TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Nov 93 02:18:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 753
Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson
Telcom Legislation (James Love)
TAP Comments on PCS Auction (James Love)
Microsoft Telephony API/SPI (Joe Armstrong)
Accessing NIST via Macintosh (Bill Pfeiffer)
Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? (Kevin Ian Cooke)
Re: 800 Phone Sex, ANI, and Call Blocking Through PSN (Randal Hayes)
Mixture of ATM and SONET/SDH (Jean Raymond)
Need to Buy E1 to T1 Converter (Ken Adler)
NPA 456 Assigned to "Inbound International" Services (David Leibold)
Re: Repeat of the Vote Now Underway (Earle Robinson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 19:43:30 EST
Reply-To:
[email protected]
From: James Love <
[email protected]>
Subject: Telcom Legislation
from TAP-INFO Internet Distribution List
Taxpayer Assets Project
Information Policy Note
November 10, 1993
Representative Markey is expected to soon introduce legislation
dealing with telco entry into cable, and cable entry into telco
markets. The attached letter expresses our interest in common carrier
regulation to protect competition in "content" markets.
jamie love
--------------------------------------
Taxpayer Assets Project
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
November 10, 1993
Representative Edward Markey
Chair, House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and Finance
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Re: Telecommunications legislation
Dear Representative Markey:
We are writing to urge you to use your influence as chair of the House
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance to protect competition
in markets for information content and value added information
services. As you know, the Congressional debate over the new National
Information Infrastructure (NII) has become largely a discussion over
what type of competition will be allowed between telecommunications
carriers. Thus, we hear plenty about whether or not telcos will be
allowed to provide video programming to compete against cable
franchises, if cable franchises will be allowed to provide switched
voice and data services in competition with telcos, if RBOCs will be
allowed to enter long lines markets, or who will be allowed to own PCS
licenses.
Much of this debate assumes a much greater role for vertically
integrated services, with telephone, cable, and wireless carriers
being allowed to own significant amounts of the programming content
which travels over their facilities. We believe that such vertical
integration raises grave problems, as firms will use their control
over carrier markets to exercise monopoly power in content markets.
The most relevant example of this is the long and well documented
history of anticompetitive problems in cable television markets, where
large cable franchise companies have used their control over carrier
facilities to benefit programming services in which they are
investors, at the expense of rival services. This has reduced
competition in content markets, and raised important questions about
who controls the availability of information services. It is simply
outrageous, for example, that TCI and Time-Warner were able to prevent
General Electric from offering CNBC as a news format channel, because
they were investors in CNN, the dominate incumbent source of cable
news. If carriers can push around a firm as large as GE, they can
crush much smaller enterprises with ease.
Vertical integration also raises profoundly difficult problems for the
regulation of carrier rates. In cable, much of the revenues are
derived from pay-for-view services or advertising. Because cable
operators are allowed to own or control programming services and sell
advertising, it has become extremely difficult for regulators to
determine if consumers are paying excessive fees for the carrier
services.
Competition among carriers can be an important mechanisms to benefit
consumers, but even more important are the goals of promoting
competition in content markets, and providing a regulatory structure
that makes it possible to protect consumers from excessive rates for
carrier services. These goals can best be achieved by no-nonsense
common carrier regulation in carrier markets, combined with rules that
bar vertical integration into programming services.
At a minimum, Congress must require that telephone, cable, and
wireless telecommunications carriers act as common carriers, giving
all content providers equal opportunities to compete against each
other. However, it is important to note that in the absence of rules
against vertical integration, regulators will be faced with the
arduous task of reviewing tariff classes, encryption mechanisms,
promotional efforts, and endless contractual terms to guard against
anticompetitive behavior, and it will be extremely difficult to
regulate carrier rates to consumers when much of the company's
revenues are "off the books" for purposes of determining company
revenue requirements.
Any legislation that Congress considers this year should provide the
strongest possible common carrier protections, and promote the most
open systems of telecommunications. Companies should not have the
incentives or power to extend their control over carrier markets to
control over content markets.
Access to information and the ability to provide information services
over the telecommunications infrastructure are the key issues in the
development of the new NII. Congress needs to shift its attention
from competition among large carriers to the more important and
critical problems of making the NII promote a new era of freedom in
the exchange of information.
