TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 May 94 10:57:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 242

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    LECs Must Offer Signalling Info For Tandem-Switching Services (Bob Keller)
    AT&T Support for New Digital Signature Standard (David R. Arneke)
    Book Review: "Internet: Getting Started" by Marine et al. (Rob Slade)
    CPSR Response to FCC CNID (Monty Solomon)
    New Area Codes For Modems (Ameritech) (Monty Solomon)
    Short Message Service (SMS) (Richard Cox)

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.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

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:
                    9457-D Niles Center Road
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 708-329-0571
                        Fax: 708-329-0572
  ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu **

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 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.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

Additionally, 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.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 13:54:13 GMT
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: LECs Must Offer Signalling Info For Tandem-Switching Services


Report No. DC-2602      ACTION IN DOCKET CASE        May 19, 1994 
      
       RULES ADOPTED REQUIRING LECS TO OFFER SIGNALLING INFORMATION
                       FOR TANDEM-SWITCHING SERVICES
                  (CC DOCKET 91-141, TRANSPORT PHASE II)

     The Commission took another step in a series of initiatives to
remove barriers to competition in the interstate access telephone
market by adopting a Third Report and Order in the expanded
interconnection proceeding.  In prior orders on expanded
interconnection for special access and switched transport, the
Commission created new opportunities for parties to provide special
access and switched transport transmission services in competition
with local exchange carriers (LECs).  Today's decision will enable
parties, for the first time, to offer tandem-switching services in
competition with the LECs.

     The Order requires Tier 1 LECs (those having annual revenues from
regulated telecommunications operations of $100 million or more for a
sustained period of time), except National Exchange Carrier
Association (NECA) pool members, to offer to any party the signalling
information necessary for the party to provide tandem-switching
services.

     Specifically, Tier 1 LECs, except NECA pool members, must offer
any interested party, including interexchange carriers (IXCs),
competitive access providers (CAPs), and end users: (1) the "Carrier
Identification Code" (CIC), which indicates the long-distance carrier
to receive a call; and (2) the "OZZ," which indicates the specific
trunk group on which a call is carried from the tandem to the IXC.
LECs currently transmit these data from their end offices to their own
access tandems in providing tandem- switching services.  The
Commission stated that the record showed that LECs will be able to
provide this information at minimal cost by treating third-party
tandems, in effect, as if they were LEC tandems.  The Commission ruled
that Tier 1 LECs must offer the signalling information for traffic
from their equal access end offices, but not from LEC tandems.  LECs
will not be required to allow parties to collocate switching equipment
in LEC offices.

     LEC access charges at both the originating and terminating end
must be billed to the customer of record.  If a terminating LEC's
customer of record is an IXC, the LEC must accept billing tapes from
the tandem operator used by that interexchange carrier.

     As a result of the new requirement, a party such as a CAP could
collocate its transmision equipment in a LEC end office, transport
traffic to its own tandem, and switch it at the tandem. Alternatively, 
a party could use LEC-provided transport to carry traffic and signalling 
information to its own tandem.  In addition, small IXCs that currently
purchase LEC tandem-switched transport could obtain economies of scale
by aggregating their traffic from end offices on a single direct
trunk, routing traffic to their own tandem or a tandem operated by
another party, and switching it at that point.

     The Commission ruled that LEC offering of the necessary
signalling information will constitute a new service under price caps.
LECs will be required to make a cost-based showing under the price
caps new services test.  In addition, LECs will be required to
establish a rate element for the signalling information as a separate
service category within the trunking basket.  This service category
will be subject to an upper pricing band of 2%, but not a lower band.
The Commission concluded that LECs would not be granted any additional
pricing flexibility at this time.

     The Commission concluded that this further initiative in its
expanded interconnection proceeding would serve the public interest
because it would produce important benefits at minimal cost.
Facilitating third-party access to signalling information would permit
various telecommunications entities, including CAPs and IXCs, to offer
tandem-switching services in competition with the LECs.  Increased
competition should, in turn, exert downward pressure on access charges
and long-distance rates.  In addition, enhancing competition would
promote more efficient use and deployment of networks and encourage
technological innovation.  Finally, competitive tandem-switching
services would increase access to diverse facilities for IXCs and
users, which could improve network reliability.

     The Tier 1 LECs subject to the Third Report and Order will be
required to file tariffs offering the CIC and OZZ at their equal
access end offices within 90 days of publication of the Third Report
and Order in the Federal Register.

