
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Thu Oct 19 22:53:47 1995
by
1995
22:53:47 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 18:10:49 -0500
1995
18:10:46 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Oct 95 18:10:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 445

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Internet Over the Atlantic (Sergio Gelato)
    Re: The Irony of the AT&T Breakup (Richard Harris)
    Re: FAX Machine as Page Scanner (Paul Cook)
    Re: NYNEX Goes National With Online Yellow Pages (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Help Wanted with PHS Std (Michi Kaifu)
    Re: Legal Slamming (elana@netcom.com)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Bob Goudreau)
    Information on Industry Strategy Business Games or Scenarios (R. 
Hodges)
    Re: AIN in Cellular (Lynne Gregg)
    Re: ??? 800-MY-ANI-IS ??? (Alan Pugh)
    Re: What to Call the Three Parts of AT&T? (Grover McCoury)
    Re: Bell Name Change (Wes Leatherock)
    Voice Contract Negotiations (Jeanne Cooney)
    Use Analog Modem on Digital Line? (Jacinthe Lavoie)
    Need Small PABX - Any Suggestions? (Simon Leo Barber)
    800-N11 Prefixes (Carl Moore)
    What to Call AT&T's GIS? (Mark J. Cuccia)
    At The Tone, The Time Will Be ... (Russell Blau)

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.                                                 
*
************************************************************************
*

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in 
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft. 
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, 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.

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



In article <telecom15.438.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, Stuart D. Brorson <sdb@gamma.
dou.dk> wrote:

> This is just a short question.  I recall hearing somewhere that the
> internet has only two T1 lines and an E1 line going over the Atlantic
> (between Europe and North America).  Is this true, or just a silly
> rumor?  Does anybody have suggestions about where to find such
> information reliably?

This has got to be a joke.  To begin with, "the internet" is not a
single entity but a collection of interconnected networks. A number of
these networks have their own private links over the Atlantic. Which
of these links will be traversed depends on which network you are on,
and which network you are communicating with.

To get the total number of these links and their aggregate capacity,
you need to query all the organisations that operate the links.
I suggest the following starting points for your research:

http://www.ripe.net/
http://www.ebone.net/

RIPE stands for Reseaux IP Europeans, Ebone for European backbone or
something like that. According to one of the maps I just found, there
is a 4MBit/s link from Stockholm to Washington (which may be the
relevant one for Danish users), and 3.5MBit/s from Paris. The link our
network here (GARR) uses (between Pisa and Maryland) is not on that
map since GARR is apparently not a partner of Ebone; I assume that
this is not an isolated case, and that there exist more private links.
(The French "Internet Way" claims to have another, for example.)

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



Norm Tiedemann wrote:

> There are almost 180 4ESS in the world today. Seven are in foreign
> contries; six are owned by independents and thirty owned by the RBOCs,
> and the remaining almost 140 are owned by AT&T. The 1A processor is
> basically a very stupid controller. Its memory buses cycle time is
> 700nsec and has 22 bit addressing.  (Yes to be exact they are 24, but
> two bits were never implemented.) After all 20 years ago, why would
> anyone need that much processing power or addressing space. It has
> hard limits on the number of terminations and number of busy hour call
> attempts it can do based on its base cycle time of checking every
> termination. Calls today are 100 times more complex than 20 years ago:
> database dips, special features, signalling, etc.  the 1A just could
> not keep up.  And BHCA capacity was dropping because of the increased
> complexity. Studies were done which indicated it would be cheaper to
> upgrade the processor than install more switches and waste
> terminations on intraAT&T trunks.

True, but how many extra 4E switches had to be 
purchased/installed/trunked 
in AT&T's net as a result of the years of delays in the introduction
of the 1B?  By my estimate, the answer seems to be around 15-20. I
used AT&T public statistics saying how many 4Es there were, and saw
that the number spiked in the three years after the 1B was "officially"
delayed in '91 -- after many years of almost flat numbers.  This was
after having already spent at least five years on the project.  And the
cost of adding each one runs in the tens of millions each if you
include power plants, re-trunking expenses, construction costs,
interest on the capital, etc.

