Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA09189; Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:16:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 17:16:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199904272116.RAA09189@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #62 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Apr 99 17:16:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 62 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Australian RF Emission Standards Effect Cellular Telephones (John Stahl) Bizarre Cellular Cross-Talk (Linc Madison) MTP Level 2 Error Correction Question (Kyung Jun, Cho) MCI Weekend Rate Available Through 1010 Code? (Benjamin D. Lukoff) Good Conference Phone? (Fr Faure) The Complete PC's ->> Complete Communicator VoiceMail Card (Etop Udoh) GTE/PacBell 2001 Circuits (Chris Johnston) N11 Code For TT Relay (Linc Madison) Requesting Information on European Telecom Operators Market (A. Basquin) Seeking Name/Place Database (BV124@aol.com) Re: Portable Local Numbers: Why Aren't They? (Gideon Stocek) Re: Portable Local Numbers: Why Aren't They? (suhrig@bright.net) Re: Suffolk County, Long Island, NY (Bob Goudreau) Re: Suffolk County, Long Island, NY (Walter Dnes) Re: New Billing Charge: Local Number Portability (Seymour Dupa) Re: Cell Phones Not to be Used in Moving Vehicles in Brooklyn, OH (R Bean) Re: Cell Phones, blah blah blah (John Saxe) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:50:08 From: John Stahl Subject: Australian RF Emission Standards Effect Cellular Telephones Here in the US there have been a few reports lately with regards to some potentially negative results from testing cellular phone RF transmissions on human beings. Additionally some groups have come out against putting transmitting towers (cellular, PCS, radio and TV) nearby populated areas with the idea that the large amounts of RF energy near these antennae are a major concern for the well-being of the human and animal population. While the US government continues it's studies of this matter, some of the other major world governments have taken on making new rules and regulations regarding maximum RF power output levels. Recently it was reported in various news media that the Australian Government released standards for RF power emission from any and all transmitting devices including cellular (would effect both analog and digital types) telephones. (Official government Press Release URL detailing this new Australian Standard is: http://www.aca.gov.au/media/01-99.htm) This new standard called "The Australian Standard for Limits of Exposure to Radio frequency Fields" will soon be the "law" in Australia. Called out in it is the Australian standard AS 2772.2 (Radio frequency Radiation: Principles and Methods of Measurement - 300 kHz to 100 GHz) and Standard ASNZS 2772.1 (Int):1998, (The Australian Standard For Limits of Exposure to Radio frequency Fields). These two 'standards' contain all of the pertinent data supporting new Australian limits on maximum power allowances for any and all transmitting devices. Incidentally, in these standards is reference to US based standards groups such as the IEEE. These documents contain a definition of this maximum transmitting power in terms of SAR (Specific Absorption Rate). The new Australian maximum SAR for general public exposure to any transmitter is 0.08 W/kg. The standard AS 2772.1 details how this pertains to human beings. The internet site where additional info on this potentially 'controversial' subject can be found is: http://www.aca.gov.au/index/default.htm. There is also a site where the Australian Standards group is located for availability of these standards documents: http://www.standards.com.au I have contacted several of the ACA people and have been supplied with some additional background information regarding the potential health issues they have found in their studies. If anyone is interested in some further reading materials, please contact me and I will be happy to forward to you. It could be just a matter of time before the US government 'feels' the pressure from all of the standards group's for it to impose limitations on RF energy output! John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom and Data Systems' Consultants Endwell, NY USA email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 21:42:32 -0700 From: Telecom@LincMad.com.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Bizarre cellular cross-talk Organization: LincMad Consulting I was talking on my landline POTS phone today, to a friend who was calling from some variety of cellphone or PCS phone. Suddenly, as clear as day, I heard someone else's conversation, something along the lines of "Dad, can you hear me now?" I hadn't realized that my friend was on a wireless phone, so I thought perhaps someone was monkeying with the demarc on one end or the other. The cut-in was only for about 20 or 30 seconds, before the other party/parties went away. Kinda makes you wonder ... ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must delete the "NOSPAM" << ------------------------------ From: Kyung Jun, Cho Organization: DACOM Corp. Subject: MTP Level 2 Error Correction Question Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 04:56:06 GMT There are two Error Correction Method Basic and PCR(Preventive Cyclic retransmission) in ITU-T Q703. We use the basic error correction method in domestic area, and I know most international carrier use PCR method in Internationa SS7 span. I would like to know if there is any problem when we interconnect between national exchange(BASIC error correction method) and International exchange(PCR method) via ss7 signaling link. ------------------------------ From: Benjamin D. Lukoff Subject: MCI Weekend Rate Available Through 1010 Code? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:51:15 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Hello all, I just read an article on saving money on long distance calls at http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/smartbuy/deals/3172.asp ; it reads in part, "Know the 1010 codes. If you know how to use the 1010 system, there are hundreds of unadvertised specials each week. For instance, I use the MCI weekend program of 5 cents a minute, even though AT&T is my main carrier during the week. That way, I cut the cost of my weekend calls in half, and I still have a very good rate the rest of the time." I wasn't aware that MCI's "5 cent Sundays" rate, and in fact, any special rates, were available by dialing 1010xxx codes before the number. I seem to remember being charged more using Sprint's 10xxx code a few years ago than I would have had I been a subscriber. Has anyone else had experience with this, and is there a good place, preferably on the Internet, where one can find a list of companies with their 1010xxx codes? I was looking for a list about four years ago and only managed to get one by contacting the FCC through Fedworld. They would have charged me for it had I not been an undergraduate at the time, and it was rather confusing. Thanks, Benjamin Lukoff bd087 (at) scn.org "It's the sale of the century and we all know that everything must go" --Andy Partridge ------------------------------ From: ffaure@bigSPAMGAZETTAIDAMEfoot.com (F. Faure) Subject: Good Conference Phone? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:21:47 GMT Organization: What me, organized? Reply-To: ffaure@bigSPAMGAZETTAIDAMEfoot.com All, I need to buy a new conference telephone, as everyone complains that the Panasonic KX-TS700FR-B we bought a couple of months ago is terrible. Should have done my homework instead of trusting that salesman ... Could someone recommend other brands? I found infos on 3Com/USR's site, and also www.phonezone.com: 3Com ConferenceLink CS1000 Speakerphone ConferenceLink CS1050 Speakerphone ConferenceLink CS1055 Speakerphone ConferenceLink CS1070-1 Speakerphone ConferenceLink CS1075-N Speakerphone ConferenceLink CS1075-S Speakerphone ConferenceLink CS850 Speakerphone ConferenceLink CS870-N Speakerphone ConferenceLink CS870-S Speakerphone PhoneZone Hello Direct ConferencePro Polycom SoundPoint Pro Polycom SoundPoint for AT&T Polycom SoundStation EX Polycom SoundStation Polycom SoundStation Premier with Satellite Other? Thanks for any tip, FF ------------------------------ From: Etop Udoh Subject: The Complete PC's ->> Complete Communicator VoiceMail Card Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:02:12 -0700 Organization: ....FILE SERVER FROM HELL.... Is anyone familiar with the company "The Complete PC" which came out with the "Complete Communicator" voice mail card and some accessories for them ... I have several of their cards including my latest one, the Window's Version of the card. I have the Window's Software, but I'm missing the DOS software which installs itself in a directory called "CCDOS" ?? I believe there are several versions of this software, and the last version which came off of their bbs, or ftp site (now BOCA) is not quite 100% compatible ... so I need one that is a little older than that one. Etop Udoh | Southern Polytechnic State University [89-##] P.O. Box 4234 | Http://s_druid.home.mindspring.com Marietta, Ga 30061 | s_druid@mindspring.com "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most" ------------------------------ From: Chris Johnston Subject: GTE/PacBell 2001 Circuits Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:01:17 -0700 Organization: Netus Internetworking, Southern California, USA Hi. Working on wiring two offices together. I can get a 2001 circuit from GTE and my PacBell rep is waffling. My problem is that no DSL router manufacturer has been able to tell me if their product would support such an arrangement. Flowpoint and Adtran have two desireable products good for truly SDSL access. 768K or 1100K access is ideal for this application. Anyone have thoughts? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:11:29 -0700 From: Telecom@LincMad.com.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: N11 Code For TT Relay Organization: LincMad Consulting There has been some discussion of assigning a national N11 code for voice calls to Text Telephones (TT's, formerly known as TDD's, Telephone Devices for the Deaf, or TTY's, TeleTYpewriters). I've seen some proposals to assign a pair of N11's, one for voice-to-TT and the other for TT-to-voice. It seems to me that it should be reasonable to assign only one N11 code for both directions. On each call, the relay operator is dealing with a TT on one end and a voice call on the other, so the issue of origination should be inconsequential. TT callers are already told to press the space bar when dialing 911; the same instruction would apply for the new N11 service. Personally, I think that this is an idea that should go forward. Is it percolating through any official bodies at the moment? ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must delete the "NOSPAM" << ------------------------------ From: Anthony Basquin Subject: Requesting Information on European Telecom Operators Market Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:45:53 +0200 Organization: UUNet Help me in defining the environment around telecom operators in Europe. MY QUESTION ARE : - How many Telecom operators and ISP's are offering E-business services or products or plan to do so, in Europe? Who are they? - What are the most important operators acting in Europe in terms of annual turn-over, geographic coverage, and complementary of services? Any expert or non-expert feedback will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Anthony Basquin ------------------------------ From: BV124@aol.com Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 14:15:29 EDT Subject: Re: Seeking Name/Place Database Reply-To: BV124@aol.com The following identifes the source of a nifty WINDOWS application that does what you ask for and more! To order by US-mail: Robert Ricketts The PC Consultant PO Box 42086 Houston, TX 77242-2086 To order by e-mail: Internet e-mail: robert@pcconsultant.com To order by phone: 888/456-7950 Toll Free I am away from the office occasionally. My voice-mail system will answer if I am away. You can leave your name and number to call back (I'm alerted when a message is received) or go ahead and place your order. The latter is faster! To get the latest version, connect to our web site: www.pcconsultant.com If this URL breaks for some reason, please send e-mail to the above address asking for the current URL. ------------------------------ From: Gideon Stocek Subject: Re: Portable Local Numbers: Why Aren't They? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:05:30 -0700 Organization: Octel Communications Corp. Can someone provide a good reference for changes required to ISUP and/or TCAP application requirements for LNP? I'm curious as to how this is all supposed to work. Thanks, Gideon Stocek ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net Subject: Re: Portable Local Numbers: Why Aren't They? Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:11:28 GMT Organization: bright.net Ohio On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:03:47 -0400, rhyre@medplus.com (Ralph Hyre) wrote: > What's the real issue with Local Number portability? SNIP > Why can't the same process be adopted for local calls? In Ohio, I'm > already being assessed a 'Local Number Portability charge' to make this > happen. Presumably this pays for administration of the as-yet-nonexistent > database. Local number porting is in use in Ohio. For now it is only porting between the ILEC and CLECS in the same exchange. As I understand it the FCC has not yet allowed porting outside the original exchange until they see how many problems are generated. We have had problems with several ported numbers in the Lancaster Ohio exchange. ------------------------------ From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:32 EDT Subject: Re: Suffolk County, Long Island, NY wdag@my-dejanews.com (W.D.A. Geary) wrote: >> Does anyone know what the NEW " AREA CODE " will be ? >> I suggest " 783 " for SUF > Pace to 1-800-FLOWERS, codes that actually had alphabetical meaning > went out with hula hoops. Certainly not. In fact, until four years ago, mnemonic values for *area* codes (as opposed to local exchange prefixes) were not possible at all, since no letters are assigned to the "0" or "1" keys, which made up the middle digit on all area codes created before 1995. Since the opening up of the NNX numbering space for NPA assignment, there have been numerous examples of new codes that were chosen with specific mnemonic values in mind. For example, Canada's three territories (Yukon, Nunavut and NWT) are at the TOP (= 867) of the world. Just last week, Tennesseans were publicizing the fact that their state's next NPA will be VOLunteer (865). And the breakup of NPA 809 over the past four years has lead to quite a few Caribbean islands getting their own mnemonic codes: Anguilla 264 (ANG) Antigua 268 (ANT) Bahamas 242 (BHA) British Virgin Islands 284 (BVI) Grenada 473 (GRE) Montserrat 664 (MOI) Puerto Rico 787 (PUR or PTR) St. Lucia 758 (SLU) St. Vincent & the Grenadines 784 (SVG) Trinidad & Tobago 868 (TnT) Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The northern suburbs of Chicago have 847, which was intended as VIP for Very Important People. PAT] ------------------------------ From: waltdnes@interlog.com (Walter Dnes) Subject: Re: Suffolk County, Long Island, NY Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 10:53:26 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:42:46 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom wdag@my-dejanews.com (W.D.A. Geary)wrote: > I also think that we will _soon_ have to go to either 8-digit > local numbers or _variable length_ numbers (terminating dialing > sequence with # key, just like SEND on cellphone). This would > certainly simplify telephone-number entries in address books and > business cards/advertisements, and allow something like: > 1-680-555-1212# (base number for Wardenclyffe Microtechnology; voice phone) > 1-680-555-1212-1# (fax machine) > 1-680-555-1212-2# (pager) > 1-680-555-1212-3# (cellphone) > 1-680-555-1212-41# (data line 1) > 1-680-555-1212-42# (data line 2) > ISDN already supports a "subaddress" that could be used for this. This raises a question about extensions at a PBX. Does the telco have to