Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA14989; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:21:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:21:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711190321.WAA14989@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #320 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Nov 97 22:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 320 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bulletproof 888 Number? (Derek Balling) UCLA Short Course on "Reed-Solomon Codes and Applications" (Bill Goodin) Cableco Franchise Renewal (Allison Hift) Comparing Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs (Richard Simpson) Availability of Wireless Service Quality Info (force010@ix.netcom.com) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (A. Green) Re: Help! Grounding! (Carl Zwanzig) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Scott A. Miller) Re: Splitting Exchange Designations: Feasible? (Al Varney) Re: Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! (Alan Boritz) Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Matthew Black) Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Fred McClintic) Re: Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing (Neal McLain) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:48:14 -0600 From: Derek Balling Subject: Bulletproof 888 Number? I recently received the following junk mail in my mailbox ... the useless drivel has, of course, been removed, but they had something called a "bulletproof 888 number"? You may want to call them and ask them about it. Being a telecommunications professional, I'd never heard about it, so I made sure to ask them about it. Of course I never write stuff down and my memory fails me every so often, so I may have had to ask a couple times. ;) --- Semi Processed Antiseptic Meats follow --- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Our toll-free number is a BULLETPROOF # and we will have the name, address, and telephone # of anyone who calls! So only SERIOUS INQUIRES are invited to respond! All others looking to waste our time and money through any means of sabotage will be dealt with LEGALLY or by way of EXTREME RETALIATION! >>> If you choose further information options other than our Toll-Free number then remember to print or write down the telephone number for future contact. This is only until our Site is back up. Thank You! CALL FOR OUR FAX ON DEMAND INFORMATION! YOU CAN ALSO TUNE IN TO OUR NATIONWIDE CONFERENCE CALLS EVERY TUES AND THURS 7pm (PACIFIC STANDARD TIME) DIAL 10333 THEN 1-801-345-0605 OR CALL NOW TOLL-FREE FOR MORE INFO. OR TO RESERVE YOUR POSITION! 1-888-809-2578 24HRS. WRITE DOWN THIS # IF YOU CHOOSE AN OPTION ABOVE! --- end of the meat --- Derek J. Balling | J: "You ARE Aware Elvis is dead, right?" dredd@megacity.org | K: "Elvis isn't dead, son he just went http://www.megacity.org/ | home!" - Men In Black [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All he is trying to say is that they receive ANI (Automatic Number Identification) on all incoming calls and that they (at least claim to) research this listing carefully to see who has been making a nuisance of themselves or otherwise making mischief. ANI is nothing new; I doubt that he is getting it in real- time (that is, the number shown as each call is recieved) but he might be. That is why when from time to time here I invite readers to call the spammers to learn about the wonderful and wacky products and services they are offering, I remind everyone to call from a pay phone, a one-way outgoing line, or from behind a PBX/Centrex with a bunch of DID numbers, an outgoing only WATS line with no dialable number assigned to it, etc, so as to render the ANI results useless for the threats given by the spammer. One other point: he refers to a 'nationwide conference' every Thursday night at 7 pm Pacific time, and he instructs callers to dial into it using 10333 plus the number. It sounds to me like our boy has a T-1 into his premises from Sprint; wouldn't you agree? Chances are that dialing the number without that 10333 won't get you in. Very likely Sprint intercepts it and puts it on his T-1. It might be fun to hack around with that for awhile and see what happens, but of course you do not want to do anything that is illegal, unlawful, unethical, immoral or fattening. I wonder if anyone has ever gotten the idea of pirating that bridge for other purposes, or perhaps simply called up at the appointed time and completely abused and misused the conference itself. Nah, readers of this Digest are not that malcious but I wouldn't put it past the readers of that other newsgroup. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Reed-Solomon Codes and Applications" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:32:26 -0800 On February 11-13, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Reed-Solomon Codes and Applications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Behnam Kamali, PhD, PE, Associate Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mercer University, Macon, GA. Reed-Solomon (RS) codes may be the most widely applied error control coding schemes in use today. The wide acceptance of RS codes can be attributed to their unique suitability for random and burst error corrections in a wide spectrum of applications, including satellite and space communications; digital and high-definition TV (DTV, HDTV) as well as other broadcast systems; CD digital audio and CD ROM; digital magnetic storage systems; and more recently, wireless mobile networks. Potential new applications include future wireless and PCS networks, wireless and wireline optical communication systems, and future optical and magnetic mass storage systems. This course covers the theory and applications of RS codes with a simplified mathematical approach, in which the only required background is elementary arithmetic and algebra. The focus is on a subclass of RS codes -- linear cyclic codes -- constructed over the extensions of the binary field. This subclass contains the overwhelming majority of practical RS codes. Course objectives are to enable participants to understand RS codes, to design systems with RS codes, and to select a proper RS code/codec for a given set of system characteristics and user requirements. Various implementations of encoder/decoder (codec) circuits, using dedicated VLSI circuits, microprocessors, DSP chips, and ASICs are discussed. Present and potential future applications of RS codes are emphasized. Several step-by-step design examples of RS coded systems are presented at the conclusion of the course. Major topic areas include: o Simple language description of algebraic structure of RS codes o RS codes various encoding/decoding techniques, hardware versus software decoding o How to implement RS codecs using various VLSI technologies o How to select RS codes for random and burst error correction o RS coded system design for single, double, triple burst error correction o RS coded design, given a set of system constraints o How to select a proper RS code for system robustness against errors and erasures o RS coded design to cope with multipath fading, jamming, shot noise, and media defect in storage devices The course fee is $1295, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:07:01 EST From: Alliso Hift Subject: Cableco Franchise Renewal I have come across an interesting issue and I wonder if any readers have comments. Hypothesis: A newly formed governmental entity -- a township -- (local franchising authority) granted a cable television franchise to a cable operator for twenty years. During that time, the governmental entity has changed and the area has matured and expanded and the local franchising authority is now a city (rather than a township). The cable operator claims it has a renewal expectancy. The City claims the cable operator has to apply for an initial franchise. From the City's perspective, if this is a renewal proceeding, the City can only deny renewal based on factors set forth in Federal law. On the other hand, if this is an initial franchise proceeding, the City has much more leverage. Comments? Allison K. Hift, Bar Admission Pending Leibowitz & Associates, P.A. 1 Southeast Third Ave. Suite 1450 Miami, Florida 33131-1715 Voice (305) 530-1322 Fax (305) 530-9417 http://www.library.law.miami.edu/~hift hift@cobra.law.miami.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the government entity is out of luck on this, and they will have to follow renewal guidelines whether they like it or not. The reason is, all that has changed is the government's status. In a private business, if I have contractual obligations of one sort or another and I sell my business to some other party without making diclosure of the business' liabilities (which would certainly include a contract to which the business was bound) then I have committed fraud. That is assuming I sell both my assets and my liabilities. I know of a landlord in Chicago who sold an apartment building once to another company and claimed in doing so that all the tenants in the building were only 'month-by-month' renters. Imagine what happened when the new owners discovered about 80 percent of the tenants had leases over a period of several months to two years! They rightfully sued the former landlord to get an adjustment in the sale. Now in your instance, if the 'old' government was dissolved as a simultaneous thing with the 'new' government being established (let us assume it was established via an act of the state legislature) then the 'old' government passed its assets and liabilities to the 'new' government. If it did not do so -- that is, if it simply repudiated all its obligations and went out of business as it were -- then that would be a different story. But I have never heard of a government doing this, and there would be a god-awful stink from the other creditors in the process if it happened, lawsuits a-plenty, etc. It is far more likely the new government opened with the debts and assets of the old government on its books. As a result, whatever 'credit' or status the cableco had built up or obtained as a result