HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps)
Subject: Re: The ISDN network
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:28:11 GMT

In article <28542@oasys.dt.navy.mil> curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch) writes:
>In comp.dcom.isdn, bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) writes:
>And soon we will start seeing G4 ISDN fax machines that also support the
>old G3 format just like the current fax machines support the older
>formats (was there a G2?).
>
>The resolution of current fax macines suck.  Once people find out what
>they can do with G4 and an ISDN line, (and once you can place an ISDN
>call to most places that you can now place a voice call) things will really
>start to take off.

Resolution isn't what's driving the adoption of G4, speed is.  The few
companies that are using G4 (like Federal Express) have such a tremendous
volume of fax traffic that 9600 bps isn't good enough.  Their application
is specific enough that they can get away with G4 across the net
to predetermined DNs where they know they'll connect to another G4
machine (namely, theirs).  Actually, I don't even think they're using 
ISDN for this, but Switched 56.

G4 is even less likely to take off than ISDN is.  There were only about
10,000 G4 fax machines in the world as of last year, mostly in Japan.  
Long before G4 goes anywhere, you'll see higher resolution G3 hybrids.
The standards committees are already at work on this.  It won't be too
long until the only qualitative difference between faxes produced by G3 
and G4 will be speed.


-- 
Brent Capps                          | 
bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff)    | Quis corriget correctores ipsos?
bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) |
From: curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: The ISDN network
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:29:26 GMT
Reply-To: curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In comp.dcom.isdn, bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) writes:
>ISDN is only practical for closed user groups.  It will never replace
>POTS telephony except in niche markets like point-to-point dialup LAN
>access a la Switched 56.  The size of this market will determine whether
>it will ever become cost-effective.

You are way off base here.  ISDN will completely replace POTS.  It's only
a question of time. (And knowing how long old phone technology stays
around, it will probably be a few thousand years before it's all gone.)
But seriously, I think ISDN will become a common and well know type
of business phone line within 2 years and will be the "standard"
type of new business phone within 5 years.  In the same time, ISDN will
become the standard type of computer "modem".  Anyone that wants to
dial into work from home will have an ISDN line at home.

It's just as reasonable to build a 64K ISDN "modem" that also supports
the old slow V.fast and V.32 protocols, as it was to build the V.32
modems that supported the old 2400 baud protocol.  You can't go much
beyond 32K without switching to ISDN.  What, do you think we are going
to stay at 24K baud forever?

And soon we will start seeing G4 ISDN fax machines that also support the
old G3 format just like the current fax machines support the older
formats (was there a G2?).

The resolution of current fax macines suck.  Once people find out what
they can do with G4 and an ISDN line, (and once you can place an ISDN
call to most places that you can now place a voice call) things will really
start to take off.

And ISDN video phones are going to make big difference in business also.
Business men spend a lot of time and money traveling so they can have
"face-to-face" meetings.  A lot of these meetings could be done with a
decent quality video phone on an ISDN line (complete with slides and
other graphics).  A 1 hour ISDN data call using both B channels is
not cheap (maybe $50?), but compare that to the cost of having two people
spend all day flying across the country for the same 1 hour meeting ($2000).

ISDN will be used for a lot more than just dial-up LAN access.  The
problem is that peopole don't know what they're missing because they
don't know what ISDN can do for them - so they aren't asking for it.
And the phone companies are having problems justifying the time and
cost of implementing ISDN services - because not enough people are
asking for it.  But they are doing it, and before long, people will
start learning what ISDN is all about, and then things will start to
snowball.

Curt Welch
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: dsr@roland.com (David S. Roland)
Subject: Re: The ISDN network - Interoperability
Summary: ISDN modem or packet: data, fax or voice???
Keywords:  ISDN modem
Organization: Roland Projects, Inc
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:52:18 GMT

In the recent thread about "knowing" what is on each end of a call prior
to the connection to the fax, modem or whatever..

The issue is actually straight forward.

The Line Information DataBase (LIDB) is a concept which provides information
about the capabilities of a phone line. Another database which might prove
useful is the X.500 routing base. The obvious solution is that subscribers
need a place (database) to place their preferences. This is a part of an
infrastructure which should be manditory for deployment of many of the
personal communications technologies.

