and technicians who work with synchronization and syntonization of equipment using timing signals. There will be a focus on specific problems from the telecommunications industry. WORKSHOP TOPICS Timing Distribution in Telecom; Needs and History; Time and Frequency Concepts and Techniques; Network Noise Sources and Clock Requirements; Architectures for Network Synchronization Synchronization and Noise; Measurement in the Network; Anomalous Behavior Detection and Correction; New Techniques for Phase Noise Measurement; Time Transfer: Telephone, Internet, Loran-C and GPS; Tour of NIST Labs. GENERAL SEMINAR QUESTIONS TECHNICAL QUESTIONS Wendy Ortega Marc A. Weiss TEL: (303) 497-3693 TEL: (303) 497-3261 FAX: (303) 497-6461 FAX: (303) 497-6461 Email: ortegaw@boulder.nist.gov Email: mweiss@boulder.nist.gov Marc A. Weiss, Ph.D. Phone: 303/497-3261 NIST Time and Frequency Division FAX: 303/497-6461 MS 847.5, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 Working in Math and Physics of Time Transfer, Time Series Analysis & Algorithms Specializing in GPS and Telecom ------------------------------ From: glen@cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund) Subject: MCI Gave me a Deal Date: 3 Feb 1995 17:50:09 GMT Organization: University of WI, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. MCI called yesterday, and made me an offer I didn't want to refuse. 50% off on all calls for six months. After that, 50% off on calls to MCI customers (no list required) and 25% off (if I recall correctly) to everyone else. Glen Ecklund glen@cs.wisc.edu (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y Department of Computer Sciences 1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355 University of Wisconsin, Madison Madison, Wis. 53706 U.S.A. ------------------------------ Date: 03 Feb 1995 17:26:25 GMT From: JeanBernard_Condat@email.FranceNet.fr (JeanBernard Condat) Organization: FranceNet Reply-To: JeanBernard_Condat@email.FranceNet.fr Subject: France Telecom as a Real Caller ID Provider Bonjour, In France, a phone number is a list of 8 digit called ABPQMCDU. For Paris and the towns near Paris, it's a zone code ("1") called Z in the telecom language. My pro phone number is: 147874083. If I dial this phone number from my home (to ask my phone answer machine, e.g.), I can have the indication of my phone call (date, time of beginning of the phone call, duration, type of pricing) with the ZABPQ (14787 in my case). The poor MCDU (4083, my direct extension) will be masked intentionnally. Today, France Telecom announced that the C.N.I.L. (Commission Nationale Informatique et libertes), playing as a computer privacies regulatory group of experts, had been authorized to give at the end of 1995 the complete phone number on all billing document: 147874083 in my case. It's marvelous. All month, I can be able to have the complete phone number of all my girl-friend's friends ... without having to ask them. Jean-Bernard CONDAT +33 1 47874083, desk 47874949 IPA Groupe SVP fax +33 147878822 JeanBernard_Condat@email.FranceNet.FR telex 233999 S V P F B.P. 155, 93404 Saint-Ouen Cedex, France Pager Kobby: 06 49 09 52 ------------------------------ From: JP Wollersheim Subject: Re: Adoption of New Technologies Date: 3 Feb 1995 19:11:33 GMT Organization: Hewlett Packard sb@interramp.com (sb) wrote: > 1) Pointers to other articles/books that deal with this topic; Fischer Pry have done a great deal of work in the difussion of technology. Very basically, there is a formula that will resemble an S-shaped curve, and given the first few data points, the model uses a regression technique to show hot the technology will be diffused into the marketplace. The model is as follows: 1) Enter first few data points (called 'f') 2) take ln(f/1-f) 3) do a linear regression on the datapoints, and extend it out 4) do exp(of the datapoints) / 1 + exp(of the datapoints) Those points are the prediction of how the technology will diffuse into the marketplace. If you need any further information, feel free to contact myself. I have done work in this and other model areas. Regards, JP Wollershim ------------------------------ From: sb@interramp.com (sb) Subject: Adoption of Technology Products Date: 3 Feb 1995 20:29:22 GMT Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Hi, I'm writing an article on consumer adoption of new technologies over time. Ideally, I'm looking for sources (online, books, articles, people, etc), academic and business, that discuss the motivating factors behind why people do or don't start using new technology products, and if anyone has any "case studies" of the history of a product, like radio, or the fax machine, that would be wonderful to read also. Other topics are: What makes a product "take off"? Does anyone track this sort of stuff for technology products/services? I'm aiming to try and get some insight into what'll fly and what won't on the info superhighway, and this seems like a great place to begin -- tracking the histories of other products. If anyone has any ideas, please email them to me at "sb@interramp.com". Thank you for your time. Regards, Seth sb@interramp.