TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 May 94 08:39:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 214

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    NPA Readiness For 1995 (Gregory P. Monti)
    Emerging Cellular Systems (U. Ezechuk)
    ID Card Stories -- Reality Check (Lauren Weinstein)
    Cell One/NY Rates For DC and Boston (Doug Reuben)
    Help Needed With Speech Recognition..."Word Processing" (Peter Flower)
    3270 Emulation (Windows) (Michael Anderson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

The Digest is 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.

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: Thu, 12 May 1994 07:13:53 EDT
From: Gregory P. Monti <gmonti@cap.gwu.edu>
Subject: NPA Readiness for 1995


North America's Countdown to NPA Interchangeability in 1995

Interchangeable Codes Day is January 15, 1995, which is a Sunday!
(Does Hallmark have a line of cards out for it yet?)

For purposes of this table, "toll calls" are calls that are
*individually itemized* on your local or long distance company phone
bill.  "Message unit" or "Zone Unit Measurement" or "Extended Area"
calls are not individually itemized on bills and I don't consider them
"toll" even though they cost something over and above local service.
If the local telco doesn't force you to dial them differently, and
doesn't bill them individually, then they are treating them like local
calls and so will I.

Premium calls like 976 are mentioned if I know about them.  Otherwise,
consider this table to be unreliable as to 976, etc., calls.

The "Ready for 1/95" column states whether the NPA has eliminated a
dialing plan that won't work once NPAs 281, 334, 360, 520, 563 and 630
come on line.

There could be multiple interpretations of what "yes" and "no" could
mean, so I took these shortcuts: no 1995 plan announced = no new plan
announced, don't know if implemented = yes new plan announced,
definitely not implemented = no new plan now implemented, but not
mandatory; old one still permitted = yes new plan now implemented and
is mandatory = yes

I have removed the interchangeable NPAs that will begin 1/95.  They
will always be "ready for 1/95".

NPA     Stat    Toll    Ready   Notes
        Prov    calls     for
                within  1/95?
                NPA
                dialed
                as