There is some obvious sleuthing that a caller (callee) can perform to guess
how to handle an outgoing (incoming) call, to "know" correct handling, but
the solution is the LIDB. This is going to become obvious when X-mail
and hetrogeneous residential information appliances are deployed. And; what
will be the "Official" protocol at the application layer? Both for protocol,
and capabilities, the LIDB will provide routing and disposition information
for the "identified" forms of transaction.

The key here is to determine which standard(s) dictate how to communicate
the format of the communication. An application proposal is being constructed
for the NIUF which raises the question of which protocol is used to 
communicate the communicating protocol? (Follow that?) Part two of the
question is what protocol is to be used to communicate the application
information elements between two dissimilar application engines, so that
they can now carry on a conversation.

By the way, those of you that are interested in this kind of an issue
ESPECIALLY as it applies to ISDN, are welcome to attend the NIUF, in particular
the NIUF-IIW CPE Compatibilities and Capabilities Profiling Team.


David Roland

Chairman: IIW CPE Compatibilities and Capabilities Profiling Team of the
North American ISDN Users' Forum.

Roland Projects, Inc.      P.O. Box 491        Fairport, New York 14450-0491
Telecommunication Application and System Software     Office: (716) 223-0007
From: imhw400@indyvax.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: The ISDN network
Date: 17 Dec 92 06:32:47 -0500
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec16.163439.4968@atlastele.com>, bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) writes:
> RBOCs know that powering subscriber loops is probably the most critical
> issue WRT residential deployment of ISDN.  It's going to be a tough sell
> to get Joe Suburbia to trade his old analog set for a more expensive ISDN
> model if he can't use it during a power outage. This issue, along with 
> cost, has pretty well stymied FTTH.  FTTC looks a lot more attractive, and
> here one of the options being considered is to run subscriber loop power
> on an extra pair of wires out to the drop.  But RBOCs know what's likely
> to happen at the state PUCs if they ever move to drop subscriber loop
> power entirely, though they may eventually win permission to charge for
> it.

o	Did anybody ever find a sensible price for a float-charger plus
	gel-cell battery pack capable of putting out the miniscule 7W required
	by typical ISDN sets for an hour or two?  I *still* say it shouldn't
	cost more than $10-15.  Remember, when we get to this point they'll
	be selling millions of these supplies -- they will be dirt cheap. 
	Certainly a lot cheaper than running an extra pair to every subscriber
	in the world.

o	The RBOCs are already charging us for the electricity.  However,
	they may win permission to *itemize* it, thereby perhaps removing this
	cost of doing business from their negotiations with the PUCs.
-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead Analyst/Programmer    +1 317 274 0749   [@disclaimer@]
Internet:  IMHW400@INDYVAX.IUPUI.EDU     BITNET:  IMHW400@INDYVAX
Celebrate freedom:  read a banned newsgroup.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: ISDN international tariffs
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 03:41:26 GMT


In article <724643806.AA00663@cswamp.apana.org.au>, Arthur@cswamp.apana.org.au (Arthur Marsh) writes...
>What is the digital bandwidth difference to the telephone company
>in providing a 64 kbps B channel circuit compared with a 64 kbps
>PCM voice grade circuit?

For a domestic call, probably not.  IN fact, I've done a fair amount
of my newsreading this past week over my ISDN Basic Rate line using
the Speech bearer service at 56 kbps!  Here in the USA, with
bit-robbed signaling, that's what it's good for.  Our local telephone
company is moving towards data/speech rate parity, now that we've
proven that data-over-speech works, but "free" local residential
calls will only still be speech.  So we'll still need the hack.

But INTERNATIONAL calls are different!  You MUST go through
A-law to mu-law code conversion between North America and Europe,
and I think Oz follows A-law like Europe.  Thus data-over-speech
cannot possibly work.  BUT even more important, speech is almost
always compressed on overseas circuits.  The phone company will use 32 
kbps ADPCM, 24-40 kbps EADPCM (an AT&T-developed feature for voice
on a frame relay-like channel), lower-rate ADPCM, and/or TASI (time
assignment speech interpolation) in order to squeeze the most voice 
channels out of expensive undersea or satellite circuits.  So a
64 kbps data call really can take 2-4 times as much bandwidth as
a "voice" call.

