TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Jun 94 11:39:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 299

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling (Robert Virzi)
    Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling (Bernard Rupe)
    Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling (Steven King)
    Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling (Doug Reuben)
    Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling (Ross E. Mitchell)
    Re: MCI Metro Ad - Analysis (Pete Farmer)
    Re: Information Wanted on Satellite BBS? (Paul Robinson)
    Re: Long Dialup String (Carl Oppedahl)
    Re: Long Dialup String (Neil Weisenfeld)
    Re: Long Dialup String (Ilja Schliffkowitz)
    Re: Long Dialup String (John R. Levine)
    Re: Smooth Operator (Compass Voice Mail) (Bob Koskovich)
    Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (Jeffrey Rhodes)
    Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere" (Mike McCrohan)

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

From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Subject: Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling
Date: 23 Jun 1994 14:23:12 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA


In article <telecom14.298.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, Shawn Gordhamer <shawnlg@netcom.
com> wrote:

> When one cellular phone calls another on the same system, is the
> equipment smart enough to _not_ use the telephone network?  

Actually, I believe that the cellular systems are "smart enough" to
avoid the landline network even across cellular systems.  (This may
involve a LD network hop, but not a LEC network).  The reason for this
is that LECs charge cellular providers for landline network access,
and cellular companies would rather avoid this charge.  In fact, if
you have something like a "landline inter-connect fee" appearing on
your cellular bill, you are paying a small portion of this charge
already.

> As the number of cellular-type phones increase in proportion to the
> number of landline phones, will there be less of a dependence on the
> local landline network?

Probably.  


Bob Virzi    rvirzi@gte.com   +1(617)466-2881           

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

From: rupe@wombat.cig.mot.com (Bernard Rupe)
Subject: Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling
Date: 23 Jun 1994 14:49:08 GMT
Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola


In article <telecom14.298.8@eecs.nwu.edu> shawnlg@netcom.com (Shawn
Gordhamer) writes:

> When one cellular phone calls another on the same system, is the
> equipment smart enough to _not_ use the telephone network?  As the
> number of cellular-type phones increase in proportion to the number of
> landline phones, will there be less of a dependence on the local
> landline network?

Yes, a call within a cellular system would not use the public
telephone network.  A cellular system could be completely independent
of the public network.  In many international systems, this is almost
true.  Keep in mind that calls between two isolated cellular systems
still use the public network to route the call.

> I've heard that soon, non landline phones will have about the same
> cost as landline ones.  If this is true, then I would think many
> people will switch to portable phones and leave the landline network
> altogether.

I wouldn't count of this happening anytime soon.  The main cost difference
is the airtime (maybe 16-30 cents/minute).


Bernie Rupe             1501 W. Shure Drive  Room 1315
Motorola, Inc.                    Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Cellular Infrastructure Group  +1 708 632 2814
      rupe@cig.mot.com 

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

From: king@wildebeest.cig.mot.com (Steven King, Software Archaeologist)
Subject: Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling
Date: 23 Jun 1994 14:14:17 GMT
Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group
Reply-To: king@cig.mot.com


shawnlg@netcom.com (Shawn Gordhamer) publicly declared:

> When one cellular phone calls another on the same system, is the
> equipment smart enough to _not_ use the telephone network?

Yes, cellular calls within a single system are carried strictly on the
cellular operating company's equipment.  The local telco isn't
involved.  Crossing a LATA boundary is an exception, of course.

In some cases, trunks between cell sites and the cellular switch are
leased from the local telco.  This is another kettle of fish.  In this
case, telco still isn't handling the call at all, just providing the
physical plant.

> I've heard that soon, non landline phones will have about the same
> cost as landline ones.  If this is true, then I would think many
> people will switch to portable phones and leave the landline network
> altogether.

I'd do it in a minute!  Not because my landline service is bad, but
simply because I'd like to jump feet-first into the 21st century.
Unfortunately, the cost of wireless service is still "what the market
will bear", and at this point the market will bear quite a lot.  I
wouldn't look for any major breakdown in cellular pricing until
something drastic happens, either technologically or legally.


