Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA27672; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:46:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:46:18 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712021346.IAA27672@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #338 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Dec 97 08:46:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 338 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #110, December 1, 1997 (Telecom Update) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Linc Madison) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Tom Watson) Re: Digital TV Towers (Roy Smith) Re: Digital TV Towers (Curtis Bohl) Re: Digital TV Towers (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Digital TV Towers (Ted Ede) 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: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 11:03:05 -0500 From: Telecom Update Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #110, December 1, 1997 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 110: December 1, 1997 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Canada's Toll-Free System Crashes ** Teleport Buys ACC ** Telesat Gets Two Orbital Slots ** Teleglobe Extends Global Toll-Free ** Distributel Charges Bell With Discrimination ** AT&T Opens Alberta Fiber Link ** BC Tel Bundled Promotion Denied ** CRTC Wants Comments on BC Provincial 911 ** Clearnet Digital Now in Alberta ** Microcell Passes 20,000 Subscribers ** MTS Launches E-Commerce Facilitator ** MT&T ADSL Tariff Approved ** Ottawa Grant Aids Videotron Expansion ** MTS Unites Local, LD Divisions ** Courts Differ on U.S. Satellite Dishes ** 10 MBPS Internet Access in Winnipeg ** Prince Rupert to Provide ADSL From Westell ** Cable Atlantic Offers Time Warner Online Service ** Telemanagement Article-Finder Posted ============================================================ CANADA'S TOLL-FREE SYSTEM CRASHES: Canada's 220,000 toll-free numbers stopped working from 11am to 3pm November 26, as software crashed in Stentor computers in Calgary and Toronto. Stentor administers the toll-free database for its members and alternative carriers. TELEPORT BUYS ACC: Teleport Communications Group, a U.S. alternative local carrier, is buying Rochester, NY-based ACC Corp. for US$1 Billion. ACC Corp. owns ACC Telenterprises, Canada's fourth-largest alternative long distance provider. TELESAT GETS TWO ORBITAL SLOTS: The Federal Government has granted Telesat Canada two orbital slots, to be used for Anik F satellites scheduled for launching by 2000. Two other slots are reserved for future alternative satellite providers. TELEGLOBE EXTENDS GLOBAL TOLL-FREE: Teleglobe Canada has expanded its Globe800 and Globeaccess800 services to cover Spain and Thailand. DISTRIBUTEL CHARGES BELL WITH DISCRIMINATION: Distributel has asked the CRTC to order Bell Canada to tariff and provide Customer Direct Information Delivery (CDID) service, which some large Centrex customers use to monitor trunk usage. Bell says CDID is provided only to customers who lease telco network facilities. AT&T OPENS ALBERTA FIBER LINK: AT&T Canada Long Distance Services has completed a fiber link between Edmonton, Red Deer, and Calgary, Alberta. BC TEL BUNDLED PROMOTION DENIED: CRTC Telecom Order 97-1764 rejects a BC Tel promotion that bundled a business line, Smart Touch services, and long distance calling. The Commission will permit promotions bundling of primary exchange and toll services only when barriers to facilities- based local competition are largely eliminated. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1997/o971764_.txt CRTC WANTS COMMENTS ON BC PROVINCIAL 911: In Public Notice 97-39, the CRTC invites comments, by December 15, on BC Tel's proposal for Provincial 911 service. Call-Net argues that the telco should have first consulted with other members of the CRTC body planning Emergency Services delivery in a competitive local service environment. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1997/p9739_0.txt CLEARNET DIGITAL NOW IN ALBERTA: Clearnet Communications has launched digital PCS service in Edmonton. Calgary customers can purchase Clearnet's dual-mode phone and use it in analog mode until digital service begins in the spring. MICROCELL PASSES 20,000 SUBSCRIBERS: Microcell's Fido PCS service counted 22,498 subscribers on September 30. Microcell's third-quarter revenue was $8.0 Million; average per-subscriber monthly revenue was $67.33. MTS LAUNCHES E-COMMERCE FACILITATOR: Manitoba's MTS Advanced has launched Ngage Electronic Commerce to provide merchants with secure online transactions, ship their product, and collect payments. MT&T ADSL TARIFF APPROVED: CRTC Telecom Order 97-1692 approves an MT&T tariff for Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line service for ISPs. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1997/o971692_.txt OTTAWA GRANT AIDS VIDEOTRON EXPANSION: The Federal Government's Transitional Jobs Fund will provide $2.5 Million to assist Videotron Telecom's Montreal-area expansion. MTS UNITES LOCAL, LD DIVISIONS: Manitoba Telecom System has unified MTS Net and MTS Com, the local service and long distance/data/PBX divisions of its MTS NetCom subsidiary. The amalgamated unit will be headed by Bill Baines. COURTS DIFFER ON U.S. SATELLITE DISHES: On November 26, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld Ottawa's ban on U.S. satellite dishes. The same day, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled the dishes legal, calling the ban "incompatible with freedom of speech." 