These compressed voice channels are rarely good for 14,400 bps;
a good 9600 bps modem may get through, but that's under 1/6 the
bandwidth of the ISDN clear channel.  BTW, the US has a hodge-
podge of 56 kbps and 64 kbps channels.  You sort of have to know.
(AT&T 1700-56x is 56 kbps, 1700-737 is 64 kbps, but other numbers
can be either or both, depending on call route.)
---
Fred R. Goldstein   goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com 
k1io             or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com   voice:+1 508 952 3274
Standard Disclaimer:  Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: Helge.Oldach@Stollmann.DE (Helge Oldach)
Subject: Re: The ISDN network
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 13:42:54 GMT
Organization: Stollmann GmbH, D-2000 Hamburg 50, Germany
Originator: he@sup

bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) writes:
| An ISDN set won't talk to an analog modem.

Well, if you own one of our tina-ds ISDN cards you can connect a modem
to the analogue interface. So it will work. But why the hell do you need
ISDN then?

| Exclusively using ISDN for your home PC effectively 
| cuts you off from BBS, 

There are a couple of BBSs here in Hamburg that allow ISDN dial-in,
either through rate adaption service (38.4 kBd) or through IP-based
links. So what?
-- 
Helge.Oldach@Stollmann.DE
From: keyman@doorway.Eng.Sun.COM (Dave Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: The ISDN network
Date: 15 Dec 1992 06:59:58 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: doorway

bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

>Well, actually, your NT1 is decoding the 2B1Q line code and providing
>some maintenance functions. The telco is under no requirement to send
>CO battery or ringing current to the NT1. Since ISDN may some day be
>running over fiber, they eliminated the requirement for office battery.
>(Something to do with the difficulty of pushing 48V DC down a bit of
>glass, I think).

More like the RBOCs don't want to pay for the power to run everyone's
phone anymore.

-dAve
--
                    * All standard disclaimers apply *
Dave Evans      Sun Microsystems                keyman@doorway.eng.sun.com		
W(415)336-1728
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: pjw@galadriel.bt.co.uk (Peter Willis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: The ISDN network
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:59:54 GMT
Organization: Data and Business Comms, BT Labs, Martlesham, Ipswich, UK.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


   A Terminal Adaptor (TA) should be able to tell if an incoming call is 
analogue or digital data by the Bearer Capability (BC) indicated in the incoming
setup message. If the incoming call has come from a modem or fax then this
will be indicated by the BC being 3.1KHz audio, if the incoming call has
come from a digital data device then this will be indicated by the BC being
unrestricted digital information. The TA should then be `intelligent' enough
to route an incoming `analogue' ISDN call to an analogue port and a
digital `incoming' ISDN call to a digital (e.g. V.24) port.
   There's also a bit to identify the call as having originated from the PSTN
rather than the ISDN. The tricky bit is telling if an incoming call from
the PSTN is from a telephone, fax or modem  (It can't be done yet !).

   A problem does exist in determining what type of device you are calling
for outgoing calls. However not many people call a fax machine by accident
on the PSTN, you can't tell from the phone number if the device is a fax, modem
or telephone. People normally decide who they want to call, how they want to
communicate then look up the right number in some form of directory. The same
could be done for ISDN.
   Each terminal (TA or TE) attached to an ISDN S-Bus can be given an 
individual number (Multiple Subscriber Number the standards call it). Then
you publish you have a FAX on a, TA on b, X.25 on c etc.
   Alternatively you could try using the HLC (Higher Layer Compatibility)
and LLC (Lower Layer Compatibility) fields.
   This all depends on the ISDN CPE manufactuers having implemented MSN, BC,
LLC, HLC in their CPE and the PTTs providing these features in their ISDNs.

