
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Fri Oct  6 02:27:08 1995
by
1995
02:27:08 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 5 Oct 1995 21:37:15 -0500
1995
21:37:11 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 5 Oct 95 21:37:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 420

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Remarks on the German Phone System (Marko Ruokonen)
    Broad Computer Telephony Patent Sweep! (Kingsley G. Morse Jr.)
    Zmodem and Win Programming Comms API (Miguel Angel)
    Competitive Markets (Dominic Pinto)
    Berkeley Advanced Product Development Courses (Harvey Stern)
    Conference: Merging Your Organization Onto the Internet 
(uspdi@clark.net)
    Correction Re: A History of the Early Days of Usenet (Mark Crispin)
    Last Laugh! A Day Without OJ (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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.

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



I followed the discussion about the "Variable length problem" here in
this newsgroup and thought I'd give some comments on this.

I am 30 years old and I do no business in the telecommuncations field,
so my view is a non-technical but instead that of an interested user
of the phone system.

Germany has variable length phone formats. However, nobody seems to
actually have a big problem with that, not even callers from the US
who kind of expect that the "outside world" is entirely different.
("It's a phone system, but not as we know it.")

I remember when about 20 years ago the city of Frankfurt/Main changed
its area code from 611 to just 69 to make room for extra numbers and
to stay below the internationally allowed maximum length, so obviously
they were preparing to introduce eight-digit numbers back in the 70s. I
don't know how long the "permissive dialing period" was or if there
even was one. However, this is the _only_ change of a _major_ city I
can remember -- not talking about the changes coming out of German
Unification.

Before Unification, West-Berlin used area code 30 as the only city in
the 3x range of numbers. All East German cities went into 3x. Before
Unification East-Berlin was dialable from West-Germany as 00372 (+37:
east Germany, 2: East Berlin) but as 0372 (note missing '0') from
West-Berlin, making it in fact a "domestic" call. I think this little
fact also expressed the wish for "Berlin" to be a single city.

After Unification I think all East-Berlin numbers got some number
prefixed (8 or 9?) and went into 30, which became the area code for
all of Berlin.

Also 15-20 years ago, I remember there were "shortcut" numbers to dial
in addition to area codes. Dialing from Duesseldorf to Cologne one
could use 0221 + number or just 90 + number (or was it 91? Well you get
the picture). However, these numbers were not assigned uniformly
from city to city. Once I tried to call home and -- used to calling from
Duesseldorf -- dialed 9x + number. Too late I realized that I *was* in
Cologne and found myself talking to some lady in I-don't-know-where.
You may think there is no big difference dialing 0221 (four digits)
instead of 9x (two digits). But in the mid-70s, tone dialing was
"science fiction" to the German Telekom and it made a difference
dialing two instead of four digits.

Those '9x' numbers were abandoned sometime in the 70s and dialing a
'9' would get you an immediate "No number" recording ("Kein Anschluss
unter dieser Nummer")

At present, you can (at least in Cologne) guess whether a number is an
ISDN line or not. If it starts with a '9', you can be 'pretty' sure it
is. We have 989 xxxx while our neighbours have 89 xxxx.

No problems with this -- only our pizza service often hesitated to
take our order because of the "uncommon" exchange "989" (they are used
to 89 as being "near" to them).

Which brings me to another topic: How to expand reserve number space?

A lot of seven digit numbers have zero as their third number, so there 
is
the plan: avoid '0' as the first number after the exchange when using
six digits. If numbers are needed, start opening the nn0 "exchange"
*years* before it even *gets* tough.  Then, move numbers 89nxxx into
89m nxxx (m and n should not be equal to avoid ambigious numbers) and
you get lots of new numbers with only number changes, never area code
splits or overlays (I hope we *never* get overlay area codes ... what
a messy idea). Standardized anouncements can be put on the old 89nxxx
numbers: "The new number is <8> <9> <1> <n> <x> <x> <x>").

