TELECOM Digest Wed, 16 Mar 94 11:16:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 133 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Los Angeles Phone Fire (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: No Monthly Fee Cell Phone (Rob Boudrie) Re: Modem Use With Rolm Phone 240 (Steve Brack) Re: New Area Code Change Question (Laurence Chiu) Meaning of the TELEX Answerback Code That Names Carrier (Sheldon Hoenig) Re: Questions About GMRS Radio (Danny Burstein) Re: Questions About GMRS Radio (Bill Nayhew) Re: Questions About GMRS Radio (Rich Greenberg) X.500 Directory Service (Go Simon Sunatori) Boca V-Mail Modem: Request For Tech-Specs (Ken Stillson) Motorola - Japan Press Release (Gregory A. Lucas) 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. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 94 10:35:11 CST From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Los Angeles Phone Fire Word is trickling in very slowly from California about the fire in the Pac Bell switching center. Does anyone out there have any further details on this? I am hearing that it was quite severe. Is this another case like the major fire in Hinsdale, Illinois in 1988 and the fire in New York in the mid-1970's where a telco office and major facility was left unattended for some period of time and alarms were simply ignored? That's what happened here in the Hinsdale (Chicago) fire almost six years ago. It started early on a Sunday afternoon and burned for more than an hour before the people who were supposed to be watching out for such things decided that maybe the alarms coming from Chicago (they were in Springfield, Illinois, a couple hundred miles away as if that made a lot of sense in the first place) were to be honored. Then and only then, when the doofus in Springfield decided maybe the alarms should be investigated, he called someone at home in the west suburban area and asked them 'when they had a chance' to go over to the central office in Hinsdale and see what it was about. 30-45 minutes later a supervisor shows up, goes inside, sees the fire in progress and decides to call the fire department. But by then it was too late since all the phones in town were already dead, including those to the fire department. Bottom line in Hinsdale? Service was out for two weeks in some cases and a month in others. An entire switch had to be scrapped and a replacement installed. Millions of dollars in lost business and hardships while the phones were out. According to Mr. Eibel, a vice-president of Illinois Bell at the time, staffing a phone office *with even just one clerk* at all times to prevent situations like this was not cost effective. Maybe he figured they could buy new switches on sale at Walmart or something, and that customer goodwill was something easily obtained for less than the few dollars an hour a responsible person at the CO would cost. So what's the story in Los Angeles? PAT ------------------------------ From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) Subject: Re: No Monthly Fee Cell Phone Date: 15 Mar 1994 15:59:36 -0500 Organization: Center for High Performance Computing of WPI Does the Lindsay service use the B (Nynex) or A (Cell One) carrier's service for the actual communications, or has the FCC authorized a third carrier in the market? ------------------------------ From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (Steve Brack) Subject: Re: Modem Use With Rolm Phone 240 Organization: University of Toledo Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:00:23 GMT Jim McCormack (as965@yfn.ysu.edu) wrote: > At work I have a Rolm phone 240 model #62000. Since this is a digital > phone I can't use an analog modem with it. Does anyone know of a device > which would allow the use of an analog modem on this phone/network? In the current Hello Direct catalog, there is a device called a DataDapter that plugs into your phone on the handset side. Of course, this cannot operate on an unattended basis, but it will, according to the catslog, work with almost any phone system. Their address is: Hello Direct 5884 Eden Park Place San Jose, CA 95138-1859 TEL: +1 800 HI HELLO (444 3556) English +1 800 655 1375 Spanish +1 800 964 6444 Technical Support FAX: +1 408 972 8155 HRS: 9AM - 8PM EST (6AM - 5PM PST) (1400-0100 UTC) The DataDapter is Item # 2342N, and is listed on p. 42 of the catalog. Steven S. Brack sbrack@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu Toledo, OH 43613-1605 STU0061@UOFT01.BITNET MY OWN OPINIONS sbrack@maine.cse.utoledo.edu ------------------------------ From: lchiu@crl.com (Laurence Chiu) Subject: Re: New Area Code Change Question Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 09:33:27 -0900 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access In article , Mike Quinlan wrote: > In message , TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: >> Since the general public has never probably understood the way area codes >> were constructed in the past, the general public will probably not notice >> the difference starting next year. > The general public may notice that they will have to dial the area > code when making long-distance calls within the same area code. However currently with some places requiring this and others not, it is very confusing for visitors. I had a friend visit Seattle recently and asked him to look up a friend for me who lives in Tacoma but phone number is 206-xxx-xxxx. Every time he called he got some message about the number being out of service. He didn't think to dial 1-206-xxx-xxxx to reach the number since 1-area code is not required in CA. A more informative message from the local Telco (US West?) would have been nice. Laurence Chiu Walnut Creek, California Tel: 510-215-3730 (work) Internet: lchiu@crl.