Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA00405; Thu, 2 May 1996 22:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 22:10:22 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605030210.WAA00405@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #212 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 May 96 22:10:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 212 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson India's General Elections Slow Telecom Reform (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Manitoba Telephone is Going Public (Henry Wysmulek) Re: Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted (Ross Oliver) Re: Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted (Andy Smith) Change to Number Plan in New Zealand for Cellphones (Martin D. Kealey) Northern Electric Antique Phone Advice Wanted (George Richards) Re: Non-LEC Payphones (Stanley Cline) Telemanagement Vendor Information (Tony Dal Santo) Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (Don L. Jackson) Re: Tricked Into Switching (Billy Harper) Last Laugh! But Not Funny! Sponsorship Ideas (Cameron Young) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: India's General Elections Slow Telecom Reform Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 16:35:40 PDT From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org The Indian Techonomist: bulletin, May 2, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved India's general elections slow telecom reform May 2, 1996: Since last Saturday when the world's biggest democracy went to the polls, telecom companies hoping to venture into the potentially vast Indian market have been waiting. As much of the country's 590 million electorate started voting in general elections - in a multi-stage process of which results will start arriving only after the 7th - seven companies who have won ten of the twenty licences for basic telephony in regions across the country watched as the government dithered over signing licence agreements. Having received letters of intent (LoIs) from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) as long as five months ago, the licensees-in-waiting - whose foreign partners include Israel's Bezeq, Hughes, NYNEX, Bell Canada, Japan's NTT and Swiss PTT - have been unable to act upon their licences as uncertainty remains over the actual signing. The government blames procedural delays. Both the licence agreement and the interconnect agreement, which governs access between the competing networks of private companies and the DoT, are being vetted by the Law Ministry. The Law Ministry is reputed to work slowly, but it also provides a convenient excuse for government departments that wish to stall for any reason. Even if legal clearance is received soon, the agreements are not likely to be signed before the middle of this month - by which time a new government will be in the process of forming. Luckily, this is not the problem being faced by the 14 licensees for cellular services (two each competing in 18 regions) - they face more bureaucratic delays. Although their licence terms stipulate stiff penalties if they do not start providing service within a year of receiving their licence, they have been unable to get frequency clearance from the DoT's wireless advisor. This is partly because of the complexity of assigning so many frequencies; partly because the DoT lacks the efficient machinery to plan for and allocate large numbers of frequencies, having had till now very few users of the airwaves; and partly because the biggest user, the military, is reluctant to give up some of its frequencies to civilian use. The DoT has already said that the penalty clause will be waived if there are "genuine" problems in starting service; presumably delays in frequency allocation by the DoT itself will be seen as such. Yet while the problems faced by cellular providers are truly procedural, even technical, those worrying would- be basic telephony operators right now are in many senses political. Unlike cellular licences, where the total fees to be paid over the ten-year licence period are a little over $6 billion, basic telephony involves big money. As much as $35 billion was at stake in the first round of bidding last August. There were strange bidding patterns: one company, HFCL- Bezeq-Shinawatra walked away with a theoretical nine licences for $27 billion (to be paid over the 15 year period); as HFCL annual revenues were closer to $27 million there appeared to be something fishy. Another consortium Reliance-NYNEX (the Indian partner had revenues above $2 billion) bid for every circle, winning the poorer regions for what the DoT thought was a pittance. The Communications Minister, Sukh Ram, went abroad for his health. He returned and announced caps on the number of licences awarded to a single firm, as well as reserve prices on bids across all regions. An entire sitting of Parliament was wasted as Opposition parties charged the Minister with favouring HFCL, which happens to come from his home state of Himachal Pradesh. By the next sitting, this year, the Supreme Court had dismissed an assorted collection of legal challenges