TELECOM Digest Sun, 13 Feb 94 10:49:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 80
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
International Dialback Long Distance (Michael D. Beatty)
More Information on the Economics of Dial-Back Services (Gowri Narla)
Re: Are LATA Maps Available? (Tony Harminc)
Re: Trick to Get Free Nynex Screening (Karl Johnson)
Re: Administration Adopts Coldwar Mentality, Pushes For Clipper (Paul Coen)
Re: Advertising by New York Telephone (Michael Israeli)
Re: How to Build Modified Three-Way Calling? (Jay Hennigan)
Questions About GMSK (Ramesh Sinha)
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 GEnie.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
*
[email protected] *
The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email:
[email protected].
** Article submission address only:
[email protected] **
Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.
TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. 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:
[email protected] (Michael D. Beatty)
Subject: International Dialback Long Distance
Organization: Community_News_Service
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 03:18:29 GMT
International dialback Long Distance ...
Communications Systems International, Inc.
For more information, send e-mail to
[email protected], and the system
will automatically send you an explanation ofhow to sign up for the
service, learn more about the possibilities for agency marketing, and
of course exactly HOW the service works.
Anyone interested in reducing the cost of international calls? For
themselves or their company, or any companies/ businesses they know or
care to contact?
And how about a very nice business opportunity working (freelance,
spare-time/part-time) with a leading American telecommunications
company? This opportunity can have exceptional appeal for any size
interest. From the home-based opportunist to the major telecommun-
ications boutique.
The company, CS International, provides international telephone
connections for any business anywhere in the world, using an ingenious
'dialback' system to allow users outside the US to connect up with the
US telephone network, via satellite and digital fiber optic lines, to
make their international calls. The result: up to *70%* savings on the
phone bill! It's very simple, fully automatic, doesn't require any
equipment (apart from the phone!), and doesn't even require switching
carriers. Customers _love_ it when they find out how easy it is and
how much it saves (and how clear the connections are).
Anyone with a monthly bill of $100 or more can benefit, and companies
with really large phone costs should look at this very seriously; CSI
can save them tens and hundreds of thousands every month. (CSI has the
capacity to bring 10,000 or 20,000 new lines on stream at a few hours'
notice, BTW.)
We also need people to contact potential customers locally (anywhere
in the world outside the US) -- e-mail, phone, direct, whatever works.
You become an independent agent (no fee or cost); you then earn
commission of US$0.8c (eight cents) per minute used by every customer
you sign up, every month, for the next ten years..... Not only that,
_you_ can sign up new agents to go looking for customers of their own,
and you earn commission of US$0.4c (four cents) for every minute used
by your agents' customers. You can build up quite a tidy monthly
income this way!
If you're interested, e-mail me, and I will send you a full description
of CSI and how the system works, along with the form needed to sign
up, both the agent form and the customer form. It's very simple, and
all you do to sign up is fax a couple of pages to the US. (CSI is on
the net too, so agents can communicate with the company direct very
simply.) Customer accounts and agent positions are set up in less than
48 hours.
Just e-mail
[email protected] for more information.
Michael D. Beatty 1-719-471-3332 1-800-950-5033
Fax: 1-719-471-2893
[email protected]
Personal line: 719-473-4883 Personal fax: 719-473-4609
Vice President of Marketing Communications Systems International
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Is the international call-back business
such a good one? In the next message, a response which sheds a little
more light on the scheme. PAT]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Gowri Narla)
Subject: More Information on the Economics of Dial-Back Services
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 03:57:31 GMT
In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected]
(Wolf Paul) writes:
> After the recent repost here in the Digest of information on
> Communications Systems International's Dial-Back service I wrote to
.....
> Add to that (a) the monthly minimum charge and (b) the inconvenience
> of only being able to call from the number where the dial-back box is
> going to call you back at, and I begin to wonder if this is such a
> good deal at all.
> Of course you can forget about using the service to call European,
> Middle Eastern or North African countries as well; there are slightly
> more substantial savings to be realized when calling countries in
> Latin America or the Far East.
> But since my need to call these places is rather limited, I guess I
> will currently pass on Mr. Beatty's service.
