TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Feb 95 19:33:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 74

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    More Tidbits on AT&T True-Connections (NPA 500) (John Shelton)
    Panasonic Cellular Phone (James L. Wiley)
    Re: Hidden Features of Panasonic Phones (Steve Samler)
    Re: Neighborhood Phone Books (Wm. Randolph Franklin)  
    Caller ID Block Fails (Wm. Randolph Franklin)
    Multiple ESN's per NAM (Update) (Chris J. Cartwright)
    503 NPA Split? (Dan McDonald)
    New Area Code For Oregon (Paul Buder)
    Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Alan Shen)
    Re: 28.8k bps Modem (David Hayes)
    Re: 28.8k bps Modem (David Sacerdote)
    Re: 28.8k bps Modem (John Dearing)
    Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Eric Nelson)
    Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Scott Lorditch)
    Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Steve Midgley)
    Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is (Mark Peacock)
    Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is (Greg Monti)
    Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is (Carl Moore)

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

Subscriptions are available 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars 
per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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: jls280c@crusher.dukepower.com (John Shelton)
Subject: More Tidbits on AT&T True-Connections (NPA 500)
Date: 1 Feb 1995 19:25:54 GMT
Organization: dukepower


I talked with AT&T yesterday and learned:

More exchanges have been added to their set.  You can now
request numbers from:

  288 346 367 437 442 443 445 446 447 448 449 488
  673 674 675 677 679

My favorite, 500.FOR.EVER, was already taken.

Even though the install and vanity fees are waived during this sign-up
period, if one requests a *change* (better vanity number) they will
impose the $10 install and $25 vanity fees.

AT&T claimed that as of yesterday (31-Jan-95) "All" LECs had agreed to
provide access, so I should be able to use this from anywhere in
continental US.  (I'll be pleased if it gets worked out in three 
months.)

A friend who has AT&T, but lives in an Alltel neighborhood says AT&T
cannot provide her this service.  Neither AT&T nor Alltel could 
explain.  
Yes, her AT&T calls *are* billed on the local phone bill.

For the deluxe plans which offer sequencing, I'm told you can program
the number of rings to try for each number.  That's very important.

My service will be turned on 15-Feb-95.


John


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like heck it will be turned on February 
15!
AT&T told me mine would be working January 21, then they said January 
24.
After that date passed, the due date was January 31 ... you guessed 
it;
it still is not working as of today, Thursday, February 2 in the 
evening.
I call them they say call Ameritech; I call Ameritech and am told to 
call
AT&T. I call the Illinois Commerce Commission; they claim no knowledge 
of
any 'agreement' reached between AT&T and the telcos. Now for the past
couple days they won't return my calls. Supposedly my number is 
working
if the caller knows to dial 1-800-CALL-ATT for starters, just like the
cumbersome 700 service, but when I tried it that does not work either.
I did not sign up for this service so my callers could hunt down a pay
phone which allows 800 calls so they can punch in all those extra 
digits,
even if that part of it did work, which it appears not to. Just now I
called AT&T again about it; this time I got a woman who first said 
calls
to 1-500 were not going through but 0-500 should be working 'just 
fine'.
She put me on hold awhile and came back to report she had talked to 
'the
specialist' and was told 'everything was working fine' for Ameritech
customers. Silly bunch of people! I told her to cancel my service and
whenever they get their act together to give me a call back and I will
think again if I need the service or not.   PAT]

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

From: wileyjl@ada1.elan.af.mil (James L. Wiley)
Subject: Panasonic Cellular Phone
Date: 1 Feb 1995 17:02:49 GMT
Organization: Air Force Flight Test Center


I am looking for a owner's manual for a Panasonic Cellular Phone model
EF-6110EA.  Also any modifications anyone knows about for this Phone.

Where is a good place to get accessories -- batteries, cords, etc.


Thanks,

James L. Wiley   Wileyjl@ada1.elan.af.mil

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

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:59:01 EST
From: Steve Samler <steve@individual.com>
Subject: Re: Hidden Features on Panasonic Phones


I don't know about the hidden features, but I have one of these that
seems to be able to turn itself off.  The answering machine is left on
in the morning and often is off when I come home.  I suspect that
there is some hidden feature that turns off the phone.  Maybe if you
call and press # or * (thinking it is a voice mail system) it turns
off.

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

From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin)
Subject: Re: Neighborhood Phone Books.  Caller ID block fails.
Date: 02 Feb 1995 02:31:36 GMT
Organization: ECSE Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 
12180 USA
Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin)


In article <telecom15.57.16@eecs.nwu.edu> on Tue, 24 Jan 1995 11:13:54
EST, PAT says:

> ... There are about thirty 'neighborhood' books, with their
> own yellow pages in the back of the book. These are just
> subsets of the larger book, extracted by address groupings
> within a given area of the city, and all published by telco.

