TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Mar 2000 17:36:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 21
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
CPP, ATM Surcharges (was F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phones) S. Cline)
Re: Help: Seeking RJ11 Walljack Manufacture (Don Kimberlin)
Globalstar Satellite Phones (David Lind)
Re: Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001 (Terry Knab)
Re: Rescue 211 (Terry Knab)
Re: What Can be Done When the LECs T1 Card Goes? (Terry Knab)
Re: In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average (Terry Knab)
Software For Faxes Needed (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Re: Iridium (David Glynn)
A Turning Point for E-privacy (Monty Solomon)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 259
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 805-545-5115
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/
mailing list on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
* 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.
From: Stanley Cline <sc1@roamer1.org>
Subject: CPP, ATM Surcharges (was F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:54:37 -0500
Organization: by area code and prefix (NPA-NXX)
Reply-To: sc1@roamer1.org
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 12:25:53 GMT, jlurker@bigfoot.com (Justa Lurker)
wrote:
> I believe that caller pays would lead to an increase of cell phone
> usage, sharing the infrastructure costs out over more minutes of
> actual use, and lowering the overall rate paid per minute to the point
> where calling a cell would cost the calling party a reasonable rate.
Every single trial or commercial offering of CPP in the US has had the
calling party paying 40-60c/min, compared to 7-30c/min paid by the
wireless customer for outgoing or callee-pays calls. That's simply
too high! Besides, that doesn't address the very simple fact that the
calling party is forced to pay whatever the wireless carrier charges;
they can't "dial-around" for a lower rate. (They can choose to reach
the wireless user via other methods such as paging/text messaging,
etc., of course.) Carriers are under little pressure to compete on
rates charged callers, since the caller has no choice but to pay
whatever the carrier charges; the only pressure may come from
customers who switch carriers if they feel callers are charged too
much. Most customers won't switch for that reason. Basically, CPP
leads to a "captive audience" situation -- and IMO, captive audience
situations call for tight regulation! (I've said more or less the
same things about payphones in prisons and schools, cable and phone
service in apartments, etc.)
Also, CPP numbers would likely be blocked from PBXs, payphones,
hotels, other wireless carriers, customers of CLECs, long distance
callers, etc. because of the uncertainty about what rates would be
charged (and in the case of most CLECs and wireless carriers, lack of
third-party billing arrangements), which would make them about as
worthless as 976 numbers, which are all but dead in many cities.
In cities with no or limited flat-rate local calling, such as Chicago,
NYC, and most of California, CPP may be accepted more widely *provided
that the rate to call a mobile is approximately the rate charged for a
local or local-toll call*, but I simply don't see anyone going for CPP
in places with large flat-rate local calling areas such as Atlanta,
Phoenix, etc.
As long as wireless users have a choice of CPP and traditional
callee-pays, fine, but if carriers force customers to CPP, usage will
decrease -- substantially.
> If I use a 'foreign ATM' I am in a sense a customer of that
> institution. They pay to maintain the location, stock the machine,
> and network to the national system. I realize that they would spend
> that money for their own customers only, to a certain extent, but
> there is cost involved, and some banks have chosen to charge fees
> instead of eating them. (I also get to pay to talk to a teller at my
Sorry to go off-topic here, but it's important to note that financial
institutions that own ATMs ALREADY RECEIVE PAYMENT when a customer of
another institution uses their ATMs, through the "foreign ATM" fee
charged by the *issuer of the ATM card* -- the ATM owner receives a
cut of that fee.
ATM surcharges are nothing more than PURE PROFIT.
> Foreign ATM fees have been around for years, and I dispute your claim
Foreign ATM fees (what YOUR bank charges you when use another bank's
ATM), yes. ATM surcharges (what the ATM OWNER charges), no. ATM
surcharges didn't become widespread until 2Q 1996, when the two major
national ATM networks dropped rules that prohibited ATM surcharges.