Sincerely,
James Love
Director
TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer
Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the
management of government property, including information systems and
data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government
assets. TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal
information policy. tap-info is archived at ftp.cpsr.org;
gopher.cpsr.org and wais.cpsr.org
Subscription requests to tap-info to
[email protected] with
the message: subscribe tap-info your name
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet:
[email protected]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 17:02:41 EST
Reply-To:
[email protected]
From: James Love <
[email protected]>
Subject: TAP Comments on PCS Auction
from TAP-INFO Internet Distribution List
Taxpayer Assets Project
Information Policy Note
November 10, 1993
TAP Comments to FCC on PCS spectrum allocation
- FCC asked to bar incumbent telephone, cable and cellular
companies from obtaining wireless PCS licenses in their own
service areas
- FCC asked to withhold permission to aggregate licenses
together until it determines that the benefits of
aggregation (larger spectrum blocks) outweigh the
disadvantages (fewer licenses) of less competition and
diversity
- FCC asked to award some licenses on the basis of royalty or
profit sharing agreements, rather than upfront cash payments
The attached letter is the Taxpayer Assets Project comments on the
FCC's proposed rules for auction of spectrum for Personal
Communications Services (PCS).
------------
James Love, Taxpayer Assets Project
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
November 10, 1993
Mr. William Caton
Acting Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20554
Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on spectrum auction,
FCC 93-455.
Dear Mr Caton:
The Taxpayer Assets Project is pleased to offer comments on the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on spectrum auctions, FCC 93-455.
We will address three points.
1. Competition and diversity will be enhanced through
restrictions on cross ownership. Telephone, cable and
cellular companies should not be able to acquire PCS
licenses in their own service areas.
The FCC can best promote competition in telecommunications markets by
adopting rules which prohibit incumbent telephone, cable and cellular
companies from obtaining licenses to operate PCS services in their own
service areas. The FCC's proposal to allow existing cellular license
holders to acquire an additional 10 MHz of spectrum, and to allow
telephone and cable companies to acquire up to 40 megahertz of
spectrum, could result in cases where the four incumbent
telecommunications carriers in a given market obtain 100 megahertz of
the available 120 MHz of new PCS spectrum.
Federal policy makers, including Congress and the Executive branch,
claim that competition will protect consumers from excessive carrier
rates. The new PCS wireless services are supposed to be an important
element of a new competitive carrier market. Competition can hardly
be enhanced if incumbent telephone, cable and cellular companies can
"own" most of the new PCS spectrum. The recent decision by PACTEL to
divest its cellular licenses in order to allow the company to acquire
a full 40 MHz of PCS spectrum is a case in point. In markets served
by PACTEL, incumbent telephone, cable and cellular companies will be
allowed to acquire 100 MHz of the 120 MHz of PCS spectrum which is to
be auctioned. Under what economic theory can this possibility promote
"competition?" Clearly there would be more competition if all PCS
license holders were new entrants in the service area.
In our judgement, the issue of cross-ownership restrictions and
competition is so obvious, the only mystery is why will the FCC allow
cross ownership. What possible rationale can the FCC offer other than
the fact that telecommunications carriers appear to wield more
political influence than do consumers?
2. Aggregation of PCS licenses into larger blocks should only
be allowed after a finding by the FCC that such aggregation
is in the public interest.
The FCC is proposing to issue seven PCS licenses per market, but also
to allow bidders to aggregate licenses together into larger blocks.
The only restrictions on the aggregation are the proposed limit of 40
MHz of licenses per firm. In our previous comments on this issue we
urged the FCC to auction off PCS spectrum in the smallest possible
blocks, and then allow aggregation, contingent upon an FCC finding
that the aggregation was in the public interest. The potential
benefits of aggregation, which may include the ability to provide some
broadband services which cannot be offered via smaller blocks, must be
weighted against the costs of aggregation, which will include less
competition and less diversity. The FCC doesn't yet know if the
smaller PCS blocks can adequately serve PCS users, and it would be
wise to allow a certain amount of experimentation before it concludes
that the smaller PCS blocks can be aggregated into larger, but fewer
licenses.
3. The FCC should allow some bidders on PCS spectrum to offer
royalties or profit shares as an alternative to upfront cash
payments.
Upfront cash payments for PCS spectrum offer a number of appealing
advantages, including the simplicity of the auction mechanism, and the
fact that the lump sum cost of the licenses will not involve marginal
costs per unit of service offered, arguably leading to more efficient
consumer prices. On the other hand, upfront cash payments crate entry
barriers, and will lead to less competition in the auction, and we
believe, a lower present value to the public for license fees, due to
the differences between the bidders discount rates (the costs of
obtaining capital) and the government's discount rate (the
government's costs of obtaining revenue through the issuance of
government bonds).
