Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA26309; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:56:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 08:56:09 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702011356.IAA26309@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #27 TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Feb 97 08:56:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 27 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Indiana Change to New NPA (Tad Cook) FCC Approves SBC/Pacific Telesis Merger (Mike King) Re: More on the X2/56K War (David Richards) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (Jeff Martin) Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line (Mike Hazel) Public Meetings/916 Area Code Relief Plan (Mike King) 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: Indiana Change to New NPA Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 00:51:58 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Indiana Phone Companies Work to Make Change to New Area Code Easier By Cam Simpson, The Indianapolis Star and News Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 1--After months of planning, thousands of central Indiana residents awoke this morning to three new numbers that are bound to bring hassle and some expense into their lives. Optional dialing begins today for the region's new 765 area code, a move that affects the owners of about 530,000 land-based phone lines outside of Marion County. Thousands of cellular users also are affected. The change, which is being phased in over the next five months, is expected to hit business owners, small and large, hardest. They must reprogram phone-based gadgets and pay the expense for new business cards, stationary, envelopes and the like. But many business owners say it's no big deal. And local phone companies say they're working hard to ease the transition. "We know some procedures that will lessen the pain," says John Pyzik, a spokesman for Delco Remy America Inc., a huge employer in Anderson affected by the change. For starters, Pyzik says, state officials who ordered the new area code gave business owners plenty of time to prepare. The expense of producing materials bearing the new area code is minimal as a result. Delco Remy, like many businesses, has not ordered new supplies for months, Pyzik says. Inventories have been tightly regulated so there won't be any waste. That means materials emblazoned with the 317 area code should be exhausted by the time new supplies, bearing the 765 area code, are needed. "The buffer period allows us to use up inventories and avoid extra expense," Pyzik says. People dialing into the affected areas will have until June 27 to use either 765 or 317. After June 27, they will have to use the new 765 area code, though recorded messages informing callers of the change will be available for months, or even years, according to local phone companies. The change was first ordered by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission in November, though it was mulled for months before that. Cellular phones, pagers, fax machines, computer modems, voice mail and countless other electronic gadgets are gobbling up phone numbers here and elsewhere at a dizzying pace. The introduction of those conveniences (which to many have become necessities) is the driving force behind the changing area code. Welcome to the verge of the 21st Century. "All of these things have done so much to make our business easier and better that it would be a little bit hypocritical to criticize this when we have the additional benefits," says Charlie Shook, a small business owner in Lafayette. Shook, who heads the Shook Agency, a Better Homes & Gardens real estate franchise, says his employees rely on pagers, cell phones, faxes and even the Internet to do their jobs every day. Still, there's bound to be grumbling, especially when the change becomes permanent. Calls are not flooding into the state yet, says Cheryl Bickel, a spokeswoman for the IURC. But she expects complaints to hit the agency as June 27 draws closer. The map of the new area code looks like a lopsided diamond that surrounds Marion County. Everyone who falls within that diamond -- the owners of roughly 865,000 land-based and thousands of cellular phone numbers -- will remain in the 317 area code. That includes all Marion County lines. Everyone else now served by 317 gets the new 765 area code. Cellular users in the new area code may face the biggest hassles. Their phones actually must be reprogrammed by their cellular service providers. After reprogramming, land-based computer software will recognize and route cell calls using either area code during the grace period. Just like with land-based lines, however, the dual calling for affected customers ends June 27. The three cellular companies operating in the affected area, GTE Mobilnet, Ameritech Cellular and Cellular One, are making accommodations. GTE and Cellular One will be sponsoring special "reprogramming fairs" on weekends for the next five months. They will offer free reprogramming at those events. They're telling customers about the campaign through bill inserts, advertisements and special mailings. Ameritech is doing much the same, but will not sponsor special fairs. Instead, customers can bring their phones to Ameritech Cellular stores for free reprogramming any time. The phone companies also are working with large business customers to bring reprogramming equipment to offices throughout the area. ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: FCC Approves SBC/Pacific Telesis Merger Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:30:47 PST Forwarded to the Digest: Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:17:06 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: FCC Approves SBC/Pacific Telesis Merger RELATED DOCUMENTS: * On-line Merger Information FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 31, 1997 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Larry Solomon, SBC Communications 210-351-3990 Lou Saviano, Pacific Telesis 415-394-3744 FCC Approves SBC/Pacific Telesis Merger SAN FRANCISCO -- The pending merger of SBC Communications and Pacific Telesis Group passed another regulatory milestone today when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved it unanimously and without conditions. "We're pleased that the FCC commissioners voted unanimously to approve and we look forward to completing the merger so we can provide more effective competition in California, particularly in the long-distance, international and wireless markets," said Phil Quigley, chairman and chief executive officer of Pacific Telesis Group. "Our merger is good news for California consumers wanting additional choices and combinations of services to meet their telecommunications needs." "The combination of SBC and Pacific Telesis will create a stronger world-class telecommunications company for our customers," said Edward E. Whitacre Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of SBC Communications. "As all telecommunications markets open to competition, we expect to be well-positioned to provide our customers with one-stop shopping convenience for advanced telecommunications services. "We recognize there are many important issues before the commission, and we appreciate its diligent review and approval," Whitacre said. The FCC's approval involved the transfer of hundreds of wireless licenses from Pacific Telesis to SBC, including Pacific Telesis' (PCS) licenses in California and Nevada. The FCC found that "the transfer will serve the public interest." The merger has been approved overwhelmingly by shareholders of both companies. In addition, the Nevada Public Service Commission has approved the merger, the U.S. Department of Justice found that the merger does not violate federal antitrust laws, and the California Attorney General has found that the merger will not lessen competition in California. Action by the California Public Utilities Commission is expected in March. SBC and Pacific Telesis announced their merger agreement April 1, 1996. Together, the two companies' 1996 revenues totaled $23.5 billion. The companies serve the nation's two most populous states and seven of its ten largest metropolitan areas. Pacific Telesis (NYSE:PAC) is a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. Through its Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell subsidiaries, the corporation serves nearly 15.8 million access lines and offers Internet access services to both business and residential customers. Another subsidiary, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, has begun offering new wireless personal communications services (PCS) in the San Diego area, and will expand service in California and Nevada in 1997. SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC) is one of the world's leading diversified telecommunications companies and the second-largest wireless communications company based in the United States. SBC's subsidiaries provide innovative telecommunications products and services under the Southwestern Bell and Cellular One brands. Its businesses include wireline and wireless services and equipment in the United States and interests in wireless businesses in Europe, Latin America, South Africa and Asia; cable television in both domestic and international markets; and directory advertising and publishing. ---------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Re: More on the X2/56K War Date: 31 Jan 1997 22:53:49 GMT Organization: Ripco Communications Inc. In article , Diamond Dave wrote: > I recently forwarded an article from comp.dcom.telecom to a person > (via E-mail) who posted on the X2/56K technology in another newsgroup. > This is what he had to say: > Thanks for the message. I think, however, that Mr. Richards is trying > desperately to convince his costomers that 56K is smoke and mirrors so > they won't force him to spend money to upgrade his equipment ... You read a lot into my message that isn't there -- rather rude, actually. Of course, you chopped out the bit where I said that we are considering Lucent's 'Flex' version, and have the equipment now to do 56K, but the recent FCC rulings confirm that it _is_ 'smoke and mirrors' for now ... >> 1. The "X2" protocol from US Robotics is NOT compatible with the K56Flex >> interoperable standard being developed by Lucent and Rockwell. The big >> push from USR is an attempt to grab market share and sell their expensive >> ISP-side equipment. > Of course, and so is the K56Flex "standard". The only thing that > makes one more "interoperable" and "standard" than the other is that > K56Flex has more companies (but not necessarily more market share) on > their side. Since my Courier will be upgradeable via a free flash to > the ultimate (and far down the road) standard, I don't see why this is > a problem. Of course, just because your Courier (a very good modem, I have one myself) will have a free flash upgrade to USR's 53K (per the FCC ruling) doesn't mean that the DSP has enough 'oomph' to meet whatever standard actually comes out of the ITU. >> 2. All of these protocols require OPTIMAL phone lines at the customer's >> side, and DIGITAL circuits from the CO into the ISP. This means: >> If you can't get a consistent 28.8 connection to your provider now, >> you will never get a 56K connection with the new modems. > This is not true. The demands of the ISP->user 56K link are very > different, both in terms of frequency range and in S/N ratio, than the > current V.34 standard. A line which can only get 26,400 with V.34 may > well get 56K with X2 (or K56Flex). And a line which can get 33,600 with V.34+ may well not get any advantage from 56K/X2. >> You will NOT be able to call your friends or (any other non-digital >> line- BBS, etc) and get connections above 33.6. > Absolutely true. But why should I still not want it for my ISP calls? > For me, the consumer, X2 is free. I realize that ISP's have to shell > out $, and that not all will, but that is the free market. Those that > don't may soon find their customer base eroding *if* the 56K stuff > catches on. >> 3. 