From: INTERNET:telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu, INTERNET:telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu To: 71623,2263 Date: Wed, Feb 9, 1994, 6:55 AM Subject: TELECOM Digest V14 #68 Sender: telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by arl-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.4/5.930129sam) id JAA28938; Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:54:27 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA26280; Wed, 9 Feb 94 07:53:58 CST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA26271; Wed, 9 Feb 94 07:53:55 CST Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 07:53:55 CST TELECOM Digest Wed, 9 Feb 94 07:35:30 CST Volume 14 : Issue 68 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing (Robb Topolski) Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing (Carl Moore) Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing (KATHY1310@delphi.com) Re: ISDN NT1 Power Source (Stefan Bethke) Re: Caller ID/CNAM (Jonathan T. Cronin) Re: The IIA "Free" Internet Account (Randal L. Schwartz) Information Superhighway Panel Discussion (Esther Yasui) Re: New Area Code 281 for Houston (Carl Moore) Re: U.S.A. - Cuba Telecommunications (Jack Hamilton) Re: 20GHz Wireless is the Future? (db15@ukc.ac.uk) Re: V&H Report - 15 January 1994 (Carl Moore) Caller ID Software With Log (Doug Reuben) Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (Michael Dalby) Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (John R. Grout) Re: Internet Connection via Satellite (Josh Backon) Re: Calling 911 on a Cellphone When Out of Area (David S. Taylor) Re: GTE is Annoyed With Me (Steven H. Lichter) 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, 9 Feb 1994 09:43:32 GMT From: Robb Topolski KJ6YT Subject: Remote Call Forwarding to Priority Ringing Organization: Amateur radio KJ6YT Brief background: REMOTE CALL FORWARDING: Your distant callers dial a seven-digit number which is set to automatically forward to your home or office. PRIORITY RINGING: You program a list of up to ten numbers. When you receive a call from one of those numbers, your phone will ring in some distictive way (short-long-short). Question: I have remote call forwarding. Can I set priority ringing to my remote call-fowarding number so when anyone calls me via that number I get the distinctive ring? Or is the calling number reported to the feature the caller's actual number rather than the forwarder's number? Robb Topolski KJ6YT topolski@kaiwan.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 03:32:19 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing > QUESTION: If a caller (from 555-1133) dials my Remote Call Forwarding > number (555-9922) which is forwarded to my home, which number is > evaluated by Distinctive Ringing? A non-technical guess (but familiar with call forwarding) is that your Remote Call Forwarding number (555-9922 in the example) is the one to be evaluated for Distinctive Ringing. This assumes that your home phone can only "see" the call from the Remote Call Forwarding number. I do know along the same lines that the caller from 555-1133 would get charged for message units or long distance only to the Remote Call Forwarding number, which in turn picks up the tab for message units or long distance from that point to your home. (I have used forwarding myself.) ------------------------------ From: KATHY1310@delphi.com Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding and Distinctive Ringing Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 00:29:29 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Robb Topolski writes: > QUESTION: If a caller (from 555-1133) dials my Remote Call Forwarding > number (555-9922) which is forwarded to my home, which number is > evaluated by Distinctive Ringing? Unfortunately, the RCF number (555-9922) will be forwarded to your home due to the way the features intereact in the switch software and the signalling network (SS7). AT&T is theoretically working on a fix. Bug your local telco about the improper functioning of these features. The switched redirect service is the best that you'll probably do. It's the closest thing to virtual numbering (it uses the Advanced Intelligent Network platform). Because the way numbers are allocated and the out-of-date code in the C.O. switches, it is difficult to give you numbers allocated to other switches, plus it can tie up a lot of interoffice facilities. You could always opt for the "trunk" route, but you'll pay quite a bit more that way. You can always try MFS (they have recently filed for switched service capability in the state of MD.) They may be able to offer a creative solution for you. Best of