Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA10206; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:10:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:10:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702031410.JAA10206@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #29 TELECOM Digest Mon, 3 Feb 97 09:10:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 29 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Mon, 2/3, 9pm PBS History of Telephone (John Lundgren) Re: Alternate Directory Providers (Lynne Gregg) Destiny Telecomm & NC Settle (Gregory Boop) Pacific Bell To Debut Bilingual Phone Bill (Mike King) Telecom Archives New Mirror Site (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (Rich Hurd) Re: New Area Codes (BlakeD6450) 28k8 Fax/Modem Testers and Line Simulators/Emulators (Romke Kats) Telegraph Questions (Lee Winson) Re: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth (Erik Florack) Re: TWX 1961 Automation Plans (Bill Horne) 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: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jlundgre@delta1.deltanet.com (John Lundgren) Subject: Mon, 2/3, 9pm PBS History of Telephone Date: 3 Feb 1997 01:10:58 GMT Organization: Delta Internet Services, Anaheim, Ca Monday night, Feb 3, 9PM on PBS American Playhouse will have The History of the Telephone, which should be interesting. Set your VCRs. | John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs. | jlundgre@ | | Rancho Santiago Community College District | deltanet.com | | 17th St at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 | http://www.rancho| [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bear in mind different cities and stations air this at different times. Check for local scheduling, however it is expected to be a good show. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Alternate Directory Providers Date: Mon, 03 Feb 97 10:21:00 GMT Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > As far as *I* am concerned, AT&T is *again* shooting itself in the > foot by contracting out and routing to this third party for directory! > Years ago, I would *never* have thought that *AT&T* would do such a > thing! AT&T has always subcontracted directory assistance service here in the U.S. to the local operating company (RBOC, LEC). Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 00:16:14 -0500 From: Gregory Boop Reply-To: gboop@pagesz.net Subject: Destiny Telecomm & NC Settle by Steve Swindell Raleigh - A long distance company based in California has agreed to change the way it does business in North Carolina and to pay the state $100,000 for its investigation of the matter; the state Attorney General's Office said Thursday. Destiny Telecomm, which markets prepaid tele- phone cards, was told in November that its oper- ation appeared to be a pyramid scheme and that it must stop doing business or face legal action, said Alan S. Hirsch, special deputy attorney general. The company agreed at the time to submit a marketing plan in compliance with state law. The company signed an agreement Thursday that meets that requirement, Hirsch said. The agreement specifies that at least 70 percent of the company's sales in the state will be to the general public, Hirsch said. The company was marketing the opportunity to sell three-hour phone cards for $100 each. People who bought the cards would then be able to sell the opportunity to sell more cards. Destiny Telecomm, based in Oakland, Calif., started recruiting people in North Carolina in early 1996. The company had about 15,000 representatives in North Carolina, who had sold about 17,000 phone cards. The low average number of cards sold per representative was part of what led the Attorney General's Office to begin its investigation in May. The company also agreed Thursday to document its compliance at least monthly and to cease operations if it failed to comply. In paying the $100,000, the company did not admit its operations were illegal under the old plan, but agreed to reimburse the state for its costs in the investigation and in enforcing the new agreement. -------------- ****My comments: Three hour phone cards for 100 bucks. **** Let's do the math $100/180minutes = 55 cents a minute sounds pretty pricey ... ** Any unsolicited commercial e-mail sent to this address will be ** ** subject to a $500 processing fee. Sending mail to this address, ** ** manually or automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms. ** Greg Boop * Telecom Engineer * Cary, N.C. * gboop@pagesz.net ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Pacific Bell To Debut Bilingual Phone Bill Date: Sun, 02 Feb 1997 20:07:30 PST Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:47:33 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell To Debut Bilingual Phone Bill FOR MORE INFORMATION: Pamela Corante (213) 975-0406 Pacific Bell To Debut Bilingual Phone Bill February 97 Launch Expected to Significantly Improve Service to Spanish-Speaking Customers LOS ANGELES --Gilda Rozsahegyi, a service representative at Pacific Bells Premier Customer Service Center in Alhambra, receives scores of phone calls every day from Spanish-speaking customers who have questions about their phone bill. They call primarily because the billing can be difficult to understand if English is not their primary language, she says. We help translate it for them over the phone. The high percentage of Spanish-speaking Hispanic customers in Pacific Bells service area is one reason the telecommunications company consistently monitors the needs of these customers. In a series