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 17:04:41 EST From: Sheldon W. Hoenig Reply-To: hoenigs@gsimail.ddn.mil Subject: Meaning of Part of the TELEX Answerback Code That Names the Carrier The telex system uses an answerback code as a rudimentary authentification technique. The answerback is usually a mnemonic having some connection to the called party. In addition, there is a suffix attached to many answerback codes in the form "Ux". From what I understand, the letter U signifies that the telex destination is in the U.S. and the letter "x" tells which telex carrier supplies the telex number and service. I am interested in determining telex carriers from answerback codes. Does anyone have a list which correlates "x" to a telex carrier? Sheldon W. Hoenig Internet: Government Systems, INC (GSI) hoenigs@gsimail.ddn.mil Suite 500 hoenig@infomail.infonet.com 3040 Williams Drive Telephone: (703) 846-0420 Fairfax, VA 22031-4612 (800) 336-3066 x420 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:11:26 -0500 From: danny burstein Subject: Re: Questions About GMRS Radio GMRS is the "General Mobile Radio Servce", which is kind of like CB but on the UHF band. There are approximately eight channels on it, and repeater operation is allowed using a second frequency for input to the repater. There are also a couple of 'split' or 'intenerant' channels which are authorized for lower power, direct unit-to-unit work. Power output ont he main channels is allowed at either four or five watts. Prior to more or less 1990 anyone, including businesses, could get FCC authorization for these freqs by filling out form ?475? and mailing in the money. NOTE that you did *NOT* have exclusive use of the frequencies, but since there are fewer people on UHF, and it was FM, and you could use CCITT and other nifty stuff, it was -much- better than CB. For the last few years new licensees had to be individuals or families, not businesses. Range will vary dramatically. A decent antenna on the unit (should be about six inches) will give you perhaps a reliable half mile or so in a low density city, a mile in suburbia, and twenty miles line-of-sight from mountain top to mountain top. dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com) (10288) 0-700-864-3242 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Mar 94 11:42:45 EST From: wtm@uhura.neoucom.EDU (Bill Mayhew) Subject: Re: Questions About GMRS Radio In-Reply-To: Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine Pat, You do indeed have a GMRS (general mobile radio service) radio. Power output is usally about one watt, but may vary depending on the exact model of the radio. Some are in the 100 mW range; some are as much as five watts. Recently, I've seen thousands of UHF handhelds at local flea markets that put out about 100 mW. These were used in some sort of warehouse inventory control system that interfaced the radio with a bar code scanner. Those radios work as normal radios when the scanner is not attached. All GMRS radios have to licensed. There are several "intenerant" channels for which you may apply for a license. The fee is about $20 for a five year license -- at least the last time I checked. You can get a license for other channels that are assigned to you specifically, though shared with other users. Many GMRS use tone coded CTCSS (continuous tone coded subaudible signalling) that uses a "sub-audible" tone in the range of ~80-250 Hz. The tone is sent along with your voice so that only your receivers will open the squelch when one of your employees transmits. The street name for CTCSS is PL, which is a Motorola trademark, Private Line. There is an industry standard set of about 30 PL tones, which interoperate on any manufacturer's radio. PL is generally an option, so your radio may not be so equipped. There is usally a setting on the squelch knob that has a graphic showing a speaker with a line through it; that is the setting that activates PL. There are GMRS repaters that you may be able to access. Point-to-point, a one watt GMRS hand-held will probably transmit about one mile. Though a repeater system, I've seen ranges of up to 16 miles radius from the repeater. Our university rents time on a local GMRS repeater for our courier drivers; we bought the radios, but I believe that we use them under the authority of the repeater owner. We pay a pretty reasonable fee for the repeater access -- about $20/month. We also have two UHF GMRS repeaters here in the building for which we hold FCC licenses. The repeaters put out about one watt to a ground plane