TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 Apr 94 15:48:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 164

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    What's Up With The NANP (John R. Levine)
    New NPA For Virginia (Karl Johnson)
    Re: Ruling on Dark Fiber (Michael P. Herlihy)
    Re: Bellcore Goes Crypto (Garrett Wollman)
    Re: Bellcore Goes Crypto (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Dials! (Tom Watson)
    Re: *999; CB Channel 9 (Chris Sullivan)
    Re: History: Vail, Monopoly, AT&T (Mike Eastman)
    Re: Leased Line Connectivity Question (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Is 800 Really Portable Yet? (Terry Eugene Knab)
    Re: Is 800 Really Portable Yet? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary? (Matt Silveira)
    Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary? (Linc Madison)
    Re: Charges For 800 and 950 Access (Kurt Albrecht)

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: What's Up With the NANP
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 14:13:30 EDT


I just picked up this FCC news release from the fcc.gov ftp server.
Despite the date, it's real.

Regards,

John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com

                 --------------------------

Report No. DC-2581         ACTION IN DOCKET CASE        April 1, 1994 

               CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATION OF NORTH AMERICAN 
                          NUMBERING PLAN PROPOSED
                          (CC DOCKET NO. 92-237)

     The Commission has proposed to establish a new, non-government
entity to administer the North America Numbering Plan (NANP).
Administration of the NANP has evolved from its earlier focus on
conventional area codes to include other numbering resources such as
service access codes (e.g., 500 and 900 codes), N11 codes (e.g., 411),
and carrier identification codes.  As a result, the NANP administrator
coordinates many of the telephone numbers used in the United States,
Canada, and other parts of North America.  To explore issues
pertaining to future administration of the NANP, the Commission opened
this docket with a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in October 1992.

     The NOI divided the docket into two phases.  Phase I requested
comment on the identification of an appropriate entity to administer
the NANP, future funding for such administration, and how such
administration might be improved.  Phase II sought comment on the
costs, benefits and technical issues associated with expanding Feature
Group D (FGD) Carrier Identification Codes (CICs) from a three-digit
to a four-digit format.  The expanded format has been proposed to
avoid premature exhaustion of the current supply of three-digit FGD
codes.

     In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission tentatively
concluded that ministerial administration of the NANP should be
undertaken by a new, non-government entity and that the FCC should
impose fees to offset the costs of regulating US numbering resources.
The Commission also asked for comment on whether it, in conjunction
with other World Zone 1 regulators, should impose numbering charges to
finance future international administration of NANP.  In addition, the
Commission sought comment, on whether a new numbering policy board
should be established to assist regulators.
       
     With respect to Phase II, the Commission tentatively concluded
that FGD CICS should be expanded to a four-digit format. In addition,
it proposed to specify a transition period of six years during which
subscribers could use both the current three digit and the new
four-digit FGD CICs.  The Commission also sought comment on whether it
should require local exchange carriers in equal access areas to
deliver interstate, intraLATA "1+" MTS calls to the carrier preselected 
by the end user.  In addition, the Commission sought comment on the
need, if any or for a nationally uniform dialing pattern that would
use the digit "1" as a toll call identifier.

     Action by the Commission March 30, 1994, by Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FCC 94-79).  Chairman Hundt, Commissioner Quello and
Barrett.

     New Media contract: Rosemary Kimball at (202) 632-5050.
     Common Carrier Bureau contact: Peyton Wynns at (202) 
 632-0745.

------------------------------

Date: 04 Apr 94 17:59:36 EDT
From: Karl Johnson <karl.johnson@OFFICE.WANG.COM>
Subject: New NPA For Virginia


In the business section of the 1 April 1994 {Washington Post} there is
an article "announcing" a split for NPA 703.  The Post gives the start
date for this split as August (I personaly think that this will occur
a year from August).  No number or geographic location has been
assigned as of yet.  The article also states that over the next three
months that an economic study will be conducted by Bell Atlantic, the
local wireless companies, and 14 other local phone companies in the
region.

I think this will be a normal split with the line somewhere west of
the Washington, DC suburbs, with the western part getting the new NPA.

------------------------------

From: mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy)
Subject: Re: Ruling on Dark Fiber
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:19:08 GMT


In article <telecom14.158.20@eecs.nwu.edu> tsw@cypher.apple.com (Tom
Watson) writes:

> OK, I'll bite...

