TELECOM Digest Volume 14 : Issue 400
TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Oct 94 12:34:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue
400
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A.
Townson
FCC Finalizes Rules for Big LEO's (Bob Keller)
Journal Review: Communications Standard Review (Elaine Baskin)
New UK Dialing Codes (Richard Cox)
Data Scopes and DSU's (Craig Hollenbaugh)
Various Telephone Questions (Andrew A. Poe)
NYNEX/MA and NXX Assignments (Scott D. Fybush)
T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay (Jeff Buckingham)
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 at no charge 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: 708-329-0571
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.
*
**********************************************************************
*
Additionally, 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.
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 Oct 1994 17:07:22 EDT
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: FCC Finalizes Rules for Big LEO's
Report No. DC-2660
ACTION IN DOCKET CASE
October 14, 1994
COMMISSION ADOPTS FINAL RULES AND POLICIES FOR "BIG LEOS"
(CC DOCKET 92-166)
The Commission has adopted final rules for the licensing and operation
of low earth orbit mobile satellite systems above 1 GHz ("Big LEOs")
to provide a variety of voice and data mobile services worldwide. The
systems will operate in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz frequency
bands.
Big LEO service can offer an almost limitless number of services,
including ubiquitous voice and data mobile services, position location
services, search and rescue communications, disaster management
communications, environmental monitoring, paging services, facsimile
transmission services, cargo tracking, and industrial monitoring and
control. This service will help meet the demand for a seamless,
nationwide, and eventually global communications system that is
available to all and that can offer a wide range of voice and data
telecommunications services.
In addition to enhancing the competitive market for mobile
telecommunications services in areas served by terrestrial mobile
services, this new mobile satellite service will offer Americans in
rural areas that are not otherwise linked to the communications
infrastructure immediate access to a feature-rich communications
network. Moreover, Big LEO systems can extend these benefits
throughout the world, and can provide those countries that have not
been able to develop a nationwide communications service with an
"instant" global and national telecommunications infrastructure. This
network can be used to provide both basic and emergency communications
virtually anywhere in the world. Operation outside the United States,
however, will be subject to the regulatory requirements of the
countries in which these systems may seek to operate.
The United States has led the world in developing and implementing
satellite technology and the Big LEO service represents an opportunity
for the United States to continue its leadership role. The Big LEO
service has the potential to stimulate enormous economic growth both
here and abroad. It is potentially a multi-billion dollar industry,
with opportunities for economic growth in a variety of markets and
sub-markets. Estimated costs to construct the space segments range
from $97 million to over $2 billion each. Ground segments will cost
hundreds of millions of dollars more. As the service becomes
operational, there will be research and development, production,
marketing and service administration, as well as related jobs in
industries manufacturing the necessary hardware.
As of the June 1991 cut-off date, the Commission had received six
applications for Big LEOs. The applicants are: Ellipsat Corporation
(now doing business as Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc.); Motorola
Satellite Communications, Inc.; Constellation Communications, Inc.;
Loral Cellular Systems Corp. (now doing business as Loral Qualcomm
Partnership); TRW, Inc.; and AMSC Subsidiary Corporation. These
applicants will be given an opportunity to file amended applications
that conform with the new rules. Amended applications, requesting
construction, launch and operating authority, must be filed by
November 16, 1994, in order to receive continued consideration.
However, applicants will be given until January 1996 to demonstrate
compliance with the financial standard adopted by the Commission. The
Commission noted, however, that complete applications filed on
November 16, 1994 will be processed immediately, with action
anticipated by January 31, 1995.
The Commission adopted the spectrum sharing plan proposed in its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket, which will allow for
licensing of five systems. The plan will assign code-division
multiple access (CDMA) systems to 11.35 MHz of shared bandwidth at
1610-1621.35 MHz and a time division/frequency division multiple
access (TDMA/FDMA) system to 5.15 MHz of dedicated bandwidth at
1621.35 -1626.5 MHz. The Commission also adopted an interim plan to
be used in the event that the operations of GLONASS, the Russian
Global Navigation System, interferes with MSS operations in the lower
frequency portion of the 1610-1626.5 MHz band. The interim plan will
permit the CDMA licensees to expand by 1.25 MHz into the designated
TDMA/FDMA band at 1621.35-1622.60 MHz. The Commission also stated
that if only one CDMA system is implemented, the system's assignment
would not be automatically reduced to 8.25 MHz, as proposed in the
Notice. Rather, the Commission stated that any decision would be
deferred until, and if, the need arises. The plan also allows CDMA
systems to share the entire 16.5 MHz of downlink spectrum at
2483.5-2500 MHz. If all six applicants are found to be qualified, the
licenses will be auctioned.
The Commission has adopted qualification criteria designed to ensure
that those granted licenses are capable of expeditiously implementing
state-of-the-art systems that will serve the public interest. The
requirements include:
-- A low-Earth orbit design;
-- The capability of providing global service;
-- The capability of providing continuous service throughout
the United States;
-- A stringent financial showing identical to the one used
in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service; and
-- A construction timetable with a reporting requirement.
If an auction is necessary, the Commission will conduct simultaneous
multiple round bidding of small (2.0625 MHz) band segments, in which
entities will be permitted to acquire up to four band segments each,
assuring at least two licensees.
The Commission also adopted technical coordination rules to achieve
sharing between MSS and other services operating in the band or in
adjacent bands.
The Commission plans to begin to issue conditional licenses in January
1995, although it probably will not be able to authorize feeder link
frequencies at that time.
The Commission also determined that Big LEO space segment capacity may
be offered to commercial mobile service providers on a non-common
carrier basis, provided that the Big LEO service offering does not
meet the definition of a common carrier service.
Action by the Commission October 13, 1994, by Report and Order (FCC
94-261). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness, and
Chong.
News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet or Audrey Spivack at (202)
418-0500. Common Carrier Bureau contact: Fern Jarmulnek at (202)
634-1682.
