Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA10950; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:34:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:34:03 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199612240534.AAA10950@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #675 TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Dec 96 00:34:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 675 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Parollees and the Net (Dale Farmer) Re: Parollees and the Net (Nevin Liber) Re: How Business Almost Derailed the Net (Robert McMillin) Re: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not (Kimmo Ketolainen) Re: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not (Nils Andersson) Re: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not (Henry Baker) Re: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not (Stuart Jeffery) Re: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not (Frederic Leroudier) Re: WebTV Sad Story (Leonard Erickson) Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges (John R. Levine) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dale@access5.digex.net (Dale Farmer) Subject: Re: Parollees and the Net Date: 23 Dec 1996 20:14:32 GMT Organization: Dale's House of Turnips Gary Sanders (gws@monroe.cb.att.com) wrote: > In article , Jack Decker > wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:33:12 PST, in comp.dcom.telecom is written: >>> The Justice Department announced Monday that the panel voted this >>> month to authorize such restrictions as requiring certain parolees to >>> get prior written approval from the commission before using an >>> Internet service provider, computerized bulletin board system or any >>> public or private computer network. > What next; parolees need permission to go to a 7/Eleven?. If they are > that worried that the person is going to commit another crime why are > they being let out in the first place? You are forgetting what parole is. It is the state letting convicted criminals serve out the tail end of their sentence under (supposedly) strict supervision outside of the prison. They have many other restrictions placed on their lifestyles during this period. Such as weekly drug tests, cannot associate with other parolees, can be checked up on at any time, must account for all of their time when they meet their parole officer. Reduced protections against search and seizure, Freedom of speech and association curtailed, many other aspects of their life controlled. The goal is to give a smooth transition from the total control prison lifestyle to a productive free citizen lifestyle. Of course in practice it is generally not that well implemented, but life is not perfect. Dale ------------------------------ From: nevin@cs.arizona.edu (Nevin Liber) Subject: Re: Parollees and the Net Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:37:05 -0700 Organization: University of Arizona CS Department, Tucson Arizona In article , jack@novagate.com (Jack Decker) wrote: > But consider this: Suppose that someone were arrested in connection > with political activities. It is entirely conceivable that because > the government wanted to silence that person's views, they would > stipulate that the person stay off of computers (and certainly off of > the Internet) during their parole. It isn't just arrested. In order to be a parollee, you must be arrested, indicted, arraigned, have a criminal trial, be convicted by a jury of twelve of your peers, and spend some time in jail. Parollees don't have the same rights as other U.S. citizens since they committed a crime that is harmful to society at large. Nevin ":-)" Liber (520) 293-2799 ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: How Business Almost Derailed the Net Reply-To: rlm@helen.surfcty.com Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:30:38 GMT On 18 Dec 1996 20:52:10 PDT, Monty Solomon published a newsletter by Nathan Newman , famed "progressive" and longtime champion of every wacky socialist idea to come grinding down the road. This letter purported to show why capitalism is Bad For The Net and how it could one day End The Net As We Know It. Like most good socialists, Newman finds new and inventive ways to blame the market for governmental failures. Too, he ignores or gets wrong significant details of the Internet's history. > The Internet is in many ways the product of central planning in > its rawest form: planning over decades, large government subsidies > directed from a national headquarters, and experts designing and > overseeing the project's development. The government not only created > whole new technologies to make the Internet a possibility, it created > the standards for forms of economic exchange of information that had > never been possible before. Yes, and at every turn the government tried to stop such "economic exchange of information". Remember the old "fair use" restrictions on Usenet traffic? Hell, the owners of the old Arpanet SF-LOVERS mailing list used to get queasy thinking some government snoop