Steven King <king@cig.mot.com> -- Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group

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

From: dreuben@netcom.com (Cid Technologies)
Subject: Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 02:22:23 PDT


On Wed Jun 22 13:00:51 1994, shawnlg@netcom.com (Shawn Gordhamer) wrote:

> When one cellular phone calls another on the same system, is the
> equipment smart enough to _not_ use the telephone network? 

Generally, yes if a "home" or "visiting" (roamer) calls a HOME customer 
it goes through the same switch. Otherwise, it goes out via landline.

Thus, if a Cell One/DC (00013) system customer is in Cell One/NY
(00025) territory as a roamer, and calls a Cell One/NY customer who is
also in NY SID 00025, then it will be handled by the switch internally
(and very quickly!), and not use of the landline network and
concomitant local/toll rates will not apply.

However, if the NY customer called the DC customer (again within NY
00025), then even though they are both in the NY system, and NY is
*not* constrained by the MFJ or DOJ rules about "looking ahead" to
other switches, the call will STILL be placed over landline to DC,
where the DC 00013 switch will say "Oh, our customer is in NY, let's
send the call up there." This is because the DC customer may have
forced calls to voicemail or used forwarding or have some other
special treatment at his home switch. If the call DIDN'T go back to
DC, then the NY switch would have no idea if the DC customer's calls
were forwarded or not, and would ring the DC roamer in NY even though
the DC roamer may have chosen NOT to receive phone calls or forwarded
them to his office or somewhere else.

Eventually, I think SS7 and other protocols may be able to handle this
without having to go over an IXC, but generally, when dealing with
disimilar switch types, the calls must go over an IXC or local landline.

Currently, think most switches can communicate with other *similar*
switches by the same manufacturer and (if they are networked) CAN
query the "home" switch to see if any features are active, and respond
accordingly without going through the landline network. This is what
used to allow customers on Motorola EMX systems to have total use of
their features, voicemail, etc., without the current "clicking"
(dialing) periods where the EMX switches have to dial each other up
via an IXC. However, due to Department of Justice requirements on
Bell-owned Cell Co's, a lot of this can no longer be done legally,
much to the detriment of cellular users.

For example, a Connecticut customer USED to be able to roam into Rhode
Island and have all of his features work as if he were on one big
system, including having unanswered calls bounce back to voicemail.
There would be *NO* toll charges for call delivery from CT to Rhode
Island -- it was all handled in the EMX switch and passed back and
forth through the Cellco. The same was true for a CT customer roaming
in Boston, a RI customer in CT, etc. It functioned smoothly, like one
big system, and calls from customer to customer, as long as they were
from one of the New England EMX systems, did not go out to a landline
at all.

When Metro Mobile of CT and RI was taken over by Bell Atlantic, the
silly, MCI-inspired DOJ rules kicked in, and they had to take this
large system down and set up small mini-systems in each LATA (except
for some sections of lower Western Mass) and connect them all via
IXC's (like MCI, so that MCI would get its minuscule cut :( ). This
means customers pay more for call delivery (when it used to be free),
and it means that No-Answer-Transfer and thus voicemail won't work
when you are roaming out of your home "mini" system. You also have to
wait three times as long for a call to be delivered to you due to the
slow way the EMX 500 switch seems to handle this whole process, and
the newer 2500 is not much better, as far as I can tell.

I can't emphasize how ridiculous this seems when it USED to work just
fine -- the government is making us all take a step backwards and
forcing switch vendors to create all these inane workarounds just
because some big babies like MCI whined that doing the above technically 
violates the MFJ.  A grand waste of time to placate an LD company(ies) -- 
the costs in this case IMHO greatly outweigh the benefits.

There are even some rare cases where calls in the *same* system go
over an IXC or landline for local calls. The Eastern New Hampshire
system went bankrupt (or something) a while ago, and the FCC granted
"interim" operating authority to TWO carriers, Cell One/Boston and
Cell One/VT (Atlantic Cellular, Providence, RI). Boston owns the
eastern towers, more or less those east of a large lake in New
Hampshire (I can pronounce it but I won't dare try to spell it! :) It
begins with a W...), and VT owns the western ones.