- FCC -
Robert J. Keller, P.C. (Federal Telecommunications Law)
<rjk@telcomlaw.com> Tel: 301-229-5208 Fax: 301-229-6875
4200 Wisconsin Ave NW #106-261 Washington DC 20016-2146
finger me for info on F.C.C. Daily Digests and Releases
------------------------------
Date: 17 Oct 94 16:59:00 EDT
From: Elaine Baskin <72540.113@compuserve.com>
Subject: Journal Review: Communications Standard Review
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This article might be called a
'review of a review' ... a look at two publications from the
Communications Standard Review, edited by Elaine Baskin. If
you believe Ms. Baskin's work might be helpful in your own,
contact her for a subscription. PAT]
Two standards journals can help you stay informed about telecom
standards-in-progress:
Communications Standards Review (CSR) reports on US
(Telecommunications
Industry Association - TIA) and International Telecommunications
Union, Telecommunications Sector (ITU-T, formerly CCITT) Standards
Committee meetings in Wide Area Network data communications, both wire
and wireless, since 1990. CSR provides detailed technical information
to assist in communications product planning and specification. The
journal is published ten times per year. Committees covered include:
TIA TR-29 Facsimile Systems & Equipment
TIA TR-30 Data Transmission Systems and Equipment
TIA TR-41 User-Premises Telecom Requirements
TIA TR-45 Public Wireless 800 MHz Standards
TIA TR-46 Wireless & Personal Comm. 1800 MHz
ITU T Study Group 8 Telematic Services (including Facsimile)
ITU T Study Group 14 (Formerly SG XVII) Data Communications over the
GSTN
(PSTN)
ITU T Study Group 15 Transmission Systems and Equipment
These committees cover:
* Facsimile (incl. Class 1 and 2 interfaces)
* Telephone line modems (V.34)
* Digital interfaces (e.g., EIA/TIA 232)
* FCC Part 68 technical issues
* Analog/digital cellular standards
* Communications Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)
* 56 kbit/s & 64 kbit/s DSU/CSUs
* Telematic terminals
* ISDN rate adaption
* Cellular data communications
* Personal Communications Systems (800 MHz & 1800 MHz)
For even more detail on specific work, subscribers may use the CSR
library for a fee. Subscribers may order copies of public
work-in-progress documents referenced in CSR. Such orders can be
delivered quickly via overnight carrier or facsimile. (Completed
standards should be ordered from the appropriate standards
organization or distributor.)
Communications Standards Summary (CSS) is a TIA-authorized
publication, first published in February, 1994. CSS reports the
status all TIA TR- committee active projects and recently completed
standards four times per year. You can track the standards work of
nine TIA committees (and 34 subcommittees), and hundreds of standards
projects.
TIA Committees projects in CSS:
TR-8 Land Mobile Services
TR-14 Point to Point Communications
TR-29 Facsimile Systems & Equipment
TR-30 Data Transmission Systems and Equipment
TR-32 Personal Radio Equipment
TR-34.2 Earth Station Satellite Antenna
TR-41 User-Premises Telecom Requirements
TR-45 Public Wireless 800 MHz Standards
TR-46 Wireless & Personal Comm. 1800 MHz
Information about each project includes:
Project Number / committee
Title and description of the Project
Expected publication ID, if available
Editor's name, company affiliation
Current project status
Related work in other committees
In summary:
CSR provides timely detailed coverage of the lower layer (OSI layers
1-3) wide area networking (WAN, below 1 Mbit/s) technical standards
committee work, in TIA and ITU-T. The price is $795.00 per year.
CSS provides a quarterly summary of all TIA TR-committee active
projects and
recently completed standards. The price is $250.00 per year.
To request a sample copy of either or both journals (no obligation),
contact Elaine Baskin at:
Communications Standards Review
757 Greer Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303-3024 USA
Tel: +1 415 856-9018
Fax: +1 415 856-6591
e-mail: 72540.113@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:02:54 -0400
From: richard@mandarin.com
Subject: New UK Dialing Codes
adam ashby <adama@bnr.ca> wrote:
>> I was wondering if anyone has yet updated the UK area codes
>> and made them available.
We are working on this now. Unfortunately Oftel keep announcing new
codes, and as soon as we have a definitive list, we find it is out of
date! That wouldn't be too bad, since all lists of codes suffer from
a similar problem, but there are a block of allocations which Oftel
haven't yet published (allegedly because the allocations were made by
BT before Oftel took over responsibility for the allcoation process).
We'll have a new list out on the 'Net, just as soon as we can.
For geographic codes, in most cases the translation is to put a "1"
before the active part of the code. For example, 0222 becomes 01222.
In five of our larger cities (Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds, Nottingham
and Leicester) the code changes completely and local numbers will also
change from six to seven digits. In Hull and Jersey local numbers
also
change from five digits to six.
>> As a related aside -- all NT DMS switches in the UK were ready
>> for the new codes before August 1st.
But were they ready for Caller ID, due to be introduced here in just a
few weeks time (November 5th) ?
>> OfTel (the regulatory body) is currently discussing a new
>> (proposed) numbering plan for the UK :-
>> 00 - International (current)
>> 01 - PSTN (current)
>> 02 - possible netowrk expansion (new)
>> 03 - New mobile allocations (new)
>> 04 - New mobile allocations (new)
>> 05 - FreePhone numbers (new)
>> 06 - FreePhone numbers (new)
>> 07 - Personal numbers (new) - what are those???
>> 08 - Premium rate (new)
>> 09 - Premium rate (new)
I suspect there are a few inaccuracies here. 02 is intended for a new
form of "regional" numbering to run in parallel with 01, rather than
for expansion (in fact there is very little room for expansion on 01
(a fact that worries many of us because we see it as a way to force
people to change against their will to 02, due to another "shortage of
numbers" - and 02 numbers may well be on a different tariff basis).
