Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id EAA13291; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 04:27:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 04:27:19 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199704130827.EAA13291@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #91 TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Apr 97 04:26:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 91 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC, Users (Stan Schwartz) Bogus 900 Line Billing (stopthescam@juno.com) Early Usenet (1981-2): Proposal For Research (Ronda Hauben) Mississippi's New 228 NPA (Bryan Bethea) Murdoch/Sky and Control of U.S. DBS Spectrum (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 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC, Users Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 20:53:04 -0400 By Pradnya Joshi. STAFF WRITER LUCILLE WESNOFSKE said her family considers "the phone on our wall the enemy," and no wonder. They spend about $100 a month on long-distance calls. But like most people, the Shirley resident doesn't know the half of it. Lurking inside a $4.75 charge in December for a 25-minute call to her sister Ann Bivona in Florida, for instance, was a charge by local phone companies of about $1.60 just for connecting Wesnofske to the AT&T network. "It just seems like these utilities are loaded with fees," said Gene Wesnofske, Lucille's husband. Every time you call long-distance, you pay a local charge as well - a stiff local charge, say long-distance companies. MCI Communications Corp. in particular is pushing an unusual proposition that it says could cut long-distance bills an average of 35 percent. The Federal Communications Commission is in the process of re-examining these so-called access charges. Depending on whom you ask, that could be good news or bad for consumers like the Wesnofskes. Access fees are a virtual "gravy train" for local phone companies, said Boyd Peterson, director of consumer communications at the Yankee Group, a Boston-based research firm. But phone companies say that the revenues from the access fees help support the billions of dollars in cable, computers and other "infrastructure," particularly for higher cost operations such as rural service. The fees vary slightly from company to company and state to state, but the national average per-minute charge for starting and ending a long-distance call adds up to about 6 cents a minute, according to Bell Communications Research. Within NYNEX Corp. territory, that is generally about 7.2 cents a minute to start and finish a call. That is a lot higher than the average 1.4 cents a minute that it actually costs the local phone companies to connect a caller to the long-distance companies' networks, according to the U.S. Telephone Association, which represents local phone companies. But drastic changes could "blow up basic telephone service for everyone," said Roy Neel, president of the U.S. Telephone Association. The difference has been a virtual cash cow to local phone companies to the tune of billions of dollars and should be reduced, argues Andrew Blau, director of communications policy at the Benton Foundation, a nonprofit public interest group. "We need to consider consumer welfare and not simply giving the local phone companies what they are used to making," Blau said. All the various access charges, including the ones for in-state calls, add up to nearly $30 billion annually. The FCC is mostly looking at revamping about $16 billion that local phone companies collect from long-distance companies for state-to-state calls. It is expected to make a decision in May. The FCC says it is considering drastically reducing those per-minute charges, with a drop of 50 percent not being out of the question. Some of the proposals the agency is considering would shift the costs to business customers or require that long-distance companies pay flat fees to local providers. If the FCC does make such a step, it could make a significant difference to someone like Woodmere resident Murray Zeiler. He was able to negotiate with AT&T to get his rate down to 10 cents a minute anytime he calls. Most of the cost of those calls don't go to AT&T but to the local phone companies that handle his calls. But he'd welcome anything that could continue to decrease his costs. "I'm all for it," Zeiler said. On the one hand access charges are "way out of whack" to actual costs, said Ronald Cowles, manager of research and development at Northern Business Information, a consulting division of McGraw-Hill Cos. But cost of residential service is much higher than the revenues it brings in, Cowles said. The FCC should be watchful in its reform process to make sure that it considers end-users, particularly low-volume users, Cowles said. He points out that access charges have