TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Feb 95 10:56:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 88

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T 500 Service and the Hospitality Industry (Darryl Kipps)
    Re: AT&T 500 Service (Marc A. Randolph)
    Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Patrick Wolfe)
    Re: Atlanta Toll-Free Calling Zone Growing? (Ed Goldgehn)
    Re: Directory Assistance Vendor Wanted (Ed Goldgehn)
    Re: The Philosophy of CallerID (Benjamin P. Carter)
    Re: North Pacific Cable Cut? (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: Ten Digit Dialing (Finn Stafsnes)
    Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (chazworth@aol.com)
    Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Michael D. Sullivan)
    Re: CCITT Class A (Lars Poulsen)
    Cash For Telecom Experts Who Want to be Published (David Bezar)
    Information Sought on RF Data-Comm Chips (1/4 Mile Range) (Rob 
Mitchell)

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

Date: 09 Feb 95 03:25:57 EST
From: Darryl Kipps <72623.456@compuserve.com>
Subject: AT&T 500 Service and the Hospitality Industry


     As MIS director for a small chain of hotels, I am concerned about
the increasing number of comments I'm seeing here regarding the
inability to access 500 numbers from most PBX's.  I take great pride
in offering our guests the luxury of trouble-free communications away
from home.  I don't want to block these calls, but I'd like to make
sure I have all the facts straight regarding who pays for the calls.
If I understand correctly, I assume that if I were to call our
Esteemed Moderator's 1-500-number at 4am I'd be greeted with a grumble
and a click. :) From there I assume that a charge would appear on my
telco bill by AT&T for a one minute call from VA to Chicago.  At what
rate am I being charged?  (i.e. Basic Rate, Calling Card, Flat, etc. 
?)  
Do I lose the benefit of any calling plans I subscribe to?

     Having been burned to some extent by each new calling scheme
that's come down the pike in the last ten years, I'm a bit cautious,
as I'm sure you understand, but I deplore the thought of a business
traveller calling my (clueless) desk staff complaining that their 500
number can't be completed and the clerk responding with such infinite
wisdom as "Huh?". (Although from what I've seen, some of AT&T's staff
could fill those shoes!)  Basically, I want to be able to provide the
service without being taken to the cleaners.  I presently block NO
numbers going out of my PBX's.  My CO provides blocking for 900
numbers and those nasty 800 pay-per-call deceptions.  I then bill all
remaining 1+ calls at a fixed markup from our actual fixed rate.  But,
as I command a .0935 flat rate from our carrier, (who is NOT AT&T) I'm
afraid that I'll book a loss on 1-500 calls if I'm billed at calling
card rates by AT&T!

   On a self-preservation note, I'd like to make it clear to anyone 
planning 
a pity party for me due to the widespread raping and pilfirage 
undertaken by 
most hotels with regard to telephone charges, I absolutely do not and 
will 
not gouge my guests to use my telephones.  It has become quite 
commonplace 
in this industry to take whatever steps are necessary to recoup lost 
revenue 
due to increased competition and lower occupancy rates by increasing 
tele-
phone charges.  Every chain franchisor/operator out there has a 
national 
account with one LD carrier or another and NONE are paying more than 
.105/
minute for direct dialed, interstate calls.  Flat rate, any time, 
anywhere.  
Most even have up to 50% off international calls.  Yet, if you make a 
1+ call 
from any one of thier rooms, you can expect to pay between $1 and $3 
_per 
minute_ (!) for that call.  

So, as a result, most travellers are now using calling cards 
exclusively 
when on the road.  Well, that really pissed 'em off.  In retaliation,
the AOS was born.  These cut-throat upstarts intercept calling card
traffic flowing out of hotels, lock 'em up in a Mitel SMT-1 Dialer box
and shoot 'em through someone's basement in Idaho, re-route through
who-knows where, mark up the charges to an astronomical rate, tack on
some profit to kick back to the hotel, pause a few months for effect,
then send billing data to the poor victim's telco.  Three months after 
a
trip, John Q. Customer has a $6 charge on his bill for a one minute 
call
placed from a number he doesn't recognize, but barely remembers 
visiting 
the city.  A call to the telco provides the number of the offending
carrier.  Another call puts you in direct conversation with a real
live Auto Attendant with a menu longer than Denny's.  If (and I stress
IF) you reach a human (or at least their interpetation of such) you
can expect all the warmth and understanding of an iceberg.  

