
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Fri Oct  6 05:00:06 1995
by
1995
05:00:06 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 00:49:17 -0500
1995
00:49:15 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Oct 95 00:49:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 421

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Voice Compression on T1s (Matt Noah)
    Re: Voice Compression on T1s (Andrew Salisbury)
    Re: Voice Compression on T1s (Bob Stone)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Earl Wallace)
    Re: Pac*Bell Lied, Do I Have Any Options? (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Pros and Cons About Making One Channel (Jeffrey Rhodes)
    Re: Eliminate Dialing Weirdnesses (Marko Ruokonen)
    Re: ROLM Help Request by Brian Stoll (Lou Jahn)
    Where Can I Find CAT5 Standards/Specs? (Timothy H. Ohara)
    Centrex Information Wanted (James Deibele)
    Re: Payphones For Prisons (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Variable Length Phone Numbers (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: European Council Statement on Encryption (Sam Spens Clason)
    Re: The Irony of the AT&T Breakup (Robert Virzi)
    Re: Need Information on 1A2 System Using "Regular Phones" (Mike 
Morris)
    Re: Need Information on 1A2 System Using "Regular Phones" (Ed 
Greenberg)

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.

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



Jim McGrath (Jim_McGrath@gw.pps.com) wrote:

> 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?

We have toll quality voice at 8 kbps.  As for the T1 interface, check
with our Marketing Department. (805)-388-2474 x226.

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



Mark,

I am running into a very similar dilema except I am trying to reduce
the network cost of E-0's from Mexico City. I was also hoping to use a
Newbridge product to get more workable voice lines per E-0.  Please
let me know if you find a good solution, and I will do the same.


Andrew Salisbury

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



In article <telecom15.408.10@eecs.nwu.edu> Paul O'Nolan,
ponolan@inter.nl.net 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

Voice & Data Systems manufactures a new telecom technology called
Terra Globe - virtual Global System. Terra Globe sends real-time fax,
fax-mail, and voice-mail as packetized data over the enterprise data
network.

The real-time fax function called Terra FaxPAD compresses and
multiplexes fax 20 to 1. Fax sent with Terra FaxPAD uses just 1/20 of
the bandwidth normally required. Many users have had to eliminate or
reduce voice compression because of problems with fax. Since 25% to
45% of all voice traffic is fax, by packetizing the real-time fax you
can save significannt bandwidth and run your voice at the compression
you find best.

See our web page for more details: http://www.fairfield.com/terra_globe


Regards.

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



> And by the way, co-operative or not, you should be paying for business
> service. You can't argue "we're non profit"... so is the Red Cross and
> they pay for the proper service.

Funny you should mention that.  I'm planning on running a zillion
Centrex ISDN PRI's into my home over the next few years and they are
all 100% business lines.  Yet, Im going to pay the National Debt off
with my "Trench And Engineering Fees".  Well, one could say that since
I'm paying business rates I should get some sort of break, eh?

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



> 3. The number is answered as a business;

> The Red Cross answers, "Red Cross...". A modem answering is neutral
> (neither necessarily business nor residence).

> I have been around and around with Pac*Bell types who try to regrade
> various services to business. I always win when we get down to the
> wording in the tariffs.

 Hmmm, this puts my situation in a border area.  

 I have remote call forwarding on my home phone.  When I work,
I generally forward my line to my desk at work and answer with my
company name.  Interesting dilemna here should a telco person call my
home during the time I am forwarded to my office.  Any feedback.


Fred

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



In article 2@eecs.nwu.edu, 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.

This is good advice but the story isn't finished. You will need to
negotiate with the T1 carrier to provide the Drop and Insert
capability to the Internet at the other end of the T1. Not all T1
carriers/providers are currently capable to be Internet Service
Providers.

Also, there are two types of Drop and Insert DSU/CSUs. One type is
intended for fractional T1 and terminates a T1. A cascadable DSU/CSU
allows you to Drop and Insert and pass the T1 signal to another
DSU/CSU. You will want a cascadable Drop and Insert DSU/CSU.

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



In Telecom Digest Volume 15, Issue 415 DYost@Taurus.Apple.com (Dave
Yost) wrote:

> [...] Haven't you ever picked up the phone at work and started to
> dial a number without the 9?  Haven't you ever picked up the phone at
> home and started to dial 9?  This kind of mistake is not stupidity or
> some kind of disability, it's what happens with wetware.  And it is
> evidence that there is something wrong with the usability of the
> system.

Think about a fax machine dialing a wrong number because someone
entered the number in a wrong "format" (leaving out 9 or prefixing it
with '9' where it should not).  This happened at a company that I do
consulting for here in Germany, a country with variable length
numbers. A document had to be faxed to Maidenhead (Great Britain).

