TELECOM Digest Tue, 7 Mar 95 10:27:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 138 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CONY Baltimnore (Doug Reuben) Plug Pulled in Hong Kong (Rob Hall) VoiceMail, FaxMail, Fax-On-Demand Systems in European Market (I. Masood) Problems With Fax Switch (Georg Oehl) Position For a Research Associate at King's College London (udee059@bay) Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns...) (Robert Levandowski) 708/630/815 Split (was Re: New NPA in Colorado) (Carl Moore) Help: E Telco Step-by-Step Switch (Nadia Smyrniw) New NPA's Starting to Confuse/NPA 281 Activated (Stan Schwartz) Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Steve Cogorno) Wanted to Buy: Used PBX and Telephones (Ray Siegel) 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: dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) Subject: CONY Baltimnore Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 02:03:37 EST On 28 Feb 1995 03:37:34 -0500, stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz) wrote: > We've all heard the stories of the "fun" I had trying to use my CellOne > NY/NJ phone while roaming in Canada. There are still problems there, and from what I hear, CanTel hasn't been too cooperative in trying to resolve them. > Last week, I visited some friends on the Inner Harbor in Baltimore. > [I was] surprised, then, when I tried to call my CellOne phone from the > hotel room and I received my voice mail! I assume you had automatic call delivery turned "ON" (ie, you had hit *350 sometime in the past?). You may want to try that to (A) make sure that Call Delivery is ON (or in NACN terms, "Do Not Disturb" is off), and (B) to "force" a registration of your phone in the visited market. > I called CellOne's 800 number, and the rep told me that even though > Baltimore is a NACN city, incoming callers had to dial a roamer access > number! Totally untrue -- you do NOT need to use the access port as a CO/NY customer roaming in Baltimore. Indeed, you may be precluded from doing so. > (Where does it say that in CellOne's map?). It doesn't! :) Only a few counties in DE on the Delmarva Peninsula USED to lack auto call delivery; they have it now. When Call Delivery (was it NACN right away, I forget ...) was set up to DC, Baltimore got it too. There were/are MAJOR, MAJOR bugs with the "Roam America"/ "Nationlink" service ONLY in the Baltimore section of the Baltimore/DC system (00013), but no one there seems to care to listen to me about these problems, and now that I don't need to use that silly system, I gave up reporting them. > The first rep mentioned something about the lack of a mutual roaming > agreement, and I wonder if this is retribution for CellOne turning off > access to roamers in NY? I doubt it, as I've used my CO/NY phone there after this nonsense with SWBell suspending roaming in NYC. If anything, it might have to do with the problems I used to experience with Nationlink/Roam America. I would activate it it the Baltimore system after getting south of Havre De Grace on I-95. I'd get the SWBell/Baltimore- DC ack. message, and figure I'd be set up and start receiving calls shortly. Well, I'd be set up right away, but the phone would never ring when someone called me. I tried it over and over and over, and it NEVER worked. Then, as I passed Baltimore, and got into the DC "portion" of the system (south of MD-32, maybe a bit further south), it would ring just fine! If I went back into the Baltimore portion, nothing, and if I went back to DC, it worked fine again. I did this maybe ten times one day just to prove to SW Bell that they did indeed have a problem, and all I got from them was "poor coverage" excuses (even though they managed to hear me fine on *611!). Now without any experimentation, I can't say for sure what is/was going on -- could be switchwork or something on that particular day. But the point is that these intercarrier roaming problems DO occur, and I'm in some ways glad to see that I am not the only one who notices them! :) I've always wondered why *I* have to notice this stuff before anyone gets it fixed. I don't mean this in an boastful way, but rather, if I can find these problems, don't you think the cell co's could HIRE or PAY someone to just drive around or whatever and test these intercarrier problems? I mean, like on Monday drive down to DC and test service through to there, on Tuesday drive to Albany and test service up that way, Weds to Boston, etc. It wouldn't have to be as rigorous as all that, maybe once a week make an excursion somewhere to test this stuff out. The point is that if I and Stan and others can detect this, shouldn't the cell co's be able to detect this earlier, and try to correct the problem BEFORE it becomes one for the customer? I can deeply sympathize with Stan -- too many times I've had to meet friends while roaming and told them to call the carphone, only to find that service for some reason or another was "out", leaving me out of contact and very, very upset. This can only harm the overall