Mobile and Pagers were to go to 03 but this has now been changed to
04. 07 is indeed for personal numbers: i.e. numbers that translate to
other numbers, where the translation can be changed remotely by the
customer. 08 will be used for all specially tariffed services,
whether Freefone (our 0800), or Premium Rate: with 03, 06, and 09
being kept in reserve. The jury is still out on what will happen to
05.
Richard D G Cox
Mandarin Technology, PO Box 111, Penarth, South Glamorgan CF64 3YG
Voice: 0956 700111; Fax: 0956 700110; VoiceMail: 0941 151515
e-mail address: richard@mandarin.com; PGP2.6 public key on request
------------------------------
From: csh@alert.com (Craig Hollenbaugh)
Subject: Data Scopes and DSU's
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:24:03 GMT
Reply-To: csh@alert.com
Organization: Alert Centre, Inc.
Help - I've been doinking with this one for a while, hopefully,
someone has seen it before.
I'm using Comsphere 3610 DSU's for a 56k SDLC circuit. My problem is:
The only way I can keep the circuit up (RTS/CTS) is to have the
datascope plugged into the circuit and turned on. Turn off the scope,
RTS goes away. Has anyone seen this kind of reaction before? I've
BTW - Host is MVS, my end is an R/S 6000 running SNA.
Craig Hollenbaugh csh@alert.com 303-488-7738
Alert Centre, Inc
------------------------------
From: Andrew A. Poe <sixycd@dip.eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Various Telephone Questions
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:36:25 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept.
OK, I've got some questions here about this wonderful device known as
the telephone.
1. 800 numbers. I got this letter from Ameritech (my local phone
company) apologizing profusely for the fact that certain 800 numbers
are now billable. From what I've read here, I get the impression that
the calls themselves are not billable, but the information received
through such calls are. Is this true? This makes sense. Ameritech
announced that an 800 number must describe its rates in the first
minute of the conversation, and that if you hang up before the rates
are described, you will be billed nothing.
2. 900/976 numbers. What's the difference here? The only thing I
know
about these numbers is that I've seen commercials for them, some phone
sex lines, some astrology hotlines, and so forth. Who determines the
rate? The carrier? The service? 900 is an "area code," right? While
976 is an "exchange?"
3. Every so often, I see an ad for a phone service that doesn't have
a 900 or a 976. What are these? I've heard stories that these places
will take your number and call you back collect, or will take a credit
card number and bill to your credit card (sounds risky to me). If
they call you back collect, who determines the rate of the call? The
carrier? The service? How can you call someone collect and charge
more for the call? Or is there some way you can use some non-900,
non-976 number to charge the caller an exorbitant sum?
4. How old are area codes/direct dialing?
5. 800 numbers overseas. My overseas calling card has an AT&T 800
service, where you can call AT&T 800 numbers from anywhere in the
world;
of course, the calls are not toll free overseas, which seems perfectly
reasonable. Is there a way to dial any 800 number overseas, provided
you're willing to pay for the call? How about 900 numbers?
6. Toll lines specifically by carrier. Getting back to phone ads;
I've
seen some phone sex ads that say just dial 10333-1-xxx-xxx-xxxx. As
this
is the Sprint access code, I assume that Sprint is the one that
charges
you an arm and a leg. But what if I were to dial that number via
AT&T?
Would it even work, or would I get some message saying "You may only
dial
this number via Sprint!"
7. How come there aren't any area codes numbered x11? Are they
forbidden, or is it just that no one has gotten around to assigning
them yet?
8. Does Mexico have area codes or doesn't it? I have two 1993-4
phone
books, from different companies. One has the country code of Mexico
as
52. The other has it as 1, like the US and Canada, and lists area
codes
for different parts of Mexico.
Thanks for responses to this rambling information. I greatly
appreciate
it.
Andrew A. Poe
522 HILL ST
ANN ARBOR MI 48104-3223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+1 313 665-4920
andrew.poe@umich.edu
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you certainly squeezed a lot of
questions into one message. Let me try to answer a few for you. I will
defer on question one (billable 800) simply because later today or
tomorrow I shall have an issue of the Digest devoted to that topic.
The main difference between 900/976 is that 900 is usually (but does
not have to be) national in range, while 976 is usually limited in
reachability to a specific community. 976 is usually limited to one-
way outbound recorded messages while 900 can be interactive. 900 is
a service code, not technically an 'area code'. 976 is a 'prefix'.
Information Providers who use regular numbers have to have some way of
billing the caller. They do so by credit card frequently, and some
have
an arrangement with a telephone company to enter the charges into the
telephone billing system. With credit cards, as you point out, it is
quite risky: the information providers are constantly being defrauded
by people using bogus card numbers, etc. Oh? You meant it the other
way around; that there is a risk to the consumer of the services? Yes,
that happens also. If they collect their money by calling back
'collect'
then they have an arrangement with some telco or long distance carrier
to put the 'collect charges' into the billing system at whatever
amount
is specified.
Area codes were devised in the late 1940's and came into common use
during the middle to late 1950's as automatic phone service (that is,
subscriber dials call) became common and manual service was being
phased out.
A lot of carriers have gateway points in the USA where you can connect
for the purpose of dialing an 800 number in the USA. 900 numbers are
strictly for use in the USA; there is no way to call one from outside
this country.
If an information provider can guarentee to a long distance carrier a
certain amount of traffic per month on an *exclusive basis* --
typically
many thousands of dollars per monnth in traffic -- the carrier may
find
it to its advantage to bypass the local telco in the process, and the
resulting termination fees the local telco gets paid. The carrier then
is wired direct to the subscriber and the carrier shares the savings
with the IP. The IP makes his living from this sharing of the savings
the long distance carrier receives on termination fees. In turn, the
IP must refuse to accept calls sent through any other carrier; he
won't
get paid for those calls.
