TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Feb 95 09:30:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 100 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CFP: IN Conference in Copenhagen (J|rgen N|rgaard) Hollings Bill Available (Jeff Richards) Place-a-Call Now Available From AT&T 500 Service (Gary Novosielski) Assistance Wanted With Microwave Communication Network (John Hong) Telecom Sales Rep Firms Wanted (Daniel A. Ash) Books on SNMP Wanted (Elin Sundin) How Can I Get Employment in Telecom Industry? (Mark A. Bentley) Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Bob Goudreau) Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Lars Poulsen) Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Jeff Box) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jnp@tdr.dk (J|rgen N|rgaard) Subject: CFP: IN Conference in Copenhagen Organization: Tele Danmark Research, Denmark Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 14:32:11 GMT Call for Papers, IFIP IN Conference *********************************** International Working Conference on Intelligent Networks ======================================================== Center for Tele-Information at DTU (Technical University of Denmark) and Tele Danmark Research are organising the International Working Conference on Intelligent Networks sponsored by IFIP-TC6 in Copenhagen, August 30-31 1995. The conference will be hosted by the Center for Tele-Information at DTU located in Lyngby just north of Copenhagen. This CFP is also available on the WWW as http://www.tdr.dk/~jnp/ifipin.html. Call For Papers =============== At the moment there are two major trends in Intelligent Networks (IN) development: o ITU and ETSI based IN o and long term development as undertaken by, for example, the TINA consortium and the European RACE and ACTS programmes. The present IN development, based on capability set technologies, is on the way to the network. The migration path from IN to, for example, TINA architectures are still under study. But there is a distinct move towards more open platforms for the functional entities, such as SSP, SCP, SDF, etc. supported with, for example, the core INAP protocol. At the same time a number of research projects are defining an IN architecture to be used in broadband networks as well as in present networks. The first demonstrations of these concepts are scheduled for '95. The integration of intelligence in broadband and mobile networks, and the way in which the service logic is distributed may shake industries. The aim of the the Working Conference is to collect state of the art contributions in the area of IN technology. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: o Service Provider solutions on Service Creation and Management o Applications on Broadband and Mobile o Experimental systems and case studies o Performance issues o Long Term IN Architectures Papers should not exceed 12 pages including text and illustrations. Frontpage should contain authors' names, affiliations, address, phone, fax and e-mail address and an abstract. All submitted papers will be reviewed. Contributions must be send to: Osa Bennett Center for Tele-Information Technical University of Denmark Elektrovej, Building 371 DK-2800 Lyngby Denmark at the latest June 9 1995. Previous Conferences: The growing importance of Intelligent Networks for Teleoperators and Service Providers in a competitive market, stimulated IFIP TC-6 (Telecommunication Systems) to establish a task group on IN. The task group organised IN Workshops in 1993 and 1994 at the Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland. Due to the success of these workshops the event is now proceeding as a Working Conference in 1995 in Copenhagen, Denmark and Conference in 1996 in Dallas, USA. Program Committee: o Andy Bihain, GTE, USA o Dominique Gaiti, Columbia University, USA o Villy Bfk Iversen, Center for Tele-Information, DTU, Denmark o Caroline Knight, Hewlett-Packard Lab, UK o Olli Martikainen, Telecom Finland, Finland o Jxrgen Nxrgaard, Tele Danmark Research, Denmark o Guy Pujolle, University of Versaille, France o Kimmo Raatikainen, University of Helsinki, Department of Computer Science, Finland o Raymond Schlachter, EURESCOM, Germany o James White, AG Communication Systems, USA Organising Committee: o Villy Bfk Iversen, Center for Tele-Information, Denmark, vbi@it.dtu.dk o Osa Bennett, Center for Tele-Information, Denmark o Jxrgen Nxrgaard, Tele Danmark Research, Denmark, jnp@tdr.dk o Annegrete Frandsen, Tele Danmark Research, Denmark, annegrete@tdr.dk Addresses: o Center for Tele-Information, Phone: +45 4587 1577, Fax: +45 4596 3171, Technical University of Denmark, Elektrovej, Building 371, DK-2800 Lyngby o Tele Danmark Research, Phone: +45 4576 6444, Fax: +45 4576 6336, Lyngsx Alli 2, DK-2970 Hxrsholm, Denmark, URL: http://www.tdr.dk/ Important dates: June 9 1995 Paper submission deadline July 21 1995 Notification of acceptance send to authors August 18 1995 Camera-ready copy of final papers due August 30-31 1995 Conference Direct questions to jnp@tdr.dk jxrgen nxrgaard | e-mail: jnp@tdr.dk Tele Danmark Research | Phone: +45 4576 6444 Lyngsx Alle 