Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA06915; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:21:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:21:22 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711271921.OAA06915@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #333 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Nov 97 14:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 333 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cableco Franchise Renewal (Neal McLain) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone Start of 720 (A. Kerman) Re: Synchronous RS-232 Signalling (Bill Levant) Re: Digital TV Towers (Henry Baker) Re: Digital TV Towers (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Digital TV Towers (Tony Pelliccio) Last Laugh! Spam Makes the Big Time (Roy Smith) 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:36:14 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Cableco Franchise Renewal In Volume 17, Issue 320, Allison Hift wrote: > I have come across an interesting issue and I wonder if any > readers have comments. > Hypothesis: A newly formed governmental entity -- a township -- > (local franchising authority) granted a cable television > franchise to a cable operator for twenty years. During that > time, the governmental entity has changed and the area has > matured and expanded and the local franchising authority is now > a city (rather than a township). The cable operator claims it > has a renewal expectancy. The City claims the cable operator > has to apply for an initial franchise. From the City's > perspective, if this is a renewal proceeding, the City can only > deny renewal based on factors set forth in Federal law. On the > other hand, if this is an initial franchise proceeding, the > City has much more leverage. To which PAT responded: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the government entity is > out of luck on this, and they will have to follow renewal > guidelines whether they like it or not. The reason is, all that > has changed is the government's status. I'd like to take a crack at this. But first, a couple of definitions: CONGRESSIONAL TOWNSHIP - A geographic area established under the United States Public Lands Survey (USPLS). The existence of a Congressional Township does not imply any sort of legal government organization; the term is simply a legal description of a parcel of land. The prototypical Congressional Township is 6 miles square, and contains 36 square miles; each square mile is called a "section" and contains about 640 acres. Most of the land in the continental United States (including Florida, from whence this question came) is subdivided into Congressional Townships; the exceptions are the original 13 Colonies and the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. ORGANIZED TOWNSHIP - A legally-organized governmental entity which exists pursuant to applicable state law. Also known by such terms as "Charter Township" (Michigan), "Civil Town" (Wisconsin), "Hundred" (Delaware), or just plain "Town" (New York; New England states). Organized townships usually have fairly limited powers; in many states, they do not enjoy the same "home rule" powers as incorporated cities. Nonetheless, organized townships in many states do have the power to grant and enforce cable television franchises. Organized townships exist in northeastern and Midwestern states; they do not exist in most western and southern states. They do not exist in Florida. With those definitions in mind, I now return to Hift's original question. I will assume that the "township" mentioned in this question is an organized township located in a state which has granted townships the power to administer cable television franchises. In my experience, there are three possible scenarios: SCENARIO #1: If the _entire township_ incorporates as a city, then I agree with Pat: the existing franchise between the township and the cable company would be binding on the city. In this case, the township government has disappeared, and a new city government has taken its place. But in all likelihood, it's still pretty much the same government: same city hall building; same administrative staff; same police department. And (at least until the next election), the new city council is probably composed of the same people how sat on the old township board. In this case, the city government is still obligated by all of the contractual arrangements incurred by the township government. A typical township may have hundreds of such arrangements: charge accounts with vendors; interconnection agreements with water and sewer districts; standing orders with private contractors covering everything from snowplowing and cemetery maintenance to health care and trash collection. And in many cases, it would have contracts with labor unions: the new city government would have a tough time if it tried to claim that the old township union contracts no longer apply. The cable franchise is no different from any other contractual arrangement: it's still an agreement between the cable company and the government. At renewal time, the cable operator would certainly have a renewal expectancy, and I think FCC regulations governing franchise renewal would apply. SCENARIO #2: If a _new_ city is formed _within_ the township, then the new city would be free to negotiate a new cable franchise. In this case, the township government still exists as the governing body for whatever's left of the township outside of the city. The new city has an entirely new governmental structure: new city council; new administrative staff; new police department; maybe even a new city hall. The new city government is pretty much free to negotiate new agreements with vendors and suppliers. It's certainly free to negotiate such things as vendor charge accounts and standing orders with private contractors. And, whether it likes it or not, it's soon likely to find itself facing contract negotiations with labor unions claiming to represent those new employees. The new city government is also free to negotiate a new cable franchise. And, although the cable operator would probably object, it can do so immediately: it doesn't have to wait for renewal. Of course, as a practical matter, the incumbent cable operator would probably be one of the first parties to apply for a franchise, and it most likely would be the only entity capable of providing service immediately. But (at least in my experience) the city is not bound to honor the old township franchise. SCENARIO #3: If an existing city _annexes_ land from a township, then things can get very sticky. Any of several possible sub-scenarios can emerge: - If the city has a cable franchise and the township doesn't, the city's existing franchise would be extended automatically to the new city limits. It's unlikely that the annexation would have any affect on franchise renewal proceedings. - If the city and the township both have franchises with the _same_ cable company, the city might permit the company to continue to operate under the old township franchise until renewal, or it might attempt to impose its own franchise requirements immediately (especially if they're more stringent). Whenever either franchise comes up for renewal, the city is likely to want to negotiate a single franchise covering the entire city. This single franchise would be considered a _renewal_ of an existing franchise, not a new one, and FCC renewal procedures would apply. - If the city and the township have franchises with _different_ cable companies, there's no telling what might happen. One cable company might try to buy out the other's plant in the annexed area. Failing that, the city might issue a second franchise (however, if the requirements aren't identical in both franchises, the city would be leaving itself open to a lawsuit); in this case, each franchise would be subject to renewal, under FCC renewal procedures, at its respective expiration date. It is, of course, also possible that everybody involved could simply get together and negotiate a new arrangement that would satisfy everybody. = Now I have a question of my own about all this: is "A newly formed governmental entity -- a township -- (local franchising authority)" anything more than a theoretical hypothesis? If this question is based on an actual situation, I'd be very curious to find out more details, specifically, where it occurred, how state law affected the negotiations, and the final outcome. What prompts this question is the fact that I've never heard of a new organized township being formed -- at least, not within the past half century or so. It's certainly possible that it could happen, but it just doesn't seem likely. I base this statement on two facts: - First of all, relatively few states even have organized townships. In most southern and western states (including Florida, from whence Hift's message came), organized townships simply don't exist; lands outside of incorporated municipalities are governed by the county. In these states, cable franchises outside of incorporated municipalities are administered by the county government. - Within those states which do have organized townships, virtually all non-incorporated land is already contained within organized townships. To my knowledge, there are only a few unorganized areas; for example, in northern North Dakota. While it's certainly possible that a new township could be organized within, say, Renville County, North Dakota, it doesn't seem likely that it would grow into an incorporated city within twenty years. Just curious. Posted by: Neal McLain Communication Technologies, Inc. Middleton, WI 53562 nmclain@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: 26 Nov 1997 22:50:12 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Jim Weiss wrote: > Also, I wonder whether the FCC has budgeted for payphone call > surcharges to its toll-free number?? Heh. > Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20554 > Calls Made From Payphones > Deregulation will allow PSPs to receive fair compensation for their > services and will encourage the widespread placement of payphones. > Also, the FCC anticipates that Americans will have greater access to > emergency and public safety services. States may also choose to > place public interest payphones in areas where payphones are necessary > for health and safety reasons. What about a widespread practice in Chicago and New York and a few other places whereby the municipality makes it illegal to accept coin calls during certain hours from payphones located on the street or