I can't help but think that if AT&T's network equipment supplier was
_not_ part of AT&T, they would not still be using the 4E and probably
wouldn't have bought into the 1B upgrade strategy.  You would think
that in the 8 years it took to upgrade to the 1B they could have
replaced them with a whole new switch.  Perhaps the breakup will give
the new AT&T the leverage it needs to have other vendors create a
next-generation switch for its needs.


Richard Harris     JAM/Pi Product Manager  JYACC Inc.              
richard@jyacc.com  +1 212 267 7722 x3037   116 John St, NY NY 10038

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



keith@unix.asb.com wrote that he wanted a way to hook a fax machine to
a fax modem, so he could scan documents and store them on his
computer.  The moderator suggested using a second phone line, and
collin@hpycla.kobe.hp.com wrote that this is expensive.

We've seen our customers use our telephone demonstrators for this
application, since they simulate phone lines, complete with standard
dialtone, ringing, ringback tone and busy.  The least expensive one is
the 49250 Phone Demo II, which sells in single quantity for $259.95.

Recently a fellow from a law firm called who wanted to use his
existing fax machine and PC to store documents.  He found that the fax
files were very compressable, so using either PKZIP or one of the hard
drive compression programs he was able to store a lot of documents.


Paul Cook                  3991080@mcimail.com
Proctor & Associates       206-881-7000
15050 NE 36 St.            206-885-3282 (fax)
Redmond WA  98052-5378

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



> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I always assumed that people who ate 
pizza
> on a regular basis had a speed dial button on their phone devoted to
> that purpose so they did not have to look up the number each time.  
PAT]

Geez, and I thought they had a voice mail future-delivery option set
to auto-deliver a non-subscriber outgoing message.  Silly me. ;-)


--  co-owner INFOSYS, TQM-L, CPARK-L, ERAPPA-L, JANITORS, LDBASE-L, et -
L
URL:mailto:Pete-Weiss@psu.edu   "I've fallen and can't reach my 
keyboard"
31 Shields Bldg. --   Penn State    -- University Park, PA 16802-1202 
USA

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



Dear Denis,

Information about PHS is found on one of NTT's publication, "NTT
Review", May 19 95 issue.  You can see an excerpt on "NTT R&D Home
Page" (http//www.info.hqs.ca e.ntt.jp) and see "NTT Publication - NTT
Review", but for detail you need a prin ted version.  Overseas
subscription is handled by the following companies:

Japan Publications Trading Co., Ltd., Book Export No. 2 Dept.
P.O.Box 5030, Tokyo International
Tokyo 100-31, Japan
Tel:  +81-3-3292-3753    Fax:  +81-3-3292-0410

Maruzen Co., Ltd.
International Division Export Dept.
P.O.Box 5050, Tokyo International
Tokyo 100-31, Japan
Tel:  +81-3-3278-9224    Fax:  +81-3-3274-2270

If you face a "Japanese bureaucracy" ;-) to obtain this specific back
number, please send me an e-mail with your address.  I can send you
my extra copy.


Michi Kaifu    NTT America, Inc.   michi@ntta.com

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



I just looked into the anti-slamming program available from my local
telco ... seems like I get to sign a bunch of forms and get acquainted
with some bureaucreatic process that must happen if ever I want to
switch LD carriers.  If I want to switch from LD Company A to LD
company B, I must go to a telco office and sign the proper forms in
person.  I have not been slammed yet, but it seems worth the
preventive medicine ...

But something interesting just occured to me.  What if I get another
one of those fat checks in the mail from whatever bigshot LD carrier
lately wants me as a customer?  Can I cash it, grinning to myself that
they won't be able to change my service anyway -- now that I have signed
onto this anti-slamming program?

What would happen in this case?   Seems pretty unique.