Oh, dear, I'm ranting.  Sorry.  But you get my point.  After all, I 
guess 
someone has to pay for those fresh lox and bagels on the complimentary 
(ha) 
continental breakfast spread.  My point is that I don't condone these
practices.  The phones in my rooms are but another amenity I provide 
for my 
guests comfort just the same as clean sheets and hot water.  Next 
thing you 
know they'll be putting water meters on each room ... (Stop him before
he rants again!)

     At any rate, I'd appreciate billing procedures and rates for 1-
500 
service.  I'm assuming that 0-500 numbers are always billed to either 
the 
callee or a calling card.  Thanks for listening.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Don't make too many assumptions. As 
'they'
say, when you assume something, it makes an ass out of 'u' and 'me'. 
<g>
One option under the 0-500 menu is 'to charge this call to the number 
you 
are calling from, press 1'. Now I think you can probably work around 
that
with billed number screening; that is, the feature offered by most 
local
telcos which forbids collect and third number billing. I am not sure. 
I
think if you have billed number screening, then billing option 1 under
0-500 is not given; or it may be given but when the caller chooses it
a response comes back that 'charges cannot be billed to this phone'. 
You
will want to clarify this with your local telco. It is true in most 
cases
that 0-500 works like any other zero plus call; you need to then use a
calling card or call 'collect' (which in this case is done with a 
PIN).
There is no option for third number billing. But make sure your telco
can block that 'bill the call to the number you are calling from' 
option.
This is not something to bother AT&T with; your local telco does all 
the
billing. I know when using payphones, the option 'bill to the phone 
you
are using' is not even given, so obviously they can tell the 
difference.

On calls dialed 1-500 and billed direct (or dialed 0-500 if the guest
slips it to you by pressing '1' in response to 'bill this call to the
number you are calling from') you will be billed by AT&T at the rate 
of
25 cents per minute during peak and 15 cents per minute at night and
on weekends/holidays. Peak is 8am to 5pm your time, Monday through 
Friday.
You *will* be billed by AT&T on your local telco bill (in most places)
and you will *not* be billed by whoever is your established carrier,
nor at that carrier's rates. You will receive none of the benefits
your carrier gives for discounts, etc. If you happen to be an AT&T
customer, then the charges for 1-500 calls are counted toward any
discounts for volume usage given by AT&T. It does not matter where in
the USA you are, the rate is 25/15 cents per minute, even if you are
next door. That much should be easy enough to program for. The catch
is, if calls are being forwarded outside the USA, *then international
rates apply*, billed to *whoever places the call*. In other words, you
can't absolutely count on the 25/15 rate. Most always it will be, of
course, and if the owner has his 500 number forwarded internationally
then the caller will get a warning from AT&T 'this call is going to an
international point and will be billed at international rates', but
can you count on your guest in the hotel (or the user on your PBX or
whatever) to tell you about this? You will get the charges for the
international call.  You will eat the charges for the international
call unless you have recourse to the person who placed the call.

So be careful of 1-500. You will almost always see the 25/15 per
minute rate *but not always*. I would say since there is no easy way
to discern whether a 500 call is going to terminate domestically or
internationally, other than the verbal warning given to the caller by
AT&T as the call is being set up, you'd be wise to set your rates
accordingly. Mark up that 25/15 to something you are comfortable with
for profit, assume (there we go again!) that for the immediate future
500 is mostly going to terminate in this country (at least until it
gets very popular, if it ever does) and accept your occassional 
(hopefully
very rare) losses on 500's which have been forwarded to the South Pole 
or wherever. There are intra-state exceptions to the 25/15 pricing;
most states have gone along with it; check to see if your state has
slightly different rates for in-state calls. 

Note to PBX admins: if you require your users to give a PIN as part
of their long distance call, or you can identify the user based on the
extension from which the call was placed, you have no problems. Just
pass along the charges accordingly; mostly 25/15, occassionally 
something
else.

Now on 0-500 as noted above, if you have 'bill to this number' as an
option removed, then the choices are bill to the caller's own credit
card (not your problem) or call collect using a PIN (again, not your
problem where the call terminates.)

