TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 May 94 12:08:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 237

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Graphic BBS, Gif to RIP (Adan Klein)
    Cellular Phone Timers (Tony Harminc)
    Query re: Voice Dictation (Mike McCrohan)
    Information Wanted on 900 Numbers: Providers and Costs (Lance Ware)
    Distinctive Ring Line Effects? (Stu Whitmore)
    Frame Relay SVC Specs Wanted (John Lawitzke)
    Seeking Beta Site for Telecom Management Software (Donald E. Kimberlin)
    Internet Address For Computer-Privacy (Al Cohan)
    Using CDMA for LAN's? (junaid@delphi.com)
    CNID and ANI - Will They Become One and The Same? (A. Padgett Peterson)
    CO Switch Types by Exchange Code (Michael Stanford)
    Re: Bellcore to Assign NPA 500 Codes (Mike King)
    Re: SRI Ends Two Bobs (Garnet Harris)
    Re: Money Saving Cellular Tip (CO/NY NYNEX Rates) (Doug Reuben)
    Re: Palestinian Country Code (Josh Backon)

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.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

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 edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    * 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   * 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such
as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help 
is important and appreciated.

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: ramzeys@netcom.com (Adan Klein)
Subject: Graphic BBS, Gif to RIP 
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 08:02:57 GMT


   I am trying to find a graphical software program that can convert
Gif graphic files to RIP (Remote Image Processing).  RIP is a much
better graphical interface rather then ansi.  Basically, what I need a
is any software program that can convert a GIF to .RIP file so I can
edit it.  I am desparate to find such a thing.  If someone could
please tell me where one might be, that would be so great.  If you do
not understand what RIP is, then reply, and maybe you have seen one
somewhere.  Please anyone that might know write me some email right
away, I am desparate.

    Please reply by email.


ramzeys

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

Date: Wed, 18 May 94 15:01:52 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <EL406045@BROWNVM.brown.edu>
Subject: Cellular Phone Timers


I've finally got into the cellphone racket, and now know the practical
answer to a theoretical question that I've been wondering about for a
while. Typical cellphones have at least one call timer -- often two or
more.  These are touted as a way of tracking your airtime -- either
for billing clients or to keep track of how your monthly allocation of
'free' minutes is doing, and when you are going to start paying for
each one.

But not all airtime is chargeable.  There are various kinds of free
calls (typically *nnn codes), and more importantly, there is no charge
for busy and unanswered calls.  So if the timers are to reflect reality, 
the phone has to be told by the network when charging starts and ends
 -- a supervision signal, if you will.

I've never seen signs of such a facility in the AMPS documentation,
and now experience says the same thing: the timers start when you
press SEND and stop when you press END.  (This is on a Nokia 101
handheld.)  How disappointing.  How useless.


Tony Harminc


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is apparently, at present no way to
start or stop the timer(s) with supervision. I believe the timers are
wired through the SEND button and that is about it. None the less, the
timers do provide some guidance in what to expect for your monthly bill.
If you are like most users, you can take the amount of time shown and
deduct 10-15 percent of that amount to get a realistic idea of the number
of actual minutes used. From that, you then subtract your 'free minutes'
allotment and you will get a close, if not exact idea what your bill will
be for the month.  Of course since the billing arrives a week or more 
into the new service period, you also have to know on what day the billing
actually ends if you want to flush the timers and start them over.   PAT]

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

From: Mike McCrohan <mccrohan@iol.ie>
Subject: Query re: Voice Dictation
Date: 19 May 1994 00:19:59 GMT
Organization: Ireland On-Line


I am looking for information on Voice Dictation/ Voice Transcription
systems. Digital Voice Inc., Dictaphone, and Lanier are the vendors in
question.

If anyone uses any of these boxes, I'd appreciate it if they mailed me
as I have some questions I'm trying to get answered.

Additionally, if anyone had the Email addresses of any or all of these
vendors, I'd appreciate that too.

