TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 Dec 93 21:23:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 825 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Eleventh UK Teletraffic Symposium (Richard Gibbens) Namibia Telephone Codes (Carl Moore) Paper Needed on Propogation Modeling (Antonio Dell'Elce) Re: The Superhighway and Telcos (Nathan D. Lane) Re: 0.6W or 3.0W Cell Phones, Which to Buy? (Alex Cena) Re: Broadband Technologies, Inc. (Alex Cena) Re: TDD Software Wanted (Paul Robinson) Re: Voice Mail Cards For Home PC (Jon Edelson) Re: SMDR Polling Device Recommendation Needed (Dave Ptasnik) Re: Modem Communication on TTY (Rich Mintz) Re: Use of British Answering Machines in the US (Liron Lightwood) Re: Use of British Answering Machines in the US (Richard Cox) Re: 603-43x-xxxx Switch? (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Listening to Cellular Calls (Eric N. Florack) Re: Information Wanted on Unix E-mail Packages (Paul Robinson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: R.J.Gibbens@statslab.cam.ac.uk (Richard Gibbens) Subject: Eleventh UK Teletraffic Symposium Organization: DPMMS (Cambridge Univ - Pure Maths and Mathematical Statistics) Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 18:40:53 GMT Call for papers Eleventh UK Teltraffic Symposium Performance Engineering in Information Systems The Eleventh UK Teletraffic Symposium, arranged by Profession Group E7 (Telecommunication networks and services) and C3 (Information systems and networks), and co-sponsored by the British Computer Society and the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, will be held at the Moller Centre, Cambridge, from 23 to 25 March 1994. This is an annual event that provides a forum for specialists in the area to discuss the latest modelling techniques for performance evaluation of the use, management and structure of the wide variety of communication networks now being developed. Contributions are invited that review current techniques, discuss generic problems, or introduce novel methodologies and results. The areas of particular interest are: * Mobile communications * Broadband networks, management and control * Feature and service interaction * Local access techniques * Network interworking * Traffic management * Design tools * Traffic characterisation * New mathematical methods and simulation techniques * Software performance analysis Prospective authors are invited to submit a synopsis of approximately 250 words before Friday, 7 January 1994 to Dr R. J. Gibbens, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1SB, tel: 0223 337945, fax: 0223 337956. Following acceptance, authors will be asked to prepare a full paper, not more than six A4 sides in length, by Friday, 4 March 1994. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 13:36:31 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Namibia Telephone Codes Namibia (+264) and South Africa (+27) have city codes that look they could fit into one list -- similar to an old area code and the new one just split from it. In the following message, RSA is Republic of South Africa. --FORWARDED MESSAGE-- From: Dr Eberhard W Lisse Subject: Re: Namibia To: Carl Moore Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 06:11:04 +0000 (GMT) Organization: Windhoek Central Hospital Reply-To: el@lisse.na > Since the city codes fit in with those of South Africa: Was Namibia > once a part of the South Africa phone system? We were part of RSA until independence :-)-O The phone system is still integrated with RSA. National phone rates apply for calls to the RSA, if it were international I could not afford it. Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse Windhoek Central Hospital Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Private Bag 13215 61 203 2106/7 (Bleeper) 61 224014 (home) Windhoek, Namibia ------------------------------ From: tdnycal@dsiaq8.ing.univaq.it ( Subject: Paper Needed on Propogation Modeling Date: 18 Dec 1993 09:17:30 -0600 Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway I am looking for a paper that treats Empirical Model for Urban microcells, I have a paper about it called "Urban/Suburban Out-of-sight Propagation Modeling" from various authors (IEEE cm, June, 1992) but I am looking for an updated propagation modeling description. Can any of you point to any paper/article etc about it? Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 17:33:23 -0800 From: nathan@seldon.foundation.tricon.com Subject: Re: The Superhighway and Telcos > Joel Upchurch @ Upchurch Computer Consulting uunet!aaahq01!upchrch! > joel says: > I read something in the last issue of {Popular Science} about some cable > company experimenting with providing internet access through the cable > system. Imagine a local cable company doing something like getting a > pagesat news feed and providing it to their customers as a premium > cable channel with a special modem to translate the data. And the previous post mentioned PSI. Well, PSI just two months ago announced the first (I think) venture with a cable company back east (I think it was Continental in New York). Their goal is to provide 10Mbps (yes, ethernet speeds) to cable customers, bidirectionally, for just $100/month. The equipment is installed and I believe they even have trial customers now. Now, I would imagine the 10Mbps is an aggregate load for ALL the cable customers. I doubt that each person gets 10Mbps to the Internet. (PSI would kill their telco business in an instant if they did that ... or the telco's would lower their prices drastically). I can dig up the press release if anyone would like it and sends me e-mail. Nathan D. Lane, VP Triicon Systems. Lompoc, CA (805) 733-1849 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 