Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA13420; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:59:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:59:35 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702120459.XAA13420@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #38 TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Feb 97 23:59:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 38 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "The Hill on the Net" by Casey (Rob Slade) Internet Access Coalition Web Site (Toby Nixon) "Satellite Phone Scam Hits Internet (Van Hefner) The Coming 56kbps War (Tad Cook) Alternatives to Per-Minute Charges For Internet Access (Billy Newsom) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:20:04 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Hill on the Net" by Casey BKHILNET.RVW 961022 "The Hill on the Net", Chris Casey, 1996, 0-12-162870-1, U$19.95 %A Chris Casey chris@casey.com %C 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495 %D 1996 %G 0-12-162870-1 %I Academic Press Professional %O U$19.95 619-231-0926 800-321-5068 fax: 619-699-6380 app@acad.com %P 266 %T "The Hill on the Net: Congress Enters the Information Age" The subtitle, of course, may be overstating the case. Given Clipper, Exon, and the phrase "Information Superhighway", Washington, DC, if it has been dragged to the edge of the info age, has not entered with any degree of enthusiasm or understanding. Still, from his position as a support staffer in Senator Edward Kennedy's office, Casey has been around for most of the evolution, such as it is. He provides an insider's view and perspective on the activities and development of electronic communication in the political side of the US federal government. There were a couple of ironies I found in reviewing the book. One is that, for all my complaints about general Internet titles that were profoundly US-centric, this book, legitimately concentrating on strictly American political concerns, provides a fascinating insight into the Washington machinery, particularly in regard to correspondence with constituents. Another is that Casey's limited computer background in no way detracts from the text. A text by a technical expert would have been quite a different work. Casey's background is, in a sense, representative of the lack of familiarity with computer and communications technology in the US capitol as a whole. It is instructive to watch Casey go into lecture mode as he berates the general public over the style of email to be sent to representatives. (The rest of us get spam on a daily basis, and most don't have paid staff to deal with it. Lighten up, Chris.) It is also interesting to come to the end of the book and realize that much has been said about press releases, postings, and Web sites for the politicians to get the message out to the electorate, and almost nothing about the use of the net as a research tool for those who are supposed to make the big decisions. As I discussed the book with my wife, she reminded me to the antics of Ted White, our local Member of (Canada's) Parliament. He has spent thousands (and thousands more than he should have) on various technical schemes to poll the riding. He seems to have a knack for picking the wrong technology for some very good ideas. Still, for all his incompetence, you have to admire someone who is so willing to push the envelope on the political use of technology. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKHILNET.RVW 961022 Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm Genesis 4:9/Proverbs 24: 11,12 - your choice ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Internet Access Coalition Web Site Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:41:44 -0800 If you're concerned about the possibility that the FCC may allow local exchange carriers to impose interstate access charges on Internet Service Providers, possibly doubling (or more) the cost of your Internet access, then you should check out http://www.internetaccess.org. The Internet Access Coalition web site explains the issues and tells you what you can do to help keep the cost of Internet access low. Toby Nixon, Program Manager - NetMeeting http://www.microsoft.com/netmeeting Microsoft Corporation, Applications and Internet Client Group, Redmond WA +1 (206) 936-2792 Fax: +1 (206) 936-7329 mailto:tnixon@microsoft.com begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(AL2`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` M%0```$E032Y.3U1%+E-%0U5212Y324=.