Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA18496; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 23:50:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 23:50:15 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199612110450.XAA18496@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #656 TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Dec 96 23:50:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 656 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: WebTV: Pricing and Access Issues (Stanley Cline) Re: WebTV: Pricing and Access Issues (Dave Harrison) Re: WebTV Musings: A User's Perspective (Barry Margolius) Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges (Gordon Hlavenka) Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges (Jay R. Ashworth) Canadian Use Of N11 Codes (Michael S. Craig) Re: Competing Local Telecom Providers: How's it Work? (Rob Levandowski) Wanted: French Speaking Telecom Experts (Mark T. Smith) Blue Alarm on Fractional T1 (Yakov Simkin) Eastern Europe PSN Infrastructure, Equipment? (Douglas Merrill) Last Laugh! Virus Alert (Dr. R. Canaday) 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: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: WebTV: Pricing and Access Issues Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 02:00:31 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Sun, 08 Dec 1996 13:54:22 -0800, you wrote: > WebTV IS the ISP. To determine if it's a local call, you can go to > their home page and navigate until you find their local access > indicator input selection. In other words, it's a form where you put > in your phone number. WebTV then determines if you have a toll-free > local access number. However, I'd check your White Pages just to be > sure. In my case, both numbers they gave me were local. But I'm in It appears that WebTV is leasing POP space from other "wholesale" ISPs (such as UUNet, BBN Planet, PSINet, etc.) I visited the WebTV web page after reading the discussion here; for *Chattanooga* I was given two prefixes: (423) 756-xxxx (423) 624-xxxx Judging from the prefixes, I figure the 756 prefix is either UUNet or BBN Planet (AOLNet, actually), and the 624 prefix is Concentric. (I don't know of ANY ISPs other than Concentric that have POPs in the MCcallie CO.) This jibes with the mention of IDT (who uses other ISPs' POPs) and Concentric as "partners" with WebTV. > For monthly access, I believe they need to be in the $12 per month > range for unlimited access. However, I'm going to urge them to offer > an automatically tiered pricing. In other words, $3.95 per month for IMHO, $12 is horribly low for an ISP's price now; with that price the POPs would fill up and be PERPETUALLY busy! (AOL with its new unlimited pricing is already reporting logjams. If WebTV is in fact using the same POP as AOL, it would be a nightmare!) What I foresee coming with WebTV and similar technology: integration of *cable* internet access with the set-top box -- if WebTV grows in popularity, phone networks will *really* gum up and cable access will [or at least SHOULD] be the standard. Besides, hooking a box that connects to the TV to the phone line too is clunky. (Yeah, DSS does it for the PPV ordering, but...) (I can see it now -- Comcast [the cable company here] renting a cable-modem-equipped WebTV[-type device] just as they rent converter boxes for HBO, etc.) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! mailto:roamer1@pobox.com ** http://pobox.com/~roamer1/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: Davew@cris.com (Dave Harrison) Subject: Re: WebTV: Pricing and Access Issues Date: 10 Dec 1996 10:18:09 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services David Scott Lewis (thewebguy@acm.org) wrote: [snip] > local access numbers for WebTV. (The ISI think tank is about a > stone's throw away from my residence; they have the fastest pipes in > L.A., and through their MFS connection everyone seems to be hooked-in > locally.) [snip] Just a note about ISI, or "Los Nettos". They have a T3 to MCI, and a pipe to Mae-West, but, as of a month ago, weren't peering with anyone at the Mae. Los Nettos sells T3s, T1s, 56k, etc. and shared and dedicated ethernet connections to ISP's and anyone else who wants a connection. There are a LOT of ISP's in the same building as ISI ... they save on the leased line and they get cheap service from ISI ... while other access providers sell T3's for up to 27 grand a month, you can get one from ISI for $8,250/month. ISI's T1's are $920 a month, while elsewhere, they range from 1000 to almost 3 grand. We had a point-to-point esf T1 from a company that has a T3 to Los Nettos. Ciscos on each end. Basically, performance and throughput left a lot to be desired. In addition, there were frequent outages and routing problems that we were able to trace to the main router at Los Nettos. You get what ya pay for! ------------------------------ From: bfm@pobox.com (Barry Margolius) Subject: Re: WebTV Musings: A User's Perspective Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:02:03 GMT Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Because things seem to change so quickly in the Internet world, I would advise, even for a beginner, that they use an email redirection service like usa.net or pobox.com as their email address. Many beginners are getting help from more advanced friends. It's a shame that WebTV doesn't support this addressing option. Barry F Margolius, New York City bfm@pobox.com For PGP Key, finger bfm@panix.com ------------------------------ From: cgordon@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges Date: 10 Dec 1996 06:31:09 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services On Sun, 08 Dec 1996 bfm@pobox.com said: > ... it is conceivable that an 800 call from a > payphone