Peter Willis,
pjw@galadriel.bt.co.uk
From: curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: The ISDN network
Date: 14 Dec 92 06:07:19 GMT
Reply-To: curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

>>Most ISDN terminal
>>equipment even comes equipped with rj-11 jacks so you can plug in analog
>>equipment without buying a separate ISDN voice set.

In comp.dcom.isdn, bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps) writes:
>So here's the situation.  I've got a modem plugged into a TA on my
>premises when a call comes in.  How do I determine whether the caller is
>analog or digital?  I can't listen for tones, because modem tone is
>supposed to be generated by the *receiving* party.

Here's one way it works:

The Hayes ISDN System Adapter (I think I have the right name) acts as
both a POTS TA, and as a ISDN digtal modem.  You can plug a pots phone
or standard analog modem into it.  When an ISDN data call comes in,
it's answered by the ISDN System Adapter.  When a voice call (i.e.
analog modem call) comes in, it's routed out the POTS line to the
analog modem.

As other's have pointed out, once ISDN becomes more wide spread, you
will start seeing the ISDN modems that support all the old analog 
standards as well.  How is this any different than all the analog
modems having to support all the old slower (2400, 1200, 300, etc)
standards?  Backward compatibility has been a standard feature
for the last 5 generataions of modems.

Curt
From: Arthur@cswamp.apana.org.au (Arthur Marsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Distribution: world
Subject: ISDN international tariffs
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:21:56 +1000

From Australia, a voice call to the USA which is encoded by 64
kbps PCM costs about A$1.12/minute off peak. An 64 kbps single
ISDN B channel call to the USA using costs A$1 flagfall plus
A$3.15 per minute.

With a good modem, one can get about 1500 cps on one of these 64
kbps PCM voice circuits. With one 64 kbps ISDN B channel,
presumably 7500 cps throughput is possible, a five-fold increase
at nearly 3 times the per-minute cost plus a big flagfall.

What is the digital bandwidth difference to the telephone company
in providing a 64 kbps B channel circuit compared with a 64 kbps
PCM voice grade circuit?

Are there other costs to the telephone company involved that
already has ISDN capable equipment that can in any way justify
the extra cost of ISDN?

P.S. ISDN Basic Rate "access charges" (aka line rental) amounts
to A$912 p.a. )-:

Arthur.

 * Origin: Camelot Swamp MJCNA, Hawthorndene, Sth Australia
(8:7000/8)
From: curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: Is long distance ISDN possible now?
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:41:47 GMT
Reply-To: curt@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Curt Welch)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

I asked:
>>Now that TRIP'92 is over, is it possible for someone in North
>>America to make an ISDN data call outside of their local
>>area?

In comp.dcom.isdn, stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes:
>I don't know about San Francisco to D.C., but for inter-LATA calls within
>California (between Pacific Bell service areas), both AT&T and Sprint handle
>data calls.  No pre-subscription is necessary as far as I know - you just
>place the call.  If the call is tagged as a data call, AT&T or Sprint ensure
>a fully digital end-to-end connection.  Sprint charges the regular voice rate
>for the call, while AT&T charges a higher rate since its a 'data' call.  This
>may be a good starting point to get your D.C. question answered.

I've been talking to C&P, and multiple people on the net about this.

I think the answer for the Washington D.C. area is that it can't be
done yet.  C&P says the service was tariffed (allowing C&P and the
long distance companies to pass ISDN data calls) two months ago, but
it's not available yet.  They also don't have any estimates as to
when it will be available.

But, I think if you get an ISDN PRI line, you get it from the long
distance cariers, and from one of these lines, you can place long
distance data calls (but not local data calls).  A PRI line however is
not what I was looking for.

But all this is no longer important for me.  A year ago I was told that
I was in a wire center that supported ISDN.  But now that I have
actually tried to order an ISDN line, I've found out that I'm on a 1A
switch and that I can't get ISDN.  And it's not scheduled to be
upgraded for another year and a half.  Looks like I might be moving
soon!

Curt
From: bcapps@atlastele.com (Brent Capps)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: The ISDN network
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:34:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.

