Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA15714; Thu, 29 Aug 1996 17:38:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 17:38:12 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199608292138.RAA15714@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #449 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 Aug 96 17:38:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 449 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Help! Small Business Overcharged $6600 by BellSouth and Cherry (R. Strobel) The Path a Roaming Call Takes (Yigal Arens) Questionnaire: Please Help (Alex Balfour) Interesting Patent Question (John M. Elliott) Is Childrens' Programming Now Required? (The Colligan Group) Needed: 1A2 CX 110 Intercom (Michael Muderick) Wanted: Panasonic Digital Telephone Switch (Will Estes) 48 V PC Power Supply (Jeff Regan) Speed-Dial 8 *and* 30 (Mark J. Cuccia) Employment Opportunity: AT&T Wireless Services (kkinared@wafirm.com) Re: Confusing Cellular Promotions (Larry Schwarcz) Re: WTB: A Wireless Phone Network (10,000 + Numbers) (Allan Rubin) Re: Flip Flap at Motorola (mexitech@netcom.com) Re: Flip Flap at Motorola (Curtis Wheeler) Re: Wireless Satellite Communication - A Challenge (David Wigglesworth) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (Christian Weisgerber) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (Neil Harris) Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? (Poll Dubh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: Help! Small Business Overcharged $6600 by BellSouth and Cherry Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 09:25:12 GMT Organization: InfoTime My business has several telephone accounts with the local phone company, BellSouth. Last fall I changed long distance companies to Cherry Communications and had all my lines, on all the accounts switched to the new carrier. In March I added two phone lines to one of the accounts. When I placed the order I told the BellSouth rep that I wanted to use Cherry Communications as my carrier for the new lines, since Cherry was the company providing long distance for the existing lines on that BellSouth bill. (I should also point out that I have a combination of residential and business accounts with BellSouth, and these new lines were on a residential account.) I assumed that the calls would arrive on my separate long distance bill with all of my calls. What a shock I received when I got a BellSouth bill for $8,000! The normal BellSouth bill should have been about $100 for the local line charges. If the calls had been billed as I had expected, using Cherry through my business account, they would have cost about $1,400. The new lines had the same PIC code (0270) as the originals, so they went through the Cherry (and Wiltel) networks. The calls for the new lines were billed on my local phone bill through USBI, while the calls for the original lines were billed on my separate Cherry bill as usual. I believe that USBI, Cherry and Wiltel are all almost one in the same - i.e. Wiltel provides some or all of the network services to Cherry and/or USBI. What I learned was that in addition to telling BellSouth that I wanted to use the same carrier for my new lines, I also had to send a signed letter to Cherry notifying them that I wanted to put the new lines on their service. The Cherry rep initially indicated that they may be able to re-rate the calls to correct the problem. This means that I would pay $.1099 for a one-minute call anytime of day, in six second increments with no minimum call length; instead of $.48 for a one minute call at 1:00 AM! Cherry now says that they won't re-rate the calls. BellSouth says I have to pay the full amount or they'll disconnect my service. I am willing to pay what I was expecting to pay, not five times that amount. Ultimately I need to convince Cherry to negotiate to the proper billing amount, but so far they've not been too receptive. My main question is this: Other than threatening to switch all my services to another carrier, which I don't think would bother them too much, what leverage can I bring to bear in the negotiations? Public Utilities Commision? FCC? State Attorney General? My attorney? BellSouth people? Cherry people? I feel like David against Goliath. I welcome any comments or suggestions on how to resolve this problem. Thanks in advance, Rick Strobel InfoTime Fax Communications 502-426-4279 502-426-3721 fax rstrobel@infotime.com http://www.infotime.com ------------------------------ From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) Subject: The Path a Roaming Call Takes Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:42:20 -0700 Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute I live in Los Angeles and have a contract with a local cellular service provider. When I'm in San Francisco and a friend of mine in San Francisco calls me on my cell phone, charges accumulate as follows: - My friend pays long distance charges to my cellular number in LA; - I pay my long distance provider for transmitting the call