Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA18008; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:44:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 09:44:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608231344.JAA18008@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #433 TELECOM Digest Fri, 23 Aug 96 09:44:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 433 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NYNEX Service Miserable. It's Now Official, Again (Danny Burstein) Optus Targets Corporate/Government Customers With Solutions (P. Aithal) PCM-24 to PCM-30 Transition (Vincent Kuo) Pac*Bell: Speed Call 8 to Die (Robert McMillin) 64kbit Digital Phones? (Othman bin Hj. Ahmad) Cellular Phones: Analog v. Digital? (James Crawford Ralston) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (John R. Levine) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (Steve Rice) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (Joshua Rehman) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (Tom Watson) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (Bradley Dunn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:45:23 EDT From: danny burstein Subject: NYNEX Service Miserable. It's Now Official, Again Per NYS-PSC As per the Associated Press, NYS's Public Service Commission has released yet another scathing report on Nynex. (The PSC has a website at www.dps.state.ny.us, but the press release/report wasn't there today). To quote a few key phrases: ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Nynex's quality of service deteriorated on every level over the past year, according to a critical report Thursday from the state Public Service Commission. One PSC member complained that Nynex's record was the worst in the nation. The article continues quoting from the report. Normally I'd summarize it, but the piece is so definitive that any clipping of it wouldn't do it justice. So with the hope that the AP won't get too mad at me for posting the rest of it, here it is: The report, which measured the company's service quality from April through June, found the number of complaints against the company had increased, it missed more repair appointments, had higher numbers of 24-hour outages, and provided weaker service on every other level measured by the state agency compared with the same period last year. Nynex was also assessed $4.1 million in penalties for missing monthly and quarterly targets in its service quality, PSC officials said. The fines will be paid in the form of customer rebates. The critical report comes just as the PSC is reviewing whether to approve the planned alliance between Nynex and Bell Atlantic, in which Bell Atlantic would assume control of the telecommunications giant. It also comes on the heels of tough criticism from PSC Commissioner Eugene Zeltmann. Zeltman said he found it "exceedingly embarrassing ... that New York Telephone continues to provide the worst infrastructure-related basic service quality of any other telephone company across the nation." In the wake of the report, one consumer group called on the PSC to reject the Nynex-Bell Atlantic deal. "We think the commission should wield that power in order to get this rouge company in line," Robert Ceisler, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board in Albany, said Thursday. But Nynex spokesman Mark Marchand said the company has been working closely with the PSC to improve its service, and said the alliance with Bell Atlantic would not be a detriment to its performance. One Nynex executive chalked up the bad report to an increasingly complicated telecommunications industry. "It's important to note that the service quality difficulties discussed today don't involve basic elements of telephone service, such as completing calls," said Stanley Fink, a Nynex senior vice president of government and regulatory affairs. "At issue here is maintaining and improving services ranging from repair to installation in the face of tremendous growth," Fink, a former speaker of the New York state Assembly, said. The PSC has been monitoring Nynex's service for years, but has taken even a closer look at the company since last year, when it reached a deal that would freeze consumer rates over the next seven years while giving Nynex permission to pursue other telecommunication ventures. The plan included penalties if Nynex failed to live up to quality standards. "Ten months into the Performance Regulation Plan, we remain deeply disappointed with the company's actual service quality performance," the PSC report said. The commission noted that this was the third quarter in a row that the company was assessed the maximum penalty for missing its complaint rate targets for the state, New York City and the greater New York City area. "Clearly the company has made the decision that paying penalties and refunds is preferable to improving service quality," Ceisler said. However, Marchand said from the first quarter of this year to the second quarter, its service has actually improved. Officials credit the hiring of 1,500 more employees and the decision to spend an additional $110 million this year on top of $1.4 billion to boost its customer service. PSC spokesman David Flanagan would not directly comment on whether the report would effect the commission's decision on the Bell Atlantic deal, but said Nynex may face additional sanctions if it does not improve its service. "I think based on the comments made by the commission yesterday that the commission is keeping a very close eye on this service quality problem and if it continues it will possibly reassess their performance plan," he said. ---------------------- Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: 23 Aug 1996 11:34:08 +1000 From: Prabha Aithal Subject: Optus Targets Corporate/ Government Customers With New Solutions Press release possibly of interest to Digest readers: Optus targets corporate and government customers with new mobile solutions Optus is aiming to increase its share of the $4.3 billion corpoarate and government sector with the launch of