And yes Mr. Kipps, hotels have lately had the attitude that every 
single
item in the house must be a profit center. I am surprised they don't 
charge
guests to ride the elevator ... there is a few square feet of floor 
space
not turning a profit!  Many years ago when my friend Mrs. Brown was 
the
resident manager of a hotel in Chicago, she explained about phone 
service.
She said the switchboard never makes a profit; " ...in fact we lose a 
little
on it, but you have to provide it ..." It was understood that it was a 
courtesy for guests. You made your money renting rooms, not selling 
phone 
service. She told me a funny story: she said she had an agreement with
'Kenwood Bell' (she was on the Chicago-Kenwood CO of Illinois Bell) 
which
was that she did not sell phone service and they do not have rooms for
rent ... <g>.  Hey, if business is that bad, start renting rooms by 
the
hour <g> ... oh, I guess you don't want that kind of a 'house' either.  
PAT] 

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

From: mrand@eesun2.tamu.edu (Marc A Randolph)
Subject: Re: AT&T 500 Service
Date: 9 Feb 1995 07:14:15 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Texas  A&M University


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you might check again. Very 
possibly
> [...]
> be busy).  When I do 0-500-677-1616 and tell it to bill the call to 
the
> phone I am using, it vanishes for a couple seconds and I get call-
waiting,
> then after four rings (call waiting or not) it interupts and a voice
> message says it will try my alternate numbers. I did not bother with 
AT&T
> voicemail; I have voicemail up the kazooey from a few other places I 
rarely
> use. Anyway, feel free to call me at any reasonable hour: 500-677-
1616. 
PAT]

   So now that you've been though it Pat, do you mind telling us the
possible options/features of 500 service?  It sounds like you can set
up a hunt group, which I was not aware of.  Will it do a hunt on no
answer?  And if you don't mind, how much is it (i.e. for different
levels of options)?


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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You dial 0-500-your number and when 
requested, enter your master pin. You then get a menu which allows you
to modify your 'reach list', turn on/off override (of your reach 
list),
place a call to your home or override number, check voicemail, and
do a few other things.

In the reach list, you can give up to three numbers to try and reach
you at. When someone calls your 500 number, it starts at the top of
the list, working its way down until some one of the phones on the 
list
is answered or it reaches the bottom of the list. For instance, your
reach list can have your home number (abbreviated H# if desired when 
you enter it), your cellular number (abbreviated C# if desired) and 
perhaps
your work number or voicemail. 

It starts at the top of the reach list and rings that phone the number
of times you designate (default is four rings, but you can set it as
desired). If no answer or busy, a voice comes on the line and says, 
"please
hold, we will try to reach your party at another number." It then 
tries
the second number on the list, and if necessary this repeats and the 
third
number is attempted. You can have as many 500 calls simultaenously as 
you
have terminating facilities. In other words if you have two lines at 
home
set up in hunt, then you can have two 500 calls. If both those lines 
are
busy a third 500 call would look on the reach list for the next place 
to
try. I don't think there is any limit to the number of 500 calls that 
can
be aimed at you at any one time other than whatever number of calls 
you
(and the various places on your reach list) can handle at one time. 

You might have your 500 number point to your PBX (as the first number
on your reach list) during the day. At night when your PBX does not
answer, calls would go to the second number on your reach list, which
is your office in another state which is open all night, etc. If your
PBX can handle 20 incoming calls, then you can have 20 incoming 500 
calls
if desired. Maybe the third number on your reach list is someone who
takes calls on weekends. By calling in with your master pin, you 
modify
the reach list as desired anytime. If you want only one number on your
reach list which you call in and change throughout the day as you 
travel
around, that's okay also. Just scratch the other two. You can have up 
to
three to be attempted if desired. If you are going to be at one place
on a temporary basis and don't want to change your reach list, then a
provision is made called 'override the reach list'. You enter a single
number to *always* be used until you turn off this feature and tell it
to go back to using the reach list again. 

So it truly can be a national number just like 800, but with more
flexibility because you can require the caller to pay for it unless he
has a pin, and you are not tied down to any one location as you are
with many old-fashioned 800 numbers, although companies like 'My Line'
and Arch Telecom have eliminated that problem. 

You can use your 500 number to make outcalls also and not have to 
bother
with a calling card or calling collect. At the present time, you can 
only call your home number (H#) or your override number, but that will
be changed later this year so you can call anywhere. Now with 'My 
Line'
and Arch Telecom, you can presently use your 800 number for outcalls
to anywhere. AT&T says 500 will eventually have that also. 

If desired, you can have what is known as 'Final Stop' with 500. This
has to be either AT&T provided voicemail or voicemail from the vendor
of your choosing. If all the numbers on your reach list are busy or
do not answer, then calls go automatically to 'Final Stop'. If you 
wish,
you can override the reach list and send calls to 'Final Stop' 
directly.

