TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 May 94 10:57:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 242 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson LECs Must Offer Signalling Info For Tandem-Switching Services (Bob Keller) AT&T Support for New Digital Signature Standard (David R. Arneke) Book Review: "Internet: Getting Started" by Marine et al. (Rob Slade) CPSR Response to FCC CNID (Monty Solomon) New Area Codes For Modems (Ameritech) (Monty Solomon) Short Message Service (SMS) (Richard Cox) 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 GEnie. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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. 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: Sun, 22 May 1994 13:54:13 GMT From: Bob Keller Subject: LECs Must Offer Signalling Info For Tandem-Switching Services Report No. DC-2602 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE May 19, 1994 RULES ADOPTED REQUIRING LECS TO OFFER SIGNALLING INFORMATION FOR TANDEM-SWITCHING SERVICES (CC DOCKET 91-141, TRANSPORT PHASE II) The Commission took another step in a series of initiatives to remove barriers to competition in the interstate access telephone market by adopting a Third Report and Order in the expanded interconnection proceeding. In prior orders on expanded interconnection for special access and switched transport, the Commission created new opportunities for parties to provide special access and switched transport transmission services in competition with local exchange carriers (LECs). Today's decision will enable parties, for the first time, to offer tandem-switching services in competition with the LECs. The Order requires Tier 1 LECs (those having annual revenues from regulated telecommunications operations of $100 million or more for a sustained period of time), except National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) pool members, to offer to any party the signalling information necessary for the party to provide tandem-switching services. Specifically, Tier 1 LECs, except NECA pool members, must offer any interested party, including interexchange carriers (IXCs), competitive access providers (CAPs), and end users: (1) the "Carrier Identification Code" (CIC), which indicates the long-distance carrier to receive a call; and (2) the "OZZ," which indicates the specific trunk group on which a call is carried from the tandem to the IXC. LECs currently transmit these data from their end offices to their own access tandems in providing tandem- switching services. The Commission stated that the record showed that LECs will be able to provide this information at minimal cost by treating third-party tandems, in effect, as if they were LEC tandems. The Commission ruled that Tier 1 LECs must offer the signalling information for traffic from their equal access end offices, but not from LEC tandems. LECs will not be required to allow parties to collocate switching equipment in LEC offices. LEC access charges at both the originating and terminating end must be billed to the customer of record. If a terminating LEC's customer of record is an IXC, the LEC must accept billing tapes from the tandem operator used by that interexchange carrier. As a result of the new requirement, a party such as a CAP could collocate its transmision equipment in a LEC end office, transport traffic to its own tandem, and switch it at the tandem. Alternatively, a party could use LEC-provided transport to carry traffic and signalling information to its own tandem. In addition, small IXCs that currently purchase LEC tandem-switched transport could obtain economies of scale by aggregating their traffic from end offices on a single direct trunk, routing traffic to their own tandem or a tandem operated by another party, and switching it at that point. The Commission ruled that LEC offering of the necessary signalling information will constitute a new service under price caps. LECs will be required to make a cost-based showing under the price caps new services test. In addition, LECs will be required to establish a rate element for the signalling information as a separate service category within the trunking basket. This service category will be subject to an upper pricing band of 2%, but not a lower band. The Commission concluded that LECs would not be granted any additional pricing flexibility at this time. The Commission concluded that this further initiative in its expanded interconnection proceeding would serve the public interest because it would produce important benefits at minimal cost. Facilitating third-party access to signalling information would permit various telecommunications entities, including CAPs and IXCs, to offer tandem-switching services in competition with the LECs. Increased competition should, in turn, exert downward pressure on access charges and long-distance rates. In addition, enhancing competition would promote more efficient use and deployment of networks and encourage technological innovation. Finally, competitive tandem-switching services would increase access to diverse facilities for IXCs and users, which could improve network reliability. The Tier 1 LECs subject to the Third Report and Order will be required to file tariffs offering the CIC and OZZ at their equal access end offices within 90 days of publication of the Third Report and Order in the Federal Register. In the Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission also sought comment on a proposal by the Independent Data Communications Manufacturers Association, Inc. (IDCMA) to allow third parties to collocate customer equipment in LEC offices. The Commission will address that proposal at a later time. Action by the Commission May 19, 1994, by Third Report and Order (FCC 94-118). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello and Barrett, with Commissioner Barrett issuing a statement. News Media contact: Rosemary Kimball at (202)632-5050. Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Gary L. Phillips at (202) 632-4048 and Linda L. Haller at (202)632-1298. - FCC - Bob Keller Robert J. Keller, P.C. Tel +1 301 229 5208 rjk@telcomlaw.com Federal Telecommunications Law Fax +1 301 229 6875 finger me for daily FCC info + see ftp.clark.net:/pub/rjk/ for other files ------------------------------ From: darneke@attmail.com (David R Arneke) Date: 22 May 94 10:24:49 GMT Subject: AT&T Support for New Digital Signature Standard NEWS FROM AT&T FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bill Jones, AT&T (910) 279-6511 (office) (910) 852-3196 (home) FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1994 AT&T SECURE SOFTWARE SUPPORTS NEW U.S. DIGITAL SIGNATURE STANDARD GREENSBORO, North Carolina -- Several of AT&T's commercially available secure software products already incorporate and comply with the U.S. government's newly approved Digital Signature Standard (DSS). "AT&T anticipated approval of Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 186," said William A. Franklin, software security products manager, AT&T Secure Communications Systems. "And we worked with our partner, Information Security Corporation, to ensure that our commercially available secure software products would comply with the new standard when it was announced." The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) this week announced that the Secretary of Commerce had approved FIPS 186, which incorporates the new Digital Signature Standard. The new standard takes effect Dec. 1, 1994. In a May 19 notice in the Federal Register, the NIST said the DSS incorporates a new Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) appropriate for applications requiring a digital, rather than written, signature. The DSA authenticates the integrity of the signed data and the identity of the signatory. Applications include: electronic mail, electronic funds transfer, electronic data interchange, software distribution, data storage and other applications which require data integrity assurance and data origin authentication. "Using our digital signature software for such applications can help cut government agencies' and commercial organizations' operating costs," Franklin said. "Digital signature authentication can increase the pace of communication, and that, in turn, reduces the cost of doing business." AT&T secure software products that comply with the government's new Digital Signature Standard include: -- AT&T SecretAgent (R) Software, which provides DES encryption, the NIST Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA), the RSA cryptosystem for digital signatures and key management, and the federal Secure Hash Standard (SHS) for data integrity. SecretAgent Version 3.0 is in beta testing, and will begin shipping by June 15. Version 2.0 is currently available. SecretAgent Version 3.0 features include: cross-platform compatibility among MS-DOS, Windows, Macintosh and various UNIX operating systems; user transparent support of RSA and DSA public keys; and mail-enabled operation through the Vendor-Independent Massaging (VIM) interface. -- AT&T Surity (TM) DSA Signature Software, which provides authentication and data integrity assurance for electronic documents. The program uses the DSA and the Secure Hash Standard to verify that documents were transmitted by their assumed sender and that they have not been modified in transmission. DOS, UNIX and Windows version are available. A Macintosh port is in development. -- AT&T Cryptographic Development Kits, which incorporate a comprehensive library of linkable code modules that can be purchased by software developers who want to build security into their DOS, Windows, Macintosh and UNIX applications. One kit includes code for DES encryption, the ElGamal public key cryptosystem, the Digital Signature Algorithm and the Secure Hash Standard. A second contains most RSA security functions, including RSA encryption, key management and digital signatures. A third package combines the DSA and RSA kits. To place orders or get more information, please call the AT&T Secure Communications Customer Service Center at 800 203- 5563. # # # Product names are trademarks of their respective companies. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 14:00:13 GMT From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet: Getting Started" by Marine et al. BKINTGST.RVW 940224 Prentice Hall/Brady/Ellis Horwood/Simon and Schuster/New Riders/Digital Press 113 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 (515) 284-6751 FAX (515) 284-2607 or 11711 N. College Ave. Carmel, IN 46032-9903 or 201 W. 103rd Street Indianapolis, IN 46290 or 15 Columbus Circle New York, NY 10023 800-428-5331 or Market Cross House Cooper Street Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1EB England phyllis@prenhall.com - Phyllis Eve Bregman is postmaster 70621.2737@CompuServe.COM Alan Apt Beth Mullen-Hespe beth_hespe@prenhall.com "Internet: Getting Started", Marine et al, 1994, 0-13-289596-X This is *not* a book introducing you to the Internet. This is another book on establishing a connection to the Internet. A "first-timer", as the cover has it, would almost certainly be bemused, if not totally lost, by discussions of service providers, domain name servers and costs. The only introductory material is a brief overview of Internet applications in chapter nine. For those wishing to connect, this is a reasonable overview. It introduces the major topics, but often is very limited in terms of the necessary details. The setup for a router and the selection of software is covered in a scant two paragraphs for each subject. Obtaining an IP number and establishing a domain is recommended six chapters before those items are defined. Where this book does shine is in the listing of organizations related to the internet. If you are serious about establishing an Internet node, you will need to contact a number of bodies quite aside from your service provider. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994 BKINTGST.RVW 940224. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated newsgroups/mailing lists. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca Research into rslade@cue.bc.ca User p1@CyberStore.ca Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 04:17:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: CPSR Response to FCC CNID (fwd) Forwarded FYI to the Digest: From: jjohnson@FirstPerson.COM (Jeff Johnson) Subject: CSPR Responds to FCC CNID Ruling Date: 18 May 1994 17:28:55 GMT CPSR has responded to the FCC's recent ruling on Calling Number Identification (CNID). Our response took two forms: 1. Carl Page of CPSR/Oregon, who was (with Erik Nilsson) an active participant in the Oregon state hearings two years ago that led to an Oregon decision that followed many of CPSR's recommendations, wrote a "Petition for Reconsideration" of the FCC's ruling, and is submitting it today to the FCC. I provided advice and editorial feedback on the petition. The main points of CPSR's petition are: 1) Phone companies argue that line blocking undermines the value of CNID, but in fact the evidence suggests that this is false, 2) CNID with no line-blocking undermines the value of the "unlisted number" service, which has a higher market penetration rate than is projected for CNID, 3) per-call blocking is unreliable as a way to preserve privacy, especially in the age of direct marketing, "data harvesters," and the information superhighway, 4) Call Trace could be more useful to residential phone customers than CNID if it were inexpensive and universally available, yet the FCC's ruling ignores it entirely, and 5) the distinction between CNID, which can be blocked, and Automatic Number Generation (ANI), which provides calling numbers to 800 and 900-service providers and which cannot be blocked, should eventually be eliminated, such that blocking is available for all calls. 2. I provided advice to the National Association of State Consumer Advocates (NASUCA), which is submitting its own "Petition for Reconsideration" with the FCC. NASUCA consists of the majority of state Consumer Advocates, who work for their respective state Public Utilities Commissions. NASUCA's main arguments are: 1) the ~40 states that have considered CNID did so in a very open and democratic manner (e.g., held public participation hearings and evidentiary hearings, solicited and received numerous letters and written arguments, etc.), and most (36) of those states have decided that per-line blocking is necessary to provide a fair balance between the privacy of callers and callees, 2) the FCC's ruling, which was not based on such a democratic process, may well pre-empt those of the states, so the FCC should reconsider its ruling and allow CNID blocking, however generated (i.e., per-line or per-call), to work for interstate calls. In other words, calls for which the caller has blocked number disclosure should simply be marked as blocked, regardless of whether the blocking was initiated on a per-call or per-line basis. This would actually be simpler than requiring callers (and the network) to treat interstate calls differently from local calls. Hopefully, the FCC will reconsider. JJ eagle@deeptht.armory.com