dropped ever since the break-up of AT&T in 1984, but that the average residential user hasn't always benefited. Business users and high-volume residential customers have saved, but basic long-distance rates - the non-discounted rates paid by about half of households - have been going up in the past few years, Cowles said. The esoteric nature of the dispute hasn't kept the local and long-distance companies from boiling it down to simplistic arguments that are being pushed in advertising and public relations campaigns on the airwaves, in print media and over the Internet. Groups representing both sides also have offered up briefs and policy suggestions to the FCC. The U.S. Telephone Association also is running its own public-relations campaign called "Call Them On It" aimed at turning viewers' attention to the money they spend on such infrastructure. The access-charge issue is part of a larger gamesmanship between local and long-distance companies that started with enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Peterson said. That battle includes fights over rules for how local companies will get into the long-distance business, and how long-distance companies will offer local service, with the FCC intervening on every front. Expectations of quick savings from increased competition have given way to frustration among consumers and in Congress. The lesson so far, Peterson said, is that "dismantling a regulatory regime is harder than building one up." MCI has been leading the fight to cut access charges, with ads that include statements such as "you have the power to stop the access charge rip-off." NYNEX calls MCI's position self-serving. While reform is needed, long-distance companies must help support the network, said Tom Tauke, executive vice president of government affairs for NYNEX. NYNEX has lowered its access rates over the past five years by $800 million in its area, which stretches from New England through New York. NYNEX, together with Bell Atlantic and AT&T Corp., has proposed a plan to reduce rates by about $400 million nationally. Under their plan, the per-minute access charge would decrease but long-distance companies and all telephone users would help pay for the network as well as a "universal service" fund that helps pay for telephone service to rural areas, libraries, low-income people and others. However, a group of other Baby Bells quickly denounced the plan as simply a way to "enrich the long-distance oligopoly and the merged NYNEX-Bell Atlantic." But the real issue to local phone companies is their investments in infrastructure. Neel, of the local phone company trade group, angrily calls MCI's arguments "a bare-faced lie." Neel said the access charges help make up the difference in higher-cost areas as well as residential service. The true cost of providing residential local service is about $35 a month, twice the average phone bill, Neel said. And without access fees companies would have to charge more, a lot more in rural areas, for service. But others estimate the true cost of phone service to be much less. While it may be expensive to provide service in rural areas, it costs about $15 to $20 a month in areas such as Nassau County and $5 a month in central business districts, estimates David Gabel, associate professor of economics at Queens College. In addition, local phone companies making such estimates don't take out of the local bill the costs of providing long-distance calls. More competiton in the marketplace should also drive down costs for local service and access fees, Gabel said. "Where do you see high customer access fees? ... When you have monopolies," he said. Some who have studied the issue propose a more radical solution of eliminating any access fees as well as any subsidy to local phone service. That will drive long-distance rates down by 25 percent to 30 percent, said Robert Crandall, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Virtually every economist agrees that we've made a mess of telephone charges," Crandall said. The extra five-cents-a-minute in access charges that consumers pay is clearly suppressing the demand for long-distance calls, Crandall argues. He argues that regulators should stop distorting the market and get out of the way particularly because phone companies are facing new competitors and moving away from monopoly systems. He points to lower prices that came to the airline and trucking industry with deregulation, suggesting that it could be duplicated in the telephone industry. "If you're going to admit competition, the last thing you want around when you have competitors is regulators," Crandall said. While some say that may drive up local phone rates, Crandall said rates will go up at the most $6 to $7 and may even go down in urban areas. So will consumers see those big savings in rates at all? MCI has pledged that they will