against the telecom privatisation process and the sudden changes in bidding norms, and no further mention was made of telecom. But there is a fair chance that the next government will not be formed by the currently ruling Congress Party; it may be a left-of-center coalition with or without the Congress, or quite possibly one based around the right-wing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Both left and right wing parties promise to bring up the controversial basic telephony bidding process if they come into power. This will affect not only the seven licensees-to-be but also the fate of the remaining eight circles for which bids have been rejected as being too low, as well as two others involved in a dispute. The left-wing approach will be to question the entire bidding process, particularly the notional loss of $18 billion thanks to the cap, which allowed HFCL to back out of many circles - although nobody expected it to afford that much anyway. The left - consisting of a loose coalition of parties from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) which rules the state of West Bengal to the Janata Dal (which formed a short-lived government in 1989) - is also likely to grumble about selling licences cheap. Purportedly to benefit the poor parts of the country, this approach which was adopted by the present government in its sudden decision to apply reserve prices is actually greed, pure and simple. Telecom reforms were to bring in much needed private and foreign investment to lift the telephone density from a miserable eight per 1,000 to at least 30. In chasing high licence fees instead, all that has happened is that while the wealthy regions will all receive investment, six of the poorest, all of which received bids in the first round (deemed too low) may well go without. The BJP has always been against too much government interference and, drawing much of its support from the trader and small business community, has come out against bureaucracy. On these grounds, it will not oppose telecom reforms for ideological reasons; its opposition may relate to the actual implementation. It will probably want to do something about the caps and multiple rounds - its spokesperson recently said that the new government should "hold a proper inquiry" into the bidding process, which was "marked by [a] lack of transparency." It is unclear what purpose this could serve, as the only practical steps are either to accept the current process and quickly hold another round - open to all comers and without reserve prices - for the remaining circles; or to scrap the second and third rounds altogether and issue letters of intent based upon the first one. The main loser this way would be HFCL, who would then have to lose their earnest money on the bids on which they decide to renege. This could even benefit large bidders such as Birla-AT&T and BPL- US West, who could originally have won a number of licences once HFCL was out of the picture, but with the caps and multiple rounds have ended up with nothing (though they have won cellular licences). However this will not please second-round winners such as Reliance- NYNEX, RPG-NTT-Itochu and Tata-Bell Canada. Telecom is not yet, unfortunately a concern in the elections. This is odd. Unlike the wider economic reforms, which are yet to reach the stage of trickling down to the villages, phones are extremely important to keep in touch with agricultural markets in the cities, and avoid high margin payments to intermediaries. For all his alleged corruption, the Communications Minister Sukh Ram is widely popular in his home state - he has made it a point to have payphones installed in every village. Perhaps five years later - if the next government lasts its full term - political parties will realise that contrary to conventional wisdom, it is the rural, often poor villagers who stand to gain the most from communications and information technology. Basic telephony and cellular licences, and rounds one, two and three of the basic bids can be found at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html Opinion polls and coverage of the Indian general elections are available on at least six web sites. The Times of India - http://www.cyberindia.com/timesofindia The Indian Express - http://express.indiaworld.com The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary. http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax 6856992; H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 17:45:08 CDT From: Henry Wysmulek Subject: Manitoba Telephone Goes Public *********************HOT OFF THE PRESS*************************** Manitoba Telephone System, a government owned crown corporation is to be converted to a publicly traded telco. **********************HOT OFF THE PRESS************************** H. WYSMULEK xhp195@freenet.mb.ca BLUE SKY FREENET [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The above is all I have on this at the present time. I guess it was announced in the news on Thursday afternoon. Perhaps there will be further reports on Friday or over the weekend. Send along any news please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: reo@netcom.com (Ross Oliver) Subject: Re: Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted Organization: The Air Affair: http://www.airaffair.com/ Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 21:03:17 GMT Foster Schucker (foster@voicenet.com) wrote: > I'm looking for an interface that will allow me to connect a telephone > headset to a Soundblaster (tm) card. I'd like to be able to play sounds > on the ear phone and use the microphone. I've tried some telephone > supply places and have drawn a blank. You probably will have a hard time adapting an actual telephone headset (Plantronics, etc) to a sound card. But you can get lightweight headphones with a boom mike designed for video production that should work. Check retail electronics outlets like Circuit City. Ross Oliver reo@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: aherncorp@aol.com (AhernCorp) Subject: Re: Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted Date: 1 May 1996 17:05:35 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: aherncorp@aol.com (AhernCorp) Ahern Communications now offers the Plantronics CAT-132, a computer headset designed to work with sound cards (like the SoundBlaster). You can see information, pictures and prices of the new Plantronics CAT product at: http://members.aol.com/AhernCorp/plantronics/cat.html Andy Smith, Director of Marketing Ahern Communications Corporation http://members.aol.com/AhernCorp/ 800-451-5067/Fax 617-328-9070 Business Communications Experts ------------------------------ Subject: Change to number plan in New Zealand for Cellphones Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 08:26:48 +1200 From: martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Martin D Kealey) Telecom New Zealand has recently announced that new cellphone connections will shortly have seven rather than the current six digits. With a few exceptions, all numbers here have been eight digits after the country code (64), so this is significant because it breaks this. Numbers for New Zealand are of the form: +64-A-XXXXXXX (all landline numbers) +64-2N-XXXXXX +64-2N-2XXXXXX (mobile numbers: cellphones, pagers, etc) In more detail: +64-21-XXXXXX Bellsouth cellphone +64-24099-XXX Scott Base (Antarctica) +64-25-XXXXXX Telecom cellphone +64-25-2XXXXXX new Telecom cellphone +64-26-1XXXXX Telecom pager +64-26-2XXXXXX Telecom pager +64-3-XXXXXXX all of South Island + Chatham & Stewart Islands +64-4-XXXXXXX Wellington (capital city) region +64-6-XXXXXXX south of North Island Island +64-7-XXXXXXX middle of North Island +64-83-XXXXXX mailbox & conferencing facilities +64-9-XXXXXXX north of North Island + Great Barrier Island Some numbers (like 0800-xxxxxx) are only dialable from within the NZ, so I haven't included them above. If anyone is interested, I also have a breakdown to finer detail; would you like them for the archives? Martin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, a file in more detail would be nice for the Archives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: George Richards Subject: Northern Electric Antique Phone Information Wanted Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 17:57:24 -0300 A coworker recently showed up with a N50AL Northern Electric Co. phone. Can anyone tell me the vintage of this phone. It's a candlestick type with a separate earphone, patent dates on the receiver module are from 1925-1935. It's currently bare brass; was it produced this way or has someone stripped off the black paint? Any help or pointers would be appreciated. George Richards ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Non-LEC Payphones Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 23:51:56 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) wrote: > Cocoa, Florida exchange. According to BellSouth, a call from > Melbourne to Cocoa is a local call. > I put my 25 cents in, dialed 427- and got a message saying "please > dial 1 plus the area code for this long distance call." I dialed "0" > (knowing I would get a BellSouth operator), verified Cocoa was in the Believe it or not, I had this happen today. My cellphone is in the shop (they are running tests on it -- again) and I stopped by a payphone to check my voicemail. I dialed the number (304-xxxx) and I was told to dial the area code. I dialed that and I got a reorder tone. (The call was between NPAs -- 423 and 706 -- but the call is local, and we DO NOT DIAL AREA CODES to call within the area. At least in non-ALLTEL CO's, we don't.) This phone belonged to Peoples Telephone of Miami. I called the 211 number and reported it. In other cities (especially Atlanta) I have found phones that block all PIC codes except AT&T's and MCI's; I have found phones that fail to recognize *67 or 950 numbers; I have found phones that time-out after some preset interval if no one answers; I have found phones that disable the DTMF keypad on 0+ calls. The major problem with COCOTs seems to be poor upkeep of the routing tables in the phones. I have repeatedly run into payphones that don't allow calls to new NPAs (such as 770, 423, etc.), that don't allow calls to new prefixes (read: prefixes established in *1992*, etc.), that don't allow any calls to