might shut them down! No, Nathan, the Internet as a mass medium wasn't possible until the government got out of it. Certainly, I'll grant the researchers who invented TCP/IP did some great work, but the government's role in expanding the Internet is a sorry tale of restrictions. > It's worth remembering that the headlines just a few years back > in 1993 about the Information Superhighway were not over the Internet > and software companies like Netscape but about mergers and financial > deals between those who controlled the cables to the home, on the > assumption that those who monopolized control of the physical hardware > connecting homes and business would reap monopoly profits in selling > information services. As Fortune magazine described the ultimately > unsuccessful merger of TCI cable and Bell Atlantic telephone back in > 1993, "It was the bold stroke of two captains of industry bent on > securing their share of whatever booty washes ashore when the > interactive age finally arrives ... When the dust settles, there will > probably be eight to ten major operators on the highway, some earning > their way mainly by collecting tolls for the use of their networks." Yes, and what was that NII supposed to be? Could it have been Al Gore's wet dream of a government-financed-but-privately-operated data network? > In many ways, this private vision harked back not to the original > federal highway system but to the first transit system that > criss-crossed the nation's land -- the railroads. [...] But in 1993, the NII was supposed to be something even more whiz-bang than the Internet. Now, first, it's pretty clear that the capital to build and operate one of these NII thingys is just not gonna appear in the Federal budget. Second, an analogy does not reality make. Newman here takes a previous case (railroad gauge standards) and extrapolates from it a situation that simply did not exist after the privatization of the Internet. If he were to ever escape from the pink-lined walls of his Berkeley asylum, Newman might realize that the market has brutally punished AOL, Microsoft, GE, Apple, and Compuserve for their proprietary networks. The Internet has been successful in part because of the open nature of its standards, true, but far more because of the willingness of individuals to use their capital to provide connections. > RAND was enthusiastic about Baran's ideas but when AT&T was > approached about its feasibility, AT&T executives dismissed the idea > and even refused to share information on their long distance circuit > maps -- Baran had to purloin a copy to evaluate his ideas which he > and RAND were convinced were right. Based on RAND's recommendation, > the Air Force directly asked AT&T to build such a network but AT&T > still refused saying it wouldn't work (except for a faction of > scientists at Bell Labs). This may have been technical myopia by > the business-oriented executives, but it was an economically > self-interested myopia. Such a distributed network threatened (and > today does threaten) the central economic assets of the telephone > industry: central computers and central switches. It highlights the > fact that corporate research labs, the main alternative to long-term > government funding of technological alternatives, rarely if ever > invest in fundamental technology that will likely undermine the > natural economic monopolies they currently enjoy. Well, golly, who GAVE the old Bell System that monopoly in the first place? Nathan gets it both ways here, as he is so frequently wont to do: he blames the old Bell system for attitudes that were, if not fostered by, undeniably built upon government-granted monopoly. Back in those days, Ma Bell provided a phone, told you how to dial, but no way would they tell you how it works. I can hardly be surprised that they didn't want to cooperate with technical details about their digital transmission networks. > The political economist Karl Polanyi argued half a century ago > that "The road to the free market was opened and kept open by the > enormous increase in continuous, centrally organized and controlled > interventionism." The reality is that the Internet is no accident but > neither was it a technological inevitability. It was the product of a > US federal government, in association with other nation's experts, > guiding its evolution, in demanding that its standards be open and in > the public domain, and that its reach be extended broadly enough to > overwhelm the proprietary corporate competitors. In the end, however, this analysis is sheer BS. Want two different computer vendors' machines to talk? Gee, does HP make an SNA protocol stack? No? Why didn't OSI ever able get off the ground? Maybe it hadn't been tested. Maybe it was too complex. But in any case, ascribing the success of TCP/IP to the fiat of some five-year-planner in government is simple nonsense. In the final analysis, TCP/IP was the only workable lingua franca available on *all* platforms. > This privatization of the Internet threatens further evolution of > the Internet. This extends from the coordination