201     NJ      7       yes
202     DC      not applicable  yes     there are no toll calls within 202
203     CT      1+7     no
204     MB      1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
205     AL      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1990
206     WA      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1991, mandatory 1992
207     ME      7       yes     7D announced 1992
208     ID      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
209     CA      7       yes
210     TX      1+10    yes     has always been 1+10D toll
212     NY      not applicable  yes     there are no toll calls within 212,
                                540 & 976 premium services are 7D
213     CA      7       yes     has always been 7D for toll
214     TX      1+10    yes
215     PA      7       yes     "no 1" campaign ran in 1992, when 1+7D
                                eliminated
216     OH      1+10D   yes     1+10D mandatory 1/1/95
217     IL      7       yes     Urbana book mentions "10D" without "1",
                                which won't work unless local calls within
                                217 are also 10D; later Bellcore source
                                says 7D, which I consider more reliable
218     MN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93, mandatory late 1994
219     IN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 8/93
301     MD      1+10    yes
302     DE      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 4/1/94, mandatory 1/7/95
303     CO      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993, mandatory 2/27/94
304     WV      7       yes
305     FL      1+10    yes     1+10D announced early 93
306     SK      1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
307     WY      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
308     NE      1+10    yes     1+10D announced for all US West states 12/93
309     IL      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com
310     CA      7       yes
312     IL      not applicable  yes     there are no toll calls within 312
313     MI      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 (was to be 7D)
314     MO      1+7     no
315     NY      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com
316     KS      1+7     no
317     IN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 8/93, mandatory 12/1/93
318     LA      1+7     no
319     IA      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93 all US West states
401     RI      1+10    yes     7D announced 1992, but
                                1+10D announced 1/94 to become mandatory
402     NE      1+10    yes     1+10D announced for all US West states 12/93;
                                Lincoln Tel portion 1+10D mandatory late 94
403     AB,NT,YT        1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
404     GA      1+10    yes     1+10D implemented 1989
405     OK      1+7     no
406     MT      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
407     FL      1+10    yes     1+10D announced early 93
408     CA      7       no      inter-NPA calls are 10D, must change to 1+10D
409     TX      1+7     no
410     MD      1+10    yes
412     PA      7       yes     not sure if 7D announced 9/93
                                later Bellcore source from
                                alan.leon.varney@att.com
                                says 7D
413     MA      1+10    yes     originally to be 7D; Mass DPU was thought to
                                have ordered 1+10D in 10/93, but J. Covert
                                reports  no such order exists; bill stuffer
                                reported here confirms 1+10 is correct;
                                becomes mandatory 6/1/94
414     WI      1+10    yes
415     CA      7       yes     has always been 7D toll
416     ON      1+10    yes     there are no toll calls within 416 except 976,
                                which are dialed 1 416 976-XXXX
417     MO      1+7     no
418     QC      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
419     OH      1+10D   yes     1+10D mandatory 1/1/95
501     AR      1+7     no
502     KY      1+7     no
503     OR      1+10    yes     1+10D announced mid 1992
504     LA      1+7     no
505     NM      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
506     NB      1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
507     MN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93, mandatory late 1994
508     MA      1+10    yes     see note under 413
509     WA      1+10    yes     1+10D permitted 5/15/94, mandatory 9/17/94
510     CA      7       yes     has always been 7D for toll
512     TX      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1991
513     OH      1+10D   yes     1+10D mandatory 1/1/95
514     QC      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
515     IA      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
516     NY      7       yes     inter-NPA calls to be forced to 1+10D;
                                540 & 976 premium services are 7D
517     MI      1+7     no
518     NY      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com
519     ON      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
601     MS      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 12/93
602     AZ      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1990
603     NH      7       yes     7D announced 1992; but per-line blocking
                                to be available to subs who don't want 7D
                                toll;
                                they will be forced to dial 1+10D
604     BC,NT,AK        1+10    yes     1+10D intra-NPA toll to be
                                        mandatory 9/94;
                                Hyder, AK, is in 604 per previous postings
                                here
605     SD      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93
606     KY      1+7     no
607     NY      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com
608     WI      1+10    yes
609     NJ      7       yes     1+7 disallowed beginning 9/93 per bill stuffer
610     PA      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 12/93 (was to inherit 7D
                                from 215)
612     MN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93, mandatory late 1994
613     ON      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
614     OH      1+10D   yes     1+10D mandatory 1/1/95
615     TN      1+10    yes     1+10D posted on pay phones 9/93
616     MI      1+7     no
617     MA      1+10    yes     see note under 413
618     IL      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com
619     CA      7       yes     7D toll announced 9/93
701     ND      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 12/93
702     NV      1+7     no
703     VA      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1987
704     NC      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1990
705     ON      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
706     GA      1+10    yes     inherited 1+10D from 404
707     CA      7       yes     7D announced 10/93
708     IL      not applicable  yes     there are no toll calls within 708
709     NF,NT   1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
712     IA      1+10    yes     1+10D announced for all US West states 12/93
713     TX      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 12/7/91
714     CA      7       yes     7D toll began in early 1980s
715     WI      1+10    yes
716     NY      7       yes     Rochester LATA, per Telecom Digest 787;
                                matches Bellcore source from
                                varney@uscbu.att.com
717     PA      7       yes     7D announced 11/93
718     NY      not applicable  yes     there are no toll calls within 718,
                                540 & 976 premium services are 7D
719     CO      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993, mandatory 2/27/94
801     UT      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 1993 all US West states
802     VT      1+10    yes     7D announced 1992; but
                                1+10D announced 2/94 to become mandatory
803     SC      1+10    yes     1+10D posted on pay phones 9/93
804     VA      1+7     no
805     CA      7       yes     1+7D still allowed in Pac Bell portion,
                                for now
806     TX      1+7     no
807     ON      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
808     HI      1+7     no
809     Caribbean       1+7     no
810     MI      1+10    yes
812     IN      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 8/93
813     FL      1+10    yes     1+10D announced early 93
814     PA      7       yes     not sure if 7D announced 9/93;
                                later Bellcore source from
                                alan.leon.varney@att.com
                                says 7D
815     IL      7       yes     per Bellcore source from varney@uscbu.att.com
816     MO      1+7     no
817     TX      1+10    yes     1+10D currently mandatory
818     CA      7       yes     has always been 7D toll
819     QC      1+10    yes     1+10D announced 10/93
901     TN      1+10    yes     1+10D posted on pay phones 9/93
902     NS,PE   1+10    yes     1+10D to be mandatory 9/94
903     TX      1+10    yes     has always been 1+10D toll
904     FL      1+10    yes     1+10D announced early 93
905     ON      1+10    yes     has always been 1+10D toll
906     MI      1+7     no
907     AK      1+7     no
908     NJ      7       yes     has always been 7D toll
909     CA      7       yes
910     NC      1+10    yes
912     GA      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 8/92
913     KS      1+7     no
914     NY      7       no      inter-NPA calls are 10D, must change to 1+10D;
                                540 & 976 premium services are 7D
915     TX      1+7     no
916     CA      7       yes     7D announced 9/93
917     NY      not applicable  yes     there are no toll calls within 917;
                                however, since
                                all outbound calls from 917 are cellular,
                                there
                                is a premium airtime charge on all of them
918     OK      1+7     no
919     NC      1+10    yes     1+10D mandatory 1990

