TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 Feb 95 16:58:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 95 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Indian Supreme Court Ends State Control of the Airwaves (Rishab Ghosh) Book Review: "Data Link Protocols" by Black (Rob Slade) Re: "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway" (Reid Goldsborough) Area Code 500: It Doesn't and Does Work - or Both (Paul Robinson) Re: AT&T 500 Service and the Hospitality Industry (Dave Ptasnik) A Strange Man Calls Me About 500 (TELECOM Digest Editor) 976 Look-Alike Exchanges (Henry Becker) Ericsson GH337 Codes (Michael Holstein) BellSouth Joins World Wide Web (Nigel Allen) VocalTec Internet Telephone (Jeffrey Friedman) GSM-PCN Chipset, Radio, Baseband (Urban Nilsson) Pointers to Telecom Resource Server Sites on the Net (Robert Shaw) Need a Contact for Teradyne RFTS 4SIGHT System 2000 (Usager hqtel) Wanted: Used Business Telephone Systems and T1 (David M. Russell) Telco Signaling Requirements (Richard Brehove) Cellular Service in Palo Alto (Javier Henderson) 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: 500-677-1616 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Indian Supreme Court Ends State Control of the Airwaves Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 13:11:48 EST Reply-To: rishab@dxm.ernet.in From: rishab@dxm.ernet.in The Indian Supreme Court yesterday (9th February 1995) directed the government to create an independent autonomous regulatory body for the airwaves (like the US FCC) and end the state monopoly on broadcasting and satellite uplinks. The judges took an interesting position that the "GREATER IMPACT" OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA and its "wider range of circulation of information" as opposed to the press, CANNOT BE USED TO RESTRICT or deny THE RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION. This may have important consequences, for all over the world, including in the US and India, the electronic media is denied freedoms allowed to the press with the excuse that it's somehow different. The three-judge bench, comprising of Justices PB Sawant, S Mohan and BP Jeevan Reddy, made the ruling after an government appeal against a previous ruling by the Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta High Court had earlier upheld the right to telecast as fundamental, which would theoretically prevent any regulation or censorship whatsoever. The consensual Supreme Court judgement, while denying the government's power of monopoly, upheld its right to subject the electronic media to regulation and censorship. However, Justice Reddy, in his separate ruling did not mention censorship. He pointed out that the century-old Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, which has been ingeniously extrapolated to support the government's monopoly over electronic media and right to 'licence' data networks, was "wholly inadequate and unsuited for" electronic media, and said that Parliament should enact new laws to govern such media. Unfortunately the Supreme Court has no powers to legislate, and new laws have a habit (as seen with the Digital Telephony Bill in the US) of increasing, rather than decreasing, government authority. The explicit statement that the electronic media should not be more restricted than the press will, hopefully, prevent that. The legal battle started with the Doordarshan, the state TV monopoly, objecting to the Cricket Association of Bengal's contract with Trans World International granting the latter worldwide broadcasting rights to a cricket tournament. Doordarshan used the 1885 Act to prevent TWI from uplinking to satellite, till the courts intervened. Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab@dxm.ernet.in rishab@arbornet.org Vox +91 11 6853410 Voxmail 3760335 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 13:41:05 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Data Link Protocols" by Black BKDTLKPR.RVW 941229 "Data Link Protocols", Black, 1993, 0-13-204918-X %A Uyless Black %C 113 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 %D 1993 %G 0-13-204918-X %I PTR Prentice-Hall, Inc. %O (515) 284-6751 FAX (515) 284-2607 %P 270 %T "Data Link Protocols" Much of what goes on at the physical layer level in data communications is mature technology, fixed in hardware. The network, internetwork and higher layers vary widely depending upon situation and application. The data link layer is the one most in need of study and understanding. This is the layer concerned with the actual transmission of data, and its reliable receipt. Three chapters relate to the basic concepts of the data link layer, an introduction, error detection and correction, and controls. The remainder of the book concentrates on the specific protocols; BSC, HDLC, LAPB, LAPD, LAN protocols, LLC and so forth. Two chapters are of particular interest to the online community, covering asynchronous file transfer protocols (X modem and descendents, Kermit, and others) and LAPM (Link Access Protocol for Microcomputers or V.42). Frame relay and Internet protocols are touched on. This work deals with the concepts rather than implementations. The actual programming of specific protocols will require additional detail. However, for an understanding of the options at this layer in the stack, this is a good starting source. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKDTLKPR.RVW 941229. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. 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: Reid Goldsborough Subject: Re: "Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway" Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 10:45:17 -0500 Organization: Net Access - Philadelphia's Internet Connection On Mon, 6 Feb 1995, Rob Slade wrote: ... a review of my book. Thanks for posting your views. > The book is a collection of enthusiastic essays about life in the telecom- > rich future, with a piece concluding each chapter by some politician, > "industry leader", Famous Person, or other "expert". Sometimes, it's > hard to determine whether the "viewpoint" is an addendum to the chapter, > the chapter is an introduction to the viewpoint, or whether both are related > solely by proximity. Are you sure you read *my* book? Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway is not a collection of essays. It's a conventional nonfiction book, with each chapter building upon the last, mostly analysis on my part but with lots of quotes and other information from those in private industry developing the technology, those in the goverment promoting and overseeing it, those in the nonprofit sector who are trying to steer it so it benefits the public interest, and those using today's online services. You may feel it's a collection of essays because this was a line used by one of the publisher's promotion writers. Did you read the promotional materials but not the book? > The author must be sensitive, in advance, to possible charges that > this material is all very "blue sky". After the opening story, he > argues that this is not a fantasy, but that future technology will be > very much like it. Of course, the technologies presented -- email, > multimedia extensions, teleconferencing, voice recognition and > macros -- are all available *now*, but it is obvious that Goldsborough > is not really experienced in the most effective ways to use them. There's a chapter in the book about all the hype surrounding the information superhighway. You should read it. > This is an extended series of the usual mass-media magazine articles, > high on "gee whiz!" and low on content. You seem very down on conventional media. Have you had bad experiences here? In truth, there's quite a bit of content in the book, though as the introduction points out it's not a technical book. I do talk about the technical challenges involved, the need for vastly increased bandwidth, better video servers, affordable set-top boxes, and so on. But the book is mostly about how lifestyle and workstyle issues, how the information superhighway will likely affect our jobs, the way we educate our kids, how we vote, entertainment and shopping, how we gather news, and how we communicate and relate with one another. Reid Goldsborough~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~reidgold@netaxs.com Computer columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer Author of the book Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway Places to read parts of Straight Talk About the Information Superhighway: * Satore Township. Point your Web browser at ftp://ftp.crl.com/ftp/users/ro/mikekell/html/satore.htm. * Macmillan Information SuperLibrary. Point your Web browser at http://www.mcp.com/, then click or choose Alpha. To order the book, phone Macmillan Publishing at 800-428-5331. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 07:07:52 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Area Code 500: It Doesn't and Does Work - or Both Our next message on NPA 500 is subtitled "Fun and Games with Bell Atlantic" for reasons which will become clear. TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: [deleted] *my* 500 number started > working perfectly today. [deleted] when I use my own phone to dial > 1-500-677-1616 (my number) it rings once and I am told it will try > my alternate numbers (because it found my home number to be busy). > When I do 0-500-677-1616 and tell it to bill the call to the phone I > am using, it vanishes for a couple seconds and I get call-waiting ... I decided to try the number to see if it works here or not. Here in Montgomery County, Bell Atlantic does the following: 0-500-677-1616 returns a SIT tone ("") followed by "We're sorry, the number cannot be completed as dialed, please check the area code and the number and dial again. Thank you." Then a rude rattling noise and it repeats; this sounds like a local recording. 1-700-555-1212 "You have reached the AT&T Long Distance Network" (Yes, I know the "official" number is 555-4141, but this one has worked with AT&T, MCI, and Sprint for over ten years and I've gotten in the habit of using it.) 1-500-677-1616 AT&T's sound mark (" AT&T") and it begins a ring. I hung up at this point. (No offense intended, Mr. Moderator, but I just wanted to see if the system worked or not, I really didn't have any reason to call you.) 10288-0-500-677-1616 AT&T's sound mark (" AT&T") then "True Connections" and then asks me for a pin or a calling card number. 