Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA19446; Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:44:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 16:44:02 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608272044.QAA19446@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #445 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Aug 96 16:44:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 445 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Capacity and Flat Rate (Tad Cook) Re: SW Bell Ponders Flat Fee Long Distance (Brad Cooley) Re: SW Bell Ponders Flat Fee Long Distance (Dave Close) Re: BellSouth Mobility DCS Continues Launch of Wireless Service (Mike Fox) Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? (Sam Spens Clason) Re: A Short History of 911 Service (Brian Purcell) Re: Cable Companies (Scott Nelson) Re: Atlanta 911 and COCOTs: The Bomb Call Transcript (John B. Hines) Re: Effects of DS1 Tip/Ring Reversal? (Jack Adams) Correction: Microsoft and the Apple II (Derek Peschel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Re: Capacity and Flat Rate Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:08:08 PDT Eric_Florack@mc.xerox.com (Florack,Eric) wrote: >> This is where the common sense starts to lead you astray. Capital >> investment is not expense. It doesn't get paid off in less than a >> year. You must earn on the investment, you must place sufficient >> earnings in depreciation to replace the investment when it is >> obsolete, and you need to earn a contribution to net revenue. The >> modems that are installed are not $140 USR Sportster modems either. >> They are industrial grade design intended for 24x7 operation for >> decades with zero downtime -- and they are much more expensive. > Fine. You're still talking about a massive amount of cash that will > easily meet those requirements. Ah, but you're arguing that *everyone* who uses the network pay for this "massive amount of cash," rather than the folks that are driving the network away from the old provisioning model. >> This is yet another case where common sense will lead one astray. You >> are speaking as if the telecommunications market is a zero sum game. > It is when the government is regulating it ... particularly the more > liberal among us who tend to view *everything* financial as a zero sum > game. Oh, you mean its those *darn liberals* who want to assign the increased costs to the high volume users, rather than spread them around to everyone! Geeze, I thought you'd be blaming liberals if you were arguing in favor of pay-as-you-go for increased usage! >> It is not. While the telco's will certainly see some areas where they >> lose market share they will also find other areas where they will pick >> up market share. And this does not even factor in the growth >> anticipated from a competitive market. > The traditional telcos will see little if any growth, if any, until > they are able to undercut a world-acecss system, time unlimited, for > $20/mo. There are a few who are offering ISP services for that kind > of money; Frontier is one such. But we're talking about the pricing of the local loop here ... the last mile that the ISPs depend on to get to their customers! > Isn't that what the argument about capacity always ends up getting to? > Capacity at the LEC? Yes! See above. >> The point of discussion is cost allocation. If a local network between >> two central offices need 100 trunks (using typical assumptions for >> voice traffic) and growth in long holding time data calls necessitates >> an increase in the number of trunks to say, 200, then why should the >> users making the long holding time data calls not pay for the >> additional infrastructure they cause to be placed? Why should the >> cost of this infrastructure be placed on those only making voice >> calls? > This is an odd argument; Wasn't so long ago we heard from the AT&T folks > that we should be subsidizing the long distance services by way of the > local bills. When it meant that the consumer was going to pay more, this > was supposedly a valid argument. Now suddenly, because the telco isn't > being allowed to raise prices, it's suddenly not a valid argument. > Hmmmm. I think there is some serious confusion here. It was the other way around. AT&T long distance subsidized local service, not the reverse. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ From: bcool@dtc.net (Brad Cooley) Subject: Re: SW Bell Ponders Flat Fee Long Distance Date: 26 Aug 1996 21:30:49 GMT Organization: Denver Internet Access Corp. Reply-To: bcool@dtc.net In message - Sat, 24 Aug 1996 17:12:40 PDT Tad Cook quotes SW Bell: > Aug. 24--When Southwestern Bell gets into the long-distance business, > it might offer an "all-you-can-eat," flat-fee service as an option to > its customers. > Southwestern Bell, which analysts consider to the most financially > healthy local phone company, "has the strength to drive this kind of > pricing in their territory," he said. And they will be even stronger financially if the get the $11 per residential line rate increase that the want in Kansas. Not to mention the high cost of ISDN. Brad Cooley (bcool@dtc.net) ------------------------------ From: dhclose@alumnae.caltech.edu (Dave Close) Subject: Re: SW Bell Ponders Flat Fee Long Distance Date: 27 Aug 1996 06:11:08 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Tad Cook quotes SW Bell: > Aug. 24--When Southwestern Bell gets into the long-distance business, > it might offer an "all-you-can-eat," flat-fee service as an option to > its customers. So, all you 1+-means-toll advocates: How does a customer dial one of these calls? If he has two phone lines, one with with flat-rate service and one without, does he use a different dialing rule for each line? It's not a theoretical question. As the news article makes clear, SW Bell offers flat-rate plans today in some areas like Houston. If a Houston "fringe" customer has two lines, one with the $3 option and one without, does he have to pretend that long calls are toll on both lines? Based on my knowlege of what SWB does in DFW, they probably make him dial differently. And that is supposed to be "friendly"? Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, he would 'pretend' that there was a toll charge for the calls on both lines because in fact there is such a charge. The fact that on one line he pays call by call and on the other line he pays some extra premium amount monthly for the privilege of not having to pay call by call on the other line does not negate the fact that the calls he is placing do cost extra. If he did not make any calls dialing 1+ then he would not need to pay extra on his bill each month, regardless of how the 'extra' is billed. If the subscriber does not call New York or Chicago or some point outside his local calling area then however telco choses to rate and bill for the calls -- be it call by call by call; a certain fee for 'flat rate all you can eat' or whatever -- then he does not have to pay that extra fee. Your argument reminds me of when outgoing WATS was very prevalent years ago. Should the subscriber have not had to dial '1' since there was no specific item on the phine bill showing how many pennies that particular call cost him? The fact remained that if he did not make calls starting with '1' then he would not need WATS. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Fox Date: 27 Aug 1996 08:12:52 GMT Subject: Re: BellSouth Mobility DCS Coontinues Launch of Wireless Service > From: BellSouth > Subject: BELLSOUTH MOBILITY DCS CONTINUES LAUNCH > OF REVOLUTIONARY WIRELESS SERVICE [press release deleted] I went out and bought this service in Raleigh on the first day it became available two weeks ago. I bought a high-end Nokia phone and the personal plan (60 free minutes, .30 a minute above that). Before this I had Tele-Go, which is a Cellular One service that attempts to emulate PCS. I also signed up for Tele-Go on the first day it was available. Most of the BellSouth DCS employees in the store I bought my phone at were former Cellular One employees, which tells me where they think the future is. Today I will be exchanging my Nokia phone for a new one -- the speaker shorted out after only two weeks of use. This is not encouraging, but I will get a new Nokia phone and if it doesn't make it I'll switch to another phone. For those who are familiar with Tele-Go, I have worked up this comparison of the two services. Tele-Go BellSouth DCS =================== =================== Initial Cost: $30 (activation)(+) $215 (buy phone + activation) Monthly Cost Use no minutes: $19.95 $26.95 Use 30 minutes: $27.45 $26.95 Use 60 minutes: $34.95 $26.95 Use 90 minutes: $42.45 $35.95 Per-minute fee: $.25 (starting $.30 (after 60 mins) with first min) Simple voicemail $4.95 included Detail billing: free(+) $1.95 Paging: not available included Receive text messages: not available included Send text messages: not available $2.95 Contract: 1 year none(+) Call Forwarding: included included Charged airtime for fwded calls? no(+) yes (1st minute free) Caller ID: not available free(+) Sends Caller ID: no yes(+) (can be blocked) Call Waiting: not available free First minute of incoming calls $.25 free (+) Free minutes for cust. referral or complaint: 60 (*)(+) none Pick your own long dist? yes not yet Phone: low-end OKI high-end Nokia Other phones available: no yes (cheaper ones) Terms: rental included in purchase access charge Durability very durable(*) delicate(*) Cordless-at-home feature: yes(+) no Memory locations: 50 135 (SIM + phone) Alphanumeric memory locs: upper case only, mixed case, 20 char names 10 char names Accessories included: extra battery, trickle charger desktop charger Call timer: live(+) last call time and total time stored, no live timing Signal penetration of buildings: fair(*) good(*) Sound quality: OK(*) good(*) Roaming: nationwide,but the none reliability is spotty -- you get rolled over to the Cellular Express pirates a lot (*) Local service area: two-county area all of NC, SC, and eastern TN(+) (*) based on my observation (+) indicates that I consider this to be a big advantage ------------------------------ From: sam@nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason) Subject: Re: Why Not Eight-Digit USA Numbers? Date: 26 Aug 96 21:23:29 GMT In Charles Buckley writes: > Tony Harminc wrote: >> mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox) wrote: >>> Er, no. Psychologists confirm that eight digits is the >>> maximum number of digits that can be reliably remembered >>> and dialled by the average user. Introduction of >>> ten-digit numbers (which is effectively what the result of >>> splitting an Wz1 NPA means) will lead to greater incidence >>> of misdialling. >> Citation, please! I've dealt with eight-digit numbers in >> Paris, and I have great trouble remembering them long >> enough to copy from one place to another. But I have >> little or no trouble with NANP ten-digit numbers. I'm sure >> this is because I mentally partition the area code from the >> easy-to-remember seven-digit number. In Paris, I mentally >> pull the leading digit (usually 4) off the front, and then >> remember (say) 42 34 56 78 as 4 234-5678. Much much easier >> for my brain to deal with. > Hmm. I've been busy, and haven't had time to read this group > for a while. I look in just now, and Gee! I remember a > discussion like this from seven years ago. Me too. > The neat thing about the French phone numbering scheme is > that it has a fundamental understanding of this principle > built in from the beginning. The chunks there are groups of > two digits, and this is uniform throughout. Not only are > subscriber numbers four groups of two, but emergency codes, > extra-area-code prefixes, even the shortened numbers that one > uses to access the to international trunk lines, the Minitel > services, everything is coded in digits grouped by two's. Like 112?! Numbers are read out differently in different languages. In Swedish the number 12 34 56 78 is read twelve thirtyfour etc. That is why it is nicer to write it that way rather than 1234 4567. The number 911-1234 would in Mexico be spelled and pronounciated 9-11-12-34. What you are used to does of course matter a great deal. I remember when most Stockholm numbers where prefixed by a 6 ten years ago. At the time those numbers looked very funny, but we all got used to it. Many strange things have happened with the Stockholm numbers. It's all in http://www.nada.kth.se/~sam/Telecom sam@nada.kth.se, +46 701234567 ------------------------------ From: bpurcell@centuryinter.net (Brian Purcell) Subject: Re: A Short History of 911 Service Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 22:03:44 GMT Organization: Wide-Lite > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But if there is no rhyme nor reason > to *how* the addresses get assigned, then what possible difference > could it make? At least in cities and towns, addresses are calcu- > lated based on the number of blocks in a mile and the number of > blocks from some central starting point, etc. What do you > do in some rural area where the houses are a half-mile apart? On > what arbitrary basis are numbers assigned on the newly made-up > 'street' name? Sorry it took so long to get back to this, but I wanted to get the answer straight from the local authority on this (you know how long it takes someone in government to call you back, unless, of course, you're being audited! :-) ) In rural Hays County, Texas, here is the standards: Road names are based upon whatever the majority of people in the area (usually all of the people in the area) call it already. If there is both a County Road number and a name (i.e. CR123 is also called Squirrel Road), then the one most people use is used as the "official" name, although the computers are programmed to back-reference the other name to the "official" name, just in case someone gives it as a location in an emergency. For the most part, it seems names are used more than numbers. As for "block" numbering, if there are several cross-streets along a road segment, than block numbering is split at those roads. Otherwise, blocks are divided at 1/4 mile intervals. Numbering is estimated from north-south and east-west axises. Houses are numbered based on approximate lot frontages of 100 feet per lot. These numbers, once assigned, are required to be posted by the home/business and are also entered into the county map books, ArcInfo mapping systems, and E911 computers. Brian Purcell bpurcell@centuryinter.net ------------------------------ Date: 26 Aug 96 18:12:25 EDT From: Scott Nelson <73773.2220@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Cable Companies Let me add to posts from Ed Ellers and Christopher Wolf on this topic: Most likely, the reason your cable service is not as extensive as in the single family home areas is because you are being serviced by what the "industry" calls a SMATV operator. SMATV stands for small multiple antenna television. SMATV's can be the apartment property owners themselves or a third part contracted to come in and provide TV -- often in conjunction with local telephone, long distance, and home security. The general term for this is shared tenant services (STS), and major third party players are a company called Shared Tenant Services and OpTel. Since Chris is in Texas, this is most likely your situation since this state has been very proactive on the part of this niche business. SMATV's have a number of restrictions: they can't cross or use city easements to connect multiple systems (or they would have to be certified as a CATV franchise), they typically aren't large enough to garner good discounts on programming, and they can't originate their own programming. However, they can work deals with private property owners to provide their service and share the profits with those owners. They can also restrict the renters from getting other service via outside antennas or other means because, after all, it is the owners' property -- not the renters'. Unfortunately for the cable operators, they have lost a lot of business to SMATV operations. Unfortunately for the renters, their service is often more expensive and less extensive than the surrounding franchised CATV operators. The bright side (and I'm sure that many of you might argue whether this is bright ) is that many cable operators have found renewed hope in attacking the SMATV blight. In the past, they just couldn't compete