from LA to San Francisco; - I pay the roaming charges for receiving the call in San Francisco on my cell phone. Can someone explain the logic behind this (other than that more people make money off it)? I would think that once the "system" figures out that I'm in San Francisco, there would be no reason to continue routing the call in such a roundabout way. Why can't my friend's call just be routed directly to me in San Francisco, without the SF-LA-SF segment? OK, so there'll be a, say, one minute long distance charge to him for the call to LA until some switch is informed about my location. Surely this is technically feasible. I realize that this would mean treating a call from LA to my cell number differently from a call from SF. So? Caller ID makes the location of the caller known to the receiver. It's for things like this that we have clever computer programs and programmers! Yigal Arens USC/ISI arens@isi.edu http://www.isi.edu/sims/arens [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Tell your friend to start dialing into the number for the roaming port in San Francisco. Then he will pay for just a local call and you will pay only whatever roaming charge applies for roamers making/receiving local calls in SF. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mysore@dircon.co.uk Subject: Questionnaire: Please Help Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:02:04 GMT Organization: Direct Connection Reply-To: mysore@dircon.co.uk I'm a journalist conducting a survey of Internet telephony usage. Whether you use Internet telephony products, you don't use internet telephony, or *you've never heard of Internet telephony*, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a few minutes to fill in a questionnaire. It will be one of the first fully automated email surveys conducted on the internet. The survey will be processed automatically by EFORM, a new automated email processing application, produced by Beach Tech (http://www.beachtech.com, email: sales@beachtech.com). And no, I'm not a Beach Tech employee. If you *don't* use Internet telephony, or have never heard of Internet telephony, please send a blank email to: IT_NONUSER@BEACHTECH.COM, and a survey, with instructions, will be mailed to you. If you *do* use Internet telephony, send an email to: IT_USER@BEACHTECH.COM, and a survey, with instructions, will be emailed to you. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this survey. Details about survey results are attached to the questionnaires. Thanks, Alex Balfour alex.balfour@pobox.com ------------------------------ From: stellcom@ix.netcom.com (JOHN M ELLIOTT) Subject: Interesting Patent Question Date: 29 Aug 1996 04:38:43 GMT Organization: Netcom I manufacture a product which uses voice mail to retrieve lost items. My competitor has an almost identical product which uses voice mail He claims he is getting a patent on his product because voice mail use is unique for this service (retrieving lost items). I say you can't patent interactivity. Any comments? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:31:00 EDT From: rippowam@interport.net (The Colligan Group) Subject: Is Childrens' Programming Now Required? Dear Mr. Townson: I am interested in any information concerning a piece of legislation concerning childrens' programming on television. I briefly heard that all television stations are now required to air three hours/week of children's programming. I would like to confirm this and get any further pertinent information. Please return my e-mail to -- rippowam@interport.net -- if you can be of any assistance. Thank you, Erin Edson The Colligan Group [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is correct. A thirty minute program five days per week would be minimally satisfactory, or it could be a Saturday morning program from 9:00 am until noon, etc. I think more information in greater detail on exactly what does and does not constitute 'programming for children' could be obtained from one of the groups which discuss broadcasting. You might want to inquire at wdp@airwaves.com and get on that mailing list. PAT] ------------------------------ From: am004d@netaxs.com (Michael Muderick) Subject: Needed: 1A2 CX 110 Intercom Date: 29 Aug 1996 20:40:08 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider A non profit I do pro bono work for needs an ITT 1A2 intercom unit, CX 110 with the associated dial select card and the touch tone adapter. Anybody have any surplus laying around for donate or lo cost sale? Thanks. You can reach me during the day at 610-874-1465 or evenings at 610-449-6970. ------------------------------ From: westes@usc.com (Will Estes) Subject: Wanted: Panasonic Digital Telephone Switch Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 07:47:12 GMT Organization: U.S. Computer Reply-To: westes@usc.com I am looking for a Panasonic digital phone switch, with either 8x16 or 12x32 lines. I want the digital model that can be controlled by PC software remotely. If you have one for sale please contact me by mail. Will Estes U.S. Computer