antenna on the top of the building. Our groundskeepers, maintainence people and security officers use those two channels. The range gives us coverage about a mile or two around the perimeter of our campus between the handheld radios. I strongly recommend working though a local mobile radio dealer in getting things set up. You may be able to have the working frequency of the radio reset (many radios can be set up using an umbilical cord thing that dealers have to program frequency and PL). The FCC requires that the end user not have the ability to change the assigned frequency. Some radios have a magic code that will unlock the programming if they have a keypad. Radio dealers can also provide information on GMRS repeaters in your area. GMRS is not CB and the users are very likely to get real upset with any person who sets up an ad hoc operation without going though the proper steps. Unauthorized use is more likely to attract FCC notice than goofing around with a Children's Band radio. GMRS is basically what CB was intended to be before it got out of control. Fortunately, GMRS UHF and VHF frequencies are relatively line-of-sight and FM. FM helps cut down on co-channel interference thanks to the FM capture effect. Being VHF/UHF FM cuts down on the appeal of DX operation that got to be the fad on 27 MHz AM/SSB CB. Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department Rootstown, OH 44272-0095 USA phone: 216-325-2511 wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu amateur radio 146.58: N8WED [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is no keypad or touchtone pad on this unit, and just a switch to go between channel one and channel two. I've left it sitting on the desk here turned on for several hours with the squelch open and the volume quite low just to hear what sort of traffic there is on it, it anything. So far I've heard nothing. I assume if there were a repeater around here one would need to key in something on the pad in order to activate the repeater. I don't know if I really need such a radio as this or not. I did conduct one very short test to be sure of the frequencies by turning on my scanner to the two frequencies in question and keying the transceiver for for a second or two to watch the scanner lock in on it. I'm not going to use it otherwise without a license (or at all unless I find some use for it.) PAT] ------------------------------ From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 08:59:58 PST Reply-To: richgr@netcom.com Subject: Re: Questions About GMRS Radio The units you have sound like business band or the old (Class A?) CB service. 1 watt is a reasonable power level for such a radio. The stubby antenna will cut down the range somewhat. Quarter wave whips at that frequency (around 6 inches) will work better if you can locate them. Ham unit whips (intended for 440-450 mHz) MAY work. From HT to HT with the stubby antennas, perhaps a mile or two in the clear, less inside a building. Double or triple that with properly cut 1/4 wave antennas. For the ham frequencies, 5/8 wave antennas are also available which give a bit more of an edge. Again, I don't know if they are available for 462 mHz or if the ham ones will work. Rich Greenberg Work: ETi Solutions, Oceanside & L.A. CA 310-348-7677 N6LRT TinselTown, USA Play: richgr@netcom.com 310-649-0238 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your input on this. So what is the word on the fire out there? Can you and others in Los Angeles give a more detailed report to Digest readers? PAT] ------------------------------ From: aa325@freenet.carleton.ca (Go Simon Sunatori) Subject: X.500 Directory Service Reply-To: aa325@freenet.carleton.ca (Go Simon Sunatori) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:43:41 -0500 At least one government is going ahead with a full-scale implementation of the X.500 directory service. Given the tremendous potential of X.500 service in mail-enabled applications, I believe that some form of X.500 directory service will be available for the general public to use. Now, the question is who would provide such a service? Would it be the telcos which may extend the white pages, or are there opportunities for entrepreneurs to set up a pure directory business? Go Simon Sunatori, P.Eng. X.400: C=CA; A=Telecom.Canada; O=HyperInfo.Canada; S=Sunatori; G=Go Simon Internet: aa325@freenet.carleton.ca Telephone: +1-819-595-9210 ------------------------------ From: stillson@mitre.org (Ken Stillson) Subject: Boca V-Mail Modem: Request For Tech-Specs Date: 16 Mar 94 13:19:17 GMT Organization: The MITRE Corporation The hardware manual casually mentions a few of the extended AT# commands used for the voice-subsystem, but doesn't give anywhere near enough details to actually use them. Does anyone know (or know where to get) more information on how to directly use the voice system, so one can write their own software? Thanks! Ken Stillson, stillson@mitre.org ------------------------------ From: lucas@rtsg.mot.com (Gregory A Lucas) Subject: Motorola - Japan Press Release Date: 16 Mar 94 16:31:12 GMT Organization: Motorola Cellulsr Infrastructure Group Response and Questions to: Tim Kellogg (202) 