There are no area codes numbered 'x11' because it is a dumb idea. How
would you like to live in area code 911 or area code 411? As far as
Mexico is concerned, I have no idea what they do there and anyway,
this
response is getting too long. Next time you write, please confine your
message to one topic at a time. That applies to other writers also.
PAT]
------------------------------
From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush)
Subject: NYNEX/MA and NXX Assignments
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 04:15:34 GMT
As with every other telco, NYNEX here in Massachusetts has been
assigning a lot of new NXX's lately, what with all the fax machines
and cellular phones and pagers and such. But I have to wonder
sometimes whether anyone's awake at the switch when it comes to
deciding WHICH NXX to assign where.
617-647 has long been assigned to the Waltham CO (my home CO, as it
happens, though I'm on one of the old TWinbrook/89X NXXs). The
Waltham CO serves the entire city of Waltham and much of the adjacent
town of Weston, Mass. Weston shares a small, but significant boundary
with the town of Natick. That boundary is also the 508/617 line. And
now, NYNEX has assigned 508-647, in, you guessed it, Natick!
I can only imagine the confusion this is likely to cause among the
many people who travel between the Natick area and the Waltham area
daily. It's even possible that two adjacent homes along Mass. Route
30 could end up having similar or even identical 647-XXXX numbers, one
in 508, the other in 617.
What makes it all the more puzzling is that there are so many
available NXXs left in 508, including 652, 654, and 659, all of which
would fit the established 65X pattern for Natick exchanges (651, 653,
and 655 are the current Natick NXXs.)
Anyone have a good explanation for this one?
Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The line has to be drawn somewhere, and
invariably some people in one area code will sit fifty feet away from
some people in the other area code. In large metropolitan urban areas,
there is no easy way to avoid some very arbitrary boundary lines these
days. It would be different had there been some advance planning forty
years ago in how prefixes were assigned and boundaries laid out. But
now, to avoid massive confusion for everyone, things are done the way
they are done. I could show you as an example the northwest side of
Chicago (the city itself) were a very ragged and at times obscure
boundary line separates the city itself (312) from the suburbs (708).
It should be so simple that one side of the street is 312 and the
other side is 708; that would be easy ... and in fact that is usually
how it occurs, but as you inch right up on the boundary line itself
you'll find (in our case here on the northwest side) the city limits
and thus the area code for the subscriber goes house by house, with
the boundary cutting down alleys and through the middle of a block.
Sometimes even between two houses side by side where for whatever
reason one is in the city and the other is technically in a suburb
or perhaps an unincorporated area. We have two small villages (Harwood
Heights and Norridge, Illinois) which are completely surrounded on
all sides by the city of Chicago, yet are not part of the city and
thus are in area 708, completely surrounded on all sides by area 312.
David Tampkin is much more knowledgeable than I on the precise
boundary
lines on the northwest side of the city and I would defer to him for
any specifics in the event anyone is interested. There is also a
little
community with people, and stores, etc which is not part of anything
over there -- neither the city or a suburb -- called 'Unincorporated
Norwood Park Township' -- serviced governmentally by Cook County.
Some of it is considered 312 and some 708. To compound matters, there
are two telcos in the area: Illinois Bell and Centel. Both telcos use
both area codes; both telcos have a very arbitrary boundary line for
who
services what area geographically, to say nothing of *which area code*
each one uses. So Unincorporated Norwood Park Township has two telcos
interchangeably using two area codes serving a couple thousand people
at most over an area maybe a mile wide by a mile long. So imagine if
you will that you are on Illinois Bell in 312 and the house next door
to you is in Centel 708. Across the street is a guy in Illinois Bell
708
and next to him is someone in Centel 312. All the Illinois Bell
customers
regardless of 312/708 are serviced out of a central office known as
'Chicago-Newcastle'. Centel also refers to their 312 customers as
'Newcastle', but they are serviced out of a central office in Des
Plaines,
Illinois that is otherwise strictly 708. But where IBT treats some of
the
Unincorporated Norwood Park Township people 'as though' they were in
Chicago
for numbering purposes, they have to have an exchange all their own
not
otherwise available in area 312. Why? Well because of the hook to 911
and Chicago police. On that sole exchange in 312, calls to 911 have to
go to intercept since the county sheriff does not have 911 service as
do many of the individual police departments. One of the reasons
serial
killer John Wayne Gacy got away with -- well, murder -- for so long
was
the fact that the block of Summerdale Avenue on which he lived is
mostly
unincorporated. A couple houses on the block are within the city of
Chicago
and I think maybe part of the block is within Des Plaines, Illinois,
but
not his house. It was finally the Des Plaines police who put him away;
Chicago police had no involvement in the case at all. PAT]
------------------------------
From: jbucking@pinot.callamer.com (Jeff Buckingham)
Subject: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay
Date: 18 Oct 1994 02:29:58 GMT
Organization: Call America, San Luis Obispo CA USA Earth Sol
We had an interesting experience at Call America triing to buy Frame
Relay. We needed to connect offices in Salinas, Fresno, Bakersfield,
and Santa Barbara with our Main office in San Luis Obispo. We had
planned to connect to frame relay at the T-1 level from San Luis
Obispo. The other offices were going to be connected at the 56k level.
The bids we got from AT&T, MCI, and Sprint were about $6700.00 per
month.
We then discovered that we can purchase T-1's to each office for about
$2000.00 per month. This was very interesting because we were able to
buy 24 times the bandwidth for 1/3 of the price.
We are a long distance carrier and we do purchase T-1's for about 7-15
cents per circuit mile (each T-1 has 24 circuit miles per mile of
distance) so our situation may be different from some end users but I
really think that the whole frame relay thing is vastly over hyped and
many companies are being sold frame relay who do not really need it.
Jeff Buckingham (jbucking@callamerica.com)
Call America 4251 South Higura Street, Suite 800, San Luis Obispo, CA
93401
805-545-5100 (Voice) 805-541-7007 (Fax)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #400
****************************
400
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A.