outside of buildings, supposedly to make it impossible for drug dealers to conduct business? Did Congress pre-empt such local laws? Like most people, not all of my emergencies require police intervention, and I might need to make a coin call at night (to someone other than a drug dealer). > Must I Pay For An Emergency Call? > No. Calls made to emergency numbers, such as 911, and to the > Telecommunications Relay Service, a service of use to people with > disabilities, will be provided free of charge from payphones. You > can also continue to reach an operator without depositing a coin. Are some Relay Service numbers non-800 numbers? > Can I Still Make Toll-Free Calls From Payphones Without Depositing A Coin? > Yes. Does this translate into: It is illegal for a payphone to block an 800 number? > Payphone-originated calls that are unlikely to be the subject of a contract > with the PSPs include calls to 800 telephone numbers or 10XXX access code > calls which connect callers to long distance telephone companies. I assume the brochure meant 10(10)XXX. Does this translate into: It is illegal for a payphone to block calls dialed as 10(10)XXX+0+NXX-NXX-XXXX? And, what about calls routed via 950 numbers? ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone Start of 720 Date: 26 Nov 1997 23:02:45 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Donald M. Heiberg wrote: > Denver, Colorado, "Rocky Mountain News", November 26, 1997 > Local-calling area may expand > The idea of making all of 303 a local calling area is tied to debates > that have been going on for months about conserving telephone numbers. > With 42 rate centers in the 303 area code and prefixes assigned in > blocks of 10,000 numbers, a new telecommunications company must have > 420,000 numbers to provide service throughout the area code even if it > has only a few customers. Why must a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier have exchanges with the same boundaries as the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier? > The commission has been looking at reducing the number of rate centers > to cut back on the numbers needed by each company. And making all of 303 > a local calling area would be a possible solution to changes that would > be required as a result. > US West Communications, which collects nearly all the money from local > calls and long-distance calls inside 303, would expect such a change to > be "revenue-neutral,'' spokesman Jerry Brown said. For those of us who don't live in Denver: Are intra-NPA 303 long distance calls intraLATA or interLATA? ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 12:55:26 EST Subject: Re: Synchronous RS-232 Signalling > I think the problem may be in the signalling or handshaking, so I would > appreciate if there is anyone out there who may be able to tell me how > the following should be set: > DTR Control (Ignored, controlled by DTE) > DSR Control (Forced on, Normal RS232, follows DTR etc) > RTS Control (Normal RS232, ignored, controls remote DCD-V.13) > CTS Control (force on, normal RS232, turned off, follows DTR) > RTS/CTS delay > DCD Control (forced on, normal RS232, follows DTR, follows RTS-V.13) > Clocking (Internal, external) > Any information or suggestions would be much appreciated. There is almost certainly one, and maybe two or more wrong settings on the non-IBM modem. I don't know how much you know about RS232 (or how much I remember :) but briefly, here's what the signals you mentioned do: DSR (Data Set Ready) : Controlled by modem; used to tell computer that modem is ready to receive data from distant end; DTR (Data Terminal Ready) : Controlled by computer; confirms to modem that computer is ready to receive data from modem; computer raises DTR in response to DSR from modem; RTS (Ready to Send) : Controlled by computer; used to tell modem that computer is ready to send data to distant end; CTS (Clear to Send) : Controlled by modem; confirms to computer that modem is ready to transmit data; raised by modem in response to RTS from computer; DCD (Data Carrier Detect) : Raised by modem to indicate carrier present; RTS/CTS delay : how long (or whether) the modem waits after seeing computer turn on RTS before responding to computer by turning on CTS. Clocking -- whether modem generates clock signal, or whether it comes in from computer (on one of the RS232 pins, but I forget which). For starters, try setting DTR and RTS to "ignored", and DSR, CTS and DCD to "always on". This should override the RS232 handshaking. It may not make things work perfectly, but if your problem is with RS232 signals, the problem should diminish (you might get garbled data, but it shouldn't disconnect any more). Also, if you're running synchronous, one modem (the slave) *must* take its clocking from the other (the master) , so that they stay in sync. Generally, "external" means that the clock signal comes in on one of the RS232 pins (I forget which one), and "internal" means that the modem generates a clock signal by itself. If the modem manufacturer is using "external" to mean "slave", and "internal" to mean "master", then one modem must be set "external" and the other "internal"; otherwise, there should be *another* setting somewhere to make one of the modems a slave, taking its clock from the incoming line (which the other