two new mobile communications solutions for this market. The launch includes the new Optus Mobile BusinessNet Elite product which allows a company's fleet of mobile phones to be incorporated into its private phone network. This means employees can dial an abbreviated mobile extension number only (rather than full ten digit numbers) to reach a company mobile phone. Mobile phones can access an internal desk phone by dialling its extension number only. There are cost savings for intra-network calls. Optus Mobile Fleet Management means that Optus will help its customers manage their mobile phone fleets more effectively and cost efficiently. This includes: monthly reports tracking a number of aspects of mobile use, co-ordination of mobile phone purchases or leasing, car kit installation, phone repairs and provision of loan phones. The 'Mobility' package which is designed to provide communication solutions for organisations on the move, is made up of these two new products plus existing mobile products: Optus Mobile Fax and Data via GSM, the Optus MobileSat=AE service, Optus Calling Card and Optus Mobile = Digital. Mr John Filmer, Director of Optus' Corporate and Government Division, said: " Global trends show that businesses today are increasingly mobile. An estimated 69 per cent of Australian workers spend some time out of the office travelling each year. "We would estimate that the total mobile market for the Corporate and Government sector is worth around $520 million per annum in Australia. This equates to around 670,000 mobile phones - 30% of which are digital. The growth rate for GSM in Australia for this market is currently around 100 per cent. "The challenge is for businesses today to continue to improve productivity and cost saving while their employees spend more and more time out of the office. Optus is offering its 'Mobility' package to help meet the needs of these businesses. Whether their business takes them to Uluru or to Hong Kong -- Optus has a solution which keeps them in touch with the office." Optus defines the Corporate market as being those organisations which spend more than $250,000 per annum on telecommunications. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 13:36:33 -0800 From: vincent_kuo@stsl.siemens.com.tw (Vincent Kuo) Subject: PCM-24 to PCM-30 Transition The telephone transmission system in Taiwan is now PCM-24, but a transition from PCM-24 to PCM-30 is on the way. I discovered a problem that may cause in such a transition, which may occur someday in the U.S. or other countries that use PCM-24 system now. As you probably have known, a PCM-24 system uses mu-law to encode speech signal, and a PCM-30 system uses A-law. That means an analog signal encoded in one law and decoded in the other law will be slightly different, causing distortion, and probably noise. So an A-law/mu-law conversion must be performed. And international gateways, which link different transmission systems, are already doing such conversions. The problem arouses when a country is in transition. An old subscriber using a mu-law phone set, will have to buy a new one if the switch is upgraded, but a video phone can cost as much as several thousand dollars. If the subscriber is allowed to keep the mu-law phone set, then the switch must be able to do the conversion in a port-by-port, or at least, group-by-group base, since new subscribers are supposed to use an A-law phone set. But things get more com- plicated since some switch manufacturers do not provide such a capability. Their switch is designed for A-law or mu-law only, but not both. The service changeability of ISDN also requires the conversion to be desabled during a call when speech is changed to data communication, in which no conversion is allowed. But one of my colleague suggests another solution: use mu-law all the way, even in a E1 trunk (which uses A-law by convention). Then no conversion is needed, and only mu-law phone sets will be allowed. Well, that's simpler. But the long established convention that PCM-30 uses A-law and PCM-24 uses mu-law will be broken. I don't know whether this is allowed by ITU-T or whether this will cause some other imcompatibilities. The bottom line is: if you live in a mu-law country and want to by a digital phone set or video phone, be sure it is configurable between A-law and mu-law, and if you are a switch maker and want to make profit in such countries, be sure to your switch has the capability to handle A-law and mu-law simutane- ousely, or you have the power to ensure a less conventional, all-mu-law environment. Vincent Kuo Software Engineer Siemens Telecommunication Systems Ltd., Taiwan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:38:09 -0700 From: Robert McMillin Subject: Pac*Bell: Speed Call 8 to Die Reply-To: rlm@syseca-us.com I got a letter yesterday informing me that Pac*Bell wants to terminate its Speed Call 8 service offering in California. Existing installations will continue to work, but if the rule change get through the CPUC, new installations will not be available. The reason given is that demand for this feature is low, since there are many programmable phones out there. No doubt but this is true. Still, I like having a set of programmable phone numbers that work on all extensions in my house without having to reprogram all my phones individually when a number changes. As a related aside: does anyone else remember Speed Call 32? If it existed, when did Pac*Bell terminate it? Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: othman@oasys.pc.my (Othman bin Hj. Ahmad) Subject: 64kbit Digital Phones Question Date: 23 Aug 1996 09:22:59 GMT Is there anyone who knows about the 64kb digital phones that are used by NTT? Homepage: http://members.tripod.com/~othmanA/index.html ------------------------------ From: qralston+@pitt.edu (James Crawford Ralston) Subject: Cellular Phones: Analog v. Digital? Date: 22 Aug 1996 21:14:43 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh [CIS] Since I'm currently looking to upgrade my Motorola Micro-Tac DPC550 cell phone to something smaller and more intelligent, I figured that now would be a good time to investigate whether buying a dual analog/digital phone would be prudent. Unfortunately, I've had a difficult time tracking down information on the current (and anticipated future) state of analog and digital cellular systems. Briefly, this is what I've been able to determine. I'm not sure how much of it is accurate. Current analog systems in the U.S. are AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone System), N-AMPS (Narrow-Band AMPS), and possible others. They use a mechanism called FDMA (Frequency Division Multiple Access) to actually carry the cellular signals. FDMA involves taking a frequency range and partitioning it into channels; calls are then transmitted by negotiating a channel to be used exclusively for the duration of the call. Several digital systems use a mechanism called TDMA (Time-Division Multiple Access) to carry calls. TDMA was designed to be similar to FDMA, in order to be backwards compatible (to some extent) with existing analog equipment. It further divides the FDMA channels into 3 "time-based" partitions. Current digital systems which use TDMA are NADC (North American Digital Cellular; IS-54), the European GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications), and possibly others. AT&T Wireless Services currently uses NADC/TDMA. An apparent rival to TDMA is CDMA (Code-Division Multiple Access). Instead of using mutually-exclusive fixed frequency partitions, in CDMA, calls are transmitted across a wide (and shared) frequency range. Calls can be distinguished from each other by using some sort of encoding mechanism which creates unique code prefixes for each call being carried; calls can be decoded by using the code prefix to pick out the corresponding call. Bell Atlantic (and possibly others) plan to use some sort of CDMA-based digital system in the future (one of their reps told me he expected to see it take off in 12-18 months). I've also made the following observations: 1. The NADC/TDMA digital system never really seemed to catch on in the United States. It exists (obviously), but it's not widely available, and the AMPS/TDMA phones themselves are still fairly expensive (usually running more than most analog-only phones). 2. Out of the small number of analog/digital phones currently sold in the U.S., almost all of them are [N]AMPS/TDMA. Few (if any) CDMA phones seem to exist yet. 3. GSM doesn't look like it's going to happen in the U.S. anytime soon. 4. In the U.S., TDMA seems to be on the way out, and CDMA seems to be on the way in. Assuming that the information I've gathered and my observations are reasonably accurate, that would seem to leave three choices: 1. Buy an analog-only phone now, and wait and see what happens with the digital system(s). 2. Buy a [N]AMPS/TDMA phone now; gamble that enough TDMA systems will be around (either right now, or in the future) to make the purchase worthwhile. 3. Wait until [N]AMPS/CDMA phones become available and buy one of them; gamble that enough CDMA systems will be around (either right now, or in the future) to make the purchase worthwhile. Ok, now the fun part: does anyone have any comments on the above? Also, does anyone have analog or analog/digital phones they like well enough to recommend? I've been eyeing the Motorola Micro-Tac Elite and the Nokia 232 (both are about the size I'm looking for), but I'm not sure whether or not they're "user-friendly" or not. (One of the common definitions of "user-friendly" seems to be "assume the users are idiots and their brains will explode if you present them with anything other than pre-chewed information, bright colors, and shiny objects". Needless to say, I find this attitude offensive; I'd much rather have a device which gives me all the possible information it can (e.g., information about the particular cell my phone happens to be using), and assumes that I will ignore what I do not find useful and educate myself on what I do not understand.) Thanks, James Crawford Ralston \ qralston+@pitt.edu \ Systems and Networks [CIS] University of Pittsburgh \ 600 Epsilon Drive \ Pittsburgh PA 15238-2887 "Computer, you and I need to have a little talk." - O'Brien, ST:DS9 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 00:24 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > I am performing some research and am interested in hearing from anyone > with an interesting theory of why Internet access is so slow? It's largely because our expectations are going up. If you compare the performance of the net now in throughput bytes per second, packets dropped, etc., I believe you'll find that the Net's working at least as well as it ever did. On the other hand, a year or two ago nobody was optimistic enough to expect that you could click on an icon and a 400K JPEG would instantly appear from a server 10,000 km away. If you're looking for a lower level question of why a particular connection is slower than you'd like, you'll probably find that the main problem is congestion at gateway between networks and on expensive links across oceans, along with some problems routing everything correctly. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof ------------------------------ From: Steve Rice Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 10:10:20 -0500 In TELECOM Digest V16 #429 Pat said: > the net is just getting a lot more traffic than it used to get. That is very true. MFS Communications runs some of the larger NAPS in the US. On their Web site, http://www.mfst.com/MAE/ they provide traffic data for the devices at their NAPS. MAE East is the busiest, and in the past six months, traffic has doubled to around 450 Mbs at peak times during the day. This traffic is only for a single device (a DEC Gigaswitch). Bob Metcalf [sp] wrote a few articles in {Info World} last December that predicted the collapse of the Internet. His major premise was that as a collection of independent networks, there is not much incentive to take responsibility for "quality of service" issues. It is easy for an ISP to blame their problems on other ISPs, telcos, etc. In addition to increased