2 | Fax: +45 4576 6336 DK-2970 Hxrsholm, Denmark|URL: http://www.tdr.dk/~jnp/ ------------------------------ From: Jeff Richards Subject: Hollings Bill Available Date: 16 Feb 1995 14:25:43 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470 Senator Hollings' Staff Working Draft, the "Universal Service Telecommunications Act of 1995," is now posted on along with reaction by Gary McBee, Alliance chairman. Also new today is the Alliance's review of the January 31 Senate Discussion Draft from Senator Pressler. You can subscribe to the listserver --> Use four words in the body of the message: SUBSCRIBE BELL YOUR_FIRST_NAME YOUR_LAST_NAME As always, your comments are welcome. Jeff Richards The Alliance for Competitive Communications & Pacific Telesis Group Internet: richards@bell.com and =SUBSCRIBE BELL YOUR_LAST YOUR_FIRSTNAME +1 202 973-5307 voice 1133-21st NW #700 +1 202 973-5351 TDD Washington DC 20036-3349 +1 202 973-5341 fax +1 800 SKY-PAGE pin 8550304 +1 202 383-6445 2nd office ------------------------------ From: gary.novosielski@sbaonline.gov Organization: Small Business Administration Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 03:10:13 -0400 Subject: Place-A-Call Now Available From AT&T 500 Service > With True Connections Place-A-Call, you can make calls from almost any > touch-tone phone. Just dial your 500 number, enter your master PIN > and follow directions. The rate for using this feature is $.95 > non-peak/$1.05 peak for the first minute and $.15/$.25 for each > subsequent minute, only for state-to-state calls. (Calling prices > within a state may vary.) When making several calls at once, press > "*R" between calls to return back to the menu. Woah! $1.05 for the first minute? That's completely different from what the AT&T rep told me last December when I was inquiring about 500 service. She was explaining all the different service levels, and mentioned that with the top one or two, I could get this Place-a-Call service. "Oh, you mean like a calling card?", I said. "No, much better than a calling card, because there will be no surcharge on the first minute of the call. The whole thing will be billed at the .25/.15 rate." I said that did sound interesting indeed, but wondered out loud why AT&T would seemingly undercut their own calling card rates so readily. "Well," she said, "I guess they reasoned that it would only take a smart user a moment or two to realize that they could achieve the same thing by forwarding their 500 number to the place they wanted to call, calling their own number, and then forwarding it back. They're just making the process easier, since you can do it anyway." As she was telling me this, a little voice in the back of my head was saying, "No, that just makes too much sense. It can't be true. It implies a level of sophistication on AT&T's part, combined with a respect for the intelligence of the customer, which are unknown in the industry." It seems the little voice was right. But will her alternate scenario work? The only objection I can see is that someone else may dial the 500 number while you're on the call, and they would be forwarded to the same destination as your call. But with a minimum cost of $1.05 per call, it could be worth getting a separate unpublished 500 number, and using it solely for beating the calling card surcharges. Come to think of it, an 800 number might be better for this use, as long as it could be follow-me forwarded toll free. Gary Novosielski GPN Consulting [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of their competition allows outcalls via 800, such as MyLine and Arch with no additional first minute charges. If you get a second 500 number exclusively for the purpose you describe, you must remember there will be monthly service fees on that which will offset some of the savings under your scheme. Their ill-fated postcard which went out in error -- outcalls are not available yet, no date when they will be, despite the postcard -- did mention the $1.05/95 rate for the first minute. Who knows, maybe that was wrong also. Unless you expect your 500 number to get a lot of traffic, I imagine you can get by with just one. Its unlikely a second call will come in just at the same moment. What you can do is set it up to forward your call as you describe then immediatly when you place your call and the other end answers, if there is a second phone line handy, you can use it to dial in 0-500 and take down the forwarding. It won't disturb your call in progress. PAT] ------------------------------ From: yanming@ee.pdx.edu (Yanming Shi) Subject: Assistance Wanted With Microwave Communication Network Date: 15 Feb 1995 16:26:51 -0800 Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR I am looking for One point(HUB) to multiple points(remotes) microwave telephony system. The system will be used in an area of islands.The system topology is: The Hub is in center of several islands with microwave links to the remotes at the another islands around. The Hub has switching capacity with 200 lines which provides interconnection for all users among the islands (Hub to remote and remote to remote). I am grateful to everyone who read