If desired, call screening is also available. You can toggle options 
which
allow only calls made with pin numbers to reach you, sending all other 
calls to Final Stop (voicemail). There is an option where calls deemed
'urgent' can get through the call screening while all other calls go 
to
voicemail. 

You get recorded help at any time by pressing *H, and *0 will transfer
you to the business office at any time for further assistance. Prices
for the different options vary, and I do not have them all here. Right
now everything is one dollar per month through April. For more 
information
call them at 1-800-982-8480.    PAT]


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

From: pwolfe@mcs.com (Patrick Wolfe)
Subject: Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery
Date: 8 Feb 1995 17:01:52 GMT
Organization: MCSNet Services


Erik P. Larson (larsone2@clunix.cl.msu.edu) wrote:

> Motorola ... flip phone ... does anyone know how to disable the low
> battery warning beep?  It's really annoying
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'll second you on that (is anyone from Motorola listening?).  My
phone has tons of controllable options, but not how many times or loud
to make that damned beep.

One thing that's interesting is that when I'm using the phone, it only
beeps about four or five times (maybe one to two minutes) before the
battery drains and the phone shuts off.  When I'm not using the phone,
it'll beep about once every minute for at least 15 minutes.

My instructions for my xt-pak ni-cad batteries say to maintain long
lifetime, I should discharge them fully before recharging (all the
time, not just the first five times), so I've found I must stuff the


phone under the couch cushions overnight so it won't wake me up.

Maybe this is an opportunity for a third party product - a cell phone
silencer (sound proof box), or a battery drainer (something that just
puts a load on the battery until it drains completely).


Patrick Wolfe (pwolfe@mcs.net)

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

From: edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn)
Subject: Re: Atlanta Toll-Free Calling Zone Growing?
Date: 8 Feb 1995 18:57:03 GMT
Organization: The INTERNET Connection, LLC


In article <telecom15.72.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, pbeker@netcom.com says...

> I heard a very brief report on one of the local radio stations that
> Southern Bell was planning to increase the size of the "local 
Atlanta
> calling zone by 50%" by "adding 34 new exchanges" to it ...

Thanks to the PUC, we got to vote on this about a year ago.  The
ballots were included in our telephone bills and was going to result
in an increase on all residential and business telephone line costs.
It passed.  Now they are implementing the expansion of the calling
area as well as splitting up 404 into two area codes in the same
calling area (yes, this means you may need to dial another area code
to get across the street).  I don't remember what the new area code
will be.


Ed Goldgehn                          E-Mail:  edg@ocn.com
Sr. Vice President                   Voice:   (404) 919-1561
Open Communication Networks, Inc.    Fax:     (404) 919-1568

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

From: edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn)
Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Vendor Wanted
Date: 8 Feb 1995 19:10:08 GMT
Organization: The INTERNET Connection, LLC


In article <telecom15.78.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, sbauer@tyrell.net says:

> I am looking for a vendor who can provide me with up to date 
Directory
> Assistance data for the United States that can reside on a LAN and 
be
> accessed by any user.  I'm not sure if a CD-ROM that is updated
> frequently is the way to go or an on line connection with a per
> request charge.

> We have about $3,000 per month in Directory Assistance charges.

Contact DirectoryNet, Inc. in Atlanta about this.  They have on-line
connections to most telephone companies in the country and offer the
type of service you are looking for.

Their telephone number is (404) 512-5090.


Ed Goldgehn                         E-Mail:  edg@ocn.com
Sr. Vice President                  Voice:   (404) 919-1561
Open Communication Networks, Inc.   Fax:     (404) 919-1568

For more information about ISDN in general and our TURNKEY ISDN 
Solutions,
send e-mail to isdn@ocn.com  (There are humans at the end of this 
address).

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

From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Subject: Re: The Philosophy of CallerID
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 
guest)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 23:26:25 GMT


malcolm@interval.com (Malcolm Slaney) writes:

> This article should be required reading for anybody who wants to 
enter
> into the debate.

> Caller ID and the Meaning of Privacy

> Laurie Thomas Lee (Univ of Nebraska-Lincoln) Robert LaRose (Michigan
> State)

> The Information Society, Volume 1, pp 247-265, 1994.

So anyone unable or unwilling to find this publication in a library is
by definition too ignorant to discuss issues relating to caller ID?

Can the material be accessed electronically?  If not, then I submit
that it should *NOT* be required reading.