09:34:50 EST From: Alex Cena Subject: Re: 0.6W or 3.0W Cell Phones, Which to Buy? ghuntres@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Gary Huntress) wrote: > I've been shopping for a cellular phone for my in-law's Xmas gift. > In fact I just returned a few minutes ago more confused than when I > left. I had planned on buying one of the smaller style of phones > rather than the "bag" type. My in-laws will be travelling between MA > and FL using the phone almost exclusively for emergency inbound and > outbound calls (once we get over the "guess where I'm calling from!" > phase). I would buy a 0.6W portable. If you need more oomph, you can always purchase a docking station with a 3.0W booster, hands free, recharger, antenna, etc. I use a Motorola MicroTac PT550, which I have used driving from Minneapolis, MN to New York City. I was able to use it more than 90% of the time. Moreover, I travel quite a bit (2-3 days/week) around the United States and Canada. Thus far, 0.6W has not been a problem for me. Alex M. Cena, Lehman Brothers acena@lehman.com, Opinions are mine not my employers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1993 17:30:12 EST From: Alex Cena Subject: Re: Broadband Technologies, Inc. Randy te Velde wrote: > Is ADSL for real? And if so, how will it be switched? Can we get > what we want from it (HDTV, high bandwidth interactive services), or > will it force us to make due with less? If you need more info on ADSL, you may want to try the following companies, which are working on the technology: Newbridge Networks, ADC Telecom, Amati, Level One, Tellabs and PairGain Technologies. I hear there is a definite interest by the telephone companies and there are RFPs for equipment to be used in trials around the country. Unfortunately, ADSL still costs quite a bit of money ($?,000) due to lack of silicon. Some say ADSL must be less than $500/line to be deployed economically. Same was true w/HDSL until PairGain designed its own transceiver, which it used in conjunction with Brooktree's A/D converter to offer a single card that fit in a standard repeater bay. Alex M. Cena, Lehman Brothers acena@lehman.com, Opinions are mine not my employers ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 13:27:00 EST From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: TDD Software Wanted Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA > Is there any software that emulates a TDD (Telecomm Device for the > Deaf?). This ought to be straightforward, but my local phone > company says that you 'have to buy their TDD hardware'. Say it > ain't so! úÿ (continued next message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area # 700 EMAIL 12-19-93 22:23 Message # -7035 From : TELECOM Digest Moderator To : ELIOT GELWAN PVT RCVD Subj : TELECOM Digest V13 #825 ÿ@FROM :TELECOM@DELTA.EECS.NWU.EDU úÿ(Continued from last message) It ain't so. You can buy hardware for this purpose from anyone. > I don't care what kind of computer, although UNIX-based sources > would be helpful. Modems that will handle TDD are much more expensive due to the limited market; software alone cannot handle TDD as the standard device uses 6-bit baudot, not 8-bit ascii (although some newer models handle both). A modem to handle TDD and standard ascii at 2400 baud will cost upwards of $200, e.g. as much as a 14,400 baud modem. I have heard that there is some inexpensive hardware that, if you have an original IBM PC with cassette port, can be used to do TDD through the cassette port. Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ From: winnie@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Jon Edelson) Subject: Re: Voice Mail Cards For Home PC Organization: Princeton University Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 18:30:47 GMT In article wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew) writes: > It sounds like just the thing you are looking for is from The Complete > PC. There is a product called The Complete Answering Machine as well > as a companion product called The Complete Fax Machine. > If you go off hook for more than five seconds (this is > user configurable) without DTMFing or outpulsing, the CAM will > automatically disconnect the subscriber loop and start reading you the > voice mail menu, giving you the opportunity to key in your mailbox > number and password. I've had a product called the Complete Communicator for about three years. It includes the answering machine as well as the fax. I bought it after trying out the answering machine card. The problem that I found is that it the software release that came with the CCOM, the auto pickup was lost. One _must_ use the keyboard to initiate checking one's mail. If this feature has again returned, I would appreciate knowing about it. If not, then the use of CCOM in a multi extension environment can get pretty annoying. Jon (winnie@pucc.princeton.edu) ------------------------------ From: davep@carson.u.