10288-1-500-677-1616 returns a SIT tone ("") followed by "We're sorry, it is not necessary to dial a carrier access code for the number you have dialed." 10222-0-500-677-1616 Gives me a live MCI operator, probably because they cannot route this call. (I wanted to check; I never can be sure with Bell Atlantic what might happen.) This was cute; real cute. I then decided to see how much fun I could have reporting this to 611. That was even *more* interesting. (Note: I made the try via MCI's 10222 carrier code after calling 611 because I didn't think of it until later.) After going through a couple of voice mail menu prompts, the attendant answers. When I give her my number, I gave her my virtual alternate ring number, only to have her tell me that's not the number I'm, calling from. (I never use the "real" physical telephone number so I don't even know it.) After I give her the main billing number which is a different line, she then plays a game of asking me the main number which I don't know, I already told her I don't know, and *which she has on a screen in front of her, since later she proceeds to inform me of the correct number*. Finally we get that taken care of. Also, they *still* have the *former* owner of this number listed as the subscriber. I've had this number for over three years, but they still don't have it right. After I tell her that I *can* dial 1-500 or 10288-0-500, and *can't* dial 0-500 or 10288-1-500, her response is to ask me if this is a problem from other phones in the house, and "Could there be a problem with your dial pad?" I was about to try a different phone (which I knew would have the same problem) when reality set in and I realized that the question didn't make any sense. I take a deep breath to calm myself and explain carefully that if there was a problem with the dial pad, it would not have worked when dialing the carrier access code first, either, would it? She then conceded this point. Then she proceeds to suggest it's a carrier problem! I explain to her two points, first that the refusal to accept 0-500 sounds like it's Bell Atlantic's recording, and that the carrier access code not allowed recording must be theirs, and second, that the 500 area code is similar to the 800 area code, the numbers are carrier specific and shouldn't even *need* a carrier access code, thus I believe the problem is in Bell Atlantic's switch. Grudgingly, she agrees to write up a trouble ticket and I give her the number so they can check on it; (Pat, if you get a "strange" call from *Bell Atlantic* checking your 500 number from *AT&T*, I was the one who caused it). We shall see what happens. Based on my prior experience will Bell Atlantic, I hope this is a "difficult" problem; that they can fix easily. If it's an "easy" problem, then I'm worried they will make a mistake and I'll end up getting my phone service switched over to foreign exchange service from West Virginia or something else. :) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got a weird response today when trying my 500 number from the McDonald's Restaurant where I had lunch. O-500 worked fine, and as expected when I pressed # without a pin the response was that the call had to be billed to a calling card. No other options were given. So far so good. Then I tried 1-500 and got the intercept usually given out on phones restricted from 900/976, i.e. "the call you have dialed cannot be placed from this telephone. An operator will not be able to place the call for you." Instead of hanging up, I stayed on the line and after a couple seconds, ringing started ... it rang twice and a new intercept came on the line, "your call cannot be completed as dialed, please check the number and dial again, this is a recording 708-1T". This happened three times in a row, from 708-677. Now didn't someone write here just a couple days ago and say that when they tried 1-500 from a (genuine Bell) payphone that the call was auto- matically dumped to 0-500 and dealt with that way? PAT] ------------------------------ From: davep@u.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik) Subject: Re: AT&T 500 Service and the Hospitality Industry Date: 10 Feb 1995 16:36:35 GMT Organization: University of Washington Darryl Kipps <72623.456@compuserve.com> writes: > As MIS director for a small chain of hotels, I am concerned about > the increasing number of comments I'm seeing here regarding the > inability to access 500 numbers from most PBX's. > At any rate, I'd appreciate billing procedures and rates for 1-500 > service. I'm assuming that 0-500 numbers are always billed to either the > callee or a calling card. Thanks for listening. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > On calls dialed 1-500 and billed direct (or dialed 0-500 if the guest > slips it to you by pressing '1' in response to 'bill this call to the > number you are calling from') you will be billed by AT&T at the rate of > 25 cents per minute during peak and 15 cents per minute at night and > on weekends/holidays. Peak is 8am to 5pm your time, Monday through Friday. Pat - I called AT&T to ask about a 500 number I had reserved. They had no record of the reservation. I then asked if I could reserve the number again. They said that they did not have the prefix I had requested úÿ (467). I presume this is why they dropped my reservation request. All of which brings me to my point. If different carriers "own" different 500 number prefixes, I would expect each to set its own rate. While AT&T might charge .25/.15, Integreslime might charge $5.00/$4.99. This would be a big ouch to the hotels. Keeping up with all of the carriers and all of the rates would be challenging at best. Were it my switch, I would probably block 1-500 calls. Trying to allow direct dialing and hoping to recharge accurately would not be practical. 0-500 calls might be OK, but so many slime carriers ignore billed number screening. If the bill just appears on the local telco statement, it is too hard to screen the bills looking for fraudulently billed 0-500 calls. The only way I would allow 0-500 calls would be if the local telco refused to bill for the teleslime. If the teleslime has to send in a separate bill, it is easy enough to discard. Dave Ptasnik davep@u.washington.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well you are correct that once the others get into the act, it will be a lot harder to keep track of. I only answered Mr. Kipps on the basis of AT&T, which is -- so far as I know -- the only player in 500 right now, although other telcos do have prefixes reserved for themselves. If anything though, I think the others will try to be competitive with AT&T on this service. The only cases where you get the outrageous, non-competitive pricing (such as your $5.00/4.99 example) are when the teleslimes have a more or less captive customer base such as COCOTS in out of the way places, correctional institutions, etc. They know if you are at a COCOT on a street corner somewhere calling collect, you probably -- for whatever reasons of your own lifestyle, etc -- do not have much choice in the matter, so they pull out those high rates. And of course, there is always sex: the teleslimes who specialize in hot chat with very high billings per minute also have many users without a lot of options (the user is aware of) ... and a need which requires attention. But who in their right mind would sign up with teleslime for a 500 number where *they* had to pay that $5.00 rate on calls made to them with pins or where anyone calling them had to pay the same? See my point? People who get 500 service are probably going to more sophisticated than that. So you may get cases where Ameritech (one company proposing 500 service) may charge 26/13 and Sprint may charge 24/17. Each one will offer some different little gimmick in their version of 500, and as so often happens it will be an applications-driven thing as to which works out best for each individual user over a long period of time. But I really cannot imagine the teleslimes getting in on this and trying to adapt it to their high prices and otherwise scam operations. Who would accept it? With that in mind then, if I am correct, I would still maintain hotels and other PBX admins can probably deal with 1-500 without too many hassles. Whoever gets in the game will probably have rates that follow AT&T closely or are cheaper -- probably never more expensive. So what you do is, as long as everything coasts along in that 25/15 - 24/17 - range I expect they will also use, live with it. Watch for the occassional big charge, and when/if it starts to get out of hand, *then* clamp down. PAT] ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: A Strange Man Calls Me About 500 Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 12:30:00 CST This happened several days ago. You may remember we had an article here listing the prefixes assigned in 500 service, and the telcos they were assigned to. A day or two after that article appeared, I got a note from the sysadmin here saying he had received a call from someone who wanted to know 'how to get in touch with TELECOM Digest'. Normally any inquiries about the Digest mail, problems, etc are just handed over to me by the admin. The fellow called the admin on the phone to ask how to reach me and the admin wisely said he would take a message and relay it. I got email from the admin and returned this fellow's call within five to ten minutes. I called him on that MCI common-subscriber 800 number, where you call it, then enter a pin to be directed to the subscriber. This fellow answers the phone by using my name: "Ah hello Mr. Townson, Thank you for returning my call." ... ... this fellow said he did not have an email account, and 'did not know that much about computers' but he was hoping I could send him a copy of that list of carrier prefix assignments for 500. He wanted to know where I got it. I told him it was sent in by a reader, and mentioned the site where that reader could be contacted if he had any questions. Ah, he said, he certainly was familiar