TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Oct 94 15:07:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 398 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BCI, MCI Get Greater Share of Clear Communications (NZ) (Dave Leibold) Canadian Long Distance Contribution Controversy (Bell News via D. Leibold) CFP: Applied Informatics (Dennis Warwoda) Analog Dial-up Video Conference Packages? (Robyn Rudisill) Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Loop Technology (Thoo Chin Choy) Billable 800 Service (John Steele) How Can I Get a Good International Circuit (Julian Thornhill) Need Information on State Telecom Equipment Procurement (Bob Beck) Book to Help in Dealing With Phone Companies (Hon Wah Chin) TeleCon in Toronto (David McKellar) UNC-CH Faculty Job Opening (Scott Barker) A Question Concerning Fax Broadcasting (Keith George Long) Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ???? (Pete Farmer) Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ???? (James D. Wilson) Re: GTE Airphone Begins Ground-to-Air Service (For Free!) (Phil Gladstone) Re: GTE Airphone Begins Ground-to-Air Service (For Free!) (John R. Levine) 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 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 13 Oct 94 23:24:10 -0500 Subject: BCI, MCI get greater share of Clear Communications (NZ) Organization: FidoNet Nameserver/Gateway [from Bell News, 10 Oct 94, content is Bell Canada's] BCI improves stake in New Zealand's Clear NZ Rail Ltd. sold its 15 per cent stake in Clear Communications Ltd., a major reseller, to four other shareholders, among them MCI Communications Corp. of Washington and Bell Canada International. Each of the four now owns 25 per cent of Clear. ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 13 Oct 94 23:24:02 -0500 Subject: Canadian Long Distance Contribution Controversy Organization: FidoNet: The Super Continental - North York, Canada [from Bell News, 10 Oct 94, content is Bell Canada's] Sprint and Unitel appeal contribution aspect of landmark CRTC decision Alternative long distance carriers - Unitel and Sprint - are appealing portions of the CRTC's landmark decision (94-19) which changed the way telecommunications in Canada will be regulated in the future. As part of its decision, announced on September 16, the CRTC ordered changes to the way in which contribution to support basic telephone service is paid by long distance carriers, including the telephone companies. Unitel (on Friday, September 30) and Sprint (on Monday, October 3) formally requested the CRTC review and stay portions of this decision. In their application, they claim they cannot afford to subsidize local service according to the Carrier Access Tariff (CAT) method set out by the CRTC. The CAT method is based on a fixed charged for each minute of long distance traffic carried over the local network. CAT will apply to all inter-exchange carriers including Bell. Before the decision, alternate carriers paid a contribution based on the number of trunks they leased or owned. Under the per-trunk method, alternate carriers were able to offer huge LD discounts (mainly to residential customers) to keep their lines busy in the slower, non-business hours. Under the CAT method of calculating contribution, the busier their lines, the greater their contribution will be. The appealing carriers claim they should pay no contribution on off-peak minutes and the telephone companies should pay on all minutes. Bell was taken aback by the appeals, accusing Unitel and Sprint of "sending mixed signals." Said a Bell spokesperson: "On the one hand both of these companies have been publicly touting their success in the long distance market and their financial viability. On the other, they claim to the CRTC their ability to serve customers is under threat." And as to the issue of per-trunk versus per-minute contribution, it's "not new, " claimed the spokesperson. "It has been discussed in four regulatory proceedings in the last two years. "What the CRTC has done is to close a loophole that competitors were using to their advantage to avoid paying a fair but reduced (compared to the telephone companies) share of the local service subsidy." ------------------------------ From: warwodad@cuug.ab.ca (Dennis Warwoda B288-1195 H293-5227) Subject: CFP: Applied Informatics Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 13:10:10 -0400 Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group CALL FOR PAPERS Twelfth IASTED International Conference APPLIED INFORMATICS February 20-23, 1995 Innsbruck, AUSTRIA SPONSORS: The International Association of Science and Technology (IASTED) * Technical Committee on Modelling and Simulation * Technical Committee on Computers LOCATION: Congress Innsbruck Igls, Postfach 533, Rennweg 3, A-6021 Innsbruck, Tirol, Austria SCOPE: Main areas to be covered: * COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE * DISTRIBUTED PROCESSING * SOFTWARE * APPLICATIONS * ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE * NETWORKS * SYSTEMS * SIMULATION INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE: K. Adamson Northern Ireland B. Furht USA J.L. Houle Canada J. Keane UK E. Luque Spain G. Mastronardi Italy J. Malko Poland L. Miller USA C. Pellegrini Switzerland J.A. Peperstraete Belgium S. Pulko UK M. Yaacob Malaysia