TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Mar 95 10:27:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 138

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    CONY Baltimnore (Doug Reuben)
    Plug Pulled in Hong Kong (Rob Hall)
    VoiceMail, FaxMail, Fax-On-Demand Systems in European Market (I. 
Masood)
    Problems With Fax Switch (Georg Oehl)
    Position For a Research Associate at King's College London 
(udee059@bay)
    Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns...) (Robert 
Levandowski)
    708/630/815 Split (was Re: New NPA in Colorado) (Carl Moore)
    Help: E Telco Step-by-Step Switch (Nadia Smyrniw)
    New NPA's Starting to Confuse/NPA 281 Activated (Stan Schwartz)
    Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch? (Steve Cogorno)
    Wanted to Buy: Used PBX and Telephones (Ray Siegel)

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: CONY Baltimnore
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 02:03:37 EST


On 28 Feb 1995 03:37:34 -0500, stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz) wrote:
 
> We've all heard the stories of the "fun" I had trying to use my 
CellOne 
> NY/NJ phone while roaming in Canada.

There are still problems there, and from what I hear, CanTel hasn't been 
too cooperative in trying to resolve them.
 
> Last week, I visited some friends on the Inner Harbor in Baltimore.
> [I was] surprised, then, when I tried to call my CellOne phone from 
the 
> hotel room and I received my voice mail!

I assume you had automatic call delivery turned "ON" (ie, you had hit
*350 sometime in the past?). You may want to try that to (A) make sure
that Call Delivery is ON (or in NACN terms, "Do Not Disturb" is off),
and (B) to "force" a registration of your phone in the visited market.

> I called CellOne's 800 number, and the rep told me that even though
> Baltimore is a NACN city, incoming callers had to dial a roamer access
> number! 

Totally untrue -- you do NOT need to use the access port as a CO/NY 
customer roaming in Baltimore. Indeed, you may be precluded from doing 
so.

> (Where does it say that in CellOne's map?).

It doesn't! :) Only a few counties in DE on the Delmarva Peninsula
USED to lack auto call delivery; they have it now. When Call Delivery
(was it NACN right away, I forget ...) was set up to DC, Baltimore got
it too.  There were/are MAJOR, MAJOR bugs with the "Roam America"/
"Nationlink" service ONLY in the Baltimore section of the Baltimore/DC
system (00013), but no one there seems to care to listen to me about
these problems, and now that I don't need to use that silly system, I
gave up reporting them.

> The first rep mentioned something about the lack of a mutual roaming
> agreement, and I wonder if this is retribution for CellOne turning off
> access to roamers in NY?

I doubt it, as I've used my CO/NY phone there after this nonsense with
SWBell suspending roaming in NYC.

If anything, it might have to do with the problems I used to experience 
with 
Nationlink/Roam America. I would activate it it the Baltimore system
after getting south of Havre De Grace on I-95. I'd get the 
SWBell/Baltimore-
DC ack. message, and figure I'd be set up and start receiving calls 
shortly.

Well, I'd be set up right away, but the phone would never ring when
someone called me. I tried it over and over and over, and it NEVER 
worked.
Then, as I passed Baltimore, and got into the DC "portion" of the system
(south of MD-32, maybe a bit further south), it would ring just fine! If 
I
went back into the Baltimore portion, nothing, and if I went back to DC,
it worked fine again. I did this maybe ten times one day just to prove 
to SW
Bell that they did indeed have a problem, and all I got from them was
"poor coverage" excuses (even though they managed to hear me fine on 
*611!). 

Now without any experimentation, I can't say for sure what is/was going 
on -- could be switchwork or something on that particular day. But the 
point is that these intercarrier roaming problems DO occur, and I'm in 
some ways glad to see that I am not the only one who notices them! :) 

I've always wondered why *I* have to notice this stuff before anyone 
gets 
it fixed. I don't mean this in an boastful way, but rather, if I can 
find 
these problems, don't you think the cell co's could HIRE or PAY someone 
to just drive around or whatever and test these intercarrier problems? I 
mean, like on Monday drive down to DC and test service through to there, 
on Tuesday drive to Albany and test service up that way, Weds to Boston, 
etc. 

It wouldn't have to be as rigorous as all that, maybe once a week 
make an excursion somewhere to test this stuff out. The point is that if 
I and Stan and others can detect this, shouldn't the cell co's be able 
to 
detect this earlier, and try to correct the problem BEFORE it becomes 
one 
for the customer? I can deeply sympathize with Stan  -- too many times 
I've had to meet friends while roaming and told them to call the 
carphone, only to find that service for some reason or another was 
"out", 
leaving me out of contact and very, very upset. 