As a remark: We (my parents and as soon as I had my own phone) _never_
changed numbers (and "of course" area codes). There has been one
re-assignment of exchanges to consolidate a new numbers. My 
grandmother's 
phone was moved from 62xxxx to 64xxxx sometime during the late 70s or
early 80s. Note that no extra digit was introduced to make it seven
digits long. I think this was done to group neighbourhoods to the same
exchanges.

Offices reserve a block of numbers to get dial-in service: The main
number is sometimes as short as three digits to keep the overall
length below the max. You dial the extension you want.  Sometimes,
because of a real number shorage, this does not work out: A company I
do business with has a phone number of 976 xxx0 (right: ISDN and I can
tell the area in Cologne where they are) The problem is that their
main number is already seven digits long and extensions are two
digits, thus (dialing it instead of the '0') forms an eight digit
number. Cologne already has a three digit area code and thus, the
national number for the extensions would be eleven digits.

Where is the problem? Nowhere. Except that Telekom notified the
company that extensions may not be reachable from outside Germany,
_especially_ mentioning the US. So, they installed a seperate line for
the fax and got a seven digit number for it. Interestingly, no other
country was mentioned having problems with eleven digit numbers.

As a matter of fact, I like this system more than dialing a
"switchboard" to get connected (this is the 20th century after all) or
to have different numbers for switchboard and dial-in as I encounter
in the US. It's easy to remember: If I don't know the extension, I
dial '0' instead. If I there is no ringing, I'll add another '1' and
get the switchboard. Switchboards have 0 or 01 as the last digits. In
fact, you can always dial '01' directly without waiting for ring,
since the extra '1' will be dropped if it's not needed.

The rest of this message compares some aspects of the German phone
system (I'm used to) and the US system (I got to use during some stays
over there):

Concering time-outs? Sorry, there is no need for timeouts just because
of variable length numbers. Even in the above case for the switch-board, 
as I explained.

I got to know timeouts when I visited the US, I was not aware of any
timeouts before that. To put the record straight: we had pulse dial
until last year and when dialing the last digit, it took about two
seconds to complete a call within the city and some more outside the
city. In some cases one could her the relays "clak-clak-clak" of
numbers being dialed after you completed dialing.  But as soon as that
was done, there was a connection, _never_ some seconds of silence
(timeout) for some extra digits.  When I now dial some number I can
figure if the target switch is digital or analog. Digital is almost
immidiate, analog takes an extra second or two, but never a four or
five second timeout.

Another weirdness I encountered is "same area code -- long distance"
dialing.  Here, if you dial the same areacode (or leave it out if you
prefer) you always are doing a local call. Therefore, there is no such
thing as '1' means toll.  Dialing your area code makes no difference
_at all_ concerning completing the call or charging. It may give you a
different line (speaking of quality).  Sometimes lines used by area
code dialing are better than just dialing them as without area code. I
used that practice when I was unable to connect via modem to a local
BBS.

And you could get through to directory assistance faster if you used 0
+ areacode + 1188 instead of just 1188 (which was notoriously 
overloaded).  
Domestic DA over here was always 1188, dispite the city you are looking 
for.  
Then, 1188 was changed to 01188, so it could not be dialed as 0 
+areacode + 
1188 (guess why <g>). I remember times when DA was 118, then 1188 and
now 01188, maybe to make room for other special services.

Talking on a US pay phone long distance without being disconnected
when you used up your change? Thanks, that's a great way of doing
cheap calls. I know this constitutes fraud, but why is it made _that_
easy? I did not do it, I paid the "extra" dime.

Over here, you are just cut off (which is right IMO: no pay -- no
service). There IS a display showing you how much money is still
unused, so you can prepare for more change or end the call gracefully.

Another thing that _really_ got me mad was the complicated dialing in
the US: I had to call someone while waiting for a plane at Logan
International Airport in Boston/MA. I had a calling card (AT&T) and
some change.