email info@eff.org * ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 04:18:39 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: New Area Codes For Modems (Ameritech) Forwarded FYI to the Digest: From: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: New area codes for modems (Ameritech) Date: 16 May 1994 10:16:12 -0400 halleen@MCS.COM (Michael Halleen) says: > On the news this morning there was a story that Ameritech is considering > adding a new area code in the Chicago area. They may split the suburbs > (now 708) into two zones, or they might create a new code just for fax > machines and modems. > While right now it costs nothing extra to call to 708 from 312 (suburbs > from city), that might not always be true. > This is not a modem tax scare, but is it possible that this could end up > costing internet users (those who dial up) more money? Could this be > an attempt to squeeze more money out of a growing business? More likely, they are just running out of numbers, or need to change the way calls are routed, or some such administrative problem. This is not really that rare a thing, the branching of prefixes and area codes, and I think it likely that your state Public Utility Commission defines LD charges by distance, rather than by area code or telco whim. > I'd like it if someone from the EFF would answer this. Is there anything > we can do to make it clear that we will not accept this? (besides waiting > for Chicago Cable to start offering phone service) If you mean the splitting of the area codes, probably nothing you can do about it, and there's unlikely to be much of a reason to anyway. If you mean preventing tariffs targeted at modem and fax users, you can always send letters to the heads of both the telco and the PUC discouraging any such ideas if they are brewing. At this juncture - no actual modem-tariff in sight - there's not much else to do. Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 13:56:13 -0700 From: richard@mandarin.com Subject: Short Message Service (SMS) gregalex@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Greg Alexander) asked: >> I am interested in buying a GSM phone, and was hoping to learn >> a little more about the short message service offered in some. >> Is it a pager -- or a digital message that appears when your phone >> is in range? We've just got the first "workable" SMS system in the UK, on the new DCS1800 (PCN) system known as "ORANGE". Essentially it is a message transfer system that uses a form of handshaking between the mobile switch and the handset: so error-free receipt of the message can be guaranteed. If the intended recipient's phone is not in range when the message is sent, the network will hold the message until an error free path is available for the message to be handed over. This is important, as the worst thing about a cellphone being out of range is for there to be a message waiting when the phone gets back into coverage, and that message has to be listened to from a fringe area with really poor reception. When the message is received, it is stored on the user's SIM card -- which can be removed from the phone for security. Even if several people share a phone, the messages would stay completely private (SIM cards can be protected with a PIN code). We do not *just* have a message bureau, however: we also have the ability to send messages *directly from handset to handset* and these messages cost less to send than it would cost to make a phone call to say the same thing! In the future there are plans to provide notebook computer access to the handset (using PCMCIA cards) and this will substantially increase the functionality of the message service. It will become possible to send text messages from the handset (or computer) to any other GSM/PCN system, to any of the old analogue paging networks, or as an X400 message or a facsimile document. If a SMS message contains a phone number with a request to be called back, the handset will (on a key-push) grab that number and store it in the phone's memory, ready to be called back by the user. Oh, and we also have full Caller-ID and last call return. All this because the new ORANGE service in the UK seems to be different to our other Telcos ... rather than saying "how little can we get away with giving the customer", they say "how much useful functionality can we cram into the system, and so make people want to use our phones, without having to increase the prices ! After all, ORANGE is *not* the first PCN (DCS1800) system in the UK ... but it IS the first to offer all these features. A sidenote: although there are two handsets now available for ORANGE, these facilities will only work on Nokia handsets, not on the Motorola alternative. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, P.O. Box 111, Penarth, South Glamorgan, Wales: CF64 3YG Voice: 0956 700111 Fax: 0956 700110 VoiceMail: 0941 151515 Pager 0941 115555 E-mail address: richard@mandarin.com - PGP2.3 public key available on request ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #242 ******************************