
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Tue Sep 26 18:14:30 1995
by
1995
18:14:30 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 13:12:17 -0500
1995
13:12:15 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Sep 95 13:12:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 408

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Variable Length Phone Numbers (Martin Kealey)
    Re: Forbidden? Exchange Prefixes? (Jerry Pruett)
    Re: Forbidden? Exchange Prefixes? (Jack Hamilton)
    Re: Cordless Phone Range Extenders (Ed Ellers)
    Re: Interchangable NPA / Official Test Numbers (Scott Robert Dawson)
    Re: Need DID Access in NY - NYTel Unresponsive! (Chuck Poole)
    Re: Canadian Calling Cards in US (Mark J. Cuccia)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses - We Can Save Lives (Daniel Ganek)
    Re: Need Help To Deal With "Slamming" (Bruce McGuffin)
    Re: Voice Compression on T1s (Paul O'Nolan)
    Re: FCC Rules Against Carrier Kickbacks to ESPs (Geoffrey P. Waigh)
    Re: Pros and Cons About Making One Channel of T1 Data Line (Patton 
Turner)
    Re: Listen to Me on the Radio This Weekend (Emmanuel Goldstein)

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.

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



Tony Harminc <EL406045@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU> wrote on 20 Sep 1995 in
article <telecom15.398.1@eecs.nwu.edu>:

> Most of this has been dealt with by people pointing out that compelled
> signalling is widely used in Germany and other parts of Europe, but
> is essentially unknown in North America.

> One point remains to be covered, however:

> naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>> What is a phone number? For the most part, a phone number is a 
*route*
>> through the network.

> This is absolutely not true in North America.

It seems that you are arguing at cross-purposes ...

The term "network" needn't necessarily mean the actual hardware used
to carry the call once a circuit is established, although I don't
warrant that Herr Weisgerber necessarily made that distinction.
Further, the routing for the setup needn't necessarily be along the
same path for the actual call.

A network is simply a collection of nodes and links between them.  So,
there is a virtual network in NANP, which can be navigated by taking
groups of three digits at a time ... it's just that this network is not
isomorphic to the actual phone circuits installed.  What is useful
though is that this "network" can be easily internalised by a human to
whatever level of detail they like.

However, viewed in this way, it seems a rather chaotic compared with
other countries -- only three levels for a whole continent, and
multiple routes to nearby physical locations.  For example, we have up
to four levels of such a virtual network, in a country only 1% the size.

On the subject of internalising rules, I would note also that a
hierachical numbering system similarly reduces the number of rules --
if a number looks similar to mine, then it's nearby, and the call
should be cheap.  For example, numbers in a small town 90 km to the
north are all of the form +64-9-42-26-xxx.  Numbers in the next
calling area are all +64-9-42-xxxxx.  Numbers on the northern side of
my free calling area are +64-9-4xxxxxx; other sectors can similarly be
identified from the first digit and the second digit generally
indicates how far from the centre of town.  A toll call from one of
the northern adjacent calling areas costs more to the southern &
eastern suburbs than to other parts of town.  Area code "9" selects
the northern part of the country.

    -=@@=-

It was noted elsewhere that most countries are moving to uniform
length numbers, partly because it also makes numbers easier for people
to deal with; however this does not stop the demarcation between area
code, prefix and trunk number from varying.  For the mnemonic to be
effective, all that is needed is that the length of all numbers in
each local calling area be the same, or that some very simple rule
exists to distinguish them; how they may divided up into area code,
prefix or trunk isn't necessary to knowing if you have a complete
number.

> Tying the routing of a call to the digits in the number is the
> huge failing of SxS switching systems.

True, but it does lead to a hierachical numbering scheme that makes
life easier for the end users, even if you aren't using SxS any more.
Here in NZ we have 100% digital exchanges, and redundant network lines
all over the place; however, we still have the human advantage of a
hierachical numbering scheme.  In simple terms, the more digits at the
start of a number are the same as mine, the less the call is going to
cost.

[ Also true, we have yet to see portable numbers, but then
  we don't even have any dialtone competitors yet...
  By the way, are land-line numbers portable in NANP yet? ]

> > Okay, you dial +49 or within Germany 0.
> > Now you're on the long distance level of the German Telekom network.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the clue that he isn't necessarily refering to the physical
transport network.  Each step represents a "level" for decoding the
number, rather than necessarily an actual switch, although it may have
done originally.

