Date: 9 Sep 2000 06:15:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20000909101511.13805.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #47 Reply-To: editor@telecom-digest.org Sender: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Errors-To: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: a88450c4f18b5501f1b02bdb667b7998 Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Saturday, September 9 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 047 In this issue: Re: Dialing the US from France Re: wanted: anglophonic customer service contact at airtel spain (preferably with e-mail) Re: Dialing plans Re: Dialing the US from France Railroad Teletype use, 1959 to 1964 PC based Voice Switches lucent installation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 Sep 2000 23:42:43 -0400 From: John David Galt Subject: Re: Dialing the US from France Barry Lustig wrote: > Does anyone know what the dialing sequence is to make a direct dialed call > from France to the US? I have a friend who is vacationing in Paris and he > asked me how to do this. 00-1-areacode-number. The prefix for international calls is 00 in most of the world. I wonder if we'll ever conform to the standard. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 01:00:23 -0400 From: "Michael D. Sullivan" Subject: Re: wanted: anglophonic customer service contact at airtel spain (preferably with e-mail) "Brad Ackerman" wrote, > henry mensch wrote: > > > (all the replies i receive from here instruct me to dial numbers on > > my GSM phone that won't get me anywhere since i'm in north america > > where there's no GSM service) > > If that's the case, then you'd better get the tinfoil hat out -- I'm in > Cambridge (Massachusetts), my phone shows an S9+ signal, and it doesn't > do anything other than GSM. > > Of course, that doesn't really matter in this case, because the Deutsche > Telekom or Microcell network[1] (depending on your location) would be > the one trying to parse those numbers. If Henry has a true GSM-only phone, it doesn't work in North America, since true GSM uses the 900 MHz band, and there are no N. Am. GSM systems in that band. There are N. Am. systems using GSM adapted to the 1900 MHz PCS band. The principal GSM-1900 operators are VoiceStream, PowerTel, and BellSouth. VoiceStream and PowerTel have agreed to be acquired by DT, but the acquisition won't occur, if at all, until some time next year. The FCC applications haven't even been filed, and Fritz Hollings is trying to enact legislation that will stop them. At present, DT has no wireless holdings in N. Am. If Henry has a GSM multiband phone (i.e., works on both 900 and 1900 MHz), he should have access to all of his system's functions when in an area served by VoiceStream (not sure about the other operators). VoiceStream sells an Ericsson GSM "WorldPhone" that is multiband, and gives one access to all functions when in Europe. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 01:22:58 -0400 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Dialing plans > The prefix for international calls is 00 in most of the world. I > wonder if we'll ever conform to the standard. It's very unlikely. North America uses fixed length numbers and "en bloc" signalling, most other places use variable length numbers and "compelled" signalling. Computerized switching has pretty much wiped out the technical advantages of one over the other, but the cost of switching would be enormous. I occasionally hear the argument that 00, compelled signalling, etc. are international standards, implying that the US and Canada are telephonic rogue states. The reality is that the US phone system grew with a single dominant non-governmental phone company, AT&T, which developed its standards for use in the US, and anywhere else that wanted to use them, Canada and parts of the Caribbean. In Europe, the phones were run by each country's mutually suspicious government owned post office, so they needed a treaty organization to provide the political cover for the post offices to talk to each other. They could perfectly well have used AT&T's system, but for reasons having more to do with parochial national pride than technical merit, they invented their own. A similar dysfunctional process caused the bureaucrats to invent OSI networking rather than the American dominated TCP/IP, but OSI failed due to the minor problem that it didn't work. - -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 01:23:47 -0400 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Dialing the US from France 8 Sep 2000 13:34:06 -0400 Barry Lustig wrote: > Does anyone know what the dialing sequence is to make a direct dialed call >from France to the US? I have a friend who is vacationing in Paris and he >asked me how to do this. >>From most of Europe to direct dial to anywhere there is IDDD i.e. international direct distance dialing you dial 00 + the country code + area or city code + subscriber number. In the case of the USA a typical call to New York, New York USA would be dialed 00 1 212 736 5000 (00 to signify that it's international, 1 for the USA country code, 212 for the area code for New York, and 736 5000 for the subscriber number. Similarly to dial a call to Amsterdam, the Netherlands you would dial 00 31 20 647 4747 which is 00 for international, 31 for the country code for the Netherlands, 20 for the city code for Amsterdam and 647 4747 and you will reach KLM airlines. Odds are that this information should be readily available either in the telephone directory or if it is from a public phone there will be instructions on or nearby the phone. 00+ for international is pretty much a standard access in most countries in the world but noticeably not in North America. Also, if you dial the local access in France for the international operator they would probably tell you the same instructions. Even the local operator would probably be able to tell you how to dial your call. Joseph BTW, if the person direct dials the USA from their hotel they may be in for a big shock as many hotels put a hefty "surcharge" for international direct dial calls from rooms. Better to use a "home country direct" number. Many carriers in the USA have local toll-free numbers where you will talk to an operator in the US and the rate will be considerably lower though if you get the local debiting card that is used in that country's card phone you will probably get close to the regular direct dial rate which will be debited from the card. - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] +1 206 405 2052 [voice mail] +1 206 493 0706 [FAX] - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 01:59:20 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Railroad Teletype use, 1959 to 1964 Some interesting photographs and text about the Buffalo Central Terminal Telegraph Office are available at http://central.terminal.railfan.net/termtty.html - -- Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada http://www.ndallen.com/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 05:26:24 -0400 From: Peter R Cook Subject: PC based Voice Switches I am in the process of selecting the voice solution for a new small office - initially 20 staff - expansion to 60 plus conference rooms, reception etc. etc. etc. Trunking is ISDN-PRI The decision boils down to a traditional switch (Probably a Lucent Index) or one of the new "soft" PBX's based on a W2k PC server with voice processing cards (Artisoft's Televantage with Dialogic cards?). The costs are about the same once like for like facilities (operator console, voice mail etc.) are factored in. The main arguments in favour of the soft PBX are the very flexible and intuitive interface presented to users on their desktop PC, coupled with the ability to use cheap POTS analogue handsets (just to speak into!) This contrasts well with the "traditional" system that needs relatively expensive digital handsets to provide a decent human interface without long voice prompted menu systems. The downside of the "soft" PBX is (I suspect and am being told by the switch provider!) reliability and failure mode operations. A traditional switch is designed for reliability, failure management and has lower power consumption - hence longer power fail life than is possible (at a sensible cost) than a PC server based switch can currently achieve. Have any of the list members any experiences (bad or good) of the new generation of soft PBX's, and any comments on the choice I am trying to make. Regards - -- Peter R Cook - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 9 Sep 2000 06:04:53 -0400 From: jcdweaver@aol.com (JCDWEAVER) Subject: lucent installation not sure if anyone would know anything about this,but I heard a rumor about lucent selling off their installation and or their manufacturing in all or part.any info? - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #47 *******************************