> What is "dark fiber".

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dark Fiber is, as I understand it, simply
> the fiber from one point to another, without the intelligence on either
> end of the line **as supplied by the telco** to use it. Dark fiber could
> roughly be compared to a wire cable from one place to another without
> telco's battery and/or switching apparatus on either end; the customer
> left to his own devices on how to use it. Although telcos have for many
> years provided so-called 'private line service' -- that is, a piece of
> wire from one point to another with the subscriber doing his own thing
> on both ends of the wire, I understand they (telcos) are not terribly
> enthusiastic about providing fiber under the same conditions. George
> Gilder wrote about this, and his essay is in the Telecom Archives for
> interested parties to review.   PAT]

I thought Dark-Fiber was telco run fiber that wasn't being used.

An AAV or CAP would lease it from a LEC and provide alternate access
using the LEC's own facilities ...

------------------------------

From: wollman@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Bellcore Goes Crypto
Date: 4 Apr 1994 10:13:37 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science


In article <telecom14.159.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, PAT writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you Colonel. Tell me this: any ideas
> how Colonel came to be pronounced 'kernel' rather than 'call-on-nell'?

There is a reason for this, oddly enough.  The English word `colonel'
is a result of the collision between the French word `colonelle' and
the Italian `coronello'.  For some unknown reason, English adopted the
French spelling and the Italian pronunciation.


Garrett A. Wollman   wollman@lcs.mit.edu 
formerly known as    wollman@emba.uvm.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 05:13:30 EDT
From: Peter M. Weiss <PMW1@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bellcore Goes Crypto
Organization: Penn State University


In article <telecom14.159.2@eecs.nwu.edu>, greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu 
(Greg Trotter) says:
 
> In article <telecom14.150.1@eecs.nwu.edu> vantek@aol.com writes:
 
>> (...)             Call Surety Technologies, Inc.  at (201) 993-8178;
>> fax number is (201) 993-8748.  Information is also available on the
>> Internet at infonotary.com.
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
> My system can't seem to find this place  ... and whois at internic seems
> clueless as well. Anybody have any updated information?
 
Taking a SWAG, I looked up info.notary.com which resolved to an MX host.

 
Pete-Weiss@psu.edu     "The 'NET' never naps"             +1 814 863 1843
31 Shields Bldg. -- Penn State Univ -- University Park, PA 16802-1202 USA

------------------------------

From: tsw@cypher.apple.com (Tom Watson)
Subject: Re: Dials!
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 1994 12:42:59 -0800
Organization: Apple Computer (more or less)


In article <telecom14.158.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, Bob_Frankston@frankston.com
wrote:

> My son (11) confronted a dial phone this past weekend and couldn't
> figure out how to use it. He tried pressing the "buttons" but nothing
> happened. We finally had to show him the concept of turning the dial.
> It took a little practice to get it smooth.

Something similar to this is references to "clockwise" and "counterclock-
wise" as directions to torn something.  It seems that the notion of
direction has been "depreciated" since we now have digital clocks.
Are first and second graders being taught how to tell time on one of
those "old-fashion" "dial" clocks?  This is probably not the correct
place to discuss this, but surfing over to 'alt.folklore.computers'
will probably yield some interesting ideas on this subject ...


Tom Watson    Not much simpler!!
tsw@cypher.apple.com

------------------------------

From: feedle@kaiwan.com (Prof. Feedlebom)
Subject: Re: *999; CB Channel 9
Date: 4 Apr 94 17:58:17 GMT
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920)


Jonathan (jdl@wam.umd.edu) wrote:

> I am wondering why the police do not routinely monitor CB channel 9,
> since the primary use of this channel is to report emergencies.

A few police departments monitor channel 9 across the country, however 
even at CB's peak that was not really who was monitoring.

A long time ago, there was a group called REACT who's basic purpose
was to monitor channel 9, and render assistance as needed by calling
the appropriate authorities by telephone and acting as a "relay" for
motorists in trouble.  Unfortunately, even though REACT still exists,
few still monitor channel 9. Most (especially here in LA) just act as
roving reporters for the local traffic service.  I know of entire
TEAMS of REACT members that don't even have one CB radio between them.

If you need emergency assistance while travelling, don't depend on your
CB radio.  Invest the $200 to buy a GOOD cellular phone, or pass the no-code
Amateur license and use ham radio.  You'll be doing yourself a favor.