of recent focus groups, customers unanimously expressed their desire for a bilingual bill. To meet this demand and better serve its Spanish-speaking client base, Pacific Bell will roll out its first bilingual phone bill in February 1997. Nearly 940,000 Spanish-speaking Hispanic customers statewide will automatically receive the new bilingual version of the phone bill in February. These are customers who have previously expressed a preference that Pacific Bell communicate with them in their native language. Pacific Bell will accommodate the requests of customers who decide they do not want the bilingual phone bill, and will provide the bilingual bill to any customers who wish to receive it. Pacific Bell regularly upgrades its service to meet the needs of its diverse customer base, said Carmen Nava, Pacific Bell Vice President of Diverse Markets Group. The bilingual bill will dramatically improve our service to Spanish-speaking Hispanic customers and complement our existing Spanish-language bill inserts, pamphlets, product brochures and newsletters. The new bilingual bill is a milestone in customer service to Pacific Bells Hispanic consumer base. The fact that the bill is bilingual will greatly accomodate the needs of multilingual households with some members who prefer receiving materials in their native language and others who are more comfortable with the English language. Now, customers will receive a phone bill that is much easier to understand and will alleviate some confusion. Research indicates that Pacific Bells Spanish-speaking Hispanic customers are extremely satisfied with the companys ethnically-focused customer service operations. Pacific Bell continues to monitor the marketplace to see if new services, such as billing in other languages, are warranted. Those customers who have already expressed a language preference will automatically receive the bilingual bill in February. All other Pacific Bell residential customers who wish to receive the bilingual bill may request it by calling 1-800-870-5855. Business customers may call 1-800-300-2733 to request bilingual billing. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of the Pacific Telesis Group, a diversified telecommunications company based in San Francisco. --------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 03:34:13 GMT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Telecom Archives New Mirror Site Jim Roberts has kindly agreed to install a mirror of the Telecom Archives to provide ftp access for users who are unable to get access here at lcs.mit.edu and this mirror is up and running as of today. FTP access is available at ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives Tnanks very much Jim! Archives users, please check this out and respond to Jim with comments and questions. PAT ------------------------------ From: me@where.i.am (Rich Hurd) Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: Mon, 03 Feb 97 03:30:17 GMT Organization: run in circles, scream and shout In article , kline@cyberenet.net wrote: > I ordered a second phone line from Bell Atlantic Monday, they said it > should be installed on Friday. I did the wiring myself I ran a modular > wire directly from the telco.'s termination box into my modem. > Needless to say, "it's a dedicated line." > OK, my question. Before the line is installed, just a POTS line, is > there a way to get a better grade line WITHOUT going digital or ISDN? > (If they are one in the same please excuse my ignorance.) > The second line that I ordered will, hopefully, be a solution to an > ongoing problem that I've been having with my connect preformance. > I use a Courier 336 v. everything. But, although it connects at > 19.2-24.0, it is constantly renegotiating it's connection. This > constant start-and-stop is very frustrating. I ran the gambit with my > phone co., they're useless. The ISP blames the phone co. I think that > I believe them. They are still in business after all. I found a great web site dealing with the problems with USR courier modems that do a lot of re-negotiation. It may be the line, but it might be your modem too. Try opening http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq.html and seeing what kind of info his page can help you with. r/h rahurd@poboxes.com / ICT Associates __/ "I've been ionized, but I'm okay now." Easton, PA USA / -- Buckaroo Banzai / My address has been fictionalized in the header. Use the sig address to reply. ------------------------------ From: blaked6450@aol.com (BlakeD6450) Subject: Re: New Area Codes Date: 3 Feb 1997 05:11:05 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > Out of curiosity -- does anyone know how much of the US is served by > old crossbar equipment? I thought by now that most all the US had > converted to ESS or DMS100 (or similar) equipment. My guess is that only a very small percentage of the US is still served by the old type of equipment. For example: my mother lives in a small town in rural Western Tennessee, served by an independent telco (Century Telephone), in a town of about 2,000. And that area is served by, if not the latest switching equip.