Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA22039; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:59:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:59:23 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702141359.IAA22039@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #42 TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Feb 97 08:59:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 42 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Rhode Island LEC Competition (Tad Cook) FCC Solicits Comments? (Tad Cook) BellSouth Comments on Access Charge Reform (Mike King) Internet Access PR - Bell South (Timothy Templeton) Medical Report Says Drivers on Cell Phones More Likely to Crash (R. Casey) Where to Find Used Telecom Equipment? (Michael Ross) New Article: Out of Sight, Out of Mind (Judith Oppenheimer) Caller ID in New Zealand (Ken Moselen) UCLA Short Course on "Communication Systems Using DSP" (William R. Goodin) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Rhode Island LEC Competition Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:04:35 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) NYNEX Braces for Deluge of Rivals in Rhode Island By Timothy C. Barmann, The Providence Journal-Bulletin, R.I. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News PROVIDENCE, R.I.--Feb. 14--It looks like another piece of junk mail, but a brochure sent by NYNEX to some of its customers this week signals nothing less than the start of Rhode Island's phone wars. NYNEX is preparing for battle against a slew of companies that are getting ready -- and in some cases have already begun -- to sell local telephone service. NYNEX wants to lock in some of its customers by asking them to stay with it through the end of the year. In return, the customers get discounts at a handful of sporting events, museums, parks and theaters throughout New England. The stakes are huge for NYNEX, which last year, collected $370 million in revenues in Rhode Island. Now, the company is facing an almost certain decline in market share. As of yesterday, 186 companies have filed with the state to resell in-state and out-of-state toll service, with more applications trickling in every week. And two companies, Brooks Fiber Communications and Teleport Communications Group, already are competing head to head with NYNEX in limited areas. "There's going to be an explosion of availability," said Brian Kent a telecommunications rate specialist with the state's Division of Public Utilities. The upcoming phone battles are the result of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was passed with the intent of fostering competition in both the local and long-distance markets. In Rhode Island, the action is heating up in the local market. Next week, the Public Utilities Commission will likely be presented a plan that allows customers to automatically choose the carrier they want for in-state toll calls. You can now use a carrier other than NYNEX for such calls, but you have to dial a five-digit code before each call to connect to that carrier. Most people don't bother dialing the extra digits, Kent said, so by default their calls are automatically routed through NYNEX. The plan the PUC will consider will eliminate that extra dialing requirement and "level the playing field," Kent said. If the PUC approves the plan, it may go into effect in August. Most of the nearly 200 carriers registered with the state are referred to as "resellers" because they buy blocks of time on a local phone carrier's network and resell it to consumers, presumably at a lower rate. The companies don't have their own equipment to handle calls. (A list of resellers registered with the state is posted on the PUC's World Wide Web site at http://www.ripuc.org.) Besides the resellers, there are two others that are building their own telephone networks and operate switching facilities to offer local exchange service. Brooks Fiber Communications, based in St. Louis, has been offering service to homes and businesses in parts of Providence for about two months, with 25 route-miles of fiber optic cable. It will expand service to parts of Pawtucket and East Providence in the next 60 days, said Robert J. Shanahan, the company's regional vice president. In the next six months, Brooks will expand into Warwick and Cranston, he said. The company has not been marketing its phone service to residential customers, though it is available if a customer lives in its service area. Instead, the push has been to sign up businesses, which are more profitable for Brooks, said Shanahan. Its rates are 15 percent below NYNEX's rates, he said. The other local phone carrier is Teleport Communications Group, based in Staten Island, N.Y., which is owned by four cable television companies, including Cox Communications. TCG began offering local service last fall and serves only businesses. Its rates are 25 percent below NYNEX's rates, said Peter N. Atwood, director of sales and marketing. The company has been expanding its fiber optic network in Rhode Island thanks to Cox, which owns about 30 percent of TCG, according to documents filed with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. TCG is leasing cable that Cox already has in place to serve its cable customers, Atwood said. In some cases, phone calls placed through TCG will pass through the same fiber optic cable -- though on different strands -- Cox uses to transmit its cable signals. TCG's fiber network is 50 miles long in Rhode Island and passes through Providence, East Providence, Cranston, Warwick, West Warwick and Pawtucket. This year, it will also stretch into Smithfield