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: love@essential.org From: James Love 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 listserver@essential.org 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: tap@essential.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 17:02:41 EST Reply-To: love@essential.org From: James Love 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 listserver@essential.org 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: tap@essential.org ------------------------------ From: joe@erix.ericsson.se (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: rrb@deja-vu.aiss.uiuc.edu (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 - subscribe@airwaves.chi.il.us - ------------------------------ From: kcooke@uclink.berkeley.edu (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 kcooke@ocf.berkeley.edu OR UCB Grad School of Journalism kcooke@uclink.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: 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 -- randal-hayes@uiowa.edu ------------------------------ From: rayj@ctss07.hydro.qc.ca (Jean Raymond) Subject: Mixture of ATM and SONET/SDH Reply-To: rayj@ctss07.hydro.qc.ca 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: jraymond@cct.hydro.qc.ca ------------------------------ From: ken@pluto.dss.com (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 ken@dss.com. Thanks, Ken ------------------------------ From: djcl@grin.io.org 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 <76004.1762@CompuServe.COM> 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