reduce their rates dollar-for-dollar. AT&T has made a similar pledge and it is expected other long-distance companies will match the competition's rates. But some are more skeptical about the FCC making a radical reform to drastically drop the charges. Most likely, the FCC will come in somewhere down the middle of the positions of localand long-distance companies, perhaps proposing a five-year or seven-year reduction in these fees, said Peterson of the Yankee Group consulting firm. And even if the FCC reaches a decision, the issue could end up in lawsuits. "We're still looking at years and years of regulation," Peterson said. Long-Distance Billing Aunt Martha in Hicksville has AT&T as her long-distance company. She calls Uncle Joe in Boston, which is also in the NYNEX calling area. Regardless of any special discount plan she may be on or the time of day, AT&T pays NYNEX 7.2 cents for each minute to transport that call. (On top of that, both Aunt Martha and Uncle Joe pay a flat $3.50 a month for the right to send and receive long-distance calls. Here's how that 7.2-cents-per-minute is broken down: Aunt Martha's house NYNEX local office serving Aunt Martha NYNEX office on LI serving AT&T AT&T network NYNEX office in Massachusetts serving AT&T NYNEX local office serving Uncle Joe Uncle Joe's house A. 0.71 cents to carry the call from Martha's home to NYNEX's local office serving her phone. B. 1.37 cents to initially switch the call. C. 1.52 cents to carry the call from NYNEX to AT&T's network. D. 1.52 cents to carry the call from AT&T's network to NYNEX's Boston network. E. 1.37 cents to finally switch the call at the NYNEX office serving Uncle Joe's phone. F. 0.71 cents to terminate the call to Uncle Joe's house in Boston. NOTE: This example reflects average NYNEX rates; rates would be slightly different if you were calling states outside of NYNEX's territory. Access charges are also different for business customers, and are lower in competitive areas such as Manhattan. Newsday, 4/12/1997 SOURCE: Northern Business Information and NYNEX ------------------------------ From: stopthescam@juno.com (Deb) Subject: Bogus 900 Line Billing Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:57:36 GMT Organization: Netcom I'm looking for anyone who has had dealings with a company called Newscope Technology, Ltd. based in Seattle, WA (and operating by P.O. box in several other cities around the country). They operate a 900 sex chat line called "Nightline". There billing is handled by a company called ITA. I seek information from anyone who has had bogus/erroneous billing problems with this company. I am gathering information to stop what I believe is a scam, either on the part of Newscope or outside parties who may have compromised their billing system. It would also be helpful to know if anyone is aware of a way that a phone number can be billed for calls not made from that number. I'm talking about collect or credit card calls. I mean calls somehow being re-routed through another phone or infiltrating phone company computers and changing billing from one phone account to another. If you any have information or a story to share, please do not post it here but email me at stopthescam@juno.com. Thanks in advance for any help. Deb ------------------------------ From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Early Usenet(1981-2): Proposal For Research Date: 13 Apr 1997 06:25:58 GMT Organization: Columbia University Following is a proposal for a paper on early Usenet for a seminar in history and technology that I am taking this term. I welcome comments and suggestions and also am interested in being in contact with others doing similar work. Ronda rh120@columbia.edu Proposal for Paper on Early Usenet In an article in the journal "The Information Society", L. Floridi notes the importance of the Internet and how it has generated an excitement and promise for the future. Professor Floridi writes: [L]ast year the Internet finally appeared to the general public as the most revolutionary phenomenon since the invention of telephones, though in this case Time missed the opportunity to elect the Internet Man of the Year. Professor Floridi from Wolfson College at Oxford, contrasts the importance of the new development represented by the Internet with the relative lack of scholarly study and knowledge about its development: A whole population of several million people interacts by means of the global network. It is the most educated intellectual community that ever appeared on earth, a global academy that, like a unique Leibnizian mind, thinks always. The Internet is a completely new world, about which we seem to know very little....its appearance has found most of us, and especially the intellectual community, thoroughly unprepared. (Floridi, p.6) However, to "know" something it is helpful to look at its early development, as