and East Greenwich, Atwood said. Cox itself has said it plans to offer local phone service as well. The company is positioned to become a major challenger to NYNEX after acquiring all of TCI Cablevision's New England subscribers this year. Cox now serves 90 percent of all cable subscribers in Rhode Island. Waiting in the wings are the three long-distance phone giants that want to sell local service as well. MCI and Sprint have reached preliminary agreements with NYNEX about how they will link to its network, Kent said. The two companies are soon expected to submit proposed rates to the PUC. AT&T is winding its way through the state regulatory process to get approval for local service, said spokeswoman Kay Gibbs. As for NYNEX, it hopes its arts and entertainment discount promotion will help stem customer defections. Given all the options customers are about to face, NYNEX wants to convince them it is still the best choice. "What we plan on doing is to try to keep our customers educated," said Tracey Kennedy, a NYNEX spokeswoman. "If we can keep the lines of communication open between the customers and the company, we'll be able to retain the largest share of the market." ------------------------------ Subject: FCC Solicits Comments? Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 01:14:00 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) (This is from Patrick Crispin's TOURBUS. This is a new perspective on the mail going around the net asking for comments to the FCC. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com) FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC Over the past couple of weeks, you may have received e-mail letters telling you that: Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC [The United States' Federal Communications Commission] to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. At first, I thought that this was simply a new version of the old "modem tax" hoax (http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84) that has been floating around the Net since *1987*. After all, the current FCC story has all of the markings of a classic urban legend: 1. It uses official-looking language; 2. It mentions a government agency or an organization with which everyone is familiar; 3. It contains a plea for you to take some sort of immediate action; and 4. It requests that you forward the warning letter to as many people as possible. Besides, according to an article that appeared in this morning's Edupage, ONLINE COMPANIES ASK TELCOS, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Tired of telephone companies' complaints that Internet usage is overwhelming their network capacity, the Internet Access Coalition has released findings contending that Net usage is, in reality, a bonanza for the Bells. The study found that local carriers received a total of $1.4 billion in 1995 in revenues resulting from the installation of second lines in homes, while spending only $245 million to beef up their networks for the additional usage. A Bell Atlantic spokesman says the real problem is that the telcos have no idea when a line will be used for data rather than voice, and thus tied up longer. Both sides agree that the ultimate solution is higher capacity networks. (Business Week 17 Feb 97) Well, out of curiosity -- and out of a deep-felt desire to avoid studying for the two major economics tests that I have next week -- your fearless bus driver decided to call the FCC in Washington to see if anyone there was willing to talk about this rather explosive issue. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that the FCC only has one employee, she is a secretary, and her job is to transfer all incoming telephone calls into voice mail hell. :) Actually, I talked to some nice people at the FCC who faxed me a ten page explanation of what's *really* going on. Unfortunately, the ten page explanation was written in "FCC-ese," so I am going to have to translate their explanation into English for you (and I can assure you that, since I know *NOTHING* about telephony, my translation will probably contain a few inaccuracies; if it does, please let me know). First, some local telephone companies have indeed asked the FCC to allow them to assess a per minute access charge on the telephone lines used by Internet Service Providers. Local telephone companies currently charge long-distance carriers (like AT&T and MCI) an interstate access charge for the long-distance traffic that travels over their local lines, and the local telephone companies would like to see this charge extended to include the high-speed lines that your local Internet Service Provider uses to access the Internet. In December, the FCC rejected the telephone companies' request and tentatively concluded "that the existing pricing structure for information services should remain in place." In other words, the FCC has tentatively concluded that Internet service providers should *NOT* be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. The FCC now seeks the public's comments on this conclusion. Unfortunately, the "warning" letter that is currently circulating around the Internet gives the impression that some sort of sinister operation is afoot here, that the FCC and the telephone companies are trying to sneak this proposal through without anyone noticing, and that it is up to each and every one of us to stop the evil FCC. What garbage. In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the telephone companies' proposal. The FCC is now simply asking you if you agree or disagree with their decision. The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH! Hands