might not be free, but would still require no "quarter". > The COCOT could charge the 800 provider the $0.35 (or whatever), > and the 800 provider could pass it on to the customer. I don't have a problem with this. But I _do_ have a problem with payphones charging the _caller_ for 800 calls. The whole idea of 800 (and now 888) service is that the caller doesn't need to pay! There are several reasons for this: One, already mentioned, is convenience. If I want my daughter to be able to call home from the swimming pool, a personal 800 number means she doesn't need to carry a dime (excuse me -- a quarter (wait, it's 35 cents (no, it's 50 cents))) to call home. How about, let's say, a spousal abuse hotline? The old man just threw her out on the street (literally) and she has no money at all. Yeah, you could go with collect in this situation but 800 would be a lot easier for the clients, and in this case that's important. How about other hotlines; suicide prevention, for instance? Crimebusters? 800 has, since its inception, been sold to the general public as a "free call". Now the rules are being changed. As I said, I don't mind (much) having to pay extra for calls made to my 800 number from a payphone. But it's not right (whatever _that_ means) to make the caller pay for an 800 call. Ever. Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@worldnet.att.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you are going to pass along the COCOT 'surcharge' to the owner of the 800 number, what do you do in cases where an 800 subscriber has a deal with his carrier to pay just X cents per minute? He says if the carrier is going to surcharge him for calls coming from COCOTS, *then do not pass those calls on to him*. I assume on my 800 number I am going to pay sixteen cents per minute. If you call me from a COCOT and I am not aware of this (origin of your call) should I then get a bill for an additional 35 cents or whatever the COCOT owner wants? What then prevents the COCOT owner from raising the 'surcharge' to a dollar or two dollars, as long as he no longer has to fight with his customer to get the money? Are 800 subscribers to now be at the mercy of COCOTS just as people who accept collect calls are at the mercy of the Alternate Operator Services and whatever outrageous charges per minute they demand? PAT] ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: COCOT 800-Access Charges Date: 10 Dec 1996 20:20:37 GMT Organization: University of South Florida Nils Andersson (nilsphone@aol.com) wrote: > In article , >> dstott@juno.com (Dave J Stott) writes: >> That's real world. We're not poor, we're not COCOT dependent, we're >> not interested in market-based pricing vs government regulation. All >> we care about is that my teenager can call home from where ever she >> is, even if she forgets her quarter. > The previous poster makes a good argument that "free 800" is not just > an issue of money but of convenience/assessibility, as you do not > always carry the right coins. This is true, granted. > This does not, however, solve the underlying problems. I firmly > believe that payphone operators have a right to be reimbursed for any > service they provide (just like the rest of us). There are various > ways of doing this, having them being reimbusred by the owners of the > 800 numbers, collectively or selectively or any which way is fine with > me, on an owner-of-800 selects reimburesement or whatever. > What irks me is the entitlement philosophy of the various posters, > that they have a "right" to use somebody else's equipment without any > payment. The fact that the marginal cost is close to zero does not > matter. This is going to get messy; bear with me, folks. The problem, Nils, is that the COCOT operators voluntarily decided to get into the business, and now want to change the "rules" that that business has operated under for decades. Ok, admittedly, they may have a financially sound motivation for this desire, although I'd be _really_ surprised if there was a good justification for their not noticing for _13_ years ... The "rule" I'm discussing is the implied contract that Dave feels that he, and his daughter at swim practice, have with "the telephone company". For many, _many_ years, it has been possible to place a call to a "so-called" toll-free number, without needing to carry any money, and many, _many_ customers have taken advantage of this capability. COCOT operators got into that business knowing the "rules" -- and yes, I quote it because I strongly suspect that it's not written down anywhere, except possibly as a "standard" in some Bellcore document like "BOC Notes" -- and what we're all complaining about, though most of us hadn't examined it, is that those "rules" were for _our_ benefit. Also, this proposed change reduces the value of an 800 number to a fairly large class of potential INWATS customer, reducing potential revenue from those customers ... I'd be surprised if the big three don't come out against this for more than just the obvious reasons. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Junk Mail Will Be Billed For. The Suncoast Freenet *FLASH: Craig Shergold aw'better; call 800-215-1333* Tampa Bay, Florida http://members.aol.com/kyop/rhps.html +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 09:57:47 -0400 From: Craig, Michael S. Organization: Maritime Tel & Tel Subject: Canadian Use Of N11 Codes FYI, in Canada, there has been a consistent, albeit far from universal, use of N11 codes for a variety of deemed-to-be *public* services: 211 Not used 311 Not used 411 Directory Assistance (mirrors 1-NXX-555-12-12 ... used to be local-only, now covers NPA) 511 Not used* *has been used for separation of TDD and TTY Relay Services 611 Telco Repair Service 711 Relay Service (primary number: see 511 above) 811 Telco Business Office (customer service) 911 Emergency This is far from universal in terms of everybody actually using the codes, but at least the various provincial telcos have not put contrary services in place at the end of these codes. In general, Cdn telcos have taken a cooperative / consensus approach to N11 usage and have not supported the commercialization of N11 services. This position does acknowledge the existing / reasonable use of 611 and 811 as *telco* access numbers. From the perspective of a smaller telco (1/2 million NAS), there has been a pretty consistent concern for the calling habits of CFAs (come from aways) who may have used a particular code in a previous service area: for example, ... 