modem provides). (As an aside, when I used to have RS232 problems with a "dumb" terminal, I would fake out the RS232 interface by tying RTS and CTS together in the data cable, and by tying DSR, CTR and DCD together, too. That would usually let everything talk, though it would prevent the terminal from making the modem disconnect (by dropping DTR) when the terminal was turned off before the modem was.) If the above switch settings help, try changing RTS and CTS both to "normal", or both DTR to "normal", and DSR to "RS232". These settings work in pairs. There's probably someone out there with specific IBM experience (which I admittedly don't have), who will know *exactly* what's wrong, but hopefully, the above discussion will either be helpful, informative, or at least insomnia-curing. Bill ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:23:42 GMT In article , roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote: > There has been a lot of talk in the aviation mass media about digital > TV towers. The problem is that with the advent of digital TV, we are > going to see (if you can believe the aviation press) an explosion of > new TV transmission towers, and not only that, but taller ones. > My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that > requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be fairly > straight forward to just add additional transmitter antennas to the > same tower structures that exist today for conventional TV transmiss- > ion, with no net increase in the number of towers (and thus, no net > increase in the air navigation hazard). Why would this not be the > case? One problem with 'digital' TV has nothing to do with 'digital': the digital broadcasts are going out over UHF rather than VHF frequencies. UHF doesn't have as good propagation characteristics as VHF, and hence requires more towers and more power. Also, the licenses for the new frequencies do not cover the same geographical territory as the old frequencies, although the FCC has gone to some effort to try to make sure that the number of viewers is approximately the same. There is also an argument about what 'coverage' means in the case of 'analog' TV. If you can receive a very snowy picture with severe ghosting, are you in the 'covered' area or not? 'Digital' modulation schemes have a 'cliff' effect: if you can't receive the signal with enough SNR, you get a completely blank screen instead of a very poor picture. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Tue, 25 Nov 97 01:17:23 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:47:08 -0500, Roy Smith wrote: > My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that > requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be fairly > straight forward to just add additional transmitter antennas to the > same tower structures that exist today for conventional TV transmiss- > ion, with no net increase in the number of towers (and thus, no net > increase in the air navigation hazard). Why would this not be the > case? The stations got new channels for their digital signals, mostly in the UHF band. The move to higher frequencies and the use of digital transmission both cut back on coverage; to keep coverage about the same, stations must use higher power and/or higher antenna towers. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ From: tonypo@ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:02:39 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool In article , roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu spews forth: > My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that > requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be fairly > straight forward to just add additional transmitter antennas to the > same tower structures that exist today for conventional TV transmiss- > ion, with no net increase in the number of towers (and thus, no net > increase in the air navigation hazard). Why would this not be the > case? Higher frequencies. They'll be line of sight, and in line of sight the higher you go, the more folks receive your signal. But some conventional TV towers are already in the 1000 and 2000 foot range. I doubt they'll see anything higher than that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:16:12 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Last Laugh! Spam Makes the Big Time Organization: New York University School of Medicine Yesterday's {New York Times} crossword puzzle had the following clue: 1 Across, a four-letter word for "Junk E-Mail". [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yep, we had the same puzzle in the {Chicago Sun Times} a couple days ago. I was going to report it, but you beat me to it. Also, I know a lot of you follow the 'Dilbert' comic strip in the papers. I assume you all saw the series of strips this past week where Dilbert gets his ISDN phone installed, and the goofy character sent by telco to do the job. Any comments on it? As a closing thought on this holiday, I hope each and every one of you took at least a few minutes to meditate on the several blessings in your lives. I know I did, and even after several minutes of thought I've not begun to tally them all. Have a great holiday weekend! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #333 ******************************