The fax number was something like +44 628 ... . Dialing would be:
0(get outside line)+00(international)+44628(Maidenhead)+(rest of no.)

Note: This was before "Phone day", so no '1' before the 628 code.

Some days later I answered a call for the person who sent the fax and
was on vacation at that time.  The guy at the other end was furious
and shouted he would sue me for harrasing phone calls.

Well, I managed to get the word out of him that he lived in the town
of Wittmund in Northern Germany. I asked what his phone number was (no
caller-ID yet :-() and - bingo - it was: 04462 8+something.

I explained that someone here had left out an extra '0' to reach an
outside line and so on. Ok, so what?

He told *his* side of the story:

That fax was programmed to call during off-peak (cheaper) hours and
called this poor guy *in the middle of the night* over and over again
*for days*.  He complained at the phone company (Telekom) and they
quickly found out it was a fax that did the harrassing calls. They
installed a fax machine at his home and that's how he got the
company's phone number.  In effect, the phone company helped this guy
to get after the harrasser himself and I'm sure this is not how it
done here in Germany.

And what's more: even dialing 0+0044+ would get you nowhere at that
company because they use a different code for international
destinations: 98+00+country code+rest of number.

This is because of special tariffs based on volume and they claim
that's the only way they can do book-keeping on the international
calls and get discounts from Telekom.

The problem here is that "getting outside line" and "long distance"
both use '0' and can thus get you way off.

How to change this? I believe this is a difficult task if everybody
insists to have his favorite dialing scheme spared from change.
Therefore, there will not be a common plan to ever come into
existence.

Examples:

How many people object to making '00' the international access code
and '0' the long distance code _worldwide_? Don't come up saying "but
we already have '0' for alternate billing / operator". That's exactly
what I mean. There should be ways to implement uniform dialing, even
if it would take ten years in transition.

How about 112 as an emergency number instead of 911? I've heard that
112 is very easy to dial even if there's no light to see the pad or
the dial.

Conclusion: It's not the best ideas that win, but those that are 
"rushed" to
market go gain share quickly.


Marko Ruokonen / Cologne, Germany
100031.31@compuserve.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A perfect example of a fax machine giving
all sorts of grief to innocent people occurred here in Chicago several
years ago when the First National Bank had a fax machine programmed to
dial out at the close of business each day to various branches of the
bank with whatever it was being transmitted among them. Somehow the
klutz who programmed the autodial function managed to get '011' in the
dialing string. 7 or 8 pm here each day and after midnight in Germany
some poor family there was getting awakened by a ringing phone and
greeted by silence when they answered. Not once of course, but several
times in a row each night until finally the machine would give up and
move on to other numbers on its list. After a couple weeks of this, the
family was understanably very annoyed and frightened, so they went to
Telekom asking for help. 

Telekom traced the call back to the USA and asked AT&T to intervene or
look into the matter. Of course a few more days had passed by that
time, rendering the family's phone almost useless all night long. AT&T
found it was coming from Chicago and brought it to the attention of
Illinois Bell, which in turn traced it back pretty quickly to the First
National Bank. Whoever at IBT handled the bank's account called their
contact at the bank to ask for assistance. According to the report on
it later, 'the bank has (this was some years ago) idiots working in 
their telecom department.' The telco person said it was like talking to
a brick wall. No one seemed to understand what was the problem or what
was wanted. Telco finally got someone who grudgingly agreed to 'look 
into
it and get it taken care of.'

You think that solved the problem? A week later the Germans reported the
problem hasn't been cured at all; that the calls are still continuing.
At this point AT&T leans and breathes a little harder on IBT and quite
embarassed about it, IBT sent someone over to the bank to talk to the
people. The VP-Telecom was not in at the time, and it was the same run-
around with incompetent people who could 'only follow policy'.  The 
IBT's
guy's response was to go back and order a disconnect on that line. A day
or two later when the bank complained about the line being 'out of 
order'
he read them the riot act and *finally* got someone to go reprogram the
fax machine. 

Well, the fax calls stopped going to the German family alright, but soon
enough the monthly phone bill arrived for the bank, and although it is
always a huge bill, they did look it over from time to time and when
page after page after page of one minute calls to a number in Germany 
show up the bank's response was to call and complain, asking for credit
on account of 'some screw up by the phone company'. The person calling
had no knowledge whatsoever of the problem that had gone uncorrected for
close to a month. Apparently no one there mentioned it. All very self-
righteous, he wanted credit since this was being charged against his
department's budget. This was like the frosting for the cake, and the
telco man read him the riot act also and concluding that 'you are not
to ever call here direct again. Take any and all complaints to your
telecom department, period.'  