`)X%`06 `P`.````S0<"``L`"@`I M`"P``@!"`0$@@ ,`#@```,T'`@`+``H`* `T``(`20$!"8 !`"$```!#,#)$ M031%,#(U.#1$,#$Q.#5$.# P.# U1D0T-C@Q, #O!@$-@ 0``@````(``@`! M!( !`",```!);G1E``J "" &``````# ````````1@`````WA0```0````$`````````'@`+ M@ @@!@``````P ```````$8`````.(4```$````!``````````,`!A -DGD. M`P`'$!\"```>``@0`0```&4```!)1EE/55)%0T].0T523D5$04)/55142$50 M3U-324))3$E4651(05142$5&0T--05E!3$Q/5TQ/0T%,15A#2$%.1T5#05)2 M24524U1/24U03U-%24Y415)35$%414%#0T534T-(``````,`$! ``````P`1 M$ `````"`0D0`0```+H"``"V`@``"@0``$Q:1G4VQQF_`P`*`')C<&'1O( =P&B$8P N M=.\=D0&0'I 9<&,9$ 01$-+_'1 $( (@&# >@AE !4 &879V#> 8P% #8"$` M!(%SZBP:%6P:P&0(8 )@"X"X9R H!;$$8 EP*1G3_P6@'L @`!A3!< @1Q\D M(> G&>$#H!AQ(',3P'5L]QE@$- %D&L@`!FQ"- `00DFH"!H`D!P.B\ONG9R>!`4 FH!% +A.0&?&]($=!'S0(4 = &J!I(!'X=V5B M)F :H!C '+ +4_\=L1GQ! $*4 0@`' 98!Z0]QP`!" F,G<:\B8R'' #H(#_,' CRB3='$$HD JB"H0+,2,S`P&1("TM$Y!O8OIY,N1? M-1\V+S<_-[4RY9D#T#$V-&,'L&EX`B!G(> A40G 86T%T !P8<\=$ 7 -% ' MP'1-"> L$&\B\3P$)X\HD&T-X -@<\DD4'0N!:!M+R"1!X"W.[,IUC+D33VV M*[%R&B#G.H L$B'@07 +4 W@00.[+A0@1T,:D GP!4!'`V!T=7 AX%()@ 1@ M+D$@1%=!/ !54T$XQC%4("M%<"@!T#8CH#E!#S M,C#I%C#0#VK/R<3(CE -S+J"[8+,O,4(0!-D ``"P`" M``$````>`' ``0```",```!);G1EDTUC !&&KW]8TF0MG>EB'4\Q-B, M%8 8329A7$T>KD0W_#`0(#`0`! M, <&!2L.`P(#`T$`2O7P3,-E*?S&?C!DK^KIN"5QU 8`,KUT`L&5Y!ZQI_LZ MP/VDS_<=?. "7>[-W91V/FQ%PI+7BL7 7M/@=WE2$ ````4```! $$P\*-\Y MC@XR+V Y>B(&6:P````H````*5&]B>2!.:7AO;@````P```! 9LH&3H_( M)NS#.IFES@"IW1 `MO_^Z,#HL'YW#/:4%48?R^>%Q5IG4W^ MB7GMLOE^CIOST9F])@```!4````$$ D!`@````\````$-P$``````&,````` M``! `#D`H&"&.DL8O $#`/$_"00```,`_3_D! ```P" $/____\#`"8````` M``,`-@``````'@`U$ $````V````/#,P04$Q,$9%-#(R1$-&,3$X-4(V,# X M,#5&1#0V.#$P,#)#1#9&-C= 4D5$+3$P+4U31SX````"`4<``0```# ```!C M/553.V$](#MP/6US9G0[;#U2140M,3 M35-'+3DW,#(Q,3$X-#$T-%HM-C@Y M-P`"`?D_`0```%$`````````W*= R,!"$!JTN0@`*R_A@@$`````````+T\] M34E#4D]33T94+T]5/4Y/4E1(04U%4DE#02]#3CU214-)4$E%3E13+T-./3$Q M-3@Q,@`````>`/@_`0````L```!4;V)Y($YI>&]N```"`?L_`0```%$````` M````W*= R,!"$!JTN0@`*R_A@@$`````````+T\]34E#4D]33T94+T]5/4Y/ M4E1(04U%4DE#02]#3CU214-)4$E%3E13+T-./3$Q-3@Q,@`````>`/H_`0`` M``L```!4;V)Y($YI>&]N``! ```#T``0````$````` M````"P`I```````+`",```````(!?P`!````3 ```#QC/553)6$]7R5P/6US M9G0E;#U2140M,3 M35-'+3DW,#(Q,3$X-#$T-%HM-C@Y-T!)3D54+3 R+4E- 30RYM:6-R;W-O9G0N8V]M/@#67S(Q ` end ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:27:21 -0800 From: Van Hefner Subject: "Satellite Phone" Scam Hits Internet Eureka, CA, Feb. 11, 1997 (DLD Digest) -- We have been flodded this past week with inquiries about a new "breakthrough technology" which is being touted via the internet, junk faxes and junk mail. The vaguely worded press releases we have seen proclaim that this is the MLM opportunity of a lifetime. It goes on to claim that satellite telephones will soon be available to consumers which will lower the price of long distance calls to as low as 4 cents per minute, anywhere in the world. The releases also claim that "major corporations" are backing this project, although those releasing the info refuse to name the actual companies. The claims are quite simply FALSE. Though we do not know who the actual company is that is distributing this "spam", we do know that the entire thing is a hoax. The only new satellite-telephone system that is even SCHEDULED for deployment (MAYBE!) this decade belongs to Motorola, and they have announced rates that will be higher than cellular phone rates, approximately $1.00 per minute. The only other satellite-telephone system available to the public is Inmarsat, on which time can be purchased for perhaps as low as $3.00 per minute. Terminals for this service cost several thousand dollars. Geosynchonous satellites, such as those used for satellite television, can not be used for satellite-phones very effectively because of a time delay (2/3 of a second) that is produced in conversations, due to the fact that each satellite orbit 22,300 miles from earth (even at the speed of light, it takes nearly a second to make the round trip). If a phone conversation is taking place somewhere the