Chris Sullivan, KD6COS, Santiago REACT #19


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In some places, the REACT people have
moved up to the 462 megs area in GMRS. During the height of the CB
craze back in the 1970's, channel 9 was abused a lot in many places
and what limited police attention it received wained.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 Apr 94 08:56:38 EST
From: mfe@ihlpm.att.com
Subject: Re: History: Vail, Monopoly, AT&T
Organization: AT&T


In article <telecom14.155.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (James
H. Haynes) writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for that great bit of history.
> .... Without question, Ted Vail was the man who made AT&T what it is
> today, or at least what it was for more than half a century.   PAT]

AT&T has an employee award called the VAIL Medal of Valor given for
acts of bravery (e.g., saving someone in fire). I find it satisfying
that it is not given out for technical achievement or monetary achievement, 
just for HUMAN achievement.


Mike Eastman    att!ihlpm!mfe    (708) 979-6569
AT&T       Naperville, IL 60566

------------------------------

From: Barton.Bruce@camb.com
Subject: Re: Leased Line Connectivity Question
Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society
Date: 04 Apr 94 01:49:21 -0500


In article <telecom14.150.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, kostick@umbc.edu (kostick
christopher) writes:

> I have some questions. I am more of a LAN person and this WAN stuff is
> new to me. Before I approach vendors and providers about equipment and
> connectivity, I like to have some knowledge of what I'm talking about,
> and the net seems to be the place.

> Two offices need connectivity. I was thinking through a leased line of
> 56Kbps. I'm in the Bell Atlantic region, would I talk to them?  AT&T?
> MCI? Sprint? Anyone of them?

> What kind of equipment would be necessary? I've heard of these CSU/DSU
> devices? Do I need one?

Bell Atlantic has frame relay in many places and more coming. If you
are intralata, compare that to a DDS-II circuit or some FT1 circuits.

Whether leased line or frame relay, you will need a CSU/DSU (think of
it as a digital modem). 

The CSU/DSU (also spelled DSU/CSU - your choice) you get depends on speed.
DDS to 56 or possibly 64 is one type. T1 or fractions is the other type.

If small groups are at either end and this is otherwise suitable,
bridge.  It will be plug and play -- no configuration hassles. Get a
Gandalf 5220 that does screaming good compression. Lists at 2295 each.
Wholesales at Ingram at 1513, your street price depends on your
bargaining.

The base model used to just do 56kb. 2nd wan port is just $150 more.
S/W upgrade (flash equipped, no less) to support compression to 384kb
and T1 speeds without compression WAS $700, but may now be bundled
free due to competition -- ask. DDS DSU/CSU ***SERIOUS QUALITY** try
Adtran's DSU-III AR listing at $725. Shopping in the back of "Telecom
Gear" may find ads offering it at $479 or less. A BAT brand one that
JUST does 56kb and JUST has a v.35 (no rs232) lists at $299. **LARGE**
discount %s generally available.

A T1 CSU/DSU, oh, probably lists at $1595.  There are MANY options --
best get someone you trust. With a little effort current models with
reduced chip counts should be available just under $1000 with some
careful shopping.

If you really MUST route, get cisco's new 250x models. Hardware is 995
for one ethernet to two T1 capable ports. Software is 1500, 2300, or
3000 per end depending on what you need to do. Cisco discounts, though
definitely available, are more difficult than othe rbrands. But you
are getting 'class' stuff.

The csico 250x router MUST be used if you are using frame relay, as
the Gandalf doesn't do f/r. Cisco can bridge, too, but lacks compression 
that is promised in some future s/w upgrade. cisco ALWAYS will need con-
figuring.

If you must go interlata, then you need an IXC. Same leased line vs
frame relay questions should be asked. Try other than the mainstream
ATT/Sprint/MCI.  Wiltel or C&W should be good. Resellers should be
avoided until you get more experience. they tend to want your $s
without really getting the service installed properly, and will help
precious little later.

56kb is probably all you need, but you didn't give many details.
Ignore 8:1 claims. With the gandalfs you probably will get 3:1 or
maybe 4:1 compression on average. With a 56kb line, that is VERY nice.

Get the v.35 connectorized versions even if just starting at 56kb.