I was interested in Dial-Back services as well, but after a survey of
a few providers' rates, I was disappointed. I was primarily concerned
with using the services for India (it has one of the worst of telephone
services and PTTs) and other South Asian countries. I found that the
rates for calls from these countries are substantially LOWER than those
of the Dial-Back services.
There has been a tremendous growth in traffic between these countries
and the USA (increased immigrant populations, business growth in those
countries, increased international communications ...). The big three
LDCs, at least, have recognized this and the competition is pretty
intense. (Seen the ads with the heavy dose of ethnic images). Three
years ago, I was land-locked (phone-locked?) in my university campus
with AT&T -- I had to take it or have none. If I recollect right, I paid
$5.60 for the first minute on a call to India. Now, I pay $1.40 max!
In fact, in the latest round of price wars, AT&T and Sprint are both
offering a weekend call rate of 78c per minute flat!
But unlike Herr Paul, I need to call India often -- for personal as
well as business reasons. I do wish that my parties on the other side
could just pick the phone and call me whenever they wanted, without
fear of the high rates. There are thousands of other South Asians as
well in a similar predicament. Dial-Back services could exploit this
potential but they don't seem to be aware (PAT?). As of now, there are
other options:
1. You send the dollars to your relatives so they can afford to call
when they wish.
2. Set ringing codes (tell me if this is illegal!) between yourself
and your frequent callers by prior arrangement. Your long distance
caller lets your phone ring twice and hangs up. He does this twice and
you know who's calling. Obviously, you DIAL-BACK. Likewise, another
party is identified by, say ... two sets of three rings. And so on.
Inconvenient? Yes. But for someone who's used to seeing the pits of
telecoms, it's ok.
I'd really like to know how these services draw their rates. And,
what's the provider's billing relationship with the PTTs like?
Ram Narla
[email protected]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The company I represent called Telepassport
(US Fibercom) is really swamped with orders for the service, but they are
not able to get the lines they need from Nynex to meet the demand. I have
had parties sign up through me and wait *weeks* for them to come up with
switching facilities. I may switch to a better service if I find one. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 04:38:35 EST
From: Tony Harminc <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Are LATA Maps Available?
From:
[email protected] (John R. Grout)
>> LATA is not a technical division -- it is purely a political
>> concept set up to match certain US politics of the early 1980s.
> This sounds like a confusion between the LATA concept as a representation
> of the physical plant of AT&T's regional telephone subsidiaries (e.g.,
> New York Telephone, New England Telephone) and various independent
> telcos (e.g., Rochester Telephone) at the time of divestiture and the
> _use_ of the LATA concept (by Judge Greene) to divide provision of
> telephone service _using_ the LATA concept.
> The claim that LATA _layout_ was "not a technical division" is clearly
> false. For example, _all_ the cases of LATAs for independent telcos
> or those which cross state lines _exactly_ represent physical plant.
Sure -- but the concept was put in place precisely as part of allowing
LD competition. If it had been based on purely technical grounds
LATAs would have followed the existing hierarchy of local and toll
switches from class 5 end offices all the way to the ten class 1
regional centres that formed the switching fabric at the time. And
what grounds were there for introducing LATAs other than to determine
who would be allowed to carry what traffic? Technically, things
looked after themselves nicely already.
> Also, the AT&T divestiture was not a "political" one taken by the
> Administration or the Congress, but was ordered by a Federal Judge.
Oh, be serious. Are you claiming that US judges are somehow "above"
politics? That all US law, the constitution, judicial appointments,
etc. etc. are not political? That it wasn't a political decision that
led to the breakup of the Bell System?
>> The forces shaping LD competition in Canada in the 1990s are quite
>> different. It seems extremely unlikely that an artificial split
>> between IXCs and local telcos as in the US model will ever happen
>> here.
> Having grown up in Rochester, NY, home of what was then the largest
> single-area independent telco in the USA, I don't think it was an
> artificial distinction at all.
> I might not object to the RBOC's providing inter-LATA long distance
> service to their own local-service customers, but I would want them as
> _additional_ players, not dominant players, right from the beginning;
> that is, no automatic cutover of customers to _their_ service, no
> cross-subsidy of their long distance service by their local service,
> and so on.
Sure -- we agree on the last part. But I still think the division of
the US into short- and long- long distance markets is artificial and
(sorry) political. I'm not suggesting that Canada has got it right.
