Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA21468; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:38:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:38:40 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199612260338.WAA21468@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #678 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Dec 96 22:38:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 678 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson No Progress on Indian Regulators for Telecom, Broadcasting (R Ghosh) Book Review: "VRML: Exploring Virtual Worlds on the Internet" (R. Slade) Bell Issuing Year-Long *Temporary* Numbers (Andrew B. Hawthorn) California Area Codes, the Real Story (Linc Madison) Web Page on Federal Telecom Act (Danny Burstein) AT&T 3.5 Cents per Minute Illinois (Monty Solomon) Re: Replacing A Cell Phone (Ed Ellers) A Christmas Present From the FCC (Jeremy Parsons) Christmas Cheer (Julie Lumine) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: No Progress on Indian Regulators For Telecom, Broadcasting Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 13:56:46 PST From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org The Indian Techonomist: bulletin, December 21, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved No progress on Indian telecom, broadcasting regulators - Direct-to-Home TV stalled, wireline telecom licences crawl December 21: With the close of the winter session of Parliament this week, there has been little progress in the process of creating independent regulatory authorities for telecom and broadcasting. Legislation for the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the lack of which has stalled the telecom privatisation programme, is now likely to wait three months for the next session of Parliament. For broadcasting, the government passed an order yesterday requiring licences for the use of dish antennas for reception of signals at 4800Mhz - this is meant to stall Ku-band broadcasts for Direct-To-Home (DTH) television until the government and parliament agree on comprehensive legislation ending the government monopoly on broadcasting. The bill on broadcasting, calling for an independent regulatory authority, was not even presented in this session of parliament. In the second week of this month, Indian Communications Minister Beni Prasad Verma had conditionally cleared a bill - previously a Presidential Ordinance - that was to set up the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) if passed in the current session of Parliament. Mr Verma reportedly accepted many suggestions of the parliamentary committee on telecom, including those to do with the composition of the authority, but drew a line at the crucial one: an excision of section 35 of the TRAI Bill, which states that the regulator may create rules "with the previous approval of the Central Government" seriously limiting its credibility as an institution independent of the government. The Minister reportedly accepted the committee's suggestion to strengthen the wording of the TRAI bill clarifying that its jurisdiction would extend to the network operations of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), which while losing its monopoly will remain the main wireline operator and only provider of nationwide and international long- distance services. However, the intent to retain section 35 makes the boundaries between various roles of the DoT - representative of state, policy-maker, licenser, regulator, operator - rather porous. The telecoms regulator, as planned, is neither like the American FCC nor the British Oftel; it does not - and the government has made it clear that it will not - have the power to grant licences of any sort. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India will act as a sort of special court. According to the TRAI bill, the main role of the authority is to ensure that the agreements between operators are followed, to act on complaints from telecom service consumers, and to resolve conflicts between the DoT and its private competitors. With the DoT operations likely to remain part of the government for some time, the independence of the TRAI is thought crucial by industry. The TRAI will be headed by a High Court judge - or a retired Supreme Court judge. This is traditional in autonomous institutions set up by the Indian government that operate. Its members, according to the original bill, were to be drawn from diverse government departments; following the Parliament's objections, this may be extended to "respected" members of the public and business. The TRAI bill has been trying to get past Parliament since fall 1995. It was then held up for two sessions of Parliament, and was issued as an Presidential ordinance (executive order). This was not ratified by Parliament, and lapsed. The Bill returned to Parliament last month, and was criticised. The changes approved by the cabinet yesterday have not be enough for the bill to pass this year - the bill was not even presented in Parliament. This leaves the primary concern of the private operators - and most of the telecom privatisation process - dangling. Wireline licences crawl on Though cellular networks are now spreading across the