>> You dial          selects
>> - <6>             South western Germany.
>> - 6<2>            The Ludwigshafen/Mannheim area.
>> - 62<1>           The cities of Ludwigshafen and Mannheim themselves.
>> - 621 <5>         Ludwigshafen.
>> - 621 5<8>        The particular part of Ludwigshafen I live in.
>> - 621 58<70460>   That's my line. My phone is ringing!
>>                   (Actually, the final 0 helps selecting a particular
>>                   device on my ISDN line.)

>> Easy, isn't it?

> Easy yes -- but a disaster for planning and orderly growth.  This sort
> of design ensures that Germany will not have portable numbers for a
> long time.

Whilst this may make portable numbers a little more difficult, they
are by no means impossible.

On the other hand it seems that "planning and orderly growth" are in
fact quite WELL catered for - the upgrade path can be made visible
well in advance (possibly decades, but of course it's still possible
for politics to hide this information).  None of this messing round
only getting told 1 year before which new area code you're going to
get because which one will depend on how many other areas are in the
queue ahead of yours, and on who complains loudest so they don't have
to change.

Two points:

(A) considering Germany (or elsewhere).
    Once it is decided that local dialtone is considered a commodity 
service,
    then it should be detached from the numbering plan, and a separate
    (singular) entity should provide the core lookup services.  I don't 
think
    there is anything that stops this working with compelled signalling?

(B) considering NANP.
    What you say makes sense in terms of large and growing cities, but 
there's
    more to life than big cities.  As I understand it, the reason that 
NANP
    needed to switch to NXX area codes was not because it had run out of
    numbers, but because it had run out of prefixes.  If there hadn't 
been
    the rigidity that prefixes and area codes be exactly three digits, 
maybe 
    this would have been alleviated.

With the price of connectivity coming down, it is not unreasonable to
consider that proxy lookup services would be at least a reasonable, if
not better approach, than making each switch do its own database
lookup?  Indeed, isn't this how 800 number lookup already works?  The
local switch sees "1800" and then knows "collect 7 more digits and
refer them to Bellcore" (or whoever).  THEN a decision on routing the
CALL is made.

If compelled signalling were used, then the reply from Bellcore could 
come
back "collect another four digits and refer to agency XXX for the next 
routing
query".

    -=@@=-

There is an assumption that changing phone numbers is an expensive
exercise; well, I'm not trying to say that it's completely painless,
but if *all* the numbers in an area change by adding a uniform prefix
in front, it's far less expensive than when some numbers change and
others don't.  Furthermore it is relatively fair, since nobody gets to
lobby that they should stay the same while everyone else has to change
area codes.  This makes it more a matter of public education than a
cost to be borne individually.

> Okay -- you are in Germany and you start to dial +1 40 ...
> Now with your scheme, the local switch would have to pick up a trunk 
to
> somewhere -- to where ?  It isn't even known what country you are 
calling
> yet!

You note that up to six leading digits may need to be analysed to get
a route *for the connected call* to a normal line, and even more may
be required in other cases.  However I don't think Herr Weisgerber
claimed that you had to take the digits one at a time when choosing
the next node -- it just you have the option of doing it that way since
the numbers are well structured.

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



awluck@interramp.com (Andrew Luck) writes:

> Now I am back in the south (Atlanta GA area code 770) and really would
> like to get that number back.  But my younger sister (the cynic) says
> that in this part of the country there are "rules" against using
> certain numbers, such as 666.

Then you need to move to Marrietta - it has 770-666, also Mobile, AL 
334-666, Lakeland, FL 941-666.

> How about 777    (three's a charm?)

334-777 Deer Park, AL, 
407-777 Indian Harbor, FL, 
305-777 Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 
404-777 Atlanta

> Or 888   (Dead man's Hand ?)

404-888 Atlanta

404-222, 404-999 are also in Atlanta;
770-333 is in Smyrna, GA;
404/770-444 and 555 are not in use in GA, but there is a 205-444 in 
Birmingham, AL. (my office for example)

111 and 555 appear to be the only ones that are off limits - I guess 
111 would confuse the switches too much and 555 is reserved for TV 
shows and Directory Assistance ;-)

Note that NNXs (or is it NXX now) for 404 and 770 cannot be duplicated
as the permissive dialing period hasn't expired for the 404/770 NPA
split. Information obtained from the FCC #4 Tariffs issued by NECA.