(And I think it is), at least electronic equipment (I know it's not crossbar equipment). The town has caller ID available, and all other CLASS services. The same goes for all areas of Tennessee & Mississippi that I'm familiar with (Both Bellsouth and Independent). If rural areas of Tenn. & Miss. are up to date then I would think the majority of the US would be also. I know that the Bellsouth area seemed to embrace the new switching technology (at least in rural areas), faster than some other areas of the country. (I know of some areas served by Southwestern Bell in Arkansas and Missouri that didn't convert until about 4-5 years ago.) I still think most of the country, both rural and urban have been updated. Aside from technical issues though, I think the idea of 8 digit local numbers should be considered, but not nationwide. Why couldn't we have a European-like system. Where more digits (8) are assigned in major metro areas, and leave the rural and smaller metro areas with 7 digits, until they need 8? Or better yet, require 8 in major metros, and permissive dialing of all 10 everywhere? Or even better, have nothing to do with 8 digits (Which would set the North American telephony world on its ear). Go to 10 digits mandatory in major metro areas (with overlays) with 7 digits elsewhere with 10 digits optional? I can't believe the uproar over this. To hear some people, you'd think the world would come to an end, if they had to dial an extra 3 digits. Oh, what a rough life that would be :-). Just my 2 cents worth. ------------------------------ From: Romke Kats Subject: 28k8 Fax/Modem Testers & Line Simulators/emulators Date: 02 Feb 1997 14:37:02 GMT Organization: Philips Electronics N.V. We are going to test/compare modems 28K8 very soon and I have been looking at Modem testers and Line simulators. The only two test systems I could find for proper Modem Test are: TSC 700/701/702 and the TAS Series II Line emulator. The Tests I am looking for are: V.34 Basic Central Office simultaion/emulation pulse/tone dailing ITU (CCITT) V.56 EIA TSB-37/38 PCM/ADPCM transfere rates/ abbility of compression. Country dependancy Local loop simulation etc.. Q: Does anyone have any experience with these two systems? Q: Does anyone know advantages/disadvantages of these systems? Q: Which one of these is most commenly used? Q: Are there any other systems I could use? Any informations is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Romke Kats Philips Semiconductors TriMedia Eindhoven Email: kats@ehv.sc.philips.com ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Telegraph Questions Date: 03 Feb 1997 00:21:16 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS In old movies, when they're reading from a telegram, they use the word "stop" between sentences. Yet, didn't Morse code and Teletypewriters have punctuation, so there was no need for a full word? Indeed, I recall reading in a 1948 secretary's book _not_ to use the word "stop" in telegrams. Would anyone know if they really did use the word "stop" in telegrams, and if so, why did they and when did they stop? Speaking of telegrams, in old movies they are mentioned quite frequently, indeed, people appear to send telegrams in situations where today we'd use long distance telephone. I know years ago Long Distance was very expensive -- could I assume telegraph rates were relatively cheap? (Now an oral Western Union telegram is quite expensive , delivery, if available, is even more.) Anyway, I guess at some point long distance phone rates declined to the point where it became cheaper to telephone rather than telegraph. Would anyone know approximately when that was? Lastly, today, given how expensive they are, why would anyone use a telegram? I would guess only when you need to send a "certified" message in a hurry, that is, the equivalent of a Certified Letter (official proof of receipt), which you can't get from a fax. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 06:47:10 PST From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com (Erik Florack) Subject: Re: Today's FCC Forum on Bandwidth glhpx10!j-grout@uunet.uu.net (John R. Grout) writes in response to Monty Solomon : >> The second panel ended up talking about various technologies and >> economic incentives to take POTS, ISDN or other digital calls off the >> circuit switched network at the central office, and send the data via >> packet switched networks to the ISPs. PacBell wants to charge ISPs >> about $45 per "port" for the equivalent of an incoming and modem for >> this service, which is more than what they pay now for POTS and a >> modem or ISDN. ... >> We suggested PacBell provide the FCC with data from their own ISP showing >> the percent of subscribers that can connect at any one time, and compare >> this to capacity of the PacBell voice network. > I think both of these are important points to consider when an LEC > like PacBell is also acting as an ISP. As was reported last year in > c.d.t, San Jose State University has outsourced their ISP function to > PacBell, allowing people around the San Francisco Bay Area to call > local modem banks for access to the SJSU network. My compliments to John. We are in apparent agreement on this point. Money, clearly, is the issue. The LEC's cries of capacity problems because of the internet, certainly take on new meaning when one considers that we never hear about what the LEC plans to do about internet traffic generated by it's own ISP operations. All we hear is loud complaints about the *competition* to the LEC's and their ISP traffic ... say, AOL, for example, or, C$. Don't LEC's ISP operations take roughly as much overall bandwidth as anyone else's? Looks from here like the LEC's don't mind jamming the switch with ISP traffic, so long as it's *their* ISP, hmmm? (sigh) > One major source of potential profit for such outsourcing contracts is > that Pac Bell could route modem traffic off the voice network at each > CO onto its own co-located modem banks, terminal servers, and Internet > routers (reducing the use of the circuit-switched network between > COs). > As an alternative