56K requires all the same (expensive) resources on the provider's >> end as for ISDN. Each digital channel costs, on average, $30-$45 per >> month, plus several hundred dollars for equipment and installation, add the >> cost for bandwidth to the Internet, and see how long $19.95 unlimited >> access accounts are going to last... > This is wrong. My current ISP has 100% digital line interfaces and > pays nothing like $30-$45/mo. Either the pricing from your local Baby > Bell is way out of whack, or you are Read Boardwatch? (not the greatest magazine, but as an ISP they give me free issues). $30-$45/month for digital lines is not out of whack. >> In real life, X2 is going to have about the same impact on your connection >> speed as 33.6 has- you'll get and keep 28.8 connections more reliably, >> but the average user will see speeds above that once in a blue moon. > Only time will tell, but the "experts" I have consulted fully expect > many folks to benefit from X2. The real question is the number of D/A > and A/D transitions between the ISP and the consumer. If there is > only a single D/A conversion, then you *should* see much benefit from > 56K. What percentage of the modem-using public this constitutes, I > can't say. Exactly. David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three My opinions are my own, Public Access in Chicago But they are available for rental Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased dr@ripco.com (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail! ------------------------------ From: jrmartin@super.zippo.com (Jeff Martin) Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 07:25:07 GMT On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:53:52 GMT, kline@cyberenet.net (Marlon Brando) wrote: > I ordered a second phone line from Bell Atlantic Monday, they said it > should be installed on Friday. I did the wiring myself I ran a modular > wire directly from the telco.'s termination box into my modem. > Needless to say, "it's a dedicated line." > OK, my question. Before the line is installed, just a POTS line, is > there a way to get a better grade line WITHOUT going digital or ISDN? > (If they are one in the same please excuse my ignorance.) > The second line that I ordered will, hopefully, be a solution to an > ongoing problem that I've been having with my connect preformance. > I use a Courier 336 v. everything. But, although it connects at > 19.2-24.0, it is constantly renegotiating it's connection. This > constant start-and-stop is very frustrating. I ran the gambit with my > phone co., they're useless. The ISP blames the phone co. I think that > I believe them. They are still in business after all. > With reguards to my question, I just need to know if I'm asking the > phone co. for the correct line (without going ISDN$$$.) Mark, Just a shot in the dark, but can usually tell quite a bit. Try dialing your long distance access code before dialing, this way it routes thru their lines instead of the local telco. It will cost you but at least you'll be able to tell the difference between the connections. It's worked here in California (Pac Bell). Good luck. Regards, Jeff Martin jrmartin@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: m_hazel@enet.net (Mike Hazel) Subject: Re: Ordering a "Dedicated" Modem Line Date: 31 Jan 1997 18:12:02 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet In article , kline@cyberenet.net says ... > I ordered a second phone line from Bell Atlantic Monday, they said it > should be installed on Friday. I did the wiring myself I ran a modular > wire directly from the telco.'s termination box into my modem. > Needless to say, "it's a dedicated line." > OK, my question. Before the line is installed, just a POTS line, is > there a way to get a better grade line WITHOUT going digital or ISDN? > (If they are one in the same please excuse my ignorance.) > The second line that I ordered will, hopefully, be a solution to an > ongoing problem that I've been having with my connect preformance. > I use a Courier 336 v. everything. But, although it connects at > 19.2-24.0, it is constantly renegotiating it's connection. This > constant start-and-stop is very frustrating. I ran the gambit with my > phone co., they're useless. The ISP blames the phone co. I think that > I believe them. They are still in business after all. > With reguards to my question, I just need to know if I'm asking the > phone co. for the correct line (without going ISDN$$$.) There are a number of things that may be impacting your circuit. Some people have identified pieces. So rather than quoting you all, I respond to the poster. 1) A 'conditioned' circuit is frequently referred to as a '3002' line, and was indentified earlier. This is normally tariffed as a business service, and priced accordingly. 2) The location of your problem may or may not be in the local loop on your end, as a 19.2-24k connection is not a -bad- connection. Some of the possibilities outside of your end of the loop: Number of CO's between you and your destination ... over 3 CO's will not normally carry 28.8k. Number of analog to digital transitions, 33.6 usually requires digital delivery at the terminating point. More Analog to Digital transitions means lower signal quality. TCoded carrier circuits ... not likely in BOC residentials, but possible. Finally, to directly answer your question, not really ... POTS is analog, nearly everything else is digital (ISDN, DDS, DS0, NT1, Frame Relay, SMDS..and on, and on, and on..) Mike Hazel Sr Systems Engineer CellularONE, SW Region ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Public Meetings/916 Area Code Relief Plan Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:14:09 PST