TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Mar 95 19:24:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 129 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson True NANP and Common Dialing Practices (John Shelton) Winsock Problem (Greg Polimis) Wireless Modems (Mukesh Sharma) And the Grammy For Poor Planning Goes to ... (Scott D. Fybush) Bulk Call Generators (jplotky@atlanta.glenayre.com) Rio-1 ACS-CELP Information Wanted (Sing Li) Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted (Dcott B. Campbell) Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted (Steve Copeland) Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted (Jean Tkacik) Re: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs (Lars Poulsen) Re: Need Help With Digital Phone Line (John Lundgren) Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Tim Allman) Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Atri Indiresan) Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act (Glenn Foote) Re: Cellular "Auto-Registration" (George Wang) Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Planned for the 'Net' (John Steele) 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: John Shelton Subject: True NANP and Common Dialing Practices Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 8:57:48 PDT When will we really have a true North American Numbering Plan, one that is used consistently throughout US and Canada? Is it really that hard to get everone to agree: xxx - special service codes (e.g. Info, Emergency) xxx xxxx - abbreviated form of 1+ ten digit dialing, where the area code (NPA) is the same. 0 xxx xxxx - abbreviated form of 0+ ten digit dialing, where the area code (NPA) is the same. 1 xxx xxx xxxx - caller paid, direct dialed call 0 xxx xxx xxxx - alternate billing, direct dialed call Using the long form should *always* be legal. Seven digit dialing might require timeouts (or trailing #). It's really frustrating that I cannot program my cellular phone with autodial numbers that work anywhere I go. Some places REQUIRE a leading 1 for all calls, and some places REQUIRE lack of a leading 1. Harumph. John [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your complaint has validity, however I suspect the people in Pakistan with cellular phones would be quite pleased right now if they could dial *anything at all* on their cell phones. As reported here a few days ago, the citizens of that country found their cellular service suddenly turned off -- apparently perman- ently disconnected when the government was unable to monitor their conversations as it wished. When the carrier there was unable for technical reasons to provide the level of monitoring desired by the government, the government's response was to raid the offices of the carrier and turn it off completely. I wonder if they have since relented and restarted the service or if it is still off. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Greg@quadravision.com (Greg Polimis) Reply-To: Greg@quadravision.com Subject: Winsock Problem Date: 02 Mar 1995 15:44:26 GMT Organization: Quadravision Communications I'm having a problem with Winsock. My username is being sent fine but my password is not accepted. Has anyone ever encountered this problem before and can they render any assistance? I'd appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks! Quadravision Communications 931 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M4W 2H2 voice (416)-960-8400 fax (416)-960-8401 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 14:47:43 EST From: telenet!honey!msharma@uunet.uu.net (Mukesh Sharma) Subject: Wireless Modems Hi, I am looking for some information on wireless modems. I am just starting in wireless area. Text/publication or magazines names is what I am looking I will appreciate your help Thanks, sharma MUKESH.SHARMA@adn.sprint.com ------------------------------ From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush) Subject: And the Grammy For Poor Planning Goes to ... Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 15:38:27 GMT During the Grammy awards Wednesday night, AT&T was a heavy sponsor with their "True Voice" ads, including the first one I'd seen in Spanish (at least on English-language TV). Curious to hear the Spanish-language True Voice demo, I picked up the phone and dialed ... only to get a recording in Spanish informing me to try my call again in five minutes, as the demo lines were busy. When I tried the English-language lines, same thing. Seems to me if I were advertising something, especially if I were the (well, "a") phone company, I'd try harder to have enough lines available to handle expected caller demand ... Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: jplotky@atlanta.glenayre.com Subject: Bulk Call Generators Date: 2 Mar 1995 22:22:57 GMT Organization: Glenayre Electronics I'm looking for a large capacity bulk call generator (48 T1 or E1 spans). I need the equipment to test the call handling capacity of various equipment. I am looking to meet the following requirements: - generate and accept calls from the system under test; - line and register signalling protocols fully programmable on per line basis (e.g. E&M, loop, DTMF, MFR1, MFR2 compelled, etc); - ability to do continuity test port to port; - generate/detect DTMF tones under program control at any time during the test call. I would also like to have: - detect call progress tones and voice; - ISDN If anyone can point me in the direction of such equipment, my thanks will be bountiful. jp ------------------------------ From: lsing@hookup.net (Sing Li) Subject: Rio-1 ACS-CELP Information Wanted Date: 1 Mar 1995 00:39:00 GMT Does anyone know where I can obtain some technical information on the Rio-1 ACS-CELP coder? Any help (via email or follow-up posting) will be greatly appreciated. Regards, Sing Li microWonders Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 16:10:05 +0000 From: scott-b.campbell@nt.com Subject: Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted Organization: Northern Telecom In article , keith.knipschild@asb.com writes: > Does anyone know where I can get my hands on the NORTHERN TELECOM > "M9516" Telephone? In Canada, try Anixter. In Mississauga, their phone number is 905-897- 5665. The telcos will be picking it up a little later. The only reviews I know of are in industry mags (like the market research paper Yankeevision) or on TV (i.e., Gadget Guru, the Today Show). Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 23:32:14 +0000 From: steve.copeland@nt.com Subject: Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted Organization: Bell Northern Research keith.knipschild@asb.com wrote: > Does anyone know where I can get my hands on the NORTHERN TELECOM > "M9516" Telephone? In the U.S., call Call Direct at 1-800-842-7439. They can mail you one. Steve ------------------------------ From: tkacik@mathworks.com (Jean Tkacik) Subject: Re: N.T. M9516 Telephone Wanted Date: 2 Mar 1995 15:05:31 GMT Organization: The MathWorks Inc. You may want to give TAC CENTRE a call at 617-944-5709. Located in Reading MA, they are a remarketer of Northern Telecom equipment. Ask for Stephen, Jeff or Dave. They should be able to help you or place you in contact with someone who can. Good luck!! ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs Date: 2 Mar 1995 11:14:56 -0800 Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products I have edited the Bell Atlantic press release a little to keep the quotes tighter: Bell> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 13:23:21 GMT Bell> From: Bell Atlantic Bell> Subject: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs Bell> On Jan. 11, the FCC refused to allow NYNEX to restructure ISDN Bell> subscriber line charges (SLCs) to be more competitive with other Bell> carriers. The SLC is federally mandated and is set annually. The SLC Bell> is used to subsidize local telephone network costs, which helps to keep Bell> basic residential telephone service affordable. The Commission ruled Bell> that separate SLCs should be billed for each ISDN channel; ISDN lines Bell> have up to 24 channels. Bell> Bell Atlantic said ... customers, but the recent FCC ruling will increase Bell> the cost of the service 20 to 30 percent. Bell> Several other carriers are billing SLCs per ISDN line, not channel. Bell> SLC amounts vary by jurisdiction, but are currently as high as $6.00 Bell> per line within Bell Atlantic's region. Bell Atlantic is a world Bell> leader in providing ISDN technology with over 91,400 ISDN lines in Bell> service. All common carriers must now comply with the FCC's rule Bell> interpretation in the NYNEX case unless they obtain a waiver. I find this propaganda piece both strange and outrageous for several reasons. (1) The definition of a telephone line must have been discussed before; after all, delivery of local loops on T-spans predates the MFJ. Surely, you pay the SLC PER CHANNEL on a T-span, no? (2) Since the SLC goes directly to the LEC, the cost to the customer (base subscription plus SLC) should be the same regardless of the amount of the SLC, shouldn't it? If the monthly amount is $10 per line plus $6 SLC, the customer pays $16. If the SLC goes away, the LEC loses the SLC-funded subsidy, so they will have to charge $16 per line per month. The difference is entirely in the bookkeeping of amortization and depreciation allocations. (3) If the SLC is mandated by FCC, I would think that the amount would be standardized across the country. How can it vary with the Bell Atlantic Service Area ? What is going on? Is my point two above completely wrong? 