country, as licensees nationwide begin to start operations, the licensing of basic services - wireline and fixed wireless telephony - has come to a standstill after a short-lived break-through in October. Then, five of six holders of Letters of Intent (LoIs) from the DoT accepted the government's offer. The private consortia - Reliance-Nynex, Ispat-Hughes, Tata-Bell Canada, Essar-Bell Atlantic, Usha Techno Teleservices and RPG-NTT - were worried about government policies on licence transferability and interconnect rates with the DoT's competing network. The Communications Minister - Beni Prasad Verma - offered to meet the private operators half-way - verbally, but not in writing. So while five signed the LoI, RPG-NTT - which put in a high bid for the Tamil Nadu circle - did not, and sued the DoT when it tried to encash the bidder's earnest money. This puts five bids in court: the highest first- round bidder, HFCL, sued the DoT in June, and a verdict was postponed this month by the Delhi High Court, to the middle of next month. Early this month, four of the five bidders sent a letter to the DoT reiterating their complaints (Reliance chose to keep quiet), and asked for the Minister's promises to be reflected in the licence agreement. They are also upset by the delays in the creation of the TRAI, without which they feel reluctant to sign the agreement, leave alone pay the first installment of their hefty licence fees. The DoT has also not gone ahead with issuing LoIs for three other circles, where the bidders are keen to sign up. One of them - Bharti-Stet for the Madhya Pradesh circle - is a simple case, while the other two face legal complications. Ispat-Hughes' bid for Karnataka was cleared by the courts this month; the method of evaluating the weighted criteria of the bid - which included points for rural coverage and the use of locally-manufactured equipment - had been contested by Tata-Bell Canada. Shyam-Harris' bid for Rajasthan, where the initial pay-out plan over the 15-year licence period differed from other bidders' resulting in the discounted present value dropping below the reserve price, was cleared under law with a new pay-out schedule. But the DoT has acted on none of these three, using as its perennial excuse possibly non-existent delays at the Law Ministry, the government's internal solicitors. It is difficult to fathom why the government is delaying the legislative and executive actions needed for a completion of these reforms. Every delay opens possibilities of further setbacks. The reluctance of the government to accept changes to the TRAI bill suggested by the parliamentary committee on telecom has been followed by a committee report criticising the entire telecom privatisation process. The committee - chaired by a member of India's main Communist party - has complained about the notional loss of some $15 billion thanks to the caps on licences per bidder giving HFCL-Bezeq-Shinawatra an exit from five of its nine high bids; this issue stalled activity in the entire parliamentary session a year ago, after the August 1995 tenders. The committee has also questioned the planned roles of the DoT and private operators, as well as plans to corporatise the network operations of the DoT. The only explanation at hand for government indecision seems to be the Minister's preoccupation with events in his home state of Uttar Pradesh, where inconclusive recent elections led to a hung assembly, its suspension and the imposition of President's rule. After a short spell of much publicised activity in telecom affairs immediately after the arrest of his predecessor in the $4 million telecom scandal this August, the Communications Minister has not pushed things forward. At this rate, the Techonomist's prediction the day the tenders were opened - that there would be "considerable delays" in basic service licences - seems far from pessimistic. Indeed, October's forecast of a TRAI sometime after April 1997, with significant operational wireline networks not before the third quarter of next year, now seems almost certain. For more information, including details of cellular/wireline licensees, bids and the text of the TRAI Ordinance, see the hypertext version of this document at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/21dec96.html The Indian Techonomist: http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) A4/204 Ekta Vihar 9 Indraprastha Extension New Delhi 110092 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:42:17 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "VRML: Exploring Virtual Worlds on the Internet" BKVRMLEV.RVW 960924 "VRML: Exploring Virtual Worlds on the Internet", Walter Goralski/Matthew Poli/Peter Vogel, 1997, 0-13-486960-5, U$39.95/CC$55.95 %A Walter Goralski %A Matthew Poli %A Peter Vogel %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-486960-5 %I Prentice Hall %O U$39.95/CC$55.95 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 481 %T "VRML: Exploring Virtual Worlds on the Internet" So, having an Internet account no longer sets you apart? Most of your friends are "surfing the Web" now, too? Some of them even have followed your lead in setting up a Web home page? Need to maintain your technological superiority? Go VRML, young man, go