with that site, in San Jose, CA. I tossed out the phrase "Bellcore" and he knew all about them also. I told him I couldn't help wondering how, since he had no email and no computer, he would have known about a not that well known public access Unix site in San Jose. He claimed he read about it some magazine. He claimed he wanted to obtain a particular 500 number -- a vanity number -- but it was not available from AT&T so he thought he would find out which company did offer it. I asked him how he heard about TELECOM Digest. Now get this: He told me he was located in Brooklyn, New York, on Avenue U near Flatbush Avenue. He had gone to his local library to see what the reference librarian could tell him. The librarian gave him a few sources for telecom information and he 'decided' to try this Digest. In a book giving internet resources he found that the Archives are housed at MIT. He called some person on the staff at MIT who knew from nothing about the Archives. Then he noted that this resource guide referred inquiries to 'telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu' so he called Northwestern University to ask about the Digest. He finally was connected with the sysadmin who took the message for me. All this, mind you, because he had heard 'from someone' that the Digest had printed, a day or two before, a list of exchanges assigned to the carriers doing or planning to do 500. I asked this fellow who he was and what he did for an occupation. He claims he is 'a retired cab driver'. He sounded to me like he was in his late sixties or even perhaps his seventies. All this time I am thinking to myself he knows far too much to be a retired cab driver in Brooklyn. For a retired cab driver in Brooklyn who has no email, no computer, 'not much computer knowledge' he certainly knows a lot about unix sites in San Jose and how to get ahold of site admins at MIT and Northwestern. He claims he 'bought a computer but never did take it out of the box; it is still sitting in the corner, maybe I should set it up.' I asked him how should I send the message to him with the listing he asked about. Maybe he would like to give me a more precise mailing address. Ummm ... well ... would I read the list to him over the phone? He asked about a couple of companies on the list; rattles off who they are subsidiaries of; wants to know about a couple prefixes in particular. I asked if he had a fax machine; if so, give me the number and I will fax the list. He stalls me on that one also. He says he has a fax but would have to set it up, and 'maybe I can get back to you in a couple days with the phone number it will be on ...' I am holding my nose ... something stinks at this point. I mention that given his location, Avenue U and Flatbush, I believe he must be right by the Bell System international cable which runs close to there. He knows all about that also. He told me he has 'half a dozen 700 numbers', a couple of 800 numbers, and he wants a vanity 500 number. 'Just an unemployed, retired cab driver from Brooklyn .. not much to tell about me ...'. What ticked me off the most was when I called the MCI 800 number using the pin he left, he *knew* it was me calling, even though he claimed 'it was just a guess, I was not expecting any other calls on *that particular* 800 number this afternoon ...' Anyone have any ideas who he is? It just all seemed very odd to me; his persistence in locating me by telephoning MIT, getting no where, then telephoning Northwestern, then knowing when I called back, claiming no email or network connection of any kind -- indeed, not even a computer installed -- but he immediatly recognizes the name of a site on the other side of the country; he knows far, far too much about the industry to be a retired cab driver in Brooklyn, 'living near Avenue U' and wanting his own vanity 500 number to go with his 'several 700 numbers'. He knows about Bellcore and obviously about 800 ANI. I'd like his name and address please, if possible. He wouldn't tell me himself. Thanks, PAT ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 05:47:34 -0800 From: HBecker@ix.netcom.com (Henry Becker) Subject: 976 Look-Alike Exchanges I am trying to compile and maintain a complete list of 976 and 976 look-alike exchanges in the United States. Does anyone know where I can find such a list? If you only know of exchanges in your local area I would appreciate receiving this information. With it I can compile and maintain this list, and with Patrick's permission provide it for inclusion in the Telecom Archives. ------------------------------ From: holst@vm.meb.uni-bonn.de (Michael Holstein) Subject: Ericsson GH337 Codes Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 07:52:45 GMT Organization: Medizinische Einrichtungen Bonn I am looking for the Code to get the IMEI no. of my Ericsson phone. Does anybody know the sequence. I think it was something like *xx# but I can't remeber it. Thank you, Michael Holstein ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 05:08:28 -0500 Subject: BellSouth Joins World Wide Web From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Organization: Internex Online