                        143     Total NANP NPAs

                        117     NPAs ready for 1995
                        26      NPAs not ready for 1995
  
                        31      ready NPAs using 7D solution so far
                        80      ready NPAs using 1+10D solution so far
                        6       ready NPAs not requiring a solution (no
                                intra-NPA tolls)

                        2       non-ready NPAs using 7D but still 10D for
                                inter-NPA
                        24      non-ready NPAs still using 1+7D

Corrections are welcomed.  Mail to me, I'll re-post summary.  Thanks
to Bob Goudreau for suggesting the more detailed breakout.


Greg Monti          Arlington, Virginia, USA        gmonti@cap.gwu.edu

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

From: uezechuk@mlsma.att.com
Date: 12 May 94 10:29:00 GMT
Subject: Emerging Cellular Systems


Hi,

I am compiling material on new generation cellular systems, and would
appreciate any help. I will post the summary of responses if there is
enough interest.  My questions are:

1) What is PCS, PCN, with relevance to cellular systems?

2) What advantages do digital cellular systems have over analog?

3) For a cellular operator, what are the ideal frequencies to operate in
and why? 

4) What impact does the frequency in #3 above have on operational costs,
equipment costs, etc?

5) What are the impacts of operating in the higher reaches of the
spectrum, e.g. at GHz levels? What are the impacts of low power systems
and their advantages?

5) What are the advantages of CDMA over TDMA radio access technologies? 
What are the relative costs of these technologies?

6) Any ideas on how to obtain the QUALCOMM CDMA specs?

7) What impact will emerging cellular systems like Steinbrechers Minicell 
systems have on the cellular operator in terms of cost, operation and 
equipment?

Note: The minicell is based on technology whereby a base station can handle 
different radio access methods (CDMA, TDMA) as opposed to the traditional
approach of hard wired access methods.

8) Does anyone have any ideas of names and addresses (email?) of manufac-
turers of Cellular base stations, switching equipment etc? What are the 
technological merits and demerits of these equipment?


Thanks,

U Ezechukwu   Network Sys UK.

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

Date: Wed, 11 May 94 20:31 PDT
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: ID Card Stories -- Reality Check


Greetings.  As moderator of the Internet PRIVACY Forum Digest, I'm of
course interested in the privacy issues surrounding ID cards,
information access and related issues.  However, the current round of
stories regarding supposed plans for national "smart" ID cards,
database tie-ins, etc. seem to have taken on a life of their own,
escalating with (as far as I can tell) little real new information to
drive them.  In other words, there are signs that at least part of
these stories are tied to rumors that may have been expanded in the
telling.

For example, PRIVACY Forum received a message a few days ago that was
a first hand report of some comments made by a career government
official at a conference, where they were apparently sort of "blue-skying" 
about the possibilities for increasingly simplified tax collection
through various sorts of data tie-ins.  There was no sign that these
ideas had been incorporated into any sort of formal plan.

In a similar vein, a story from the recent past had the U.S. Postal
Service talking about the ability to issue millions of smart cards on
short order for universal identification purposes.  Once again, the
impression I got from that piece was of talking about the possibilities 
for use of such technology -- not that such a plan was about to be
implemented in some sort of surprise move!

Next I saw items where the messages' authors seemed to be combining
the two prior stories into some sort of integrated plan, and were now
claiming that "President Clinton is considering signing executive
orders to implement parts of these plans."  Then the message
escalation got even more pronounced -- a message in TELECOM claiming
that President Clinton was about to sign such orders.