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



The TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: 

> In the past here in the Digest, we have had articles about places in 
the
> USA and Canada where 666 is used, as in AC-666-xxxx. In a few cases, 
which
> should make everyone feel good, it turned out to be some federal 
government
> agency. I think in one case it was the Internal Revenue Service. Here 
in
> Chicago, 312-MONroe has been around simply forever. It is one of the 
oldest
> exchanges in the city, and a phone district is named for it.   PAT]

In San Francisco, the 666 prefix belongs to the University of San
Francisco, a Catholic college (Jesuit, I think).  No doubt some
heathen at Pacific Bell assigned it to them; I'd be surprised if they
requested it, but who knows?  Maybe they wanted to prove some point.


Jack Hamilton  jfh@acm.org  Sacramento, California, USA  kd6ttl@n0ary
               PGP Key fingerprint: B90D02076A05ADAF 12C1ECF47C4A39E1
               1992 BMW K75RTA             co-moderator, sci.med.aids

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



Jeffrey C Honig <jch@nr-atp.cit.cornell.edu> writes:
 
> I just received my "Phone Central" catalog (800/437-2160 if you want
> to order one).  In it I see "Cordless Phone Range Extenders" made by
> Valor.  They are nothing more than antennas and coax that attach to
> the antenna on a 900MHz or 46/49MHz cordless phone base unit to extend
> the range.
 
One little problem -- those things are barred by FCC rules, which state 
not
only that cordless telephones' antennas must be no larger than a certain
size but that they must be *permanently attached* to the unit, precisely 
to
prevent the antenna from being placed on a rooftop (where it would cause 
more
interference to other users).  The reason so many 49 MHz base antennas 
are
available is that they were legal for the older type of cordless phone 
that
used a much lower frequency (around 1600-1700 kHz!) for the base-to-
handset
link; the outdoor antennas only worked for receiving on those, and were
therefore legal.

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



Michael Fumich <0003311835@mcimail.com> wrote:

> The following are the official test numbers for the new NPA's 
> coming online:

> 213 / 562  CA    (562) 317-0317    9-2-95
 
I tried all of the numbers listed, dated as being active, and they all
worked... _except_ (562) 317-0317. That one yielded a 'Your call
cannot be completed as dialed' message, which did not sound like the
Bell Canada message. Maybe that one doesn't work from 905?
 

TTFN,

Scott

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



dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) writes:

>  We've recently come to the conclusion that DID *may* be better than 
>  adding new phone lines all the time ...:)

>  With that in mind, I called down to the local New York Telephone 
business 
>  center in New York City to inquire about rates, how it would be set 
up, 
>  transition to DID, etc, ie, basic information.

Most sales reps don't understand DID much less the way it is
propagated.  Furthermore, they don't really know anything technical
about the equipment (PBX / Hybrids).  Usually, they refer such matters
to a Technical Service Rep.  This person works with a number of sales
reps and answers their questions.  This is the most probable reason
for doing business this way (asking for a fax).  The other problem the
LEC is faced with is the fact that you can get DID service just as
easily from Teleport, and it's probably cheaper.  So therefore, they
have cut back on Technical Service reps (and everyone else) because
their cost of doing business is relatively high.  They know the
writing is on the wall ... but they sure are having trouble adjusting


                                              

to the non-monolopy way of doing business.


Chuck Poole
Voiceware Systems, Inc
West Palm Beach, FL

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



Ian Angus <ianangus@angustel.ca> wrote:

> Several weeks ago, TELECOM DIGEST carried several letters relating to
> the use of Canadian telco calling cards in the US. The original writer
> asserted that AT&T was refusing to validate Canadian cards, presumably
> because Canada's major telcos are allied with MCI.

> This surprised many people, including me, because our Canadian
> calling cards have always worked in the US in the past. In fact,
> after the original letter appeared, I used my Bell Canada card without
> trouble in Georgia and Florida.

> I have finally tracked down the source of the original writer's 
conclusion.


> On September 1, Canada Direct became available from the United States.
> Callers dial 1-800-555-1111 to use the service.