traffic, the number of connected networks has increased substantially. Routers on the Internet are taxed to extreme levels as they are attempting to deal with 40,000 + routes. With the number of networks increasing, the number of devices is also increasing. Therefore the potential for a device failure on the backbone increases. When a major router or link drops, traffic is re-routed, pushing links that are almost at capacity over the edge. In the same Digest jagosta@interaccess.com (John Agosta) said: > It's because of all the JERKS out there sending electronic junk mail > to thousands of users trying to sell US get rich quick schemes, > investments, cures for baldness, and other magic potions. A manager for a major ISP recently told me that some networks have packet loss as high as 40%! These packets are usually sent again by the application, adding to the traffic burden on network. Don't blame SPAM, junk mail and other text for the congestion. A single Web page can contain as much data (in bytes) as 20 - 30 email messages. Through applications like Real Audio, Internet Telephony, and other real time services into this mix, and you have a high latency, low throughput mess. If you really want to blame an individual or organization, blame Netscape and Microsoft for their browser wars. Every time one of them adds a new feature or application to their browser, the size of the average Web page grows. Steve ------------------------------ From: joshua@uci.edu (Joshua Rehman) Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 19:34:28 GMT Organization: Univeristy of California, Irvine I think it is wrong to give a simplistic answer to this question. THe right question to ask is "Why is my connection to this particular IP address so slow?" Then an answer can be given. If you choose to take a survey of all IP addresses that you might choose to access, I imagine that connect speeds follow a normal distribution (probably flattened out a bit) where some connect speeds are limited to your immediate available bandwidth (and very "fast") while others are slow, and limited to "their" bandwidth. If someone is running a Web page off their Linux system with a 2400 baud modem, your not going to get 10Mb/s access to that page. Of course, the problem is even worse if the guy's site is popular. There is a direct analogy to a freeway system. Sometimes they are big enough for traffic, sometimes they are not. There is a daily cycle (rush hours) and a larger epicycle fueled by economic growth. Then there are individual events, such as an Angels game or a big anniversery sale at Guitar Center (which they have seemingly every week) which will cause congestion in the immediate vicinty. This makes getting to those individual localities difficult, but there is also "collateral congestion", which interferes with the commute of someone not interested in baseball or guitars. As the tempo of usage increases, freeways are widened, and more freeways are added. Businesses sponsor new surface streets. And it happens on a case by case basis. Like it will for the Internet. Joshua Rehman, University of California at Irvine Internet Address: joshua@uci.edu ------------------------------ From: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:26:57 -0700 Organization: The 3DO Corporation In article , Mark Friedman <71534.332@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > I am performing some research and am interested in hearing from anyone > with an interesting theory of why Internet access is so slow? > For instance, > Is it the data com backbone, the protocol, the routers, the > Servers, or the browsers? It is all of the above, and the needs of the users for capacity. Yes, its called the "information superhighway" (a term I dislike), and one might think of it as a highway: It has a finite number of "lanes" and lots of "cars" that want to go lots of "places". Given that there are few "lanes" (backbone capacity), many "cars" (browsers) and many "places" (servers), one can see why it is "slow". This does not mention the fact that some of the "lanes" (backbone capacity) converge in really tied up "interchanges" (routers). Be thankful. You could be accessing your data with 300 bps modems which were "hi speed" 25 years ago. Then you might think that the current speed things happen is "warp" speed. Tom Watson tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) ------------------------------ From: Bradley Dunn Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Date: 23 Aug 1996 12:35:25 GMT Organization: Harbor Communications Robert McMillin was incorrect. The Chicago NAP is also ATM-based. As for why the Internet is "slow", asking fifty people will get you fifty different answers. In a lot of cases it is the hosts, for example a busy web server is simply consuming all of its RAM and CPU, therefore serving pages at a reduced rate. The reason a lot of end users think the Internet is slow is because of their own equipment, though. They may have a computer that only has 4 or 8 MB of RAM, which is really insufficient for running the latest and greatest browsers. Most end users are also using a 14.4 or 28.8 Kbps modem for their access. This "pipe" from the end user to the ISP is usually the smallest pipe bandwidth-wise. As for the exchange points, they have their problems from time to time, but I really do not see them as a major bottleneck. Some providers have circuits running into exchange points that are running near capacity, but that type of problem really cannot be blamed on the exchange points themselves. The bottom line is that the Internet is a network of networks. Each individual network that a user traverses during his/her Internet experience will have a different level of available bandwidth and a different commitment to quality of service. Therefore it is often difficult to diagnose exactly where a problem exists. It is an evolving medium. Bradley Dunn Harbor Communications ------------------------------ 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: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #433 ******************************