NYNEX extracts by exchange, which makes the neighborhood directories
so incomplete as to be useless.  I live in Loudonville, but have phone
482-xxxx since the Loudonville prefix, 456, is full (I guess).  482 is
mostly Albany, and the Loudonville neighborhood directory omits me,
even tho the big white pages give my address as Loudonville, and give
my Loudonville zip code.  I once complained to Nynex about being
omitted, and they said that since my phone was logically in Albany,
I'd have to pay to be included in the Loudonville directory.  Maybe I
could have protested, but life's too short.


Wm. Randolph Franklin,  wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077;  Fax: -6261
ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA
More info: (1) finger -l wrf@ecse.rpi.edu 
    (2) http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/homepages/wrf

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

From: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin)
Subject: Caller ID Block Fails
Date: 02 Feb 1995 02:31:36 GMT
Organization: ECSE Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 
12180 USA
Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin)


Nynex just admitted that 500 people who have caller ID block, are, in
fact, having their phone numbers transmitted.  First, they denied that
this was happening, then they said that only one person (a private
detective) was affected, then they 'fessed up.


Wm. Randolph Franklin,  wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077;  Fax: -6261
ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA
More info: (1) finger -l wrf@ecse.rpi.edu 
    (2) http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/homepages/wrf


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did the report say if they are all on 
the
same exchange, or how the problem came up and if it has been fixed?   
PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 11:18:00 EST
From: Chris J. Cartwright <dsc3cjc@imc220.med.navy.mil>
Subject: Multiple ESN's per NAM (Update)


I posted a few weeks ago about Cell One in MD (SID-00013) offering
FlexPhone to their customers.  To recap *it is* multiple ESN's per
NAM.  Up to three ESN's can have the same NAM.  The cost is your
regular service for one phone plus $18 for two NAMs, or plus $30 for
three.

The service _seems_ ;) to work as follows; The phones cannot call each
other even if they are in different cells.  Roaming is supposed to be
disabled on all but the phone with the primary ESN.  This is almost
true, when I used the second ESN in roam every other call was blocked
with a message that said you would have to use a credit card or third
party billing to place a call.  If I pressed send again (same number
dialed) the call would go through.  I'm not sure of this is a function
of the cell system you are roaming in or if the information from your
home system is getting confused.

If calls are placed in the same cell at the same time by both phones
one of the phones will get a fast busy.  No calls can be made from the
other phone while the first is in a call.  CellONE says that calls can
be made from seperate cells at the same time but reccomends against it
since they aren't sure what will happen if both phones wander into the
same cell at the same time (to be fair this came from a salesman since
the tech folks seem to be hidden away fairly well).  I haven't had a
chance to check this one out but as soon as I figure out how to be in
two places at once.

I haven't seen a bill for this but I'm wondering if I should argue the
fact since my secondary *can't* roam those calls shouldn't be
billable.  If anyone has questions I'd be happy to test things out if
you can resonably describe your test case.  E-mail is preferred and
will get a faster response.


Chris Cartwright, Technical Engineer 
Voice 301.295.0809                      
Mail  dsc3cjc@imc220.med.navy.mil       
C-serve 71614,2441                      


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The tech people are always hidden away 
where
no one can reach them conveniently; not without being perfectly 
obnoxious
and very pushy with the front line people. As for 'being two places at 
one
time' you don't have to be. Wherever you are, just take both (all) of 
your
cell phones and turn them on. Have them all sitting there then from a
separate line dial the cellphone number. Now, you will have both 
phones
in the same cell at one time obviously, and can test the results for 
your-
self. Also, use the cell phones to dial out two or more calls at the 
same
time. Since they are all with you, they'll all be in the same cell, 
right?
Please report the results here.    PAT]

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

From: mcdonald@teleport.com (Dan McDonald)
Subject: 503 NPA Split Planned?
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 10:38:16 PDT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016


I've heard rumors of a split in the 503 area code (Oregon).  Can
anyone confirm or deny these rumors?

Daniel J. McDonald                 home: mcdonald@teleport.com 
Telecom Designer                   work: 2397@idchq.attmail.com
Industrial Design Corporation      pots: 1.503.653.6919


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A recent newspaper article seems to
indicate this is true. See the next article in this issue.   PAT]

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

From: paulb@teleport.com (Paul Buder)
Subject: New Area Code For Oregon
Date: 02 Feb 1995 09:41:20 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016


According to the {Oregonian}, Portland's daily newspaper, Oregon will
be moving from one area code to two in 1996.  The PUC is soliciting
comments from the telephone companies as to whether it should be a
geographical split or whether simply new lines will end up in the new
area code (blechh!).  The article says US West, the Baby Bell here,
hasn't responded yet.


paulb@teleport.COM  Not affiliated with teleport.