Townson
FCC Finalizes Rules for Big LEO's (Bob Keller)
Journal Review: Communications Standard Review (Elaine Baskin)
New UK Dialing Codes (Richard Cox)
Data Scopes and DSU's (Craig Hollenbaugh)
Various Telephone Questions (Andrew A. Poe)
NYNEX/MA and NXX Assignments (Scott D. Fybush)
T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay (Jeff Buckingham)
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 at no charge 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: 708-329-0571
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.
*
**********************************************************************
*
Additionally, 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.
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 Oct 1994 17:07:22 EDT
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: FCC Finalizes Rules for Big LEO's
Report No. DC-2660
ACTION IN DOCKET CASE
October 14, 1994
COMMISSION ADOPTS FINAL RULES AND POLICIES FOR "BIG LEOS"
(CC DOCKET 92-166)
The Commission has adopted final rules for the licensing and operation
of low earth orbit mobile satellite systems above 1 GHz ("Big LEOs")
to provide a variety of voice and data mobile services worldwide. The
systems will operate in the 1610-1626.5/2483.5-2500 MHz frequency
bands.
Big LEO service can offer an almost limitless number of services,
including ubiquitous voice and data mobile services, position location
services, search and rescue communications, disaster management
communications, environmental monitoring, paging services, facsimile
transmission services, cargo tracking, and industrial monitoring and
control. This service will help meet the demand for a seamless,
nationwide, and eventually global communications system that is
available to all and that can offer a wide range of voice and data
telecommunications services.
In addition to enhancing the competitive market for mobile
telecommunications services in areas served by terrestrial mobile
services, this new mobile satellite service will offer Americans in
rural areas that are not otherwise linked to the communications
infrastructure immediate access to a feature-rich communications
network. Moreover, Big LEO systems can extend these benefits
throughout the world, and can provide those countries that have not
been able to develop a nationwide communications service with an
"instant" global and national telecommunications infrastructure. This
network can be used to provide both basic and emergency communications
virtually anywhere in the world. Operation outside the United States,
however, will be subject to the regulatory requirements of the
countries in which these systems may seek to operate.
The United States has led the world in developing and implementing
satellite technology and the Big LEO service represents an opportunity
for the United States to continue its leadership role. The Big LEO
service has the potential to stimulate enormous economic growth both
here and abroad. It is potentially a multi-billion dollar industry,
with opportunities for economic growth in a variety of markets and
sub-markets. Estimated costs to construct the space segments range
from $97 million to over $2 billion each. Ground segments will cost
hundreds of millions of dollars more. As the service becomes
operational, there will be research and development, production,
marketing and service administration, as well as related jobs in
industries manufacturing the necessary hardware.
As of the June 1991 cut-off date, the Commission had received six
applications for Big LEOs. The applicants are: Ellipsat Corporation
(now doing business as Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc.); Motorola
Satellite Communications, Inc.; Constellation Communications, Inc.;
Loral Cellular Systems Corp. (now doing business as Loral Qualcomm
Partnership); TRW, Inc.; and AMSC Subsidiary Corporation. These
applicants will be given an opportunity to file amended applications
that conform with the new rules. Amended applications, requesting
construction, launch and operating authority, must be filed by
November 16, 1994, in order to receive continued consideration.
However, applicants will be given until January 1996 to demonstrate
compliance with the financial standard adopted by the Commission. The
Commission noted, however, that complete applications filed on
November 16, 1994 will be processed immediately, with action
anticipated by January 31, 1995.
The Commission adopted the spectrum sharing plan proposed in its
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket, which will allow for
licensing of five systems. The plan will assign code-division
multiple access (CDMA) systems to 11.35 MHz of shared bandwidth at
1610-1621.35 MHz and a time division/frequency division multiple
access (TDMA/FDMA) system to 5.15 MHz of dedicated bandwidth at
1621.35 -1626.5 MHz. The Commission also adopted an interim plan to
be used in the event that the operations of GLONASS, the Russian
Global Navigation System, interferes with MSS operations in the lower
frequency portion of the 1610-1626.5 MHz band. The interim plan will
permit the CDMA licensees to expand by 1.25 MHz into the designated
TDMA/FDMA band at 1621.35-1622.60 MHz. The Commission also stated
that if only one CDMA system is implemented, the system's assignment
would not be automatically reduced to 8.25 MHz, as proposed in the
Notice. Rather, the Commission stated that any decision would be
deferred until, and if, the need arises. The plan also allows CDMA
systems to share the entire 16.5 MHz of downlink spectrum at
2483.5-2500 MHz. If all six applicants are found to be qualified, the
licenses will be auctioned.
The Commission has adopted qualification criteria designed to ensure
that those granted licenses are capable of expeditiously implementing
state-of-the-art systems that will serve the public interest. The
requirements include:
-- A low-Earth orbit design;
-- The capability of providing global service;
-- The capability of providing continuous service throughout
the United States;
-- A stringent financial showing identical to the one used
in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service; and
-- A construction timetable with a reporting requirement.
If an auction is necessary, the Commission will conduct simultaneous
multiple round bidding of small (2.0625 MHz) band segments, in which
entities will be permitted to acquire up to four band segments each,
assuring at least two licensees.
The Commission also adopted technical coordination rules to achieve
sharing between MSS and other services operating in the band or in
adjacent bands.
The Commission plans to begin to issue conditional licenses in January
1995, although it probably will not be able to authorize feeder link
frequencies at that time.
The Commission also determined that Big LEO space segment capacity may
be offered to commercial mobile service providers on a non-common
carrier basis, provided that the Big LEO service offering does not
meet the definition of a common carrier service.
Action by the Commission October 13, 1994, by Report and Order (FCC
94-261). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness, and
Chong.
News Media contact: Susan Lewis Sallet or Audrey Spivack at (202)
418-0500. Common Carrier Bureau contact: Fern Jarmulnek at (202)
634-1682.