that is when its form and principles are first established. The foundation for the Internet was set by the development and interconnection of the ARPANET(b. 1969) and Usenet(b. 1979), which connected in the early 1980s. Fortunately an archive of posts exists from early Usenet, documenting some of how this interconnection occurred and this is a helpful primary source of data for research. Describing the principles of early Usenet, a Usenet pioneer, Gregory Woodbury explains that its founding purpose was to facilitate interactive communication. Woodbury writes: I can claim (with a bit of pride :-) to have watched netnews/usenet grow from its two-machine origin into 3, then 4, and then up its growth curve. The very basic assumption that people using the netnews software wanted to have interactive communication is still essentially unchallenged as the purpose for this "creature" we call netnews/Usenet to exist. Also Woodbury notes the importance of the cooperative aspect of Usenet, and that the poster is responsible for the contents of the post. He writes: For other reasons, the use of the term "operational anarchy" in relation to netnews serves to remind those involved that we are involved in a co-operative situation, where the ultimate responsibility for the contents rests squarely on the poster of an article. Much of the arguments about netnews goverance are attempts to avoid this basic fact. :-) The archive of posts of early Usenet is an important and rich source of data about early Usenet and about the technical and social need that gave rise to the ARPANET and Usenet and subsequently the Internet. Also, some Usenet pioneers are still posting on Usenet or accessible via email and when possible, it is helpful to be able to be in contact with them to ask questions that come up in course of the research or to ask for their comments on the material one is studying. The topic for the current paper I am working on will focus on these early newsgroups, and will concern itself with the connection between the ARPANET and Usenet. It will look at the value of the ARPANET mailing lists gated to Usenet and the kind of discussion on the newsgroups, concerning three particular issues: the debate over technology (such as whether to use Unix or CP/M, whether a workstation needs to be provided with a programming language, the tcp/ip digest about moving the ARPANET from NCP to the tcp/ip protocol by January 1983, etc.); the issue of gatewaying Usenet and the ARPANET and the problems involved; and the value to and use by government in the development of Usenet and the ARPANET. I have chosen to look at the debate over the development of technology as I feel that this represents the technical foundation and need upon which Usenet and the ARPANET were built and thus is the important foundation. Understanding the kind of debate and discussion over technical issues that Usenet and the Internet make possible is crucial in understanding its essence and also the continuing technical and social need for the development of the Net that computer and computer technology require. I will be exploring the issue of gatewaying the two networks as that captures both the view of each of the networks as unique and the quality of what is required to gateway them so they are interconnected. The issue of the gating also involves examining the different strengths each bring to the relationsip. The third aspect I will be examining is the issue of how government officials participated in Usenet or in the ARPANET mailing lists carried on Usenet to document the ways that government both utilized and contributed to these developments. There is currently a project to create a gov.xxxx Usenet hierarchy. Some of the literature involved in this project claims that government has not participated in Usenet. Therefore they claim there is nothing to learn from past government participation, and instead are making Usenet into a structure to carry government announcements via the Net. This use fails to understand the importance of Usenet as a means of discussion and interaction of participants and instead is proposing to change this nature in the ways they will use Usenet. It is beneficial for all therefore to know how government officials benefitted by participating in Usenet and the ARPANET mailing lists as means for discussion and exchange. Any future projects proposing government use of Usenet need to be able to build on the past, rather than trying to ignore it so as to go backwards. I am also interested in issues of Usenet governance as Usenet presents a new form and the ability to create a new means of governance and if possible I would like to look at some of the early newsgroups where issues involving Usenet governance were debated and discussed in the 1981-2 period.. In their article "Introduction: Semiotics and the Effects- of-Media Change Research Programmes", Andrew Bernardelli and Giulio Blasi explain that developing the Internet infrastructure around the world has led to a situation where the research and discussion of the nature of the new communications media is not just a matter of scholarly interest. They write: Recent discussions about the social role of the new digital technologies are perhaps the first example of a growing awareness on the part of individuals of being involved in social transformations imposed by technology, before the advent and stabilization of the technology itself. We have discussions on teledemocracy or teleworking, for example, in countries that still have not reached a critical mass of users of networking technologies....