Internet: westes@usc.com POB 3150 Saratoga, CA 95070 FAX: 408-446-1013 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 21:03:12 EDT From: Jeff Regan Subject: 48 V PC Power Supply Hi everyone, I am looking for a PC Power Supply that operates off of 48V DC Central Office Battery instead of standard 120/208 VAC. IE: Instead of plugging your PC into a standard electrical outlet, or UPS, run it off a string of batteries. It would need to generate all the required PC voltages (+/- 12V and +5V I believe) with their respective current requirements (ie: what- ever those are for a standard 230W power supply.) It would also need to be a drop in replacement for the regular PC power supply into a standard minitower or tower case. If you know of who makes such a beast, please let me know. Thanks, Jeff Regan Internet: JEREGAN@SYMPATICO.CA Ham Packet: VE3XJR@VE3MGQ.#SWO.ON.CAN.NA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:58:16 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Speed-Dial 8 *and* 30 By the way, I do subscribe to _BOTH_ Speed-8 _AND_ Speed-30. I had Speed-8 for about two years, and then wanted to add Speed-30. This was about a year ago. It is possible to have both on the #1AESS that serves my home. But the service-rep at the Business Office thought I wanted to drop Speed-8. I had to tell her that I wanted _BOTH_ and I _DO_ have both! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What exactly is the purpose of having > both, other than to be a little snobbish and peculiar? PAT] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have *THIRTY EIGHT* possible speed-dial slots, rather than just thirty or eight! ------------------------------ From: The Washington Firm, Ltd. Subject: Employment Opportunity: AT&T Wireless Services Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:43:57 -0700 Organization: Washington Firm ***AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES*** *POSITION: Manager - National Telephony - Voice *LOCATION: Kirkland, WA *REFERENCE NUMBER: APNPBX *TYPE (i.e., full time or contract or part time): Full Time *RESPONSIBILITIES: Work with regional telephony managers to ensure integrated implementation of national telephony initiatives; Develop and maintain a telephony strategy that includes integration with AT&T , and other wireless entities; Develop and maintain standard traffic engineering standards for call volumes; Develop and maintain telephony standards for premise equipment and related software to ensure a natal solution; Provide budget analysis of telephony installations and options; Develop and maintain standard change management procedures for CPE upgrades and version control including all scripts; Work with the Customer Care organization to ensure the business initiatives are reflected in the telephony solution; Manage a team of telephony analysis. *QUALIFICATIONS: Required: 6-10 years telephony routing experience; 6-10 years experience in PBX, VRU and ACD systems and support; 6-10 years experience in traffic vectoring and load balancing; 2-3 years in CTI, ASAI and LAI technologies and methods; Optional: 2-3 years traffic concepts in a non-queuing environment. Preferred: B.S. degree. Please send your resume to: AT&T Wireless Employment Services; Attn: APN 2 Nickerson, Courtyard Suite; Seattle, WA 98109 Reference #: APNBPX FAX (206) 284-8844 Or, you may respond by email to "kkinared@wafirm.com". ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Confusing Cellular Promotions Date: Thu, 29 Aug 96 12:27:25 -0700 From: Larry Schwarcz Linc Madison writes: > The other question I couldn't get a coherent answer to is whether the > digital service is in a completely different frequency band from the > traditional analogue service, and what the transmission characteristics > of the two are. I know that the sound quality of a digital call that is > breaking up is very different from the sound of an analogue call breaking > up, but does one signal fare better with hilly terrain or downtown > buildings or basements or other impediments? I don't know the answers to those questions, but, I can say, as a user of CellularOne's Digital Flex Plan with a Motorola Micro Digtial Lite phone, that I hate the audio quality of their digital service. I find that I frequently switch over to analog (Fcn 2) and I'm also considering switching to GTE Mobilnet for the larger local home market. CellularOne's digital service is TDMA. GTE Mobilnet is working on a CDMA network here in the Bay Area. Last I heard, it was supposed to be up and running by the end of the year (that was about last March that I was told that). From what I've heard, CDMA is a far better technology than TDMA, but, I would have to buy a new phone. The TDMA phone is not compatible with CDMA service :-(. Lawrence R. Schwarcz, Software Design Engr/NCD Internet: lrs@cup.hp.com Hewlett Packard Company Direct: (408) 447-2543 19420 Homestead Road MS 43LN Main: (408) 447-2000 Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: (408) 447-2264 Internal-only WWW: http://hpisrhw.cup.hp.com/~lrs/homepage.html