Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA19659; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:45:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:45:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711231745.MAA19659@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #324 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Nov 97 12:45:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 324 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (E. Oliver) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (J Hennigan) Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace (T Horsley) Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace (Ashworth) Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) (Gary Ryman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Tim Gorman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Kevin DeMartino) Scope.FAQ Available (John Seney) Re: Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California (Aryeh Friedman) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org 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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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: eoliver@concentric.net (E. L. Oliver) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:03:06 -0500 Organization: Concentric Networks User In article , roamer1@pobox.com wrote: > The cellular industry needs to stop feuding, and come up with a total > solution to the current roaming mess -- that solution must include a > provision to handle 911 calls for all callers, regardless of home > carrier -- or lack thereof. I just signed up with Omnipoint, a PCS carrier that uses GSM technology. Their brochures prominently state that 911 will work always if the phone has battery power and there is good signal strength. E.g. having an account or a SIM (subscribe identity module which provides account and billing information) they claim is irrelevant. Of course the test would be cancelling my service and trying to call 911 ... or taking the SIM out and trying to call 911. Also the keylock on the phone allows you to dial 911 without having to unlock the keypad. So it looks like at least some carriers are trying to address the 911 issue before the Federal Government does with a broadly worded law. Erik Oliver eoliver@concentric.net ------------------------------ From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: 23 Nov 1997 16:34:59 GMT Organization: West.Net Communications On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:21:56 GMT, Stanley Cline wrote: > Are calls to 911 blocked from payphones, do payphones require 35 :( > cents, or do payphones require a valid calling card for 911 calls? Of > course not. I don't see any difference at all. The main problem > doesn't seem to be revenue, as some carriers claim -- a large part of > the problem, especially with blocking competitors and roamers, is the > usual politics of cellular roaming. The same carriers who are known > as being "roaming problems" tend to be the very ones that block 911 > from certain roamers, or customers of the competition! With cellular, the issue of free 911 calls for all is a major revenue issue, although not in the same manner. There are many thousands of used cellular phones which are not in service. With cellular carriers giving away a free phone for a one-year service commitment, many customers get a new phone every year and the value of used phones has become near-zero. There are also many customers who buy cellular service primarily "for use in emergencies." If carriers universally allow 911 calls to go through for all phones, activated or not, competitor's system or not, paid for or not, then they would stand to lose that segment of their market which only wants the phone "for emergencies", as those people could use any old discarded phone for 911. This is big ongoing monthly revenue for the cellular companies, not the occasional 35 :( cents from a payphone that happens to be located at the scene of an accident. This lawsuit may force the issue. ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace Date: 22 Nov 1997 22:34:18 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > The "Spam King," Sanford Wallace, and Walt Rines > Have incorporated their new bulk-email friendly backbone network But the question still remains: Who on earth will be willing to route traffic either to or from this "spambone"? I mean, won't everyone on the entire planet simply permanently block all packets from any spambone IP addresses? Are the direct email marketers only going to be selling to each other? Certainly if my ISP doesn't block everything from spambone, I'll be looking for another that will ... >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace Date: 23 Nov 1997 17:16:19 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On 21 Nov 1997 19:31:02 GMT, Bruce Pennypacker wrote: > be self-regulated." Technical Details: GTMI has established a > national backbone which operates as a fully-meshed network > operating at DS-3 speeds, and interconnecting, or "peering" with > several other networks at undisclosed private peering points. It has been observed, on the mailing list of the North American Network Operators Group, that they're going to have a _really_ hard time finding people to actually peer with them. Since the operators of most of the backbones in the US are on that list, it may get interesting. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Gary Ryman Subject: Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:06:36 -0600 Organization: Global Customer Service - Training Robert M. Gutierrez wrote: > Has anybody been able to provision a PRI with a LEC, CLEC or IXC that > will or can pass OLS digits from their switch? > There are usually 2 OLS digits that are usually prefixed on the ANI. > So for FGB or FGB inband signalling, you would get 12 digits, the first > 2 being the OLS digits, and the other 10 being the ANI of the call. A minor point here - you normally get a 1 digit OLS and up to 7 ANI digits on a FG-B Direct trunk. You get 2 info digits and 10d ANI on FGD. > OLS digits can define the type of originating service, like public > coin, hotel, hospital, prison (!), and also flag ANI failures > and customer provided ANI digits. > Yes, we are set up to use this information. > Unfortunately, I have not looked at the Q.931 document from the ITU > to see if there is a digit length in the called number field. I > would assume not for international and future portability (god forbid > that I think U.S. centric!). So with that in mind, is there any > options in the DMS-100 or 5ESS generic that provide passing of the > OLS digits in the Q.931 message. You do need to look at the Q.931. The field you are interested in is the Screening Indicator in octet 3 of the Calling Party Number information element. As long as the Presentation Indicator is set to pass the Calling Party address, your carrier ought to be able to provision it. (notice I said "ought", not "will" or "willing" ;^) ). ~ Gary Ryman, Senior Technical Instructor| ~ aka gryman@dsctec01.dsccc.com |"Stoke me a clipper, I'll be ~ DSC Technical Education | back for Christmas..." ~ I get paid to speak BY DSC, NOT | Ace Rimmer, RD VII ~ FOR DSC | ------------------------------ From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:45:21 -0600 In TELECOM Digest #319, dstott@2help.com (Dave Stott) wrote: > In TELECOM Digest #317, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)wrote: >> Some more comments on economic competition and telephone service ... >>> The BOC's loop is one way for consumers and businesses to connect to >>> their ISPs, but there are others: wireless and microwave, for >>> instance, are in use today. >> Is wireless and microwave appropriate and cheap enough for individual >> POTS subscribers? > Not today, but there is a huge economic incentive for the PCS and WCS > auction winners, and the CLECs and ALTs to continue to refine the technology. > When new entrants can offer wireless local loops and bypass the LECs' > plant, they have succeeded in denying the LEC any share of the customer's > local service bill (not including calls to the LEC's customers which will > be paid by interconnect fees). Depending on whose side you're on that is > bad or that is good, but it surely _is_ and the LEC has lost a revenue > source, the new entrant has reduced its reliance on its competitor, and > the bulk of the money flows to the actual provider. This still doesn't answer the question as to whether wireless and microwave will be appropriate and cheap enough for individual POTS subscribers. Since the wireless (non-cellular) market is already quite competitive and is very well refined technology, it should be an indicator of where cellular could eventually go. These phones, while quite common, are far from ubiquitous. The first thing this should call into question is just how big the economic incentive truly is for PCS and others. >>> That's certainly one opinion. Others feel that telephone customers >>> have had no choice in where their money went prior to today, and the >>> dollars they have invested in telephone service (because all dollars >>> are ultimately supplied by the customers) is a "public investment" in >>> a private company. >> Consumers received a service for their payments all this years. >> The network was not built by tax dollars, but rather by subscribers >> who were getting telephone service. Indeed, the smallest subscribers >> were subsidized by the heavier business, premium service, and long >> distance users. > Yes they were. And while the funds to build the system were not explicitly > tax dollars, it could be argued that they were selectively applied implicit > tax dollars. The Federal Government decided that the Bell System (and other > LECs) would be a monopoly and we had no choice about who received our > telephone dollars. The government-protected LEC always got your money. It could be argued that the subscribers money was implicit tax dollars but the argument is certainly not convincing. Government regulated common carrier monopolies are not government entities either in law or in practice. >>> When GM came to town, Ford could argue that the existing roads should be >>> used exclusively for Fords, since only Fords had been used on them up >>> to now. Should GM build all new roads? >> Well, your argument falls flat since Ford didn't build the roads in >> your story. The Bell System designed and built the network privately. > 'Privately' doesn't work here. They were protected by the government > and no one was allowed to build a competing network. What's the > difference between the Bell System and a government agency? The Bell > System actually made money. Remember that _before_ the Bell System, > there were competing local companies, and the Feds decided that a > 'natural monopoly' was in the country's best interest. The Feds > actually nationalized the Bell System for a short time, but that > didn't work, so the 'natural monopoly' argument took precedence. > Otherwise, we might have had the US Postal & Telephone Department. Privately certainly works here. You seem to be forgetting the hundreds of telephone franchises in this nation that were not and are not today part of the "Bell" system in any way. The difference between the Bell System and a government agency is total. The Postal Service is a government operation by law. It is supported by and its losses are guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country. The Bell System was not supported by the government and its losses were not guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country but by the shareholders of the stock. >> Further, the pricing of service was controlled by the government. > Yikes! Sounds like the USPS, not a 'private' company. Yikes! It also sounds like some taxi rates in some airports in this country (i.e. government set pricing of service in order to receive a franchise). Are the taxi rates "implicit taxes" also? How about apartment rents? Those are government regulated in some areas. Do those rents thus become "implicit taxes"? You are trying to make telephone service charges into something they are not. >> The phone company is also mandated to serve unprofitable/undesirable >> customers. There are often articles in the newspaper complaining >> about corporations avoiding poor or ghetto areas, however, that is >> generally fully legal. The phone company must offer full services >> everywhere, to everyone, with appeal rights to the PUC. And that is >> costly. >> The phone company isn't allowed to tack on price premiums. For >> example, if you visit a resort town, you'll find most prices more >> expensive than back at home. Phone service will be exactly the same. >> If the phone company was private, it'd charge a premium just as the >> ice cream man and suntan lotion store. [I paid double for suntan >> lotion this summer at the beach because I forgot the bottle at home.] > Sounds again like the Post Office. My point is that the infrastructure > was built with captive