Clearly there are areas where big mistakes and political compromises
have been made here too. But I can see no reason to give local telcos
a monopoly on short long distance traffic and therefore continue to
some extent the cross-subsidies.
Tony Harminc
------------------------------
Date: 12 Feb 94 18:15:37 EDT
From: Karl Johnson <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Trick to Get Free NYNEX Screening
In TCD number 63
[email protected] (Barton F. Bruce) writes:
> A most interesting bill stuffer from NYNEX just now details a back
> door way to get FREE screening to eliminate collect and third party
> billing abuse to your number rather than paying their usual 97 cents
> per month.
> Seems you can now LEGALLY request that they NOT give your name and
> address to other carriers if you so request.
> Of course they say that if you have their LEC calling card and place
> that restriction they will have to CANCEL your card. Seems they can't
> just restrict your use to IXCs that just bill via the LEC's billing
> service, and so might have to divulge the billing information were you
> to use the card with the 'wrong' carrier.
> So *IF* I request them to NOT divulge my name , I get my card
> cancelled, **AND** I get F R E E collect and third party screening
> tossed on the line(s) FREE!
More Flippant description of "restrictions" deleted.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually no, telco cannot refuse to
> give your name and address to other carriers *for billing purposes
> only*, even if you have a non-published number. So go ahead and cancel
> your calling card if that is what you wish, but bear in mind that if
> someone calls you via a phone subscribed to a carrier who *does not*
> check the database used jointly by AT&T/MCI/Sprint and the local Bell
> companies, and you accept collect charges, then you *will* get billed
> for the call anyway, and the AOS/COCOT firm which originated the call
> will get your name, address and phone number. 'Billed Number
> Screening' as it is called (where collect and third-party calls are
> blocked right on the spot at the time/place of origin) ONLY works when
> the database is consulted. Some of the larger carriers (other than the
> Big Three who all cooperate on this) maintain their own database also.
> For example, Integratel does their own thing and does not consult the
> database used by AT&T.
> So regardless of what you advise your local telco (acting as billing
> and collection agent for the Big Three), unless you call Integratel
> and tell them the same thing (and Oncor to name another example) then
> the payphones of those companies will still be passing along collect
> calls (at outrageous rates I might add!) unchallenged, and your local
> telco will bill for them because under the law they have to. Integratel
> will add you to their database on behalf of their clients at your request
> with no qualms. Its no skin off their nose since all they do is bill
> for a bunch of small outfits. PAT]
PAT:
You need to reread this with your tongue in cheek. You also need to
read your last (next) Ameratech bill. I also received a stuffing on
this in my Jan. 26 Bell Atlantic a C&P telephone company bill (still
on C&P paper) It is announcing a FCC rules change that does away with
the requirements that you referred to. This would mean that your line
would be limited to IXCs that you have a preexisting relationship
with, so third party billing would be impossible on your line (at
least from other companies). I seem to remember that BA requires that
your number be unlisted.
Karl Johnson
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got the insert you are referring to
a couple days ago. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 00:28:47 EST
From: Paul R. Coen <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Administration Adopts Coldwar Mentality, Pushes For Clipper
Organization: Drew University Academic Technology
Oh, geez. That was a good one. And worry, there are comments about
Clipper in here.
The TELECOM Digest Editor notes:
> So, the discontent with President Clinton continues to grow. Does
> anyone remember as far back as just before his election when this man
> was supposedly going to be such a great person to have in office?
Nope -- I remember him winning by a not-so-impressive margin in a
three- way race. Oh, and then there was the usual post-election
euphoria that always occurs. And hey, he's looking up in the polls.
> He conned lots of gay people into voting for him with that bunk of his about
> no more discrimination in the military
And the military, with a few powerful folks in the House and Senate,
fought him tooth and nail. Remember those "hearings" put on by
Senator Nunn? If those had been any more staged, there would have
been credits at the end. If Clinton had done the full lifting of the
ban, Congress would have written it into the military code of justice.
I think you're really inflating the power of the position -- or at
least your expectations of it. It's a fairly weak executive. And it
should stay that way. The sad part is that most people in this
country seem to need to identify *one* person as a leader, as
responsible. It's easier. Just like it's easier to have a sense of
loyalty to a flag than the constitution.