Then there was the guy who ran the Fido BBS here in Chicago about ten
years ago whose script for National Mail Hour had an error in it and
he kept waking up some 75 year old woman at 3 AM. This was a local call,
and it went on for about a week until finally the IBT Security 
Department
looked into it. Not knowing exactly what was going on -- this was ten
years ago in the 'early days' of BBS'ing -- telco security and Chicago
police got warrants and went out there to kick his door in and 
confiscate
everything telephone-related they could find. The woman was ready to
sue telco, and telco told this guy if she sues us we are going to have
you added as a defendant in it. The deal they finally cut with him was
he had to *immediatly* remove his modem and computer from the phone line
and not re-attach it to the line until it had been inspected and found
to be in good working order AND to immediatly and permanently 
discontinue
all BBS operations. That was the part that stung. "Of course," said 
telco,
"if you don't think we have the authority to make that demand, you can
always sue us, and the woman who you *harrassed* is ready to sue you as
well. Let the court straighten it out."  He thought it prudent to close
his electronic doors.   PAT]

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



             



Brian Stoll asked for help with a ROLM PBX.

Brian,

I am not certain if you've tried it, but ROLM has an excellent
Consultant Liaison program. You can contact them via 1-800-538-8154.
Ask for Bob Lee -- he knows PBXs and the 9751 like nobody you've seen
(and if he can't answer he'll get one for you).

Secondly, failing that call Society of Telecommunication Consultants
and ask them to give you a local wizard on the 9751.  They have some
super members, many focused on ROLM PBXs. Call Susan Kuttner at
1-800-782-7670.

Sure one or both of these will be helpful.


Lou

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



Does anyone have any suggestions where I could find specs and
standards for CAT 5 cabling on the net?

Thanks in advance.

Please E-Mail tohara@eng.buffalo.edu


Timothy H. O'Hara                  Senior, Electrical Engineering
State University of New York at Buffalo   tohara @ eng.buffalo.edu
World Wide Web Home Page: "http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~tohara"

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



I tried checking the archives at lcs.mit.edu and the local technical
bookstore (Powell's Tech here in Portland) and am coming up empty on
information on Centrex.  I have an article out of {Teleconnect} magazine
and a long fax from US West and that's about all I've got.

We're looking to replace our ancient Telplus 16x48 phone system which
uses proprietary digital phones with something a bit more up-to-date.
We're not that unhappy with the Telplus except that we'd like to graft
voicemail and auto-attendant features onto it and we've been told that
while it does have analog capability it doesn't work all that well
(which is different than what the installer told us ... oh, well).

Because of the rate that things are changing I'm not wildly interested
in buying a nice PBX that will turn out to be useless for voice over 
ethernet or video conferencing or whatever it turns out that we'll be 
doing a couple of years from now.  If I can buy some $50 phones that
work with a standard RJ-11 and use them for a year or two we can just 
give them to employees when we go to ISDN at every desk or whatever.

Are there any books readily available on Centrex?  Any archive sites?
Any references to software vendors who would let us control Centrex
features ourselves without having to go through US West (there's
supposed to be a couple of programs that do this)?


Thanks.

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



Don't forget to research the RISKS of pay phones in prisons by
searching the archives of the RISKS-Forum Digest.  Current issues
available on Usenet group COMP.RISKS which has pointers to other
resources.

 
Pete Weiss, Penn State

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



In <telecom15.416.10@eecs.nwu.edu> villing@muc.de (Thomas Villinger) 
writes:

> martin@kurahaupo.gen.nz (Martin Kealey) wrote:

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

>>>> 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.

> Why should it be impossible to get portable numbers? I don't
> see any difference to the problems as they occur in a fixed
> numbering scheme.  We already do have "portable" numbers
> (think of all the mobile phones which are in fact portable
> numbers) and guess what i works :). Note that we do have a
> hierarchical numbering system but still work with databases,
> so it might be possible that a certain group of numbers get
> collected in an exchange aand are routed after the last digit
> which contains the necessary information is collected.

Our toll-free numbers in 020 (= +1 800) used to be geographic when
they were introduced some ten (?) years ago.  A call to 020-796xxx was
routed to the area code switch in e.g.  Stockholm where xxx was
resolved, 020-797xxx onto e.g Gothenburg etc.

After a couple of years this was dropped and SS7 signaling with
IN-db's was introduced.  020 numbers are now of variable length (020+
4, 6 or 7 digits) and more carriers than Telia now offer them.  The
change of standard length from 6 to 7 enabled new carriers to have a
slice of 020 and introducing shorter special numbers (e.g. 020-0031 as
prefix to hide CLI) and at the same time not having to change the old
(vanity) numbers.