VRML. The Virtual Reality Modeling Language is a description language for three dimensional (virtual reality) graphical spaces. It also has the hypermedia linking capability that HTML (HyperText Markup Language) gives to the World Wide Web. Thus VRML proposes the possibility of "browsing" through virtual malls and museums, rather than the simple page oriented information links currently provided by the Web. At the moment, that promise is more proposed than actual. Virtual worlds do exist in cyberspace (if you have the right browser), but tend to be explorations of the ideas rather than useful presentations. Still, they do exist, and this book indicates that VRML is growing: this is a basic, user level introduction to the field. While other VRML books are more technical, and concentrate on the building of 3-spaces, almost half of the text here deals with the concepts (coming close to being tedious on the subject) and the installation and use of one of the included browsers. This is, then, a book for the novice user who wants a bit of hand-holding while getting started on VRML explorations. The VRML side of the text does give some instruction on simple shape creation, but those who do want to build virtual worlds will have to look elsewhere. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKVRMLEV.RVW 960924. Distribution permitted in TELECO Digest and associated publications. Vancouver roberts@decus.ca | You realize, of Institute for rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | course, that these Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/ | new facts do not User .fidonet.org | coincide with my Security Canada V7K 2G6 | preconceived ideas ------------------------------ Subject: Bell Issuing Year-Long *Temporary* Numbers Date: Tue, 24 Dec 96 10:27:20 -0600 From: Andrew B. Hawthorn I recently moved from Atlanta to Houston and became a Southwestern Bell customer. When I contacted Southwestern Bell to set up my residential service, they assigned me two phone numbers that were in NPA 281 (which recently split from 713), despite being well inside Beltway 8, the approximate boundary for the geographic split. The SWBT representative told me that all of the 713 numbers in my area had been taken and that I would have to be assigned a 281 area code number. It's not so much the annoyance of 10-digit dialing to old neighbors and 7-digit dialing to new neighbors that gets me; rather, it's the absurd fact that SWBT is changing my NPA *and* prefix within a year. On Saturday, I received a letter in the mail from Southwestern Bell explaining the terms of the 281 area code number assignment: (From the SWBT Letter) Dear Mr. Hawthorn: We want to provide you with additional information concerning your recently assigned telephone number. The 281 number you received is temporary and will change to 713 by the end of 1997. This temporary arrangement is necessary because we have run out of 713 numbers and must fill new requests with 281 numbers resulting from the new area code being added to Houston. The new 281 area code is being implemented by means of a geographical split as directed by the Public Utility Commission of Texas. Under this plan, central Houston and the surrounding area will keep 713. Customers outside a boundary that roughly follows Beltway 8 will change to 281 but keep the remaining seven digits of their telephone numbers. Since these 281 customers will move out of the 713 area code, additional numbers will be available to be assigned within the new 713 geographic boundary by the end of 1997. Until then, it will be necessary to fill new requests for telephone service with 281 numbers, even within the new 713 boundary, where you reside. That's why you received 281-290-XXXX as your temporary number. By the end of 1997, both your area code and your prefix (the first three digits of your phone number - 290) will change. Your area code will become 713 and we will notify you of your new prefix. We wanted to let you know about this upcoming change to enable you to plan appropriately for such items as personal stationary and business cards. As always, we're available to visit with you concerning this change. If you have any questions, please call our Area Code Hotline on 1 800 869-5868. Our goal is to keep you informed as a valued customer of Southwestern Bell. We appreciate your business. ------------- I can't find any records that indicate that there is a 713-290-XXXX exchange. Why couldn't they create one so that new customers could have a 713 number and wouldn't have to change their area code or prefix? I find it terribly inconceivable that they are totally out of 713 numbers in my area. Are they conserving these numbers? I suppose I should include an asterisk after my phone numbers on my stationary with a disclaimer reading "subject to change without notice." Andrew B. Hawthorn ahawthorn@earthlink.net ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: California Area Codes; The Real Story Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 15:28:51 -0800 Here is my cut at what the Associated Press report SHOULD have said: Millions of California phone customers are likely to see their area codes change by the year 2001 under a policy adopted by the state Public Utilities