this mail and more indebted to who will give information on the above issue. Name, telephone number and fax number of the vendors are appreciated. Email is even better. Please reply to me at hongs@mimi.cnc.ac.cn which is in China. Thanks and best regards, John Hong ------------------------------ From: ashcan@netcom.com (Daniel A. Ash) Subject: Telecom Sales Rep Firms Wanted Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:18:06 GMT Does a list of US and/or International sales rep firms exist? The more detailed the better. I am interested in telecom equipment sales only. Thanks, Dan AshCan Engineering - ashcan@aol.com, ashcan@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Elin.Sundin@sundsvall.trab.se (Elin Sundin) Subject: Books on SNMP Wanted Reply-To: Elin.Sundin@sundsvall.trab.se Organization: Telia Research AB Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 09:06:45 GMT Hi, Can someone please recommend a couple of books on SNMP (from beginner's level up to a more advanced level)? I would appreciate ANY suggestions. Please email me on Elin.Sundin@sundsvall.trab.se. Thanks in advance, Elin ------------------------------ From: bentlema@cda.mrs.umn.edu (Mark A. Bentley ) Subject: How Can I Get Employment in Telecom Industry? Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:47:18 CST Greetings fellow telecom enthusiasts. I'm writing to TELECOM Digest seeking advice as to how I might best prepare myself to get into a telecommunications related job. Through my on-going education at the University of Minnesota, Morris and my work experiences at U S WEST (summer intern) I have found that I am most interested in LAN/WAN technology and connectivity. I would enjoy designing, setting up, and administering a LAN/WAN. I'm an especially intrigued by the nation-wide (and worldwide) telecommunications infra- structure, and have put many hours into studying these areas. I am also a UNIX enthusiast and have been the SysAdmin for one of the UNIX boxes on campus for over a year. Currently I am in the third year at the U of M pursuing a degree in Computer Science. If any of you could suggest a course of action that I might take (after receiving my CS degree) I would be most pleased. úÿ Thank you. Mark Bentley A.K.A. Seeklore bentlema@cda.mrs.umn.edu (DEC/Ultrix) University of Minnesota, Morris bentlema@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu (NeXT) For WWW, click here for my Web Home Page. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 12:02:55 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing > [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. Of course, such a rationale would make sense only in the context of changing the dialing plan to allow *any* country to be dialed as just . But that idea won't fly unless we're also prepared to change our existing N11 numbers into something else (say, 1N11 or 0N11). The problem is that some international calls would have the same initial three digits as some very important N11 numbers (namely 911 and 411), and therefore timeouts would be required to disambiguate the two. This might not be such a big deal in the case of Directory Assistance (411) vs. Zurich, Switzerland (41-1-). But it certainly would be a problem for Emergency (911) vs. Delhi, India (91-11-). I don't think that anyone wants to add delays to the 911 system, and I also doubt that there will be much enthusiasm for changing the emergency number and then educating everyone about the new one. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have received messages from 911 employees at one time or another saying there still remains confusion between the police emergency line and the code for India. Police have received calls on their emergency line and answered, only to hear additional buttons being pressed as the person continues dialing a complete number in India. When they can get the person's attention, the caller seems very confused about why he got the police instead of whoever he was calling. Obviously he forgot the '011' part, but police dispatchers on a busy night do not have a lot of patience to sit and explain that to the confused caller. PAT] ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 04:15:16 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc. In article Pat writes, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not that I am saying your comparison is > quite correct, but I would not mind having Ma Bell again. The competitors > are fine also, but Ma Bell should have been left intact. I think Greene > should have opened the door to competition, absolutely required that AT&T > work fairly, at arm's length with all competitors regards interconnection > and let it go at that, with a short speech saying something like this: That's essentially what they're trying to accomplish in Canada now ... > Now that would have been true competition, and the American way. Instead, > Greene nearly guts AT&T. What were they supposed to do, apologize for having > been in business for a century, and deny all their accomplishments over > that period of time just so MCI could make their money a little sooner? ... but you unfairly (again) attempt