One last thing. 56kb DDS *WAS* and in some places still IS the old
hubbed MEGA-RIP-OFF obsolete service. You want DDS-II, or BDS
(Basic...) or GDS (Generic...) or, in AT&T terms ASDS (Acunet Spectrum
of Digital Service).  Specifically you want the LOWEST PRICE non
hubbed generic digital service available. Check BOTH the in state
utility commission tariffs and the FCC ones. *YOU* (in state only) and
you alone can pick which you order under.

There ARE rules saying which to use. No one polices this and no one
seems to really care. Bigest problem if the FCC ones are cheaper
inlata may be getting a local telco sales droid that even understands
HOW to take your order under FCC pricing! Persist.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 06:01:52 CST
From: Terry Eugene Knab <tknab01@services.dese.state.mo.us>
Subject: Re: Is 800 Really Portable Yet?


I applied for my 800 number (800-900-XXXX) on May 3, 1993 (two days
after the new system started.  When I enquired as to what was
available, (and I was dealing with MCI) they offered me the 800-900-
XXXX, 800-417-XXXX, 800-889-XXXX (all of which either ended in double
0 or repeated i.e.  8989) When I asked the MCI rep why I had these
choices, she told me that all combinations were opened up for general
use.  BTW, 889 was a RBOC NNX.


Terry Knab    tknab01@services.dese.state.mo.us
P.O. Box 34 Buffalo, MO 65622   417-345-7979

------------------------------

From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)
Subject: Re: Is 800 Really Portable Yet?
Date: 4 Apr 1994 10:10:26 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc.
Reply-To: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette)


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After portability started, 
> When it comes to 'good' numbers (i.e. they spell words or end in x000
> or some other desirable combination) which are idle from AT&T, then AT&T
> always claims the number is 'reserved' for a pending customer. They never
> can produce the name of the so-called customer of course, and although
> reservations are theoretically only good for sixty days (at which point
> a carrier has to make it available without further hassles) AT&T keeps
> on renewing the reservations on the numbers they want. ... 

> So although portability is the law, it will only work as it should
> when the FCC orders all the carriers to start responding promptly to
> customer requests for numbers which 'belong' to other carriers and to
> quit reserving numbers for customers who do not exist in order to hang
> on to desirable numbers.  PAT]

I had this problem last year.  The number I wanted was not in service,
but when I tried to get it through AT&T, I was told that it was
"reserved" by the original carrier who owned that prefix, Cable &
Wireless.  So I called C&W, and they told me that it was reserved by
themselves for "internal use."  Instead of battling with them to get
them to release it, I explained to them that I wanted to sign up for
800 service, but I will do so with them only if I can get the number I
want, and that if I have to have a number assigned to me other than
the one I want, that I might as well go with another carrier.  

I played dumb and acted like I didn't know anything about portability.
Magically, the sales rep was able to get the number "released" and
assigned to me.  Once the account was set up and working, I filled out
the RespOrg switch form and had it moved over to AT&T where I wanted
it.  Once it was in service in my name, there was no argument about
moving it.  Although it introduces a bit of a delay, extra work, and
perhaps a setup charge and first-month's fee from a carrier you don't
want to deal with, it is far easier than trying to battle it out.  I'd
recommend to anyone to do it this way if at all possible.


Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  You shouldn't have to play games like
that however. I've had to do the same thing though.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 10:16:45 PST
From: mws1@admin01.osi.com (Matt Silveira) 
Subject: Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary?


Yes, many modems of like bps rate will not "communicate" due to
proprietary bit compression schemes.  V.fast and MNP are proprietary
and will not "sync-up" with a standard modem. And save your money on
fancy options for LEC lines or IXC lines and buy a better modem with
more robust error correction.

With regard to ZMODEM, it is not proprietary and there are many
"shareware" programs available for Macs, PCs, and UNIX boxes, check a
"mirrored" INTERNET site or sumex.aim at Stanford for Macs.

Good Luck.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 18:20:12 -0700
From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: ZMODEM - Proprietary?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


In article <telecom14.158.5@eecs.nwu.edu> you wrote:

> I'm trying to determine whether the Zmodem transfer protocol is
> proprietary.  Specifically, are there any *free* (i.e. non-shareware)
> tools for sending/receiving files utilizing the Zmodem protocol?