down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts ever. I also discovered another thing about the FCC that increased my respect for their organization one-hundred-fold. Part of the ten-page explanation that the FCC sent me states that their "existing rules have been designed for traditional circuit-switched voice networks, and thus may hinder the development of emerging packet-switched data networks." Because of this, the FCC is also seeking the public's comments on the implications of the Internet and its usage through the public switched telephone network. Folks, *ANY* government agency that stops and says 'hey, we can ALWAYS use some more information so that we are better prepared for whatever happens in the future' has earned my respect and admiration. By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at: http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html If you would like to send your comments to the folks at the FCC (the deadline for comments about their decision not to impose interstate access changes on Internet service providers is Friday, February 14th), make sure that you check the FCC's ISP Web page first. At the bottom of this page are some pretty specific instructions on what you need to put in the subject line of you e-mail letter before you submit it to the FCC. Personally, I'm going to leave the poor folks at the FCC alone for a while. They seem to be doing a great job in the face of unnecessary (and misinformed) opposition. ====================================================================== Join : Send SUBSCRIBE TOURBUS Your Name to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Leave : Send SIGNOFF TOURBUS to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Info : On the Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/tourbus.htm ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth Comments on Access Charge Reform Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:22:18 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:31:28 -0500 (EST) From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Comments on Access Charge Reform BellSouth .......................................February 13, 1997 NEW PUBLIC POLICY MATERIAL AVAILABLE FROM BELLSOUTH On December 24, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on interstate access charge reform, a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on the treatment of interstate information services providers (ISPs) and the Internet, and a Report and Order which relaxes certain rules governing interstate price cap regulation. This proceeding was initiated as part of a trilogy of actions that collectively are intended to foster and accelerate the introduction of efficient competition in all telecommunications markets, as part of the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Interconnection proceeding and the Universal Service proceeding are the other parts of the trilogy. BellSouth filed comments in response to the FCC NPRM on interstate access charge reform on January 29, 1997. A copy of that response and a summary are now posted on the public policy pages of BellSouth's website at http://www.bellsouthcorp.com/issues/filings/dk96262.htm --------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:49:19 -0800 From: Timothy Templeton Subject: Internet Access PR - Bell South Although it seems that this fellow has cited an exerpt that says "hey, Mr. Consumer, we're on your side", I don't know if he speaks for the rest of the LECs. ------------begin included text----------------------- You wrote: > Your local telephone company has filed a proposal with the > FCC to impose per minute charges for your internet service ... > Every phone company is in on this one, and they are trying to > sneak it in just under the wire for litigation. Let everyone you > know here this one. Get the e-mail address to everyone you can > think of. Your post to this list says all telcos have asked the FCC to lift the exemption from access charges currently enjoyed by Internet Service Providers. In a filing in the access charge docket on January 29th BellSouth said quite the opposite. Please correct your posting. Here's the language we used: C. Treatment of Interstate Information Services (paras. 282-290) Since their inception, the access charge rules have exempted enhanced service providers (ESPs) from paying interstate access charges. The ESP exemption was initially conceived as a transition mechanism to avoid rate shock in the relatively nascent information services segment of the telecommunications industry. There was and continued to be very little traffic generated by ESPs realtive to other public switched network traffic. The widespread use of personal computers and the demand for connectivity has given rise to a new form of enhanced service, the Internet. The use of the Internet is growing and is expected to grow exponetially. It represents a potentially important resource in a variety of public policy areas such as education and medicine. The internet phenomenon has never been fully analysed within the context of access charges. At one level, there is considerable internet usage and this usage has different characteristics than the typical voice traffic that transits the public switched network. This gives rise to equitable concerns such as whether internet usage be treated differently than other usage. It also gives rise to operational concerns regarding congestion of the public switched network. Given the importance of the internet in the development of public policy, the Commission should be sure that its telecommunications policy foster efficient use of the telecommunications network