- FCC -
Robert J. Keller, P.C. (Federal Telecommunications Law)
<rjk@telcomlaw.com> Tel: 301-229-5208 Fax: 301-229-6875
4200 Wisconsin Ave NW #106-261 Washington DC 20016-2146
finger me for info on F.C.C. Daily Digests and Releases
------------------------------
Date: 17 Oct 94 16:59:00 EDT
From: Elaine Baskin <72540.113@compuserve.com>
Subject: Journal Review: Communications Standard Review
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This article might be called a
'review of a review' ... a look at two publications from the
Communications Standard Review, edited by Elaine Baskin. If
you believe Ms. Baskin's work might be helpful in your own,
contact her for a subscription. PAT]
Two standards journals can help you stay informed about telecom
standards-in-progress:
Communications Standards Review (CSR) reports on US
(Telecommunications
Industry Association - TIA) and International Telecommunications
Union, Telecommunications Sector (ITU-T, formerly CCITT) Standards
Committee meetings in Wide Area Network data communications, both wire
and wireless, since 1990. CSR provides detailed technical information
to assist in communications product planning and specification. The
journal is published ten times per year. Committees covered include:
TIA TR-29 Facsimile Systems & Equipment
TIA TR-30 Data Transmission Systems and Equipment
TIA TR-41 User-Premises Telecom Requirements
TIA TR-45 Public Wireless 800 MHz Standards
TIA TR-46 Wireless & Personal Comm. 1800 MHz
ITU T Study Group 8 Telematic Services (including Facsimile)
ITU T Study Group 14 (Formerly SG XVII) Data Communications over the
GSTN
(PSTN)
ITU T Study Group 15 Transmission Systems and Equipment
These committees cover:
* Facsimile (incl. Class 1 and 2 interfaces)
* Telephone line modems (V.34)
* Digital interfaces (e.g., EIA/TIA 232)
* FCC Part 68 technical issues
* Analog/digital cellular standards
* Communications Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)
* 56 kbit/s & 64 kbit/s DSU/CSUs
* Telematic terminals
* ISDN rate adaption
* Cellular data communications
* Personal Communications Systems (800 MHz & 1800 MHz)
For even more detail on specific work, subscribers may use the CSR
library for a fee. Subscribers may order copies of public
work-in-progress documents referenced in CSR. Such orders can be
delivered quickly via overnight carrier or facsimile. (Completed
standards should be ordered from the appropriate standards
organization or distributor.)
Communications Standards Summary (CSS) is a TIA-authorized
publication, first published in February, 1994. CSS reports the
status all TIA TR- committee active projects and recently completed
standards four times per year. You can track the standards work of
nine TIA committees (and 34 subcommittees), and hundreds of standards
projects.
TIA Committees projects in CSS:
TR-8 Land Mobile Services
TR-14 Point to Point Communications
TR-29 Facsimile Systems & Equipment
TR-30 Data Transmission Systems and Equipment
TR-32 Personal Radio Equipment
TR-34.2 Earth Station Satellite Antenna
TR-41 User-Premises Telecom Requirements
TR-45 Public Wireless 800 MHz Standards
TR-46 Wireless & Personal Comm. 1800 MHz
Information about each project includes:
Project Number / committee
Title and description of the Project
Expected publication ID, if available
Editor's name, company affiliation
Current project status
Related work in other committees
In summary:
CSR provides timely detailed coverage of the lower layer (OSI layers
1-3) wide area networking (WAN, below 1 Mbit/s) technical standards
committee work, in TIA and ITU-T. The price is $795.00 per year.
CSS provides a quarterly summary of all TIA TR-committee active
projects and
recently completed standards. The price is $250.00 per year.
To request a sample copy of either or both journals (no obligation),
contact Elaine Baskin at:
Communications Standards Review
757 Greer Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303-3024 USA
Tel: +1 415 856-9018
Fax: +1 415 856-6591
e-mail: 72540.113@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 07:02:54 -0400
From: richard@mandarin.com
Subject: New UK Dialing Codes
adam ashby <adama@bnr.ca> wrote:
>> I was wondering if anyone has yet updated the UK area codes
>> and made them available.
We are working on this now. Unfortunately Oftel keep announcing new
codes, and as soon as we have a definitive list, we find it is out of
date! That wouldn't be too bad, since all lists of codes suffer from
a similar problem, but there are a block of allocations which Oftel
haven't yet published (allegedly because the allocations were made by
BT before Oftel took over responsibility for the allcoation process).
We'll have a new list out on the 'Net, just as soon as we can.
For geographic codes, in most cases the translation is to put a "1"
before the active part of the code. For example, 0222 becomes 01222.
In five of our larger cities (Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds, Nottingham
and Leicester) the code changes completely and local numbers will also
change from six to seven digits. In Hull and Jersey local numbers
also
change from five digits to six.
>> As a related aside -- all NT DMS switches in the UK were ready
>> for the new codes before August 1st.
But were they ready for Caller ID, due to be introduced here in just a
few weeks time (November 5th) ?
>> OfTel (the regulatory body) is currently discussing a new
>> (proposed) numbering plan for the UK :-
>> 00 - International (current)
>> 01 - PSTN (current)
>> 02 - possible netowrk expansion (new)
>> 03 - New mobile allocations (new)
>> 04 - New mobile allocations (new)
>> 05 - FreePhone numbers (new)
>> 06 - FreePhone numbers (new)
>> 07 - Personal numbers (new) - what are those???
>> 08 - Premium rate (new)
>> 09 - Premium rate (new)
I suspect there are a few inaccuracies here. 02 is intended for a new
form of "regional" numbering to run in parallel with 01, rather than
for expansion (in fact there is very little room for expansion on 01
(a fact that worries many of us because we see it as a way to force
people to change against their will to 02, due to another "shortage of
numbers" - and 02 numbers may well be on a different tariff basis).