First, I tried a NYNEX pay phone. I expected this call to be local, so
I used my change. Then, I was told (recording) that this call would
require some more change. I assumed it would therefore be LD. So, I
decided to use my calling card. Starting another call, the phone
simply went *dead* and did not come back to life even after replacing
the handset and waiting for some seconds. So, I found one of those
"2000" AT&T phones with keyboard and "all the works". I swiped my card
through the reader and started punching 0617xxxxxxx. But as I dialed
the '0' (as I thought using a calling card required), I got an
immidiate display "your call cannot be completed". Somewhere on the
phone, there was a note: "Dial 1 when using calling cards". This all
recalled from memory, but that's about the story.

And asking around in 508 land if I have to use '1' before a number in
the same area code (because it's toll) for each call is somewhat
unnecessary, believe me.  Redialing? Next question, please.

As I mentioned at the beginning, these are the views of a user, not
someone involved in the technology. But phones are made for the people
to _use_ them, not to _understand_ the technology behind it.  I wonder
how all this will change when competion is supposed to start in 1998.

Comments are welcome.


Marko Ruokonen
Cologne / Germany


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reason our payphones -- or at least
the 'Genuine Bell' payphones do not cut someone off in mid-sentence 
when the time is up is because it is thought to be discourteous and
a poor business practice. It is considered better to let the person
have a chance to immediatly say goodbye and disconnect voluntarily or
remain on the line with an operator asking for additional money if
the parties wish to continue talking to each other. There can be and
certainly is some fraud as a result of this, but it apparently is
considered minor in comparison to the inconvenience callers would
have in needing to redial and start the call all over again if all
they needed were a few more seconds. How many constitutes 'a few more'
is open to debate. Operators are trained to use judgment in allowing
the call to remain connected while requesting more money, etc.  PAT]

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



I need a reality check.

The September issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine published a
shocking article saying that a new partnership, named RAKTLP, owns
MANY CT patents which are SO broad that they could even make end users
who write CT applications at home liable!

Their 25 patents cover a WIDE range of interactive technology,
including merchandising, promotions, home shopping, securing
information from databases by telephone, and various uses of 800 and
900 numbers.

These may seem obvious and unpatentable, but West Interactive, a CT
service bureau, paid $4.4 million dollars for patent infringment, not
to mention ongoing royalties. Evidently American Express and First
Data Corp. have licensed the patents too. And RAKTLP is sending more
letters to other CT service bureaus.

The article, which was published WITHOUT the author's name, by the
way, said that "In theory, anybody who rolls their own CT-based
information-transaction app is liable, including end users who, more
and more, are using easy-to-use app gens to do just that from their
own premises." Are they liable?

Since this article was the first time I'd heard about these patents,
I'd like to ask for a reality check from the net at large. Are these
facts correct? Do these patents affect individuals programming
computer telephony applications at home?


Kingsley G. Morse Jr.

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



We need C source code for Zmodem protocol programming as well as the
Windows programming communications API.

Thanks for any message that anybody can mail to me, and ftp places are
welcome for this porpose.


Miguel A. Gallardo, President of APEDANICA
Carlos III University Associate Professor
P.O. Box 17083 - E-28080 Madrid (Spain)
Tel: (341) 474 38 09 - FAX: 473 81 97
E-mail: miguel@grial.uc3m.es
ASOCIACION PARA LA PREVENCION Y ESTUDIO DE DELITOS, ABUSOS Y 
NEGLIGENCIAS
EN INFORMATICA Y COMUNICACIONES AVANZADAS (APEDANICA)

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



Pat,

I'm looking at -- in the UK context primarily - the implications for
'dominant' carriers of an increasingly aggresive and competitive
market (or perhaps markets). Markets in the geographical sense as well
as non-geographical (e.g. customer segmented), and also where there
are fairly or increasingly artificial distinctions say between
wireless, wireline, and satellite based services.