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik) Subject: Re: SMDR Polling Device Recommendation Needed Date: 18 Dec 1993 18:39:46 GMT Organization: University of Washington tdawson@wheaton.wheaton.edu (Anthony Palmer Dawson) writes: > I need to acquire a device that can store SMDR information provided > from a 5ESS Generic 8 to my premises. This device must allow polling > via modem and/or ISDN. Any recommendations or pointers to vendors via > email will be greatly appreciated. Just get an old PC and put in a copy of procomm. Plug it into the 5ess, you may need a 355A adapter to get from 4 pair to RS232. Set procomm to direct connection, set up a "log", and your SMDR will be automatically stored as an ASCII file. You can then do periodic dumps by modem, maybe using something like Carbon Copy to make remote changes. We do this on campus, and ship the call records around on the campus ethernet hub. It can be set up to send out the calls in real time over the campus ethernet, should we desire that. All of the above is nothing more than the personal opinion of - Dave Ptasnik davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: rmintz@ecst.csuchico.edu (Rich Mintz) Subject: Re: Modem Communication on TTY Date: 18 Dec 1993 04:38:57 GMT Organization: California State University, Chico > This is all I write or read from the port. When I run this, all I > get is \r\nOK\r\n from the modem and then NO CARRIER. Try using your normal communications program to set your modem to ignore the carrier detect and DTR leads. You can do this with something like "AT &D&C&W", the &W saves the settings so they won't be lost when you reset the modem or power-down. If your modem is an older one that doesn't support the &D and &C commands, you could physically tie those RS232 leads high or low as appropriate (only if it's an external modem). Or, what might be easier if that's the case is to find the C code for your machine that will set the DTR on. There are tiny utilities made for running right at the DOS Prompt that might do the job for you (ie: you just type DTR ON or DTR OFF at DOS). Good luck! Rich ------------------------------ From: Liron Lightwood Subject: Re: Use of British Answering Machines in the US Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 21:02:46 EST jharuni@london.micrognosis.com (Jonathan Haruni) writes: > I sent an answering machine which I bought (and tested) in London to > someone in Israel and it didn't work there. He took it to a telephone > shop where they said British answering machines don't work in Israel > because Israel "uses the American system of ringing", whatever that > means, and declined to look at it. Given that American machines do > work in Britain, I have doubts. Israel is an interesting case, because for many/most people, the ringback tone is different to the ring tone (it was when I was last there in 1987). The ringback tone (the one you hear when dialling an Israli number) is similar to the American ring tone (i.e. ring ... ring ... etc). However, the ring tone (that rings the bell on the Israli phone) is identical to the UK ring tone (i.e. ring ring ... ring ring ... etc). When I was last there in 1987, this was true for most lines. In some (older?) exchanges however, the ring tone was the same as the ringback tone (i.e. ring ... ring ... etc). Liron Lightwood ------------------------------ From: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox) Subject: Re: Use of British Answering Machines Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 16:23:00 jharuni@london.micrognosis.com (Jonathan Haruni) asked: > I sent an answering machine which I bought (and tested) in London to > someone in Israel and it didn't work there. He took it to a telephone > shop where they said British answering machines don't work in Israel > because Israel "uses the American system of ringing", whatever that > means, and declined to look at it. Given that American machines do > work in Britain, I have doubts. That would be about right. In the UK, there is a master socket with a single capacitor to filter off the ringing signal, which is distributed to all sockets on pin 3. Most UK answering machines ONLY look at pin 3 for their ringing signal. Others (and American answering machines) ignore pin 3 and look across the A/B pair (with their own capacitor to act as a DC filter). So either will work in the UK. However in the US and in Israel there *is* no pin 3 for the answering machine to look at. So while non-UK machines will work, any machine that *only* looks at pin 3 for a ring signal will think it's having a quiet life. Slap a UK master socket across the A/B pair, to "create" a pin 3, and your answering machine will once again answer calls. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF Voice: +44 956 700111 Fax: +44 956 700110 VoiceMail: +44 399 870101 E-mail address: richard@mandarin.com - PGP2.3 public key available on request ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 93 13:47:31 EST From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: 603-43x-xxxx Switch? In TELECOM Digest V13 #786 hutzley@ranger.enet.dec.com (Steve Hutzley) writes: > Recently, I saw an ad in the (Manchester, NH) {Union Leader} about New > England Telephone offering Caller ID. GREAT! At the bottom of the > 3/4 page ad in the paper was a list of exchanges that had this > service. It would have saved them page space if they would have listed > the exchanges that DIDN'T have the service. They listed towns in NH I > didn't even know existed. > I'm curious, if anyone knows what switch I might be connected to, and > if this switch has the capability to handle Caller ID . the list of > exchanges that I am interested in are: area code 603: *421, *425, *426, > 432, 434, 437. The three exchanges marked by '*', are brand new, and > have just appeared in the last two years. If anyone really wants the > list of exchanges that 'DO' offer caller ID, I will post them. One thing that you can do is try a local number such as 432-XXXX where XXXX is a number that may or may not tell you what type of switch you are on. If it is either a NT DMS-100 or AT&T 5ESS then the switch has the capability to carry Caller ID. I use exchange #-9901 (ex: 281-9901) for my read back. You can try that but there are probably many numbers that could do this. Another way would be to call your business office to see if they can tell you if the switch is capable of handling Caller-ID. Dave Niebuhr Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (preferred) niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 