Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA04624; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:20:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:20:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711250220.VAA04624@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #329 TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Nov 97 21:20:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 329 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (Al Varney) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (Dave Stott) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (Veijalain) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (Frankenber) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Christopher Zguris) Re: Subsidizing Rural Phone Service (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics (Adam H. Kerman) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:32:21 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward In Telecom Digest, John Levine wrote: >> Out of curiosity, does anyone have any biographical information >> about Emile Baudot, the engineer for whom baudot code -- and >> "baud" -- is named? > Bien sur. I sent a note on this very topic to the Digest back in > March 1992: > It's from Emile Baudot, an early digital communication pioneer. In > 1874 he introduced one of the first practical printing telegraphs > using the five bit code which bears his name. The original version > had a five key piano keyboard, on which the operator pressed the > appropriate keys for the code for each letter. The system worked > synchronously at 30 wpm so the operator had to key each letter at the > correct time, clocked by a ticker. The machine sent the five bits > serially so his scheme could be used in combination with many of the > multiplexing schemes already in use for Morse telegraphy, an important > practical advantage. (This info cribbed from my 1910 Encyclopaedia > Britannica.) > Even though 30 wpm is quite slow by later standards, it's still about > three characters per second, so I imagine that the combination of > having to memorize the letter combinations and operate in precise sync > with the clock required highly skilled operators. Two other items concerning Emile Baudot: 1. According to Newton's Telecom Dictionary, Baudot lived from 1845 to 1903. 2. A footnote in James Martin's 1972 book, 'Introduction to Teleprocessing' states, on page 62: The five-bit telegraphy code (CCITT Alphabet No. 2) is commonly referred to as the Baudot code. It was, however, invented by Donald Murray. Baudot's work produced quite a different code structure which resulted in the CCITT Alphabet No. 1. There is little resemblance between the two codes except they both use five bits per character. Martin's book also provides a very interesting chart showing the bit sequence for the characters of the common 5-bit Telex code and showing how they map to the CCITT international keyboard, the US teletype commercial keyboard, the AT&T "fractions keyboard" (used in the stockmarket), and the "weather keyboard" (with symbols for meterology.) Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward Date: 24 Nov 1997 16:00:58 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , John R. Levine wrote: > It's from Emile Baudot, an early digital communication pioneer. In > 1874 he introduced one of the first practical printing telegraphs > using the five bit code which bears his name. The original version > had a five key piano keyboard, on which the operator pressed the > appropriate keys for the code for each letter. The system worked > synchronously at 30 wpm so the operator had to key each letter at the > correct time, clocked by a ticker. The machine sent the five bits > serially so his scheme could be used in combination with many of the > multiplexing schemes already in use for Morse telegraphy, an important > practical advantage. (This info cribbed from my 1910 Encyclopaedia > Britannica.) Baudot's system was successful for two reasons. One, it PRINTED the received messages on strips of paper. Two, it multiplexed up to six operators onto one telegraph line, using a TDM scheme. The 30 wpm or three 5-bit-characters per second were sent as a 30-bit frame over a 90 bit/second facility. Some synchronization schemes required overhead bits as well. Al Varney ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:20:34 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out 'Complete 911 Emergency Kit' In case you've been wondering where all the old Motorola flip phones have gone, Tiger Direct is selling them for $79.99 as 911 emergency phones. The latest few catalogs have a quarter page ad telling potential buyers that 'cellular phone may not operate in certain geographical areas,' but that this is 'something no family automobile should be without.' 'Emergency calls require NO activation fee and NO monthly fee!' (Their emphasis.) 'Just dial 911 to reach Police, Fire Department or ambulance. Your 911 calls are FREE from anywhere in the United States! No activation fee required for emergency calls! No monthly charges or any additional fees! Makes a great gift for the people you care about! Use it in your car (or your spouse's car), boat, truck, RV ...' The ad does tell you that it may not work, and to Tiger Direct's credit it is worded prominently at the beginning of the ad copy, BUT (my emphasis) the rest of the ad pretty well negates that message. I wonder if they will keep selling them after this episode. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: Juha.Veijalainen@iki.fi (Juha Veijalainen) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:35:21 +0200 Organization: Jkarhuritarit E. L. Oliver (eoliver@concentric.net) wrote in : > 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. I am glad to see that this feature is also available in the 'US GSM'. As far as I know, on GSM 900 emergency calls to 112 are always available, providing there is a network coverage, regardless of what kind of subscription you have. SIM card is not necessarily needed, but I've heard that some phones might have problems working without SIM inserted. As far as I know, at least some operators use pre-emption - forcefully terminate non-emergency calls in favour of emergency calls in congested areas. Most mobile phones also allow 112 to be dialed even when key lock is on. I wonder if 112 is translated to 911 on US GSM-1900 phones? How would 112/911 be handled on future GSM 900/1900 dual mode phones? Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland http://www.iki.fi/juhave/ Mielipiteet omiani / Opinions personal, facts suspect ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 03:45:35 GMT In article , Mike Fox wrote: > Lisa Hancock wrote: >>> One technical study she commissioned for a lawsuit that she filed >>> against L.A. Cellular, her service provider, indicates that the >>> company's signal is still too weak to carry a 911 call in the area of >>> National and Castle Heights -- >> Oh, I see, a lawsuit. >> While I'm certainly sorry for what happened, is it really the cellular >> carrier's fault? The fault was the thieves -- they were the ones who >> shot the woman. >> Cellular phones do not always work. In my short experience with them, >> I've been cut off in mid conversation and have had lots of trouble >> getting a call through. It's a radio, and radios have dead spots. > We, the telecom junkies or professionals understand this. But should > every cell phone customer who hears an advertisement whose message is > "get a cell phone for safety and peace of mind" know that? Yes. I don't expect cell customers to know all the gory details of how their cellular technology works. But it's common sense that you might sometimes get out of range. I know this goes against the current trend in tort law, but I think we need some personal responsibility here. If you're stupid enough to think that your cell phone will work 100% of the time, wherever you are, and choose to bet your life on that, then you have noone but yourself to blame when the bet goes sour. (I don't really think the victim in this case is that stupid, though. She's likely just looking for money and figures the telco has lots.) If my hard-wired desk phone fails to work when I unplug it and carry it half a mile from my house, do you think the manufacturer is liable should a 911 call fail? (The advertising is the same -- many land-line phones have visible advertising on the packaging hyping a "emergency" button that will call 911 with the push of just one button.) > Cellular phone companies have been advertising their wares as safety > devices for years without disclosing their limitations, some of which > are intentional and completely within the control of the service > providers (i.e., not allowing 911 calls to go through on a competitor's > system, not having adequate coverage in dangerous areas where people are >more likely to need their cell phones for saftey). No one prevents their customers from making 911 calls on other systems. If I get my phone from company A and roam to company B's area, it is the sole decision of Company B whether or not to accept my call. Certainly cell companies do control where they have coverage, but it's unrealistic to expect otherwise. They put towers where they get revenue. Do you want to impose government regulations that define what areas are dangerous and then regulate signal strength in those areas? Everything has those limitations, though. Run your car out of gas, it stops moving. Tree falls on the wire carrying your POTS service? You can't call 911 on that either. > In order to sign up paying customers, they led their customers to > believe that they could count on their cell phones in an emergency > when in fact this isn't true, partly because of business decisions > they made, and they knew it. This is the tort they have committed. It's actually very true. Many, many thousands of 911 calls are attempted from cell phones, and most go through. Many lives are saved and many emergencies are lessened. (Again, though, in today's everythings-a-tort mentality, it's unacceptable to be anything less than perfect.) They never said the cell phone would work everywhere all the time. And, frankly, anyone of reasonably intelligence should know that. > If they had not run all those ads saying that people should get cellular > phones for their own peace of mind and safety, I would have more > sympathy for them. However, I have seen several cell phone ads that > tout safety and peace of mind. Nowhere did they say "subject to limited > availability" or "subject to blocking for economic reasons" or some > such. Again, the blocking argument is specious. You logic is something along the lines of "Company B refused to accept a 911 call from a Company A subscriber, and since Company A advertised that their phone could be used in an emergency, Company B is liable". > An analogy would be anti-lock brakes. If a car company sells a car > without anti-lock brakes and without claiming they had them, they would > not be liable for the lack of antilock brakes. But if they sold a car > that had anti-lock brakes, and made the added safety a big selling > point, but intentionally crippled them in some way without disclosing > that fact, and that crippling resulted in a failure to prevent an > accident, would they not have committed a tort? That logic doesn't hold. Nothing is being cripplied. In the case of company B not accepting calls from phones registered with company A, company B made no claims whatsoever. And in the case of Company A not having coverage where you think they should, they haven't disabled anything. They merely haven't expanded coverage as rapidly and completely as you would apparently like. A better analogy is a car being sold as having anti-lock brakes, and the customer then suing because the anti-lock brakes won't stop a car that's sliding across a solid sheet of ice. >>> Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by >>> deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers >>> using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones >>> that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called >>> non-initialized phones). >> Is the above really true? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Yes. Like many businesses, some cell companies choose not to provide service to people who aren't paying customers. Most heart surgeons won't do transplants for free either. And I don't see anything wrong with either. Do you want to require that all cell companies accept 911 calls from all phones? If so, how to you propose to deal with the fact that most people who have cell phones for emergencies only will just cancel their service contract at that time, and just keep their phone as an "unregistered" phone. The land-line carriers won't allow me to call 911 if I don't pay for my land-line service. Why should cellular be any different? Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 03:08:04 +0500 Leonard Erickson wrote: > And when telemarketers and survey takers call the cellular owner, > should he have to pay for those *unwanted* calls? And what about wrong > numbers? In any half-way decent GSM phone (and the thread started with GSM; presumably this works for CDMA and the better analogue handsets too) you have all sorts of sophisticated ways of screening incoming calls - from banning them altogether, diverting them to your voicemail, etc, depending on the calling number. In India, where caller-ID is not available on land-line phones (though all exchanges carry the information) it _is_ available in any call to a GSM phone. Furthermore, in India if you hang up within 10 seconds of receiving a call on your mobile, you're not charged. Presumably that's enough time to identify an unwanted caller, and add the number to your ban list. > It wasn't carried over to cellular in the US because they thought that > it'd make cellular phones less popular if people had to pay to call > them. Exactly. Since one of the major reasons people - at least the business/professional mobile user profile in India - want a cellphone is that they can be contacted while on the move, any deterrent such as caller-pays is bad, and the value of mobility is felt most by the mobile users, in any case. The first case our newly formed regulator had to deal with this year was when the Dept of Telecom (which effectively retains a land-line monopoly until private competitors build their wireline networks next year) decided to charge its users extra for calls to cellphones. The cellphone ops screamed that their customers dropped by 50%. The regulator ruled in their favour. Earle Robinson wrote: > Since a cellular number has a different area code, the same throughout > the country by the way, any caller knows in advance that he is > calling a cellular user if he dials such a number. > I should add the caller pays the same whether the cellular owner is > sitting anywhere within France, or he is on a beach in Spain. In the > latter case, the cellular owner will pay a roaming charge to receive a > call while outside his home country. In India too each GSM network has its own area code, though it's treated as a local number for the "home" region, and long-distance elsewhere. So, my number in Delhi starts with "9811" - it's dialed as a local number from Delhi, but as a (long-distance) Delhi number from Bombay (i.e. "09811"). Landline callers in Bombay or Delhi pay exactly what they'd pay to call a landline Delhi number. The _airtime_ charge is what is paid by the mobile user, the cost of mobility, regardless of where the caller is. Roaming is separate, also billed to the mobile user. So a land-line Delhi caller could make a "local" call to my phone, while I'm in Bombay, without needing to know where I am. Indian cellular licences were auctioned by region, and the situation changes completely when a single operator's network covers two cities - because the "home" region may cover a huge area, and the call is just a local call. Some operators with large licence areas charge long-distance calls made _from_ mobile phones at lower rates than what a _landline_ user pays, because they bypass the landline network. (This is what had the Dept of Telecom all worked up.) -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: 25 Nov 1997 00:35:01 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:27:39 PST, Leonard Erickson wrote: > jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) writes: >> They're the one getting the convenience of the wireless service, why >> oughtn't _they_ be the one to pay for it? If I see fit to give out my >> cellular number to unsuspecting people, why should it be either that >> they should pay for my convenience, or even more importantly from a >> personal privacy standpoint, that I should even have to tell them it's >> a cellphone at _all_? Damn, did _I_ start a fluff ... Good. :-) > And when telemarketers and survey takers call the cellular owner, > should he have to pay for those *unwanted* calls? And what about wrong > numbers? That's why I have first minute free. :-) Actually, since my PCS carrier, PrimeCo, offers FMF -- and no-charge inbound voicemail -- I just forward the house phone to the cell, and _leave_ it there. If I want to talk, I know who it is without paying extra for caller ID _service_ (much less a box) at the house, and if it's someone I don't want to talk to, I let VM catch it, saving me paying for an answering machine or telco VM. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I don't think it applied on mobile > radio phone calls prior to cellular either did it? In the old service > called AMPS, weren't the charges always paid by the radiotelephone > owner and not the caller? Likewise, the old 'ship to shore' radio > service to vessels on the Great Lakes and in rivers, etc. The > (landline or wired) caller never paid extra for those. PAT] Indeed, they did not. The US has, to the best of my knowledge, _never_ had caller tolls that depended on the class of service of the called number -- INWATS being an (obvious) exception ... but then, that isn't a toll. 