Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA18274; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 23:36:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 23:36:10 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801080436.XAA18274@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #3 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jan 98 23:35:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FYI - Federal Judge Strikes Down 271-75 as Unconstitutional (E.E. Holling) Federal Judge Declares Portions of Telecom Act Unconstitutional (W.Gucwa) Judge Says Telecom Act Unconstitutional (Dave Stott) 'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices (Monty Solomon) V&H Coordinates: Conversion To Lat/Long (Greg Knight) Unable to Make International Calls (Domestic is OK) (Yoohwan Kim) Need For an Unusual Type of Service (Clive D.W. Feather) Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX (Fraser Orr) Educational Seminar (Jerry Kaufman) MCI Service in Hawaii - Sounds Like 1960's All Over Again (ncom1@hotmail) Question About Ameritech ISDN Tariffs (Jack Decker) 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: * telecom-request@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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: E. E. Holling Subject: FYI - Federal Judge Strikes Down 271-75 as Unconstitutional Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 08:58:59 -0500 Organization: The InTech Group, Inc. In response to an SBC petition the US District Court for the Northern Texas found section 271-75 of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 unconstitutional in its baring of Bell companies from providing long distance service, electronic publishing and equipment manufacturing. Judge Joe Kendell state the Act singled out for "punishment" SBC and "extremely onerous" by the jurist. He wrote that these provisions of the act "strip the {Bells} of their ability to enter new markets and tie their hands while their competitors such as GTE, AT&T and MCI take their punches." -------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe see http://www.intech-group.com/FYI.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ernie Holling Mailto: info@Intech-Group.com The InTech Group, Inc. +1-610-524-8400 Consultants and Analysts FAX:+1-610-524-8440 305 Exton Commons, Exton, Pennsylvania 19341-2450 A Member of The Society of Telecommunications Consultants The Eastern Technology Council MultiMedia Telecommunications Association Building Industry Consulting Service International Copyright 1998 All Rights Reserved Permission to distribute the F.Y.I.'s with this signature block included is granted. ------------------------------ From: Wayne Gucwa Subject: Federal Judge Declares Portions of Telecom Act Unconstitutional Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 15:00:12 -0500 Organization: Planet Access Network Inc. By Charles Richards, Associated Press, 01/01/98 09:54 DALLAS (AP) - Moving the ``Baby Bells'' a step closer to offering long-distance service, a federal judge has struck down part of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall of Wichita Falls ruled Wednesday that Congress unconstitutionally singled out and barred regional Bell subsidiaries from providing long distance and other services. The chairman of SBC Communications, which filed the lawsuit in July, said the ruling was the single most important victory for phone customers and competition since the divestiture of the Bell system in 1984. "We intend to provide our customers with one-stop shopping for all their telecommunications needs by offering the simplest, most affordable long-distance plan available," said Edward Whitacre Jr., head of San Antonio-based SBC. Liz Rose, a spokeswoman for the Federal Communications Commission, said the agency likely will ask the Justice Department to appeal. "I am extremely concerned about what seems to be a court's invalidation of much that Congress, this commission and the affected phone companies have done to bring consumers the benefits of competition," FCC Chairman William Kennard said. Mark C. Rosenblum, AT&T vice president for law and public policy, called the ruling "inexplicable and clearly erroneous." Courts, Congress and regulators "have long recognized that the Bell monopolies differ from other local companies in size and scope," he said. The Bells see their local markets as an opportunity to offer one-stop communications most cheaply and efficiently. But these markets are where the federal entry requirements are toughest - and they are where the potential is the greatest for local phone companies to have customers subsidize the companies' investment in long distance, which is not allowed. The 1996 law deregulating the telecommunications industry allowed the Bells to seek permission to provide long-distance service in local phone regions. The law frees local and long-distance companies to enter each other's businesses, subject to regulatory approval. So far, no regional company has been cleared by the FCC to provide long-distance service within the states of its region. In its lawsuit, SBC contended the act was unfair because rather than establishing classes or categories, it identifies Baby Bells by name and bars them from entering the long distance and other businesses - such as electronic publishing or electronic alarm monitoring - that other local phone companies may provide. The suit was filed after unsuccessful attempts by SBC to enter the long-distance business in Oklahoma, a state served by its subsidiary, Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. It also operates under the Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell names. The company challenged only the portion of the act that singled out and excluded SBC from competing in certain business, said Lonny Morrison, a Wichita Falls attorney who represented the company. SBC said the ruling will enable it to provide long distance in its service region of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, California and Nevada. Whitacre said the company plans to seek permission to offer long-distance service first in Oklahoma. Another Bell company, Bell Atlantic, said it will file an application with the FCC soon to provide long-distance service in New York and eventually to other states. "Bell Atlantic never thought it was the intent of Congress to impose burdens to keep some players out of long distance and allow others in," spokeswoman Susan Butta said. Sol Trujillo, president and chief executive officer of US West Communications, said the ruling "will further accelerate the day when consumers can see the benefits of full competition in the long-distance market." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:17:05 GMT From: Dave Stott Subject: Judge Says Telecom Act Unconstitutional According to Rueters News Service, a Federal judge in Texas has voided a key part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He agreed with SBC that the law was unconstitutional because SBC and the other RBOCs were singled out for punishment by the portion of the bill requiring them to open their markets to competition before they could enter the LD market. According to the article, written by Roger Fillion: 'Judge Kendall wrote that these provisions of the act "strip the (Bells) of their ability to enter new markets and tie their hands while their competitors such as GTE, AT&T and MCI take their punches." In the case of long-distance entry, the act requires the Bells to meet a 14-point checklist. But Judge Kendall called the checklist requirements "extremely onerous." Wonder what happens next? No wonder we used to refer to this as the Telecommunication Attorneys' Full Employment Act of 1996. Dave Stott 602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ====================================================================== Helping you profit from changes in the telecommunications industry ====================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:24:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices 'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices by Chris Oakes 3:10pm 6.Jan.98.PST Cell phones will be taking on a new role in 1998, beginning a slow transition to becoming user tracking devices. The outcome of this shift reassures some, but has others calling for restrictions on how cell-locating information can be used. The impending first phase of the FCC's rules is aimed at enabling emergency services personnel to quickly get information on the location of a cell phone user in the event of a 911 call. By April, all cellular and personal communications services providers will have to transmit to 911 operators and other "public safety answering points" the telephone number and cell site location of any cell phone making a 911 call. The aim of the law is to bring to cell phone users the same automatic-locating capability that now exists with wireline phones. But while the FCC's aim is simple on the surface - to make it easier for medical, fire, and police teams to locate and respond to callers in distress - the technology is also giving rise to concerns over the ease with which the digital age and its wireless accouterments are bringing to tracking individuals. "The technology is pretty much developing to create a more and more precise location information. The key question for us is 'what is the legal standard for government access?'" says James Dempsey, senior staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Those seeking restrictions on the use of cell phone tracking information emphasize that, unlike the stationary wireline phones, a cell phone is more specifically associated with an individual and their minute-by-minute location. In December, the FCC began requiring wireless providers to automatically patch through any emergency calls made through their networks. Subscriber or not, bills paid or unpaid, anyone with a cell phone and a mobile identification number was thus guaranteed to see their 911 calls completed. 