So if you call a customer on the "same" system, ie, the Eastern NH
system, and he is on the same set of towers that you are being
serviced by, then there is no need for a landline carrier, ie, NETel
or an IXC. But if the call goes between the two carriers (remember,
its still ONE system), then I think it does go over an IXC or
landline. They recently upgraded the interconnection so I don't know
if this is necessary -- it now seem to be working like a big EMX
network up there, but a year ago calls from one side of the lake to
the other took longer and you got those "IXC dialout clicks", while
cell-to-cell calls utilizing just one of the two carriers went through
instantly.

(Eastern NH is really weird in terms of features and rates, especially
if you are a Cell One/Boston or CO/VT customer roaming there. And if
you are not a Boston or VT customer, watch out! The towers/signals are
so close to each other that you could easily be hit with TWO daily
roam charges as you access the two carriers which make up the single
system.)

> I've heard that soon, non landline phones will have about the same
> cost as landline ones.  

When this is true I'll never complain about a cell company again! :) I
know there are plenty of carriers with off-peak and special plans, but
overall, they are dramatically more expensive than landline, and I
think it will be that way for good number of years to come. Hopefully,
I'll be proven wrong!


Doug  CID Technologies (203) 499 - 5221

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

From: rem@world.std.com (Ross E Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Cellular to Cellular Calling
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 21:28:00 GMT


I have two cellular numbers using Cellular One service in the Boston
area.  I incur no local phone charges when calling from one number to
the other.

Since I subscribe to a plan which gives me free airtime on nights and
weekends, this is especially beneficial: I forward calls from one line
to the other.  When my bill arrives I see two charges: one outbound
for $0.00 and one inbound for $0.00.


Regards,

Ross Mitchell  - rem@world.std.com - Phone: 617-965-7010  - Fax: 617-630-0140

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 05:28:28 -0800
From: Pete Farmer <petef@well.com>
Subject: Re: MCI Metro Ad - Analysis


My take on the MCI Metro want ad is that it's for real.  This matches
up with public announcements that MCI has made on their getting into
the local loop market.  It galls them to no end that 50 cents of every
one of their revenue dollars gets handed back to the Local Exchange
Carriers for access fees.

In the press today, in fact, was a story that DEC reported it was
discussing the potential sale to MCI Metro of some of their private
fiber facilities in the Boston area.

What MCI is planning is NOT "fiber to the house or apartment
building," but more likely to the financial district or industrial
park.  What MCI is doing is most comparable to the activity of MFS and
Teleport.  Their focus -- at least initially -- is _solely_ on
business.  (And, after all, how many residential customers are looking
for T1 access?)

Over time, MCI would probably like its fledgling wireless activities
to complement MCI Metro.  MCI has taken a 17% share of Nextel.  It
probably would like residential callers to be able to access its
network without using RBOC facilities, via Nextel.

The $4.3 billion it's receiving from British Telecom is what makes
this possible.  MCI wil probably be able to raise a like amount in the
debt markets.  Always nice to have petty cash!

With regard to the McLean, VA, and Dallas area locations mentioned in the
MCI ad --

  o MCI's world HQ is in the DC area; hence, McLean.
  o The MCI Data Division is headquartered in Richardson, TX; hence, Dallas.

McLean and Dallas have to do with where the rest of the MCI folk are,
and not with _local_ plans that MCI may have for either area.

I think things _will_ be interesting from MCI.  In fact, I'm expecting
we'll hear something this summer from MCI regarding Internet access
services.  Any lurkers from MCI care to comment?


Pete Farmer                     Voice:    415-321-5968
821 Berkeley Ave.               Fax:      415-321-5048
Menlo Park, CA   945025         Internet: petef@well.com

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 06:19:53 EDT
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Reply-To: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Satellite BBS?
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA


"Gary E. Chidester" <GARYC@cc.snow.edu>, writes:

> I read an article the other day about BBS via satellite and how it 
> would be cheaper because there would be no long distance charges 
> accrued.  How is this possible? 

What you are reading about is the delivery of -- what our Esteemed
Moderator refers to as DungHeapNet -- Usenet News via satelite.  You
pay $1800 for a satelite dish and a one year subscription, then it's
$30 a month which gets you a full feed of all 8,000 public newsgroups,
and the satelite dish is connected to whatever computer you want to
take it via.