It seems that the entire sequence of messages escalated with little if
any real new information being added.  One can't help but wonder if we
might be looking at a classic case of rumors gone wild.

Obviously, these are important issues worthy of widespread discussion
and debate.  I have no special knowledge of any possible underlying
realities to these stories, one way or another.  But it did appear
that the items seemed to be spreading around the net feeding upon
themselves, becoming more dramatic with each iteration.  I thought it
was worth raising a warning that it might be prudent to not rush to
judgment about the validity or veracity of these stories until more
specific information, drawn from sources other than the same items
that have been circulating the net, become available.


Lauren


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Lauren, the story which appeared 
here was from that fellow via the EFF. The main reason I ran it was 
because I tend to use EFF stuff when it is sent to me even though I
personally have to wonder about their motives from time to time. The
story I had here was in the EFFector recently. Maybe I will start being
more careful about printing some of their news releases.   PAT]

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

From: dreuben@netcom.com (Cid Technologies)
Subject: Cell One/NY rates for DC and Boston
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 14:12:51 PDT


I noted about a month ago that Cell One/NY implemented new roaming rates 
for a large area surrounding the CO/NY system. 

Specifically, these systems were Metro Mobile (Bell Atlantic)/CT (00119) 
and Litchfield Cellular (now McCaw), Dutchess County-Poughkeepsie
NY/(00479?), ComCast/NJ-DE-PA (00173, 00575, 01487, 00123, 00029), the
small Newton, NJ-based Ericsson system (forgot the SID), and the
Atlantic City (ComCast?)  and Ocean County, NJ systems. In each of
these systems (most of which also have automatic call delivery), CO/NY
customers pay their home airtime rates, and no daily roam charges.
Additionally, in Northern and Central NJ and Fairfield County, CT, you
pay only *local* rates (6 cents per minute) to reach anyone from
Fairfield County, CT, all the way down to Central NJ, and the airtime
charges for these calls are applied to whatever pre-paid airtime
allotment you may have, if any.

However, I believe I incorrectly mentioned that the Baltimore-Washington 
(00013) system was $.99 per minute, whereas in actuality it is ALSO
included in CO/NY's plan! Thus, you pay your home peak/off-peak rates
when roaming in Baltimore/DC.

Additionally, the SW Bell/Boston system (00007), Metro Mobile/RI (00119), 
and the insidious Franklin County, Mass "Let's sit on out fat roam 
charges and do nothing" system are also included in CO/NY's plan. 

(The Franklin County system is also SID 119, and is owned by a company 
called Boston Communications, (617) 247-1112. They have been very 
intransigent in dealing with other Cell Co's which have tried to set 
up low-cost roaming there, especially Cell One/Boston, which is trying to 
set up "New England Network" rates  (.44 peak/.29 off-peak) there. The 
insidious thing about these guys is that they are operated by Metro 
Mobile [no, that's not that worst part! :) ], and have the same 00119 SID. 
So roamers, especially those with New England Network rates, have no 
idea when they place and receive calls that rather than $.44 peak or $.29
off-peak they will instead pay $3 day/$.99 per minute!.This makes me very 
cautious when using my phone anywhere near their system, since in their 
vicinity, you simply CAN'T TELL what you will be paying! :( I hope that 
McCaw's market power convinced Boston Comm to modify rates for NY 
customers, and not that McCaw is just eating the roam charge and handing 
them over to those greedy little dweebs and Boston Comm. I tried 
calling Paul Tobin at Boston Comm about this a number of times, needless 
to say he never returned my calls.) 

Thus, CO/NY customers pay home peak and off-peak rates in ALL of Mass, 
ALL of RI, ALL of CT, ALL of New Jersey, the Metrophone 00029 system in 
PA, all of Delaware, the Baltimore-DC SW Bell system, and Dutchess County, 
NY. Moreover, auto call delivery will soon be available (next month?) to 
Boston and Rhode Island. 

Note that CO/NY, unlike SW Bell/Boston, does not charge any "home 
airtime" for calls delivered to you while roaming. SW Bell/Boston has 
this (IMHO) really cheap policy of charging their OWN customers 
home airtime rates in addition to roaming rates [and let us not forget 
the $2 Roam-Department-Christmas-Party Fund ... err ... I mean of
course "roamer administrative fee"]. For a company with generally
enlightened roaming policies, these charges are a throwback to
"soak-the-roamer" practices, except that this time the roamers are
also their own customers. Convenient for SW Bell, eh? Pretty cheap and
petty, really ...