(Surcharges were already gaining ground in states that had laws or
judicial decisions that overrode the provisions of the ATM network
agreements that banned surcharges -- most of these states were in the
South, FWIW.)
Stanley Cline -- sc1 at roamer1 dot org -- http://www.roamer1.org/
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:39:58 -0500
From: Don Kimberlin <dkimberlin@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Help: Seeking RJ11 Walljack Manufacture
In article: Brae R (braeatwork@mindspring.com) on
Sat, 11 Mar 2000 12:18:56 -0800 wrote:
> I am trying to find some companies that have the ability to take from
> rough specifications and drawings and design an engineering print for
> submission to manufacture for a special RJ11x3 walljack for use in
> residential applications.
> Does anyone know of such a company(ies) in the US? Preferably in the
> SE part of the country, but not required. A project would be for
> 2,000-10,000 on the manufacturing end, with 5-10 beta units for
> testing.
... If you really insist on having some special plastic molded up, that's
certainly do-able, but are you aware that there are industry standards
for premises wiring that include covering requirements for not only
twisted pair, but coaxial and fiber optic cable for data? The most
widely known one is EIA/TIA 568, which has been around for some time.
... Several manufacturers provide wiring devices to meet this and similar
standards, which can be used for architectural purposes. One of the
several manufacturers of such devices is Siemon Corporation, whose MAX
line can mount as many as six jacks in the space of one common US
electrical outlet box. Here's the Siemon web page pertaining to their
MAX jacks for residential use:
http://www.siemon.com/cgi-bin/SiemonCatalog.exe?RT=GENINFO&FAM=MAX_Modules
... And, if you really want to see the news from the leading source for
telecommunications premises wiring methods and technology, you'll want
to get in tune with BICSI, the professional association of people who do
it for a living. They are, at the moment, developing a new standard,
TIA-570, specifically for residential application (:where at present,
TIA 568 is being used for both business and residential
telecommunications wiring):
http://www.bicsi.org
Donald E. Kimberlin, NCE
From: David Lind <davidlind@my-deja.com>
Subject: Globalstar Satellite Phones
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:13:52 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
As Iridium fades... Globalstar satellite phones emerge.
Which will come first; a canoe accident on the Amazon river because a
boater was talking on his satellite phone, or shooting, because a
police officer thought the phone was a gun (see photos, gmpcs).
For a sat. phone tutorial see...
QUALCOMM Globalstar Home Page
Address:http://www.qualcomm.com/ProdTech/globalstar/index.html
A couple of retailers, with pricing, of the next satellite phone offering...
Home Page globalstar-usa.com
Address:http://www.com-sat.com/Globalstar/index.html
Globalstar Satellite System
Address:http://www.gmpcs-us.com/satellite_telephones/globalstar-tele.html
David
From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab)
Subject: Re: Australia; Wireless Phone Number Portability 3/2001
Organization: The Home Office
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 13:57:04 GMT
David Clayton <dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au> wrote:
> On 1 October 1999, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
> determined that full number portability for mobile phone numbers
> (excluding analogue AMPS mobiles) should be available in Australia,
> and directed the ACA (Australian Communications Authority) to set the
> earliest practicable date for its implementation. Mobile number
> portability is the ability of a customer to change their mobile
> service provider, while keeping their existing mobile phone number.
And we wonder why its not going to happen in the US anytime soon?
Since 90% or so of the mobile numbers are *still* AMPS services
(remember, TDMA/CDMA digital are just *addons* to AMPS), there's not
really a reason to do so now.
The only carriers really affected by portability in the US would be
the PCS carriers (whos phones are NOT inter-operable with each other)
such as Nextel, Sprint PCS, and Omnipoint/Aerial/VoiceStream (soon to
be one and the same).
Basically, portability isn't viable in the US since PCS hasn't really
taken off as much as everyone would hope.
Plus, since in the North American Numbering Plan, most cell carriers
have entire prefixes blocked off to themselves (in some situations,
though, the prefix is 'shared' with land lines. Southwestern Bell has
this problem. They at one time didn't grab all of the numbers in a
prefix and then had to go back and open new ones because the remaining
numbers were eaten by landlines) and with the way prepaid is
configured, tehre are some major logistic problems.