Mobile and Pagers were to go to 03 but this has now been changed to
04. 07 is indeed for personal numbers: i.e. numbers that translate to
other numbers, where the translation can be changed remotely by the
customer. 08 will be used for all specially tariffed services,
whether Freefone (our 0800), or Premium Rate: with 03, 06, and 09
being kept in reserve. The jury is still out on what will happen to
05.
Richard D G Cox
Mandarin Technology, PO Box 111, Penarth, South Glamorgan CF64 3YG
Voice: 0956 700111; Fax: 0956 700110; VoiceMail: 0941 151515
e-mail address: richard@mandarin.com; PGP2.6 public key on request
------------------------------
From: csh@alert.com (Craig Hollenbaugh)
Subject: Data Scopes and DSU's
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 11:24:03 GMT
Reply-To: csh@alert.com
Organization: Alert Centre, Inc.
Help - I've been doinking with this one for a while, hopefully,
someone has seen it before.
I'm using Comsphere 3610 DSU's for a 56k SDLC circuit. My problem is:
The only way I can keep the circuit up (RTS/CTS) is to have the
datascope plugged into the circuit and turned on. Turn off the scope,
RTS goes away. Has anyone seen this kind of reaction before? I've
BTW - Host is MVS, my end is an R/S 6000 running SNA.
Craig Hollenbaugh csh@alert.com 303-488-7738
Alert Centre, Inc
------------------------------
From: Andrew A. Poe <sixycd@dip.eecs.umich.edu>
Subject: Various Telephone Questions
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 10:36:25 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept.
OK, I've got some questions here about this wonderful device known as
the telephone.
1. 800 numbers. I got this letter from Ameritech (my local phone
company) apologizing profusely for the fact that certain 800 numbers
are now billable. From what I've read here, I get the impression that
the calls themselves are not billable, but the information received
through such calls are. Is this true? This makes sense. Ameritech
announced that an 800 number must describe its rates in the first
minute of the conversation, and that if you hang up before the rates
are described, you will be billed nothing.
2. 900/976 numbers. What's the difference here? The only thing I
know
about these numbers is that I've seen commercials for them, some phone
sex lines, some astrology hotlines, and so forth. Who determines the
rate? The carrier? The service? 900 is an "area code," right? While
976 is an "exchange?"
3. Every so often, I see an ad for a phone service that doesn't have
a 900 or a 976. What are these? I've heard stories that these places
will take your number and call you back collect, or will take a credit
card number and bill to your credit card (sounds risky to me). If
they call you back collect, who determines the rate of the call? The
carrier? The service? How can you call someone collect and charge
more for the call? Or is there some way you can use some non-900,
non-976 number to charge the caller an exorbitant sum?
4. How old are area codes/direct dialing?
5. 800 numbers overseas. My overseas calling card has an AT&T 800
service, where you can call AT&T 800 numbers from anywhere in the
world;
of course, the calls are not toll free overseas, which seems perfectly
reasonable. Is there a way to dial any 800 number overseas, provided
you're willing to pay for the call? How about 900 numbers?
6. Toll lines specifically by carrier. Getting back to phone ads;
I've
seen some phone sex ads that say just dial 10333-1-xxx-xxx-xxxx. As
this
is the Sprint access code, I assume that Sprint is the one that
charges
you an arm and a leg. But what if I were to dial that number via
AT&T?
Would it even work, or would I get some message saying "You may only
dial
this number via Sprint!"
7. How come there aren't any area codes numbered x11? Are they
forbidden, or is it just that no one has gotten around to assigning
them yet?
8. Does Mexico have area codes or doesn't it? I have two 1993-4
phone
books, from different companies. One has the country code of Mexico
as
52. The other has it as 1, like the US and Canada, and lists area
codes
for different parts of Mexico.
Thanks for responses to this rambling information. I greatly
appreciate
it.
Andrew A. Poe
522 HILL ST
ANN ARBOR MI 48104-3223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+1 313 665-4920
andrew.poe@umich.edu
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you certainly squeezed a lot of
questions into one message. Let me try to answer a few for you. I will
defer on question one (billable 800) simply because later today or
tomorrow I shall have an issue of the Digest devoted to that topic.
The main difference between 900/976 is that 900 is usually (but does
not have to be) national in range, while 976 is usually limited in
reachability to a specific community. 976 is usually limited to one-
way outbound recorded messages while 900 can be interactive. 900 is
a service code, not technically an 'area code'. 976 is a 'prefix'.
Information Providers who use regular numbers have to have some way of
billing the caller. They do so by credit card frequently, and some
have
an arrangement with a telephone company to enter the charges into the
telephone billing system. With credit cards, as you point out, it is
quite risky: the information providers are constantly being defrauded
by people using bogus card numbers, etc. Oh? You meant it the other
way around; that there is a risk to the consumer of the services? Yes,
that happens also. If they collect their money by calling back
'collect'
then they have an arrangement with some telco or long distance carrier
to put the 'collect charges' into the billing system at whatever
amount
is specified.
Area codes were devised in the late 1940's and came into common use
during the middle to late 1950's as automatic phone service (that is,
subscriber dials call) became common and manual service was being
phased out.
A lot of carriers have gateway points in the USA where you can connect
for the purpose of dialing an 800 number in the USA. 900 numbers are
strictly for use in the USA; there is no way to call one from outside
this country.
If an information provider can guarentee to a long distance carrier a
certain amount of traffic per month on an *exclusive basis* --
typically
many thousands of dollars per monnth in traffic -- the carrier may
find
it to its advantage to bypass the local telco in the process, and the
resulting termination fees the local telco gets paid. The carrier then
is wired direct to the subscriber and the carrier shares the savings
with the IP. The IP makes his living from this sharing of the savings
the long distance carrier receives on termination fees. In turn, the
IP must refuse to accept calls sent through any other carrier; he
won't
get paid for those calls.
There are no area codes numbered 'x11' because it is a dumb idea. How
would you like to live in area code 911 or area code 411? As far as
Mexico is concerned, I have no idea what they do there and anyway,
this
response is getting too long. Next time you write, please confine your
message to one topic at a time. That applies to other writers also.