371-6925 Jay Hyde (202) 833-4481 WASHINGTON, D.C., March 12 -- An agreement reached today promising U.S. access to Japan's largest cellular phone market was hailed by Motorola as beneficial to both Japanese consumers and American workers. Motorola President and Chief Operating Officer Christopher B. Galvin said, "This is an agreement where everyone wins. First, Japanese consumers, because they will have greater choice in the marketplace. Second, American workers, because more of the products they make will be sold in Japan. And, of course, Motorola benefits from resolution of the problems that have restrained our entry into the Tokyo-Nagoya market." Galvin thanked U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor and his team, as well as Ambassador to Japan Walter Mondale, for helping to remove the roadblocks that prevented a full build- out of the Motorola cellular phone system in the Tokyo-Nagoya region. "When the U.S. government found that it had reached an impasse in its 10-year effort to gain comparable access for telecommunications products in the Japanese market, it took forceful action. We commend the administration for this step," he remarked. Galvin stressed that his company was not looking for special treatment in Japan. "With this agreement, Motorola looks forward to serving our customer in the Tokyo-Nagoya market with products that meet a standard of excellence unsurpassed anywhere else in the world," he said. "We are confident we will be able to supply quality products, and ultimately help to increase consumer opportunities, throughout the region." The agreement addresses the goal of comparable market access through two interlocking features: O Installation of a cellular phone system that will reach 95 percent of the Tokyo-Nagoya region's population by the end of 1995; and O A pledge by the government of Japan that terms of this new agreement will be met at every step. The agreement removes the immediate threat of sanctions. On February 15, Ambassador Kantor found Japan in violation of a 1989 agreement assuring American telecommunications companies market access comparable to that enjoyed by Japanese suppliers. Kantor, acting under U.S. trade law, determined that Motorola had been denied access in the Tokyo/Nagoya region, as required under the 1985 Market-Oriented Sector Selective (MOSS) Agreement on Telecommunications. Reflecting on Motorola's decade-long effort to achieve success in the Tokyo-Nagoya cellular market, Galvin said, "It is our belief that this agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning, and that Motorola will become an even more highly valued contributor to the growth of the cellular phone system in the Tokyo-Nagoya region." Motorola is one of the world's leading providers of wireless communications, semiconductors and advanced electronic systems and services. Major equipment businesses include cellular telephone, two-way radio, paging and data communications, personal communications, automotive, defense and space electronics and computers. Communication devices, computers and millions of consumer products are powered by Motorola semiconductors. Motorola's 1993 sales were $17 billion. # # # STATEMENT BY CHRIS GALVIN, president and chief operating officer, Motorola, March 12, 1994, Washington, D.C. Before taking your questions, I want to offer a single important thought. As you know, the governments of the United States and Japan announced a settlement today in the long-running dispute over access to the Tokyo-Nagoya market for American-made cellular telephone products. We have been engaged for several weeks in intense negotiations leading to this settlement. As you prepare your stories and broadcasts on the settlement, most of you will be asking, "Who wins, and who loses?" The thought I want to leave with you is this: This is an agreement where everyone wins. International trade is not a zero-sum game. It does not need to be a contest where one side is the victor and the other side is vanquished. It can be conducted so that everyone wins. This is especially true in this situation, where both Japan and the U.S. benefit. The announcement today by the governments of the U.S. and Japan is a classic example of the principle that the best solution is one where no one loses. So who wins? First, Japanese consumers, because they will have greater choice in the marketplace. Second, American workers, because more of the products they make will be sold in Japan. And, of course, Motorola benefits from resolution of the problems that have restrained our entry into the Tokyo-Nagoya market. This spring, Japanese consumers will be able to buy, rather than lease, cellular phones for the first time. As a result, we expect a virtual explosion in the use of cellular phones in Japan. This makes the timing of today's announcement particularly significant from a business point of view. It also means that Japanese companies selling cellular telephones in their own domestic market will benefit from the opportunity to sell hundreds of thousands of new units, to be used by customers in the Tokyo-Nagoya region. Throughout this process, our goal has been to achieve comparable market