dollars. Whether they were _tax_ dollars or > government directed consumer dollars really isn't the issue. I've > paid my money for 20 years to the LEC because I wanted a phone, and > the government told me who I could buy that service from. They didn't > give me a choice, and my 'investment' for basic service during that > time surely paid for the local loop. The stockholders don't pay for it. > Just the ratepayers do. This is where your comparisons really start to break down. Income is NOT equal to capital. Subscriber dollars are INCOME, not capital. Income is used to pay debt, pay dividends, and pay expenses. Some income may be converted to capital as reinvested earnings but this is a management decision and is not taken lightly. This money usually is better off being paid out as dividends to attract more capital than being used as capital itself. As far as I know in the Bell System, it was NEVER the case that there were ever sufficient earnings to fully finance the capital needs with reinvested earnings. This means that additional investors had to be continually attracted to the company. These investors OWNED the companies and not the government. The stockholders DID pay for the local loop, you did not. You paid the stockholders for providing the loop for you. You received a service. You did not invest in the infrastructure, you only used it. Just like you don't own the taxi you ride in from the airport to downtown when you pay their government fixed rates. You only use the taxi. Tim Gorman tg6124@cjnetworks.com ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:19:26 -0500 It is unlikely that the Internet will swallow the phone system. The Internet depends on the phone system to provide both subscriber access lines and high speed trunks for connecting Internet switches. It is also unlikely that the phone system will swallow up the Internet. It is more likely that the Internet, the phone system, and the cable TV systems will merge to form an integrated network that can handle voice, data, video, multimedia, etc. Currently, we have three groups of communication networks: the telephone networks, primarily for voice; the Internet, primarily for data; and the cable networks, primarily for broadcast video. These groups of networks are not integrated with each other, but are not entirely separate. Although, the telephone networks were designed and optimized for voice, they can also handle data and limited video (e.g., picturephone and video teleconferencing). Similarly, the Internet and cable networks can handle voice, video, and data. Over the long term, it does not make sense to maintain three groups on non-integrated networks. Instead, there should be an integrated network that can handle all communication functions. What will this integrated network look like? Ironically, it is easier to predict the long term future than the short term. Over the long term, twisted pairs and coaxial cables will be replaced by optical fibers. Each subscriber (at a fixed location) will be provided with a fiber connection to the network that can support all communication functions. Fixed subscribers won't need separate twisted pair, coax, and radio frequency links with the outside world. Fiber connections to the network backbone will also be provided for wireless base stations supporting mobile subscribers. The network will be able to seamlessly handle (almost) voice, video, data, etc. Of course this will take a long time (20 years?) and a lot of money (in excess of $100B for the U.S.). The question is how do we get there from here? One way is to upgrade the telephone networks to broadband integrated services digital networks (B-ISDN) standards. B-ISDN provides the high data rates required for full motion video and also provides fast packet switching via asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) for efficiently transmitting bursty data. Thus with B-ISDN, the telephone system will become more like the cable networks and the Internet. Another approach is to upgrade the Internet to better handle voice and video. Higher bandwidth is required, both for subscriber access lines and for the trunks between Internet switches. Faster packet switching is required to handle higher data rates and reduce delays. Guaranteed levels of service are required for real time voice and video. More structure and management is required for the Internet backbone. In other words, the Internet will become more like B-ISDN. A third approach is to evolve the network of the future from the cable networks. Cable will have to evolve from a broadcast medium (primarily) to a system that will support directed communications (video on demand, voice, and data). This implies switching and two-way communications, which will make cable systems look more like the telephone system and the Internet. One option is to use the telephone system for upstream communications and voice, which require relatively low data rates. So which approach will we follow on the road to utopia? Probably all of the above. If we are smart and lucky all three approaches will wind up in approximately the same place and the resulting network segments will be compatible enough to talk to each other. Who swallows whom? Do we call the integrated network B-ISDN or Internet II ? It depends on who takes the lead, the telcos or the ISPs. Kevin DeMartino kdemartino@drc.com ------------------------------ From: john@wd1v.mv.com (John Seney) Subject: Scope.FAQ Available Organization: WD1V Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:05:00 GMT Oscilloscope.FAQ is located on my home page. If you'd like an Email version sent to you as an attached text file (55k), send an Email with SCOPE FAQ on the SUBJECT LINE. Best regards, John Seney http://www.mv.com/ipusers/wd1v ------------------------------ From: Aryeh M. Friedman Subject: Re: Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:33:55 +0000 Organization: The Friedman Group, Consultants in Multimedia Internetworking Doug McMillan wrote: > I am looking for a service area map of local carrier availability in > Southern California. Actually a simple demarcation of Pacific Bell > versus GTE would do nicely. Phone companies unwilling to help. Is > there anything on the net? Thank you. GTE Consumer Relations has one of their area it can safelly be assumed that what is not theirs is Pac Bell. Also CPUC has a CO and LATA map thats shows carriers for the whole state you will need to call the SF office for it though. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #324 ******************************