luck. ------------------------------ From: stefan@sixpack.six.de (Stefan Bethke) Subject: Re: ISDN NT1 Power Source Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 03:30:45 GMT Reply-To: stefan@sixpack.six.de (Stefan Bethke) Organization: Promo GmbH, Hamburg, Germany In article , Bob Larribeau writes: > You must remember that in the U.S. we use the U-interface, which is a > two-wire local loop interface. The U-interface, as implemented in the > U.S., does not provide power from the network. Powering is the > customer's responsibility. At least for Germany, this is not the case and I understand that in most other european countries this is the same. In Germany we have a emergency feed from the switch powering the NT1 (via U interface) and at most one device on the S bus (i.e. you set a switch on the telephone for this). Normal power feed to S bus comes from NT1 (by means of normal line power). Emergency power is indicated by reversed polarity on the S bus. [Btw. S0 and T0 are electrically identical. Normally, the term 'T interface' is used only for the interface between NT1 and NT2. If there is no NT2, the interface is 'S'.] Stefan Bethke Promo Datentechnik: Internet stefan@sixpack.six.de, promo@applelink.apple.com Systemberatung GmbH AppleLink: PROMO Waterloohain 6-8 Vox: +49 (40) 43 13 60-0 D-22769 Hamburg Fax: +49 (40) 43 13 60-60 ------------------------------ From: jtc@world.std.com (Jonathan T Cronin) Subject: Re: Caller ID/CNAM Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 06:58:29 GMT Caller name is available in various areas served by USWest (and maybe other places, too. USWest is all I know about.) C&P (or Bell Atlantic, if you will) is testing it "in-house" and will, I hear, first market it in Virginia, so you probably didn't waste your money on the CNAM feature. Jonathan Cronin jtc@world.std.com Evans, Griffiths and Hart Inc. Lexington, MA ------------------------------ From: merlyn@ora.com (Randal L. Schwartz) Subject: Re: The IIA "Free" Internet Account Date: 08 Feb 1994 02:55:51 GMT Organization: Stonehenge Consulting Services; Portland, Oregon, USA "Paul" == Paul Robinson writes: > The service is called Speedway, and the number -- which has to be > called via AT&T -- is (10288) 1-503-520-2222. I have no connection > with that company other than as someone who has used their service. Which means that for those of us within the Portland Oregon LATA, we must look *somewhere else*. Geez, why couldn't these guys have been in Idaho or something? :-) Just another native Portlander, Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503) 777-0095 Email: Snail/FAX: (Call) aka: ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 00:53:39 PST From: Esther Yasui Subject: Information Superhighway Panel Discussion Dear TELECOM Moderator: I would like to pass along some information from the Asian Business League to readers, particularly those in the Southern California area, about an upcoming panel discussion on the "Information Superhighway." ----------------- The Asian Business League (ABL) of Southern California and the Asian Business Association - Orange County Chapter will be holding a panel discussion entitled "The Information Superhighway: The Future of Interactive Video and Its Impact on Southern Calfornia." February 24, 1994 Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel in Costa Mesa 6 - 8 pm Registration and refreshments begin at 6pm Program begins at 6:30 pm Representatives of Pacific Bell, Sprint, Knowledge Advantage, UC Irvine, and the University of Southern California Multimedia Lab will be presenting their views on what Vice President Al Gore called the National Information Infrastructure, the vehicle that will allow America to grow and prosper in the 21st century. In fact, according to Senator Barbara Boxer, who introduced the Vice President at the Electronic Media Summit held at UCLA on January 11th, the U.S. could generate an additional $3.5 trillion in GNP from the implementation of the Information Superhighway after the year 2000. Individuals wanting to know more about interactive television, 500 channel multimedia broadcasting, fiber optic digital networks, and video on demand should attend this informative and entertaining event. The high-level overviews that the panelists will be discussing are topics that are in the news daily, from entertainment, cable and phone company mergers, to a change in direction of the aerospace defense industry. Generous corporate sponsors for this event include the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, Pacific Bell, Kenneth Leventhal & Co. and Sprint. Cost for the event is $15 for ABL members, $20 for non-members, and $25 at the door. To RSVP by email send message c/o eky@kaiwan.com. To RSVP by phone or for more information, call Henry Yee at (310) 769-1604. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Feb 94 12:21:39 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: New Area Code 281 for Houston What do you mean, "probably" 281? What exactly did the article say when it mentioned what the new area code will/could be? (Of course, there is no surprise about the NNX form of the code.) The only overlay that has been put into effect so far is area code 917, used for cellular and pagers in New York City (landlines there are in 212 and 718). The new-telephone-numbers option has never been used so far. In New York City: splitting Manhattan would have aroused much controversy (according to what I have read); it wasn't enough just to remove Bronx from the 212 area; and Bronx moved to 718, not 917, because of objections about being lumped in with "nonhumans". The digest had the suggestion that an overlay be used in area 708 in Illinois, and also said that if some suburbs were kept in 312 (split in 1989 to form 708), there'd be complaints from areas which had to leave 312. (The later splits for 313 and 215 kept the old area code in more than just Detroit and Philadelphia respectively.) 708 has a lot of phones despite the split being so recent there. ------------------------------ From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: U.S.A. - Cuba Telecommunications Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 07:33:53 GMT macbainr@nbnet.nb.ca (Raymond Luxury Yacht) wrote: > Also, any general info about the state of telecom in Cuba and between > Cuba and the USA would be appreciated. > No need to post unless someone else shows interest -- just email me. It's probably a good general rule that someone else will be interested in it, whatever it is (as long as it's telecommunications and not a digression into whatever). So please post any replies, folks. I don't have any plans to call Cuba, but I've wondered about the telephone link. By the way, amateur radio communications with Cuba seem to be taking off. There have been several articles in the ham magazines about it recently. Jack Hamilton USMail: POB 281107 SF CA 94128 USA jfh@netcom.com Packet: kd6ttl@w6pw.#nocal.ca.us.na ------------------------------ From: db15@ukc.ac.uk Subject: Re: 20GHz Wireless is the Future? Date: Wed, 08 Feb 94 00:49:00 GMT Organization: University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. Reply-To: Damiano Bolla In article , S. L. Lee wrote: > I heard that a technology is available (or becoming available) that > can transmit voice, data, fax, video, two-way and simultaneous and > automatically routed. I posted a msg but might have misposted. > I would like to see professional evaluation of its feasibility. I > have the following questions: > 1. Would there be any health hazard? > 2. Can the technology be implemented internationally, if not, what are the > barriers? > 3. How long has this idea been around? Why didn't anybody look at it? > I would like to see discussion on various aspects of this technology. I personally I would like to ask: 4. How many "transmitters" per square kilometer can operate simultaneously? This is to understand what is the density of use we can reach before the entire system stops working. Damiano ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Feb 94 06:09:16 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: V&H Report - 15 January 1994 Not noted in your report was the split in 713, information only having arrived February 3). That area ranks BEHIND 708. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1994 06:18:11 EST From: dreuben@ROC.CON.WESLEYAN.EDU (Doug Reuben) Subject: Caller ID Software With Log I've seen a few posts recently concerning modem-based Caller ID software and Caller ID call logs. In case anyone's interested, we've been working on some software to do this sort of thing, ie, keep a log, let you know how many rings each call was, etc. It also can call you remotely at a pager or telephone and give out the CID info. (It beeps it into the pager, and uses a simple code system to "beep" you at a regular telphone.) It can also (crudely) leave a coded message on a remote answering machine to let you know that a call was received. Presently, it's Mac-based, but we are working on a PC version as well. I'm not sure how much interest there is in this sort of thing on the net, but from the recent postings it seems that a few people may care. (We originally developed this in-house for our own use [and just to play around with Cable & Wireless's 800 service that USED to *reliably* show CID -- they seem to have turned it off from many areas after a few people mentioned it to