Also ... one check I remember getting in the past said "required
signature for authorization to switch service" or something like that.
I threw it out at the time.  But what if I were to stamp a big, fat,
black, obliterating "For Deposit Only to account of person named on
front of check (etc.etc.etc.)" mark on the back of the check instead?
Right over any directions printed there on how to sign it?  I know
that it would go through, but as far as their "authorized signature"
to switch to that carrier goes...  ;-)

Granted, I would NEVER actually DO such dastardly things to an
innocent ol' multinational LD phone company ... nope, never at all.
I'm just curious about what the mechanisms the LD companies have in
place for anyone mischevious enuf to try any of these things.


Elana


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you cashed a check under those cir-
cumstances authorizing your carrier to be switched when it fact it could
only be done with your written authorization to your local telco, then
you might expect to receive in a few days a call or letter from your
local telco asking you to sign off on the change you requested direct
via the carrier. You'd have to sign telco's form (or follow their ins-
tructions, whatever those were) to complete the process. It was, after
all, you who asked for the additional verification process from your
local telco and they would do so. Now if you *refused* at that point to
sign off for telco or verify in writing for telco your intent to change
carriers, then telco would refuse the order and send it back to the 
carrier who would have the right to come to you and ask for the return
of the money they gave you. Legally, you would be in violation of your
contract with the LD carrier by having agreed to use their services and
then after receiving consideration (that is, your payment) refusing to
honor the agreement you made. They could sue you for the return of their
money or possibly bill it back to you through the local telco, but in 
all probability they would just write you off as a deadbeat and put you
on a list of subscribers not to be contacted further with any special
offers or promotions. 

To respond to your statement about the uniqueness of the situation,
there is nothing unique about it at all. Deadbeats abound in this 
world of ours; telco gets more than their share. It happens frequently
that people play games such as you suggest. 

Regards obliterating the endorsement and/or audit information on a 
negotiable
instrument, you should be aware that it is a federal crime to do it 
delib-
eratly. It can, and surely does happen as a result of the mechanical 
parts
of the banking system. Anytime you tamper with a negotiable instrument
for the purpose of changing or confusing the intentions of the maker of
the instrument, you have been a Bad Person. And would it make a 
difference
in what happened to your phone line? Most likely not. Probably you would
have your carrier switched anyway simply because those checks are mass-
processed to a certain account where thousands of the same are handled
daily. The carrier would act in good faith by switching your service 
since
it could be easily demonstrated that 'historically' the purpose of 
checks
cashed and applied in that account were from telephone subscribers 
asking
for it to be done. The carrier is going to assume that the defacement of
his instructions was done accidentally ... are YOU then going to speak
up and say no, you did it on purpose in an effort to defraud and 
deceive?

The Prophet said 'there is nothing new under the sun', and the LD 
carriers
would probably agree. They deal with situations like yours all the time.
Some people are fond of telling the carriers to switch a voicemail 
number
or a payphone number they know of -- some phone they have no control 
over
whatsoever where choice of carrier is concerned. Now and then when it 
gets
to be a real nuisance, the carrier may decide to get tough and sue for
its money back, but most just write it off and add you to their list of
names of people not to be trusted with promotional offers, etc.   PAT] 

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



jmandel@carbon.cudenver.edu (Jan Mandel) wrote:
 
> To add to the confusion, US phone books to not list instructions how
> to dial long distance or international, saying "contact your long
> distance carrier", but do not say how to do THAT.

As is usually the case with blanket statements, the claim that all
US phone books lack such instructions is patently false.  Perhaps
the phonebooks for *your area* are flawed in this manner; if so, I
advise that you complain to the telco.  (And, BTW, which books/telcos
are we talking about here -- US West Denver white pages?)  But I have
never lived in an area where the front section of the phonebook did
not contain several pages describing how to dial long distance calls,
both national and international.  Indeed, every phonebook I've seen
always had a full map of the area codes in the NANP, and most (except
GTE books, which seem to have pretty minimal lists) also have a fairly
extensive list of country codes and the city codes of several major
cities.