This can only harm the overall impression that a customer has of his/her 
cellular service. I would (like to) think that most Cell Companies would 
want to mitigate against this, and put more efforts into locating and 
remedying intercarrier roaming problems BEFORE the customer is affected.

Unfortunately, in most cases typified by Stan's problems in Baltimore or 
his earlier (and verified, may I add) problems in Canada, this is not 
always the case.

> CellOne Strikes Again!

Hmm ... Cell One/DC-Baltimore, sure ... let 'em have it! Cell One/NY, 
hmmm ... I'd be slightly more hesistant to blame them.

I've been very mildly criticized for casting CO/NY in a "good light" all
the time, but in all honesty, they deserve it. Perhaps it is due to the
utter lack of responsiveness from other carriers which I deal with (hey,
GTE/SF, did you EVER get Call Waiting working in Sac/Stockton?  Or
Atlantic Cellular/El Dorado County, CA -- ever manage to put something
simple like confirmation tones up for CA access customers?). 

In the above examples, I made an honest and good faith effort to report 
some problems, and even follow up on them. Almost all were to no avail. 
GTE/SF even argued with me for 20 minutes that I should NOT have called 
their 800 number from my cellphone while roaming, even though I was on 
the phone with a switch tech who was trying to diagnose the problem.

Right now, in the US Cellular Poughkeepsie (00503) system, ONLY CO/NY 
roamers are blocked from placing/receiving ANY calls, including 611 and 
911 ! All other roamers, even those with invalid ESN/MIN combos, get 
at the very least 611/911 service just fine. The problem is very 
sporadic, and has gone on for 5 days or so. (More on this in another 
post)

I noticed this a few months ago (much more infrequently), and since I 
bother the roam coordinator in NY enough as it is :), I reported the 
problem to US Cellular's roam people in Chicago and figured they would 
look into it. Apparently, no one did, or at the very least, no one ever 
got back to me. 

So now, CO/NY (and other NACN?) customers can not receive nor place 
calls, 
even emergency 911 calls, for extended periods of time during the day. 
It's not a coverage issue, the same phone in a very strong coverage 
area will NOT work with a CO/NY NAM (number), but will work with a 
Boston 
account, or even a totally fictitious number. It just will NOT allow any 
calls with a CO/NY number. (This is sporadic -- it will not work for a 
few 
hours, then work for a few minutes, then stop working, etc.)

The point is that US Cellular couldn't seem to care less about this. 
They 
"diagnosed" the problem from Oklahoma or somewhere, and had no idea of 
where Poughkeepsie was let alone that it was interconnected with NY.

On the other hand, the minute I called CO/NY they were very concerned, 
they checked a number of things out, they called US Cell, and they are 
now "escalating" the issue so that it will be quickly resolved. 

I guess this the way every carrier should respond when they get a
verified trouble report, but sadly, most don't, so I'm very, very
pleased to find that CO/NY will listen and be very responsive when
these problems do arise.

The next step is to detect these problems BEFORE the customer can. To
some extent, for some problems, this may not be possible. Yet I feel
that if *I* can detect these problems by performing a few simple tests
when I get to a roaming market, that the major cell carriers could do
this as well.  It would go a LONG way towards eliminating "surprises"
like Stan experienced in Baltimore or Canada, and like those which
CO/NY customers are currently experiencing in Poughkeepsie and most of
Dutches County, NY.


Doug
dreuben@interpage.net    CID Technologies/Interpage NSG   +1 (203) 499 - 
5221
E-Mail Gateway to Voice, Fax, and Pagers --> http://interpage.net

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

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 17:23:08 +0800
From: robhall@hk.super.net
Subject: Plug Pulled in Hong Kong


First it was threats of draconian measures from the Cyber police to 
clean up 
the net.

Then it was the Pakistan government shutting down cellular service 
because 
they couldn't eavesdrop.

Now, it's the Hong Kong government practicing for after the handover
of Hong Kong to the PRC in 1997?

In case any of you are wondering why your messages to people in Hong 
Kong are 
not being answered ...

Last Friday, the Commercial Crime Bureau shutdown seven of the eight
Internet Service Providers, through raids on their offices, and seized
all of their computer and telecommunications equipment. Seven men and
one woman were detaied for questioning and later released on bail.

According to police sources, the CCB raided the companies after a
complaint by the Telecommunications Authority that these services
providers were running telecommunications networks without the
required license.

But the Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA) has denied
it instigated the CCB raids, stating that it has been conducting its
own investigation into the telecommunications licensing issue in
relation to Internet service providers.  The investigation is still in
progress.

