Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA02848; Sun, 5 Feb 89 00:12:08 EST Message-Id: <8902050512.AA02848@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89 0:03:11 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #47 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Feb 89 0:03:11 EST Volume 9 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: FCC Report: Cable/Telco competition, Gateway trials AT&T Rate Cap Decision Postponed Re: Nuisance phone calls Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 11:46:40 PST From: harvard!ames!well!rh (Robert Horvitz) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: FCC Report: Cable/Telco competition, Gateway trials FCC Commissioner Patricia Diaz-Dennis charmed about 100 Washington lawyers, reporters, trade association representatives and consumer activists at a "brown bag lunch" Thursday (2 Feb) as she argued that the American public would benefit from competition between cable-TV and telephone companies in the development of broadband services. She may not have changed many minds, though, because fundamental questions about how such competition would be structured were left unanswered. At least initially, "video services are the most promising area of competition" between cable and telcos, the Commissioner asserted. "For consumers, the promised land would be video on demand" - no need to rent tapes or wait for the network to schedule a particular program. One-way broadband delivery coupled with 2-way narrowband signalling thus might be the way such systems would start off. But Ms. Diaz-Dennis wouldn't predict the kinds of services that might prove popular later on. The FCC should encourage cable systems to experiment with optical fiber, she said, to start validating the predictions made by the industry in numerous filings at the Commission. On the other hand, telcos shouldn't be allowed to enter the broadband service field simply by buying existing cable systems, she cautioned. She favors requiring telcos to build new systems from scratch. She also felt that telcos entering the broadband field should be required to operate as common carriers, and to the extent that broadband services are unregulated, the system costs should not be added to the phone system rate-base. During the question period following her presentation, Gene Kimmelman, head of the Consumer Federation of America, asked if cable TV companies offering competing broadband services would likewise have to act as common carriers. Ms. Diaz-Dennis said she'd reached no conclusion on that yet, but recognized it would be a big change in the way cable systems operate. Would prices for broadband services be regulated or set by competition? Would they be allowed to subsidize - or be subsidized by - other communications services? Would channels have to be set aside for community organizations and free public access, as most cable franchises now require? What about the impact on over-the-air broadcasting and FCC spectrum allocation decisions generally? These questions were addressed - inconclusively. They are, of course, difficult ones, with no clear consensus yet on the proper answers. We'll just have to wait for the results of the Commission's current inquiry on telco entry into the field of cable. In other FCC news, NYNEX has petitioned for a ruling on whether the company's proposed gateway, "INFO-LOOK," can be considered as a "basic service." NYNEX had listed it as such in its Open Network Architecture plan last winter, and recently tested it successfully in Vermont. The NYNEX petition, filed on 17 January 1989, argues that INFO-LOOK is different from other proposed gateways, (which are generally considered "enhanced" rather than "basic" services), and is more analogous to existing "basic" network services such as directory assistance. Should the Commission not rule on this issue, NYNEX asks permission to conduct a 3-year trial of its "basic gateway" anyway. Finally, the Commission approved a waiver request by Southwestern Bell, to allow market trials of enhanced voice and data gateway services in Houston, Texas for approximately one year starting 1 March 89. The Commission added that other Bell regionals can conduct similar trials in their service areas if they meet these conditions: the trial lasts less than 8 months; costs are allocated according to the approved Cost Allocation Manuals; end users must be informed that prices and services available during the trial may not be available later on; competing enhanced service providers (ESPs) must receive equal access at equivalent prices for all basic services used in the trial; ESPs are informed of the trial's start at least 90 days in advance; and CPNI and network disclosure rules must be observed. The Bell companies must also notify the Commission 90 days before commencing a trial, describing the service and how the above conditions will be met. For more information, see "Memorandum Opinion and Order," CC Docket No. 88-616, released 30 January 1989. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 23:35:44 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: AT&T Rate Cap Decision Postponed A decision by the Federal Communications Commission on a rate-cap method of pricing for AT&T long distance services had been scheduled for last week, but after getting pressured by a few congressmen, Commissioner Dennis R. Fitzpatrick has decided to defer action on the proposed changes for at least two months. Since the early 1960's, the government has allowed AT&T a certain profit beyond its costs. The FCC had proposed replacing this 'rate of return' regulation with one which would place absolute ceilings on the cost of calls via AT&T. The new plan would have also been used by the seven Bell companies as well. Under the new plan, AT&T and the Bells would have been allowed to raise or lower their rates at will. Raises would have been limited to an amount 3 percent less than annual inflation. In return, the companies would have been allowed to keep any internal cost-cutting as profit. The FCC believes that this plan will encourage greater efficiency and innovation in the telephone industry. Other carriers besides AT&T/Bell would be invited to set their rates by the same formula, and the Commission believes that if all the carriers opted for this method, the savings to the customers would be about $1.6 billion over four years. AT&T had been strongly hoping for a decision one way or the other this past week. In a press release, they expressed their disappointment and frustration at Dennis Patrick's latest decision to wait at least until March before ruling. Patrick admitted earlier this week he had been approached by 'some' members of Congress and strongly urged to defer any decision on changes. Now why do you suppose 'some' members of Congress would feel so strongly against the plan? Perhaps some of you can tell me. Sign me a curious young whippersnapper, Patrick Townson ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) Subject: Re: Nuisance phone calls Date: 31 Jan 89 16:16:06 GMT In article , glee@cognos.uucp (Godfrey Lee) writes: > >>I believe the time has come to do something about nuisance phone calls. > >I found after I installed an answering machine, that junk callers > >usually hang up when they realize they got an answering > >machine. > > Problem is that there are more and more automated phone solicitations. With > these you don't get the satisfaction of hanging up on them, and if you have > an answering machine, you get junk filling up your tape! > > I do sense some consumer rebellion on this though, I got a few of them about > a year ago, but lately have gotten none, what is the situation in the rest > of Canada and in the U.S.? I too think it's time to do something about unsolicited calls from both machines and humans. I firmly believe that "blind calls" should be prohibited. How about a statute that would prohibit anyone from using the phone to solicit business, contributions, or any other support from anyone unless the person or organization being called was either a) presently doing business with the caller or b) had shown positive interest in the caller's organization within the last six months. I know that this is really very wishfull thinking, but wouldn't it be nice? Presently I respond to automated solicitations in one of two ways. 1) Since most of the machines use a VOX to control the recording of the victim's responses, I let them listen to a local radio talk show until their system times out. 2) I leave EXTREMLY obscene messages for whoever gets to transcribe the victim's responses for followup. Such messages usually suggest unique things that they might attempt with their automated equipment. I've even thought about renting some of this equipment and having it call all the state legislators' work and home numbers repetitively until they get the message. Any other ideas? -- _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 ------------------------------ To: rutgers!comp-dcom-telecom@cucard.med.columbia.edu From: eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 4 Feb 89 05:38:42 GMT Numerous messages have been posted to TELECOM about what happens when by coincidence misprinted, mis-announced or common dialing errors produce telephone numbers that arrive at some undeserving victim's home instead. One thing I didn't see posted was what happens when someone calls a BBS and say "Hey, man, great new board at 123-4567. Call it now!" and mistypes a few digits in the process. Whoever lives at the wrong number gets a mountain of modem calls, usually at 3 AM or whenever the BBS junkies are awake. Alas, there is a malicious variation of this, where someone posts a number and claims it is a new BBS when it is really the home phone of someone they want to harass. This happened in New York several years ago by a fellow nicknamed "the wimp" who had a hobby of trying to crash BBS's and harass sysops. The most diabolical twist was a message he posted one day under a false name that said "New hacking/phreaking bbs! Call 123-4567. First twenty callers get a working CompuServe account". The number posted was the home phone of a sysop this guy didn't like. Responsible sysops do not let messages from unknowns get posted without validation, and usually call the proposed number to see if it is really a bbs before allowing it to be visible to the users, but not all bbs's are so responsible. -- Ed Ravin | cucard!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing (BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| eravin@dasys1.UUCP | to waste-- boycott TV!" --------------------------+----------------------+----------------------------- Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************