     In the Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission also
sought comment on a proposal by the Independent Data Communications
Manufacturers Association, Inc. (IDCMA) to allow third parties to
collocate customer equipment in LEC offices. The Commission will
address that proposal at a later time.

     Action by the Commission May 19, 1994, by Third Report and Order
(FCC 94-118). Chairman Hundt, Commissioners Quello and Barrett, with
Commissioner Barrett issuing a statement.

     News Media contact: Rosemary Kimball at (202)632-5050.
     Common Carrier Bureau contacts: Gary L. Phillips at 
     (202) 632-4048 and Linda L. Haller at (202)632-1298.   
     
                                  - FCC -


Bob Keller <KY3R>        Robert J. Keller, P.C.        Tel +1 301 229 5208
rjk@telcomlaw.com    Federal Telecommunications Law    Fax +1 301 229 6875
finger me for daily FCC info + see ftp.clark.net:/pub/rjk/ for other files

------------------------------

From: darneke@attmail.com (David R Arneke)
Date: 22 May 94 10:24:49 GMT
Subject: AT&T Support for New Digital Signature Standard


NEWS FROM AT&T

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Bill Jones, AT&T
(910) 279-6511 (office)
(910) 852-3196 (home)

FOR RELEASE FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1994

AT&T SECURE SOFTWARE SUPPORTS NEW U.S. DIGITAL SIGNATURE STANDARD

     GREENSBORO, North Carolina -- Several of AT&T's commercially
available secure software products already incorporate and comply with
the U.S. government's newly approved Digital Signature Standard (DSS).

     "AT&T anticipated approval of Federal Information Processing
Standard (FIPS) 186," said William A. Franklin, software security
products manager, AT&T Secure Communications Systems.  "And we worked
with our partner, Information Security Corporation, to ensure that our
commercially available secure software products would comply with the
new standard when it was announced."

     The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) this
week announced that the Secretary of Commerce had approved FIPS 186,
which incorporates the new Digital Signature Standard.  The new
standard takes effect Dec. 1, 1994.

     In a May 19 notice in the Federal Register, the NIST said the DSS
incorporates a new Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) appropriate for
applications requiring a digital, rather than written, signature.  The
DSA authenticates the integrity of the signed data and the identity of
the signatory.

     Applications include: electronic mail, electronic funds transfer,
electronic data interchange, software distribution, data storage and
other applications which require data integrity assurance and data
origin authentication.

     "Using our digital signature software for such applications can
help cut government agencies' and commercial organizations' operating
costs," Franklin said.  "Digital signature authentication can increase
the pace of communication, and that, in turn, reduces the cost of
doing business."

     AT&T secure software products that comply with the government's
new Digital Signature Standard include:

     -- AT&T SecretAgent (R) Software, which provides DES encryption,
the NIST Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA), the RSA cryptosystem for
digital signatures and key management, and the federal Secure Hash
Standard (SHS) for data integrity.

     SecretAgent Version 3.0 is in beta testing, and will begin
shipping by June 15.  Version 2.0 is currently available.

     SecretAgent Version 3.0 features include: cross-platform
compatibility among MS-DOS, Windows, Macintosh and various UNIX
operating systems; user transparent support of RSA and DSA public
keys; and mail-enabled operation through the Vendor-Independent
Massaging (VIM) interface.

-- AT&T Surity (TM) DSA Signature Software, which provides
authentication and data integrity assurance for electronic documents.

The program uses the DSA and the Secure Hash Standard to verify that
documents were transmitted by their assumed sender and that they have
not been modified in transmission.  DOS, UNIX and Windows version are
available.  A Macintosh port is in development.

     -- AT&T Cryptographic Development Kits, which incorporate a
comprehensive library of linkable code modules that can be purchased
by software developers who want to build security into their DOS,
Windows, Macintosh and UNIX applications.

     One kit includes code for DES encryption, the ElGamal public key
cryptosystem, the Digital Signature Algorithm and the Secure Hash
Standard.

     A second contains most RSA security functions, including RSA
encryption, key management and digital signatures.

     A third package combines the DSA and RSA kits.

     To place orders or get more information, please call the AT&T
Secure Communications Customer Service Center at 800 203- 5563.

                             # # #

Product names are trademarks of their respective companies.
       