PAT]
------------------------------
From: fybush@world.std.com (Scott D Fybush)
Subject: NYNEX/MA and NXX Assignments
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 04:15:34 GMT
As with every other telco, NYNEX here in Massachusetts has been
assigning a lot of new NXX's lately, what with all the fax machines
and cellular phones and pagers and such. But I have to wonder
sometimes whether anyone's awake at the switch when it comes to
deciding WHICH NXX to assign where.
617-647 has long been assigned to the Waltham CO (my home CO, as it
happens, though I'm on one of the old TWinbrook/89X NXXs). The
Waltham CO serves the entire city of Waltham and much of the adjacent
town of Weston, Mass. Weston shares a small, but significant boundary
with the town of Natick. That boundary is also the 508/617 line. And
now, NYNEX has assigned 508-647, in, you guessed it, Natick!
I can only imagine the confusion this is likely to cause among the
many people who travel between the Natick area and the Waltham area
daily. It's even possible that two adjacent homes along Mass. Route
30 could end up having similar or even identical 647-XXXX numbers, one
in 508, the other in 617.
What makes it all the more puzzling is that there are so many
available NXXs left in 508, including 652, 654, and 659, all of which
would fit the established 65X pattern for Natick exchanges (651, 653,
and 655 are the current Natick NXXs.)
Anyone have a good explanation for this one?
Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The line has to be drawn somewhere, and
invariably some people in one area code will sit fifty feet away from
some people in the other area code. In large metropolitan urban areas,
there is no easy way to avoid some very arbitrary boundary lines these
days. It would be different had there been some advance planning forty
years ago in how prefixes were assigned and boundaries laid out. But
now, to avoid massive confusion for everyone, things are done the way
they are done. I could show you as an example the northwest side of
Chicago (the city itself) were a very ragged and at times obscure
boundary line separates the city itself (312) from the suburbs (708).
It should be so simple that one side of the street is 312 and the
other side is 708; that would be easy ... and in fact that is usually
how it occurs, but as you inch right up on the boundary line itself
you'll find (in our case here on the northwest side) the city limits
and thus the area code for the subscriber goes house by house, with
the boundary cutting down alleys and through the middle of a block.
Sometimes even between two houses side by side where for whatever
reason one is in the city and the other is technically in a suburb
or perhaps an unincorporated area. We have two small villages (Harwood
Heights and Norridge, Illinois) which are completely surrounded on
all sides by the city of Chicago, yet are not part of the city and
thus are in area 708, completely surrounded on all sides by area 312.
David Tampkin is much more knowledgeable than I on the precise
boundary
lines on the northwest side of the city and I would defer to him for
any specifics in the event anyone is interested. There is also a
little
community with people, and stores, etc which is not part of anything
over there -- neither the city or a suburb -- called 'Unincorporated
Norwood Park Township' -- serviced governmentally by Cook County.
Some of it is considered 312 and some 708. To compound matters, there
are two telcos in the area: Illinois Bell and Centel. Both telcos use
both area codes; both telcos have a very arbitrary boundary line for
who
services what area geographically, to say nothing of *which area code*
each one uses. So Unincorporated Norwood Park Township has two telcos
interchangeably using two area codes serving a couple thousand people
at most over an area maybe a mile wide by a mile long. So imagine if
you will that you are on Illinois Bell in 312 and the house next door
to you is in Centel 708. Across the street is a guy in Illinois Bell
708
and next to him is someone in Centel 312. All the Illinois Bell
customers
regardless of 312/708 are serviced out of a central office known as
'Chicago-Newcastle'. Centel also refers to their 312 customers as
'Newcastle', but they are serviced out of a central office in Des
Plaines,
Illinois that is otherwise strictly 708. But where IBT treats some of
the
Unincorporated Norwood Park Township people 'as though' they were in
Chicago
for numbering purposes, they have to have an exchange all their own
not
otherwise available in area 312. Why? Well because of the hook to 911
and Chicago police. On that sole exchange in 312, calls to 911 have to
go to intercept since the county sheriff does not have 911 service as
do many of the individual police departments. One of the reasons
serial
killer John Wayne Gacy got away with -- well, murder -- for so long
was
the fact that the block of Summerdale Avenue on which he lived is
mostly
unincorporated. A couple houses on the block are within the city of
Chicago
and I think maybe part of the block is within Des Plaines, Illinois,
but
not his house. It was finally the Des Plaines police who put him away;
Chicago police had no involvement in the case at all. PAT]
------------------------------
From: jbucking@pinot.callamer.com (Jeff Buckingham)
Subject: T-1 is Much Better Than Frame Relay
Date: 18 Oct 1994 02:29:58 GMT
Organization: Call America, San Luis Obispo CA USA Earth Sol
We had an interesting experience at Call America triing to buy Frame
Relay. We needed to connect offices in Salinas, Fresno, Bakersfield,
and Santa Barbara with our Main office in San Luis Obispo. We had
planned to connect to frame relay at the T-1 level from San Luis
Obispo. The other offices were going to be connected at the 56k level.
The bids we got from AT&T, MCI, and Sprint were about $6700.00 per
month.
We then discovered that we can purchase T-1's to each office for about
$2000.00 per month. This was very interesting because we were able to
buy 24 times the bandwidth for 1/3 of the price.
We are a long distance carrier and we do purchase T-1's for about 7-15
cents per circuit mile (each T-1 has 24 circuit miles per mile of
distance) so our situation may be different from some end users but I
really think that the whole frame relay thing is vastly over hyped and
many companies are being sold frame relay who do not really need it.
Jeff Buckingham (jbucking@callamerica.com)
Call America 4251 South Higura Street, Suite 800, San Luis Obispo, CA
93401
805-545-5100 (Voice) 805-541-7007 (Fax)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #400
****************************
Comments
Post a Comment