(T)hese discourses on the future of the media are not the result of a passing interest on the part of scholars and journalists. They are instead a structural necessity imposed by the peculiar economic dimension of the new media.... (Versus, pg 22) These authors also note that the study that scholars must do includes looking at the context in which these technologies developed and the vision that developed in the process. They write: Consequently, academic analyses of the new media require a sort of "second order" shift imposed by the fact that they will be faced with the problem of studying not "pure" technologies with a neutral future, but technologies embedded in social representations that already include a vision of their future. That's why such an important and popular phenomenon like the growth of Internet is still waiting for a serious research programme. My work on this paper is intended to contribute to this research program. I am including a supplemental bibliography of sources that may prove helpful in my research, but basically the paper will be focused directly on archival sources as there seems very little familiarity with the actual details of the early days of Usenet and its connection with the ARPANET. ---------------------- Following is a list of the ARPANET newsgroups carried on Usenet by the 1981-2 period. My paper will focus on some of the following: FA.apollo/ FA.arms-d/ FA.arpa-bboard/ FA.digest-p/ FA.dungeon/ FA.editor-p/ FA.energy/ FA.human-nets/ FA.info-cpm/ FA.info-micro/ FA.info-terms/ FA.info-vax/ FA.poli-sci/ FA.printers/ FA.railroad/ FA.sf-lovers/ FA.space/ FA.tcp-ip/ FA.telecom/ FA.test/ FA.unix-cpm/ FA.unix-wizards/ FA.works/ Following is a listing of the Newsgroups in this early (1981-2) archives. NET.ao/ NET.news.newsite/ NET.apl.lang/ NET.periphs/ NET.applic/ NET.railroad/ NET.arpa-uucp/ NET.rec.birds/ NET.auto/ NET.rec.bridge/ NET.aviation/ NET.rec.photo/ NET.blfp/ NET.rec.scuba/ NET.bugs/ NET.rec.ski/ NET.bugs.2bsd/ NET.records/ NET.bugs.4bsd/ NET.rumor/ NET.bugs.uucp/ NET.scuba/ NET.bugs.v7/ NET.sf-lovers/ NET.cooks/ NET.skum/ NET.columbia/ NET.sources/ NET.cms/ NET.space/ NET.chess/ NET.sport.baseball/ NET.crap/ NET.sport.football/ NET.cse/ NET.sport.hockey/ NET.csfrp/ NET.suicide/ NET.cycle/ NET.swl/ NET.db/ NET.taxes/ NET.dbms/ NET.test/ FA.apollo/ NET.dcom/ NET.tools/ FA.arms-d/ NET.draw/ NET.travel/ FA.arpa-bboard/ NET.eunice/ NET.trivia/ FA.digest-p/ NET.flame/ NET.ucds/ FA.dungeon/ NET.followup/ NET.unix/ FA.editor-p/ NET.games/ NET.unix-wizards/ FA.energy/ NET.gdead/ NET.usenix/ FA.human-nets/ NET.general/ NET.video/ FA.info-cpm/ NET.groups.control/ NET.vwrabbit/ FA.info-micro/ NET.ham-radio/ NET.wanted/ FA.info-terms/ NET.info-cpm/ NET.wines/ FA.info-vax/ NET.info-micro/ NET.works/ FA.poli-sci/ NET.info-terms/ NET.xbsd/ FA.printers/ NET.jobs/ FA.railroad/ NET.jokes/ FA.sf-lovers/ NET.junk/ FA.space/ NET.lan/ FA.tcp-ip/ NET.lang.apl/ FA.telecom/ NET.lisp/ FA.test/ NET.lsi/ FA.unix-cpm/ NET.man/ FA.unix-wizards/ NET.map/ FA.works/ NET.math/ NET.mc/ NET.micro/ NET.misc/ NET.motorcycles/ NET.movies/ NET.msg.ctl/ NET.music/ NET.news/ NET.news.b/ NET.news.directory/ NET.news.groups/ ___________ Supplementary Bibliography Bernardelli, Andrew, and Giulio Blasi, "Introduction: Semiotics and the Effects-of-Media Change Research Programmes. An Overview of Methodology and Basic Concepts," Versus 72, September-December 1995, p 1 - 28. "Communication Decency Act Decision: Excerpts", in the "Amateur Computerist", Vol. 7, No. 2, Winter 1997, p 12 - 15. http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~jrh/ Fang, Nien-Hsuan, "The Internet As A Public Sphere: A Habermasian Approach," Dissertation University of New York at Buffalo, 1995. Floridi, Luciano, "Internet: Which Future for Organized Knowledge, Frankenstein or Pygmalion?" The Information Society, Vol. 12, No. 1, p 5 - 16. Gonske, Mark, "The Power of One Man and a Web Page or David Runs Over Goliath on the Information Superhighway," "Computers and Society," March 1997, p 27. Habermas, Jurgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, translated by Thomas