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: czguris@interport.net (Christopher Zguris) Subject: Re: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:02:30 GMT Reply-To: czguris@interport.net Earle Robinson wrote: > One big reason you see many Americans with both a pager and cell phone > is because of the ridiculous method used for call charges in the > states. No one with a cell phone here would bother having a pager, > too. I suspect a bigger reason is the pager receives signals just about anywhere. Cell phones -- at least here in NYC -- have problems inside buildings, in rural areas, etc. My new PCS does it, my old analog did it, it's a signal problem and it happens to my friends as well. However, aside from tunnels (subway and car), my pager always works. I would never _depend_ on my cell phone for communication. Christopher Zguris, czguris@interport.net http://www.users.interport.net/~czguris ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Subsidizing Rural Phone Service Date: 23 Nov 1997 23:41:20 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Adam H. Kerman wrote: > In article , John R. Levine > wrote: >> I live in a tiny town served by a family owned independent telco, >> and although I think that the subsidies which let them offer flat rate >> service at $6.82/mo are a bit much, I'd hate to see them price rural >> service at cost and make a lot of the marginal farmers lose phone service. > But, they wouldn't. If they found it so valuable, they would subsidize > it themselves with local land taxes, just like other infrastructure. > It is of no personal benefit to me that your land should become more > valuable, due to the availability of a local loop. Why should I pay > higher line fees myself? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Adam, what I think you are overlooking > here is that telephone service, unlike any other utility service and > unlike practically anything else takes two to tango as the saying goes. > That is part of the universal service argument I find compelling; > that all of us receive more value for what we pay when all of us > are connected to the network with reasonably equivilent levels of > service. Your arguments make sense and are pursuasive at times, > but you cannot carry it across to telephone service as you can with > other 'improvements' to land or property in every single case. PAT] You are correct that there is a slight value to those who live in cities to be able to communicate with those who live in rural areas. But, the main beneficiary of all those subsidies is Mr. Levine. Since I help to pay for his telephone service, I expect him to call me now and again. But, such subsidies are inefficient. Sure, farmers, by definition, live and work in rural areas; they should have phones. But, what about people who live in small towns? Subsidies help determine where people live. The trend, over the last 10 years, has been for people more and more people to commute to jobs who live on the fringes of metropolitan areas and in small towns not all that far out anymore. This is a shift: people are moving back into small towns. Is the availability of subsidies to upgrade Central Offices (in some cases, to higher standards than city residents enjoy) in these communities part of the reason for this change? If not for the general existance of subsidies to such areas, would people still be moving into cities where the infrastructure is already in place? Even if I accepts the Universal Service argument, do I benefit to the tune of $3.50 per month? (Aaargh!) I'm not sure I like Mr. Levine that much. Oh, there are those who benefit: businesses that supply rural areas. But, they don't pay a proportionate share representing their higher benefit. You can't make the argument that such subsidies should be from subscriber line charges. If such subsidies are beneficial to all of society, then they should be paid from general federal fund sources. [supported by a tax on land values, of course] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:10:58 CST From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics Linc Madison wrote: > 1. The U.S. Postal Service is *NOT* an agency of the U.S. government. In > some respects, it's a fine or even meaningless distinction, but still > you erred in describing it as such. It was established by Congress as part of the reorganization of the old Post Office Department. Its Postal Inspection Service still has criminal law enforcement responsibility. There are years when the USPS budget is "on budget" to make the deficit look smaller. Its revenues belong to the US Treasury, and are paid into special funds. Until very recently, employees payroll checks said "US Treasury" on them. Stamps are produced by the same people who bring you dollar bills. You are claiming it's a public corporation? It's not. > 2. The U.S. Postal Service is *NOT* supported by *ANY* tax revenue *AT ALL*. > 100.000% of its revenue is from postage, fees, and marketing. Has been > for many years now. There are still federal tax revenues to support the pensions of older employees on Civil Service retirement. (For heaven's sake, I said it's supported by fees for the most part.) > 3. The classes of mail are for the most part NOT defined by law. The only > class of mail defined by law is first class letter mail, to which the > U.S. Postal Service is granted a monopoly. Other classes of mail are > defined by postal regulations, which are not law. Wrong, wrong wrong, wrong, wrong. Why do you think there is a Periodicals class? Why do you think it has five categories of preferred rates? Why do you think that periodicals published weekly (or more often) gets expedited treatment? Why do you think there are preferred rates for nonprofit, Underwriters Laboratories, and the miscellaneous organizations I mentioned? Why do you think there are four subclasses of Standard Mail (B)? Why do you think there is a distinction between parcels sent under Standard Mail (A) and Standard Mail (B)? Why do you think this was all preserved under the supposed "reclassification" that went into effect on July 1, 1996? Some of these classes, particularly Periodicals, are also defined under international law. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #329 ******************************