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

From: Alan Shen <kermee@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: 28.8k bps Modem
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 00:26:40 -0800
Organization: University of Washington


On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Victor Hu wrote:

> 1.  Is the bps across the twisted pair wire actually running at 28.8 
or 
> 14.4 when 28.8 is invoked? Or is it just data compression?

28,800 bps uncompressed. RAW SPEED.

> 2.  What kinds of host supports 28.8K?  I only connect up to my 
> university's computer which only runs at 9.6K max.

It's not dependent on the host, but if the other modem supports that
speed. To connect at 28.8Kbps, the other modem must support it too.
Here at our university's computer, we can only connect at 14.4, but
supposedly, they are installing 28.8 V.34's by this summer.

> 3.  What is the speed of fax machines?

99% of the stand-alone fax machines out there (the non-fax/modems)
only support speeds of up to 9600bps. And actually, that's plenty of
power for Group III. Others, very few though, can go up to 14,400bps
on the standard V.17. Most fax-modems support that speed.

> My impression of my new modem:

> 1.  The Supra has a nice display (external version for the PC) that 
> shows the mode of transmission.

I have a PM14400FXSA with a 12-character LCD. Sure beats LEDs doesn't 
it!

> 2.  However, I found that it required a different initialization 
string 
> than that suggested as default for modems that are Hayes compatible.  

Some modems work okay with just a standard init string and a simple
ATZ.  I finally figured out one that works with 300bps - 14,400bps. Do
a little tweaking and some experimenting. You'll figure one out too 
soon!

If you have any more question, feel free to e-mail me.


(kermee@u.washington.edu)   Daniel Kao

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

From: dhayes@onramp.net (David Hayes)
Subject: Re: 28.8k bps Modem
Date: 02 Feb 1995 17:41:21 GMT
Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections


In article <telecom15.65.12@eecs.nwu.edu>, vhu@AGSM.UCLA.EDU says:

> 1.  Is the bps across the twisted pair wire actually running at 28.8 
or 
> 14.4 when 28.8 is invoked? Or is it just data compression?

The modem is capable of sending 28.8k without compression. On top of
this, the standard V.42bis compression scheme can achieve up to 4:1
compression, so you could theoretically get up to 115k bits/second. I
observe 2:1 to be more common, though, so expect about the same
throughput as an uncompressed 56kbps leased line.

> 2.  What kinds of host supports 28.8K?  I only connect up to my 
> university's computer which only runs at 9.6K max.

Anything that's got a fast async serial port. Your university's
computer probably could handle it, but the modems they use limit you
to 9.6 (standard V.32). This is a common situation.

To test your modem, try some of the bulletin board systems in your
area. Many of them upgrade more quickly than large university sites,


because they have fewer modems to upgrade. Note that you can even try
BBS's on which you do not have a login. All you need to see is that
your modem will connect.

>3.  What is the speed of fax machines?

CCITT (now renamed ITU.T) standard Group III fax machines run at 9600
bps.


David Hayes    dhayes@onramp.net        

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

From: DSacerdo@world.std.com (David Sacerdote)
Subject: Re: 28.8k bps Modem 
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 18:10:49 GMT


If you purchased a modem which supports the v.34 standard AND are
using a computer to modem communications speed which is faster than
28800bps it will actually travel across the wire at 28800bps, assuming
no line noise, no error correction, and no compression.  I am also
assuming that you are connecting to another modem which supports the
V.34 standard, or whatever proprietary standard your modem supports.


David Sacerdote

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

From: jdearing@netaxs.com (John Dearing)
Subject: Re: 28.8k bps Modem
Date: 02 Feb 1995 05:25:43 GMT
Organization: Netaxs Internet BBS and Shell Accounts


Victor Hu (vhu@AGSM.UCLA.EDU) wrote:

> 1.  Is the bps across the twisted pair wire actually running at 28.8 
or 
> 14.4 when 28.8 is invoked? Or is it just data compression?

The modem-to-modem (across the wire) communications rate will be up to
28.8Kbps assuming a clean connection.

> 2.  What kinds of host supports 28.8K?  I only connect up to my 
> university's computer which only runs at 9.6K max.

Let me get this straight ... you only use the modem to connect to the
University computer system which only has 9600bps modems. Then why buy
a 28.8Kbps modem if the other end can't do 28.8Kbps?? Even a 14.4Kbps
modem would have been overkill.

A 28.8Kbps modem will only connect at 28.8Kbps with another 28.8Kbps
modem. Unless/until the University decides to upgrade their modems,
you won't see any improvement.

: 3.  What is the speed of fax machines?