1998 brings new rules into place that take that initial action much further. By April, emergency service personnel will receive more than just the call - they'll also get the originating cell phone's telephone number and, more significantly, the location of the cell site that handled the call. The FCC's "Enhanced 911 services" requirements that wireless providers make this information available is the beginning of a tracking system that by 2001 will be able to locate a phone within a 125-meter radius. To provide this precise location information, Jeffrey Nelson of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association says different carriers will choose different methods of gathering location information, but all of them involve detecting the radio frequencies sent from the phone to service antennas. Because a phone sends additional signals to other antennas in addition to the primary one, "triangulation" lets them calculate the caller's whereabouts within that multi-antenna region. All this happens automatically when a cell phone is turned on. The upshot, Nelson says, is that cellular callers will "be able to make a call to 911 or the appropriate emergency number without having to explain where they are." He cites a case in which a woman stranded in a blizzard, unable to tell where she was, was located by use of her cell phone. Various systems are being tested by most providers, he reports, but many are already working with methods to provide such location information today. But this tracking issue has privacy advocates seeking preventive legislation to see that the instant accessibility of the information to emergency units doesn't just as easily deliver the same tracking information to law enforcement agencies - from local police on up to the FBI. "The FCC has been in the picture from the 911 perspective," says Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology. But to him, this obvious emergency benefit of E911 necessitates legal action to draw boundaries around its use by other organizations, namely law enforcement. That's where the issue runs into the same waters as the controversy surrounding the expansion of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. That 1994 law was meant to keep communications companies from letting the advancement of digital and wireless technology become an obstacle to the surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies. But the CDT and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others, have argued that as CALEA undergoes actual implementation (a process that is still ongoing), the FBI is seeking to expand its surveillance capabilities by seeking unjust specifications for phone systems' compliance with the law. Dempsey wants to see both CALEA and the new E911 requirements be implemented with clear restrictions on the ability of law enforcement to tap into personal information on users, especially their whereabouts at any one time. With the implementation of E911, Dempsey says that in effect, "your phone has become an ankle bracelet. Therefore we are urging the standard for government access be increased to a full probable cause standard. [Law enforcement agencies] have to have suspicion to believe that the person they are targeting is engaged in criminal activity." Currently, he says, to get a court order allowing the surveillance of cell phone use, law enforcement only has to prove that the information sought - not the individual - is relevant to an ongoing investigation. "It says to law enforcement you've got to have a link between the person you're targeting and the crime at issue," Dempsey says. "It cannot be a mere fishing expedition." While the CDT and others seek beefed-up constitutional restrictions on the ability for law enforcement to obtain court orders in such cases, the FBI says the process for obtaining such court orders is already adequate. "We work under the strict provisions of the law with regard to our ability to obtain a court order," said Barry Smith, supervisory special agent in the FBI's office of public affairs. "Law enforcement's access to [cell phone data] falls very much within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment." He also says that under CALEA, the call data the FBI seeks does not provide the specific location of a wireless phone. The FCC and its E911 requirements are distinct from CALEA, but because they offer the ultimate form of tracking information - far more instantly and explicitly than the FBI is seeking in the implementation of CALEA, E911 may be ripe for access by law enforcement for non-emergency needs. As for the distinction between the dispute over CALEA and the FCC's E911 services, Smith says the latter has nothing to do with the FBI. "There's not any crossover between the two." But, says Dempsey, when law enforcement serves a court order, they could get location information through the requirements established by E911. ------------------------------ From: Greg Knight Subject: V&H Coordinates: Conversion To Lat/Long Date: 8 Jan 1998 02:05:58 GMT Organization: Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc. Does anyone out there have the formula for converting the V&H coordinates used in the NNACL and LERG Bellcore documents? Any help would be appreciated. Greg Knight gknight@cris.com ------------------------------ From: yxk14@po.CWRU.Edu (Yoohwan Kim) Subject: Unable to Make International Calls (Domestic is OK) Date: 7 Jan 1998 20:08:52 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: yxk14@po.CWRU.Edu (Yoohwan Kim) I could not make international calls since I had my line installed a week ago. After struggling with AT&T and Bell Atlantic for several hours, I gave up and converted to MCI. Does anyone know why it happened? Neither company had international call blocking. I want to go back to AT&T and don't want to repeat the same problem. Please mail me (yoohwan@lucent.com) if you have any