> It is too bad that impeachment proceedings are such a long, tedious and
> cumbersome process. Nixon was the only president in recent times to face
> impeachment, and when it became rather obvious it was about to happen he
> resigned instead rather than go through with it.
Yup. You know, it would be great if the President could get chucked
out every time Congress had a hissy fit. We don't have a parliamentary
system. It's awfully easy to complain about how slow the system of
checks and balances makes things -- good way to make a cheap dramatic
statement of disgust.
Back to Clipper -- I'm personally not happy with the current
direction. But I don't just blame Clinton. The work on the algorithm
has to have started a good ten years ago. The actual Clipper proposal
dates back to the Bush era. And the FBI and NSA really want it, among
others. If you think the President can just do whatever he wants in
the face of opposition from powerful pieces of the federal
bureaucracy, you're mistaken. The career folks have a lot of pull.
And if you were in his position, what would you think? Once you're
exposed to intelligence community paranoia, it's really easy to see
things from a security point of view. And since you're not an expert,
you're relying on the people who filter the information to you. Hell,
I have enough trouble dealing with the information from my piddly
little job -- and I'm pretty good at it. I don't want to think of
what his "briefings" must be like.
One bright spot is that Gore has apparantly made statements about not
being happy with the escrow arrangments -- he thinks at least one of
the escrow agencies should be under the Judiciary, rather than both
being Executive branch agencies.
And the NSA really needs to wake up. While I can understand the
mentality of "don't help the enemy," I don't agree with it. The DoD's
attitude towards the Global Positioning System -- which can be used by
anyone to target weapons with amazing accuracy -- is that it's too
useful to shut off and that they just have to live with it.
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (What's it to YOU?)
Subject: Re: Advertising by New York Telephone
Date: 13 Feb 1994 14:15:24 GMT
Organization: Net Access - Philadelphia's Internet Connection
Barry Margolin (
[email protected]) wrote:
> In article <
[email protected]>
[email protected] (James
> Joseph) writes:
>> New York Telephone has been spending truck loads of money advertising
>> that they are changing their name to NYNEX.
> We're also getting them in New England Telephone land.
The same advertising is seen around here as Bell Atlantic is getting
rid of all their seperate names within each state. Living in
Philadelphia, where the TV stations broadcast to Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and Deleware, I get the see the same exact commercial over and
over:
Bell of Pennsylvania is now Bell Atlantic.
New Jersey Bell is now Bell Atlantic.
Diamond State Telephone is now Bell Atlantic.
THE HEART OF COMMUNICATION.
Pretty corny, if you ask me.
Michael Israeli - (
[email protected]) -
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Jay Hennigan)
Subject: Re: How to Build Modified Three-Way Calling?
Date: 12 Feb 1994 21:18:23 -0800
Organization: Disgruntled postal workers against gun control
In article <
[email protected]>
[email protected]
(Misuzu Nakazawa) writes:
> I am trying to build a three-way telephone conference circuit where
> parties A and B can communicate with party C (in both directions). C
> can hear A and B and A and B can hear C. The catch though is that I do
> not want A and B to be able to hear each other at any time during the
> call.
> Does anyone out there know how to build such a circuit, or where to
> get equipment that would do this?
I'm unaware of anything commercially available designed for this, but
such a device would be relatively simple to construct. The connection
would require two lines at party C's location and isolation amplifiers
so that C's transmit audio would go to A and B. An active mixer would
feed the receive audio from A and B to C.
Jay Hennigan
[email protected] Santa Barbara CA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 14:25:42+050
From:
[email protected] (Sinha)
Subject: Questions About GMSK
An early reference on GMSK is K. Murota and K. Hirade, "GMSK
modulation for digital mobile telephony," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol.
COM-29, pp. 1044-1050, July 1981.
This reference contains estimates of bit-error-rates as a function s/n
ratio for gmsk modulation. Do you have any reference on the spectral
power density calculations for gmsk, and on implementation strategies
for this modulation? I am told gmsk is part of US Cellular Telephone
Standard. I have not been able to locate a copy of the standard.
Sincerely,
Ramesh Sinha
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #80
*****************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