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: jlundgre@kn.PacBell.COM (John Lundgren) Subject: Re: Need Help With Digital Phone Line Date: 1 Mar 1995 20:59:53 GMT Organization: Pacific Bell Knowledge Network sharp@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu wrote: > I need to build a phone system in my apartment. I want to come out of > the handset jack on the phone with a normal telephone, answering machine, > and a fax/modem board. > They tell me their dedicated data lines won't support over 9600 baud. > Would a 14.4 or 28.8 modem work over the voice line? I'm thinking there > may be some limitation to the A/D D/A converter in the telephone, or else > they'd be doing that. > I'm on a university phone system with digital voice and data lines. > Instead of a modem, I have to rent an Ericsson MD110 TAU (terminal > adapter unit) 2520 "modem." I'm sure this was great when they bought it > in '88 but I'm stuck at 9600 baud. It sounds like this is an ISDN phone system. If so, then there could be a way to get another channel of data on the other digital channel, since there are two 64 KPBPS channels per line and one data, or 16 KBPS channel. > Because of the digital voice line, I also must use an (as in 1 and > only 1) Ericsson telephone and the university voice mail system, which > crashes a lot. > The setup is cool in that I have separate data and voice #'s but I can > still control the voice line from my pc. If I could come up with > something that could take advantage of this, that would be great, > although I'd prefer to have a standalone unit independant of my pc. > What's more, I'm in married student housing so I'm due to get updated > some time in the next century. úÿ I'm astounded that the university can't make an accommodation for your needs whether they be modem, FAX, or a second analog voice circuit. With standard telephone wiring all over the place, it's just a matter of crossconnecting the pair to some other circuit that goes to a central office instead of to your PBX. If this is a matter of money, that you don't want to pay to have it done, then that is another matter, and you'll just have to deal with that. John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs Rancho Santiago Community College District 17th St. at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 jlundgre@pop.rancho.cc.ca.us\jlundgre@kn.pacbell.com ------------------------------ From: tea@mcs.com (Tim Allman) Subject: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act Date: 1 Mar 1995 09:29:39 -0600 It is not really necessary to pay to avoid a listing. You can use ANY name for your listing -- seperate from your billing name. If you look up Tom Mato in the phone book, you will find me. The side effect of this is that when you get phone calls at dinnertime looking for "Mr. Mato", you can really have some fun. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Lots of people list the phone in their (imaginary) roomate's name. Of course, that by itself does not get away from the problem of having your address available when people use a cross-reference directory and find your 'roomate' name. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 18:17:22 -0500 From: Atri Indiresan I have a friend who simply had the number listed under another name. So, if the phone rang and the caller asked for Mr. or Mrs. Smith (or whatever it was), she knew right away that it was a telemarketer. Worth a try, I think. A philosophical question: why should a telco charge to keep a number unlisted? It doesn't seem like it would cost them anything (one more field in the customer record), and would save them printing a few pages in the directory. Atri [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the old days when telco did not charge for directory assistance, they charged for non-pub listings simply because people could not find the number in the book (obviously) and would waste the time of the DA operator trying to find it from her. That was the reason for the 'added cost of a non-pub phone'. Now that everyone pays for DA whether you get anything out of them during the conversation or not, it would seem to be hard to justify charging the subscriber also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: Re: Non-Published Phone Number and Privacy Act Date: 2 Mar 1995 15:01:13 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Ron Higgins (rhiggins@carroll1.cc.edu) wrote: (privacy act to limit info via Caller ID) TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think you will find the various privacy > regulations apply more to the government than they do to private businesses. > Since telco is a privately owned business -- not a government entity -- it > may be hard to apply this as you want. Also there would be a conflict where > your contract with telco (as expressed through its tariffs) is concerned. > I can see what you are trying to accomplish, but I don't think it will work. > Remember also that according to telco tariffs, you have no 'property rights' > in your telephone number. It is not, strictly speaking, yours to 'protect'. > It will be interesting to hear the results of your investigation and efforts > as you proceed further on this, if you do. You should also bear in mind that > you can press *67 all you like, but it will NOT prevent subscribers to 800 > service (or people who subscribe to 500 service who accept your reverse > charge call via a PIN) from getting your number. Likewise, long distance > carriers are entitled to have your name, address and phone number *despite > your non-pub status* for billing purposes when you use their network. PAT] My comments ... Pat, You are right [as usual ;=) ]. Let us assume for a moment, that someone had the time, some of the money, and desire to change the above situation, and create a sutuation where your name, calling (as opposed to billing) phone number, and ABOVE ALL YOUR *actual* (as opposed to your