access for a North American-type cellular system in Japan's most heavily populated region. The agreement announced today addresses the goal of comparable market access through two interlocking features: First, through installation of a cellular phone system that will reach 95 percent of the Tokyo-Nagoya region's population by the end of 1995; and; Second, through a pledge by the government of Japan that terms of this new agreement will be met at every step. Achieving agreement in both these areas was not easy. But with the help of our customer, IDO, and the governments of the U.S. and Japan, we found ways to meet requirements in both of these critical areas. It is our belief that this agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning, and that Motorola will become an even more highly valued contributor to the growth of the cellular phone system in the Tokyo-Nagoya region. We are happy that this very narrow issue did not escalate to the point where sanctions were applied. Although we believe in the necessity of sanctions as a tool for government negotiators, we would much rather solve our differences and solidify our trade partnerships in a positive, constructive way. It would seem that we have achieved this goal with today's announcement. Finally, I want to applaud both governments. Special thanks go to the government of Japan for its efforts to find a satisfactory resolution of this difficult situation. In the U.S., we want to thank the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Kantor, and his team, as well as Ambassador Mondale in Japan, for helping to remove the roadblocks that prevented a full build-out of the Motorola cellular phone system in the Tokyo-Nagoya region. We also want to recognize that today's announcement would not be possible without the support of President Clinton. When the U.S. government found that it had reached an impasse in its ten-year effort to gain comparable access for telecommunications products in the Japanese market, it took forceful action. We commend the administration for this step. With this agreement, Motorola looks forward to serving our customer in the Tokyo-Nagoya market with products that meet a standard of excellence unsurpassed anywhere else in the world. We are confident that we will be able to supply quality products, and ultimately help to increase consumer opportunities, throughout the region. Thank you. ### ELEMENTS OF THE U.S. - JAPAN CELLULAR TELEPHONE ARRANGEMENT, Motorola, March 12, 1994, Tokyo, Japan CONSTRUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT OF THE TACS SYSTEM o A plan containing a schedule of quarterly commitments on the numbers of base stations and voice channels and the ratios of population coverage. o A deployment plan, to be completed within 30 days, setting out the precise geographic location of each base station in the Tokyo-Nagoya area. o These commitments will result in 159 new base stations, containing an additional 9,900 voice channels. The installation will begin in April 1994; installation and deployment of the base stations will be completed by September 1995; installation and deployment of the voice channels will be completed by December 1995. o Coverage of 95 percent of the population in the Tokyo-Nagoya region by September 1995. o An immediate letter of intent containing commitments with respect to the specific equipment to be purchased and all associated terms and conditions. PROMOTION OF THE TACS SYSTEM o Establishment of sales organization dedicated to the promotion of the TACS system. o Sales promotion of the TACS system, including devotion of two-thirds of IDO's total advertising budget to TACS promotion. o An agreement to add no further capacity to the HI-CAP system beyond that which is currently underway. o Implementation of a specially-designed campaign to encourage the movement of subscribers onto the TACS system. o Transfers within 18 months, i.e., by September 1995, of 1.5 MHz of spectrum from IDO's HI-CAP system to its TACS system which will be accomplished without inconvenience to HI-CAP customers as a result of the campaign mentioned above. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMITMENTS o IDO will provide quarterly reports to Japan's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications. GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN COMMITMENTS o Monitor and oversee completion of the IDO commitments, including those in the letter and all associated documents. o Ensure compliance with the letter and associated documents on a quarterly basis. o Meet quarterly with the U.S. Government to assess implementation of the actions described in the letter and associated documents. o Approve reallocation of 1.5 MHz to the TACS system. o Expeditiously grant all necessary permits and licenses to IDO and approvals required by IDO to complete the TACS system. o Give full and prompt consideration to any request from IDO for new tariff rates and conditions. Greg Lucas Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group - Arlington Heights, IL ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #133 ****************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253