04:40:35 PST From: Eric_N._Florack.cru-mc@xerox.com Subject: Re: Listening to Cellular Calls > Mr. Fischer, you obviously have no respect for a individual's privacy. > Is business that bad that you must "prostitute" your product on the > "net"? I can only hope that your privacy is invaded in a sufficiently > grotesque manner to educate you on it's value. > [Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like you are unhappy with the idea > of people listening to your cellular calls. PAT] Indeed it does, Pat. And I can understand the position. I tend to agree that such listening devices, meaning those sold specificly to listen to cellular calls, are somewhat less than ethical. At the same time, perhaps it`s time we started looking at this in a more realistic light. The communications act of 1933 lays all this out, in living color: The EM spectrum is the property of all the people ... and anything that is broadcast `in the clear' is fair game for reception, by ANY citizen. At the same time, it`s a crime to make use of any information gleaned from listening to things not intended for public consumption... Business transactions conducted over business radio are an example of such. I raise some of these issues in an extended post I wrote about a year úÿ (continued next message) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area # 700 EMAIL 12-19-93 22:23 Message # -7034 From : TELECOM Digest Moderator To : ELIOT GELWAN PVT RCVD Subj : TELECOM Digest V13 #825 ÿ@FROM :TELECOM@DELTA.EECS.NWU.EDU úÿ(Continued from last message) or so ago in response to the paranoia being spread by the CPSR and the EFF, regards cryptography and the government ... and, if I`m not mistaken, people can find it in the Telecom and Risks archives by searching on the keywords "C.P.S.R.' and 'paranoia'. The short version of the argument is this: We create more damage, giving the impression that a 'line' is secure (by means of mere law) than we do by making people on Cell phones aware /up front/, that they should watch what they say, since the technology is such that the call can be monitored by anyone with a mind to. Matter of fact, given that about anyone with a mind could tap even a hard-wire phone without even a direct connection ... (inductance pickups ...) Perhaps no such system is secure, regardless of any law. Clearly, the law prohibiting listening to cellular calls is at best ineffective, and is, perhaps, counter-productive, to say nothing of it being in direct violation of the intent of the communications act of 1933. The government, by giving the impression that such law IS effective, is doing a dis-service to the public, and is perhaps creating more of a security problem than it`s solving. Perhaps we should educate the public that anything said on any electroninc path, particularly on a public access network, is /by nature/ not secure. That education process, and that shift of responsibility away from the government, and law, and back to the comm circuit user, where it belongs, is the biggest, and least expensive security boost our telecommunications system could ever have. What we have here is a case where our lawmakers have no idea what it is they are regulating, but they have to do SOMETHING to justify their positions of power. The result is predictable. /E ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1993 12:43:12 EST From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Unix E-mail Packages Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA Krause asked: > I was wondering what large scale e-mail packages people might be > running off of their Unix boxes out there. In probably 90% of all sites, the standard is Sendmail from U.C. Berkely, mainly because it is free. The typical release is Berkely Sendmail with the IDA patches. For sites that don't need the tremendous power of everyone's beloved sendmail and the adored "sendmail.cf" configuration files, :) there is a smaller and less complicated program called "smail". You can do an archie lookup and find either of these. Smail is also free. I personally have copies of the sources to both. Also, CERT has announced that there is a security hole in one of the latest releases of Sendmail. Sendmail can often be run "out of the box" as it is allegedly self configurable; the real problem is writing the sendmail.cf file which some sites don't even have to do that, as they can find a prewritten one. Smail is considerably smaller and provides less functions, but also uses fewer resources and less disk space. > I am interested in receiving information (product and vendor) on > e-mail packages that can be used in a corporate environment where > one RS/6000 will act as a central point and other RS/6000's will > dial into for mail. Mail could consist of regular mail as well as > binary files (ie. spreadsheets, designs, etc.). Well, you have four choices. One is to use a POP mail server, where sites call into a repository and download mail. Another is to have them use sendmail and SMTP if they are directly connected. Another is to have them use an IMAP service to request mail from the other site. Last choice is to install a mail server program which can be executed as if the user had logged in at a local terminal and read mail. One program for this purpose is called "Pine" which is a fairly nice ANSI full-screen mailer. You can get it via an archie search also. If the local sites are directly connected, running Sendmail on the main server and perhaps SMAIL or POP on the local sites might not be too bad a choice. POP is also good for dialup mail too. Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #825 ****************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253