of networking to > avoid capacity overload to the danger that standards and protocol > design are being shaped more and more to commercial needs. Which, while you're sneering at it, includes things like expanding the Net so Aunt Tillie can use it and providing more and better services. Ever wondered why the government-protected telcos hate IPhone? Do you think the NSF would have allowed such a thing back when they were running the show? Yes, there are capacity problems, but they were present back in the dear, departed, Federally-subsidized days Nathan longs for -- capacity problems that would undoubtedly be solved by bandwidth rationing. Yes, Microsoft's dance with open standards in the form of ActiveX is execrable, but nobody forces me to use the thing. Likewise, Netscape's creation-by-fiat of HTML standards has overrun the usual standards creation process. However, for the most part, both companies' browsers do work on pages "best viewed with" the other. Net commerce has not ground to a halt. The world continues to spin 360 degrees each day. The faith of communists and "progressives" in government seems unshakable, and nowhere is it more unshakable than in the U.S., where communism has luckily has never been tried. Mr. Newman pulls out of his hat a few examples where government works. By extension, he claims that more would be better. Inbetween, he conveniently forgets how the Net got from UCLA to Main Street -- not through someone at the Department of Defense, but because of private ISPs. This, to me, is inexcusable. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On the other hand Robert, I have seen some changes around here in the past couple years caused by the intrusion of big business and the mass media into the net which have in my opinion produced some perfectly dreadful results. A lot of those people basically just moved in and took over, not knowing anything about net history or culture, and rarely caring about it either way. It just seems to me a lot of the new entries on the net have ruined it for the rest of us. Perhaps it is just my annual time of the year to be very depressed (I am today) but to be honest with you, this net for me is no longer fun; it just is no longer a place I want to be any more than I have to. I lay the blame for that on the arrival of the many corporate new-comers in the past year or two. Big goverment is hardly the answer either. I would like to see .edu and .org go our separate ways and leave the mess the internet has become to .com with all the spammers, junk-emailers, etc. Seriously, I am just getting very sick of it. So please don't discredit everything he had to say. A lot of it made sense to me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kk@iki.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen) Subject: Re: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not Date: 23 Dec 1996 06:47:44 +0200 Organization: Weyland-Yutani Group > I have a GH388 GSM phone from Sprint Spectrum/DC which I'd like to use > in PacBell's GSM service area in Los Angeles (and someday all of CA). > But they use a CF388 phone, and possibly a different frequency (1800 > vs 1900 MHz)? > How can I find out exactly which GSM systems worldwide use the GH388, > and who the mystery carrier is in San Jose? And what's the point of a > worldwide standard like GSM if everybody has a different, incompatible > implementation? GH388 and GF388 are basically the same telephone, but the latter one comes with the flip cover. As far as I know, Ericsson already produces them for all networks, analog and digital. GSM in question there are three phones models, three and implementations of the GSM network: 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 1900 MHz. Basically phones are interchangable between these three types of networks. Both Ericsson phones are being sold here for the "old" 900 MHz networks as the 1800 MHz networks have not yet been opened for public access. GH338 is the dominant Ericsson phone on the market. The only _nearly_ worldwide GSM frequency at the moment and far into the future (10 years, 20 years) will be 900 MHz. Here comes the short term problem: the first double or triple frequency phones are still being finished off in Lund at Ericsson and in Salo at Nokia. So, if you want to start using a GSM phone now right away, you'll have to pick one using a _single_ frequency band. You can't have a GSM phone in the 900 MHz frequency in USA because other traffic uses that frequency. Between 1800 MHz and 1900 MHz the first one would be your best choice, as it will be the first US GSM frequency to be used to roam in another country (UK, in January), and nearly all current "doubled frequency" networks abroad use 1800 MHz, especially in Europe. However, according to the country-by-country and network-by-network listings at GSM MoU Association's site at http://www.gsmworld.com all current US networks use 1900 MHz, including Pacific Bell and Sprint (under a different name). This pretty much says what you should get. [If anyone's interested, the 900 MHz GH338 is being sold here for FIM 2690 (lowest), that's