At a minimum, the FCC should require that one Block C and one Block D
license in each market be auctioned on the basis of the highest
royalty or profit share. To accomplish this, we suggest that the FCC
offer these blocks after the initial licenses are auctioned, and that
the license holders be required to pay upfront fees which are equal to
one third or one half the winning bids of the licenses sold for cash.
That is, the second round of licenses should be awarded to the firms
which agree to pay a fixed upfront fee, while "bidding" on the
government's contingent share of the PCS revenues.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this issue.
Sincerely,
James Love
TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer
Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the
management of government property, including information systems and
data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government
assets. TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal
information policy. tap-info is archived at ftp.cpsr.org;
gopher.cpsr.org and wais.cpsr.org
Subscription requests to tap-info to
[email protected] with
the message: subscribe tap-info your name
Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet:
[email protected]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Joe Armstrong)
Subject: Microsoft Telephony API/SPI
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 16:11:39 GMT
Does anybody have any information available about products which use
the recently published Microsoft Telephony API/SPI?
Do you think the Microsoft Telephony API will catch on? Up to now the
CCITT has been the principle organisation responsible for telephony
standards. The microsoft API seems to represent a radical departure
from this. Is this the future?
Joe
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Bill Pfeiffer)
Subject: Accessing NIST via Macintosh
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 13:42:08 CST
> The October 1993 issue of BYTE Magazine mentions that you can access
> the NIST atomic clock through the Internet at address 132.163.135.130
> (time_a.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov). However, our computer center is
> Macintosh oriented and I cannot find software to set the Mac's clock
> through this address (or, for that matter, through the more accurate
> telephone connection). Can someone suggest MacTCP compatible software
> for this? Or am I going to have to write it myself?
mac.archive.umich.edu has several programs for permitting your Mac to
call in and get it's clock cleaned (grin) or at least set, via the
NIST (and other) timeservers.
Not having a Mac, I am not aware of exactly what it is called, but it
does exist and several of my mac friends are using it quite
successfully.
Bill Pfeiffer
Moderator rec.radio.broadcasting/AIRWAVES email digest.
To Subscribe, send email to -
[email protected] -
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Kevin Ian Cooke)
Subject: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels?
Date: 12 Nov 1993 03:01:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
In light of the recent discussions about scanning cellular frequencies, I
would like your help with the following:
I am interested in writing a story about people who, from time to
time, like to listen to their nieghbors' cellular phone conversations.
I know you're out there, especially folks in the *.dcom.telecom
worlds, since (as I'm sure most of you know) it only takes slight
alterations to cell phones and FM scanners to get them to hear the
cellular frequencies.
I know that the above is illegal, and I know that anyone engaged in
such activity could be prosecuted. That is why I'm posting here. You
may reply anonymously, if you must, but I would like some general
information about you, as much as you're comfortable providing. Have
you heard any good stories? Do you feel that what you're doing is
wrong? Did you see _Sliver_? :)
Flame if you must, but please realize that this medium is ideal for the
kind of research that I would like to pursue. Thanks in advance.
Kevin Cooke
[email protected] OR
UCB Grad School of Journalism
[email protected]
------------------------------
From: <
[email protected]>
Date: 12 Nov 93 18:53 CST
Subject: Re: 800 Phone Sex, ANI, and Call Blocking through PSN
> The FCC recently ruled that this kind of billing back to the ANI
> from an 800 number is illegal *unless* the caller establishes a
> customer relationship with the company ...
Unfortunately, some of these businesses have found what they believe
to be a loophole in this ruling. We dealt with a situation in which
the caller dials an 800 number, and the company asks if this person
wants the service. With an affirmative response, the company
immediately sets-up a "calling card" for the caller with their
company, using the ANI number (one of our trunk numbers) and a 4-digit
PIN number. The caller can then call their other 800 number at any
time, giving this "calling card" number for billing purposes. The
company ignores the fact that the caller has no connection to the ANI
number that, as a DID trunk, is being paid for by us. They believe
this set-up constitutes establishment of a "customer relationship"
with them, and their opinion is they can then charge-back to this
number.