> What a mess.

Thanks, but I prefer the "mess" of several competing long distance
carriers to the neat but painful certainties of being forced to bend
over and pay the outrageous rates typically charged by monopoly
state-owned carriers in most other countries.  In any case, unless
you want to select a long-distance carrier other than your default one,
there's not all that much to say about international calls -- just
dial 011 followed by the country code and national number.  For
intra-NPA long distance calls, try 1 followed by the area code and
local number; in the few cases where that fails, try again with the
seven-digit local number.


Bob Goudreau   Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com  62 Alexander Drive 
+1 919 248 6231   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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



Mr. Editor:


                                                                                                                       


I am a recent addition to the mailing list for the telecom digest.  I
am also a partner in a small telcom consulting firm in Sausalito, CA
and a net neophyte. We have a had an inquiry from a contact currently
working in Europe who's client is interested in computer-based
industry simulation or strategic scenario games.  His client is a
large business that intends to enter the European market soon and they
would like to spend a week exploring strategic scenarios.  Our contact
says he used such a system in B-school at Harvard and has asked us to
help him locate and customize software to be used in such and
exercise.  Have you ever heard of anyone that has or is developing
something of like that?  Ideally it would be specific to the telcom
industry but, I hardly expect to find that unless it was from the
strategy group at a major carrier or hardware vendor. I would
appreciate any help, advice or leads that you or other readers might
have to offer.  My e-mail address is OptiMisers@aol.com or 415-331-5800.


Richard Hodges

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



pp000909@interramp.com (Ken Hester) and jpaik@mobile.kmt.re.kr were
discussing AIN platforms in cellular nets.  Ken referenced EBS's
system.  In fact, there are MANY adjunct systems designed to support
AIN services.  Quite a number of computer manufacturers offer systems
that deliver AIN services.  These include: Hewlett Packard, Tandem,
Stratus, and more.  Some switch manufacturers also build AIN platforms.  
AT&T Network Systems is one of those.


Regards,

Lynne

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



> Yesterday, Tues 17 Oct.95, I could *NOT* get a number readback on
> 800-692-6447 (MY-ANI-IS). I only got a 'other-common-carrier' type of
> dialtone (~440 Hz). I tried to enter various touchtone strings (I
> entered 700-555-4141 just for the heck of it), and received an
> 'invalid-entry' type of recording. The recording did NOT identify who
> they were- but the recorded voice and letter code at the end of the
> recording was that of MCI's.

It is an internal MCI number. From what I understand, it was never
supposed to be given out to people outside of MCI. Personally, I
think it would be a smarter move for MCI to just put a little
recorded message on before the ANI is read back saying something like
"this service provided by mci" or something. I can't imagine this
number being too much of a drain on the company, and it would be a
good opportunity to do some nice customer relations.

Unfortunately, I don't speak for my company. 


amp   <0003701548@mcimail.com>
<alan.pugh@internetmci.com>
PGP Key = 4A2683C1

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



egg@inuxs.inh.att.com (Edwin Green) wrote:

> Actually AT&T never changed its name to American Bell.  American Bell
> was formed in 1983 as a fully-separated subsidiary of AT&T.  Its
> purpose was to allow AT&T to sell phones, PBXs, etc. on the open
> market.  To do that, AT&T had to have a separate set of books so it
> could prove that there was no cross-subsidizing from network revenues.
> The icon for American Bell was the Death Star which was adopted by
> AT&T in 1984 after it divested itself of the local operating
> companies.  American Bell lived on for a year or so.  I don't remember
> when the name was dropped completely.

My career at AT&T was as follows:

Bell Telephone Laboratories -> American Bell (founded 1983) -> AT&T 
Information Systems Laboratories -> AT&T Communications -> AT&T Bell 
Laboratories.