Thanks in advance,


Mike McCrohan, Cloon, Claregalway, Co Galway, Ireland
+353 91 98556         mccrohan@iol.ie

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

From: lware@voxel.com (Lance Ware)
Subject: Information Wanted on 900 Numbers: Providers and Costs
Organization: VOXEL
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 22:59:56 GMT


I would like to get some information on what providers are out there,
what plans are available, etc ...

Please send email.

 
Lance Ware    IS Manager & VOXEL Guru   VOXEL

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

Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 00:05:13 -0700
From: whitmore@tahoma.cwu.edu (Rattlesnake Stu)
Subject: Distinctive Ring Line Effects?
Organization: Central Washington University


I have a two part question:

1.  I recently had distinctive ringing enabled on a phone line that
leads to my BBS.  Since then, I've had a significant increase in
handshake problems when receiving BBS calls.  (The modem itself
determines the ring, and seems to be 100% accurate in doing so.  I use
the ZFAX voice mail/faxback software as a "front end" that loads the
front end BGFAX for normal rings and handles Distinctive Ring type 1
as voice.  For a normal ring, BGFAX is loaded before the line is
answered.)  Would a service like distinctive ring affect the line
quality after the line is answered, even if there's no switch box to
add another hardware link?

2.  Is there a way to boost a signal between the wall and the modem,
or would I even want to?  I'm running an extension cord about 200'
from the phone jack to the modem, as moving the jack was out of the
question in my landlord's eyes.  I'm afraid of signal degradation in
that distance -- should I even worry about it?

Thanks in advance!


Stuart Whitmore   whitmore@tahoma.cwu.edu

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

From: jhl@egr.msu.edu (John Lawitzke)
Subject: Frame Relay SVC Specs Wanted
Date: 19 May 1994 15:30:25 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University. College of Engineering


My management has heard that ANSI has recently released a specification 
for Frame Relay switched virtual circuits (SVCs).  Could someone provide 
me with the exact ANSI reference number so that I can get it ordered?


Advance thanks,

John Lawitzke   Systems Analyst
ADAK Communications Corp.  Internet: jhl@egr.msu.edu

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

Date: Thu, 19 May 94 11:00:00 EST
From: Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.com>
Subject: Seeking Beta Site for Telecom Management Software


        The maker of some unique PC-based software with significant
new ability to maintain databases of WANs; share that information
among the several involved functions of an organization and authorized
common carrier functions, and conduct automated audits of the monthly
bills is seeking a U.S. beta site.

        This software has already been in use in other nations for
almost a year, so a beta test of it does not mean the user has to
wring out basic bugs in the software.  This release is merely the U.S.
version of a proved package.  The possibility does exist that detail
modifications of functions and screens will occur, as there may be
detail items for user convenience that need inclusion.  Meantime,
using the software portends an opportunity to save significant money
with an automated means to trap billing errors and find inactive
circuits on complex WANs.

        This software, although PC-based, requires at least a 486/33
or 66 as a server for the multiple users that access its shared
database in order to fulfill all its uses.  Further, the organization
selected for a beta site should have a dedicated private line bill
that runs in excess of USD25,000 per month, preferably much more.  Use
of the software should provide well in excess of 10% savings per month
on that bill.

        While this software is useful to catalog and track dedicated
lines used in switched voice networks, it does not track dial service
traffic or billed minutes.  Its function is strictly for dedicated
lines themselves, and tracking occupancy of those lines with
multiplexed applications on them, if any.

        The provider of the software is not prepared at this juncture
to answer casual inquiries or provide multiple demo copies of the
software.  Please include some description of:

        - the number and type of lines and nodal points,
        - common carriers you use,
        - any private construction or "off-tariff deals" you
                 may have, and
        - approximate amount of your monthly billing

in your inquiry.  Seriously interested and qualified parties should
e-mail the originator at 0004133373@mcimail.com.  The U.S.  version of
this software will be ready by late May, so seriously interested
parties should be prepared to install it in June and start into
immediate use.

        Again, no casual or "merely interested" inquiries, please.
There are not facilities available to respond to them.  And again, the
e-mail address for seriously interested and qualified parties is
0004133373@mcimail.com.