Terry E. Knab
News/Acting System Administrator
Nyx Public Access Unix
From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab)
Subject: Re: Rescue 211
Organization: The Home Office
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 14:03:48 GMT
Jeremy Pickett <jer76@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In many towns in the north Georgia area 311 is used as a shortcut to the
> telco's voicemail system. Out of curiousity, I began to try the
> different combinations one evening, being careful not to dial 411 or
> 911. I was surprised when I reached our county's 911 center by dialing
> 211. Embarassed, I apologized and quickly hung up. Does anyone know if
> this is something other telco's are doing as well, or just a strange
> ALLTEL quirk? I've heard that in some areas 311 will be assigned to
> non-emergency police, but nothing's been mentioned about 211.
> Incidentally voicemail in our exchange cannot be reached at 311. When
> dialed it returns a fast busy.
Its a strange ALLTEL quirk. I've seen the various x11 numbers used
for all sorts of bizarre things. 311 is supposed to be for
non-emergency calls to the police/fire, etc. However, its not
implemented universally yet.
211 used to be long-lines (LD) operators, IIRC. I've seen 511 used as
the 'test number' which spits back the ANI on a given line (although
at one time, SWB used 222 222 2222 as a valid combo for that, as well
as currently 973# where I live) Also, let's not forget the infamous
611, which was repair service in a good chunk of the Bell System.
And in Calif, Pac Bell used to use 811-xxxx as business office line
numbers. (Those are the only x11-xxxx numbers I've *ever* seen until
they started running out of toll-free numbers!)
Terry Knab
News/Acting System Administrator
Nyx Public Access Unix
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Years ago in Chicago, prior to 911,
we used POLice 5-1313 and FIRe-7-1313. '211' was long distance, when
it was still undialable by customers. '411' was directory assistance,
when it was still called 'information' and '611' was repair service.
OFFicial 3-9100 was a downtown business office, but OFFicial 3-9411
was the Illinois Bell corporate offices. Various business offices
around the city were (various exchanges)-9100. '811' was originally
military priority long distance during the second world war and it
was changed over to hotel guest long distance service when Bell
paid a commission on such calls to hotel switchboards, but they had
to quote 'time and charges' to the switchboard as part of the
process. PAT]
From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab)
Subject: Re: What Can be Done When the LECs T1 Card Goes?
Organization: The Home Office
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 14:11:50 GMT
Dan Star <danstar@execpc.com> wrote:
> We had a site coneected via Frame relay go down in the morning due to
> a faulty T1 card provided by the Ameritech LEC. The Frame service
> itself is provided by MCIWorldCom. It took the LEC until 8 pm that
> night to fix it. Can either party be held responsible for this? How
> should a customer respond to this occurence?
Once a problem with a frame relay has a problem its the responsibility
of the carrier to get it fixed, at least that's my take on it. If its
tracked back to a local loop, then its the local carrier's problem to
fix.
And I'd hold *both* parties responsible for this, but Ameritech would
be my vote for the most likely target of complaint.
And I'd at least ask for one day's worth of out-of-service credit
since the services were unusable for one business day.
Terry E. Knab
News/Acting System Administrator
Nyx Public Access Unix
From: tknab@nyx.net (Terry Knab)
Subject: Re: In Never-Bell Land, Phone Service Is Way Above Average
Organization: The Home Office
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 14:31:59 GMT
Michael Sullivan <avogadro@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Richmond Telephone has 13 employees, serves 1,200 access lines in a 5
> square mile area, and charges $12.50/month for local service.
> Let's do the math. The company's annual access revenue is
> 1200*12.50*12, or $180,000. Thirteen employees at, say, $35,000 salary
> + $15,000 benefits is $650,000. Fixed and variable non-employee costs
> (depreciation, electricity, gasoline, etc.) add a few hundred thousand
> more, at the very least; estimate $200,000 to be conservative. Add in
> return on an investment of $2,000,000 or so -- another $200,000, say.