Burger, The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1989. Habermas, Jurgen, Toward A Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics, translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro, Beacon Press, Boston, 1970. Harris, Blake, "The Usenet Revolution: Reengineering the Mass Media", http://channel-zero.com/meta/articles/usenet.html Hauben, Michael and Ronda Hauben, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ Helmers, Sabine, Ute Hoffman, and Jeanette Hofmann, Netzkultur und Netzwerkorganisation, Dasprojekt "Interaktionsraum Internet", Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Sozialforschung, Berlin, FS II 96-103, 1996. Kurland, Nancy B., "Engendering Democratic Participation via the Net: Access, Voice, and Dialogue", "The Information Society", Vol. 12, No. 4, p 387-405. Peters, John Durham, "Distrust of Representation: Habermas on the Public Sphere", Media, Culture and Society, vol. 15, p. 541-571. Pfaffenberger, Bryan, "If I Want It, It's OK: Usenet and the (Outer) Limits of Free Speech", "The Information Society", Vol 12, No. 4, 1996, p 365 -386. Warner, Michael, The Letters of the Republic:Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth Century America, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990. ---------- Early Usenet and Arpanet Mailing Lists History http://www.umcc.umich/~ronda/usenet.hist Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:54:55 -0500 From: Bryan Bethea Organization: Touch 1 Communications Subject: Mississippi's New 228 NPA Bellcore has announced the split of the 601 NPA in Mississippi. All exchanges served by the Jackson LATA (and those NXXs served from LATAs outside MS*) will retain the 601 NPA. All exchanges in the Gulf Coast LATA will move to the new 228 NPA. Based on current information (03-01-97), the following exchanges are included in the Gulf Coast LATA: 214 255 297 341 374 377 380 385 386 388 392 396 432 435 436 452 463 466 467 470 474 475 493 497 516 522 533 539 586 588 594 669 688 689 691 695 696 760 761 762 769 813 818 822 826 831 832 850 861 863 864 865 867 868 870 871 872 875 880 883 889 896 897 934 935 938 990 993 994 *It is probable that the Tanner Williams, MS exchange (601-641, served from the Mobile, AL LATA) will be included in the 228 NPA since leaving it in 601 would create a non-continuous NPA. This split will create an NPA with only 70 NXX codes! I must question how much relief will really be provided. Bryan Bethea Market Designation Team Leader Touch 1 Communications ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:56:43 GMT From: Monty Solomon Subject: Murdoch/Sky and Control of U.S. DBS Spectrum Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 04:10:27 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: Murdoch/Sky and Control of U.S. DBS Spectrum Info-Policy-Notes - A newsletter available from listproc@tap.org INFORMATION POLICY NOTES April 10, 1997 Rupert Murdoch has proposed a partership between News Corp, EchoStar and MCI that would create an entity that controls 50 of of the 96 U.S. full-CONUS (full continential U.S.) DBS spectrum frequencies. CPT has consistently sought rules at the FCC to limit cross-ownership between cable and DBS, and concentration of ownership of DBS spectrum by any one firm. The FCC has yet to adopt rules promoting competition and diversity in DBS broadcasting. Today the U.S. Senate holds hearings on this topic. The following is a letter CPT has sent the FCC on this matter. We have further DBS materials on the CPT web site (http://www.cptech.org). The letter follows. Jamie (love@tap.org,202.387.8030) -------------------------------------- Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 387-8030; http://www.cptech.org April 9, 1997 The Honorable Reed Hundt Chairman Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 814 Washington, D.C. 20554 Dear Chairman Hundt: We are writing in opposition to the proposed partnership between News Corp., EchoStar, and MCI (Sky Partnership). Although the Sky Partnership has not yet filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission, we believe it will do so in the next few weeks and that the proposal for which it will seek approval is against the public interest. It will result in unnecessarily concentrating scarce public resources and reduce competition in the still formative DBS market. The Sky Proposal intends to deliver video programming directly to customers via high power satellites. The venture plans to combine direct broadcast satellite (DBS) licenses to create a colossus capable of delivering 500 channels of video programming, including spot-beams carrying local programming. In order to do so, the Sky partnership will aggregate scarce full- CONUS orbital positions (capable of delivering service to the entire continental United States), which will curtail competition in the DBS arena, and lead to less competition