It is extremely useful for getting a full- or nearly-full news feed
without having to tie up a 56K line simply for incoming news.  For
almost all sites, most of the news traffic is incoming delivery of new
articles, so a setup like this can allow a site to use a UUCP or
dialup SLIP/PPP connection at 14.4K baud for outgoing mail and
bidirectional news and still receive a full feed or even a large part
of a full feed.

> I can see how you could receive information via satellite, but unless
> there is two-way communication how can you request the information 
> you want? 

The system carries all news as it gets it.  Your computer simply takes 
the messages from the groups you normally accept.  

Figure that in a two year period, the service will cost roughly $2200
or so.  That's about $100 a month.  If the amount of line costs for
delivery of incoming news raises your rate to take news above $100 a
month, then it's worth considering.

If you want to take a full feed, there are about 8000 public
newsgroups which generate about 80 meg of articles a day.  A 14K slip
line can carry about 120 meg a day figuring full loading at 84K a
minute, but you might not always get that full rate, and second, 14K
is slow.  Also, a full-time 14K slip line is going to run around $250
a month or so from a commercial provider.

If you only want to run a UUCP or dialup on demand connection, which
is probably much cheaper, a satelite connection can give you a full
feed without having to tie up a line to a provider continuously, and
for less money on a long-term basis.  It can also serve as a backup
feed for those who want more reliable service than being dependent on
a single provider.


Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM

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

From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Long Dialup String
Date: 22 Jun 1994 18:08:55 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC


In <telecom14.298.6@eecs.nwu.edu> randallp@delphi.com (Randall Pascua)
writes:

> I'm trying to have my modem dialup a long string of numbers (to no
> avail).  Here's what I want my modem to dial:

>           9,18005555555,1,55555555555,1,5555555555

> Anyway -- I wanted to have my modem dial this long string but it always
> replies:  ERROR 

I assume you have studied your modem's documentation and checked to
see how it handles long lines.

> So I've figured this out: put most of the info in my telephone profile
> "0" (non-volatile ram in my modem) then put the rest in profile "1".

> NOW! my question is: can I just do some sort of "at" commands that
> will dial both numbers consecutively?  Or is there a better solution
> to this?

Well, again you might want to consult your modem documentation.
Something like ATDT&Z0&Z1, maybe.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW    Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY   voice +1-212-777-1330  

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

From: weisen@alw.nih.gov (Neil Weisenfeld)
Subject: Re: Long Dialup String
Organization: NIH Div of Comp Rsrch and Technology
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 23:25:37 GMT


Randall Pascua (randallp@delphi.com) wrote:

> I'm trying to have my modem dialup a long string of numbers (to no
> avail).  Here's what I want my modem to dial:

>            9,18005555555,1,55555555555,1,5555555555

My Telebit WorldBlazer allows you to terminate a dial command with a
';' indicating that it should stay in "command mode" after dialing.  I
could do something like:

ATDT 9,18005555555,;
ATDT 1,5555555555,;
ATDT 1,5555555555

Note the lack of a semi-colon on the last one.  I don't know if other
modems support this feature.


Neil Weisenfeld, Computer Engineer       Internet: weisen@nih.gov
Nat'l Insts. of Health, 12A/2033         Voice:    +1 301 402 4030
Bethesda, MD  20892                      Fax:      +1 301 402 2867

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

From: schliff@rm600.dfn.de (Ilja Schliffkowitz)
Subject: Re: Long Dialup String
Date: 23 Jun 1994 10:41:37 GMT
Organization: Regional Computing Center, University of Cologne
Reply-To: schliff@me-verw.uni-koeln.de


Randall Pascua (randallp@delphi.com) wrote 22 Jun 1994 08:35:05 GMT:

> So I've figured this out: put most of the info in my telephone profile
> "0" (non-volatile ram in my modem) then put the rest in profile "1".

> at&z0=9,18005555555,1,55555555555,1,     <enter>
> at&z1=5555555555                         <enter>

Yep, atds0s1 should dial both stored sequences.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 10:28 EDT
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Long Dialup String
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.