to paying "port" charges, shouldn't independent ISPs > be allowed to co-locate their own Internet POPs (points of presence) > on LEC premises? Again, my compliments. This would appear to be among the more constructive comments I've heard in some time on this topic. I can see only one fly in the ointment; the one you started with ... the amount of money charged by the LEC to the competeing ISP on a per-POP basis. I mean, the LEC would still want money for each POP, and likely an ASP surcharge, I'd think. Do you have any suggestions around this one? Or am I missing an important point in your logic? Past that, It'd work, I think, to everyone's advantage. The voice network would get relief, the data network would get an infrastructure boost ... everyone benefits. The fatal flaw, of course, is that it seems to make good sense. (You may recall, I've already been informed that telcos don't run with common sense ... grin) /E ------------------------------ From: bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Bill Horne) Subject: Re: TWX 1961 Automation Plans Date: 02 Feb 1997 17:18:51 GMT Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA martin@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu wrote: > I am curious about how the speed and code converters worked. > Were they electromechanical, solid-state, or did they use vacuum tubes? > When one thinks about the technology of 1960, the problems > presented by the thought of a duel world of four-row and three-row > teleprinters seem quite daunting. > In the first place, the four-row machines used ASCII which is > pretty much as we know it today. The three-row machines used Baudot > whose 5-bit characters bear not even a passing resemblance to their > 8-bit ASCII counterparts. Baudot machines speak in upper case, but > the big problem is that there is a special character that shifts the > printer in to "Figures" mode so that qwertyuip now reads 1234567890 > and all the other keys on the keyboard send various punctuation marks > or do such things as ring the bell, (shifted S). When one was through > ringing the bell or sending numbers, the "Letters" symbol was sent to > return the printer to normal operation. The dual case problem wasn't unique to Teletype(r) machines: the original IBM EBCD code was a six-level set with SHIFT and UNSHIFT signals. It was used in the "Selectric" printers that airlines had at their counters: in fact, TYMNET used to (or perhaps still does) provide automatic speed and code conversion for these machines when they were equipmped for dialup. The first printer I used for my Heath H89 had this character set: it was an Anderson-Jacobson 841 I bought at the MIT surplus market. I can tell you all you'll ever want to know about writing device drivers for Z80 micros running CP/M - but I digress. If the far end (3-row TWX) operator forgot to send the LTRS code, the machine would continue in Figures mode, producing gobbledegook that required a special "cheat sheet" to decode. Some machines (I think it was the entire TELEX network, but it might have been just European machines) had a feature called "unshift on space", so that they'd go to LTRS mode after every spacebar push. International traffic via TWX/TELEX gateways caused unusual interactions: if the US was the originating end, and sent columns of numbers, the receiving set would downshift after every column! That meant the originator had to send a FIGS command after every space, or the recipient had to disable the function for that message. > The code/speed converters had to have enough intelligence to > do this as well as translate the ASCII letters in to Baudot characters > and remember to send the "Figures" or "Letters" symbols when required. > Of course, the converter also had to understand the Baudot system so > that it could send the right ASCII characters. 4-row users had a list of "unusable" characters that would be either ignored or converted (I don't recall which) when sent to a 3-row machine. Of course, unusual problems arose: if a technician on a 3-row machine sent an "RY" tape, the converter would repeat "RY" to the 4-row machine. That was not, however, the desired effect: "RY" in Baudot is a series of alternating marks and spaces, but the ASCII equivalent is different. > When four-row machines were talking to three-row'ers, there > also had to be a buffer to temporarily store the information since the > receiving machines were running at 60 WPM and the transmitters were > chattering along at 100 WPM. It wasn't much of a buffer: the 4-row machines had special modems, which could detect the presence of BOTH mark and space tones from the conversion office. When both tones were received at once, the 4-row machine would turn off it's tape sender and light the "RESTRAIN" light to tell the operator not to type until the 3-row machine had caught up. If I remember correctly, some 4-row machines had an optional keyboard lock during RESTRAIN. > I thought that it was interesting that the plan to switch to > the newer four-row machines mentioned the cost of the code/speed > converters. Nowadays, something like that could probably be done with > a hand full of integrated circuits costing less than $100.00 and you > could probably have changed the whole network over to the faster speed > and put one of the converters on each of the old machines so that they > would look like the new ones to the rest of the net. Compared to the cost of training typists for the 3-row model 28/32 machines, it was cheap even then. Bill Horne bhorne@lynx.neu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #29 *****************************