TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Feb 95 09:34:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 84

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    700 Problems = 500 Problems (Doug Reuben)
    Re: NYNEX PIN Security - Extra Airtime? (Ken Weaverling)
    MVIP Interface? (K.S. Lee)
    Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Robert Lindh)
    QUALCOMM Gone Wrong? (Simon J. Wallace)
    Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted (Sam Spens Clason)
    Motorola Fones (Antonio Veloso)
    Re: Phone Number Wanted For Genesys Labs (Joe Sulmar)
    Dial-N-Save (Jeff Hersh)
    Re: Cheap Way to Get an 800 Number? (sm@infinet.com)
    Re: 28.8k bps Modem (Marc A. Randolph)

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: 500-677-1616
                        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: dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben)
Subject: 700 Problems = 500 problems
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 05:24:28 EST


Hoping that AT&T learned from its mistakes with the 700 service, I
anxiously awaited the availability of their 500 service. Although
there are a few impressive features on the system, overall, many
people can NOT reach me on it and/or find it awkward. Here are some
observations:

1. WHY does it have to say "AT&T" when someone calls 1-500-442-4CID? I
   don't need people calling me to hear free advertisements for AT&T.
   I realize that people may wonder why there are AT&T 500 charges on 
   their bills when they may use MCI or Sprint, but having the service
   say "AT&T" for every call is annoying. Put the info on the bill if
   needed.

2. Configuration is the same as the 700, ie, I dial 0-500-442-4CID, 
and
   enter my PIN. The menu is exactly the same for the "middle" tier 
service,
   and is slightly more complicated for the higher-end ("Navigator"?)
   service. 

   BUT - dialing 0-500 is also the problem. From a cellphone, you need 
   pay for this. I don't want to have to pay each time I want to re-
forward
   my calls to my cellphone, or from one phone to the other. There is 
really
   no technical reason why AT&T has to return supervision on 0+500 
calls
   (or 0+ calls in general)...I mean, so if it doesn't work on the 
last
   remaining Step-By-Step exchange in Vermont or whatever, fine, but 
   I think there are good deal more people using carphones than served
   by SXS exchanges where 0+ tone dialing requires a supervision 
return. The 
   service is useless to me if I need to re-forward it and have to PAY 
each 
   time I do it. I have no problem paying for use, but to pay airtime 
to 
   my cellco just to reforward calls is too much.

   I know you can schedule it to try a few numbers, but I'm not always
   at the same carphone, and I suspect there are a number of poorly 
connected
   cellphone companies where AT&T's system will not be able to tell if 
the
   line is busy or no one is there via any other method than a 
timeout. 

   We intend to use 500-442-4CID for business purposes, (or we'd like 
to),
   but if it is too flaky and/or costly to use we just won't bother.
   
3. Caller ID isn't shown (no surprise there).

4. It doesn't work from Rochester, NY, and all these other telcos 
which
   couldn't bill the 700 number directly, either. It doesn't work from 
most
   people's PBXs, and it doesn't work from any sort of system which is
   not directly connected to the local telco, like an outdial from a 
   voicemail box, etc.

5. Most cellular companies do not allow 1+500 billing (even those 
which AT&T
   owns), so you need to dial 0-500, resulting in an airtime charge to 
the
   caller even if no one answers or the line is busy. This was one of 
the
   biggest problems with ER700 -- no one wanted to call me from their 
   carphones after about a month of using the service and seeing all 
these
   calls at 80 cents per minute to my 700 when I never even answered.


There are other significant problems, but I'll save those for another 
post. What I do like about the service (and this is more of a result 
of 
how 500 numbers work than anything AT&T has done) is:

1. I can tell everyone to just dial 1-500-442-4CID. If it works from 
   your home phone/business phone, great. If you are at a payphone, 
   you can STILL dial 1-500-442-4CID, and it automatically dumps you
   into the 0+500 menu. This way, people don't have to know 0-500 or 1-
500,
   they just always dial 1-500. (It would be nice if payphones would 
let
   you pay for 1-500 with coins, at least for AT&T 1-500 calls.) There 
is
   no need for any access codes, alternate instructions, 10xxx codes, 
or
   anything. 1-500 does the trick! (Assuming it works at all, which, 
from 
   many phones and businesses, it does not).