first satellite does not reach (such as from the U.S. to Japan) TWO satellites must be used in a relay fashion. This produces a time delay of 1 1/3 seconds in the conversation. This is one reason why most long distance traffic is carried underground/undersea via fiber optics, and NOT via satellite. The time delay not only makes conversations much more difficult to carry on, but makes the transmission of faxes, the internet, etc. nearly impossible in many cases. Data on Motorola's system is only guaranteed at 2400 baud! Motorola's Iridium system will use numerous LEO (low earth orbit) satellites to solve the above problems. However, using satellites in a lower orbit means that the "coverage" is not as good, and approximately 66 LEO satellites will be needed to cover the entire planet. This means years of preperation and BILLIONS of dollars in start-up costs. It also means that a project of this size would be impossible to "hide" from the general public for any length of time. Thus, if any new satellite-phone system were near deployment, it would be known about many years in advance. NO SATELLITE PHONE SYSTEM SUCH AS THOSE TOUTED ON THE INTERNET ARE SCHEDULED FOR DEPLOYMENT THIS DECADE! Though we can only speculate as to the motives of those behind this alleged get-rich-quick satellite-phone scam, we do know that there is absolutely no basis for their claims, and that such a phone system will definately not be deployed as claimed within this decade. We would have to guess that some MLM company is trying to build itself an "opportunity seekers" mailing list. Such mailing lists can be very valuable to companies recruiting MLM distributors. This farce sounds like a good way for them to collect names, addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses for possible spamming at a later date. Don't be surprised to see many more such offers if you give your name and address to these people. We advise you to stay as far away as possible from this whole mess. For information on the next "real" satellite-phone system that is scheduled for deployment, check-out Motorola's Iridium Homepage at http://www.iridium.com Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest The Internet Journal of the Long Distance Industry http://www.thedigest.com ------------------------------ Subject: The Coming 56kbps War Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:41:35 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New modems are fast, cheap, incompatible BY FREDERICK ROSE and EVAN RAMSTAD The Wall Street Journal The good news for computer users is that they'll soon be able to connect to the Internet nearly twice as fast. The bad news is that they'll have to take sides in a battle between two incompatible modems. Over the coming months, Rockwell International Corp. and U.S. Robotics Corp. will be shipping modems -- devices to transmit computer data across phone lines -- that allow home computer users to receive information at 56,000 digital bits a second, compared with the currently common 28,800. The companies are vying aggressively for a market estimated at more than $5 billion a year. As computer users, frustrated by downloading delays, seek upgrades, analysts expect 56,000-bit modems, which will likely be priced below $200, to dominate the market more quickly than any previous advance in computer-transmission speed. The problem is that the two companies have different technologies for making the leap. Without a compromise between modem makers, computer users with U.S. Robotics modems won't be able to connect at the full 56,000-bit speed with modems made with the Rockwell chip. The two modems will be able to hook up at 33,600 bits and slower, and to connect with lower-speed modems. But the makers of modems and PCs risk confusing their customers at best and, at worst, dividing them. Both companies are lining up allies for their cause. Rockwell, based in Seal Beach, Calif., is the leading maker of computer chips for modems. Rockwell sells its technology to dozens of modem makers, including Boca Research Inc. and Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. -- and the Megahertz division of U.S. Robotics itself. Its chips are also used in modems made by Ascend Communications Inc., which provides industrial-size modems to Internet