911 (and to a lesser extent the European 999 equivalent) was routed to the operator to ensure the customer got *an answer* in the absence of true 911-Emergency service. Michael Craig ------------------------------ From: macwhiz@phoebe.rochester.ican.net (Rob Levandowski) Subject: Re: Competing Local Telecom Providers: How's it Work? Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:46:54 -0500 Organization: MacWhiz Technologies In article , swb@mercury.campbell- mithun.com (Shawn Barnhart) wrote: > I was having a discussion with someone the other day about what's > involved in forming one of the new, competing local telephone companies > that the Telecom bill was supposed to have made legal. I'm not an > expert on telecommunications, and I was kind of curious how it was > actually supposed to work. > I can understand some of the infrastructure needs, but what about the > circuits that terminate in a residence or place of business? Will they > be granted access to the existing phone company exchanges and only have > to deal with trunking? Or will they have to run wire to each and every > customer in addition to the necessary trunking lines? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If they were actually competing, they > would run wire to each premise, install instruments, etc. But as a > matter of fact the 'competitors' have whined so much about it and > claimed Bell had such an unfair advantage that regulatory agencies > have required Bell to allow the 'competitors' to co-locate in the > same central office. ...] As I've mentioned in previous Digest postings :) I happen to live in Rochester, New York, which was (to my knowledge) the first city in the U.S. to have true local telephone competition. Rochester's infrastructure created a unique situation. The existing LEC, Rochester Telephone (the precursor to Frontier), is not a RBOC. RochTel successfully fought off Bell's advances into its territory over the years. Thus, RochTel was not subject to the same degree of restriction as the RBOCs. Seeing profit, RochTel approached the state about their idea for an "Open Market Plan": RochTel would create a new holding company, Frontier Corp., that would own Rochester Telephone (the existing regulated dialtone provider), another Rochester Telephone company (the owner of the physical plant), and various Frontier companies (competitive unregulated dialtone, cellular, etc.). Once divested in this manner, the phys-plant company could resell the use of the wires to other competitive telephone companies, as well as Frontier. The state approved the plan. AT&T quickly showed interest in this idea. Meanwhile, Greater Rochester Cablevision (a Time Warner company) was still recovering from a massive ice storm during the winter of 1991 (?). That storm had damaged over 60% of the company's coax cable plant. The company had already decided to turn tragedy into opportunity, and rewire the entire system as a hybrid coax-fiber system, making it one of the first such HFC cable systems in the nation. The system would offer a massive increase in the number of channels, and would enable two-way communications. GRC was able to interpret the Open Market Plan in a new way. The OMP required Rochester Telephone to provide transparent cross-connection to competitive cable companies' switches, and it required other important features such as number portability between providers. The expensive part of the OMP for any competitor was, of course, the use of RochTel's wiring -- and RochTel gave very little discount. As I recall, AT&T stopped marketing their competitive service because the "wholesale" rate they were given by RochTel amounted to about a 5% discount -- insufficient to be profitable. However, GRC now had its own cable plant that passed nearly every house in the Rochester metro area, and which would support two-way communications. They had already begun using the network to provide live remote newsfeeds -- they have a 24-hour local news channel, and they can plug into the fiber network at a remote site, and feed broadcast quality audio and video back to the headend studio. The idea was born: use the HFC cable network to provide telephone service. With the introduction of this service, GRC changed its local name to Time Warner Communications of Rochester. When one changes from RochTel to TWC telephone service, the Rochester Tel feed is disconnected at your demarc. TWC installs a box on the side of your house, next to the demarc. The standard RG-6 coax cable drop from their cable network attaches to this box. If you subscribe to TWC cable television, another RG-6 cable continues into the house. A standard RJ11 jack connects to the demarc. To all customer premises equipment, the change is transparent: standard POTS signalling is used. Because the OMP included number portability, your phone number does not change. Initially, this was achieved by RochTel programming their switches to forward changed lines to a new number on Time Warner's switch (which you would not actually use directly). Supposedly, a citywide database is now used to direct calls to the appropriate