So if your message doesn't receive a response in a timely manner, fax
it.  The only public service provider still in operation is 
hk.super.net.


Rob Hall    Hong Kong


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I assume if they get their business
licenses in order they will be able to resume operation, correct?   PAT]

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

From: spearv@ix.netcom.com (Iftikhar Masood)
Subject: VoiceMail, FaxMail, Fax-On-Demand systems in European Market
Date: 7 Mar 1995 09:31:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom


Our company (Spear Voice Systems) is looking for distributors and
marketing partners throughout Europe to market our products FaxLink,
and Callink. Our systems are from 4 ports to 24 ports capacity and are
based on Dialogic telephony/fax boards. Our company has been in
business for 4 years and has a very good sized installed base in
far-east Asia. Our systems provide full and extended integration with
a variety of PBXs. Integrations methods include RS232 link, Inband
DTMF, and digital/hybrid telephone interfaces. At this time we have
voice prompts in nine languages.

The partners we seek must meet the following criteria:

      - Experiened in PBX and any other telecommunication equipment
        installation with technical support staff. Must have emphasis
        on the customer problem solution, rather than making a quick
        sale.  Strong after sale support committment necessary.

      - Optimistic and aware of VoiceMail/Faxmail and Fax-on-demand
        systems market in Europe.

      - Expecting lucrative return based on Commission and After sales
        service and maintenance contracts.

      - Targeting small to medium sized business organizations and
        service bureaus.

We look forward to inquiries from individuals and companies, and will
provide the details to the interested parties. Please respond to our
internet address contained in this message.


Ifti

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

From: oehl@student.uni-kl.de (Georg Oehl)
Subject: Problems With Fax Switch
Organization: University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 10:45:46 GMT


Hello there,

 I have a problem with my ComShare 750 Fax Switch that I
purchased from a friend in California about two weeks ago: it won't
pick up when someone is calling.
 
 The ComShare 750 is an active Fax Switch with extra power
supply. It has one input (line-in) and four outputs (for phone,
answering machine, fax and modem). On an incoming call it's supposed
to direct the call -- depending on what/who is calling -- to the right
device attached.

 But, as I said, it just won't pick up any call. The weird
thing is that at a friend's house it worked just fine, ie. picked up
on an incoming call. Is there a way of finding out what's wrong with
my phone line, like what are the specifications for a ring of an
incoming call in terms of voltage drop or resistance/impedance of the
attached telephone devices (or whatever)?

 Another problem is that I can't report this to the telephone
company, because here in Germany devices that don't have an approval
sticker on them are not quite legal to connect to the phone system.


Georg

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

From: udee059@bay.cc.kcl.ac.uk
Subject: Position for a Research Associate at King's College London
Date: 7 Mar 95 12:31:34 GMT
Organization: King's College London
  

     Position for a Research Associate at King's College London
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Applications are invited for a Research Associate for three years
starting 1st of April or soon thereafter. The externally-funded
project is to investigate "air interface migration" from GSM.
Experience of packet transmission techniques and relevant software
would be an advantage.

Candidates should have, or expect to have, a PhD in a relevant area.
Salary will be on the RA1A scale currently from 14,962 to 17,700
pounds sterling per annum which includes 2,134 pounds sterling London
Allowance (LA) per annum. Applications consisting of a CV and the
names of two academic refrees should be sent to:

           Personnel, 
           Physical Sciences & Engineering, 
           King's College London,
           Strand,
           London WC2R 2LS.
      
The CLOSING DATE is 13 March 1995. Please quote the reference number
Ref W1/EE/10/95 in your application.

      " Equality of opportunity is  college policy. "

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

From: rlvd_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Robert Levandowski)
Subject: Caller ID, Privacy, and Cranks (was Yes, Yung'uns...)
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 15:21:51 GMT


Here in Rochester NY, the phone company (Rochester Telephone / Frontier)
has what I think is an elegant solution to the Caller ID vs. crank call
problem. 

The problem, simply restated, is: How do you balance the need and desire 
for
privacy with the need to easily identify crank callers?  And how do you 
set


up Caller-ID blocking, etc., to be useful but not intrusive?

Well, here we have Caller-ID, and per-line and per-call blocking, but 
you
don't need Caller-ID to take care of annoyance calls.

If you get an annoyance call, you hang up, and then dial *64  (or 1164 
if
you only have a rotary phone).

