TELECOM Digest Thu, 23 Dec 93 04:07:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 835 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: San Ramon, CA and PacBell Headquarters (David A. Kaye) Re: San Ramon, CA and PacBell Headquarters (Laurence Chiu) Re: 911 Changes in Toronto (davidson@medcolpa.bitnet) Re: 911 Changes in Toronto (Macy Hallock) Re: Unique(?) Problem With Voicemail Prompts (Macy Hallock) Re: Unique(?) Problem With Voicemail Prompts (Chris Ambler) Re: Unique(?) Problem With Voicemail Prompts (Steve Bauer) Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? (Richard Cox) Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? (George Zmijewski) Re: Wireless Local Loop in India (Gerald Serviss) Re: Standards and Where to Get Them? (Michael D. Griffin) Re: Calling a PBX and Billing (Andrew Klossner) Re: Cellphones With RJ-11 Connectors (John R. Levine) Re: International Calls via Cable or Satellite (George Zmijewski) Re: Why Was 334 Picked For Alabama? (Joe Kimbrough) 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 GEnie. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers. To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: ptownson@townson.com. ** 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 gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dk@crl.com (David A. Kaye) Subject: Re: San Ramon, CA and PacBell Headquarters Date: 22 Dec 1993 15:48:51 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest] darren (darren@netcom.com) wrote: > Ranch) which means if you drive the 680 corridor to work every > morning, you reach a massive traffic jam. There are 100,000 people who > work at Bishop Ranch every day, which seems like nothing big right? It's funny. Bishop Ranch is probably the largest non-city in California. They have, what, 19 telephone exchanges now? Still, ask someone where Bishop Ranch is and you're likely to get a blank stare. I had no idea there were 100,000 people working there now. It *is* a huge complex, and includes all the major telco carriers. Funny that they'd think to concentrate so much firepower in one location. An accidental power line cut, say from a storm up at the Altamont Pass, or a nuclear spill from Lawrence Livermore and it would just wipe them out for many hours. I wonder if anyone has thought through these possibilties. ------------------------------ From: lchiu@crl.com (Laurence Chiu) Subject: Re: San Ramon, CA and PacBell Headquarters Date: 22 Dec 1993 18:42:29 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access In article , darren wrote: >>> San Ramon, CA has 102 phones per 100 people ... > Just a wierd thought -- but San Ramon is home of Pac Bell (at Bishop > Ranch) which means if you drive the 680 corridor to work every > morning, you reach a massive traffic jam. There are 100,000 people who > work at Bishop Ranch every day, which seems like nothing big right? I > mean San Fran probably has 1,000,000 and New York has 7,000,000 > workers entering every day -- but aside from Bishop Ranch, San Ramon > is a small sleepy town of maybe 30,000 -- too many of them yuppies who > are making it very hard on us younger types who want to buy homes in > our own region. I fail to see how the many people who live in San Ramon make it hard for you to buy a house in your own region. > Never liked the place anyway. And if you work for Pac Bell, just > kidding; my phone service is wonderful and soooooooo cheap. Merry > Christmas. Besides Pac Bell contributing the jams on the 680 corridor, don't forget Chevron Corp. which has an equally large complex at Chevron Park. I used to work there and hated the commute but quite liked the offices. Also I think Northern Telecom had offices in the same general area. Laurence Chiu Walnut Creek, California Tel: 510-215-3730 (work) Internet: lchiu@crl.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 20:25:07 -0400 From: DAVIDSON@MEDCOLPA.BITNET Subject: Re: 911 Changes in Toronto Tony Harminc submitted a public notice and wrote about 9-1-1, Auto-dial Alarm Devices in Toronto. > NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC > RE: 9-1-1, Auto-dial Alarm Devices > If they are really going to ignore 911 calls where the caller says > nothing, then they've thrown out half the benefit of the expensive > ANI-ALI system installed some years ago. Now what they may have > *meant* to say is that they will ignore calls where the auto-dialer > plays a pre-recorded message, which makes reasonable sense, but it > sounds as though they've confused auto-dial burglar alarms with > personal safety dialers. This is all a very good point, but speaking from the point of view of EMS dispatch (ambulances for medical emergencies), it is hard for the call-taker at the primary PSAP to shift the call to police, fire or EMS without at least some caller information. The default often goes to police, though in some enlightened urban systems 9-1-1 calls with no caller present and an open line are handled as a "(wo)man down" meaning a "send in the Marines" EMS response (first responders and advanced life support ambulance, both on emergency response--lights & sirens). Then too, the problem of the call-taker at the primary PSAP during busy hours trying to figure out what is happening could cause call "stacking" and delay the response to others. I'd suggest a response and a warning if the call is inappropriate. We just got that in Philadelphia for "false" burglar alarms, five "false" calls allowed (warnings will be issued), but on the sixth it will cost you $250. Regards. ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!fmsys!macy@wariat.org Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 20:35 EST Subject: Re: 911 Changes in Toronto Reply-To: macy@telemax.com Organization: F M Systems/Telemax Medina, Ohio USA In article Tony Harminc writes: > I saw the following bizarre notice in the paper last week: > NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC > RE: 9-1-1, Auto-dial Alarm Devices [contents of notice about denying response to alarm auto dial devices calling 911 deleted ...] This type of event has been brought on by several situations: 1. The sale of "panic button" and "medical alert" devices on the consumer market that the manufacturer says "program this to call a number for assitance" 2. Persons who want some type of alarm signalling for aid to be sent (often burglar alarms), but do not wish to subscribe to a commercial alarm monitoring service. This is often done by "do it yourself" types installing their own equipment. 3. The use of autodialing monitor units, such as the "Sensaphone" that will iniate a call to a programmed number, and open a room monitor mic, on dectection of a noise or other event. Radio Shack sold a unit of this type at one time. In most cases, the user does not consult with the Police Dept, or 911 agency before doing this. The assumption is that they authorities are there to respond to any occurrence. The fault perceived by the agencies involved is false alarms and unverifiable events. A very large number of these calls come from unoccupied premises. The operational basis for most 911 systems is the receive calls from citizens with an emergency need. This means response, and verification of each event. Since most of these devices are installed by untrained persons, false alarms are common when typical events occur. Power failures, thunderstorms, swinging doors, radio interference, accidental operation and equipment malfunctions are typical causes of unwanted alarm signals being sent to 911. These unwanted signals frustrate the authorities, and endager the public by taking up valuable time of dispatchers, officers, and response vehicles. Most dept's will respond to any event as a matter of course, but will enforce false alarm ordinances, and other applicable rules strictly. In some areas, the fines are quite stiff. It's very likely that this notice was published as part of some type of false alarm ordinance or pending rulemaking. There is much more to this discussion, its an complex topic and the subject of much debate. I've tried to provide the best short explaination I could. Disclaimer: I own an alarm company. My father-in-law is a retired police chief. I've seen both sides of this issue, and I have my own opinions. I've also helped write a couple of false alarm ordinances. (BTW, the alarm industry has its own false alarm problems, as do many alarm users.) Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG +1.216.723.3030 macy@telemax.com macy@fms.com Telemax, Inc. - F M Systems, Inc. 152 Highland Drive Medina, OH 44256 USA ------------------------------ From: fmsystm!fmsys!macy@wariat.org Date: Wed, 23 Dec 93 20:12 EST úÿ Subject: Re: Unique(?) Problem With Voicemail Prompts Reply-To: macy@telemax.com Organization: F M Systems/Telemax Medina, Ohio USA In article fico!fico0!tjo@apple.com writes: > Someone in our firm is currently experiencing a "different" problem > with our voice mail system. She will be leaving a message in > someone's voice mailbox and the system will interrupt her, saying "To > Send this Message, Press..."- as if she had punched a key, but she > hadn't. The problem has been re-occurring. I've seen a couple variations of this: 1. Caller has a "soft" voice and the Voice Processing System (VPS) has a fairly high "threshold" level detect. The VPS treats the call as short or truncated. 2. Caller has a voice that does not fall within a frequency passband used for voice detection. Same result as 1. 3. Caller's voice has a component that is interpreted as a Touch Tone digit by the VPS. The VPS discards, truncates or branches depending on the interpreted digit's action. 4. Caller is calling via a circuit that has low audio levels (often in one direction only, toward the VPS). Same result as 1. 5. Caller has noisy circuit, inducing erratic operation. Comments: I've seen several problems with systems that seen to have difficulty with high pitched, soft voices. There is a known charateristic in the telephone network know as high frequency rolloff that attenuates frequencies above 1800 hz or so. With some callers, usually found to be certain type of high pitched, soft and often female voice, the VPS has trouble determining that the caller is really not there. That's because the amplitude of the human voice is usually found in the 800 hz to 1500 hz portion of the audio spectrum, and VPS boards are programmed to look at that area for voice detection. No doubt there are others on the net more capable than I in describing the details of this. Disclaimer: I sell and service, among other things, voice processing systems. This information is from my observations, not from what the manufacturers tell me. I have my own opinions. YMMV, no doubt. Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG +1.216.723.3030 macy@telemax.com macy@fms.com Telemax, Inc. - F M Systems, Inc. 152 Highland Drive Medina, OH 44256 USA ------------------------------ From: cambler@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu (Chris Ambler - Fubar) Subject: Re: Unique(?) Problem With Voicemail Prompts Organization: The Phishtank Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 01:56:16 GMT fico!fico0!tjo@apple.com says: > Someone in our firm is currently experiencing a "different" problem > with our voice mail system. She will be leaving a message in > someone's voice mailbox and the system will interrupt her, saying "To > Send this Message, Press..."- as if she had punched a key, but she > hadn't. The problem has been re-occurring. > Our vendor (Octel) calls it "PROMPT INTERRUPTION", and says it happens > when some individual's voice frequencies are very close to the tones > generated by the keypad. The system interprets the voice as a key > being punched. > This seems odd, but I have HEARD of it on other systems. Has this > happened to anyone else? Anyone come up with a solution to this > problem? (Other than HORMONE PILLS?) Oh, I was going to suggest hormone pills, but since you've tried those ... :-) Actually, I design voice mail systems, and so I'm intimately familliar with this problem. The solution I have found works best is to increase the touch tone(tm) threshold, if you can. Most systems include a way to force the hardware to wait longer before registering the tone. Since a human voice will waver quite a bit (relative to the steady tone of a phone), this usually does the trick. If your hardware doesn't support this, first bug your vendor to put it in the next revision, and then good luck. ++Christopher(); // All original text is strictly the opinion of the poster Christopher J. Ambler, Author, FSUUCP 1.41, FSVMP 1.0, chris@toys.fubarsys.com ------------------------------ From: STEVE BAUER Subject: Re: Unique(?) Problem With Voicemail Prompts Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 18:28:31 CST When a female voice triggers a Voice Mail system, I have two suggestions: 1. Ask the person to talk a little slower. This will naturally lower the voice a bit, hopefully just enough to eliminate the problem. 2. Hold the phone a little further away from her lips. This might reduce the offending frequency so it won't trigger things. Steve ------------------------------ From: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox) Subject: Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 23:56:28 +0000 David Leibold writes ... > The +44 956 I have listed as a PCN phone system +44 956 is shared between a PCN system (Mercury One-2-One) and a new service, "FLEXTEL", which is the UK's first personal numbering service. A bit like the 700 codes in the USA - but not, you'll be glad to hear, carrier specific! > Can anyone confirm or deny whether UK was really running out of area > codes The UK is not running out of area codes. Never has been. The proposed changes are, essentially, political. Have you ever tried to get a civil servant to admit they were wrong? Then you'll understand the problem. There is a *lot* of area-code wastage in the UK (The worst case is Foula, a tiny island with 25 or so telephones, which has its own area code +44 393. That code, like most other area codes, has capacity for a million numbers. If some of these under-used area codes were combined, over 200 new codes could be made available very easily and at a low cost (say, under five million UK pounds total). Also different providers are being given "branded" codes for special services, which means there are so many premium codes that most users cannot remember which is premium and which isn't. That suits telco! (Americans are lucky to have a single 900 code for this sort of thing, even though there are some "local" codes as well). The main worry is that there are a number of cities (Brighton, Belfast, Coventry, Bournemouth etc) which have a growing population, and are likely to need to move from six digits to seven in the next few years. London is also likely to exhaust its supply of numbers before the year 2000, even though it is already on seven digit schemes, and has recently had one area code split. So yes, the change will be happening (but at Easter 1995, not 1994). The problem is that it won't actually solve any of the problems that were used to justify the need for it in the first place !!! Merry Christmas everybody - Nadolig Llawen i chi gyd ! Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF Voice: +44 956 700111 Fax: +44 956 700110 VoiceMail: +44 941 151515 E-mail address: richard@mandarin.com - PGP2.3 public key available on request ------------------------------ From: mzmijews@mgzcs.demon.co.uk (George Zmijewski) Subject: Re: Is UK IDDD Changing 4/94? Organization: MGZ Computer Services Reply-To: mzmijews@mgzcs.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 13:39:52 +0000 >From Oftel Consultative Document June 93: (...) .. details of the codes that were to change in 1995 - addition of a "1" to all fixed network area codes after the trunk dialling prefix "0"; - a change of code in five major cities introducting seven digit subscriber numbers - a change in the international dialling prefix from "010" to "00" The codes that will *not* change at NCC are the existing codes for non-geographic services, ie: - frephone services; - premium rate services; - services where national calls are charges at local call rate; - mobile (cellular and PCN ) services; - certain paging services; ... followed by 23 pages of discussion on the subject. The date for NCC is 16 April 95 but new codes will begin to be accepted by some switches in March 94, around