As a result of the above, an account with Cell One/NY suddenly emerges
as the preferred roaming method for frequent Northeast Corridor
travelers.  With no daily charges from Mass to northern Virginia,
airtime-free call delivery throughout most of the area, and the use of
the (overpriced yet better than the B side) NACN in areas outside of
the Northeast, CO/NY stands clearly above its sister "A" carriers in
the region, and positions itself substantially ahead of NYNEX (the B
side carrier).

NYNEX/NY offers, at best, 75-cent per minute roaming in CT, 99-cent
per minute roaming in BAMS (Philly and DC), 75 or 99 cent in Boston/RI
and Maine, and may still be billing $3 daily charges (incorrectly) for
incoming calls to Baltimore/DC. Additionally, I am *still* not sure
what their policy is for outgoing calls in "Mobilreach" call delivery
areas, as I think some (most?) areas will bill you a $3 daily fee for
outgoing calls.  And of course, these is still that problem where
roamers in DC can not turn call delivery off, so calls can't go back
to voicemail -- I only mentioned it to them six months ago, so let's
give them another year to finish their squabble with Bell Atlantic --
who cares if the customers can't use it in the meanwhile..:( NYNEX
does offer auto-call delivery to both Orange and Dutchess Counties,
lower Delaware, Litchfield, CT, and Ocean County, NJ (CO/NY doesn't
deliver to these areas, and no Nationlink either), so they do come out
ahead of CO/NY in some roaming areas. The also have somewhat better
and cheaper rate plans, and don't seem to need to do as much switch
work so their system is up more often at night. However, if you intend
to do any degree of roaming in the Northeast Corridor, CO/NY is the
way to go now, without question.

BTW, CO/NY also has voicemail calls bounce back from ComCast/NJ now.
Thus, if you receive a call in SIDs 00173/00575/01487, and don't
answer it, it WILL go back to voicemail. Previously, outside of the NY
system, only Philly and Delaware featured this, using IS-41 RevA. I
think this was also placed in service now for ComCast/NJ, as cell
delivery in NJ behaves similarly to the IS-41 RevA regime inn Philly
and DE. (And no, Call-Waiting will STILL not work in ANY of the
Motorola EMX-based switches connected to NY or the NACN, so if you are
on the phone, calls will go to voicemail without you being aware of
it. Why is it so hard for ComCast and Metro Mobile -- not to mention
Pac*Tel in CA -- to get the appropriate software upgrade from Motorola
or do whatever is necessary to get this fixed? It seems like other
customers may care about this deficiency, not to mention the fact that
they can use this to get out of their annual service contracts!)

Overall, though, a very impressive roaming package from CO/NY, which
is miles ahead of what anyone else -- especially NYNEX -- is offering.
And none of thos silly "Please hold on, your party is being located"
messages which NYNEX and SNET use for auto-call delivery. I can see
why I get so many hangup calls when roaming -- no one wants to wait! :)


Doug CID Tech (203) 499-5221


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Doug, you have written to the Digest on 
many occassions over the past few years on cellular systems and their
various shortcomings. Do any of the cell companies *ever* respond to
your articles here, or your inquiries of them and make the desired
changes? Have any of them ever corrected their problems after you gave
them notice?   PAT]

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

From: pbflower@uts.EDU.AU (-s89432566-p.bflower-ele-500-)
Subject: Help Needed With Speech Recognition ..."Word Processing"
Date: 11 May 1994 23:56:40 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney


I'm looking for info on "Word Spotting". I'm doing a report on it and
need some of the latest available information. I'm hoping to advance a
HMM model program to do this. I'd most appreciate any information on
Word Spotting or even speech recognition.


Thanking you in advance,
     
Peter

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

From: ssi@winternet.com (Stillwater Systems)
Subject: 3270 Emulation (Windows)
Date: 12 May 1994 00:17:58 GMT
Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc


I'm looking for a good Shareware 3270 Emulator for Windows. I do a
great deal of work in the VAX/VMS environment and use WRQ's Reflection
2 for Windows, however, this is not suited for the IBM mainframe
environment. If you know of any 3270 Emulators for Windows, could you
please provide me with the information I need to obtain them.


Thank You,

Michael E. Anderson   ssi@winternet.com

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #214
******************************