overall in the video delivery market. There are only 3 full-CONUS positions allocated to the United States and the Sky Partnership will control the majority of frequencies at 2 of these. In fact, the Sky Partnership will control 50 of the 96 full-CONUS frequencies or 52% of this total. The FCC has been rightly concerned in the past about the potential negative impacts of undue DBS concentration. In the auction rule that applied to the 28 full-CONUS frequencies at (eventually won by MCI's high bid), the FCC required that the winning bidder would have to divest itself of any full-CONUS frequencies it already controlled. EchoStar was a vigorous competitor in that auction, and if EchoStar won it would have had to divest its 22 full-CONUS frequencies. The Sky Partnership would allow the result that was prohibited in the auction just over one year ago. As the FCC stated in its DBS rulemaking: [W]e believe that reducing concentration of full-CONUS DBS resources will promote rivalry among all MVPDs in a way that would benefit consumer welfare. This one-time auction rule will essentially ensure that each of the three full-CONUS DBS orbital locations will initially be controlled by entities that do not share interests with DBS operators at the other two orbital locations. Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, FCC 95- 507, IB Docket No. 95-168, PP Docket No. 93-253, para. 29 (Dec. 15, 1995). The principle that consumers benefit from competition that provided the foundation for the rule quoted above is no less applicable today. The Sky Partnership unnecessarily allows a massive concentration of public resources that will not serve the public interest. It is alarming that such a concentration could even be considered. DBS offers an exciting opportunity to introduce competition in video programing to local cable monopolies. The FCC now has the opportunity to set rules that prevent any one firm from controlling more than 20 percent of the DBS spectrum, insuring that there will be at least five competitors in the DBS market. It would tragic if the FCC permits the DBS market to become highly concentrated. American citizens do not love media concentration. American citizens do not want a tiny number of firms to control video programming. The Sky proposal would move us away from a future of competition, toward one of high concentrated control over satellite space. News Corp., the firm that seeks to control a majority of the U.S. DBS full-CONUS spectrum, already controls a vast network of holdings which includes in the United States a television network, TV stations, a major movie studio and book publisher, cable television channels, as well as various print media including the New York Post and TV Guide. Rupert Murdoch also controls an unparalleled collection of newspaper and television holdings throughout the globe. Public policy should promote competition and diversity. The greater the concentration of ownership over the distribution systems for video, the more consumers will be harmed, and the greater the harm to unaffiliated producers of information. This is particularly appalling in this case, where Sky seeks to control a public resource, the DBS spectrum. As you know, the EchoStar 22 full-CONUS frequencies that Sky seeks to use were licensed to EchoStar for free. We have written or petitioned the FCC eight times since January 1996, asking the FCC in a variety of venues to develop a proactive policy which speaks to the issue of competition and diversity in the U.S. DBS market. On several occasions we have asked the FCC to adopt rules to prevent the major cable television operators from acquiring DBS spectrum, and we have asked for specific rules regarding DBS concentration. We renew these requests. The FCC just transferred billions of dollars in digital television spectrum for free to broadcasters, including Murdoch. It is now time to do something for the American consumers. Reject the Sky proposal. /s/ /s/ __________________ __________________ Todd J. Paglia James Love Staff Attorney Director Consumer Project on Technology PO Box 19367 Washington, DC 20036 cc: The Honorable James H. Quello The Honorable Rachelle B.. Chong The Honorable Susan Ness Senator John McCain, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee Mr. Donald J. Russell, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a newsletter sponsored by the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), a project of Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information. Archives of Info-Policy-Notes are available from http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/ CPT's Web page is http://www.cptech.org Send subscription requests to listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe info-policy-notes Jane Doe CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #91 *****************************