10 MBPS INTERNET ACCESS IN WINNIPEG: MBNet, Manitoba's regional Internet provider, now offers 1 Mpbs dedicated Internet access, using facilities provided by Videon FiberLink, the business telecom division of Videon CableSystems. PRINCE RUPERT TO PROVIDE ADSL FROM WESTELL: City Tel, the municipally owned telco in Prince Rupert, BC, will use ADSL technology from Westell to provide high-speed Internet access. CABLE ATLANTIC OFFERS TIME WARNER ONLINE SERVICE: Beginning December 15, Cable Atlantic of Newfoundland will provide its St. John's Internet subscribers with Road Runner, Time Warner's online content and Internet caching service. TELEMANAGEMENT ARTICLE-FINDER POSTED: Do you need to check the accuracy of Ian and Lis Angus's editorial forecasts for 1997? Want to read a telecom thriller reviewed in Rob Slade's Bookshelf column? Want a lesson from Henry Dortmans in "Defensive Driving in Telecom"? ** These and all other articles in 1997 issues of Telemanagement can be readily located in the 1997 Telemanagement Subject Index, available at: http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tmindx97.html ** The printed index will be mailed with the January issue. To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1997 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 228. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 23:19:27 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) wrote, quoting a complaint response from the FCC: > Tips For Consumers > > Companies compete for your payphone business. Use your buying > power wisely and shop around. No, companies DO NOT compete for my payphone business. They compete for access to the premises they want. That's quite different. In a great many situations, it is not possible to "shop around" because the payphones are single-sourced. > If you think that the rate for placing a call from a payphone is too > high, a less expensive payphone could be around the corner. Also > let the PSP know that the rates are too high. It's in their best > interest to meet the needs of their customers. No, a less expensive payphone is not likely to be around the corner if you are in an airport terminal, in a train or bus station, on the campus of a university, or in an office building. There are just far too many situations where there is no competition whatsoever. It is also categorically NOT in the PSP's interests to meet the needs of the caller. It is in the PSP's interests to set their rates as high as they can, in order to compensate the owner of the premises. The PSP has very little interest in the needs or desires of the end user. > Contact your preferred long distance company and ask for > instructions for placing calls through that company from a > payphone. Also ask what rates or charges apply to calls placed > from payphones. Let the company know if you believe their rates > are too high. Then call other long distance companies and ask > about their rates. The long distance companies aren't the problem. The FCC is the problem. The FCC set an exorbitant "default" rate for these calls. There's just no excuse for this gross malfeasance. The FCC claims that it is acting in the best interests of the consumer, but that is clearly an absolute outright lie. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 12:39:58 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) wrote: <<>> > The 28.4 cents per-call compensation rate is a default rate that can > be reduced or increased at any time through an agreement between the > long distance company and the PSP. The FCC encouraged long distance > companies and PSPs to contract with each other for more economically > efficient compensation rates. It seems to me that the 800 people should compensate ALL owners of telephones (including me at home) at the rate of 28.4 cents per call. I mean I put my phone in, pay for its monthly service, and provide a housing for it. Sounds logical to me, especially at the 28.4 cents rate. I guess I could understand five cents per call, but 28.4 is a bit much. Perhaps I should have a pay phone at home. Might be 'profitable'. May even be on telemarketers 'don't call' list. Wishful thinking ... (*SIGH*) tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 20:41:47 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Organization: New York University School of Medicine Greg Monti wrote: > All communications towers [...] must meet FAA filing regulations and > restrictions for location, height, painting, lighting and other > factors. The applicable regulation is 14 CFR 77. As far as I can tell, there are requirements to report construction of towers to the FAA, and rules concerning lighting, etc, and a procedure to determine if the proposed tower would constitute a hazard, but it's not clear that the FAA actually has the authority to prohibit such construction. > However, an argument could be made that pilots "know" where all the > local towers are because they've been at the same locations and > heights for 40 or 50 years. Pilots have been lulled into believing > that, if they follow their usual routes, everything will be safe. A > new tower, especially a tall one of 1,000 or 2,000 feet, would break > the lullaby of complacency. Oh, come on. I thought I asked a pretty innocent question as to why more towers would be needed. No need to start hurling insults. Of course we have charts. We even get daily updates and ammendments to long-standing approach procedures to account for such temporary items as construction cranes and the like: !FDC 7/6947 HPN FI/T WESTCHESTER COUNTY, WHITE PLAINS, NY. ILS RWY 16, AMDT 22A.... S-LOC MDA/HAT 980/541 ALL CATS, VIS CAT D RVR 6000. CIRCLING MDA/HAA 980/541 CAT A/B, 1020/581 CAT C/D. 720 MSL TEMP CRANE 1.6 NM FROM RWY 16 THLD, ON CENTERLINE. The real problem is not that pilots will go flying willy-nilly into new towers because they