of its relationship with the old government is now available to it with the new government. If in fact there was no change in governments and the same government is in place now that was in place before, then the same thing is true: cableco is dealing with the same entity regardless of what the government chooses to call itself, and cableco is entitled to whatever rights it has under the circumstances. Do cableco/telco franchise agreements ever discuss something like this in their contract? I don't think I have ever seen it mentioned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Richard Simpson Subject: Comparing Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:58:43 -0800 Thoughts about choosing between two of the best ACD/PBX combos on the market: Lucent will typically be 30 -200% higher priced than a Fujitsu solution. Size of the ACD is a significant consideration for which product not to choose. Lucent is in a position to be all things to all people. Fujitsu has a narrower focus on ACD. Fujitsu performs best in a 10 - 100 person call center. Upper end limitations for Fujitsu are around 300 agents. Fujitsu customers that have expanded beyond 300 agents move to a more ACD centric product like Aspect or Rockwell rather than Lucent due to the requirements that no PBX vendor can give. Fujitsu offers a client/server architecture for their ACD. A client supervisor has full control of the ACD to Administer, view real time activity and manage reports. All call statistics are stored on an Oracle database that is open to the customer. PBX vendors are moving away from the proprietary world and into on open standards world. Fujitsu also offers a serial connection to the server that gives detailed information about a call that is ringing on an agents phone (phone extension, DNIS, ANI...) this information is useful for Computer Telephony Integrations. This same information is also available through a streaming telnet session to the server. The server connects to an IP network for network printing and LAN/WAN connected supervisors. 1st quarter '98 Fujitsu will also be releasing a client for the ACD agents. This client will allow information classically displayed on sign boards but will also include pull down wrap up codes sign in/sign out etc. This client application will also grow into a at home ACD agent optionally integrating voice over IP. Both are quality products. Richard Simpson CTI Design Engineer ------------------------------ From: force010@ix.netcom.com Subject: Availability of Wireless Service Quality Info Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:26:16 -0800 Organization: Netcom Reply-To: force010@ix.netcom.com As I watch the introduction of several new digital and/or PCS service providers into my area, I find I'm at a loss about how to find out certain critical information. Before I'd commit my business handphone users to a new service, I'd want to know about the quality of service offered by each of the contenders. I'd want to know: 1. "grade of service"; i.e., probability of getting blocking on a call made at the busiest time in the busiest area. 2. area penetration; i.e., some measure of how well the service fills in its nominal service area (the extent to which canyons, mountain shadows, etc., degrade the service). 3. growth headroom; i.e., how well the service is keeping its facilities ahead of its sales force. I would expect that industry-standard methods of measuring such service criteria would be specified by the local state agency (PUC) and would be available for inspection by potential customers. Can anyone provide information on how I can get this information or bring about its availability by the PUC? Dave ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:25:10 -0600 Monty Solomon quotes MICHAEL A. HILTZIK, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer > There could hardly have been a worse time for Marcia Spielholz's > cellular phone to fail her. [...] > For 10 terrifying minutes she played cat-and-mouse with a black > sedan along National Boulevard and up Castle Heights Avenue, one hand > on the wheel, the other frantically tapping 911 onto the keypad of her > cellular phone. [...] > Another try, another sickening busy. Finally her time ran out. Oh, stop. While I am certainly sympathetic to Ms. Spielholz, there are some factors here that don't seem to add up. First, the article states she was receiving rapid busy signals. It's unclear to me whether this refers to an all-circuits-are-busy signal from the CO or an out-of-range signal from the phone itself; I own two different cellphones, a car-mounted and an analog portable, and have heard both such warnings from both phones occasionally under various circumstances over the years. If it was an all-circuits-are-busy for 9-1-1, I cannot imagine, even in her understandable panic, that over the course of ten minutes worth of dialing and driving, she didn't try calling someone -- anyone -- other than 9-1-1. The Operator comes to mind. I have called in numerous emergencies over the years, and always done it by calling the Operator and