Ben Carter    internet address: bpc@netcom.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey, chill out, Ben. 'Should be 
required
reading' is a favorite phrase of book reviewers everywhere. It does 
not
mean the Congress is going to pass a law sending you to prison if you
don't read the book and still choose to postulate on the subject 
matter.
Look at me. What do I know about anything, yet I talk all the time.  
PAT]

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

From: floyd@sanford.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: North Pacific Cable Cut?
Date: 9 Feb 1995 06:51:10 GMT


In article <telecom15.87.1@eecs.nwu.edu> palm@tokyo.rockwell.com
(Stephen Palm) writes:

> We have 56kbps digital leased line between Tokyo and California that
> used the North Pacific Cable (NPC).  Apparently NPC was cut on 2 Feb
> 1:00 AM JST (1 Feb 8:00 AM PST) and we are now on satellite backup.

> Does anybody have any more information?  Does anyone know when they
> are planning to fix NPC?

There appears to be a problem between the first and second repeaters,
which would put it approximately 60 Km off the coast of Oregon.

In addition to Asian traffic, the NPC has a spur to Alaska, and all
traffic is currently using satellite re-route.

I'll have a chance to check later tonight on the current status and if
there is anything actually useful to anyone I'll try to post it in the
morning.  Considering the three previous occasions when the NPC has 
been
out of service, expect 10-12 days for repair.


Floyd
floyd@ims.alaska.edu     A guest on the Institute of Marine Science 
computer
Salcha, Alaska           system at the University of Alaska at 
Fairbanks.

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

From: Finn.Stafsnes@nta.no (Finn Stafsnes)
Subject: Re: Ten Digit Dialing
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 11:11:35 GMT


In article <telecom15.84.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, etxlndh@eua.ericsson.se
(Robert Lindh) writes:

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

Make it eight-digits.

 ... and in Denmark, a similar change was made some (five?) years ago.

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

The main reason, as I have got it, was that the old numbering plan was
beginning to run out of numbers for some areas.


Finn Stafsnes

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

Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 08:49:05 -0500
From: Chazworth@aol.com
Subject: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away?


In article <telecom15.66.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, <brent@cc.gatech.edu> 
writes:

> What is the current thinking on when a PC (powerPC, whatever) 
replace
> the PBX? i.e. when can I run my T1 from the telco with my voice 
trunks
> on it into one card on a PC and have it route voice over the LAN to
> other desktop computers that double as phones? It will probably be a
> time curve: first available for small offices (ten users) on an 
ethernet, 
> then a while later available for 200 lines on a faster LAN, etc. 
What
> says the net? My Mitel sx200 lite has a 68000 for a processor: it's 
a
> MacPlus! Surely the cpu horsepower is available to replace lots of
> dedicated TTL and switching hardware. I was just at a briefing from
> Apple and they're working with the PBX makers for a Geoport Mac to 
be
> a voice terminal behind a "big maker" PBX. But who are the startups
> that are out to kill the PBX makers?

The "startups out to kill" are the PBX makers themselves.  NEC,
Toshiba make computers now.  Instead of the PBX going away, see it as
yet another server on the LAN.  I work with NEC systems involving
about 50 trunks by 100 to 200 lines, (a small switch) It takes a lot
of power to drive this thing, making analog sets ring, driving digital
sets etc.  I am also sure that the bandwidth on a LAN will ever
increase to be able to handle the increased voice traffic, just as the
PC will become more stable -- not needing the three fingered salute
from time to time.  The reported weakness of the PBX, the closed
system approach also was a a foundation of its strength, amazing
durability.  Today the PBX is augmented by the computer (integrated
messaging, authorization code database, ACD) and that forms a network
of distributed -- not dedicated, processing.  That is the powerhouse 
for 
communication networks, not the warm-fuzzy, shrinkwrapped software do 
everything in-a-box world of Harry Newton.

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

From: mds@access.digex.net (Michael D. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs
Date: 9 Feb 1995 00:32:32 -0500
Organization: Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn (Washington, DC, USA)


edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) writes:

> In article <telecom15.75.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, pturner@netcom.com says:

>>> BTW, the method of charges is entirely different for LD service in 
the
>>> cellular industry.  With cellular, it is not unusual for local 
cellular 
>>> carriers (RBOC's or otherwise) to provide FREE or flat rate 
termination 
>>> charges to LD carriers.