USD 581 or DEM 901. Bundling with a contract is prohibited to ensure fair competition and low network traffic fees.] Kimmo Ketolainen * kk@sci.fi * http://iki.fi/kk * Tel. Earth +358 40 55555 08 Studentville 84A, 20540 Turku, Finland * irc:Kimble#42 * Fax +358 22 50 22 40 SunOS weyland-yutani0 5.5 Generic_103093-03 sun4d sparc SUNW,SPARCserver-1000 ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not Date: 23 Dec 1996 17:50:33 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , Juha Veijalainen writes: > - they have more services available than DC system (data, voice > mail, SMS and related services, fax, IN services, etc.); Data traffic works for PacBell GSM. I tried it in August, went down to the RNC just to check out Pac Bell GSM, plugged their PCMCIA card into my laptop, and hit the icon to connect to Compuserve. Voila! I do not know if the support SMS and voice mail, but believe they do or at least very soon will. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:17:58 GMT In article , lloydm@pop.svl.trw. com wrote: > I have a GH388 GSM phone from Sprint Spectrum/DC which I'd like to use > in PacBell's GSM service area in Los Angeles (and someday all of CA). > But they use a CF388 phone, and possibly a different frequency (1800 > vs 1900 MHz)? The people at PacBell Mobile Services said the phones > were not compatible, and that their GSM was "better" than in Europe or > DC. You'd think they'd go with the majority standard so they could > collect roaming fees, unless the later phases of GSM service will only > work with PacBell's system? I believe that PacBell uses the 'enhanced full-rate' voice encoder, which is different from the 'full-rate' voice encoder used by Sprint Spectrum in DC. I believe that transcoding between the two is possible, but the software to do so may not be enabled yet. The frequency band _is_ the same -- 1900 MHz. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:19:59 -0800 From: Stuart Jeffery Subject: Re: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not In TELECOM Digest V16 #670 Lloyd Matthews writes: > I have a GH388 GSM phone from Sprint Spectrum/DC which I'd like to use > in PacBell's GSM service area in Los Angeles (and someday all of CA). > But they use a CF388 phone, and possibly a different frequency (1800 > vs 1900 MHz)? The people at PacBell Mobile Services said the phones > were not compatible, and that their GSM was "better" than in Europe or > DC. You'd think they'd go with the majority standard so they could > collect roaming fees, unless the later phases of GSM service will only > work with PacBell's system? All North America (US and Canada) PCS operates on the same frequencies. The band assignment for PCS in North America is different than PCN (European name for PCS) because of the FCC allocated different bands. So Sprint Spectrum/APC phones are frequency compatible with PacBell Mobile Services (PBMS), but neither is compatible with the European band allocation. They are compatible with each other as they both are PCS1900 (which is the name North America upbanded GSM) The reason you can't roam between Sprint Spectrum/APC and PBMS in San Jose is PBMS network in San Jose is not yet commercially operating. You might be able to roam now between Sprint Spectrum/APC and PBMS in San Diego. If you can't, it is most likely a business issue, coupled with some inter network technical subtleties, which are being rapidly resolved. All the North American PCS1900 operators are working to get roaming agreements in place and the inter-working tested as fast as they can. The reason PBMS people say their system is "better" than Europe is that PBMS launched its network using the Enhanced Full Rate Vocoder (EFRV). The original GSM vocoder (Full Rate Vocoder - FRV) was developed in late 80's and it is what is commonly deployed in GSM systems today. Speech processing has improved a lot since the late 80's. Many PCS1900 operators, PBMS included, wanted to have the best sounding speech they could and thus have adopted EFRV from the start. To take advantage of EFRV both the phone and the network must be EFRV compatible. Sprint Spectrum/APC launched before the EFRV standard was completed and their phones are standard Full Rate Vocoder. Because of backward compatibility, FRV phones should work on PBMS network (provided there is a roaming agreement in place) but the phone must be EFRV capable to take advantage of the EFRV feature. The GSM standard is controlled by the GSM MOU and the standard supports multiple vocoders on the same network. EFRV has been accepted by the GSM MOU as an alternate Vocoder and it will become, over time, supported by all GSM operators all over the world. In the mean time, if EFRV cannot be supported, by either the phone or the network, the FRV will be used. > The odd thing is that something is weakly pinging my phone in San Jose > and giving me a No Access message. I can't figure out who the carrier > might be, since Pac Bell isn't officially up yet in NoCal and they're > supposedly incompatible anyway. PBMS is putting up bases stations in the Bay Area at a rapid