BellSouth Corporation has set up a WWW server at http://www.atglab.bls.com which may be of interest to Digest readers. It contains general information about the company and its subsidiaries, and a limited number of company press releases. Stentor, the consortium of Canadian telephone companies, now has a WWW server at http://www.stentor.ca which you may also enjoy looking at. It offers a limited amount of information about Stentor and its member companies. Nigel Allen ndallen@io.org ------------------------------ From: jff@ix.netcom.com (Jeffrey Friedman) Subject: VocalTec Internet Telephone Date: 10 Feb 1995 15:23:11 GMT Organization: Netcom I'm trying to track down information about a program mentioned in today's {Wall Street Journal}. It is supposed to be downloadable from somewhere on the Net. It is from a company called VocalTec, and lets you use the Net as a telephone. Anyone with a 486 or faster machine, with a 14.4 modem, a sound card and microphone, can talk in half- duplex mode with anyone else with the same equipment. Jeffrey F. Friedman jff@ix.netcom.com jeff@friedman.com ------------------------------ From: cedric@marvin.df.lth.se (Urban Nilsson) Subject: GSM-PCN Chipset, Radio, Baseband !?!? Date: 10 Feb 1995 15:46:38 GMT Organization: yacc - the Computer Society at Lund University Hello! I have a small question for a friend. Is there someone who knows anything about the GSM system, perhaps sourcecode, specifications or anything at all *and* which GSM-chipsets are available and coming up on the market? Ill be happy for any info! Thanks in advance! Urban Nilsson, Kamnarsv. 5D:210, 226 46 Lund, Sweden, +46 46 395199 cedric@df.lth.se, dat91uni@ludat.lth.se ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 08:37:53 CET From: SHAW +41 22 730 5338 Subject: Pointers to Telecom Resource Server Sites on the Net The International Telecommunication Union in Geneva is finalizing development of its World Wide Web Server and we wish to include pointers to other telecom resource servers on the Net. We have an extensive list but there are surely some we have missed so if you have an interesting WWW, Gopher, or FTP server relating to telecom, send us an email with the appropriate URL so that we can include it. Thanks in advance, Robert Shaw Information Exchange Division Information Services Department International Telecommunication Union Place des Nations 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland TEL: +41 22 730 5338/5554 FAX: +41 22 730 5337 X.400:G=robert;S=shaw;A=arcom;P=itu;C=ch Internet: shaw@itu.ch ------------------------------ From: hqtel@cct.hydro.qc.ca (Usager hqtel) Subject: Need a Contact For Teradyne RFTS 4SIGHT System 2000 Reply-To: hqtel@cct.hydro.qc.ca Organization: Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, QC, Canada Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 12:21:35 GMT I'm wondering if someone has an address, a telephone/fax numbers and/or names of people working for Teradyne. We are interested to receive information about their Remote Fiber test System 4SIGHT System 2000. Thank you, Dr. Jean Raymond Hydro-Quebec Telecommunications Control Centre Montreal, Canada rayj@cct.hydro.qc.ca ------------------------------ From: itelecom@bilbo.pic.net (David M. Russell) Subject: Wanted: Used Business Telephone Systems and T1 Date: 10 Feb 1995 15:56:46 GMT Organization: Integrity Telecommunications Integrity Telecommunications 214-357-7484 Voice David M. Russell 214-357-7485 Fax 2970 Blystone Lane, Ste.102 itelecom@pic.net email Dallas, TX 75220-1515 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 09:59:30 PST From: richardb@trwind.TRW.COM (Richard Brehove) Subject: Telco Signaling Requirements I will be specifying interfaces to our new facilities throughout the world. I will need to spedify interfaces to the local telephone network in that country. Short of going to each country and getting their individual specs, given that they will give them to me at all, I want to get a list of what country uses what signalling specification. I have a list of the names of about 13 different signalling specs, (R1, R3, C4, C5, etc.) and I need to know If this list is sufficient, too many, or missing some. Does somebody have a list of what country uses what signalling spec? I would appreciate any information. I will try to keep up with comp.dcom.telecom, but I would appreciate direct email as well. (richard_brehove@qmail4.sp.trw.com) Thank you, Richard Brehove ------------------------------ Subject: Cellular service in Palo Alto From: henderson@mln.com (Javier Henderson) Date: 10 Feb 95 10:12:27 PST Organization: Medical Laboratory Network; Ventura, CA I tried posting this in comp.dcom.telecom.tech but got exactly zero responses. I'm moving to Palo Alto, and I'd like recommendations for a cellular service provider up there. Thanks, Javier Henderson (JH21) henderson@mln.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since most of the readers in the know about the topic tend to read the Digest, perhaps a few answers will be forthcoming here for you. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #95 *****************************