impression that a customer has of his/her cellular service. I would (like to) think that most Cell Companies would want to mitigate against this, and put more efforts into locating and remedying intercarrier roaming problems BEFORE the customer is affected. Unfortunately, in most cases typified by Stan's problems in Baltimore or his earlier (and verified, may I add) problems in Canada, this is not always the case. > CellOne Strikes Again! Hmm ... Cell One/DC-Baltimore, sure ... let 'em have it! Cell One/NY, hmmm ... I'd be slightly more hesistant to blame them. I've been very mildly criticized for casting CO/NY in a "good light" all the time, but in all honesty, they deserve it. Perhaps it is due to the utter lack of responsiveness from other carriers which I deal with (hey, GTE/SF, did you EVER get Call Waiting working in Sac/Stockton? Or Atlantic Cellular/El Dorado County, CA -- ever manage to put something simple like confirmation tones up for CA access customers?). In the above examples, I made an honest and good faith effort to report some problems, and even follow up on them. Almost all were to no avail. GTE/SF even argued with me for 20 minutes that I should NOT have called their 800 number from my cellphone while roaming, even though I was on the phone with a switch tech who was trying to diagnose the problem. Right now, in the US Cellular Poughkeepsie (00503) system, ONLY CO/NY roamers are blocked from placing/receiving ANY calls, including 611 and 911 ! All other roamers, even those with invalid ESN/MIN combos, get at the very least 611/911 service just fine. The problem is very sporadic, and has gone on for 5 days or so. (More on this in another post) I noticed this a few months ago (much more infrequently), and since I bother the roam coordinator in NY enough as it is :), I reported the problem to US Cellular's roam people in Chicago and figured they would look into it. Apparently, no one did, or at the very least, no one ever got back to me. So now, CO/NY (and other NACN?) customers can not receive nor place calls, even emergency 911 calls, for extended periods of time during the day. It's not a coverage issue, the same phone in a very strong coverage area will NOT work with a CO/NY NAM (number), but will work with a Boston account, or even a totally fictitious number. It just will NOT allow any calls with a CO/NY number. (This is sporadic -- it will not work for a few hours, then work for a few minutes, then stop working, etc.) The point is that US Cellular couldn't seem to care less about this. They "diagnosed" the problem from Oklahoma or somewhere, and had no idea of where Poughkeepsie was let alone that it was interconnected with NY. On the other hand, the minute I called CO/NY they were very concerned, they checked a number of things out, they called US Cell, and they are now "escalating" the issue so that it will be quickly resolved. I guess this the way every carrier should respond when they get a verified trouble report, but sadly, most don't, so I'm very, very pleased to find that CO/NY will listen and be very responsive when these problems do arise. The next step is to detect these problems BEFORE the customer can. To some extent, for some problems, this may not be possible. Yet I feel that if *I* can detect these problems by performing a few simple tests when I get to a roaming market, that the major cell carriers could do this as well. It would go a LONG way towards eliminating "surprises" like Stan experienced in Baltimore or Canada, and like those which CO/NY customers are currently experiencing in Poughkeepsie and most of Dutches County, NY. Doug dreuben@interpage.net CID Technologies/Interpage NSG +1 (203) 499 - 5221 E-Mail Gateway to Voice, Fax, and Pagers --> http://interpage.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:23:08 +0800 From: robhall@hk.super.net Subject: Plug Pulled in Hong Kong First it was threats of draconian measures from the Cyber police to clean up the net. Then it was the Pakistan government shutting down cellular service because they couldn't eavesdrop. Now, it's the Hong Kong government practicing for after the handover of Hong Kong to the PRC in 1997? In case any of you are wondering why your messages to people in Hong Kong are not being answered ... Last Friday, the Commercial Crime Bureau shutdown seven of the eight Internet Service Providers, through raids on their offices, and seized all of their computer and telecommunications equipment. Seven men and one woman were detaied for questioning and later released on bail. According to police sources, the CCB raided the companies after a complaint by the Telecommunications Authority that these services providers were running telecommunications networks without the required license. But the Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) has denied it instigated the CCB raids, stating that it has been conducting its own investigation into the telecommunications licensing issue in relation to Internet service providers. The investigation is still in progress. So if your message