rate. These base stations are currently operating in a test mode. Your phone is responding to the signals from these bases stations, trying to gain access, but being denied access. Your phone is being denied access because the system is coded for only engineering tests. If the system were commercially operating, like it is in San Diego and Las Vegas, your phone will be granted access provided PBMS and Sprint Spectrum/APC have worked out their roaming agreement. Within a few months, these problems should be all be worked out. > How can I find out exactly which GSM systems worldwide use the GH388, > and who the mystery carrier is in San Jose? And what's the point of a > worldwide standard like GSM if everybody has a different, incompatible > implementation? GSM is a world wide standard, but it has to operate in the frequency bands that are allocated by the local regulating authorities. The US chose not to use the same band as had been already adopted by Europe. Maybe someone else knows the history of that decision. Stuart Jeffery phone (415) 966-8199 1072 Seena Ave. fax (415) 966-8456 Los Altos, CA. 94024 stu@accesscom.com ------------------------------ From: fleroudier@ftna.com (Frederic Leroudier) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:42:20 -0800 Organization: France Telecom, Inc. Subject: GSM is GSM is GSM - Not What PacBell is referring to as "better" than in Europe is probably their use of the so-called "enhanced speech coder" in their network. Of course this new feature will only work with handsets that also support it, but it shouldn't prevent those (GSM handsets that operate in the US 1900 MHz band that is) that don't from registering with the network, provided of course that it has a subscription to PacBell or to any network with which PacBell has a roaming agreement. Frederic Leroudier FLeroudier@FTNA.com ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: WebTV Sad Story Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:50:43 PST Organization: Shadownet Alan Bishop writes: > Hi. Although I'm a software engineer for WebTV networks, these are my > own opinions, and I don't speak for the company in any way. > beck@slidell.com (Jeff Becklehimer) writes: >> Also, when you say an image is "too detailed" does this mean you also >> resize or reduce the number of colors of the images to make them fit >> on the screen? > We resize large images so that they fit on a television screen. We > translate from one image format to another. I believe that some image > formats store information in a "most detailed" to "least detailed" > order, which means we can algorithmically throw away detail that > wouldn't show up anyway. The closest to this "most detailed to least detailed" idea that I'm aware of is the use of "interleaved" display on some GIF files. Bit maps are bitmaps. To throw away detail you have to process the image *very* carefully, or the result is useless. A *very* good test for your dithering algorithms would be to take a 800x600x256 (or more!) color image that contains some *small* print in black on white. By "small" I mean that the "strokes" of the letters are only a pixel or so across. It's virtually certain that your resolution reducing software will render the text unreadable. For cases like this, the ability to display *portions* of an image at the original resolution is a necessity. As well as being able to "pan" this view around the larger virtual image. Otherwise you'll have some unhappy customers the first time they come across a set of plans or diagrams on a web page. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 96 12:34:00 EST From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. >> The set-use fee is now $45.85 per month regardless of the number of >> calls. As of 9/1/97 it becomes $0.35 per call. This amount is set by >> the FCC. As of 9/1/98 it becomes the initial deposit amount for local >> calls at the payphone. It is not an arbitrary amount. A payphone >> which imposes an arbitrarily high fee for local coin calls will >> probably not stay in business very long! Wow, is this a screaming invitation for abuse. Here's my plan: 1. Place COCOTs all over the place, by promising location owners an unheard of $2 for every call, local or long distance, from the phone. 2. Adjust them to require a $10.00 initial deposit, in quarters, for the first minute for local calls. Mark this clearly on the phone. 3. Encourage merchants to place a phone card dispenser next to each of my phones that sells 800-access cards that give you, say, four minutes for a dollar. 4. Place large signs on each phone that say NO COINS NEEDED FOR 800/888 CALLS. Now I get $8, net, per call, remitted automatically from the IXCs, and I'll only have go out to collect the coins from the phones (which is tedious, expensive, and prone to theft) once a century or so. Explain to me why, under the new FCC rules, this would be illegal. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, http://iecc.com/johnl, "New witty saying coming soon." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #675 ******************************