In article <lir0jeINNjkf@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> keyman@doorway.Eng.Sun.COM (Dave Evans) writes:
>bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
>
>>Well, actually, your NT1 is decoding the 2B1Q line code and providing
>>some maintenance functions. The telco is under no requirement to send
>>CO battery or ringing current to the NT1. Since ISDN may some day be
>>running over fiber, they eliminated the requirement for office battery.
>>(Something to do with the difficulty of pushing 48V DC down a bit of
>>glass, I think).
>
>More like the RBOCs don't want to pay for the power to run everyone's
>phone anymore.

RBOCs know that powering subscriber loops is probably the most critical
issue WRT residential deployment of ISDN.  It's going to be a tough sell
to get Joe Suburbia to trade his old analog set for a more expensive ISDN
model if he can't use it during a power outage. This issue, along with 
cost, has pretty well stymied FTTH.  FTTC looks a lot more attractive, and
here one of the options being considered is to run subscriber loop power
on an extra pair of wires out to the drop.  But RBOCs know what's likely
to happen at the state PUCs if they ever move to drop subscriber loop
power entirely, though they may eventually win permission to charge for
it.



-- 
Brent Capps                          | 
bcapps@agora.rain.com (gay stuff)    | Quis corriget correctores ipsos?
bcapps@atlastele.com (telecom stuff) |
From: cliff@garnet.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: The ISDN network
Date: 16 Dec 1992 00:06:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <bob1.724429464@cos>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:
|> 
|> If you think ISDN is just a substitute for switched 56, then you might
|> be right. What you seem to be neglecting is the common channel signaling
|> between the user and the network. There is a great deal of power and
|> intelligence in a modern digital switch machine that is very nearly
|> inaccessible with POTS (a twelve key TT pad makes a lousy input device
|> for anything beside telephone numbers). There are application out there
|> that are not even a gleam in someone's eye today, but they will appear.

Warning: Pure speculation time, mindless drivel may follow...  ;-)

I've been told that in Japan PCS (Personal Communication Services) devices
are coming on strong.  As I understand it (and it sure isn't well), these
are tiny phones that you carry with you all the time (much like current
cellular technology but cheaper/smaller).  Your PCS widget has a phone number 
that does not vary with your physical location.

I was also told that the fact that Japan has widely deployed ISDN makes it
very easy for them to support the roaming of these PCS things because Japan
has the out-of-band signalling all in place.  The point isn't that ISDN
makes it possible (one could support this in a number of ways) but that
having ISDN almost ubiquitous makes it a *lot* easier.

Maybe an obvious money-maker like that will create some movement...

	Cliff Frost
	UC Berkeley

ps I've always liked R. Kevin Oberman's .sig and can't imagine a better time
for me to copy it:

    Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
    and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.            
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
From: geek@media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt)
Subject: Re: ISDN and DECSTATION/5000
Keywords: Isdn, Decstation, Ultrix
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:26:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.002739.12681@uvm.edu> cavrak@newton.emba.uvm.edu.uvm.edu (Steve Cavrak) writes:
>
>2 - Is anyone using ISDN with DECstation 5000 ?  I'd be interested in 
>finding out about your experiences, setup, etc.
>

You can ask your DEC salesperson!!
Unfortunately I believe the folks responsible for the software have
all been laid off for a few weeks.  I hope this is not the case, but
I know other people close to the project who have.

You'll also see ISDN connectors on the newer Alpha-based workstations.

chris
From: rpower@sw.stratus.com (Robert Power)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: ISDN PRI Framing Questions
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:18:01 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: finkel.sw.stratus.com


Folks,

     I have a few questions on which ISDN PRI configuration options I should
     present to the user, and which I should default based upon other
     selections.  Can anyone shed some light on the following questions?

          When B8ZS  is used, is it necessary to allow the individual
          timeslots to support IHDLC?  Is the answer the same for B/H channels
          and the D-channel?

          Is it necessary for the D-channel to support a 56k bit channel, or
          can I assume that all ISDN compatible switches will allow
          64K for the D-channel since it is not end-to-end?

     Does anyone have a good reference for these types of questions?

     Thanks, Bob

     rpower@finkel.sw.stratus.com
     (508) 460-2286