------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 14:00:13 GMT
From: Rob Slade <rslade@cue.bc.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Internet: Getting Started" by Marine et al.


BKINTGST.RVW  940224
 
Prentice Hall/Brady/Ellis Horwood/Simon and Schuster/New Riders/Digital Press
113 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ   07632
(515) 284-6751    FAX (515) 284-2607
or
11711 N. College Ave.
Carmel, IN   46032-9903
or
201 W. 103rd Street
Indianapolis, IN   46290
or
15 Columbus Circle
New York, NY   10023
800-428-5331
or
Market Cross House
Cooper Street
Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1EB
England
phyllis@prenhall.com - Phyllis Eve Bregman is postmaster
70621.2737@CompuServe.COM Alan Apt
Beth Mullen-Hespe beth_hespe@prenhall.com
"Internet:  Getting Started", Marine et al, 1994, 0-13-289596-X
 
This is *not* a book introducing you to the Internet.  This is another
book on establishing a connection to the Internet.  A "first-timer",
as the cover has it, would almost certainly be bemused, if not totally
lost, by discussions of service providers, domain name servers and
costs.  The only introductory material is a brief overview of Internet
applications in chapter nine.
 
For those wishing to connect, this is a reasonable overview.  It
introduces the major topics, but often is very limited in terms of the
necessary details.  The setup for a router and the selection of
software is covered in a scant two paragraphs for each subject.
Obtaining an IP number and establishing a domain is recommended six
chapters before those items are defined.
 
Where this book does shine is in the listing of organizations related
to the internet.  If you are serious about establishing an Internet
node, you will need to contact a number of bodies quite aside from
your service provider.

copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994   BKINTGST.RVW  940224. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated newsgroups/mailing lists.


Vancouver      ROBERTS@decus.ca    
Institute for  Robert_Slade@sfu.ca 
Research into  rslade@cue.bc.ca    
User           p1@CyberStore.ca    
Security       Canada V7K 2G6      

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 04:17:54 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: CPSR Response to FCC CNID (fwd)


Forwarded FYI to the Digest:
   
   From: jjohnson@FirstPerson.COM (Jeff Johnson)
   Subject: CSPR Responds to FCC CNID Ruling
   Date: 18 May 1994 17:28:55 GMT

CPSR has responded to the FCC's recent ruling on Calling Number 

Identification (CNID).  Our response took two forms:

1. Carl Page of CPSR/Oregon, who was (with Erik Nilsson) an active
participant in the Oregon state hearings two years ago that led to an
Oregon decision that followed many of CPSR's recommendations,
wrote a "Petition for Reconsideration" of the FCC's ruling, and is 
submitting it today to the FCC.  I provided advice and editorial 
feedback on the petition.  The main points of CPSR's petition are:

1) Phone companies argue that line blocking undermines the value of
CNID, but in fact the evidence suggests that this is false, 2) CNID
with no line-blocking undermines the value of the "unlisted number"
service, which has a higher market penetration rate than is projected
for CNID, 3) per-call blocking is unreliable as a way to preserve
privacy, especially in the age of direct marketing, "data harvesters,"
and the information superhighway, 4) Call Trace could be more useful
to residential phone customers than CNID if it were inexpensive and
universally available, yet the FCC's ruling ignores it entirely, and
5) the distinction between CNID, which can be blocked, and Automatic
Number Generation (ANI), which provides calling numbers to 800 and
900-service providers and which cannot be blocked, should eventually
be eliminated, such that blocking is available for all calls.

2. I provided advice to the National Association of State Consumer
Advocates (NASUCA), which is submitting its own "Petition for
Reconsideration" with the FCC.  NASUCA consists of the majority of
state Consumer Advocates, who work for their respective state Public
Utilities Commissions.  NASUCA's main arguments are: 1) the ~40 states
that have considered CNID did so in a very open and democratic manner
(e.g., held public participation hearings and evidentiary hearings,
solicited and received numerous letters and written arguments, etc.),
and most (36) of those states have decided that per-line blocking is
necessary to provide a fair balance between the privacy of callers
and callees, 2) the FCC's ruling, which was not based on such a 
democratic process, may well pre-empt those of the states, so the FCC 
should reconsider its ruling and allow CNID blocking, however generated 
(i.e., per-line or per-call), to work for interstate calls. In other 
words, calls for which the caller has blocked number disclosure should 
simply be marked as blocked, regardless of whether the blocking was 
initiated on a per-call or per-line basis.  This would actually be 
simpler than requiring callers (and the network) to treat interstate 
calls differently from local calls.