with the SMATV's because their level of service and number of channels caused them to be too pricey for the apartment owners -- and they couldn't negotiate a kick back deal with them like the SMATVs were. (Typically, they were locked into a rate set by the terms of their franchise with the city.) Now, however, they have a couple other cards to play -- namely telephone service, and maybe throw high speed internet access and home security into the mix. Viola! They have a highly competitive "package" with a larger programming mix at a lower rate for the renters, and more leverage on pricing to enable substantial profit sharing with the owners. Scott Nelson Director of Sales ANTEC - Digital Systems Division 73773.2220@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: John B. Hines Subject: Re: Atlanta 911 and COCOTs: The Bomb Call Transcript Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 14:33:50 -0700 Howard Pierpont wrote: > We head out and can't find anything on the west end. FD: Where did the > call originate? Dispatch: 7 Rock Ave. > BTW -- This is the far east end of Rock Ave. > We head to the location and look for the caller to try and determine > where the problem really is. Often we do find the caller who is able > to give better/more complete info. > If we can't find anyone at the 911 ID location we will then fan out to > try and find the incident. > My point was that if the Dispatch had moved some forces to the > location of the phone, I bet someone would have known where Centennial > Park was without needing an physical address. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing that plagued the Chicago Fire > Department under the old system used here for a half-century of calls > to their dispatch number (FIre-7-1313) was the large number of 'sound- > alike' addresses in the city. Person would call the Fire Department > hysterically and say 'there is a fire at 1234 Damen Avenue' (most > likely their own house) then disconnect in order to run off to safety. > Before the dispatcher could inquire "do you mean 1234 *North* Damen > Avenue or 1234 *South* Damen Avenue?", the party would be off the line. > Of course this meant that two companies had to respond; one to each > address several miles apart. One got a good call; the other had a > false alarm. Or if it was a malicious prank call to start with, then > both companies had a false alarm. PAT] Another problem is the use of "vanity" addresses, like 2 Prudential Plaza, in Chicago, instead of 180 North Stetson, which is 2 Pru's actual street address. I remember this being blamed for the delay in the response to a high rise fire, in which a woman died. She called in the "vanity" address, which was not in the fire departments directory. ------------------------------ From: Jack Adams Subject: Re: Effects of DS1 Tip/Ring Reversal? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:16:27 -0400 Organization: AT&T Laboratories Reply-To: jacka@ffast.ffast.att.com Scott Nelson wrote: > I just finished reviewing an installation of a SONET system, and > noticed that the Tip and Ring leads to the DSX panel were > backwards. However, the circuit still worked, and we recorded no > errors over a one hour period. I know that reversing tip and ring on > voice circuits can cause problems -- especially with ringing, but what > happens when you reverse the tip and ring leads on a DS1 signal? > Anything? > P.S. I do not care for a discussion of T/R reversals on POTS or analog > VF lines, just DS1 (T1). Since DS1 is actually encoded electrically by alternating bipolar (+/- voltage)pulses, there is no such thing as a polarity reversal on this circuit. Jack Adams|AT&T Labs|jacka@ffast.ffast.att.com|908.870.7051[voice] "Any government that promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul" ...George Bernard Shaw. ------------------------------ From: dpeschel@u.washington.edu (Derek Peschel) Subject: Correction: Microsoft and the Apple II Date: 27 Aug 1996 00:29:30 GMT Organization: University of Washington, Seattle In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Inc. model C-1-P, with 4K of RAM which I got in 1977. It used > Microsoft BASIC as did the Apple ][+, only the Apple version of > Microsoft's BASIC and DOS was called 'Applesoft'. The OSI C-1-P came ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Actually, BASIC and DOS on the Apple are unrelated. Microsoft DID write the Applesoft version of BASIC. But only Apple wrote the DOS. You could use Applesoft without a disk drive (either by loading it from cassette or from ROM) and you could have a disk drive but not Applesoft (instead using Apple's own BASIC which came before Applesoft). It's barely possible that Microsoft borrowed the term "DOS" from Apple and used it to name MS-DOS, but I doubt it. IBM had its own DOS ten years before Apple and Microsoft came along. Derek [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, you are correct and I stand corrected. DOS and BASIC had (still have) nothing to do with each other. In fact on the OSI you loaded the BASIC into RAM each time you turned on the computer by playing a tape from a little cassette player which you plugged into the side of the computer. There were no disk drives, etc on the OSI. If you wanted to save a program you saved it back out to the tape on the cassette player. No disk and therefore no isk perating ystem. PAT] ------------------------------ 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 #445 ******************************