cellular phone prefixes, and don't allow calls to areas served by independent telcos that are otherwise local. The major payphone vendors (Intellicall of Texas, and Elcotel of Sarasota, FL) have fixes for the NPA problems; it's up to the COCOT vendor to fix the others. > Here's my question. Just because BellSouth has decided Melbourne to > Cocoa is a local call, are non-BellSouth pay phones obliged to place > this call for as a local call? Isn't this company simply leasing > BellSouth phone lines for their pay phones? Would complaining to the Yes. The local calling area on the payphone should match that of the LEC. Note that in Georgia, countywide calling (where 1+ is required) may not be available from any payphone (LEC or non) because of the complexity of countywide implementation (which depends on tax zones, etc.) > company or the Common Carrier Bureau of the FCC help? You should complain to the Florida PSC/PUC and the payphone company. Complaining to the LEC will do no good, as they disclaim responsibility for what COCOTs do, and the FCC can't help since the call was not an interstate one. (In my case, where the local calling area spans state lines, they may be able to.) Stanley Cline, d/b/a Catoosa Computing Serv., Chatta., TN mailto:scline@usit.net -- http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CIS 74212,44 -- MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: tony@mtu.edu (Tony Dal Santo) Subject: Telemanagement Vendor Information Wanted Date: 2 May 1996 19:10:42 -0400 Organization: Michigan Technological University We are looking at (among others) Axis, Compco, and Telco Research as our telemanagement software vendor. I would be very grateful to get any feedback on these vendors and their products. Things like: Which product and version do you use? What is your server platform? What is your client platform? What modules do you use? How well does it integrate with your financial system? How satisfied are you? How has the vendor treated you? The functions we are looking to implement are call accounting, work orders, student resale, cable plant management, help desk, and storing various host and network info. Thanks, Tony Dal Santo ------------------------------ From: djackson@xroads.com (Don L. Jackson) Subject: Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 16:42:12 GMT Reply-To: djackson@xroads.com On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 06:02:06 CDT, you wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No information is provided to B since > it is only being used as an overflow/alternate for A, and A does not > subscribe to the service. The 'decision' in the software as to which > custom calling features to extend to a subscriber with an incoming > call are made before any 'decision' is made how to dispose of the > call if the specifically called line is unavailable for whatever ...stuff omitted... > Ditto on a call-forwarding situation. The central office 'finds out > about' your request to forward the calls after it has already decided > what privileges or services are to be provided you on your incoming > call. Naturally the final end stopping point still has to have a > Caller-ID box. When you want to turn on call screening or turn on > call forwarding, you do have to do it from the lead number in your > group however, the one which telco always tries first to deliver > your calls to before deciding on other ways to handle them, because > if it can drop a call on that line, it will do so. > Cellular phones usually do not send or receive caller-id, regardless > of what features you have on your landline phones. PAT] I have caller ID on line A and not on line B. When line B is call-forwarded to line A, it shows the CID information. I also have "custom/distinctive ringing" with two other numbers going to line A and they also show the CID info. Another line C at a different location which does not have CID, when forwarded to my line A also shows CID info. We have USWest Communications here in the metro Phoenix area. Regards, Don L. Jackson / Gilbert, AZ djackson@xroads.com ------------------------------ From: Billy Harper Subject: Re: Tricked Into Switching Date: 02 May 1996 13:58:56 GMT Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA To those who may not have it handy: FCC Enforcement Division F. Room 6202 Washington, D.C. 20554 Be advised, I filed an informal (formal costs $$) complaint about being slammed 4/21/95, and got my first response 3/7/96. I have since received responses from all involved parties, and a check from my LEC (GTE) as reimbursement for switchover fees (which I did NOT request -- I do not feel GTE was responsible for any of the problems I experienced.) As the 'slammee', I still am not satisfied with the way the FCC dealt with the 'slammer' (NTC -- National telephone and Communications, INC [a registered trademark goes here]). I would suggest all slammed parties always file a written complaint with the FCC and the state/local PUC. Don't change/hide any names -- there are no 'innocents'. BTW, Pat, I'd be glad to snail-mail you the historical (hysterical?) file of the entire proceeding. I'd retype/post it, but my employer expects me to get