providers, and networking-equipment giant Cisco Systems Inc. Rockwell last week announced it would ship its 56,000-bit technology to modem makers by mid-month, making it possible for the first products to appear this spring. In addition, Lucent Technologies Inc., another major modem-chip maker, has agreed to make its 56,000-bit technology work with Rockwell's. Meanwhile, U.S. Robotics, based in Skokie, Ill., is the leading modem maker, with about one-quarter of the units sold in North America. This week, its first fully equipped 56,000-bit modems will be shipped to stores, followed by $60 software to upgrade modems it has sold since last summer. It has hired physicist Stephen Hawking and Apple Computer Inc. cofounder Stephen Wozniak for a television and print-ad blitz. "We think we are months ahead of competitors in our ability to deliver product," says Casey Cowell, chief executive officer of U.S. Robotics. U.S. Robotics, which bases its products on chips from Texas Instruments Inc. and its own software, has gained a head start by selling three million modems since August that it says can be reprogrammed to 56,000-bit speeds with software or new chips. Its new modems can be adapted with software alone to whatever standard is eventually set. Modems using Rockwell chips are hardwired, and can't be changed. But, recognizing that the ground is shifting, Rockwell says some of its new chips will be reprogrammable. Lucent's new modem chips all will be adaptable. Thus, consumers aren't likely to face a Betamax scenario in which they have to toss out the loser's modems, though any upgrade will add costs. With neither Rockwell nor U.S. Robotics backing down, it will be up to the International Telecommunications Union, the Geneva-based group of telecom companies and scientists that sets technical standards, to develop a compromise. A committee of the U.S. Telecommunications Industry Association is expected to set interim standards for the U.S. this year. To be sure, users of fast new modems may have trouble reaching the full 56,000-bit speed, because of the condition of ordinary phone wires. Far faster alternatives like digital "ISDN" phone lines and satellite connections are expensive, and phone and cable companies have been slow to improve their networks for consumer use. By some estimates, as few as one in 10 phone lines are clear enough to allow data to move at the full rate. "Many stars have to align just right with the moon for this standard to work," says Mory Ejabat, president and chief executive officer of Ascend Communications. Furthermore, even with the new modems, sending data to the Internet remains slower than downloading from it. Because of the difficulties of translating digital information into analog signals, data sent from most home computers to the Internet will only travel at 33,600 bits per second. Nevertheless, consumers will see faster connection speeds. And many customers, frustrated with slow downloads, are already champing at the bit. "If I can go out, buy a new modem for $200, pay nothing extra to the phone company or my Internet provider and still connect (at a higher speed), I'm going to be very happy," says Steve Bass, president of the Pasadena, Calif., IBM Computer Users Group. Choosing between Rockwell and U.S. Robotics may be hardest for the nation's 3,600 Internet service providers, but they are moving to upgrade their equipment anyway. An unpublished survey by Boardwatch, a trade publication based in Littleton, Colo., found that 12 percent of all Internet service providers have "current and immediate plans" to offer 56,000-bit service. Many of them are expected to upgrade their existing modems from U.S. Robotics. "It's a case of `do it now or do it later,"' says George Peace, president and owner of Pennsylvania On Line, a small Internet service with 2,000 subscribers in Harrisburg, Pa. It is leasing new modems from U.S. Robotics that are due to arrive this week, because its current modems aren't adaptable. Mr. Peace says he's averaging five inquiries a day from clients about 56,000-bit service. Some companies will offer access using either technology -- or neither. Fewer than a dozen of E.Central Inc.'s 3,000 subscribers have inquired about 56,000-bit modems, said Ted Pinkowitz, president of the Denver-based Internet-access