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 20:27:02 +0000 From: evan champion Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing Organization: Bell Northern Research 4sam3@qlink.queensu.ca (Scott Montague) wrote: > 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. It always starts with our neighbours in Toronto :-) Seriously though, I see the same sort of thing happening in Ottawa- Hull shortly. For example, I know that there are Ottawa 613-56x-xxxx and Hull 819-56x-xxxx which are local calls from each other (a favourite is a friend of mine who lives at 819-561-xxxx and works at 613-564- xxxx). I don't think it will be very long before the Ottawa side would like to take 613-561, and then we'll be forced in to ten digit dialing. > 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.) Besides the fact that they are hopeless for doing anything out-of- the-ordinary (ie: try calling them up and ask to talk to someone about ISDN or T1 service...), Bell Canada is a pretty good company. I am not rushing out to any of the new long-distance phone companies because úÿ Bell does the job for me. Now, if they would only increase my local calling area. And while we're talking about ten vs. eleven digit dialing, I like the '1' in front of long-distance calls just to denote that I understand that I will be paying for the call. No '1' would symbolize a local phone call, even if it required an area code. Evan ------------------------------ From: mrehmus@ix.netcom.com (Mike Rehmus) Subject: Facsimile Protocol Analyzer Demo Program Available On-Line Date: 3 Feb 1995 02:37:54 GMT Organization: Netcom We have a ftp site up and operating. Something of a prelude to our WWW layout sometime this month. You can download the file from: ftp.shell.portal.com. the file is in pub/mrehmus Or URL: ftp://ftp.shell.portal.com/pub/mrehmus I will probably get the Fax Emulator demo uploaded tomorrow. If you have any questions, please contact me at: Mike Rehmus Gray Associates 10760 Hubbard Way San Jose, CA 95127-2624 (408) 251-0263 (408) 251-0264 fax mrehmus@ix.netcom.com Best regards, Mike ------------------------------ Date: 03 Feb 95 00:20:16 EST From: rta <75462.3552@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs John Levine writes: >> 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. Several issues are being raised here so let me try to sort them out. For FGD, many tariffs if you break them down, have a 1/3 the cost in switching, paying for COs and access tandems, 1/3 in transport, the bandwidth, and 1/3 in Common Carrier Line on the originating or terminating end, what the carrier pays to support (subsidize) the line to your home or business. This breakdown is approximate and varies from LEC to LEC, but it gives you the overall picture. Only about a third of the charge is for bandwidth as most of us would interpret the word. The other element is switching. Switching and the lines to the customer premises are really what is expensive. The lines are not heavily utilized, in the case of many small businesses and residences. Switches are expensive and are not set up to support multiple hour calls. Regular business calls that get through are typically 4 to 6 minutes in length with residential calls longer since many are placed to friends and family. Switches were engineered on the assumption that most calls would be short. As data usage increases, the switches have to get bigger, an expensive proposition or the multiple hour data calls will have to shifted to another technology, such as packet or cell switching where switches and long distance circuits are not tied up during think time. Most modern CO switches detect a phone that is off the hook and not transmitting and genrate an obnoxious tone to get you to hang up. Jerry Harder Senior Partner Renaissance Telecommunications Associates 75462.3552@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: kcordes@crl.com (Kyle Cordes) Subject: Re: Stand-alone Fax Box For PC Date: 3 Feb 1995 11:32:33 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access yongtao@watnow.uwaterloo.ca (Yongtao Chen) writes: > 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 The device will probably need a hard drive, memory, and a FAX modem. It would be nice if it also had a keyboard, screen, and maybe a mouse so it could have a neat interface. This is called a computer (sarcasm). Your box will probably consist of another PC (maybe an old, abandoned 286 ...) with a FAX modem in it, with some sort of networking hard/software so you can access its hard drive from your PC. It sure would be a lot simpler to leave your PC on; cheaper, too. Is there a reason you can't do this? With the monitor off, it consumes very little power. Kyle Kyle Cordes @ Automation Service kcordes@crl.com ------------------------------ From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Old Phone Number Format Question Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 16:00:00 CST michael@junction.net (Michael Dillon) wrote: > In the early 1970's I lived near Moonstone, Ontario in Canada. At the > time we got phone service from the Moonstone Telephone Company which > was bought by Bell in 1972 I believe. Before Bell came in, our number > was 33-W-21. The way it was explained to me was that 33 was our line > number, i.e. the 33rd wire coming into the exchange. Each line had two > sides to it, the J side and the W side (ADSL?) and our ring was 21, > i.e. two longs and a short. I remember visting the switchboard with my > mother, who was a friend of the night operator and the plugboard was > wood, with large black plugs just like those seen in old photographs. Small world department! I can remember standing in the Moonstone Telephone Company office, waiting to make a call to a friend who lived about a ten minute drive away, but was served from the Bell office at Port McNichol. This was 1970 or 1971, and the wait was for an 'outside line'. There were no payphones in Moonstone but since the office was right there in the centre of town, you just went in and asked the operator for your call and paid in cash. At the time, my friend's farm had been served by Bell (on a 4 party line) for only a couple of years. The old open wire on poles was still visible by the roadsides, collapsed in places. My friend still has the surprisingly modern crank phone that Bell left in his house when they installed the new line and standard 500 set. Moonstone was one of the last batch of Bell acquisitions of small rural telcos in the province. Now there are still a few 'ma & pa' telcos in Ontario, but they generally have all digital COs (DMS10s, typically), and are not interested in selling out. Tony Harminc ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #77 *****************************