clue. Thanks. -- Yoohwan ---------------------------------- Here is the log of what happened. Dec. 23 1997 Requested phone line installation, requested AT&T for all long distance calls. Dec. 30 1997 supposed to be connected, but line was not activated. called repair service, repairman came to apt. and fixed the switch. we found that we cannot make international calls, but domestic long dist. is OK. The msg is " The number dialed is not allowed from your calling area. Please hang up and check that you have dialed dialed the correct number" called AT&T, she just said to try 10288 access code and hung up. We tried 10288 but still got the same message. Jan x 1998 called AT&T, he says the message is not from AT&T and Bell Atlantic's 700/900 blocking may be blocking international calls. Jan x called BA, they said all long distance problem is AT&T's and they've never heard the msg. Jan x BA performed test, taking my dialtone from their central office and did internal circuit test, (but they did not actually called the international number), they found no problem. Jan. 6 Tried call using 10222 (MCI) and successfully made calls to Korea and Japan, 10288(AT&T) does not work for any country. Changed the long dist. to MCI. Jan 7. morning. Bell Atlantic found that our call is directed to MCI instead of AT&T, and mistakenly thought that it had been the problem. So they reconnected to AT&T. We lost even domestic call capabilities. We asked reconnecting to MCI. Jan. 7 afternoon. MCI is restored. regular 011+... international call works through MCI. I have three reasons to believe that this is AT&T's problem. One. I could make international call using 10222(MCI), but not using 10288(AT&T). Two. After I called all the digits, I wait a few seconds and hear the msg. (There is no ringing signal inbetween.) I think the call was already transfered to AT&T at this point. Three. I converted to MCI and can successfully make the calls. What would be the problem in AT&T ? (I know their answer : "call Bell Atlantic") [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can say this much, that the message 'number you are dialing is not allowed from your calling area' almost always applies to toll-free 800 numbers you dial which have limited areas from which they will accept calls. For example, if an 800 number is set up as intrastate only (in some state) then attempts to call it from outside that state will get the recording mentioned. Would you mind telling us what number (county code/city code) you were dialing and how you dialed the call? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:08:49 +0000 From: Clive D.W. Feather Reply-To: Clive D.W. Feather Subject: Need For an Unusual Type of Service Organization: Demon Internet We're looking at putting some equipment into either New York (Manhattan) or New Jersey (Hoboken-ish), and have some slightly unusual telephone requirements. Not the physical lines, but the phone number. - It should not be a free or fixed-cost call for anyone (so not a local number in 212). - It should not generate a per-minute charge for us (otherwise we might as well switch to 800/888/877 and charge back to the customer). - It should not be likely to be blocked from hotels (so not a 900 number). - Ideally it should be cheap to call (no more than normal long distance would be; certainly no more than calls to the UK). Can anyone provide suggestions ? Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email: Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | | Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address | ------------------------------ From: ifo@xnet.com (Fraser Orr) Subject: Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:37:04 -0600 Organization: XNet-Midwest's Leading Network Service Provider 630-983-6064 I wonder if someone here could help me with a problem I have. I work in a location that has a PBX, and I want to use it to connect my modem to an ISP. Unfortunately I can't just unplug the phone at the wall like usual, and plug in the modem. I am no expert in telecoms but I understand that the phone sends some digital signal down that line, rather than analog. Various people I have spoken to seem to indicate that it is simply not possible to connect a modem via these telephone systems, but I simply don't believe them. I remember when modems were still operating at 1200 baud, that you could buy a device called an acoustic coupler, that you strapped onto the phone, and it seems to me that this would surely work. It seems rather an unsophisiticated solution though. Is it possible to simply unplug the handset of the phone, and, using a suitably modified jack, plug the modem in there? Even if it can't necessarily dial the number, I would be happy to dial it myself. Any suggestions? Confused in Illinois. Fraser Orr ------------------------------ From: Jerry Kaufman Subject: Educational Seminar Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 11:59:30 -0600 Organization: Alexander Resources THE NEW WIRELESS REALITY A Critical Analysis and Educational Seminar covering the Fundamentals, Applications & Limitations of The Wireless Revolution * The NEW Cellular, PCS, Satellite, & Fixed Wireless Access networks and services * The WIRELESS Technologies, standards, spectrum, and modulations schemes * The REALITY: Fact & Fiction, Applications & Limitations