Commission. In a 3 to 2 vote Friday, the commission decided that in order to accommodate millions of new phone lines, area codes running out of capacity must be split geographically. The decision will force an estimated 12 million to 15 million California residents and businesses to change area codes in the next few years, Pacific Bell projects. The commission rejected so-called "overlay" plans in which new area codes are introduced within the same geographic boundaries as existing codes, adding capacity without forcing customers to change. [SO FAR, SO GOOD] Of the 13 new area codes that Pacific Bell projects will be needed, four have already received final approval. Area codes 619 and 310 in southern California, and area codes 415 and 916 in northern California, will all split in 1997. In addition, plans for splits of area code 510 in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area and area code 818 in Los Angeles County, are nearly completed. Plans for splits of the 408 and 714 area codes are in preliminary stages, and area codes 213, 209, and 805 will also require splits. The possibility exists that both area codes 310 and 415 will require a second split around the year 2000. [NEW TEXT, WITH ACTUAL FACTS] The ruling was a setback for Pacific Bell, which had fought for the overlay option. The company argued that the plan would allow existing customers to avoid printing new stationery and business cards and notifying associates of number changes. "The transition cost to customers (of area code splits) will be in the tens of millions of dollars," said Pacific Bell spokesman Dave Miller. [MINOR CORRECTIONS] Explaining the ruling, the commission cited surveys showing that most consumers prefer area code splits to overlays. In a written statement, the commission said that "the greatest concerns about an overlay are having a mix of codes within the same household or business." Further, overlays require customers to dial 11 digits even on calls in their area code. Most of Pacific Bell's competitors, including major long distance companies that are entering the local market, favor geographic splits. If customers of the new companies all get new area codes, many people might be reluctant to switch providers, they fear. [MINOR CORRECTIONS] However, in some areas of California, particularly area code 213 in central Los Angeles County, 11-digit dialing is already a fact of life in an area code that covers only 9 square miles, but which will soon border on four other area codes. Also, telecommunications experts point out that having to change area codes is a secondary consideration in switching local providers -- more important is the issue of changing the 7-digit local number. In addition, an overlay plan can be structured to give residential and small business customers requesting additional lines priority in receiving spare numbers in the old area code, to avoid having two different area codes in the same household or small business. Besides that, the area code will soon be thought of in the same terms as the prefix -- the first three digits of a 7-digit local number -- and no one seems confused by having different prefixes in the same household or business. [NEW TEXT] Having different area codes within the same neighborhood is already a reality in Los Angeles County, and will be moreso in the future, whether the PUC continues with geographic splits or moves forward into overlays. [NEW TEXT] Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Excpet it is quite unlikely that anyone will have two different area codes in the same private residence or in an office, regardless of how much new service they install. Even with an overlay plan, there always remains a small residual of numbers from the old area code to be used to fill in where appropriate in existing service situations, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 07:56:34 EST From: danny burstein Subject: Web Page on Federal Telecom Act ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:24:43 EST From: Elliott Parker <3ZLUFUR@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Subject: Fwd: Web page on fed. Telecom. Act ========== Forwarded Message ======== Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:14:08 -0600 From: Gleason Sackman Subject: RESOUR> Web page on fed. Telecom. Act Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 16:55:59 -0600 (CST) From: Bob Bocher Subject: Web page on fed. Telecom. Act To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L ------------------------Original message----------------------- Hi: The federal Telecommunications Act (104-104), which passed in Feb. of this year, holds both promise (universal service section) and problems (CDA) for the library community. If you have an interest in this area I have had a Web page on the act available since about March. It is at: http://www.state.wi.us/agencies/dpi/www/telecom_act.html This page has about 50 links divided into the following three sections. 1) General Information On The Act. Includes actual full text of the act, reviews, interpretations and critiques. 