TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Jan 95 06:43:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 53 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Mobility Canada Views on 2 GHz Spectrum (Dave Leibold) ATT True Voice Patents (Monty Solomon) Which Countries Have Competition (For FAQ Update)? (Dave Leibold) 800 and Caller ID (Comments) (Glenn Foote) Teleworking Stories (Marc Schaefer) Corporate Creativity, was Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much? (Danny Burstein) Canadian Universal Internet Access (Sarah Holland) Glossary Wanted (S. Cantor) Internet Mail With Half the Address? (Jane McMahon) 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@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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 00:23:00 -0500 From: dleibold@gvc.com (Dave Leibold) Subject: Mobility Canada Views on 2 GHz Spectrum [a news release via CNW - content is Bell Mobility's] MOBILITY CANADA READY TO BUILD THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY OTTAWA, Jan. 16 /CNW/ - Mobility Canada, the country's leading supplier of personal communication services (PCS), today submitted to Industry Canada its position on the federal governments' pending licensing of spectrum at 2 GHz. The 2 GHz spectrum will open up a new realm of personal communications possibilities, bringing Canadians one step closer to accessing the Information Highway. "Canada is on the brink of a new age in personal communications," said Dave Wells, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mobility Canada. "Whether it's using a video phone to call home to the family, or transmitting an X-ray image from an ambulance to a hospital, the 2 GHz spectrum will facilitate the introduction of radical new technology and services that demand considerable bandwidth and are unavailable in today's cellular environment. Essentially, we're going to see a fundamental shift from communication between places, to communication between people, and Mobility Canada is ideally placed to help make that shift happen." Mobility Canada intends to apply for a national license with a minimum capacity of 30 MHz to offer service at 2 GHz so that its growing base of 1.5 million customers across the country can benefit from the range of innovative and complementary services that the additional capability of 2 GHz will make possible. Mobility Canada is also developing a suite of services called Customer First, to ensure that it can meet the changing needs of its customers over time. In preparation for this opportunity Mobility Canada recently launched a comprehensive testing program of potential new PCS technologies -- code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), PCS 1900 and PACS. The trial, which is the only one in the world to include all three major contending technologies, will determine the merits of each and ensure that Mobility Canada can provide the best possible communications solutions. The federal government is scheduled to award licenses for the use of 2 GHz spectrum later this year. If successful, Mobility Canada expects that approximately $1 billion will be invested in developing and implementing new technology and services in the next five years. As a result, up to 1,000 direct new jobs would be created, mostly in the high-skill areas of radio and network engineering and computer software design. A further 2,000 jobs could be created indirectly through an anticipated economic spin-off of up to $2 billion. Mobility Canada recommends that the federal government takes into account the proven track record, business plans and technical and operational abilities of all license applicants, believing preference should be given to those capable of developing and delivering innovative and competent services at this new frequency range. As well, Mobility Canada hopes to see Canadian companies taking the lead in charting this new [news release omitted a line or two here, unfortunately] To date, competition has played a major role in positioning Canada as a world leader in cellular communications. "The provision of PCS at 2 GHz will maintain competition in this emerging telecommunications sector, which is good news for the consumer," said Wells. "And we're confident the federal government will recognize that Mobility Canada is ideally situated to help bring Canadians into the next realm of telecommunications services, and are looking forward to the call for applications." Personal communications services at 2 GHz should offer more than just portable voice communications. While voice will be a key basic service, the spectrum will also enable the transmission of enhanced voice, facsimile data and video services. Some of the possibilities include: mobile medical imaging, mobile video phone, mobile classrooms, virtual field trips, intelligent vehicles and wireless e-mail. PCS will provide a "network of networks" enabling customers to choose services that best meet their individual communications needs. Mobility Canada, a corporation established to deliver quality mobile communications operates Canada's largest cellular and paging networks. Together, Mobility Canada shareholders have invested a record $1.3 billion in wireless technology products and services and directly employ over 3,500 Canadians. For further information: or a copy of Mobility Canada's submission: Suzzanne Ricard (514) 421-4907; Angela Hislop (416) 213-3308. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 01:53:38 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: ATT True Voice Patents Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FYI. Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 09:57:57 -0500 From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) To: patents@world.std.com Subject: PATNEWS: Re-examination filed for ATT's True Voice technology 19940113 Re-examination filed for ATT's True Voice patent It seems that someone is filing a reexamination with the Patent Office challenging ATT's patent on its true voice technology. There are a series of files posted to misc.int-property containing documents filed. Here is one of the declarations filed. Should be interesting to see what happens. Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service (for subscription info, send 'help' to patents@world.std.com ) (for prior art search services info, send 'prior' to patents@world.std.com ) (for WWW patent searching, try http://sunsite.unc.edu/patents/intropat.html ) ==================== IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re: U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132 DECLARATION OF LEONARD R. KAHN I, Leonard R. Kahn, declare as follows: 1. I am the President of Kahn Communications, Inc. located at Carle Place, New York. 2. I am the same Leonard R. Kahn who co-authored an article entitled "Enhancement of Telephone Line Performance", which was presented at the National Association of Broadcasters' Engineering Conference held on March 23-26, 1969, in Washington D.C. (hereinafter the NAB article). I am also the same Leonard R. Kahn who is listed as a sole or joint inventor in U.S. Patents Nos. 4,217,661; 3,684,838; and 3,696,298. 3. In addition to the patents set forth in paragraph 2, I am also the sole or joint inventor of over 80 other U.S. patents in the field of electronics and telecommunications. My professional qualifications and achievements are set forth in Attachment A. 4. My above-referenced NAB article was directed to the problem of obtaining high quality speech in the standard telephone network as it was available in 1969. The explicit intention of my 1969 article was to discuss the desirability of restoring, in a telephonic communication system, certain frequencies that were normally attenuated. Specifically, I suggested in my NAB article that the frequencies between 100 Hz and 300 Hz are desirable frequencies to be restored in a telephonic communication system. In the NAB article, I also discussed various devices that could be employed in restoring low frequencies (those between 100 Hz and 300 Hz) in a telephone communication network. 5. Frequencies in the range of between 100 Hz to 300 Hz frequencies are normally attenuated in telephone systems. 6. My NAB article suggested, among other solutions, using an equalizer in a telephone network as a device to accomplish restoration of low frequency speech signals in telephone communication. 7. My NAB article specifically mentions the speech signal associated with a telephone set as the signal to be selectively amplified for more natural speech communication. 8. It was well known, in 1969, when my NAB article was published, that equalization, as referenced in paragraph 6 above, could be accomplished with any of a number of electronic devices known as equalizers or filters. 9. The telephone network was, in 1969, controlled by American Telephone and Telegraph Inc. (AT&T) in a manner which prevented using an equalizer in the straightforward way as suggested in my NAB article. Consequently, it was necessary for me and others to develop complex systems for restoring low frequency signals in the telephone network. 10. The disclosure in U.S Patent No. 5,195,132 relative to the use of an equalizer to restore low frequency speech signals in a telephone network merely reflects the ability of AT&T to arrange their telephone network in accordance with the teaching of my NAB article. In other words, AT&T has modified its network in order to take advantage of the equalizer arrangement suggested in my NAB article. 11. I believe that the disclosure of my NAB article appears to constitute the stated invention in U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132, which provides truer voice transmission of low frequencies. I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct. -------------------- John Berryhill 1601 Market St., Suite 720 Philadelphia, PA 19103 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 00:32:00 -0500 From: dleibold@gvc.com (Dave Leibold) Subject: Which Countries Have Competition (for FAQ Update)? As the FAQ update is under way, one section dealt with the various countries that have introduced telecom competition in some form or other. I've heard of a European Community directive to the effect that its member countries are to open up telecom markets by a given date. Competing local networks are also emerging (including UK, US developments). Information on which countries have introduced, or are about to introduce, competition is welcome, in order to keep the Telecom FAQ comments on this up to date. The current FAQ excerpt on the matter follows: Competition Q: Which countries have competitive long distance service? A: Most countries have a single monopoly telephone company for their local and long distance services. Yet, deregulation of telephone companies and telecommunications in general is a worldwide trend. For better or worse, the international marketplace is demanding more innovation and competition in telecom markets in such areas as electronic mail, fax and data services as well as the long distance, satellite and other network services. The United States has competition in terms of long distance services (i.e. a choice of carriers such as AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Metromedia/ITT, Allnet, ATC). This was established in the early 1980s with the court-ordered dissolution of the Bell System into such pieces as regional local telephone providers, AT&T (long distance) and Bellcore (research, administration of telephone standards, etc.). The UK has a duopoly long distance situation: British Telecom and Mercury can provide long distance services but that could be challenged as other companies wish to provide long distance services. Canada permitted public long distance competition in June 1992. Prior to that, there was limited competition in terms of such things as fax communication services and various long distance/local service resellers, aimed at business interests. Unitel and BCRL/Call-Net were successful in their application to compete. A subsequent appeal of certain aspects of this decision was made by Bell Canada and other existing telephone companies. The result of the appeal was that the decision could stand, and that long distance competition may proceed. New Zealand recently allowed Clear Communications to compete in long distance. Australia now has Optus as a long distance competitor. Japan has competition in international public long distance services. There are initial signs competition in the "local loop", or local exchange services, also. Reports from the UK indicate that there is significant growth in alternative local services, besides the Mercury/BT long distance duopoly (competition of two). Cable companies are touted as alternative local phone companies because of the available capacity on cable feeds, plus the cable industry's conversion to fibre optic and digital technologies. A choice of "dial tone" providers may eventually be available to match the availability of competition in long distance services. ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: 800 and Caller ID (Comments) Date: 21 Jan 1995 05:23:07 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are NOT 'paying for the right to > see your phone number'; they are *paying for the phone call*, period. > The person or company or whatever paying for a phone call is entitled > to know where -- to what telephone number -- the connection was extended. > Any 'contract' with telco regards blocking of ID is governed by tariff. > Furthermore, in my phone book where the enhanced custom calling features > are explained in detail, it says plainly 'although you may choose to > block delivery of your number to the telephone you are calling, you may > NOT block delivery on calls to 800 numbers or collect calls.' I would > think that 'contract' is rather plain. So people can be as 'touchy' as > they like -- and I know a few who are -- but that is really their problem. > *They* are the ones who want things both ways at the same time: *you* > pay for my phone call, and *you* don't have any right to know what you > are paying for, because I am a prima-donna about such things. Har har har! > Then start dialing my seven digit number and paying for it yourself, bozo. > Either that, or handle those calls similar to 'blocked number blocking' > with an intercept saying 'the 800 number you have dialed requires your > phone number. Since you wish to not give it, please hang up and dial the > regular number, paying for the call yourself.' PAT] Well, Pat, maybe those who pay for the calls do have a "right" to see the data. But, this "right" does, or at least did, not exist in the tariff for 800 service. And, if it does exist now, you can bet the house, the barn, and the dog, that it is restricted by the words "... where facilities allow". For that matter, only AT&T actually files tariffs with the FCC, the others "publish rates" by choice, not by requirement. Even for AT&T this may end soon. The other companies, who started giving out the calling telephone number, did so (and probably continue) for "marketing" reasons. The "contract(s)" at the local level are different depending on the state and the local telephone company. Also, some (many) phone companies have no provisions for making the tariffs available to the public. For example, although the various PUC's usually require copies of the tariff to be available in "public offices", there is no provision that the Telco must actually have a "public office". So some (many?) the Telco's just did away with "public offices", in favor of "service locations". Everything else is just the same, except no tariff availability. Therefore, if access to the tariff is restricted, by design of the Telcos, the "public" must rely on the assertions of the Telco. Neat, for the Telcos; for the public, it's a problem, and not just in the area of Caller ID. In response to your question/comment: "Are you suggesting because I get this information I 'paid to get your number'? All I paid for was the phone call, which legally means the call *belongs to me*, and I am entitled to know the uses made of my phone when I am charged for those uses. Yes, I am stating that you get this information because you paid to get it. (Incidently, the "you" here refers to anyone who is using úÿ a 800 number and gets the caller data, not you personally, Pat.). This data has been made a large part of the marketing effort, and the aftermarket IS software and hardware product area for some time. To claim that you are not paying for the data, as an integral part of the call, is naive. For some time, there was, and still may be, an extra charge for this data when small companies (light traffic) are/is involved. I can point to major companies who have switched carriers just to get this data when it was not available from AT&T. As to "who owns a telephone call", the various courts are in disagreement on that issue as we speak. It may be that a call is "owned" by both parties. There is a lot of history that supports that contention. About "entitled to know": Yes, you are! The right, and ability, to audit Telco bills was a hard won battle. I would be among the first to fight against giving up that right or ability. However, the ability to audit the bill is not as important as the individual privacy/security right of the consumer, nor are they incompatible. The existing technology is more than adequate to provide both. It is very easy to say "pay for it yourself, bozo.". Speaking for myself, and my clients, and I think many others as well, (none of whom are "prima-donnas") paying for it is NOT a problem. Unfortunately, many companies do not allow calls except to 800 numbers, and/or will only "give out" 800 numbers. Increasingly, the reasons for this seem to be the intent to penetrate the privacy/security of the caller, while "hiding" behind a 800 number front which itself cannot be readily identified as to location, company, or purpose. At the risk of repeating myself, It will be interesting to see what will happen when (not, I expect if) this challenge takes place ... makes me kind of glad I retired from the Consulting business ... ;- ). Glenn L Foote glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 07:25 MET From: schaefer@alphanet.ch (Marc SCHAEFER) Subject: Teleworking Stories Organization: ALPHANET NF - Research and information - Not for profit Hi, Do you happen to know a teleworking story? Especially in the aspect of worker-firm interaction/conflicts. Do you know about court cases (featuring piracy, privacy/non privacy of mails in commercial environment, snooping of mails from employees, successful examples, etc). This would be for a thesis. Thank you! ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Corporate Creativity, was Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much is Real? Date: 21 Jan 1995 01:43:59 -0500 [Summary until now: The points raised basically question how much of the claimed cellular phone losses to fraud are "real" versus fiction. i.e., when they claim $20 million in losses, is that actual cost to them, or is based on, say, 20 million minutes at their full retail price of $1/minute]. This overstating of losses is common by Big Business, and by numerous other groups, for the following reasons: a) It gets a lot more publicity; b) It can be used to justify rate increases; c) It can boost insurance payments; d) It can reduce taxes. Let's take a couple or so examples, not necessarily telecom: Police grab 100 pounds of cocaine. Well, umm, maybe they grabbed a bit more, but they show off 100 pounds. They state: "This was worth $1,000/pound on the street, so we just kicked ORGANIZED CRIME for one hundred thousand dollars." However, the actual and replacement cost to the Bad Guys is only $25 plus shipping and handling ... but that wouldn't be newsworthy. Or, let's say you are Mega-tele-sleaze, Inc. You're about to make $100 million in profits. But the IRS will take $50 million of it. So what do you do? Well, for starters, you give $100,000 to the local "take-a- buck political club", but in addition, you tell your accountants to come up with "losses" to offset your profits. Aha!, they say. Let's see ... hmm, there were 10 million minutes of FAKE CALLS!. So we can claim $10 million in losses. Poof, there go $5 million in IRS payments! Or even better ... These calls "would have been" at the Roaming Rate of $5/minute. Wow!. (It's not quite that simple to claim tax losses, but at these figures, it's worth having the tax lawyers work out creative charts). BTW, if I might give an analogy that shows how absurd this can become: Let's say you're a former felon who was given a pardon by an "uindicted co-conspirator", and, in addition to owning a shipyard, you're also the principal shareholder of a major league baseball (remember them?) franchise. You sell tickets to your stadium at $25-$1,000 dollars (depending on location). Lo and behold your security staff finds a dozen kids climbing a tree and watching the game from the outside. You've just had a $1,200 loss ... And, since your payments to the City are based on your profits ... (Now Corporate America would never use logic like that, would they???) dannyb@panix.com (or dburstein@mcimail.com) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jan 95 02:51:54 EST From: Sarah Holland <70620.1425@compuserve.com> Subject: Canadian Universal Internet Access My last message to TELECOM Digest was about how SaskTel was offering universal Internet access, and BC Tel was reported as saying that it wouldn't. I'd like to take credit for their change of heart ... {Vancouver Sun}, January 20, 1995, Bits & Bytes Column Canadian phone companies are joining forces to offer access to the Internet from anywhere in the country, especially rural areas. [Sarah's comment -- yippee!!] Executives from the Stentor alliance, which includes BC Tel, are working on a plan to allow Canada's estimated one million Internet users to dial into the computer network from anywhere in Canada without having to phone long distance. *** Sarah Holland 70620.1425@compuserve.com Fort St. James, BC, Canada - "Historic Capital of New Caledonia" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good for you! I hope the connection gets turned on soon, and it works out well for everyone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: scantor@tiac.net (S Cantor) Subject: Glossary Wanted Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:11:14 -0500 Organization: The Internet Access Company I'm looking for a good laymen's type glossary of common data communications and telecommunications terms. E.g. how would you define "internetworking"? How would you describe "physical plant" to non-techie? Any suggestions? Is the FAQ of this sort floating around? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes it is. The Telecom Archives has several glossary files available. There are various ways to access them. You can use anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu. When connected, 'cd telecom-archives' and then 'cd glossaries'. The glossary files can also be searched interactively using the Telecom Archives Email Information Service. To do this you send mail to the Archives (tel-archives@lcs.mit.edu) in the usual way -- see the help file for assistance), using the command GLOSSARY where the argument is the word or phrase or abbreviation being searched. You will receive back in email the appropriate excerpts from the various files. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 09:06:00 +1000 From: /I=C/G=JANE/S=MCMAHON/O=DEMO.SALES.NSW/@telememo.au Subject: Internet Mail With Half the Address? Pat, I know this looks like a lonely hearts type message, but the answers might be interesting to other readers. Thanks for your help. Here goes: How do find someone using Internet? Is it possible to send a mail message to someone knowing only half their Internet address? I'm trying to track down a Jesuit priest by the name of Bill Roach (broach@ I assume), who's last known physical address was a Jesuit seminary in Menlo Park California. Is there a directory of addresses or some way to get a message to all the "broach"s on the Internet? I've tried American telephone directory assistance - no luck. Couldn't even find Menlo Park. Excuse my ignorance - We Australians are reasonably new at this Internet stuff -- bloody crocs keep chewing up the phone lines! Thanks in anticipation. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps it is about time for someone to write an article describing the Internet 'white pages' and how to use them. I think searching those would be a good way for you to start. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #53 *****************************