Using Canada Direct's 1-800-555-1111 will help Canadians travelling in
the US to avoid many of the problems of COCOTS (private payphones) and
their AOSlime operator 'services', if those AOSlimes 'accept' Canadian
issued calling cards.  But since many of these AOSlimers might not
have billing agreements with the local Canadian telcos, they probably
don't 'accept' valid Canadian cards.

And, what do they mean by 'Canadian Rates' for using Canada Direct? Is
it a 'generic' rate from 'anywhere' in the (continental) US? Or is it
a Canadian tarriffed rate billed from the originating US NPA-NXX to
the destination Canadian NPA-NXX? From what I've seen by researching
the toll rates pages in Canadian telephone directories, Canadian rates
to the US seem to be *higher* than US rates to Canada. Rates from the
US to Canada are also much higher than comparable distance rates
within the US domestically (unless you have AT&T's "True World" plan,
which I recently 'had' to get). And domestic rates *within* Canada
(inter-province) have seemed to be higher than Canada to US rates of
comparable distance. Intra-province rates (just like domestic US
inter-state rates) are the highest!

Could it be that Bell Canada (and other Stentor member telcos) want
Canadians travelling in the US to use 1-800-555-1111 since it probably
will cost more than using (10-XXX/101-XXXX+)0+the ten digit Canadian
number?

BTW, I dialed 1-800-555-1111. It only allows you to enter *CANADIAN*
destination ten-digit numbers. It rejected any attempts of
(continental) US numbers. I don't know if this may change in the
future, but I didn't even try to enter a Canadian number, followed by
my AT&T and SCBell card numbers, since they would most likely be
rejected.


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

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



In article <telecom15.405.2@eecs.nwu.edu> rlm@netcom.com (Robert
McMillin) writes:

> On 18 Sep 1995 01:44:24 PDT, DYost@Taurus.Apple.com (Dave Yost) said:

>> Our telephone systems should be straightforward enough that any child
>> capable of remembering their phone number can be taught how to pick 
up
>> any phone and dial their home phone number or 911.

> Mr. Yost goes on to suggest that "We should work toward a standard
> that would allow a child to dial simply 1 + area code + number from
> any phone ... and get connected to their home."  I presume for the
> moment that Mr. Yost is a concerned parent, or certainly, is looking
> out for the best interests of some child or children, somewhere.  The
> problem I have with this proposal is simply that it takes a
> Procrustean approach to child safety, regardless of its effects on
> adults.  

> By this approach, we should make the world completely and utterly safe
> for four-year-olds.  This is the rallying cry currently used as a
> justification for censoring adults on the Internet.  Adults use cars,
> airplanes, lathes, pornography, and slaughterhouses, all of which are
> patently unsafe (or at least, unwise) for four-year-old operation.
> Not everything can -- or should -- be made child-safe.

Mr. McMillin is missing the point. We don't propose that 11-digit
dialing be REQUIRED in order to make a phone call. We are simply
stating that it is be ALLOWED.  I certainly don't want to dial a lot a
digits when it's not necessary -- but even this 51 year old has been
in many situations where I'm not sure whether I should use 7, 10 or 11
digits.  My 4 year old is just learning to dial now I and it would be
VERY simple if I could tell him to dial 1-508-nnn-xxxx.

Just yesterday a cell phone user was compaining that he couldn't program
his phone to use 11 digits because some areas don't allow it for local
calls.

I live is one of those brain-damaged states that say that 1+ is a toll
call -- of course with all the dialing plans available that's only true
for ONE plan and that's not even the cheapest!


dan

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



KBC6891 (KC6891@megaweb.com) wrote:

> A friend of mine in Mass was ripped off by some small long distance
> company by illegal connection without consent.  That person has had
> some deep discount package to call with MCI so he/she called abroad
> alot unknowing that the line had been slammed to some other company.
> That result to a very, very big LD bills with some outrageous charges.

Slamming is illegal. There are various tricks that these companies use
to get you to agree to be switched over without realizing it, but most
do not hold up in court. Both the FCC and the Massachussetts Attorney
General have recently developed an interest in slamming, after basically
ignoring the problem for years. Your friend probably does not need to
sue in civil court. Tell your friend to:

    1) call the attorney general and the FCC to complain;
    2) call the local phone company, tell them he/she was slammed, and
       does not intend to pay the outrageous LD charges, and 
    3) call the old long distance carrier, tell them he/she was slammed 
and 
       wants to return to their old service right away.