didn't used to be there because they were too lazy to have current charts (although I'm sure it happens). The real problem is when towers show up inside the protected airspace for existing instrument approaches, rendering those approaches unusable. If I were to build a 2000 foot tall tower 1 mile north-northeast of Newark Airport, for example, I would effectively shut down one of the busiest airports in the country. Obviously, nobody would get a permit to do that (although I don't think the FAA itself has the authority to deny the permit, they certainly would make a STRONG case against it), but they might get a permit to do the same thing nearby a smaller local airport. I think that possibility is what's got the aviation folks in such an uproar. ------------------------------ From: Curtis Bohl Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 20:31:38 -0600 Organization: TribNet Reply-To: cbohl@trib.net James Bellaire wrote: > Towers can only hold so much weight. The addition of an extra antenna > to an existing tower may not be possible, hence the new towers. Some > stations will be able to support both a digital and an analog antenna > on the same mast, but only if they get rid of a few of their rental > customers. Remember also, many of the towers in use were built in the 1950s when it probably never was envisioned all of the items that would eventually be hung off of them. The local NBC affiliate KOMU-TV (now the only commercial station owned by a university, used for training future journalists and a big money machine for the university); the station was built in 1953. Now, besides the TV antenna, they also have the university's NPR FM transmitter and its STL, microwave receivers for the WAN connection back to campus and for the remote truck -- according to my sources, its up to its maximum load. Plus, its almost in line with the runway for the regional airport (opened in the late 60s), which will probably eliminate another tower on the site. And this is in a largely rural area -- the station is on the ag school's 600+ acre farm. Imagine an urban station's situation. Also, I have read that another impediment is the lack of large tower builders, some of which are no longer in business due to accidents and liability insurance. A major incident occurred in NE Missouri several years ago with the collapse of a 2000 ft tower beloning to a Kirksville station during tower work, killing 3 workers. Curtis Bohl cbohl@trib.net ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: 2 Dec 1997 07:51:21 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have noticed that when any one of the > stations sharing tower space needs to do repairs to the antenna that > everyone on the tower has to go off the air. There is a large cluster > of antennas on the roof of Sears Tower in Chicago; the other night at > about midnight several (radio and television) stations all signed off > the air saying repairs and adjustments would be done for a couple > hours. I guess if the others stayed on the air there would be a hazard > to the people on the tower doing repairs to the one station which > needed it. PAT] Given that most U.S. broadcast stations, as far as I know, operate around 50 kW peak envelope power (PEP) we're talking about some pretty hefty power there; the voltage is probably in the kV range, and it would give an RF burn like there's no tomorrow. Not to mention that close proximity to that kind of power antennae can produce effects not too different from the one produced by microwave ovens. Fortunately, thanks to 1/r^2, these effects disappear quickly with distance. -hpa PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key ------------------------------ From: ted@ampersand.com (Ted Ede) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: 1 Dec 1997 16:20:17 GMT Organization: Ampersand, Inc. In article , Greg Monti wrote: > However, an argument could be made that pilots "know" where all the > local towers are because they've been at the same locations and > heights for 40 or 50 years. Pilots have been lulled into believing > that, if they follow their usual routes, everything will be safe. A > new tower, especially a tall one of 1,000 or 2,000 feet, would break > the lullaby of complacency. Land-based obstructions are not an issue for the enroute portion of a flight, as most pilot fly well over 1500' agl. In many areas it's required by the FAA. In general, it's just safer to be higher should your engine quit. On a flight to Nantucket this weekend I passed the tower farm in Needham MA, with four 1000+ foot towers. Believe me, it's *very* easy to see a big tower, even on days where the visibility is only five miles. Btw, Norwood and Hascom airports (and a few others) are only ten miles away. No pilot would ever be "lulled" into hitting one of these things. The entire crux of the problem is the instrument approaches to the airports. When flying an approach in "the soup", you need to be guaranteed clearance from obstacles on the ground. The "corridor" for the approach needs to be wide enough to handle instrument inaccuracies and small errors on the pilot's part. When the FAA publishes an approach, they guarantee certain obstacle clearances to the runway, and they also guarantee clearance for the "missed approach", which is a procedure that you follow should you not be able to see the runway at a certain point in the instrument approach procedure. So, when someone needs a new tower, the FAA needs to be consulted to see if it interferes with any of the instrument approaches for the nearby airports. There's not much more to it than that aside from getting NOA to put it on the charts. ted ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #338 ******************************