> The company's total revenue requirement for a year comes to at least
> $1,050,000. In other words, the low monthly line charges cover only 17%
> of the cost of providing the company's "way above average" service.
> Who pays the remaining 83%? WE DO. Companies like this are massively
> subsidized by those of us paying more per month for poorer service,
> through the universal service/high cost program, and through
> long-distance access charges. This company probably loads the vast
> majority of its costs onto long-distance users by gouging long-distance
> carriers for excessive carrier common line charges that are "justified"
> by the company's high costs -- costs resulting from providing
> gold-plated, overstaffed service.
Gold-plated? Overstaffed? That service sounds *far* better than most
of the RBOCs out there. We hear horror stories of how bad the Bells
are (and SBC is just about the worst of the bunch! They make US West
look good!)
Most of the RBOCs out there have done every trick in the book to make
themselves unaccessable to customers, and the service level
post-divesture has gone down the crapper.
Granted, we're subsidizing this company, but its my opinion that
they're doing it better than Bell is, service wise. As to the charge
they're trying to gouge people, the issue is how much is BA charging
*them* to access the services? Almost every rural company has higher
charges to access the network of a RBOC than if they were near a big
city. Its the RBOCs who are the reason that we have to subsidize
rural services. They *force* the local carriers to pay to access
their networks (particularly in the intra-lata market)
And try living in a fairly large city 50 miles outside of a major city
serviced by a RBOC and try getting DSL or ISDN. Its not gonna happen!
It sounds like these guys can at least offer that.
Another thing that's not being figured into the revenue stream are the
non-reg services such as Call Waiting, Voice Mail, etc ...
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:30:39 EST
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson>
Subject: Software For Faxes Needed
If anyone has software to send/receive faxes from PC, I would
like to use it. My computer has a modem capable of sending
and receiving faxes, but I have no software/drivers to operate
it. It can either be for Windows98 or DOS, with the former
preferred. Please get in touch with me. Thanks.
Patrick Townson
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 04:10:20 -0600
From: David Glynn <dglynn@mathware.com>
Subject: Re: Iridium
At 08:05 PM 03/11/2000 -0500, editor@telecom-digest.org wrote:
> What does "dismantling the satellite system" entail ? Will they send a
> shuttle equipped with laser guns to blast those satellites out of the
> sky ???? :-) :-)
Heads up. Oooooh, look at the pretty lights! ;)
They burn them into the atmosphere.
Really, those satellites are not that great a loss. Word around the
water coolers was that they skimped on shielding due to weight, and
the actual lifespan of those satellites was only expected to be five
years. The idea was that the launch costs would go down, so
replacements satellites that were actually capable of long term
survival in space would be sent up(cheaper) as replacements once the
original satellites proved the business model viable.
Of course, the business model apparently was hosed, so, expensive
light show.
P.S. Nice to have you back Pat. Didn't realize how much I missed the
digest until you came back. Keep diggin'!
David Glynn "Can the stock market value of all these
dglynn@mathware.com companies continue? I don't think it can,
I think it's a bubble"
-Tom Perkins 2/22/2000
Founder,
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:41:13 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: A Turning Point for E-Privacy
by Chris Oakes
3:00 a.m. 4.Mar.2000 PST
February 2000 should prove to be a month to remember for Internet
privacy advocates -- and DoubleClick investors.
It ended with the online ad firm announcing it would suspend plans to
tie names to now-anonymous user Web "cookies" until online privacy
standards were established.
With that, privacy advocates -- who insist it's still premature to
declare any sort of victory -- at least scored a momentous success.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,34734,00.html
End of TELECOM Digest V20 #21
Visit the Crazy Atheist Libertarian
Visit my atheist friends at Arizona Secular Humanists
Some strange but true news about the government
Some strange but real news about religion
Interesting, funny but otherwise useless news!