Copywight (c) 1996 Elmer Fudd. All wights wesewved. ------------------------------ From: arubin@mindspring.com (Allan Rubin) Subject: Re: WTB: A Wireless Phone Network (10,000 + Numbers) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:49:13 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. In article nwres203@wolfenet.com writes: > The network will require no connection to outside. This is obviously a joke. Are we to believe that they plan to set-up 10k people with no outside access? Why in the world would anyone want this? I can sell you a cellular system if you want, it would accomplish this for about $3 to $5 million depending on local terrain and availa- blility of permits for bandwidth (frequency). ------------------------------ From: mexitech@netcom.com (Patrick) Subject: Re: Flip Flap at Motorola Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 02:22:46 GMT Tad Cook (tad@ssc.com) wrote: > Inventors, Heed Tale of Flip-Phone Flap Via AP > Garry Haltof thinks electronics giant Motorola Inc. has flipped out. Article deleted... An Edgar search of Motorola shows them to be trying to clear up a host of these petty squabbles. Maybe Mr, Haltof is on their list. Do a search, something is going down in the world of wireless. Patrick mexitech@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Curtis Wheeler Subject: Re: Flip Flap at Motorola Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:14:28 -0700 Organization: Just Me and My Own Opinions (A Standard Disclaimer) Reply-To: cwheeler@ccnet.com Tad Cook wrote: > Inventors, Heed Tale of Flip-Phone Flap Via AP > Now Motorola not only says it developed the product but also is trying > to squash Mr. Haltof's trademark on the name, claiming that when it > comes to cell phones, Motorola owns the word "flip." Someone correct me if I am wrong. But wasn't the first "Flip Phone" a product made by Conair about 15+ years ago? Curtis KD6ELA / GROL / PP-ASEL ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 03:28:12 GMT Subject: Re: Wireless Satellite Communication - A Challenge From: David_W@usa.pipeline.com (David Wigglesworth) On Aug 19, 1996 18:00:46, cwheeler@ccnet.com wrote: > MarvinDemuth@worldnet.att.net (Marvin Demuth) wrote: >>> Earlier I wrote: >>>> WHAT WE NEED: Snip. > At least one of the terminals they sell, the Mitsubishi ST151, is fax > capable -- but only at 2400bps. There is a "modem interface" that > operates to 4800. Note this is a narrowband, digital service so data > rates are limited. Currently the max data rate is 2400bps. While the units are capable of fax, there is currently no fax service available. > "Tellular" is soon to release an "adapter" that will let you use a > POTS type device on the unit. This is simialr to the adapter they > offer for cellular phones. However this device does not allow you to use an analog modem or fax machine. It is designed mainly for people to be able to attach voice equipment such as cordless phones. > The transportable ST151 that we tried was available for between US$3500 > and US$4500. It depends on the deal you strike and the options you > want/need. Fax and dispatch capability are options to the unit. As before, the units are fax capable, however fax service is a future service addition. Regards, David Wigglesworth David_W@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Date: 29 Aug 1996 02:58:19 +0200 johnd@mail.ic.net (John Dreystadt) writes: > While there is much value in the overall message, there are some > technical errors in this paragraph. The HTTP protocol does not use > TCP/IP but instead uses the connectionless cousin, UDP/IP. This "correction" is wrong. HTTP does use *TCP*, not UDP. I'm not sure where the specs for HTTP are -- I couldn't find a mention in the RFC index -- but on a Unix box you can check this by executing the netstat command while your browser gets a document. So indeed a TCP connection is established for every document, image, etc., and yes, this is an area for improvement. Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber naddy@mips.pfalz.de See another pointless homepage at . ------------------------------ From: Neil Harris Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:00:12 +0100 In article , johnd@mail.ic.net (John Dreystadt) wrote: > In article , wollman@halloran-eldar. > lcs.mit.edu says: >> 2) The protocol. The primary protocol of the World Wide Web, HTTP, >> runs over the primary protocol of the Internet generally, TCP. In >> order for standard TCP to work, every connection involves no fewer >> than three round trips from the origin to the destination. A single >> round trip can take as much as a second or two depending on how and >> where each end of the connection is attached to the network. A >> modified version of TCP, called Transaction TCP or T/TCP, reduces this >> to two round trips, but it is not widely deployed. None of this would >> have come into play if HTTP had been designed better to begin with; >> work is progressing to fix HTTP so that it no longer requires a new >> connection for each request, but