to blame Judge Greene for something that wasn't even his doing! Here's the historical reality. AT&T wanted to be broken up. The original case was against Western Electric and AT&T's ownership thereof. WECo had an effective monopoly on public network manufacturing in the USA; with about 84% of the lines (AT&T's). All other manufacturers (GTE, ITT, Stromberg, etc.) had to fight for the remaining crumbs. The goverment sued to have AT&T divest Western Electric. AT&T countered by divesting the local telcos. The Reagan administration's Justice Department liked the idea and handed it to the Judge. He actually ameliorated some of its harsher terms; as originally set up, it was (IMHO) to be an out- and-out screw job on the to-be-divested local Bells. AT&T wanted rid of the Bells because everyone knew that computers and long distance were the profit items; local telcos received huge subsidies via the splifs. Of course not everything worked out as planned. AT&T's initial forays into the computer business were less than stellar, while the Bells have not all done so badly! I do however agere that the rules need reform nowadays; they're overly rigid and seem more designed for market allocation than for consumer protection. Cellular is just the most obvious, egregious weakness. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? Date: 16 Feb 1995 12:42:56 GMT Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products In article brent@cc.gatech.edu (Brent Laminack) writes: > What is the current thinking on when a PC (powerPC, whatever) replace > the PBX? i.e. when can I run my T1 from the telco with my voice trunks > on it into one card on a PC and have it route voice over the LAN to > other desktop computers that double as phones? It will probably be a > time curve: first available for small offices (ten users) on an ethernet, > then a while later available for 200 lines on a faster LAN, etc. What > says the net? My Mitel sx200 lite has a 68000 for a processor: it's a > MacPlus! Surely the cpu horsepower is available to replace lots of > dedicated TTL and switching hardware. I was just at a briefing from > Apple and they're working with the PBX makers for a Geoport Mac to be > a voice terminal behind a "big maker" PBX. But who are the startups > that are out to kill the PBX makers? A PBX consists of two parts: a switching fabric and a control processor. Most switches today have a switching fabric that is hardwired; the control processor does not need much power; the 68000 that you mention is a good choice. An 8080 would be enough, but has insufficient room for programs in its 64 KB address space. It is possible to build a switching fabric entirely of almost-standard computer hardware plus analog/digital conversion chips. The economics are definitely headed in that direction. The problem is that the program must ALWAYS be running, and the inexpensive personal computers do not have that kind of stability. I would expect that someone will soon put a small PBX on a PC plug-in card in the same way that people are now putting network hubs and even small routers on such cards. This will become especially attractive as stable multitasking systems take over from Windows and Mac-OS. Today, this is commonly done for keysystem-sized ISDN PBXs, which benefit from being able to install software updates via the PC disk drive. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM Rockwell Network Systems Phone: +1-805-562-3158 7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Internets: designed and built while you wait ------------------------------ From: jeffb65582@aol.com (JeffB65582) Subject: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? Date: 15 Feb 1995 17:09:38 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jeffb65582@aol.com (JeffB65582) PC's as PBXs? You've found one of my favorite subjects here. I'm the VP of Systems Development for a small switching system manufacturer that's been around for eleven years. In parallel with the development of our business, I have watched the development of the PC industry and been on the constant lookout for how we can benefit from PC technology in our product line. It's truly a good news / bad news story. PC's have attractiveness in that they supply enormous computing power at low cost. However, they also have many architectural limitations as well. If you want to use a PC for a PBX, you should consider some of the architectural limitations I'm talking about. Try these as examples: 1. Not enough card slots. A big PBX has hundreds of port card slots. My smallest PBX has forty (to support 288 ports). PBX port cards are generally much larger in surface area than PC ISA cards to support the many interfaces and high voltage spacing requirements. Don't forget that the port cards have to deal with the transient surges from multitudes of phone lines that all serve as "antennas" during every thunderstorm. 2. No ability for hot maintenance. Try adding a new card or replacing a card in your PC without turning it off and without interrupting its operation. Sure, you can pay technicians overtime to work after hours but that eats up the savings that drive the PC idea in the first place. 