assign real phone numbers for extensions? Using the above example, could Wardenclyffe Microtechnology have a base number of 1-680-555-1212 followed by a 4-digit extension? If so, the one phone number could provide a virtual numberspace of 10^n numbers where n is the number of digits in the extension. Let's take a real-life example. I have a *PULSE* phone line, not tone-dialing. My fax+answering machine, once it answers, accepts *TONE* sequences for retreiving messages, etc. I've also set a passcode that is required to accept faxes. If I want to "take" some paper document home to work-from-home, I can fax myself the document. People I give the passcode to can also fax me. Only the junk-faxers lose. If there's any worse waste than mostly-unused exchanges for separate carriers, it's the city bus info lines with one phone number for each stop. One phone number plus an extension could accomplish the same task. Does every desk at a large office building need to have a "real" 7-digit phone number, or could an extension also provide a huge virtual numberspace? And while we're at it, does every desktop computer at a big office building *REALLY* need its own "real" IP address, or would a reserved-for-internal-use 10.X.X.X IP not serve the purpose? This waste is part of why IPv4 is facing the same exhaust problem as NANPA. The company could reserve 1/10th of its current usage of "real" IP addresses, and dole them out via DHCP and/or VPN when someone wants to go outside the LAN. It would probably do great wonders for... a) security; because the real internal addresses would be non- routable, except for the firewall/gateway/mailserver/etc. b) productivity; employees would know that any non-work usage of their internet connections would be very closely monitored and likely noticed. Walter Dnes ------------------------------ From: Seymour Dupa Subject: Re: New Billing Charge: Local Number Portability Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:39:00 GMT Is *no* other Local Exchange Carrier available to go to even if we wanted to? John Will Roberts wrote: > Local Number Portability (LNP) is the FCC-mandated ability to keep your > same telephone number even if you switch Local Exchange Carriers. --- If You Always Do the Things You've Done, You'll Always Have the Things You Got. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cell Phones Not to be Used in Moving Vehicles in Brooklyn, Ohio Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 20:00:37 CDT From: Ron Bean merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) writes: > This is class envy. Considering how cheap cellphones are now, I'm not sure who is being envious of whom. I see nothing wrong with requiring a hands-free phone while the vehicle is moving. For the same reason, I think we should require that radios be built into the dashboard, and make it illegal to hold a portable radio up to your ear while driving. If you can't afford a built-in radio, too bad. > If you outlaw cell phones, please also outlaw: > drive through restaurants I think you're supposed to *stop* before you place your order. In any case these are on private property, so traffic laws don't apply. > babies on board They're supposed to be strapped in. Maybe we should outlaw breastfeeding while driving? > children in the back seat ("Don't make me pull over!") Better to pull over than to make empty threats to your kids while driving (they catch on real fast). > doing makeup in the rearview mirror > reading a book I don't think anyone would argue with these. > using a map This is dangerous, and I refuse to do it. I either find a place to stop, or keep driving around until I'm hopelessly lost and *then* find a place to stop. > But let's be fair here. Let's outlaw EVERYTHING that could be a > distraction to the driver. Many people would like to do exactly that. The simplest solution might be to pass a law that says that if you're in an accident while talking on a cellphone, you're assumed to be 100% at fault. Then let people decide whether it's worth the risk. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: While it is not illegal to operate a television set (portable of course) in an automobile, I believe in many places it is illegal to have one in the front seat, where it is presumed the driver would be watching it instead of the road. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:25:17 -0400 From: John Saxe Subject: Re: Cell Phones, blah blah blah Randal L. Schwartz wrote: >>This is class envy. I don't know about Portland, but here in "greater" New York City (And that includes Brooklyn and--unfortunately--Northern New Jersey where I live) cell phones seem to be passed out to anyone who can make a fist without instructions. There doesn't seem to be any "class" distinctions except for the lack of it shown by people who display them as accessories, and use them in public with that loud tone of voice that is designed to draw attention to themselves. The brilliant Max Cannon sums up the issue of DWCP (driving with cell phone) in one of his Red Meat cartoons at: http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/comics/rm_407.htmlx. Oh, by the way, I have one -- a Nextel as big as a brick, which I keep in my case for ballast and occasional calls when off site. John Saxe, Technical Support Dept. (212)423-3576 "No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets." --Edward Abbey ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #62 *****************************