Almost all real fax machines are 9600 bps. There are a few fax
machines that support fax at 14.4. If you connect to another fax modem
that also supports 14.4K then both faxmodems will negotiate a higher
speed. Expect most of your faxes to go through at 9600 bps.


John Dearing    jdearing@netaxs.com

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

From: mater@PrimeNet.Com (Eric Nelson)
Subject: Re: 28.8k bps Modem
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 20:31:10 MST
Organization: Primenet


A 28.8 kbps will transmit 28.8 kbps if the line can support the
modulation used to get that 28.8k rate.  Data compression can be used
on uncompressed files to increase the throughput, but this has little
value when transferring compressed files.  Additionally, the other end
must have a 28.8k capable modem.

My internet provider does have 28.8k connection.

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

From: gryphon@j51.com (Scott Lorditch)
Subject: Re: 28.8k bps Modem
Date: 02 Feb 1995 14:08:03 -0500
Organization: TZ-Link, a public-access online community in Nyack, NY.


You should set your PC's serial port to at least 56K when using a 28.8
modem to get the effect of compression as well. I often set mine to
115 kbps.

> 2.  What kinds of host supports 28.8K?  I only connect up to my 
> university's computer which only runs at 9.6K max.

Many Internet service providers offer SLIP and PPP service using 28.8 
modems attached to their terminal servers. 

Every modem manufacturer uses a slightly different superset of the
"standard" Hayes command set.


Scott Lorditch   Senior Network Architect
Pepsi Cola North America   ScottL@Pepsi.Com

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

From: tailored@netcom.com (Steve Midgley)
Subject: Re: 28.8k bps Modem
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 20:09:02 GMT


With sheepish apologies to the moderator and readers, I amend my
previous post. I must have sleeping sitting down :-)

V.32 is not the protocol spec for 14.4 modems. It's V.42.  Apologies,
apologies. 


Steve Midgley    Tailored Solutions

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

Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 09:03:50 -0600
From: mpeacock@dttus.com
Subject: Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is


Greg Monti writes:

> The story then says, cryptically, that the plan also would "create
> 'permissive and mandatory dialing arrangements' that wouldn't
> jeopardize new competitors".  And that the City of Chicago "opposed
> the stipulation on ground that eleven-digit rather than seven-digit
> dialing requirement was 'onerous' and might predetermine similar 
fate
> for 312 area code where customers are used to seven-digit intraLATA
> calls."
     
Greg's adjective "cryptically" is very apt.  What the story does not
make clear is that, under the ICC proposal, the combined 708/630 NPA
area would go to *mandatory* 11-digit dialing in September 1996.  This
is because the 630 code would overlay the 708 geographic area for both
landline and wireless service.  The very real example is: You move to
a new house and request service; your phone number is 630-NXX-XXXX
while your neighbor's number is 708-NXX-XXXX.
     
The city of Chicago is opposed because they believe this ruling will
set a precedent for when the 312 NPA again runs low on numbers.
     
By the way, this is not a done deal.  The proposed plan is the
recommendation of the ICC case worker.  The full ICC will consider the
recommendation in February.  Given the noise being raised over
mandatory 11-digit dialing, there may be some significant changes in
the future.

     
Mark Peacock
Deloitte & Touche Management Consulting
Detroit, Michigan


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Area 312 Chicago is quite unlikely to 
run
low on numbers anytime soon. So many large businesses and industries -- 
the
type of companies which would use large blocks of numbers or even 
entire
prefixes for their centrex, etc -- have moved out of town, there are 
lots
of spare numbers. 708 is a different matter. It is quite crowded.   
PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 9:57:21 EST
From: Greg Monti <GMONTI@npr.org>
Subject: Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is


Thanks to David W. Tamkin <dattier@wwa.com>, we have a better 
interpretation of one of the proposed Chicagoland dialing plans.

A proposal on the table is for mandatory eleven-digit dialing within
one's own area code as of the autumn of 1996.  This is to please the
Gods of Dialing Parity.  Seven digit dialing *between* NPAs was *not*
proposed.


Greg Monti, Tech Mgr, FISPO, Distribution Division
National Public Radio          Phone:    +1 202 414-3343
635 Massachusetts Av NW        Fax:      +1 202 414-3036
Washington, DC  20001-3753     Internet: gmonti@npr.org

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

Date: Thu, 02 Feb 95 16:49:45 GMT
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: Re: Chicago 630 Plan - Such As It Is


630, as you have heard, is to be used for overlay of area codes 312
and 708.  But I have also seen 630 in use as a prefix in downtown
Chicago.  Here is one such use: Bach's Bookstore, 209 N. Wabash,
Chicago, IL 60601, tel. 312-630-9113.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #74
*****************************

   