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

Date: Wed, 18 May 94 17:19 EST
From: Al Cohan <0004526627@mcimail.com>
Subject: Internet Address for Computer-Privacy


Computer Privacy is moderated by Prof. Leonard P. Levine and it can
be reached at com-privacy@uwm.edu.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Its been awhile since mention was made of 
this fine publication so now is a good time for it. Originally started
by Dennis Rears as a continuation of a very long and controversial thread
started here in TELECOM Digest, Dennis turned over control of his publi-
cation to Professor Levine several months ago. Actually, two e-journals
had their beginning here as part of TELECOM Digest. The other was the
very popular Computer Underground Digest (or CuD as it is frequently known)
which began here a few years ago as a thread on computer hacking about
the same time that the federal government was having a major investigation
into computer crime which involved some prominent net personalities.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 06:37:58 EDT
From: JUNAID@delphi.com
Subject: Using CDMA for LAN's?


I have a question for the CDMA and LAN experts out there:

After studying how CDMA is implemented, I was wondering if anyone knew
if such a concept would work for LAN's.  I know that CDMA is designed
for Mobile "wireless" applications, but the idea if coding to me seems
to also have other possibilities.

If you have an Ethernet style topology (i.e. one thick cable) running
through an office, is it possible for multiple transceivers to
broadcast a message on several frequencies at once (i.e. CDMA).

The benefit of such a system to my mind is that it would allow
multiple workstations to transmit/receive files simultaneously.  It
would also allow for applications such as voice and video, which
require CBR facility, to also operate on the same network.

The coding could be derived as a calculation based on the unique
addresses of both the sending and receiving workstations.  This would
reduce the overhead on the PC/workstation transceiver as it would only
have to focus attention on certain frequencies.  In other worlds, a
kind of digital FDM LAN with packet and VBR facilities.

For me, the benefit of such a product is that it would allow a company
to go to existing LAN customers and provide a upgrade path to
multimedia networking without re-cabling the office or buying new
PC/workstations.  All you would have to do is put in new LAN cards
(and make money?).

Question 1:
Would such a concept work? Or would you only hear garbage on your
cable due to intereference?

Question 2: 
Is there a company developing such a product for LAN's? (Or has it
been already developed?)


Best regards,

Junaid@Delphi.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 May 94 08:49:16 -0400
From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: CNID and ANI - Will They Become One and the Same?


In many ways CNID and ANI are similar yet as has been pointed out
here, ANI is a much older service and CNID is a parallel (though not
always exactly the same) function tied to CLASS services.

With the FCC mandate for CNID service, is it not possible that the
telcos will use this to drop ANI? Also it has been mentioned that
"911 service requires special trunk lines and equipment". Clearly CNID
does not and needs only a low-cost display. Will this make local 911
response a possibility?

While we are at it, I would *suspect* that per-call blocking will be
the standard, per-line will be standard for unlisted subscribers, a
different dial tone will be returned when blocking is enabled;
emergency, recipient paid (800), and possibly 900 numbers will receive
CNID reguardless of privacy bit setting (possibly with a special
ring); and a host of other features will be available "at slight
additional charge".

And pizza shops, like my computers, will refuse to answer if CNID is
blocked.


Warmly,

Padgett


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think ANI will ever be completely
dropped in favor of using Caller-ID exclusively since CID can be blocked
at the caller's option while ANI delivery cannot be blocked. The latter
is delivered more with the idea in mind 'here is what you are paying for
when you automatically accepted the collect calls' while the former is
intended to announce who is calling. If ANI were dropped, then there
would have to be some adjustments made to CID which did not allow the
caller to override number delivery in certain cases such as 800 calls.  PAT]

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

Subject: CO Switch Types by Exchange Code
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 11:15:25 PDT
From: Michael Stanford <stanford@algorhythms.com>


I am looking for a listing of all the CO switch types in the USA by
area code and exchange code -- I have heard that such a list is
available on the Internet.  Do you have any idea where I should start
looking?

To clarify, my phone number is +1 (202) 332 2110.  I would like to
look up 202 332 in the list and see that it is hooked to a Northern
Telecom XX.XX switch or whatever it is.  I presume the list would be
quite large -- a maximum of about 200,000 entries.  


Thanks.