LEC. I would expect that other markets will begin to emulate the Rochester model. It's clear that HFC cable systems are the wave of the future, and they offer the best chance of making competitive telephony affordable to the corporations that will provide it. Time Warner announced today that they will be implementing digital cable television over HFC networks in 1997, using digital set-top boxes that receive upwards of 150 channels and provide Dolby AC-3 6-channel digital sound (as seen in Dolby Digital movie theaters), as well as something close to the WebTV units now available. Time Warner has also announced plans to provide Internet service over their HFC network, using cable-to-Ethernet routers with 10Mbps download speeds. I suspect that we may see the "traditional" phone companies investing in HFC networks as well. The HFC infrastructure is far more conducive to Internet service, because you can provide massive bandwidth that is shared, not switched, and is therefore used very efficiently. Only one television channel's bandwidth is needed for 10Mbps shared download/768Kbps upload. In Rochester, that bandwidth would be shared by no more than 400 households (per node). The limitations of the xDSL technologies make it clear that they are stopgap measures at best, as in a great many areas, they'll never work "well enough" due to old copper, long runs, etc. Robert Levandowski Internet Systems Analyst, ACC Long Distance Corp. macwhiz@phoebe.rochester.ican.net ------------------------------ From: Mark Smith Subject: Wanted: French Speaking Telecom Experts Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:43:39 -0800 Organization: The Walter Group Reply-To: msmith@waltergroup.com I would like to know if any TELECOM Digest readers have an interest in positions in an offshore network operation. Could you help me locate potentially interested parties? I have a "soon to be urgent" need for French speaking telecom professionals who might be interested in locating to Dakar, Senegal for a time. Pay and benefits are negotiable. Senegal's PSTN is a modern network with cellular, paging, and satellite communications infrastructure. Positions that will becoming open include: 1. Associate General Manager 2. Director of Marketing 3. Director of Sales 4. Director of Customer Service 5. A senior cellular person that would fit the role of product manager, someone with engineering and marketing experience in cellular. I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me in locating or suggesting where I may locate any interested parties. Mark T. Smith msmith@waltergroup.com Project Manager The Walter Group ------------------------------ From: simkin@eis.mot.com (Yakov Simkin) Subject: Blue Alarm on Fractional T1 Reply-To: simkin@eis.mot.com Organization: Motorola Inc. Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 01:08:11 GMT I am looking for standard that regulates Blue Alarm transfer on Fractional T1 connection. Some sources say that FT1 is served as a regular DS1 (DS1 rate) so Blue Alarm would appear as unframed all 1s. But I heard that some providers supply just selected DS0 with reduced rate. How do they signal Blue Alarm and what document describes it? What is the background of particular Tarif (15?) in this case? If two of my boxes are connected with FT1 over PSTN and provider's multiplexer lost signal from another client sharing T1 with me while my portion is OK will I get Blue alarm on another end? I would appreciate your advice. Regards, Yakov Simkin MOTOROLA, INC IL02 Rm. 4100A 1307 East Algonquin Rd. Schaumburg IL 60196 phone: 847-538-6959 FAX: 847-576-6150 pager:800-skypage, pin 5658605 simkin@ssd.comm.mot.com ------------------------------ From: Doug_Merrill@rand.org (Douglas Merrill) Subject: Eastern Europe PSN Infrastructure, Equipment? Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 00:57:47 GMT Organization: RAND Reply-To: Doug_Merrill@rand.org Hi to all, I've been asked to "get smart" about the telecommunications infrastructure in Eastern Europe. I'm assuming that means I should know the kinds of lines, etc., available; services; switch types; etc. Does anybody have a good source for data, descriptions, etc., of Eastern European telecommunications? Cheers, DCM ------------------------------ From: Dr. R. Canaday Subject: Last Laugh! Virus Alert Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:19:51 -0500 Pat, I received this from a friend. Ron From: Tony Tarinelli[SMTP:ttarinelli@reedref.com] Sent: Friday, December 06, 1996 10:30 To: (then follows a humongous list with hundreds of names; none of these fools have ever learned how to use the bcc when sending out their dire warnings. PAT) Cc: selsheri@reedref.com Subject: Virus Alert TO: All Internet Users 12/4/96 FROM: Network Services RE: INTERNET E-MAIL VIRUS SUBJECT "FREE MONEY" The National Computer Security Assoc. has issued the following warning to all Internet users: There is a computer virus that is being sent across the Internet. If you receive an e-mail message with the subject line "Free Money", DO NOT read the message. DELETE it immediately. ----------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh wow! Hey virus or not, most people I know automatically delete 'Free Money' and 'Make Money Fast' messages unread anyway. Wouldn't it be a hoot if this 'virus warning' was just intended to cloud the issue a little with the continuing problem of email spam ... so the next bunch of Free/Easy/Fast Money spammers with their chain letters, etc find them all deleted by a millions of frightened netters thinking a virus has infested their computer. I must say attacking the junk emailers by claiming their mail has a virus embedded in it is a new twist; and sort of funny also! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #656 ******************************