   The usual problems with having to use the silly 800 number to 
access the
   500 number still apply to many cellular services, most businesses, 
etc.
   Most of my friends can't call me from work, so I wonder about how 
   worthwhile the service is for personal use, let alone for business 
use.

2. I can forward my calls to my 500 number, which although not 
something
   which I would often do, is still a feature which the 700 lacked and 
   which would have come in handy from time to time.

3. You can give your callers PINs if you want to pay for the call. 
This
   is also a welcome feature carried over from EasyReach 700. 
Unfortunately,
   it's also necessary - without giving out PINs to some of my 
callers, they
   would NEVER be able to reach me. They call from locations where 
they need
   to use the 800 access method and calling card, and do not have AT&T 
or
   local Bell calling cards. So because the 500 service is STILL
   difficult for many people to reach, *I* am forced to pay to allow 
them to
   reach me.

   I had hoped the 500 service would alleviate all this - apparently, 
it 
   does not. 

Although a number of these features are an improvement, AT&T needs to 
do a
LOT of work before their 500 service becomes useful enough for me to
justify the $7 monthly "Navigator" charge, or even the $4 "middle 
service"
monthly charge.  Right now, it is a partially fixed 700 service, but 
does
not go far enough to remedy the major deficiencies of ER700. 

If there are any other carriers out there who offer a similar service 
but 
without all the problems of AT&T's, I'd love to hear from you!

BTW - Can International callers access the 500 service by dialing +1-
500 etc?
I'd be interested in hearing about this as well. (I don't mean via 
AT&T's 
thoroughly overpriced USADirect service, rather, I mean as a direct 
dialed
call to the US.)


Doug Reuben  *  dreuben@interpage.net   *  (500) 442-4CID / (203) 499 - 
5221
Interpage Network Services -- E-Mail/Telnet to Alpha or Numeric Pagers 
& Fax


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What an interesting article to find in
the mail when I woke up today!  Here is why: I was awakened twice 
during
the night (Wednesday early morning) on calls from Europe where people
were trying to reach my 500 number -- the only number I give out now.
About 5:50 AM Chicago time the phone rang. Someone in London was 
calling
to say someone *they* were dealing with was trying unsuccessfully to 
reach
me and could I advise how to get through.  I was too groggy to speak 
with
them for more than a few seconds.  Then about 8:00 AM the phone rang 
again,
this time with *someone from AT&T* on the line. He was in New York, 
and
said he was working 'with a customer calling internationally trying to
reach me'. So what, I asked ... and this guy (an AT&T employee!) asks 
me,
"What is a 500 number?".  Sort of astounded, I asked if he was indeed 
an
AT&T employee and he said he was, but that he had never heard of 500 
numbers ... and he worked for the company!

I told him it was called 'Personal Number Service'. He wanted to know 
how
callers from international points 'were supposed to get through' and I
told him damned if I knew anything about it, I am just an ignorant 
cust-
omer. I suggested maybe they could try USA Direct and see if that 
worked.
That should keep a few people at AT&T occupied and busy today. Then I
realized one way to force everyone to call you via AT&T whether they 
want
to use that company or not is by giving 500 as the only possible 
number
to reach you on. Let them argue about it with their telcos, etc. This
should prove to be a great help toward maintaining the privacy of your
phone number when it is requested on credit applications, etc. No 
fraud
is intended of course .. you *can* be reached via 500. All you have 
done
is just made it a bit harder for folks calling from PBX's and via lame
telcos, etc. Plus, its so new, it will still be a novelty for quite 
awhile ... so let's all give 1-500 as our number; our only number. 
Either
use it or don't get through. Forget the 0-500 unless the person thinks
of it on his own as a way to call using a credit card. I certainly do
not intend to give out any of those PINS for collect calls to me with 
the exception of my very immediate friends, etc.  I am having lots of
fun with this already!   PAT]

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

From: weave@hopi.dtcc.edu (Ken Weaverling)
Subject: Re: NYNEX PIN Security - Extra Airtime?
Date: 8 Feb 1995 03:15:06 -0500
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College


In article <telecom15.80.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, Doug Reuben 
<dreuben@interpage.
net> wrote:

> This raises a question: Normally, for any call which is answered,
> billing STARTS shortly after you press SEND, when the system
> recognizes/validates your phone and processes your outward call.