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

From: mk@TFS.COM (Mike King)
Subject: Re: Bellcore to Assign NPA 500 codes
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 12:24:52 PDT


In TELECOM Digest, V14 #233, Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
wrote:

> As I thought of that, it also caused me to wonder the same thing about
> 800 numbers. They, too, are always dialed with the leading "800", and
> so that number-space could be a full XXX-XXXX range too. The only
> thing stopping it is the expectation of the users and how the software
> is written. Are there 800-XXX exchanges in use now?

I've seen quite a few 800-800-XXXX numbers listed.  Before portability, 
I believe Sprint administered them.


Mike King    mk@tfs.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought 800-800 'belonged to' MCI,
but I could be mistaken.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 16:55 EDT
From: The Tibetian Traveller <GHARRIS@LANDO.HNS.COM>
Subject: Re: SRI Ends Two Bobs


Will Martin wrote:

> Also, there's at least one aspect that no one ever seems to mention:
> you can hide your SW reception. I can listen in my bed to shortwave,
> using a radio that's the size of a paperback book...No one has ever 
> shown me how they can receive from a satellite without an external 
> antenna of some kind, 

Will makes several fine points about 'stealth satellite' reception.
However, there are small concelable antennas for satellite use.  The
special forces had one that would fold up to a size like a foldable
umbrella.  Signal/noise wasn't the greatest, but it allowed one person
to carry everything necessary to communicate via satellite on his
back.


Garnet

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

From: dreuben@netcom.com (Cid Technologies)
Subject: Re: Money Saving Cellular Tip (CO/NY NYNEX rates)
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 23:07:14 PDT


On May 13 07:46:30 1994, oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl), in response 
to a post by John Levine, wrote:

> [the point being that having one's long-distance cellular calls billed
> separately could save money]

> This is one reason a person might choose one cellular carrier over
> another.  Of the two cellular carriers in New York, one (Nynex) lets
> you pick your own long-distance carrier and be billed separately if
> you wish, the other (Cellular One) forces you to AT&T and bills you
> for it.  Or at least it was that way a few years ago, can current
> customers comment?

It still is that way. 

CO/NY bills you for both local and toll calls. Local calls are six cents
per minute, and you can call from central Jersey to Fairfield County,
CT at six cents per minute, plus airtime.

NYNEX does NOT bill for local calls, so any call within NYNEX/NY's
service area is always toll-free -- you pay only airtime. This can
mean a significant savings, especially at night, when rates for both
CO/NY and NYNEX are around 30 cents per minute (NYNEX is like 25, CO
is around 35, depending on your plan). A 6 cent per minute local
charge is around 20% of the total cost, so NYNEX at night can come out
to be * 40% * cheaper (ie, 25 cents per minute for a local call on
NYNEX, 41 cents per minute on Cell One/NY). Note however that
NYNEX/NY's "home" rate plan/local calling area does NOT include
Fairfield Cty, CT, as does Cell One's.

As to toll calls, both NYNEX and CO/NY charge standard (read: the most
expensive) AT&T rates. NYNEX will let you use whatever other equal
access LD company it does business with, CO/NY won't -- it has no
equal access provisions as they are not required to provide them by
law.

Interestingly, CO/NY does NOT give you a night discount on your toll
calls.  You pay AT&T's EVE call rates on ALL toll calls after 5PM --
there is no discount for night calls.

You can see this clearly on your CO/NY bill is you roam to other areas
near NY which do bill AT&T NIGHT rates. On my most recent bill, I
placed two calls to Hingham, Mass (617-749) on a Saturday afternoon,
thus normally qualifying for AT&T's NIGHT rate.

The first call had a toll charge of 16 cents for a one minute call,
which is AT&T's EVE rate, not night. I then drove to Philly, placed
the same 1 minute call, and was billed 12 cents for a minute call,
which is AT&T's NIGHT rate. Thus ComCast/Philly will bill at AT&T's
night rate, while CO/NY won't. Now four cents is no big deal, but it
goes to illustrate the point.