it will be some time before this is >> widely deployed. > While there is much value in the overall message, there are some > technical errors in this paragraph. The HTTP protocol does not use > TCP/IP but instead uses the connectionless cousin, UDP/IP. No. HTTP is layered over TCP. You can demonstrate this by telenetting to port 80 of your friendly local web server, and typing: GET / HTTP/1.0 From: me Accept: text/html Accept: text/plain at it. You will then (usually) get a web page downloaded to you. > I am not entirely certain what the references are to "connection" in > this paragraph but I suspect "transaction" is the correct word. I am > not sure of the number of round trips a single transaction takes in > the HTTP protocol but three seems reasonable. Why? With a totally connectionless unreliable protocol, it shouldn't take more than one round trip. But if you want reliability, or more than one packet of data, you will need extra state: enter TCP and T/TCP. > A missing issue with the standard HTTP protocol and the interface > between the server and the browser is the handling of multiple > files. A standard web page often has many individual graphic > files. The standard model for HTTP involves what is best described as > "browser side includes". The main file for the web page is brought > over to the browser and the browser parses the file. Each graphic file > within the web page causes an individual file transfer using the HTTP > protocol to occur. It would be much less burden on the net to do > "server side includes" where the server read the file and included all > of the graphic images. There are issues about caching that my simple > description has entirely ignored but I hope you can see my point. Unfortunately, this would completely defeat the purpose of client-side caching. However, work is under way to fix this problem properly. Neil Harris ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:50:48 +0200 From: Poll Dubh Subject: Re: Why is the Internet So Slow? Organization: Lasciate ogni speranza voi ch'entrate In article John Dreystadt claims: > While there is much value in the overall message, there are some > technical errors in this paragraph. The HTTP protocol does not use > TCP/IP but instead uses the connectionless cousin, UDP/IP. I am not > entirely certain what the references are to "connection" in this > paragraph but I suspect "transaction" is the correct word. I am not > sure of the number of round trips a single transaction takes in the > HTTP protocol but three seems reasonable. No, HTTP is a tcp protocol. I am looking at the source code for NCSA Mosaic (version 2.7 beta 5, file HTTCP.c, routine HTDoConnect()) and the relevant line reads: *s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP); grep showed not a single instance of a UDP socket in the code base. If you think about it, you'll realize that UDP/IP does not provide protection against loss of datagrams, so if it were used you'd be seeing a lot of failed connections on which a retry is needed, or the clients *and servers* would have to include their own system to handle acknowledgments and retransmission requests. Basically, that would be reinventing TCP, and perhaps reimplementing it more poorly. (The backoff algorithm for retransmissions may slow you down when the packet loss rate is high, but it also gives the overall network load a chance to decrease to a more sustainable level.) > A missing issue with the standard HTTP protocol and the interface > between the server and the browser is the handling of multiple > files. A standard web page often has many individual graphic > files. The standard model for HTTP involves what is best described as > "browser side includes". The main file for the web page is brought > over to the browser and the browser parses the file. Each graphic file > within the web page causes an individual file transfer using the HTTP > protocol to occur. It would be much less burden on the net to do > "server side includes" where the server read the file and included all > of the graphic images. There are issues about caching that my simple > description has entirely ignored but I hope you can see my point. Oh no. Server side includes would be dreadful. They are only advantageous if the client actually downloads all those included files. Smart users resort to smart browsers that let them turn off the automatic loading of images and request only the images they really want to see. (That's without even mentioning browsers like lynx, for terminals without the ability to display graphics.) Moreover, sites like to include the same icons in many pages; it doesn't make sense to retransmit those icons over and over, and server side includes would require the client to send in a list of what can be omitted from the next document served. > Just remember that HTTP and the Internet in general is a giant work in > progress. So? The same can be said about life in general. ------------------------------ 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 #449 ******************************