billing) ADDRESS, are not going out over the network, and often to the called party. In the opinion of you, and the other readers of this list, is such a thing 1) possible; and 2) desireable? Thanks, Glenn L Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'd think it would have to be an individual decision on a case by case basis. The closest we come to that scenario now is the ability to block Caller-ID as desired, and in actual practice that ability pretty well preserves your privacy even though it does impose some effort on the part of the caller. PAT] ------------------------------ From: gcw@hh.sbay.org (George Wang) Subject: Re: Cellular "Auto-Registration" Date: 2 Mar 1995 09:44:11 -0800 Organization: Hip-Hop BBS Sunnyvale, California In Carr-C10973@email.mot.com (Eric A. Carr) writes: > In article , rick.edwards@cabin.com (Rick > Edwards) wrote: > (questions regarding registration deleted for clarity) > Registration is a process where the mobile radio ("cellular phone") > registers itself with the system with or without user intervention. > The process essentially identifies the mobile and/or gives an > indication as to it's status within the system to the MTSO. > Registration occurs when a call is originated by the mobile (sending > "access information"), or without user intervention at initial powerup > and periodically while the mobile is within the coverage area and > turned on ("periodic registration" -- some people use the term > "autonomous registration"). Whether the registration is periodic or > not, the mobile sends access information. Amoung other things sent on > the reverse control channel during registration, the mobile sends MIN, > ESN, SCM (Station Class Mark). On a mobile originated call, dialed > digits are also sent. > Periodic registration is optional; a flag is set in the overhead > message on the forward control channel that informs the mobile whether > or not it needs to perform periodic registration. Periodic > registration is further specified as to whether radios in their home > service area (REGH field in the overhead message) or roamers (REGR > field in the overhead message) need to perform periodic registration. > In order to avoid periodic registration attempts by all mobile > subscribers at once, a certain procedure is used to determine when the > mobile should perform the process. Upon powerup, the mobile generates > an initial random number in it's internal registration register which > determines it's initial registration attempt. After the mobile > performs the initial periodic registration, the registration register > in the mobile is incremented by a constant value in the overhead > message ("REGINC" field), sort of like a clock. Included in the > overhead message is the field REGID, to which the mobile compares the > value of it's internal registration register. When the value of the > registration register reaches the value of REGID, periodic > registration occurs. > Typical periodic registration times vary by systems and is determined > by software setting of the REGINC field. I think it's usually around > 20 - 30 minutes. The above description is fairly accurate except that the cellular phone (at least Motorola ones) does not generate a "random" NEXTREG value. In fact, this "next time to register" value is saved in the EEPROM. Also, there is another type of registration which occurs when the SID (System ID) changes which basically occurs when the phone changes cellular systems. The transmitted information is the same. I got this information based on the US analog (TIA-553, NAMPS, etc) call processing specifications. The new IS54B digital TDMA ( and IS54C) standard has a more complex registration mechanism which involves Location Area IDs (LOCAIDs) and power up and power-down registration. IS54C supports registration on the Digital Control Channel as well. George C. Wang Email: gcw@hh.sbay.org Alternate: gwang@mail.ntu.edu Finger for public encryption key. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 21:24:31 -0500 From: jsteele@insyte.com (John Steele) Subject: Re: Some Major and Grim Changes Planned for the 'Net' Pat, I read with interest the referenced item. Unfortunately, like a great deal of proposed legislation, on the face of it sounds inocuous enough. However, we have learned over the years that inocuous sound and intent may not be enough by the time the enforcement guys and the lawyers get finished with it. It is certainly POSSIBLE that the EFF and company are overreacting. But at the same time, we have to recognize that when it snows, those boys in Washington have been known to get a bit out of hand on occasion :-) Although I have no personal conversations with Senators Exon or Gordon to back this up, it is possible that the INTENT of the words "MAKES, TRANSMITS, OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ANY COMMENT,REQUEST, SUGGESTION, PROPOSAL, IMAGE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION" is meant to apply to the INDIVIDUAL initiating the act, NOT to common carriers, etc. The lack of clarity MAY be a result of poor staff work, not uncommon in Washington. (Note carefully the emphasis on INTENT and MAY.) However, I also know that if