>> Why not, if they extend the T1s to your MTSO?  It's that many less
>> erlangs going out on the other (paid) trunks.  I assume the B 
carriers
>> probally must provide this for free or are limited to some max rate 
by
>> Da Judge (that's Greene, not Ito :-))

No, Judge Greene doesn't have any jurisdiction over what the RBOCs
charge for providing access.  He does require them to provide equal
access, however (see below).

> Actually, it was a matter of marketing -- or necessity depending on
> your point of view.  The cellular industry needed to attract long
> distance carriers to make connections to their networks in order to
> sell their services.  It didn't do much good to provide local
> cellphone service without LD capability.  But, the LD carriers 
weren't
> going to make those connections on the same basis that they make 
their
> existing LD access (by the connection and by time).  So, since the
> cellular industry needs the LD capability to sell its local calling
> service, the fee structure was virtually eliminated.

> I don't know which cellular carrier was first to do this (I would 
take
> a guess that it was McCaw, but don't quote me on that).  But, from
> what I've heard, this practice is now widespread.

I'm not sure who was the first to do it, but the first cellular 
carrier 
to file a tariff providing free access was U S WEST NewVector Group.
Judge Greene got in a snit that USWNVG didn't have an equal access
tariff, so it filed one with the FCC specifying $0 charge.  The FCC
staff wanted to reject it, but ultimately allowed it to go into 
effect.


Michael D. Sullivan | INTERNET E-MAIL TO:  mds@access.digex.net   
Bethesda, Md., USA  | also avogadro@well.com, 
74160.1134@compuserve.com

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

From: lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Subject: Re: CCITT Class A
Date: 8 Feb 1995 22:33:54 -0800
Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products


In article <telecom15.66.11@eecs.nwu.edu> rgu332@email.sps.mot.com 
(Jesus 
Ruelas) writes:

> I read about the committee CCITT that is formed by 5 class groups,
> they are class A, class B, ..., class E; and know that only the 
group
> class A has the voting right while proposing a Standard 
specification.
> Does anybody know why only this group has this kind of privileges?.

The CCITT is a division of the ITU (International Telecommunications 
Union); 
it has recently been renamed ITU-TS (Technical Standards division). 
The ITU 
is a United Nations agency. That means only governments get to vote.  


Lars Poulsen   Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM
  Rockwell Network Systems Phone:        +1-805-562-3158
  7402 Hollister Avenue  Telefax:      +1-805-968-8256
  Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Internets: designed and built while you wait

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

From: dbezar@PrimeNet.Com (David Bezar)
Subject: Cash For Telecom Experts Who Want to be Published
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 16:21:47 MST
Organization: Primenet


$$$$ Money $$$$ to be made and the bragging rights to being a 
published 
author.

I am currently writting a book on Computer Telephony.  There are 
dozens of 
chapters on different topics pertaining to the Telecommunications 
industry.

I am looking for people who are interested in writting approximately a
20 pages including some diagrams on each of the following subjects:

 Wireless Communications
 Fax processing, Fax on demand, Fax broadcasting
 ISDN Communications
 International Communications
 Asynchronous Transfer Mode
 The Cable/Telecommunications Industry
 Video Conferencing / Distance Learning
 Microsoft's TAPI, Novell's TSAPI
 Telephony and the Internet

If you are interested in obtaining more information about becoming a
published author with one of the largest publishers in the world, and
you are knowledgeable about one or more of these topics, write me back
at:

dbezar@primenet.com

Please tell me which topic(s) you may be interested in / qualified
for, along with a little information about yourself, and if possible,
but not necessary a voice telephone number and a good time to reach
you.

If you are selected there is some money $$$$ to be made, but far more 
important is the fact that you could be published by a MAJOR 
publishing 
company.

Details to be disclosed to those who respond.

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

From: robm@isgtec.com (Rob Mitchell)
Subject: Information Sought on RF Data-Comm Chips/ (1/4 mile Range)
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc.
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 20:05:58 -0500


This post's not as interesting as Dick Tracy, but ... ;)

I am looking for product information about IC's which will allow me to
transmit data using RF about a quarter mile or so.  I'm looking for
something with either an async, or possibly SDLC interface, to work
with a micro-controller (TI 370 series).  I'm also interested in board
level products.  Which companies participate in this field?

Also, can anyone recommend any good, practical design guides covering
this subject?  What frequencies are 'best'.  What bands are reserved?
Types of antennae and driver circuits?


Thanks in advance for the information!

Rob Mitchell

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #88
*****************************

                        