In other words, full circle, same project (System 75/Definity).

American Bell and AT&T Information Systems were short-lived
ventures (couple years maximum).


Grover C. McCoury III   @ Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.
physical: P.O Box 6850,  ATL-52D   Norcross, GA  30091  USA
audio: 770-806-7702   electronic: grover.mccoury@sciatl.com

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



Stan Schwartz <stan@vnet.net> wrote:

> I just thought I'd take this opportunity to mention that earlier this
> week, the name change became official.  Southern Bell and SouthWestern
> Bell became BellSOUTH.

       Southwestern Bell is not and has never been a part of Bell
South.  It would require the approval of the Justice Department and
Judge Greene, neither of which is likely to approve the merger of two
regional Bell holding companies.

       Furthermore, why would Southwestern Bell be even slightly
interested in consolidating with BellSouth, when Southwestern Bell is
doing the best of the regional holding companies?

       So the corporate name was recently changed from Southwestern
Bell Corporation to SBC Corporation, but Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company remains its only telephone company, just as it always has
been.

       There is no corporate connection between BellSouth and SBC
Corporation (Southwestern Bell).


Wes Leatherock                                           
wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com                            
wes.leatherock@f2001.n147.z1.fidonet.org           

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



I am trying to come up with a "Most Favored" status clause; does anyone 
have a clause that speaks to getting a carrier to agree that if they 
write a better tariff that you could be included in (this is probably 
difficult to evaluate) that you would be guaranteed to be moved into the 
better tariff?

I ceratinly am open to any other GOOD clauses that you may have done 
battle with and got included into your deal.

Please e-mail me at jcooney@zd.com if you have anything that can be 
shared without breaking a non-disclosure.  Thanks.


Jeanne Cooney 

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



Is it possible to do so?


Thanks.

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



Our company is looking at the available PABX systems for a
telephony project. This is the rough specification we need:

Input: ISDN or E1 line
Output: 90 ports (or more)
4 digit DDI numbers

  Voicemail handling translation of UK format Caller ID data into US
format (The UK CLI data comes BEFORE the first ring, the standard
seems to go between the first and second ring. This is posing us
problems in using commercial software.)  Handset support for
allocating a text string describing each incoming DDI number.

  From the data we have so far, the Panasonic DBS and the SDX Index
look promising. Does anyone here have experience of using them, or use
other systems with similar performance? We have a relatively small
budget, and would certainly consider secondhand equipment.

  Many thanks for any help on this.


simon leo barber

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



There have been some N11 prefixes showing up in 800 numbers recently.
One of them is Bell Atlantic's 800-811-LINE.  I take it switches do
not have the problem with 800-N11 as they would with 800-0XX and
800-1XX?

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



Yes, I know that this was NCR (National Cash Register), but I have the
*perfect* name for AT&T's GIS:

How 'bout-

TELETYPE CORPORATION

or maybe "The Mokrum Company"

<g>


MARK J. CUCCIA   PHONE/WRITE/WIRE:     HOME:  (USA)    Tel: CHestnut 1-
2497
WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu          |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-
2497)
Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28  |fwds on no-answr 
to
Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-
5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail

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



Passed along for your enjoyment:

A discrepancy between the time-messaging lines at the Naval
Observatory in Washington and Nynex in New York may be as much as 53
seconds; International Teleprograms, which has operated the Nynex
service since 1984 and charges customers 40 cents per call, admits the
time is off slightly due to a mechanical error, but denies that the
error is longer than half a second.  (Wall Street Journal, "The time
at the tone will be 1:30, give or take around 50 seconds," 10/17/95,
p. B1)

On a related note, since I work in Washington, D.C., I am able to call
the Naval Observatory as a local call and indulge my idle curiosity
about such matters.  I called the USNO for a time check and then
called the Bell Atlantic time service at (202) 844-1212.  As far as I
could tell without using any precise measuring equipment, the two
services were pretty much in sync.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #445
******************************

                                                                                                         