With any luck at all, that should take care of the problem.


Bruce McGuffin

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



In article <telecom15.391.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, <Jim_McGrath@gw.pps.com> 
writes:

> I would like to hear from anyone with experience using voice
> compression techniques in T1 muxes. I need as much of the bandwidth of
> my T1s as possible for data, but had to cost-justify the T1s by
> including reductions in voice telco expenses. I will probably be using
> Newbridge muxes (3600 & 3624), which seem to support a voice-path at
> as low as 8kbps. Although it leaves more for data, I'm concerned about
> degraded quality. Of 8, 16 or 32kbps, I'm sure 32 is the least
> objectionable for the telemarketing people who will be on the phones,
> but what kind of quality might I expect?  Are there other mux vendors
> who provide better quality at low bandwidths?

Mark, I'm using a MICOM with 12kpbs (9.6 was noticeably poor) voice
channels.  Newbridge was on the shortlist, as was Netrix. There are
trade offs between quality of voice compression and adaptive
reallocation of bandwidth.

Good luck.

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



Tony Harminc <EL406045@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU> writes:

> It seems implausible that the FCC would attempt to tell US carriers
> that they may not connect to certain numbers outside the US based
> either on the content of certain calls or on the (presumably 
confidential) 
> billing arrangements between the non-US carriers and their 
subscribers.

Err, why?  The US has a rich history of trying to regulate activities
in foreign countries.  In particular, not too long ago, one of the US
government agencies forced American telco's to block calls to Canadian
service providers that permitted people in America to call Cuba.  I
don't remember how it was resolved, but I think the service providers
just shut down rather get into a prolonged battle.

So long as the telco's moved quickly to block access to "inappropriate"
destinations nodes on the PSTN as they are discovered, I would think 
that
most of the Christian Fundamentalists would tolerate the situation.


Geoffrey Waigh               Fault-tolerant means you need to drop
g9gwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca     two screwdrivers in the power cabinet.

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



Lou DeFonzo <ldefonzo@verilink.com> writes:

> rolland@mcs.com (Rolland Suh) wrote:

>> We are thinking about getting 56KB dedicated line to the Internet.  
We
>> already have a T1 voice line, and wondering if it would be cost
>> effective for us to use one of the channels of existing T1, over
>> getting a new dediccated line.  Any idea on this?

> Assuming that you are not using all 24 DS0s, this would be an
> excellent way of gaining internet access. However, this will depend on
> who your carrier is for the T1 and who you are planning to use for
> your Internet Access Provider. This will require that your CSU is
> capable of providing Drop and Insert capability and that it can
> support a DSU. Basically a DSU/CSU with Drop and Insert capability.

It depends on a number of things:  Do you have the space on the T1?  If 
the T1 is going to the IXC and the 56 is an inter LATA circuit, you will 
save even more.  If the T1 terminates on the LECs switch you will save 
less.

As the above poster said you will need a CSU/DSU capabile of doing drop 
and insert or a D/I channel bank added after the CSU.  This assumes you 
don't already use a channel bank in which case you can drop in a OCUDP 
or 
DSUDP card.


Patton Turner  KB4GRZ  FAA Telecommunications  pturner@netcom.com

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



TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) (telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu) wrote:

> Fred Goldstein and myself will be guests on the Spectrum show Saturday
> night. We both hope you will be able to listen and call in with any
> questions you might have. 

> Emmanuel Goldstein has been the host of this popular program since 
> its inception a few years ago. The topic for the show this week is
> the recent breakup of AT&T into various separate and distinct parts.

No, the popular show I've been host of for several years is "Off The
Hook" which airs on WBAI 99.5 FM in New York Wednesdays at 10 pm
(moving to Tuesdays at 8 pm starting 10/3). I've gotten a lot of mail
from people wanting to know about this "other" show I'm doing. I've
gotten a bit curious myself.


emmanuel@2600.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ooops!  That was my error, sorry. The
show I was on Saturday night with Fred Goldstein was Spectrum, not
your show. It was an interesting program, and my thanks to those of
you who listened or called in with comments.     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #408
******************************

           