them -- AND , they simply WON'T talk about it -- they never return a call on this subject! :( ],...but, perhaps others may be interested as well.) If anyone is interested in getting a demo version to see if it works for them, lemme know. Doug dreuben@roc.con.wesleyan.edu (129.133.29.81) dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu (129.133.10.10) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 19:43:19 -0800 From: Michael Dalby Subject: Re: Are LATA Maps Available? Do you know whether LATA maps are available, eg. from the FCC? I know about the useful list of LATAs in your telecom archive, but I am wondering about LATA boundaries, and, for that matter, the principles by which telcos establish LATAs and those (if any) by which the regulators approve them. I have "enjoyed" trying to find this out through the FCC public info system, but have had no luck. Separately, there is a movement at the FCC to put information of some sort on line. The phone number is 202 254-6040. The guy's name is Vincent. He thinks the machine at fcc.gov should be in business some time in the first or early second quarter. However, he didn't know anything about LATAs. Thanks, and best regards. Michael Dalby (md@well.sf.ca.us) ------------------------------ From: grout@sp17.csrd.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Are LATA Maps Available? Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:02:45 GMT In Tony Harminc writes: > Apart from the missing provinces, it should be pointed out that there > are no LATAs in Canada. Why Bellcore has chosen to assign some magic > numbers to certain groupings of CO prefixes in Canada is a mystery to > me. LATA is not a technical division -- it is purely a political > concept set up to match certain US politics of the early 1980s. This sounds like a confusion between the LATA concept as a representation of the physical plant of AT&T's regional telephone subsidiaries (e.g., New York Telephone, New England Telephone) and various independent telcos (e.g., Rochester Telephone) at the time of divestiture and the _use_ of the LATA concept (by Judge Greene) to divide provision of telephone service _using_ the LATA concept. The claim that LATA _layout_ was "not a technical division" is clearly false. For example, _all_ the cases of LATAs for independent telcos or those which cross state lines _exactly_ represent physical plant. Also, the AT&T divestiture was not a "political" one taken by the Administration or the Congress, but was ordered by a Federal Judge. > The forces shaping LD competition in Canada in the 1990s are quite > different. It seems extremely unlikely that an artificial split > between IXCs and local telcos as in the US model will ever happen > here. Having grown up in Rochester, NY, home of what was then the largest single-area independent telco in the USA, I don't think it was an artificial distinction at all. AT&T's monopoly on long distance service and the cross-subsidization it allowed was draining money out of our area to subsidize New York Telephone's local telephone rates (so Rochester Telephone's local telephone rates were _far_ higher than NY Tels before divestiture): that was simply _WRONG_. Rochester Telephone consistently fought AT&T's monopoly, was on the winning side (against AT&T) of the Carterfone decision in the late 1960's, and divestiture finally corrected the gross injustice of cross-subsidy for the benefit of another company's customers. I might not object to the RBOC's providing inter-LATA long distance service to their own local-service customers, but I would want them as _additional_ players, not dominant players, right from the beginning; that is, no automatic cutover of customers to _their_ service, no cross-subsidy of their long distance service by their local service, and so on. This is how both Rochester Telephone (which is allowed to provide unlimited inter-LATA service through their RCI subsdiary) and New Jersey Bell (which provides limited service to New York and to Philadelphia from nearby New Jersey counties) market such services. John R. Grout INTERNET: j-grout@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il Subject: Re: Internet Connection via Satellite Date: 8 Feb 94 16:52:03 GMT Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem In article , jey@davidsys.com writes: > What is the best way to connect to Internet from a location (in Asia) > where there is no phone? A friend of mine is trying to setup via > satellite but he has no idea of anything that involves in this > connection. He is doing some research, and I am going to pass any > information I get. The first thing one must do is to see whether a private satellite teleport is allowed to be set up in