a little work done. Billy bharper@spd.dsccc.com Requirements Engineer Competitive Long Distance Carriers DSC Communications Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 96 13:06:29 -0700 From: Cameron Young Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd. Subject: Last Laugh! But Not Funny! Sponsorship Ideas Hi Pat, How about getting sponsors through advertising. I realized that we're all missing an obvious use for this newsgroup - building brand image. You see, you are encumbered by this mindset that you have a journalistic obligation to be unbiased. Rather, consider yourself a new type of "E-programming manager" or "editorial consultant". Exchange your unbiased perspective for US currency. (You know, just like PC Magazine, BCR, CNN, etc.) Here's a hypothetical rate schedule for your IXC market strategy: 1) Post one wildly enthusiastic endorsement of a specific IXC - $250. 2) Post a series of 10 followup endorsements confirming the initial posting - $1000. 3) Post one scathing critique of an obvious error of incompetence of an IXC competitor - $500 4) Post one scathing critique of deceptive / unethical practices of an IXC competitor - $1000 5) Rates to withhold publishing corresponding posts which favour a competitor are double the above. Now, postings can be like TV commercials. Endorsements can be done by "talent", not real people. Since the "posting talent" base is not well developed you'll need to recruit it through promotions. For example, you could sponsor a contest "BULLETIN: *** $10000 *** to the best, most believable, most compelling, most heart-warming post in favour of brand X Long Distance Carrier !!!" Of course, never post this in YOUR newsgroup. You need to have a separate group just for the "talent". OK ... my imagination has taken me far enough. You must admit it is scary though, since this is the way other mediums have gone. [TELECOM Digest Advertising Manager's Note: In 1953, {Reader's Digest} ran an opinion poll for their subscribers on the question of adver- tising. Up until that point, {Reader's Digest} had been totally free of any commercials at all. They told their readers times were getting tough and the choice as they saw it was to either start including advertising or to raise the price of the magazine which was then fifteen cents per issue to twenty-five cents per issue, published monthly then as now. At the time, DeWitt Wallace and his wife Lila Acheson-Wallace were still alive and at the helm of the magazine they began on the kitchen table in their Greenwich Village apartment in 1922. They asked the readers what to do, and the readers overwhelming voted in the poll to continue without any advertising. They said they would rather have to pay twenty-five cents for each issue in order to continue having the unbiased and truthful reports which appeared in each issue. Mr. Wallace finally decided that 'rather than become beholden to commercial interests' the {Digest} would raise its price to subscribers instead. He noted that {Time Magazine} was getting twenty-five cents per copy and that seemed to him to be a fair price; The {New York Times} was four cents per issue weekdays and twenty-five cents on Sunday, but they 'are always filled with all those ads; all the stores having sales ...' and he did not want his magazine to look like that. Perhaps eight or ten years later later, circa 1963 {Readers Digest} raised their price again and started including advertising anyway, although Mrs. Wallace assured everyone that 'we do not intend to run any beer or cigarette advertising; only nice products we personally can vouch for and approve of.' Well, look at it now, 33 years after that. When I first suggested two years ago a voluntary donation in the suggested amount of twenty dollars per reader/year would sustain me pretty well, there was a huge amount of hate mail from the Usenet side of things (comp.dcom.telecom) and this one fellow who went to many different newsgroups saying that if they did not stop me, 'before long he is going to close off the archives and charge people money to use those also ...' Well I have not closed them off, however if you like you can pay me for them ... remember the CD ROM I mentioned back at the start of this year? It's out in the stores now. Go to your favorite computer store and look in the CD ROM section for it. It's title is very simply TELECOM, with a sort of an interesting cover design. The retail price is about $39 and I had nothing to do with that. All I get are some royalties on it. It is the complete archives as they were on December 31, 1995, through the end of Volume 15, with all the other files and stuff as well. Please look for it in your stores and please buy one if you have a way to use CD's in your computer. I guess I am sort of proud of it. The producers plan to have an update in perhaps a year if the original sales warrant it. After you have looked it over, let me know what you think. The Telecom Archives remains available and free for use by anyone who wants to do so at anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu, cd telecom-archives. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #212 ******************************