I've noted that AT&T has been seeking to be regarded by the FCC as a
non-dominant carrier -- with further relaxation on pricing -- advance
filing notice reducing to one day -- quoted as the main advantage.
But the details of the arguments seem to be a little thin or
alternatively unclear. AT&T claim that whilst they may have 60% share
(of the U.S. long-distance market, I assume!), they are not able to
control prices or keep competitors out - i.e. AT&T is unable to act
independently of the market and has no (dominant) market power.

Can anyone help or provide pointers to useful sources or studies
dealing with for example these kind of questions? Such as: what are
the characteristics of a sufficiently competitive market (i.e.,
sufficiently competitive and self-sustaining so as to no longer need
market/economic regulation), and what criteria can or might be used to
determine whether or not a participant is dominant?


Dominic Pinto

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



University of California, Berkeley, Extension announces:

"ADVANCED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT"

A series of five 1-day coordinated courses, October 23-27, 1995 at the
San Francisco International Airport

"WHEREAS THE BATTLEGROUND OF THE '80S WAS QUALITY, THE COMPETITIVE
BATTLEGROUND OF THE '90S WILL BE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT"

---Red Poling, former CEO, Ford
 
This series presents an advanced approach to product development to
help you achieve:


                                                                              


*Lowest possible total cost
*Ultrafast time to market
*Broad market acceptance
*Rapid and efficient customization
*Responsiveness to changing market conditions

THE COURSES (October 23-27)

1.  Advanced Product Development Management
2.  Product Definition Using QFD: Quality Function Deployment
3.  Agile Product Development for Mass Customization, JIT, 
    BTO, and Flexible Manufacturing
4.  Low-Cost Product Development
5.  Design for Manufacturability

LECTURERS

DAVID M. ANDERSON, a consultant based in Lafayette California.  He
holds a doctorate in mechanical engineering from UC Berkeley, and has
more than 21 years of industrial experience, including 13 years of
consulting work. He is the author of two books published by the
Harvard University Press: "Design for Manufacturability: The New
Product Development Imperative" (1990) and Mass Customizing Products"
(to be published in 1996).  His next book will be "Low Cost Product
Development." Anderson has taught New Product Development in the
Management of Technology Program of the Haas School of Business and
the University of California, Berkeley.  In addition he has given
numerous corporate product development seminars internationally, and
at many companies, including several divisions of Hewlett-Packard.

CHARLES A. COX, instructor for Product Definition using QFD, is a
Certified Management Consultant and Certified Quality Engineer.  An
engineer by training, he has more than 17 years of consulting
experience in the management and service sectors, working with large
and small organizations to implement customer- driven product or
service design systems and procedures.  His latest publication is "The
Executive's Handbook on Quality Function Deployment" (John Wiley, to
be published in 1996).

COMPANIES MAY BUY SEATS

The fee for each one day course is $395.  The fee for the entire
five-course series is $1,495.  There is a 10 percent discount for
three or more enrollments provided they are submitted together.
Companies may "buy seats" for the series and send appropriate people
each day.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For a free detailed brochure describing the series send your
postal address to:

course@garnet.berkeley.edu

Specify the "Advanced Product Development Series"

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




                         National Conference on
              MERGING YOUR ORGANIZATION ONTO THE INTERNET
                  Theme: Successful Implementation
                         November 13-16, 1995
     Sheraton National Hotel * Arlington, Va. (Washington, D.C.)

  This Conference Teaches Workable Internet Implementation Solutions

                           ABOUT THE CONFERENCE

SCOPE AND PURPOSE

The conference is organized to benefit both current and prospective 
users
of the Internet, including executives, managers, 
technical/communications
specialists and contracting professionals. Focused workshops explore
special interest areas, while the conference sessions give attendees an
opportunity to expand their knowledge of practical marketing and 
operating
applications, management methods and technical information.

WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

This intensive program of workshops and conference sessions is designed 
to
facilitate usage of the Internet by any organization. It will assist 
your
organization in implementing all aspects of a successful Internet 
strategy
including:

* Defining the business uses for Internet and developing an integrated
  Internet strategy;

* Implementation including: the connection,  servers, user workstations,
  training;

* Security considerations and solutions;

* Business applications including: marketing, ordering, customer 
support;

* World Wide Web servers and page development.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND:

* Managers and technical staff needing an understanding of the Internet
  potential and usage;

* Business and government managers responsible for improving the
  operations of their organizations;
  
* Private sector executives responsible for marketing products and
  services;
 
* Operations personnel involved in MIS, IRM, systems operations, network
  management and other aspects of implementing Internet usage.

CONFERENCE VOLUME

Collections of presentation and reference materials will be provided to
each participant of the conference, briefings and technical workshops.
Participants will also receive "Internet: A Knowledge Odyssey (Business
Edition)," a multimedia reference guide and tutorial on CD-ROM, designed
for business and professional users.

HIGHLIGHTS

27 Plenary and Concurrent Sessions:
* User Track
* Implementation Track
* Applications Track

MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS:
* Increasing Internet Productivity with the Latest Tools
* Conducting Business Over the Internet
* Developing a Corporate Internet Strategy

TECHNICAL WORKSHOPS:
* Security Systems on the Internet
* Setting Up and Operating Internet Gateways and Web Servers
* Constructing a Successful Web Site

In cooperation with:
D.C. Chapter -- Internet Society
Association of Online Professionals
Capital PC Users Group

Conference Management by:
U.S. Professional Development Institute

             FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mail:   USPDI, 1738 Elton Road, Suite 304; Silver Spring, MD 20903
Phone:  301/445-4400
Fax:    301/445-5722 
Web:    http://www.clark.net/pub/uspdi

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



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Earlier on Thursday I commented that
TELECOM Digest was the oldest mailing list on the Internet. I got
the following note of correction this evening.   PAT]


Pat -

Header-People@mc.lcs.mit.edu is older than Telecom; I've been a member
since 1977.  TOPS-20@Panda.COM is also older, having been founded in 
1979
(as TOPS-20@SU-SCORE).

 -- Mark --

DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045  ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 
18'39"
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:  Perhaps I should have said 'on the 
modern
Internet' or 'on the Internet as we know it today', but that would have
been weaseling out a little, wouldn't it?   PAT]

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



Our first full day in a year without the spectacle of the century
broadcast live around the world ... but the first day of many for
commentaries that will probably go on so long that no one will
remember quite for sure what happened by the time it finally ends.

What was it the orange juice people said about a day without OJ
is like a day without sunshine?

After my comments here yesterday, someone wrote me to say the proper
term for what happened was the  jury aquitted him. They did not
'find him innocent', they did not 'find him not guilty'. I guess there
is an important distinction we should remember.

Anyway, some OJ jokes to share with your friends and co-workers. If
you enjoyed the 'dancing Itos' comedy routine on the 'Tonight Show'
then perhaps you will enjoy these also.

 *******

OJ called his attorney recently. Do you know what OJ wanted? He asked
the attorney 'Those were expensive gloves. When do I get my gloves 
back?" 

 *******

OJ has a new email address for anyone who wants to write him. It is 
really easy to remember:
 
        "slash slash slash slash backslash backslash slash escape"

 *******

After he got home, OJ got a phone call from former President Reagan.
The call went like this:

"OJ, this is President Reagan calling. I wanted to congratulate you
on your victory in the court. Once things have settled down for you
again, Nancy and I would like to invite you and your lovely wife Nicole
to join us for dinner."

Okay, I admit they're a little sick. But so was the whole trial. Aren't
you enjoying the miracle of modern telecommunications which allowed the
whole world to participate in the circus?      


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #420
******************************

                                 