this thing were to hit the books, the original INTENT will be long lost and we will be left with the words -- words easily misused by overzealous enforcement, special interest lawyers, etc., to further their own agendas. In this age of international communications, it is patent nonsense to think that short of massive banks of real time censors on all international circuits, or cutting all international communications, that this could be enforced. I suspect that Senator's Exon and Gordon were at lunch when we rediscovered the outside world. At the same time, I share your views on the loss of the sense of shame, personal responsibility, etc. It seems that nothing is too excessive, too disgusting, too degrading for this ENLIGHTENED age of ours. Unfortunately, calling for a greater emphasis on parental responsibility to protect children is truly "whistling in the wind" -- it hasn't seemed to work when it comes to drugs, guns, sex, etc. (How can it when the parents don't seem to have any sense of responsibility to pass on to the kids.) Although the sociologists and psychologists would most likely disagree, an enormous number of the problems of our society would be corrected by some TRUE parenting, the timely parental application of the word "NO", and an occasional pat on the backside (no pun intended.) All of that notwithstanding, I don't think that we can let this thing get enacted and I plan to write to my Senators to register my objection. A final note. Your commentary included a closing statement "but with the United States Congress controlled as it is today..." It should be noted for the record that the bill is named for and sponsored by Senator Exon, DEMOCRAT of Nebraska. This little piece of wackiness might get passed by a Republican controlled congress, but the liberals among us should take note that this little gem originated on the left side of the aisle. John Steele jsteele@insyte.com information systems technology, inc. marcus centre - penthouse 20 +1 305.595.4845 miami, florida 33156-2660 +1 305.595.4983 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, it could be written exactly as they meant it and they might mean it exactly as it is written. The fact is, it would *never* be applied to the large carriers in any event. I mean, try and picture this scenario: Two or three top executives at AT&T standing in court with their attorney, and a stern judge sentencing them all to time in prison for 'transmitting pornography on their network'. This of course would be after the Federal Bureau of Inquisition had raided all AT&T offices and seized all their computers, etc. Sounds very likely, doesn't it ... ... if you wish, substitute Sprint, MCI, Compuserve, or America OnLine in the above. But you say, "My name is John Steele, and I run a small company in south Florida which provides Internet access and Unix facilties to my (pick a figure) number of customers." Oh! Well in that case you must be providing a service for child pornograhers, hackers and assorted other thieves and con artists. You know what your trouble is John? You don't have an attorney who has good friends working for the government; the kind who makes lewd noises when he smacks his lips and sits at the bar drinking with the judge and the prosecutors while cases are settled in conference and outside the courtroom. Therefore, the law *will* apply to you, thank you. The big boys can whine about their 'policies and proceedures' and how the computer will let them do one thing and won't let them do another and everyone will sit agog and in awe taking it all in. That won't work for you, John. You knew or should have known what 'they' were doing. And as you point out, the federal government has a way of stretching and distorting the meaning of all kinds of things. I'm still having real problems with this whole thing for myself. In the many years I have listened to the ACLU and their arguments and the few years I I have listened to the EFF present their views, I've have never once been in agreement. Thousands of ACLU cases; I can tell you what I find wrong with their position in every one of them. Long time readers will recall a source of derision here in this Digest are what I term the Socially Responsible Computerists, based on the group whose name includes those words, as in "I am glad I am not Socially Responsible, nor would I want to be". But anymore, I just don't know ... as Brad Hicks said in an issue of the Digest earlier Thursday, it would nice if the lynch mob could be a little more honest about their intentions. It would also be nice if Exon and Company would rewrite that proposal eliminating any ambiquities or questions. You are also correct that for the most part it is useless to demand that parents require accountability and/or personal responsibility of their children. After all, what would they (the parents) know about it? Now that we are into the third generation after Doctor Benjamin Spock, the old ways have been forgotten by most people, if they ever experienced them at all. They simply raise their children the way they were raised; they don't know any different. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #129 ******************************