SUBMISSION OF ABSTRACTS: The abstracts submitted for review should be prepared for "regular" or "short" papers. The "regular" papers should be up to the standard expected for publication in an international journal. An abstract of a regular paper should be at least 500 words in length, should present a clear and concise view of the motivation of the subject, give an outline of the paper, and a list of references. For "short papers" the abstracts should have a maximum of 250 words. Three copies of the abstracts for both categories of papers should reach the IASTED Secretariat in Zurich, Switzerland (Fax: (01) 261-0083) before OCTOBER 30, 1994. Authors should provide a maximum of five key words describing their work, and must include a statement confirming that if their paper is accepted one of the authors will attend the conference to present the paper. Please include the full name, affiliation, full address, fax number, and e-mail, if available. Notification to the authors will be mailed by NOVEMBER 18, 1994. Authors of an accepted paper are requested to make an advance payment of SFr 300 to IASTED by JANUARY 2, 1995. All accepted papers, regular and short, will be published in the proceedings. The papers must be received at the conference prior to presentation. **** IMPORTANT DATES **** October 30, 1994 - Abstracts due in Switzerland November 18, 1994 - Notification to the authors mailed January 2, 1995 - Advanced payment of SFr 300 due CONFERENCE SECRETARIAT: IASTED Secretariat Switzerland IASTED Secretariat Canada P.O. Box 354 4500 - 16th Avenue N.W. CH-8053 Zurich Unit #80 Switzerland Calgary, Alberta Fax: +41-1-261-0083 Canada T3B 0M6 Fax: (403) 247-6851 Tel: (403) 288-1195 E-mail: iasted@istd.cuug.ab.ca ------------------------------ From: Robyn Rudisill Subject: Analog Dial-up Video Conference Packages? Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 10:30:00 PDT Has anyone out there ever used an analog video conference package? If so, which one did you use and what did you think of it. I am looking for a low cost solution, but with decent speed. Thanks in advance. robynr@shapeware.com ------------------------------ From: s2ccthoo@iss.nus.sg (SE2 Thoo Chin Choy) Subject: Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Loop Technology Date: 14 Oct 1994 17:53:36 GMT Organization: Institute Of Systems Science, NUS Hello everbody, I am posting this on behalf of my friend who is writing a paper on Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Loop (ADSL) technology for one of his graduate projects. This new access technology is a series modem-type technologies which can turn a stabdard copper telephone circuit into a high-speed digital service. It operates at different frequencies to the normal telephony and therefore both can coexist on the existing twisted pair telephone. He needs information on the following areas regarding ADSL: 1. What are some of the technical difficulties faced when exploiting ADSL? 2. What are some of the techniques that may be employed to overcome the problems (identified in 1)? 3. Any good reference on this subject (journals, books, etc)? Any info regarding the subject is very much appreciated. Please email to . Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 13:56:25 -0400 From: jsteele@gate.net (John Steele) Subject: Billable 800 Service I have been following with interest the billable-800 service nonsense. Most recently the appearance of 800-CALL-INFO to get a number. I recall recently seeing an interview with the Chairman of the FCC (as I recall it was him, could have been another member). In this interview he took the position that the FCC could not take action to prevent the 800 billing matter without new legislation from Congress. This attitude is typical of the bureaucracy. When they want to do we're not going to like they assert that "Congress told us to". When they don't want to get involved they say "Congress will have to authorize it". I would contend that the FCC has sufficient authority to prohibit this practice based simply on precedent ... there are literally decades of common practice for the 800 service being billed only to the subscriber/ owner. This has created a common perception and attitude among people that they do not pay for 800 calls. In fact, I would assert that the "toll free 800 call" has long since stopped being common carrier provided service and has passed into the culture as a concept, much like the "xerox" machine ... it is no longer identifiable as a specific service or product. Clearly, the common carriers have provided merchants a mechanism to charge customers "whatever the traffic will bear" when they created the 900 & 976 services. Prohibiting the subversion of the 800-system would not unduly restrain merchants from having a way to conduct their "business" at the customer's expense. There are reams and reams of case law based on common law, which is nothing more than codified common practice. The FCC could simply outlaw the practice ... the burden of change, either through the courts of the legislature, would then fall on the scam artists who are benefiting from this. John Steele information systems technology, inc. miami [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In fairness though to the companies which are the subject of your complaint, is it not true that since the