We resolved this incident with the company by calling the service
company number (who must get really tired of these sleazy schemes,
except for the $$$ rolling in), who removed the charges from our bill,
and placed the billing number they receive via ANI for our trunks in a
restricted status with their company. Of course, who will reimburse us
for the time required to clean up this mess and deal with this
garbage? Unfortunately, we simply do not have the time or staff to
pursue the matter and hopefully drive this service into the ground, so
it keeps going, and going, and going ...
Thoughts and opinions which are strictly my own from --
[email protected]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Jean Raymond)
Subject: Mixture of ATM and SONET/SDH
Reply-To:
[email protected]
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 13:19:32 GMT
Hi,
Does anybody have solutions on the possibility to mix ATM inside a
SONET ADM rings? SONET rings can't support the add/drop of cells
from an STS-1 because SONET can't provide traffic protection to the
level of cells. And everybody knows cell is the key element of ATM. I
read a very few lines on sheath ring and I'd appreciate if someone
could suggest me any articles on that topic or any other solution.
Thank you,
Jean Raymond, eng., Ph.D.
Hydro-Quebec Telecommunications Control Centre
Complexe Desjardins, East Tower, Floor B1, C.P. 10000
Montreal, Canada, H5B 1H7
tel: 514-289-5305 fax: 514-289-3306
email:
[email protected]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Ken Adler)
Subject: Need to Buy E1 to T1 Converter
Organization: Datability, Carlstadt, NJ
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 17:52:51 GMT
Does anyone know of any companies that make a box that takes in one or
more E1 trunks and convert it to multiple T1 trunks?
I urgently need contact info for companies that have such a product.
Please email to
[email protected].
Thanks,
Ken
------------------------------
From:
[email protected]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 21:43 EST
Subject: NPA 456 Assigned to "Inbound International" Services
I recently had contact with Bellcore, and got word of an assignment of
NPA 456 for "inbound international" services. This is not planned for
use within World Zone 1 (North American Numbering Plan) but rather the
intent is that 456 will be used from points in other nations to allow
special numbers that are assigned to carriers within the NANP (such as
AT&T, Teleglobe, MCI, Sprint, etc). Currently, calling from overseas
will not allow a choice of destination U.S. or Canadian carrier, even
though a few countries will allow a choice of which domestic carrier
will initiate the call. I forgot to find out when 456 would take
effect, though it seems likely to wait for the 1 January 1995
implementation of "interchangeable" area codes such as the 334 area
already announced to split Alabama NPA 205.
Bellcore did admit to two other new NPA assignments, but details on
these will not be released until the phone companies involved make
their announcement first. Candidates for new splits include 813
Florida, 206 Washington state and perhaps others.
David Leibold
------------------------------
Date: 11 Nov 93 19:43:18 EST
From: Earle Robinson <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Repeat of the Vote Now Underway
This is becoming ridiculous. I refuse to participate in yet another
vote. We've already voted. Why yet another time?
er
[Moderator's Note: We are voting again because the first vote did not
turn out the way certain people wanted it to turn out. I assume if the
vote fails again, they will hold it a third time. Either that, or just
go ahead and install the group anyway, which was given a lot of con-
sideration prior to the second vote. Coincidental to the first vote
failing to pass, IMHO, I made some comments giving my own personal
opinion in the matter here, and when the vote failed, my having talked
about it here was just the hook or ammunition needed by the group's
proponents to cry foul. Also, there were a small number of voters who
don't otherwise have net access who participated, and this may or may
not have affected the outcome in a statistically significant way. So,
a handful of voters whose votes were of questionable validity depending
on how you feel about list members participating in Usenet votes, and
my comments caused some people to get one of their appendeges caught
in the wringer as the saying goes. So amid the uproar -- and it appeared
to me to be a terrible stink, although I don't follow Usenet enough to
be a judge of how nasty a place it can be -- David Lawrence suggested
to me perhaps an 'unmoderated' mailing by the proponents of the new
group and a revote would end some of the flaming. I agreed -- in
essence said be my guest, run a revote now, don't wait for the six
month moratorium. So they did. Asbestos Dippold put out his summary
and now the vote is underway again. Let's see how it turns out this time
with no 'undue influence' (god, that one is a gas!) from me. If you
have not voted this time around, please do so, and list readers should
not vote unless they otherwise read Usenet News straight from a newsfeed
somewhere. Most Compuserve/MCI Mail people would be ineligible to
vote under the guidelines. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V13 #753
******************************
******************************************************************************
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