which includes public switched voice traffic as well as internet traffic. To achieve this goal is more complex than just deciding whether to apply or not to apply access charges. The solution will require far more creative approaches that will necessitate, among other things consideration of the appropriate jurisdiction for internet access and the investigation of market-based incentives that would direct internet traffic to packet-switched networks. Until these types of solutions are explored, changing the ESP exemption might only achieve disrupting the marketplace rather than making it operate more efficiently. Bill McCloskey - Director Media Relations, BellSouth Corp. -------end of included text------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Medical Report Says Drivers on Cell Phones More Likely to Crash Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:59:21 GMT Saw on the TV news a story that a major medical journal (New England Journal of Medicine, if memory serves) had published a report that they found that drivers using a cell phone while they are actively driving a car are about four times more likely to have an accident than drivers without a cell phone. This is like drunk driving, except you "sober up" when you finish the call. Phones not requiring the use of your hands doesn't help significantly. Apparently, the brain gets too distracted talking on the cell phone to pay enough attention to the driving task. I don't know why this doesn't happen if you are talking to your passenger who is physically present next to you in the car you're driving. Other than he might spot a hazard you missed. Most everyone grew up on landline corded phones, and you may tend to concentrate on your hearing and ignore some your vision. Sitting at home or office this is no problem, on the road, big problem? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 01:25:55 -0800 From: Michael Ross Reply-To: mross@best.com Subject: Where to Find Used Telecom Equipment? I'm looking for a used AT&T 843A Call Display Server. It's an accessory for the 854 phone (4-line KSU-less system). Thanks for any info! Cheers, Michael mross@best.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 16:40:59 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: New Article: Out of Sight, Out of Mind Go here: http://www.clickit.com/touch/newpage.htm#News and scroll down to "Point of View", for article "Out of Sight, Out of Mind". Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:12:04 +1300 From: Ken Moselen Subject: Caller ID in New Zealand Gidday Pat, Yesterday (February 13th) Telecom New Zealand after an abortive attempt last September, finally successfully launched it's Caller ID service nationwide. From my limited testing so far, Telecom is exchanging numbers in both directions with Bellsouth (the GSM Cellular operator - who has had Caller ID since November). Also, landline's with their numbers unlisted/restricted appear to have had per-line blocking set to on by default - but so far, of the 10 calls I've received since 3:30pm yesterday when the service was turned on on my line, only one has been from a blocked number, so I suspect the service will be fairly usable. Since last September, Telecom has changed the Block/Unblock codes for the service - in an effort to make the service more PABX friendly - The Block code is now 0197 (or 197 from a toll-barred phone), and the Unblock code is 0196 (or 196 from a toll-barred phone). Cheers, Ken Moselen CAD Administrator, City Design, Christchurch City Council, PO Box 237, Christchurch, New Zealand. Ken.Moselen@ccc.govt.nz Tel: +64.3.3711708 Fax: +64.3.3711783 Gsm: +64.21.337963 ------------------------------ From: BGOODIN@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (William R. Goodin) Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Communication Systems using DSP" Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:18:51 PST Organization: UCLA Extension On April 12-16, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Communication Systems Using Digital Signal Processing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bernard Sklar, PhD, Communications Engineering Services, and frederick harris, MS, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, San Diego State University. As part of the course materials, each participant receives a copy of the text, "Digital Communications: Fundamentals and Applications", by Bernard Sklar. This course provides comprehensive coverage of advanced digital communications. It differs from other communications courses in its emphasis on applying modern digital signal processing techniques to the implementation of communication systems. This makes the course essential for practitioners in the rapidly changing field. Error-correction coding, spread spectrum techniques, and bandwidth-efficient signaling are all discussed in detail. Basic digital signaling methods and the newest modulation-with-memory techniques are described. Topics that are covered include: data encoding and baseband transmission; bandpass modulation and demodulation; channel coding: error detection and correction; defining, designing, and evaluating systems; modulation and coding trade-offs and bandwidth-efficient signaling; spread spectrum and multiple access techniques; digital signal processing tools and technology; non-recursive filters; signal conditioning; and adaptive algorithms for communication systems. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1990. The course fee is $1495, which includes the text and extensive course notes. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #42 *****************************