Forwarded to the Digest: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 11:24:46 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: Public Meetings/916 Area Code Relief Plan FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michael Heenan (916) 972-2811 Nancy Ray (916) 972-6604 Public Meetings Set on Proposals to Modify 916 Area Code Relief Plan Sacramento, Placer And El Dorado County Residents Could Be Impacted By Changes SACRAMENTO -- Residents and businesses will have an opportunity to voice their opinions on four proposals for changing the boundaries of the recently approved geographic split of the 916 area code at a series of public meetings in early February. The four proposals by telecommunications industry and government officials would adjust the boundaries of the reconfigured 916 and the soon to be created 530 area code in a variety of ways, potentially impacting the area code designation for thousands of residents and businesses in some or all of Placer County and parts of El Dorado and Sacramento counties. Last August, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a plan to split the 916 area code into two area codes -- 916 and 530, but subsequently received four petitions to modify those boundaries. As originally approved, the 916 area code would be reconfigured to cover most of Sacramento County, the south Placer County cities of Roseville, Loomis and Rocklin and the city of West Sacramento in Yolo County. The new 530 area code, which is scheduled to go into service November 1, 1997, would serve all or portions of 22 Northern California counties, previously served by 916. The new 530 area code is needed to meet the rapidly growing demand for new phone numbers in the 916 area code. Dates, locations of the meetings and phone numbers to call for more information are: Monday, February 3 Maidu Community Center 1550 Maidu Drive Roseville (916) 781-0690 Noon to 2 p.m. Monday, February 3 Holiday Inn 120 Grass Valley Hwy. Auburn (916) 887-8787 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Tuesday, February 4 El Dorado Hills Community Center Pavilion 1021 Harvard Way El Dorado Hills (916) 933-6624 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Customers unable to attend one of the meetings can send written comments by February 28, 1997, to: Director, Telecommunications Division California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Ave., Room 3210 San Francisco, CA 94102 CPUC Administrative Law Judge Timothy Kenney, who reviewed the boundary petitions, ordered the public meetings to give residents an opportunity to comment on the proposals. "Because each petition would, if adopted, affect thousands of people and many different government entities, the public should have an opportunity to provide input on the proposed changes to the 530/916 boundary," the judge wrote in his ruling earlier this month. The four petitions offer three different alternatives, since two of the petitioners support the same option. A fourth option has been proposed for consideration by Judge Kenney. Because an area code change has no impact on the price of calls, none of the proposals would impact call price. "Call distance determines call price," said California Code Administrator Bruce Bennett, who oversees area code relief on behalf of the telecommunications industry. "What is a local call today will remain a local call, regardless of the area code change." The four proposed boundary modifications are: * The boundaries for the 916-530 area codes would be changed to include Pleasant Grove, Lincoln, Newcastle, Penryn and the community of El Dorado Hills in the 916 area code. These changes were proposed in petitions both from the California Code Administrator and Roseville Telephone Company. The Code Administrator's petition was filed on behalf of the telecommunications industry and in response to requests from residents. * The boundaries for the 916-530 area codes would be changed to include the city of Auburn in the 916 area code. This change was proposed in a petition from the city of Auburn. If this petition is approved, it would result in some of the unincorporated area surrounding the city of Auburn and the Cool area in El Dorado County also remaining in the 916 area code because of wiring configurations. This would impact prefixes: 823, 883, 885, 886, 887, 888 and 889, which would remain in the 916 area code. * The boundaries for the 916-530 area codes would be changed to include all of Placer County in the 530 area code, instead of splitting the county into two area codes, 916 and 530. This change was proposed in a petition from Placer County officials. * The boundaries for the 916-530 area codes would be changed to place all of Placer County and the entire Roseville Telephone service area in the 530 area code. Since Roseville Telephone's service area covers parts of Placer and Sacramento counties, this option would also move the Sacramento County portion of Roseville Telephone's service area -- Citrus Heights, a small portion of Orangevale and most of Antelope -- out of the 916 area code and into the 530 area code. This was proposed for consideration by Judge Kenney. In proposing this option, the judge noted that one of the reasons for adopting the original 916/530 area code split boundary was to avoid dividing Roseville Telephone's serving area. "However, if Placer's petition is adopted, it would split Roseville's service territory between two area codes," he wrote. Consequently, the judge asked for comments on a fourth option that would place all of Roseville Telephone's service area in the 530 area code in the event Placer County's petition to move into the 530 is adopted. Bennett said he will report back to the Commission by late February with comments from the public meetings. A final decision on the boundary proposals is expected from the Commission by the end of March. ------------ Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #27 *****************************