Hopefully, the FCC will reconsider.


JJ
eagle@deeptht.armory.com email info@eff.org *

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 04:18:39 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: New Area Codes For Modems (Ameritech)


Forwarded FYI to the Digest:
   
  From: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
  Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
  Subject: New area codes for modems (Ameritech)
  Date: 16 May 1994 10:16:12 -0400

halleen@MCS.COM (Michael Halleen) says:

> On the news this morning there was a story that Ameritech is considering
> adding a new area code in the Chicago area.  They may split the suburbs
> (now 708) into two zones, or they might create a new code just for fax 
> machines and modems.

> While right now it costs nothing extra to call to 708 from 312 (suburbs
> from city), that might not always be true.  

> This is not a modem tax scare, but is it possible that this could end up
> costing internet users (those who dial up) more money?  Could this be
> an attempt to squeeze more money out of a growing business?

More likely, they are just running out of numbers, or need to change
the way calls are routed, or some such administrative problem.  This
is not really that rare a thing, the branching of prefixes and area
codes, and I think it likely that your state Public Utility Commission
defines LD charges by distance, rather than by area code or telco
whim.

> I'd like it if someone from the EFF would answer this.  Is there anything
> we can do to make it clear that we will not accept this?  (besides waiting
> for Chicago Cable to start offering phone service)

If you mean the splitting of the area codes, probably nothing you can
do about it, and there's unlikely to be much of a reason to anyway.
If you mean preventing tariffs targeted at modem and fax users, you
can always send letters to the heads of both the telco and the PUC
discouraging any such ideas if they are brewing.  At this juncture -
no actual modem-tariff in sight - there's not much else to do.


Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 13:56:13 -0700
From: richard@mandarin.com
Subject: Short Message Service (SMS)


gregalex@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Greg Alexander) asked:

>>  I am interested in buying a GSM phone, and was hoping to learn
>>  a little more about the short message service offered in some.

>>  Is it a pager -- or a digital message that appears when your phone
>>  is in range?

We've just got the first "workable" SMS system in the UK, on the new
DCS1800 (PCN) system known as "ORANGE".  Essentially it is a message
transfer system that uses a form of handshaking between the mobile
switch and the handset: so error-free receipt of the message can be
guaranteed.

If the intended recipient's phone is not in range when the message is
sent, the network will hold the message until an error free path is
available for the message to be handed over.  This is important, as
the worst thing about a cellphone being out of range is for there to
be a message waiting when the phone gets back into coverage, and that
message has to be listened to from a fringe area with really poor
reception.  When the message is received, it is stored on the user's
SIM card -- which can be removed from the phone for security.  Even if
several people share a phone, the messages would stay completely
private (SIM cards can be protected with a PIN code).

We do not *just* have a message bureau, however: we also have the
ability to send messages *directly from handset to handset* and these
messages cost less to send than it would cost to make a phone call to
say the same thing!

In the future there are plans to provide notebook computer access to
the handset (using PCMCIA cards) and this will substantially increase
the functionality of the message service.  It will become possible to
send text messages from the handset (or computer) to any other GSM/PCN
system, to any of the old analogue paging networks, or as an X400
message or a facsimile document.  If a SMS message contains a phone
number with a request to be called back, the handset will (on a
key-push) grab that number and store it in the phone's memory, ready
to be called back by the user.  Oh, and we also have full Caller-ID
and last call return.

All this because the new ORANGE service in the UK seems to be
different to our other Telcos ... rather than saying "how little can
we get away with giving the customer", they say "how much useful
functionality can we cram into the system, and so make people want to
use our phones, without having to increase the prices !  After all,
ORANGE is *not* the first PCN (DCS1800) system in the UK ... but it IS
the first to offer all these features.

A sidenote: although there are two handsets now available for ORANGE,
these facilities will only work on Nokia handsets, not on the Motorola
alternative.


Richard D G Cox
Mandarin Technology, P.O. Box 111, Penarth, South Glamorgan, Wales:  CF64 3YG
Voice: 0956 700111 Fax: 0956 700110  VoiceMail: 0941 151515 Pager 0941 115555
E-mail address: richard@mandarin.com - PGP2.3 public key available on request

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #242
******************************