[...]

> Now how does the PIN code fraud feature affect this? I've timed how
> long it takes to get the "prompt" to enter your PIN code, and then 
to
> enter the code while driving, and it is about ten seconds. Now do 
these
> tenseconds count?

I've wondered this myself.  I'm with Bell Atlantic Mobile, which has
the same system. One thing I've found out though, you don't have to
wait for the tones before you press in your PIN, just make sure the
tone sounds before you press SND.

Regardless, I hate the entire PIN thing. I don't know why I assigned
one to my number. In addition to the above concern, it messes up your
last number redial. When I RCL my last number, it's the blasted PIN.
It's also a hassle to punch it in whilst driving.


Ken Weaverling          Computer Services, Delaware Tech College
weave@dtcc.edu   (My opinions are mine alone, I don't speak for the 
college)

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

From: ksl@technet.sg (KS Lee)
Subject: MVIP Interface?
Date: 8 Feb 1995 08:33:35 GMT
Organization: Technet, Singapore


Hello,

Can someone point me to ISDN card that have a proper implementation of
MVIP interface?  Please email you suggestion to me.


Thanks,

Lee, Kok Seng     FAX: 65-743-1305  
Tel: 65-741-7211 ext 505
Internet: ksl@technet.sg  CS :70313,2555  

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

From: etxlndh@eua.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh)
Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing
Date: 8 Feb 1995 11:43:17 GMT
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden


I think Norway switched to seven-digit telephone numbers for all
calls, including "local" calls, approximately one year ago.

The reason given was something like "to prepare for new functions in
the future".

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

From: Simon J Wallace <sjw@ee.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Subject: QUALCOMM Gone Wrong?
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 11:58:17 GMT


Hello there.

I wonder if anybody can help me with the following questions.

1)  What's the difference between Qualcomm's IS-95 and PN-3384 the new 
PCS
 derivative?

2)  Where are GO communications based?  I read this morning that they 
plan to
 bring GSM to North America.

3)  GO claim to be introducing GSM as CDMA looks unlikely to roll out 
in the 
 near future.  What do other people think?


Thanks for any comments.


Simon Wallace   Masters Student    University of Edinburgh
sjw@ee.ed.ac.uk

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

From: d92-sam@black29.nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason)
Subject: Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted
Date: 8 Feb 1995 12:24:42 GMT


In <telecom15.78.17@eecs.nwu.edu> britos@scf.usc.edu writes:

> Looking for information on this company.  Stock Analysis.  Assets.
> Prognosis.  History.  etc ...

The official story is available on http://www.tansu.com.au.

BTW, I have collected some telecom related URLs.  If someone has
something to add to my list I'd be very glad for (mail) replies.


Sam
<A HREF="http://www.nada.kth.se/~d92-sam/">Sam Spens Clason</A>

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

From: Antonio.Veloso@telecom.ptt.nl (Antonio Veloso)
Subject: Motorola Fones
Date: 8 Feb 1995 12:28:45 GMT
Organization: PTT Telecom B.V.


I am looking for MOTOROLA CELLULAR fones and accesories; who can give
me some info?  I want them for outside the USA.


A.Veloso   Holland

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

From: jsulmar@shore.net (Joe Sulmar)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Wanted For Genesys Labs
Date: 8 Feb 1995 13:41:03 GMT
Organization: North Shore Access


In article <telecom15.79.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, pkendall@arnold.jfrank.COM
(Paul Kendall) says:

> Anybody have a phone number for Genesys Labs? I'm interested in 
their
> product line, especially the T-server.

Paul:

Here's the contact info:
 Genesys Inc.
 1111 Bayhill Drive
 Suite 180
 San Bruno, CA 94066
 voice: 415-588-5149
 fax:   415-588-5527

I'd like to hear about your application, and your thoughts on the
suitability of T-server.  I am also presently considering working with
this product.