I talked to CO/NY about this, and it is indeed their policy to bill
you the eve rate even when you should be billed the night rate. I
usually use our 800 numbers and no-surcharge 800 calling card card, so
this is no big deal for me, and I'm not sure if its worthwhile for
them to change (seems like no one else noticed or mentioned it to
them.)

For those who may be outraged that CO/NY is doing this, well, it's a
common practice, although most cell co's will bill you at standard
night rate, like ComCast does. (And Bell owned ones MUST do this --
they can't "skim" off the tariffed rates).

On a recent flight I was talking to a couple of people "associated"
with AT&T and McCaw (being purposely vague). Among many other topics
of conversation, we discussed good/cheap LD co's to use, and one guy
(who wanted to shock me, it seems! :) ) mentioned that the recent LD
deal which AT&T cut with McCaw, where McCaw committed to using AT&T at
all of its properties, gave McCaw *daytime* LD rates of *eight cents per
minute*! So if this is correct, McCaw is skimming between 13 and 17
cents per minute on daytime calls.

Now I have no idea how correct this information is, but you can bet
McCaw and the other non-Bell owned Cell Co's are getting a very good
deal from whatever IXC LD provider they choose. So in most cases, the
Cell Co. is not only making money on airtime, but on the LD charges as
well. (And I'm sure cell cos which charge a local call charge make
something on that, too, although not as much. Additionally, some like
CO/NY, extend the local call charge to include a significantly larger
area than the Bell-owned cell co can legally offer a similar local
calling plan to.)

> [...] in New York, at least, the oligopoly pricing leads to
> very expensive air time charges, for many callers 90 cents per minute.
> This dwarfs the long-distance price component and reduces the benefit
> of getting to choose your long-distance carrier.

If you think NY is bad, go to LA! Airtime charges for ANY incomplete
call, absolutely pathetic coverage, some of the lamest customer service
(both A and B sides) in the West, and severe rush hour "blocking" so
its impossible to get a call out, let alone receive one! :(   LA is
*the* definitive example of the worst manifestations which are the
direct result of the current duopoly. Airtime charges to call a busy
signal are an outrage, and are perpetuated only because there is no
alternative. If I worked for LA Cell or Pac*Bell LA I'd frankly be
embarrassed to admit it for fear of the same (well-deserved) scorn
which early AOS operators received for charging outrageous calling
card surcharges to a captive user-base.

But back to NY, as I noted before, NYNEX does have somewhat better
airtime rates and plans, and does not charge for local calls. If you
call locally to NY and NJ, and don't want to be committed to a higher
priced CO/NY plan, NYNEX is always a good deal. AND -- they don't
charge airtime for incomplete calls over 40 seconds. My main problem
with NYNEX is their rather high roaming charges, awkward and dysfunc-
tional automatic roaming network, and their exquisitely inept customer
service dept, probably the worst in the northeast. If you can get past
all this (ie, don't roam and don't call customer service), they have
very good service in the NY Metro Area and their system is *slightly*
more stable and reliable than CO/NY's.

> One hopes that some day in the US there will be more than two
> providers for portable phone service, to bring the price down.

Amen to that! The sooner, the better!


Doug  CID Technologies (203) 499-5221

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

From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: Palestinian Country Code
Date: 18 May 94 23:01:43 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem


In article <telecom14.231.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob
Goudreau) writes:

> According to a recent issue of the {Economist}, the recent agreement
> between Israel and the PLO in setting up a "Palestinian Authority" in
> the Gaza strip and the Jericho area includes provisions that allow the
> Authority to issue postage stamps and to use a separate telephone
> country code.  Does anyone know if the ITU has issued the new code
> yet, and if so, what number was used?  The country code list for Zone
> 9 (which includes Israel, Jordan, etc.) in the Telecom archives shows
> that 970, 978 and 979 are currently vacant, so I suspect that it will
> be one of those.

The ITU refused to issue a separate country code for Gaza since the
necessary paperwork wasn't submitted by the Palestinian authorities.
If they do submit this, I would assume that Gaza would get its own
code. Currently Gaza is under the Israeli 07 area code whereas Jericho
is under 02 (Jerusalem) area code.


Josh   backon@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #237
******************************