provider. "If all of a sudden we have a lot of requests for the 56K solution, then we'll begin to consider it," he said. "We don't just jump on technology as soon as something gets brought out of the box." ------------------------------ From: Billy Newsom Subject: Alternatives to Per-Minute Charges for Internet Access Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:02:15 -0700 Organization: http://www.columbia.net/ Reply-To: uruiamme@why.net This message is being sent to the FCC in response to an e-mail forwarded to me 2/11/97. The message originator is unknown, but it said to send an opinion to isp@fcc.gov. Deadline is said to be 2/13/97. So the LEC's want to charge more money, then let's let them. But not the residential and business modem-user. I am afraid that the money a LEC makes on a per-minute tarriff will greatly exceed what is necessary. Certainly, the LEC's need to begin increasing their facilities for handling larger call volumes. Just like the ISP's have found out who sell "unlimited access" Internet access when there is a finite limit. If an ISP can offer a flat-rate monthly access fee, then so can the LEC's as they alwayys have for local calls. The LEC's understandably need some more money for increasing the number of switched circuits necessary. So here's my suggestions: 1. Do not have the customer pay per-minute rates for Internet access. 2. Allow the LEC to charge an ISP a huge amount for every line they have switched, because of the large volume it will probably carry. 3. Allow the ISP some non-switched, dedicated facilities that connect directly to the non-switched Internet. The LEC would either lease their central office space or lease epuipment to the ISP so the ISP could have computer euipment of their chioce. 4. Allow the LEC's to end their "unlimited access" for all commercial customers. This would, of course, include ISP's. True unlimited access would still be available for a high premium. The ISP's would be forced to pay these high rates. Normal business customers who use only their phone lines perhaps 1 to 8 hours per day will pay the same as they always did. In this way, the ISP's pay for the LEC's need for more switched facilities. The ISP's customers pay more, but it is much easier to bear when the money is paid the the ISP. The LEC will get their money from the ISP's. But what if the LEC also offers Internet access in competition to the ISP's? Since the LEC has the advantage of not having to pay the high rates for "unlimited access," they will be able to compete against the ISP's by charging lower fees to Internet customers. This is a catch-22 for the LEC. Do they charge Internet customers less and increase revenue for their Internet business? Or do they charge the same as other ISP's and use the profits for expanding their switching facilities? This is the goal we want LEC's to achieve - no more busy signals because of lack of switching. The problem is, can we force the LEC's to increase their swithed facilities? Hardly. Maybe the FCC can. What we don't want to happen is for the LEC's to use the profits from the above tarriffs/Internet access fees on more Internet connections or more advertising or increased coverage areas or competing in new markets. The FCC should encourage the purchase of increased public-switched network lines that will benefit the citizens of the US. Bottom line 1: No usage-based tarriffs for home users. This is a step backwards and could reduce the FCC's "hold" on the baby Bells. Bottom line 2: We need more public-switched network facilities, and we must do something to allow the LEC's to raise the money needed. Summary: The Internet is a major cause of the increasingly high instance of busy lines and the users should pay for increasing the number of facilities. I'm afraid that too many political activists (yes, the ones that use the Internet are the ones who have political voice) would strenously direct to what would seem like a "modem tax" waged by the LEC if there was a per-minute tarriff. Sincerely, Billy Newsom Columbia Healthcare Billy Newsom uruiamme@why.net My site: Motherboard HomeWorld (a.k.a. **DANGER**) http://users.why.net/uruiamme/ See also my new web page: How to Build a PC ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #38 *****************************