doesn't receive a response in a timely manner, fax it. The only public service provider still in operation is hk.super.net. Rob Hall Hong Kong [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I assume if they get their business licenses in order they will be able to resume operation, correct? PAT] ------------------------------ From: spearv@ix.netcom.com (Iftikhar Masood) Subject: VoiceMail, FaxMail, Fax-On-Demand systems in European Market Date: 7 Mar 1995 09:31:55 GMT Organization: Netcom Our company (Spear Voice Systems) is looking for distributors and marketing partners throughout Europe to market our products FaxLink, and Callink. Our systems are from 4 ports to 24 ports capacity and are based on Dialogic telephony/fax boards. Our company has been in business for 4 years and has a very good sized installed base in far-east Asia. Our systems provide full and extended integration with a variety of PBXs. Integrations methods include RS232 link, Inband DTMF, and digital/hybrid telephone interfaces. At this time we have voice prompts in nine languages. The partners we seek must meet the following criteria: - Experiened in PBX and any other telecommunication equipment installation with technical support staff. Must have emphasis on the customer problem solution, rather than making a quick sale. Strong after sale support committment necessary. - Optimistic and aware of VoiceMail/Faxmail and Fax-on-demand systems market in Europe. - Expecting lucrative return based on Commission and After sales service and maintenance contracts. - Targeting small to medium sized business organizations and service bureaus. We look forward to inquiries from individuals and companies, and will provide the details to the interested parties. Please respond to our internet address contained in this message. Ifti ------------------------------ From: oehl@student.uni-kl.de (Georg Oehl) Subject: Problems With Fax Switch Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 10:45:46 GMT Hello there, I have a problem with my ComShare 750 Fax Switch that I purchased from a friend in California about two weeks ago: it won't pick up when someone is calling. The ComShare 750 is an active Fax Switch with extra power supply. It has one input (line-in) and four outputs (for phone, answering machine, fax and modem). On an incoming call it's supposed to direct the call -- depending on what/who is calling -- to the right device attached. But, as I said, it just won't pick up any call. The weird thing is that at a friend's house it worked just fine, ie. picked up on an incoming call. Is there a way of finding out what's wrong with my phone line, like what are the specifications for a ring of an incoming call in terms of voltage drop or resistance/impedance of the attached telephone devices (or whatever)? Another problem is that I can't report this to the telephone company, because here in Germany devices that don't have an approval sticker on them are not quite legal to connect to the phone system. Georg ------------------------------ From: udee059@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk Subject: Position for a Research Associate at King's College London Date: 7 Mar 95 12:31:34 GMT Organization: King's College London Position for a Research Associate at King's College London ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Applications are invited for a Research Associate for three years starting 1st of April or soon thereafter. The externally-funded project is to investigate "air interface migration" from GSM. Experience of packet transmission techniques and relevant software would be an advantage. Candidates should have, or expect to have, a PhD in a relevant area. Salary will be on the RA1A scale currently from 14,962 to 17,700 pounds sterling per annum which includes 2,134 pounds sterling London Allowance (LA) per annum. Applications consisting of a CV and the names of two academic refrees should be sent to: Personnel, Physical Sciences & Engineering, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS. The CLOSING DATE is 13 March 1995. Please quote the reference number Ref W1/EE/10/95 in your application. " Equality of opportunity is college policy. " ------------------------------ From: rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Levandowski) Subject: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns...) Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 15:21:51 GMT Here in Rochester NY, the phone company (Rochester Telephone / Frontier) has what I think is an elegant solution to the Caller ID vs. crank call problem. The problem, simply restated, is: How do you balance the need and desire for privacy with the need to easily identify crank callers? And how do you set úÿ up Caller-ID blocking, etc., to be useful but not intrusive? Well, here we have Caller-ID, and per-line and per-call blocking, but you don't need Caller-ID to take care of annoyance calls. If you get an annoyance call, you hang up, and then dial *64 (or 1164 if you only have a rotary phone). This will then automatically "trace" the number (or so it says in the phone book -- more likely just grab the CNID/ANI information) and report it to the Annoyance Call Bureau at the phone company. You do NOT get a copy of the number you traced; but you can then call Rochester PD and file a complaint, and RochesterTel will turn the traced number over to the police for investigation. To keep this service from being abused, there's a $1.50 charge for every call that is successfully traced. It makes a lot of sense to me. It avoids vigilante justice; it ensures the privacy of people who legitimately use Caller-ID blocking; and it preserves the right to freedom from annoying, harassing, and threatening phone calls. And, there's no need to invest in a Caller-ID box or service for just the occasional bad call ... Rob Levandowski Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester macwhiz@cif.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 10:32:47 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: 708/630/815 Split (was Re: New NPA in Colorado) There is some of that "messy" stuff in a very old area code map I received a while back in the mail, but you're looking at the 1950s with regard to that. I'd have to do some guesswork along the lines of what I have just been told (through Telecom) about 708/630 (and 815). Area code changes made in the 1950s then would have had less effect on the public due to there being less direct-dial facility as a percentage of the entire system. But someone did write about seeing a notice left over from 1958 of dialing area code 609 in New Jersey. As for the prefixes in southwestern 708 getting put in 815, I can draw on what I have seen regarding: 1. the Pentagon (moved from 202 to 703); 2. those three prefixes in Lancaster County which moved from old 215 to 717. In other words, my educated guess is that there will be a case by case review of each prefix which would go from 708 to 815. If possible, the prefix would be put "as is" in 815. But if the prefix is already used in 815, the prefix now used in 708 would have to be replaced, and in the above cases there were two such occurrences: 1. 202-694 switched to 703-614 (703-694 in use at Stuart, which is to go to area 540 this year); 2. 215-267 switched to 717-336 (717-267 in use at Chambersburg) Unfortunately, putting parts of present 708 into 815 and 630 means that some people have to change area code again after only about 5 1/2 years. The 312/708 split only became permissive in Nov. 1989. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 10:36:18 -0500 From: nadia (n.) smyrniw Subject: Help: E Telco Step-by-Step Switch Organization: Prism Systems / Bell-Northern Research Hi, I am looking for information about an E Telco Step-by-Step Switch. I am looking for any information (Manufacturer, type of test trunk ect....) All I know about it is that it was manufacured in England in the distant past, but I don't know by whom. Maybe Strowger? If anyone has any information please let me know. Thanks in advance, NADIA smyrniw@bnr.ca ------------------------------ From: stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz) Subject: New NPA's Starting to Confuse/NPA 281 Activated Date: 6 Mar 1995 19:59:11 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC An article in this week's {Information Week} mentioned that the new NPA's are confounding numerous PBX's that haven't had a recent software upgrade to handle the new NPA format (a graphic showed 360, with the '6' having devil-like horns and tail). They mentioned that 334 in Alabama, 360 in Washington State, and 281 in Texas were already active. I don't remember anyone here mentioning 281's activation, but upon dialing 1-281-555-1212 I received a "Southwestern Bell" chime and the DA operator told me that 281 is the cellular overlay area code for 713 (Houston), which became active 3/1/95. Stan ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 18:10:42 PST I am in the process of converting my two lines into an ISDN line, and while on the phone today the PacBell representative said somthing a little startling. She told me "You are served off a 5ESS (which I knew), so you need to buy AT&T equipment." I thought this was a little odd, so I asked her why. SHe said that AT&T ISDN equipment will not work with a DMS-100 and Northern equipment will not work with the 5ESS. So, if I move to an area that has a DMS-100, I will have to buy all new equipment. Is this _really_ true? Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Ray siegel Subject: Wanted to Buy: Used PBX and Telephones Date: Mon, 06 Mar 95 22:51:30 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Wanted to Buy: PBX, and used business telephones. Also buy Used Mainframes, such as IBM, UNIVAC, and used peripherals (Disk,tape,FEPs,printers). Please FAX list of such hardware, location, and your name, address and telephone number to 201-994-4669. Ray Siegel NUDT - National Used Digital Technologies fax:201-994-4669 or e-mail raysieg@delphi.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #138 ******************************