The ZMODEM protocol is definitely NOT proprietary.  Particular
implementations of it (such as the Mark/Space ZMODEM tool for the
Apple Communications Toolbox) are proprietary, but the protocol itself
is not.  You can obtain complete source code for "sz/rz" for Unix.  I
don't recall the FTP site, but I'm sure someone on the net can inform
you.  There are also freeware comm applications for popular micros
that supply ZMODEM (e.g., ZTerm for Macintosh).


Linc Madison   *   Oakland, California   *   LincMad@Netcom.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 13:31:00 EDT
From: National Electric Telephone <0006348890@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Charges For 800 and 950 Access


My company provides public telephones for general public use in
Southeastern Pennsylvania.  Consequently, I'm pretty familiar with
access to 800 and 950 numbers from public telephones.  I'm going to
give you some of the history, rules, and reasons behind the rules.
I'm also going to let you know where I think things are going on this
issue.

In the Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act of 1990
(TOCSIA) Congress mandated that telephone aggregators (i.e. public
telephone providers, hotels, university provided phones, etc.) must
provide access to 800 and 950 at no higher cost than what they charge
to access their presubscribed 0+ carrier (i.e. the carrier that you
get when you just dial 0).  Since most aggregators don't charge to
access their presubscribed carrier (they receive a commission from the
presubscribed carrier in exchange for sending the traffic their way)
they therefore should not be charging for access to 800 and 950
access.  They definately cannot block access.
             
TOCSIA also mandated that the FCC decide whether 10XXX should be
handled in the same manner.  In addition, they also directed the FCC
to see if compensation should be granted to the aggregators for
allowing the end user to access their carrier of choice.  The carrier
receives compensation from the end user who pays for the call, why
shouldn't the company that provided the equipment from which the call
originated also be compensated.

In 1992 the FCC decided that 10XXX access should be handled in the
same manner as 1-800 and 950 and that aggregators should be compensated 
on a per call basis.  However, they couldn't figure out how to
implement a per call compensation plan so they did nothing.  At the
urging of the American Public Communications Council (A trade group
which represents public accessible communication companies) the FCC
did implement a temporary plan in which the major long distance
carriers pay into a fund.  Each aggregator phone receives $6 per month
to compensate them for interstate access code calls.  Prior to this
aggregators received *nothing* everytime someone placed one of these
calls.

You might wonder why an aggregator should receive compensation for
800, 950, and 10XXX calls when these are free to them to begin with.
Well, if you decided to start a business providing public telephones
for use by the public you would invest money in equipment, personnel,
training, maintenance.  Each month you have to pay a phone bill to the
LEC (local telephone company) for dial tone service.  Each month you
have to pay to keep the phones in good repair (handsets, keypads,
circuit boards, lamps).  And each month you have a payroll you have to
meet.

Everytime someone uses your phone to make an 800, 950, or 10XXX call
they tie up the phone from someone that is actually going to make a
paid call.  Prior to the per call compensation plan many aggregators
felt that it was unfair to give away service for free.  Consumers saw
this as unfair because it had always been free.

Most aggregators have now unblocked access to these codes.  Issues
that still need to be resolved are compensation for intrastate access
code calls, calls to new access services like MCI's 1-800-COLLECT and
AT&T's 1-800-OPERATOR, and subscriber 800 calls (ie. Calls to L.L.
Bean).  The number of 800 subscriber calls far outweighs 1-800, 950,
and 10XXX carrier access calls.  Basically, any call that is
originated from a public telephone should be compensated.  This is no
different than the LEC's that receive access charges for *all* calls
that they send onto an Interexchange carrier (i.e. AT&T, MCI, etc.).
They aren't forced to pass any calls onto the long distance carriers
for free.

It is my opinion that once compensation is awarded on a time sensitive
basis for all originated calls, that are not paid by coin at the
public telephone, you will start to see rates on operator assisted
calls come down.  A lot of the cost now in non-dominant operator
service calls is from the Premise Imposed Fee (PIF).  This is a fee
that the aggregator has asked the operator service company to collect
on their behalf.  Right now, the scales are unbalanced.  If you have
to give away calls for free on one hand you have to make up the loss
elsewhere.  Basically, calling card and collect call users are
subsidizing callers who make 1-800 calls.  Once proper compensation is
in place these PIF fees should be greatly reduced or eliminated and
the scales will finally be balanced.

Hope this was helpful.


Kurt Albrecht     National Electric & Telephone

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #164
******************************


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