Re tricking a modem into sending a longer string of digits than it's
willing to buffer.  Try this:

Send "ATDT --- first part of dialup string --- ;"
wait for OK, or delay
Send "ATDT --- second part of dialup string --- ;"
wait for OK, or delay
send ATDT " --- last part of dialup string --- "


Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com

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

From: Bob Koskovich <KOSKOVICH@Eisner.DECUS.Org>
Subject: Re: Smooth Operator (Compass Voice Mail)
Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society
Date: 23 Jun 94 04:16:39 -0400


In article <telecom14.287.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, elitman@proxima.com (Eric
A. Litman) writes:

> Has anyone on this group used Compass Technology's Smooth Operator
> PC-based voice mail system?

We just recently installed a Smooth Operator system (for $$ reasons).  In
general, I'm happy with it so far.  Two gripes at this point:

1.  In order to dial-through to an extension from the auto attendant,
the extension MUST have a mailbox defined.  Not a serious problem for
us, but it would be a pain if there were many no-box extensions on our
switch.  This, as I understand, is a common "feature" of PC-based VM
systems.

2.  The message delivery feature is NOT what it could be.  For
instance, I want to be paged with my box number for regular messages,
and box+911 for urgent messages.  To do it requires a kludge; you only
have your choice of delivering urgent messages or all messages, and
can't deliver a different message based on urgency.

Alas, you get wat you pay for.


Bob Koskovich <koskovich@decus.org>  Manager, Information Services  
EDM Supplies Inc   Downey, CA

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

From: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com (Jeffrey Rhodes)
Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere"
Date: 23 Jun 1994 15:50:52 GMT
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.
Reply-To: jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com


In article 14@eecs.nwu.edu, petef@well.com (Pete Farmer) writes:

> In article <telecom14.279.22@eecs.nwu.edu> hardiman@cbnewst.att.com
> writes:

>> PacBell runs an ISDN BBS.
>> 510-277-1037 for pokey old modems.
>> 510-823-4888 for speedy new BRI or SDS 56/64K access

> Pac Bell also has a gopher server:           ?
>       gw.pacbell.com

> I think this has much of the same information that's on their BBS.

> Peter J. Farmer          Internet: petef@well.com
> VP, Marketing            Voice:    415-321-5968
> Tetherless Access Ltd.   Fax:      415-321-5048

I have AT&T Accunet Service for my ISDN data calls here in Kirkland,
WA and I can only reach the 510-823-4888 at 56k V.120. I get a CONNECT
57,600 but if I set my Hayes System Adapter TA to 64k I get NO
CARRIER.

I am able to make 64k V.120 calls to the UK, so why is this number not
answering 64k V.120 data calls?


Jeffrey Rhodes at jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com

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

From: Mike McCrohan <McCrohan@iol.ie>
Subject: Re: Pac Bell's "ISDN Anywhere"
Date: 23 Jun 1994 06:13:38 +0100
Organization: Ireland On-Line


In article <telecom14.293.14@eecs.nwu.edu>, Pete Farmer wrote:

> In article <telecom14.279.22@eecs.nwu.edu> hardiman@cbnewst.att.com
> writes:

>> PacBell runs an ISDN BBS.
>> 510-277-1037 for pokey old modems.
>> 510-823-4888 for speedy new BRI or SDS 56/64K access

> Pac Bell also has a gopher server:
>       gw.pacbell.com

I dialed into their BBS yesterday (expensive business from Ireland
during the business day!) to look up ISDN connectivity/availability
for a client.

The product Definitions refer to Centrex IS and SDS IS:

"PACIFIC BELL ISDN PRODUCT AVAILABILITY AS OF MAY 16. 1994 Source:
 Pacific Bell Applications Bulletin Board System  (510) 277-1037

 ISDN Product Definitions:  
 Centrex IS - Provides simultaneous voice and data capabilities of Basic
        Rate ISDN as an optional feature to a Centrex line.  

 SDS IS - Provides simultaneous voice and data capabilities of Basic
        Rate ISDN as an optional feature to a measured business line
        (1MB).  "
  
Would I be correct in assuming that SDS IS is a regular ISDN Basic Rate
Access line?

Would I also be correct in assuming that Centrex IS is an ISDN
additional service available to existing Centrex customers, which would
give those customers ISDN BR capability?

If the answer to the latter question is "yes", could a non-centrex
customer contract for a single Centrex IS line if SDS IS is not yet
available?


Mike

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #299
******************************