requesting "(town name here) Police Emergency." My call is always transferred promptly. Even if I don't know my exact location and possibly get connected to the wrong town's Police Department, at least I've reached someone. But in a somewhat contradictory followup paragraph, it says that a study she commissioned showed that her 9-1-1 call should have been routed via another provider, since her carrier's signal was "too weak" to carry a 9-1-1 call in that area. But I thought the problem was a rapid-busy, as in all-circuits-are-busy, which doesn't seem to be a signal-strength issue at all as her call had already reached the land-line network. And if the "rapid busy" was in fact an out-of-range signal, then the phone was out of range, period. The number being dialed would be irrelevant. If Ms. Spielholz had configured her phone to switch to the alternate carrier or roam, either manually or automatically, perhaps she would then have been able to reach someone. Again, I have the utmost sympathy for Ms. Spielholz but this story seems inconsistent. Perhaps certain facts have been muddied in its path through the media. Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. email: acg@datalogics.com 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: cpz@intertrust.com (Carl Zwanzig) Subject: Re: Help! Grounding! Date: 18 Nov 1997 11:55:53 -0800 Organization: InterTrust Technologies Corp. In article Howard Eisenhauer wrote: > I'm in need of some advice on grounding matters. > I work for a company installing PCS equipment and some issues have been > raised about reference grounds for the radio and transmission equipment. > Issue #1: When an insulated ground lead (1/0 Cu. to be specific) is run > through a metallic conduit(11/2"-2" EMT) should the conduit be bonded to > the ground lead: > a.-where the lead enters and exits the conduit > b.-at one end only > c.-not at all By my recollection, the pipe should be bonded to the "safety" ground, not necessarily to the radio ground. > Issue #2: Is it permissable to secure the ground lead to walls, ceilings, > cable racks, slow moving installers or whatever with: > a.-mettalic clamps that encircle the lead > b.-mettalic clamps that don't encircle the the wire > c.-non-mettalic clamps only Any of the above should do. Unfortunately, slow-moving installers do eventually settle, so you should leave service loops. :-) > Please note that in most cases a seperate lightening protection system > will be in place for the outside plant structures/equipment although > in my experience lightning goes pretty much where it wants so the > possibility exists to have surge current on the reference ground. > If anyone can point me to some references to make the arguments one > way or another I would very much appreciate it. The first people that I'd be talking to is the RF equipment manufacturers. Follow that by looking at the local electrical codes. Also, even though you're in Canada, try the US National Electrical Code. z! Carl Zwanzig - Network manager & Systems janitor InterTrust Technologies Corp cpz"@"intertrust.com 408.222.6125 "Haven't they learned yet that adding more beer to a full glass just makes the table wetter, it doesn't get you more beer?" Ron Jarrell ------------------------------ From: samiller@BIX.com (Scott A. Miller) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 18 Nov 1997 19:59:48 GMT Organization: Galahad On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:32:43 GMT Bill Sohl of BL Enterprises wrote this re Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System: > internet phone is not reliable. As a business user, I can not > afford the hit or miss aspect of internet phone when dealing with > clients. I suspect I-phone will augment recreational/family voice > services, but I see little liklihood that it will kill AT&T, MCI, etc. Perhaps not kill. However, I'm about to restrict all my teenager's ld calls to Internet phone (the calls are 90% to people he's on chat with, so their connection is little problem). The tolls have been averaging about $100/month. The carrier revenue will drop from that figure to $0. $100/month * number_of_teenagers_in_the_same_boat could = lotsa_bucks ;>) Scott A. Miller samiller@bix.com samiller@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Splitting Exchange Designations: Feasible? Date: 18 Nov 1997 06:53:07 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Lee Winson wrote: > A major reason North America is running out of telephone exchanges is > competition by new local companies. At present, each new local > company must be assigned a full exchange code in each area served, > giving it 10,000 numbers per area. The problem is many new carriers > won't need anywhere need that many numbers, so numbers are wasted. > Would it be _feasible_ and _practical_ to change this so exchange codes > could be split between carriers per geographic area? (Codes would NOT > cover multiple geographic areas.) > There are two obvious issues: There are several non-obvious issues as well, all explored in depth at several Illinois Commerce Commission task force meetings last year and this year, in several other State PUCs workshops, at the ATIS Industry Numbering Committee meetings and in reports to the FCC. This and other ideas regarding "Number Pooling" are summarized in INC's first report on Number Pooling, a link off of: I believe the consensus was 1) it was workable, but costly and would take some time to develop all the support system changes needed and 2) using a slight modification to current Number Portability procedures would be a more efficient, cost-effective and quicker solution. But this was a good suggestion, Lee. It's possible that a solution that is quick, cheap and overlooked exists. If you find it, the industry would be VERY grateful for that knowledge. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:24:25 -0500 In article , aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) wrote: > Think you're interested in buying a new Ericsson digital TDMA phone > for your carrier's digital service? Think again. After a month of > poor service and mostly badly distorted connections (at least 2/3 of > all mobile calls) on AT&T's cellular system in New York, I finally had > to return the phone (an Ericsson DH368) for factory service. Ericsson > took two days to issue a return authorization, and that was only when > they intended to mail it (the customer service rep apparently lost my > fax number)... An update on Ericsson Customer Service: five days and still *no* return authorization. I'd sure hate to buy a switch from these people, if they can't handle simple cellphone service. ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.SPAMFORD-WALLACE.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? Date: 17 Nov 1997 15:38:44 GMT Organization: California State University, Long Beach In article , fmcclint@diemakers.com says: > I've used that number in the past here, so I tried to dial it just > to see what would happen. I got a bad number recording "Your call > cannot be completed as dialed. Please, check the number and dial > again. 21K" We are in the middle of changing from AT&T to MCI, so I > wasn't sure what I *should* be getting at this particular moment. I > then grabbed a line from our other GTE location and checked from one > of their trunks. Same thing. Next I grabbed a line from our SWB > location. There I got the AT&T jingle. Next I went out locally and > dialed 00. I got the MCI jingle. Ah, looks like a carrier problem. I get a similar recording when calling 700-555-4x4x ala "...as dialed -- 035T." Funny, but 700-4141 returns Sprint. matt ------------------------------ From: Fred McClintic Subject: Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:26:38 -0600 Addendum: Over the weekend I decided to try the number from my home phone. I have Telecom USA there as the PIC'ed carrier. As has been mentioned somewhere in the Digest prior, they have been acquired by MCI and just kept their brand name. I dial 1-700-555-4141 and what do I get? "Thank you for using MCI" (or words to that effect - I didn't write it down). Interesting ... on one hand, MCI doesn't publicize that Telecom USA is actually MCI service, but tells you when you dial and check. On the other hand, when they proudly sell it as their own service, they won't *let* you dial and check ... hmmm... Fred ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:47:39 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing In Volume 17 Issue 316, Stan Schwartz asked: > From the BellSouth Corporate web site, this is in conjunction > with the upcoming North Carolina NPA splits. Aren't "protected > exchanges" such as these what contribute to chewing up existing > NPA's?? Not necessarily: a cross-NPA-boundary NXX can be "protected" in one part of an NPA and re-used elsewhere within the same NPA if two conditions exist: (a) the local dialing plan requires 1+NPA+ for intra-NPA long-distance, and (b) the two locations are separated by a distance which requires long distance dialing to call from one to the other. An example. Up here in the frozen Midwest, we have the following situation: 608-326-xxxx Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, on the east bank of the Mississippi River, and at the western edge of 608. 319-873-xxxx McGregor, Iowa, on the west bank of the Mississippi River, right across from Prairie du Chien. 608-873-xxxx Stoughton, Wisconsin, over on the eastern side of 608, almost 100 miles from Prairie du Chien. From Prairie du Chien, a caller dials: 873-xxxx to reach McGregor: a cross-NPA local call which can be dialed as 7 digits. 1-608-873-xxxx to reach Stoughton: an intra-NPA long distance which must be dialed as 11 digits. So in this case, 873 is "protected" within the Prairie du Chien local calling area, but it's still used elsewhere within 608. The fact that it's protected does not, in and of itself, prevent its use elsewhere within the NPA. This same technique can be used in North Carolina because North Carolina already requires 1+NPA+ for intra-NPA long distance. Neal McLain nmclain@compuserve.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #320 ******************************