This will then automatically "trace" the number (or so it says in the 
phone
book -- more likely just grab the CNID/ANI information) and report it to
the Annoyance Call Bureau at the phone company.  You do NOT get a copy 
of the
number you traced; but you can then call Rochester PD and file a 
complaint,
and RochesterTel will turn the traced number over to the police for
investigation. 

To keep this service from being abused, there's a $1.50 charge for every 
call
that is successfully traced.

It makes a lot of sense to me.  It avoids vigilante justice; it ensures 
the 
privacy of people who legitimately use Caller-ID blocking; and it 
preserves 
the right to freedom from annoying, harassing, and threatening phone
calls.  And, there's no need to invest in a Caller-ID box or service
for just the occasional bad call ...


Rob Levandowski
Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester
macwhiz@cif.rochester.edu     [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 10:32:47 EST
From: Carl Moore <cmoore@ARL.MIL>
Subject: 708/630/815 Split (was Re:  New NPA in Colorado)


There is some of that "messy" stuff in a very old area code map I
received a while back in the mail, but you're looking at the 1950s
with regard to that.  I'd have to do some guesswork along the lines of
what I have just been told (through Telecom) about 708/630 (and 815).
Area code changes made in the 1950s then would have had less effect on
the public due to there being less direct-dial facility as a percentage 
of the entire system.  But someone did write about seeing a notice
left over from 1958 of dialing area code 609 in New Jersey.

As for the prefixes in southwestern 708 getting put in 815, I can
draw on what I have seen regarding:

1. the Pentagon (moved from 202 to 703);
2. those three prefixes in Lancaster County which moved from old
   215 to 717.

In other words, my educated guess is that there will be a case by case
review of each prefix which would go from 708 to 815.  If possible,
the prefix would be put "as is" in 815.  But if the prefix is already
used in 815, the prefix now used in 708 would have to be replaced, and
in the above cases there were two such occurrences:

1. 202-694 switched to 703-614 (703-694 in use at Stuart, which is to
   go to area 540 this year);
2. 215-267 switched to 717-336 (717-267 in use at Chambersburg)

Unfortunately, putting parts of present 708 into 815 and 630 means
that some people have to change area code again after only about 5 1/2
years.  The 312/708 split only became permissive in Nov. 1989.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 10:36:18 -0500 
From: nadia (n.) smyrniw <smyrniw@bnr.ca>
Subject:  Help: E Telco Step-by-Step Switch 
Organization: Prism Systems / Bell-Northern Research 


Hi,

I am looking for information about an E Telco Step-by-Step Switch.  I
am looking for any information (Manufacturer, type of test trunk
ect....)  All I know about it is that it was manufacured in England in
the distant past, but I don't know by whom.  Maybe Strowger?

If anyone has any information please let me know. 


Thanks in advance,

NADIA     smyrniw@bnr.ca

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

From: stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz)
Subject: New NPA's Starting to Confuse/NPA 281 Activated
Date: 6 Mar 1995 19:59:11 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


An article in this week's {Information Week} mentioned that the new
NPA's are confounding numerous PBX's that haven't had a recent
software upgrade to handle the new NPA format (a graphic showed 360,
with the '6' having devil-like horns and tail).  They mentioned that
334 in Alabama, 360 in Washington State, and 281 in Texas were already
active.  I don't remember anyone here mentioning 281's activation, but
upon dialing 1-281-555-1212 I received a "Southwestern Bell" chime and
the DA operator told me that 281 is the cellular overlay area code for
713 (Houston), which became active 3/1/95.


Stan

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

From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno)
Subject: Is ISDN Equipment Limited by Switch?
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 18:10:42  PST


I am in the process of converting my two lines into an ISDN line, and
while on the phone today the PacBell representative said somthing a
little startling.  She told me "You are served off a 5ESS (which I
knew), so you need to buy AT&T equipment." I thought this was a little
odd, so I asked her why. SHe said that AT&T ISDN equipment will not
work with a DMS-100 and Northern equipment will not work with the
5ESS.  So, if I move to an area that has a DMS-100, I will have to buy
all new equipment. Is this _really_ true?


Steve   cogorno@netcom.com

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

From: Ray siegel <raysieg@delphi.com>
Subject: Wanted to Buy: Used PBX and Telephones
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 95 22:51:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Wanted to Buy:

PBX, and used business telephones.

Also buy Used Mainframes, such as IBM, UNIVAC, and used peripherals
(Disk,tape,FEPs,printers).

Please FAX list of such hardware, location, and your name, address and
telephone number to 201-994-4669.


Ray Siegel   NUDT - National Used Digital Technologies
fax:201-994-4669    or e-mail raysieg@delphi.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #138
******************************

                                                                                         