that country. If it is, then depending upon bandwith requirements, you can get away with a cheap VSAT or a $400,000 teleport. The interesting news is that new VSAT's are being developed that will allow uplink/downlink of T1 bandwith and these are expected to be marketed by first quarter 1995. Once you have your teleport up and arrange for space segments, you'll need to arrange for a US (or other) teleport for uplink/downlink services. Be prepared to pay big bucks for this. Last but not least, you'll have to arrange Internet connectivity through a provider. Josh backon@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL ------------------------------ From: lhdsy1!chevron.com!tdtay@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Taylor) Subject: Re: Calling 911 on a Cellphone When Out of Area Date: 9 Feb 94 05:38:19 GMT Organization: Chevron Information Technology Company In article jrg@rahul.net (John Galloway) writes: > When I call 911 on my cellular (having seen an accident just happen) > it appears that I get forwarded to a fixed site that just dispatches > the call to the proper 911 officem i.e. the first person answers "911 > emergency" but just asks where you are, and then the phone rings a > second time and you get another "911 emergency". This seems silly > since obviously the provider has the necessary info about where you > are to do this automatically. I have not ever called 911 when out of > my area. Would I still get the same (Northern CA) based dispatch > operator who would then have to send me to (e.g.) Austin Texas 911??? > (I am using Cellular-One). I would guess that the reason that "911 calls" are sent to a "fixed" location and then transfered to the proper local agency is due the wide geographic areas that most cellular systems cover. For example, the coverage in Southern California runs from Santa Barbara to San Diego and inland towards the Arizona border. Since all cellular calls route through the carrier's switch (probably located in LA), it would be difficult to route the call to the proper agency without knowing exactly where you are. Cell sites overlap city and county bondary lines. There is a cell site near my house that I can reach from either Irvine, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, or Santa Ana because they all come together at the airport. Hope this helps, David S. Taylor Texas A&M '87 Engineer, RF Systems Chevron Information Technology Co. Base Technology Dept. 1300 South Beach Blvd. Rm 2187 tdtay@chevron.com La Habra, CA 90631 310-694-7280 ------------------------------ From: ue554@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Steven H. Lichter) Subject: Re: GTE is Annoyed With Me Organization: Camosun College, Victoria, B.C. Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1994 03:56:31 GMT I'm breaking my long silence and will try and answer the statement about GTE selling off Contel. What I know about the sales is what has been published in company bulletins and from the news. I sure hope they don't consider the bulletins to be private. GTE has sold former Contel properties where they were small and not near other larger or other GTE properties. This goes for the sales you have mposted about plus others in Georga and the Decota's. Some more have been sold in Eastern Arizona, not Western Arizona. And the desert area are not for sale in California, at least I have not heard. Also a section up in the delta area of California was sold along with some GTE areas, there maybe more that I have missed and I'm sure maybe a few more. These sales make business sense since they are in the areas of other companies that they were sold to. Here is a list of areas of GTE Telephone Operations that are listed for sale or trade, they are former ConTel areas as well as some GTE operations. This list has been compiled from various sources and as far as I can tell is correct, but I can't be responsible for such. These are small areas that would not fit in with other GTE operations and would be better served by other local operating companies. Also so of these have been sold or traded for other properties as of 6/93. Small section in Northern Calif. Sections of Oregon and Idaho Montana North Dakota South Dakota Kansas Utah Eastern Arizonia Georgia Tennessee West Virgina New York Vermont New Hampshire Maine There could be more or some maybe incorrect. This posting was made using my own Internet account on my own time using my own computer and has nothing to do with my employer whoever that might be. Steven Lichter -=- Sysop: Apple Elite II -=- an Ogg-Net Hub BBS (909) 359-5338 12/24/96/14.4 V32/V42bis Via PCP CACOL/12/24 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #68 *****************************