So yes, portable numbers can be introduced very easely.  Introducing
IN-db's for parts of the geographical number range should be no
problem since, if my memory serves me right, up to seven digits can be
used when determining to which network entity the call is to be
routed.


Sam
http://www.nada.kth.se/~sam,  sam@nada.kth.se,  +46 701234567

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



In <telecom15.414.7@eecs.nwu.edu> schaefer@alphanet.ch (Marc SCHAEFER) 
writes:

> Does someone know something about the rumoured European Council
> Statement on Encryption?  I have heard it may establish a central
> (possibly private) organization which would be holder for keys.

Not much, but statements (or whatever they're called) aren't mandatory
(=European law).


Sam
http://www.nada.kth.se/~sam,  sam@nada.kth.se,  +46 701234567

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



In article <telecom15.418.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, Marvin Vis <mvis@advtech.
uswest.com> wrote:

> Regarding the breakup, has anyone speculated about the driving forces
> behind the move?  Of course, there are the factors that AT&T has 
presented
> as their motivations (those of speed/responsiveness, targeted stock, 
etc.),
> but has anyone tried to think of other reasons?

I thought it was so that the equipment ATT could sell more stuff like
switches.  In the phone business LECs and {Whole}ATT are each others
biggest customers.  LECs buy lots of stuff like switches and fiber and
whatnot from ATT, and then sell ATT for local access and the like.

Now that parts of ATT are going in to direct competition with LECs,
for example in the mobile environment, LECs are thinking that maybe
they ought to be buying from some other vendor.  Or at least that is
how the story goes. This upsets the balance.  So by spinning off
equipment from network services, the equipment ATT should be treated
like all the other equipment vendors (Nortel, Ericcson, Motorola,
etc.).  I would think that would take a bit of convincing, but then
nobody has asked me.


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

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



les@jaguNET.com (Les Fairall) writes:

> I have an 1A2 system with several "single line" phones attached to it.
> The 1A2 is strapped with common ringing (provided by a separate ring
> generator.  Problem is that if someone answers on a non-key phone
> (i.e. a regular off the shelf store bought phone that has been added
> w/a single line adapter), the system continues to ring all other
> phones for about ten seconds. (I believe that is the standard timeout
> for the 400E KTU cards that are in the system.) I remember years ago
> seeing a device that you could plug a normal phone into and it would
> sense it off hook and satsify the A/A1 connection and make the ktu see
> that line as in use. This would be great as it would (1) stop lines
> from ringing another ten seconds and (2) actually light the line up in
> use.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Use the second (normally unused) pair 
> in the 'regular phone' to short the A/A1 line. Wire them through a
> relay in the 'regular phone' which would close on the phone going off
> hook. You will find a spare set of contacts in the phone for that
> purpose. When you provide the A/A1 supervision you will get what you
> want.   PAT]

I have a 1A2 here in the house -- in fact my modem is going thru it
right now.  Most Bell-clone instruments have a set of hookswitch
contacts that can be freed up and wired to the second pair of the
RJ-11.

If not, call Greybar or Alltel and ask for a TA-1 - it's a little
black box made by TT Systems in NYC (914-968-2100) that has a two-wire
RJ-11 jack and a four-wire 6" RJ-11 plug-ended cord.  Works just fine
to solve problems like this. In fact I may be ordering another half
dozen real soon now. I have one on my modem, one on my answering
machine, one on each port of the three-port conferencing bridge, one
on each port of the five-port announcing system at a friend's movie
theater that still has a 584-shelf running ... etc.


Mike Morris                                
morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us
#include <disclaimer.std.h>       I have others, but this works the 
best.
   This message assembled from 100% recycled electrons (and pixels).

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



In article <telecom15.407.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, TELECOM Digest Editor noted
in response to Les Fairall <les@jaguNET.com>: 

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Use the second (normally unused) pair 
> in the 'regular phone' to short the A/A1 line. Wire them through a
> relay in the 'regular phone' which would close on the phone going off
> hook. You will find a spare set of contacts in the phone for that
> purpose. When you provide the A/A1 supervision you will get what you
> want.   PAT]

It's important to get the right set of contacts involved here. The
order in which the contacts for Tip/Ring and A control are made and
broken are important.

When answering the call, make (close) A-A1 BEFORE allowing the phone
line itself to be connected. 

When hanging up, break (open) A-A1 AFTER disconnecting the line. 

If A breaks first on disconnect, the line will go on hold instead of
hanging up.


Ed Greenberg           edg@greenberg.org        Ham Radio: KM6CG
                    http://www.greenberg.org/

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #421
******************************

                                                                                                                               