At this seminar you will learn: * The basics, capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of various terrestrial and satellite wireless: - Technologies - Network architectures - Air interface standards - Spectrum choices - Modulation techniques * The role of land line networks and services in the new wireless reality * The hurdles to integrating/interfacing various wireless networks and services * The reality of using new wireless technologies to replace or augment traditional wired voice and data networks * Where wireless increases productivity, produces a ROI and where it doesn't * What it takes to make one phone number and one phone per user a reality * The differences between single, dual, and triple mode phones, networks and services * The capabilities of single (private or public), dual, & triple domain networks, systems, phones and services * How new wireless technologies will impact existing private and public networks and services At the New Wireless Reality seminar you will not only gain a fundamental understanding of these new networks and services but be armed with the knowledge to separate fact from fiction. 1998 SEMINAR SCHEDULE Phoenix, AZ March 9-10, 1998 The New Wireless Reality seminar was developed and is sponsored exclusively by Alexander Resources Contact: Carole Kaufman Telephone: 972-818-8225 Fax: 972-818-6366 E-mail: CaroleK@AlexanderResources.com The two day seminar will be taught by Jerry Kaufman, President of Alexander Resources. Mr. Kaufman is an internationally recognized consultant, lecturer, author and expert on wireless communications and the foremost authority on wireless telephone systems. Alexander Resources Co. 15851 N. Dallas Pkwy, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75248 USA ------------------------------ From: RAdler Subject: MCI Service in Hawaii - Sounds Like 1960's All Over Again Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1998 17:53:07 -1000 Organization: IBM.NET I presently use AT&T for res. long-distance service; for the most part sounds great - even calling the mainland. I even dialed a 56k x2-access number in Florida (that's over 5000 miles away) and got an x2 connection. Before I switched to AT&T, I was using MCI. Even on inter-island calls (less than 250 miles) I would normally have extreme amounts of echo and noise - reminding me of how phone calls USED to sound. I complained MANY times to MCI customer (non)-service, and it still hasn't changed to this day. A friend of mine on Oahu switched to MCI - now, when he calls, I get "Out of Area" on my caller ID, and E C H O !!!!! Now, from what I'm told, all the alternate intra-lata carriers use GTE facilities -- none have their own. So why does MCI sound SO bad? (Sounds bad to the mainland, too.) And why don't I get the caller id? (Well, when an MCI customer calls from the mainland, I don't get the ID either, but I do if they're on AT&T or Sprint.) Also - On Thanksgiving day, "All circuits are busy" comes on for HOURS. This is not your normal 'all circuits are busy' - I could not even get an operator (00 - produced all circuits are busy); the code on the message was '322' which is the exchange of the CO switch serving my remote office. Whose fault is it? The local carrier (GTE) or my long-distance carrier? This also happened when I was on MCI on Subject: Question About Ameritech ISDN Tariffs A friend of mine asked me a question recently about what he thought might be a rather strange quirk in Ameritech ISDN tariffs in Michigan. I know a lot more about POTS than ISDN, so I wondered if anyone might enlighten us a bit. Basically, as he understands it, residential ISDN lines are untimed (we are, of course, talking about local calls here) - when you make an ISDN connection, you do not get dinged for a per-minute charge. However, he has been told that business ISDN lines are different - that there is in fact a per-minute charge for the duration of an ISDN connection. But, he was also told by someone that there is a quirk in the tariffs, and if you order "digital for analog" (???) the per-minute charge does not apply. The way it was explained to him, the "digital for analog" is used to get two voice grade lines on an ISDN channel, but once the line is installed it can be used just like a standard ISDN line, however the phone company doesn't make any guarantees about the ability of the line to actually handle a data connection. My question is, does this description of the situation make any sense at all, and does anyone have sufficient knowledge of Ameritech tariffs to know whether what I've described might in fact be the way things work? Whoever told him about this said that some ISP's actually advise their customers to get this type of connection, whatever it is. If this is indeed the case, can anyone give me a more specific description of what he'd need to order from Ameritech in order to get one of these lines installed in a place of business (without hopelessly confusing the service rep and/or getting stuck with the kind of ISDN line that does carry the per-minute charge)? To reply by e-mail, please remove the ".REMOVE-THIS" from my return address. Spammers, please do NOT send me e-mail; I *never* buy anything from unsolicited e-mail ads. Jack ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #3 ****************************