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

From: Hersh Jeff <hershj@bah.com>
Subject: Dial-N-Save
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 95 09:38:00 PST


Some time ago, someone asked if anyone has had any experience with the
long distance carrier called Dial-N-Save.  At the time, I had also
received the promotional flier advertising rates 10% lower than AT&T.
These rates were available by dialing the appropriate access code.  I
have used the code for several calls between NJ and Texas, making
calls at times-of-day similar to calls I had placed with AT&T (my
"normal" long distance carrier).  I received my bill yesterday, and,
true to its word, the Dial-N-Save reduced my long distance charges by
a little more than 10%.  The average call rate went from about $0.17


per minute to about $0.153 per minute.  Rates for nite/weekend were a
little lower.  Other than waiting a couple of seconds longer for
ringback, there was no discernible difference in quality.  


Jeff Hersh   hershj@bah.com

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

From: sm@news.infinet.com (SM Communications And Marketing)
Subject: Re: Cheap Way to Get an 800 Number?
Date: 7 Feb 1995 19:34:03 -0500
Organization: InfiNet


In article <telecom15.82.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com>
wrote:

>> Some friends and I are starting a new small business. We would like 
to
>> have an 800 number. How do I get one? 

> You call a long distance carrier's 800 number and tell them you want
> one.  Within a couple of business days they will turn on the number.

>> Other than ATT/MCI/Sprint, are there other people who can provide 
an 
>> 800 number cheaply? 

> Don't know how much you mean by 'cheaply'. My 800 number from AT&T
> costs me $8 a month plus usage, which is typically around 20-25c a
> minute depending on how far the person is from Maryland.  As I
> typically have a low calling volume, the costs usually run only $12 
a
> month or so.

Cheaply probably means lower rates than the usual big three rates.

For example, Hospitality Services Group has a personal 800 program
whereby a person can get a free (and true) 800 number with no montly
fees, no setup fees, no minimums, billed in six second increments and
only 18 cents per minute, all the time.

There are also other 800 services one can get at much lower rates if
they volume warrants it.(usually over $50 per month.) And the rate can
be as low as 13.5 cents per minute flat rate, billed in six second
increments.

And if you have a vanity number you can transfer and keep the same
number and pay lower fees.


Metin  sm@infinet.com     http://www.infinet.com/~sm

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

From: mrand@eesun2.tamu.edu (Marc A Randolph)
Subject: Re: 28.8k bps Modem
Date: 8 Feb 1995 02:09:29 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Texas  A&M University


In article <telecom15.82.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com>
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 data is not sent at 28,800 bits per second, however.  Typically
> the modem will divide up the telephone line into six or more 
channels,
> and run each channel at 2400 to 4800 bits per second.  By 
multiplexing
> six channels at 2400 baud, you get 14,400 baud, etc.

   Sorry, this is not correct.  The data IS sent at 28,800 bits per
second.  The line is not divided into channels either; a phone line
can only handle something in the range of 2900 baud (+/- 500 baud or
so).  Baud means symbols per second, not necessarily characters per
second.

Here is part of a message from U.S. Robotics that explains it ...

[if someone could send me the whole article I would appreciate it, I
 deleted everything except this extraction - mrand@tamu.edu]

 From: SUPPORT@usr.com (Robert Chechi)
 Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
 Subject: V.34 in a Nutshell
 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 12:23:34
 Organization: U.S. Robotics, Inc.

V.34: The next-generation modem
by Dale Walsh, U.S. Robotics vice president, advanced development

[... lots of background deleted...]

A V.22 bis, or 2,400 bit/sec, modem sends four bits per symbol and 600
symbols per second to achieve its speed of 2,400 bit/sec. The V32
modem sends four bits per symbol and 2,400 symbols per second to reach
its speed of 9,600 bit/sec. V.32 bis sends six bits per symbol and
2,400 symbols per second to achieve 14.4K bit/sec. But V.34 will send
up to nine bits per symbol, and 3,200 symbols per second, to achieve
28,800 bit/sec, twice as fast as V.32 bis.


[... lots of detailed v.34 info deleted... ]

                    -----------------
 
Marc Randolph          mrand@tamu.edu  -or-  mar6019@tamu.edu
PGP keyID: 4C95994D         ...!{uunet,gatech}!tamu.edu!mrand

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #84
*****************************

                                            