3. Inadequate power systems. Remember, the PBX has to power the ports, usually with -48VDC. Its important to keep the phones running all the time. Existing PC power supplies, voltages, backplanes, and connectors aren't up to it except in small cases. 4. PC technology is in a constant state of flux. Part of the PBX vendor's task is configuration management. Reliability partly stems from doing a good design, testing it, and then replicating it with identical copies. PC's change so rapidly that its very difficult to put them into a product that has a ten year plus service expectation. You need to have a continuous ongoing engineering process just to deal with PC design evolution. Try the desk top view point: How many PCs had your phone seen come and go from your desk top? What was the average PC cost? Convert that to dollars per year and see if you still think the PC will save money. 5. No hardware aid for software reliability. PBX systems do not have perfect software. They achieve high reliability through a combination of excellent software, testing, and certain hardware features designed to make the total combination have better reliability characteristics. Redundancy, load sharing, watch dog timers, and distributed intelligence, when properly applied, all contribute to this. If PC software vendors have a solution for this, they're keeping it well hidden. These are but a few examples of the problems we have faced trying to use PC technology in the switching business. Dealing with the customer requirements reflected above is a major ingredient to our survival in a market where many other start-up companies have vanished. Of course, it is said that PC's can evolve to meet any objections I raise for use at telephone equipment. You must decide, however, when you cross over the line where the "PC" you started with has changed so much that it can no longer be recognized as a "PC". It may surprise some to hear that PBX vendors are not ignorant of PC developments. Over the last several years, PC technology has had a significant impact on PBX design. Processors, chip sets, PCMCIA memory, and many other components that were pioneered by the PC industry have found their way into modern PBX design where they save cost and do not compromise reliability. If you look "under the hood" of some PBX's, you might identify what you see as an evolved PC. Perhaps they only reason they are not considered to be PCs is because they "don't do windows". These comments would be incomplete if I didn't mention that there are some products on the market that identify themselves as PC based PBX systems. In each case, they have found a niche where they try to work around the issues raised above with a combination of modified PC hardware and external equipment. Two systems I'm familiar with can not support ground start, direct inward dial, and T1 trunk connections. They use external devices to convert the phone trunks to loop start lines they support. Some also use external power supplies yielding a collection of boxes to support the PBX function. The PC technology disk storage gives them good capabilities in voice messaging and the VGA display can yield a single nice attendant display. Some of the other points I made above are simply not addressed in these products and time will tell what portion of the small line size market can accept the compromises. I applaud their pioneering approach while at the same time I know that their products can not meet many of the customer bid specs that I see. One of the neat things about the telecommunications marketplace is the enormous room for different ideas and products. If there is a significant class of customers that accept these systems, it should become apparent in the next year or two. My own company uses PCs as data collectors and report processors for PBX based automatic call distributors. If these PCs go down, the phone switch continues to process calls. We also have a blended architecture ACD (automatic call distributor) product which uses an industrial PC coupled with existing switching equipment shelves (of our own design) to produce an advanced call center system some of the best features of both. This product provides ACD call functionality, voice messaging, IVR, and fax server functions integrated together. These systems focus the PC into the areas where it is strong and cost effective while allowing the benefits of the existing switch equipment to be retained. If necessary, the entire PC can be duplicated in a redundant configuration. We continue to look for and innovate with PC technology. But the PC technology needs to blend with many other elements to make a good telecommunications system. I tend to agree with "Chazworth@aol.com" that the PBX vendors of today will still be the providers tomorrow no matter what the technology evolves to. Users still need the service & maintenance expertise of these. When something breaks, they NEED it fixed with on-site persons very quickly and the PC industry has done little to address this. Jeff Box, Shared Resource Exchange, Inc. (SRX) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #100 ******************************