2) Information On Universal Service (US). Includes the section of the Act related to US including statements by ALA and FCC actions in this area. 3) Information On The Communications Decency Act (CDA). This section includes sites tracking CDA activities and court actions on this issue. I hope you find this site useful. Bob Bocher, Library Technology Consultant WI Dept. of Public Instruction, State Division for Libraries... Box 7841 Madison, WI 53707 608-266-2127 fax: 608-267-1052 bocherf@mail.state.wi.us 2nd email: rbocher@mail.badgerdial.net http://www.state.wi.us/agencies/dpi/www/lib_nii.htm Forwarded by List Owner -------------------------------------------- Elliott Parker BITNET: 3ZLUFUR@CMUVM Journalism Dept. Internet: elliott.parker@cmich.edu Central Michigan University The WELL: eparker@well.com Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859 USA URL:mailto:3zlufur@cmich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:12:26 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: AT&T 3.5 Cents per Minute Illinois Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Excerpt from Full Closing Bell for Monday, Dec 23, 1996 * AT&T CORP set a basic flat rate of 3.5 cents per minute for all in-state local toll calls in Illinois. The long-distance telephone service provider said the plan will affect calls more than 15 miles away from the caller's home but still within the customer's local calling area. The new price is more than 10 % below rates charged by AMERITECH CORP for local toll calls, AT&T said. AT&T said the rate change is a shift away from a multi-level pricing schedule. (Reuters 11:37 AM ET 12/23/96) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:58:32 -0500 From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Replacing A Cell Phone > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Most carriers will allow you to extend > your contract another period of time to commence when the current > contract expires. For example, you have six months to go on your two > year contract with the cellular carrier. You need to get a new phone. > Ask the carrier to allow you to commit to another two year contract in > addition to the six months remaining on the present one. The carrier > will refer you to a dealer who will match the ESN in your new phone with > your existing number and deactivate the ESN in the old phone. It won't > take but a few minutes most of the time.] BellSouth Mobility did that for my boss a few years ago when he traded in his car (which had a phone in place) and got a "free" phone with the purchase of the new car. (Since this fellow has had cellular phones for twelve years -- always with BSM, and the first installed *a month before* the system was turned on in Louisville -- IMHO they'd better treat him right. :-) ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Jeremy Parsons Subject: A Christmas Present From the FCC Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:42:47 -0500 What with the FCC's musings on international settlements, I think it would be fitting and seasonal for them to extend the principle to exported computer software. We could skip the study of long run incremental cost for, for instance, the Microsoft systems and applications because I'm sure the rest of the world would happily accept a high figure (let's say $10 per megabyte per country). What a nice Christmas present that would be to the developing world! Jeremy Parsons ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 09:47:58 -0800 From: Julie Lumine Reply-To: juliel@mtcworld.com Organization: MTC Subject: Christmas Cheer May an IlLUMINE-ating season bring you new hope for the new year! ...julie Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:07:18 -0800 From: Debra Nathan Subject: christmas cheer TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION 'Twas the night before implementation, And all through the house, Not a program was working, Not even a browse. The programmers hung by their tubes in despair, With hopes that a miracle soon would be there. The users were nestled all snug in their beds, While visions of inquiries danced in their heads. When out of the CASIM there arose such a clatter, I sprang from my desk to see what was the matter. And what to my wondering eyes should appear, But a super C++ programmer (with a six pack of beer). His resume glowed with experience so rare, He turned out great code with a bit-pusher's flair. More rapid than HPS, his programs they came, And he whistled and shouted and called them by name: On Update! On Add! On Inquiry! On Delete! On Batch Jobs! On Closing! On Functions Complete! His eyes were glazed over, fingers nimble and lean, From weekends and nights in front of a screen. A wink of his eye, and a twist of his head, Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, Turning specs in to code; then he turned with a jerk; And laying his finger upon the Enter key, The system came up and worked perfectly. The updates updated, the deletes, they deleted; The inquiries inquired, and closing completed. He tested each whistle, and he tested each bell, With nary an ABEND, and all had gone well. The system was finished, the tests were concluded. The clients' last changes were even included. And the client exclaimed with a snarl and a taunt, "IT'S JUST WHAT I ASKED FOR, BUT NOT WHAT I WANT!" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #678 ******************************