August 94 all exchanges should be able to recognise new codes. George Zmijewski ------------------------------ From: serviss@tazdevil.cig.mot.com (Gerald Serviss) Subject: Re: Wireless Local Loop in India Date: 22 Dec 1993 15:09:07 GMT Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola The system that you refer to is built by Motorola. It is based on analog signalling standards (AMPS/TACS). The India system was probably TACS as India is a GSM country. This system is designed to hook up to a Class 5 office. For more information contact Larry Svec at svec@rtsg.mot.com Jerry Serviss Mororola Inc. ------------------------------ From: mgriffin@access.digex.net (Michael D. Griffin) Subject: Re: Standards and Where to Get Them? Date: 22 Dec 1993 20:20:30 GMT Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Mike Storke (storkus@netcom.com) wrote: > CCITT v.* standards and the Bellcore DS* (aka T*) standards? For CCITT (now ITU) try gopher at ties.itu.ch I don't know of any site that has Bellcore or old ATT (T1) specs online ... the EIA/TIA will sell the ANSI T1 spec. but not online either. ------------------------------ úÿ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: Re: Calling a PBX and Billing Date: 22 Dec 1993 20:48:48 GMT Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Not necessarily. Our AT&T Definity system supervises an incoming call immediately. When asked why, our telecom support group mumbled something about compatiblity with our voice-mail provider. I complained that, when I use my cell phone to call in, I'm charged air time for unanswered calls. They investigated, and learned that GTE Mobilnet in Portland OR doesn't pay attention to supervision. Their avowed policy, "you never pay for an unanswered call," is implemented by charging nothing for calls lasting less than a minute. Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Dec 93 01:18 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Cellphones With RJ-11 Connectors Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > I'm looking for information on cellular phone the either have, or > can be adapted (with a dongle, whatever), to provide, an RJ-11 phone > jack. Lots of phones now come with the jack. The Audiovox CTX-3200E that NYNEX sold me (for $0, requires 24 months of service) has an RJ-11 in the cradle. I haven't tried to use it, but it appears that it's easy to set the phone so the RJ-11 device answers incoming calls, but you have to place outgoing calls yourself and then switch to the jack. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: mzmijews@mgzcs.demon.co.uk (George Zmijewski) Subject: Re: International Calls via Cable or Satellite Organization: MGZ Computer Services Reply-To: mzmijews@mgzcs.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 13:10:08 +0000 In article cmoore@BRL.MIL writes: > This refers to calls originating in the UK: >> To get a guaranteed non-satellite circuit to the USA, useful for >> certain data transmission requirements which involve a lot of >> handshaking, dial 0101 83 + area code + number. >> The code 84 allows you to obtain a satellite link, if you really want >> one for any reason. > 010 is international access code in the UK, and 1 is the country code > which includes the U.S. Now you're telling me that EXTRA digits are > inserted for non-satellite/satellite links? The equipment at the UK > end can handle these extra digits and would not be confused by the > coming of the NNX area codes? I don't know what the future holds but 83/84 prefix works without any problems from UK right now. Does anybody know about plans for area codes 83X 84X? I think this range may remain reserved for some time -- the 83/84 prefix was in use for several years and I'm sure a lot of automatic dialers use it. It will become redundant with time when ISDN will take over all data calls -- when you request international call with guaranteed 64k channel it selects cable route. (Its an extra zero I think and it costs you more.) BTW I use 83 for all calls to US since I have noticed that echo created by satelite connections caused MF4 bleeps to be heard twice on the other end. (ie 70ms mark, 70 ms space while the delay was 300ms long enough for the bleep to go from my switch to the remote switch come back , loop through my handset and go back again loud anough to be recognised). I only noticed this problem few times on one particular US switchboard. Apparently there should be some echo cancelling eqpt. on the way but I don't know why it didnt work. George Zmijewski ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 07:22:15 EST From: jkimbro@hercii.lasc.lockheed.com (Jon Kimbrough) Subject: Re: Why Was 334 Picked For Alabama? In article 18@eecs.nwu.edu, Carl Moore () writes: > I don't know why the first NNX area code won't be of the form AB0, > unless there was concern over people getting confused and trying to > "correct" it to A0B. If this is the case, the concern seems unwarranted to me. It's been my experience that the average Joe doesn't have any idea that area codes can only be made up of certain limited combinations of numbers and isn't likely to think twice about dialing 520 or 330 as an area code. Jon Kimbrough jkimbro@lasc.lockheed.com Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein, either stated or implied, are solely my own and do not reflect Lockheed's views in any manner. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V13 #835 ****************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253