beginning of 800 service -- and even with its predecessor service 'Enterprise' and 'Zenith' -- people have called those numbers wishing to order merchandise or services and have paid with credit cards for the merchandise or services rendered? For example, we call 800 numbers *at no charge* to order books and magazines *for which we expect to pay* usually via credit card. We call 800 numbers to order a variety of goods and services; why not to order 'information' to be delivered by phone? The companies using this technique rightfully contend that the cost of carriage -- the telephone call itself -- is 'free' to the caller, with the costs borne by the recipient. I think you will find that even when the astrologers, the sex purveyors and the others answer the phone even for the purpose of saying they will not provide you with the information requested because you are (a) calling from a payphone with no other method of payment or (b) have previously refused to pay they are still charged for the carriage. They still pay the 10-15 cents or whatever for the minute of conversation required to tell you they will not service you for whatever reason. With that in mind, that the recipient of an 800 call does pay for the call itself -- regardless of whether or not some transfer of merchandise or 'information' takes place as a result -- the companies doing this are not any different than the company which takes your order for airline tickets by phone or the customer service representative at the book or magazine order center. They agree (using an 800 number) to pay for your call as a way to encourage you to call them and purchase whatever it is they have for sale. The gripes and complaints seem to arise owing to the nature of what is being sold (information by telephone) and the method of payment most commonly used (charge to local telephone bill). There is a question in my mind as to the propriety of charging anything via telephone bills except for the cost of carriage (or connection) itself, and that includes the use of 900/976 numbers. The precedent for 'charge to phone bill' began about sixty years ago with Western Union and its close relationship to the old Bell System. For that matter, when WUTCO changed to an 800 number and had all calls funnelled through its central message center in St. Louis you could still charge the telegram to your phone bill, so even having 800 as a factor in this is not all that new. Ah, but you say naughty children do not call up Western Union in the middle of the night -- if they even heard of the grand old company -- and place telegrams charged to their parent's phone bill, nor do university students suffering from post-midnight sleeplessness and certain other psychological tensions best left unnamed use WUTCO services. They do however enjoy using other services sold these days by telephone with the hope that when it comes time to pay for the services rendered someone else will get the bill. *That is the problem, in a nutshell*: The immense popularity of 'certain kinds' of information and the propensity of the people benefitting from that 'information' to not have to pay for it at all if they can avoid it. Did you hear the one about the prostitute who goes into the bank to get change for a hundred dollar bill? The bank teller looks carefully at the money and says, "this bill is counterfeit." The prostitute becomes outraged and screams, "My God, I was raped!" To avoid the legal raping most information providers were getting via 900/976 and telco's very liberal 'write it off, no questions asked' policy (and they meant the IP can write it off, not us, heh! heh!) -- peculiar only to 900/976 I might add -- and to avoid the detours in the road leading to their electronic houses of ill-repute put in the way by telecom administrators who had gotten a bellyfull of paying for someone else's good times and Christian parents who were angry about ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The answer is quit allowing ANYTHING to be billed to telephone accounts except for *telephone calls*, period. No telegrams, no flowers, no cable television premium movie, no sex, nothing. Require information providers to bill however they want otherwise, by credit card or open account or prepayment. Then, everyone should be happy. Everyone, that is, as the IPs are quick to point out, except the weather forecast, time-of-day, and certain other 'quick recorded message' IPs -- the 'clean' side of the industry -- for whom anything other than telco billing would be extremely inconvenient and almost impossible. But then, by comparison, no one calls those guys anyway ... ... so who cares? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 16:17:40 +0100 From: jth@ion.le.ac.uk (Julian Thornhill) Subject: How Can I Get a Good International Circuit I want to regularly set up a modem link between UK and Finland using 28.8kbps modems. Obviously I am only going to get this speed if I get a good circuit. Is there any way that the UK telco (BT or Mercury) can set up a "good" circuit routing for me or is it in the lap of the computers? If it is technically possible I'll get on to them but I would like to be forearmed before I ask. I have considered ISDN but the call costs are twice as much for only just over twice the bandwidth and I'll have to buy some expensive bits of hardware so I'd rather stick with my modems for the time being. Regards, Julian Thornhill Ionospheric Physics Group Leicester University University Road Leicester LE1 7RH, UK Tel 0116 252 3566 Fax 0116 252 3555 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 09:00:43 -0500 From: rab@vienna.ssds.com (Bob Beck) Subject: Re: Need Information on State Telecom Equipment Procurement Public Technology, Inc. (PTI) and MCI offer a service called PTS 2000, a local government long distance telecommunications network. Ten state municipal leagues are using PTS 2000 currently: Arkansas Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisana Maine Mass. Minnesota Missouri South Carolina PTI is a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC that develops technologies to support local governments. By pooling the buying power of local governments across the country, PTS 2000 gives pricing and service advantages to these local governments. Bob Beck SSDS, Inc. 8150 Leesburg Pike, #1100 Vienna, VA 22182 703.827.0806 x152 703.827.0716 FAX ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 10:10:18 -0700 From: Hon Wah Chin Subject: Book to Help in Dealing With Phone Companies Reply-To: hwc@kalpana.com Does anyone have a suggestion for a reference or text book that would help a fledging facilities person who got saddled with the phone/telecom issues? This is to help a novice to support a company with a PABX with ~150 lines, voicemail, a T1 to the CO and a long distance carrier. (ie more than residential stuff but not a BIG network) The main requirement is enough explanation and glossary to help in talking to the installers, repair people and sales and marketing types. Hon Wah Chin hwc@kalpana.com ------------------------------ From: dmntor!djm (David McKellar) Subject: TeleCon in Toronto Organization: Digital Media Networks, Toronto, Canada Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 22:05:29 -0400 I visited a show called TeleCon in Toronto today. All the usual suspects were there. I'll just mention some things I found interesting ... I watched Howard Reingold (of Wired magazine) get interviewed and interviewed. He was wearing a neato green suit and wow shoes. What did he say? Well among other things, in response to a question from the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp) he said "Canada was the most exciting place to be now". Aw shucks. I went on a tour of a working Northern Telecom Central Office in a transport trailer. Without much coaxing the tour guide/operator pulled out a trunk circuit board carrier about 800 calls and we watched the redundant backup board kick in. The fellow seemed to really like the the switch and I liked that. I talked to my colleague via frame relay and thru a fiber optic test set. Unitel (the number two long distance carrier here) had about ten booths offering free calls in Canada. ACC had something better -- free calls to England but I don't know anyone there. On the tired highway metaphore front: I counted four cars at booths. Motorola had the most dramatic racing car. Bell had this Info Highway room room complete with road-type signs. But when I got there 30 minutes before the show closed this room was closed. What did I miss? I wonder if anyone has any other comments about this show? D a v e M c K e l l a r d j m @ d m n t o r . U U C P ------------------------------ From: scott@ils.unc.edu (Scott Barker) Subject: UNC-CH Faculty Job Opening Date: 13 Oct 1994 22:27:41 GMT Organization: Univ. of North Carolina, Information/Library Science The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill announces a tenure-track position (assistant/associate professor) in the School of Information and Library Science. The School seeks applications from scholars whose research and teaching interests address telecommunications and networking, and/or multimedia/hypermedia systems. Faculty members are expected to en- gage in research and to report new insights through publication and teaching. Faculty members also advise masters and doctoral students and serve on School and University committees. Minimum qualifications include an earned doctorate by the starting date, a research agenda, and evidence of teaching competence. Minimum salary is $40,000 for assistant; $45,000 for associate. The review process will begin Jan. 15, 1995; preliminary interviews are planned for the following conferences: ASIS (Alexandria, VA, October 1994); ALISE (Philadelphia, February 1995); and ACM Computer Science Conference (Nashville, TN, February 1995). Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. Preferred starting date is August 1995. Send letter of application, resume, and names of three references to: Barbara M. Wildemuth, Chair, Faculty Search Committee School of Information and Library Science CB # 3360, 100 Manning Hall University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3360 Phone: 919-962-8366; Fax: 919-962-8071 email: wildem@ils.unc.edu The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is an affirmative action, equal opportunity employer. ------------------------------ From: kglong@whale.st.usm.edu (Keith George Long) Subject: A Question Concerning Fax Broadcasting Date: 14 Oct 1994 00:32:57 GMT Organization: University of Southern Mississippi Hello, Would anyone out there happen to know the FCC rules/regulations concerning unsolicited fax broadcasting? Are these regulations enforceable? How? I recently read that if a recent FCC ruling were upheld, it could mean a $500 (per fax) fine. Any information/discussion on this issue would be most welcome. Sincerely, Keith kglong@whale.st.usm.edu ------------------------------ From: pete@tetherless.com (Pete Farmer) Subject: Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ???? Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 15:31:45 -0800 Organization: Tetherless Access Ltd. In article , lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) wrote: > spelegan@csc.com wrote: >> We have a commercial customer who's asked us to setup a BBS system for >> them. They've asked us to recommend a telecom option for them to >> use that best suits their needs. They'd like to start out with 8 >> lines going into the BBS with the ability to move up to 16, 24, etc. >> They'd like their customers to have one 800 number to call to reach >> this BBS, no matter where they are in the US. Their customers will >> have off-the-shelf modems, ranging from 1200-14.4 baud. > The requirement here is for an economical way to accept POTS calls for > modem traffic. This means that X.25 service, Frame Relay, ISDN etc are > all outside of the scope of this query. That will not prevent me from > getting back to them at the end, though. Well, X.25 service is not necessarily out of the question. If the customer needs nationwide (or even international) access to the BBS with a local telephone call, it might make sense to contract with the CompuServe Packet Network, with MCI XStream (nee Tymnet), or with SprintNet. These outfits can provide local dial-up access to their X.25 nets and drop the traffic to the customer's doorstep through a single pipe. This can be a lot more hassle-free than operating a modem bank. > Finally: > You should give serious consideration to putting such a BBS on the > Internet. I agree -- especially when the BBS is to be accessed by people outside of their company. Peter J. Farmer Internet: pete@tetherless.com VP - Marketing Voice: 415-843-6880 ext. 16 Tetherless Access Ltd. Fax: 415-843-6890 2468 Embarcadero Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Visit our WWW site! URL=http://www.tetherless.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 18:36:09 HST From: NetSurfer Subject: Re: Frame Relay vs. ISDN vs. T1 vs. ???? In Hawaii, you can get 56KB with an install of $95 and monthly recurring of $200 per site and 1 PVC (permanent virtual circuit.) HawTel does not specify prices per commited bandwidth, but would generally suggest the next higher bandwidth rate above 80%. Frame relay support on routers tends to be a simple software option (if not standard support.) The big advantage of frame relay here is that it is not distance based i.e. it costs the same to have a circuit between Honolulu and Waikiki (all on Oahu) as between Honolulu and Hilo (190 miles apart and on the Big Island of Hawai'i) As a service point we can have a standard monthly recurring with each additional site carrying their own monthly recurring charges. All we have to do is ensure that we support a high enough bandwidth for peak tx times from multiple sites. James D. Wilson |V.PGP 2.7: 512/E12FCD 1994/03/17 P. O. Box 15432 | finger for full PGP key Honolulu, HI 96830 |================================== Serendipitous Solutions| Also NetSurfer@sersol.com ------------------------------ From: Philip.Gladstone@mail.citicorp.com (Philip Gladstone) Subject: Re: GTE Airphone Begins Ground-to-Air Service (For Free!) Date: 13 Oct 1994 10:08:32 -0400 Organization: Citicorp Reply-To: Philip.Gladstone@mail.citicorp.com DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU wrote: > Just got some mail from GTE Airphone. [Interesting stuff about free inbound calls to AIRPHONEs on certain flights deleted] At the end of last month, on the USAIR Shuttle, AIRPHONE were running a promotion for a free five minute call if you filled out one of their comment cards. This was to try out their new digital service. Personally, I thought that the quality was terrible -- certainly worse than the old analog system. I guess that the voice was compressed down to 4.8k. It sounded as though the other party was underwater, and you could only just recognize the other speaker. The voice lag was very noticeable -- this was probably satellite delay. All in all, if I had paid for the call, I'd want my money back! Philip Gladstone - Consultant Citicorp Global Information Network ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 00:33 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: GTE Airphone Begins Ground-to-Air Service (For Free!) Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > If you chose to answer the call, you first get a chance to see who is > calling you, ie GTE transmit's the ANI from the 800 number to your > seat. ... Turns out that's not what happens. For an incoming Airphone call, the caller calls the 800 number, hits 1 to say make incoming call, dials the ten-digit customer number (the one on the card the person in the air has swiped through his reader), then dial your own number and optionally an extension number. Then it hangs up. If the person in the air accepts the call, it calls you back. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #398 ****************************