TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:24:00 EST Volume 20 : Issue 12
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Communication Tower (Dean Forrest Wright)
Re: Communication Tower (Robert D. Weller, Hammett & Edison, Inc.)
Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (John Stahl)
Internet Merchants Fight Back (Monty Solomon)
Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Julian Thomas)
Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees (Michael Hartley)
Re: Traffic Exchange (Pavel Gavronsky)
Seeking Information on New Company (harad@erols.com)
Internet Content vs Internet Delivery (J.F. Mezei)
Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (Ed Ellers)
Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast (73115.1041@compuserve.com)
Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress (Ed Ellers)
Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood (Don Kimberlin)
Dial 1D Carrier Options in AC 248 (Heywood Jaiblomi)
Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks (Joel B. Levin)
Information Wanted on Telephone Switching Systems (Vaios Savviou)
The Demise of An IP Long Distance Service? (Ted Koppel)
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
networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
611 Poplar Street
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 805-545-5115
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/
mailing list on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org
Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for
a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system
for archives files. You can get desired files in email.
* 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: Dean Forrest Wright dot@RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Communication Tower
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:02:54 GMT
Organization: Wright Engineers P.C.
In our world of rapidly changing technology, you should consider the
consequences of the tower owner discontinuing its use. In utility line
easements, I have seldom seen any clause which requires the owner of
the facility to remove it, should it be abandoned. You may wish to
consider, however unlikely it may seem at this time, the ramifications
of having an abandoned tower and building on your property and consult
counsel accordingly.
Dean Forrest Wright, P.E.
Telecommunications (Central Office Equipment) Engineer
dean <at> imt <dot> net
"When one lacks a sense of awe, there will be a disaster.
Linda Harris <tamworth@voicenet.com> wrote in article
<telecom20.10.3@telecom-digest.org>...
> The tower company is offering us $5,000 per annum, with a 15% increase
> every 5 years. The lease will run for 55 years.
Subject: Re: Communication Tower
From: rweller@h-e.com (Robert D. Weller, Hammett & Edison, Inc.)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:56:19 -0800
Organization: Hammett & Edison, Inc.
I believe that I missed an earlier message on this subject. Tower
site valuation is strongly dependent upon what the tower is going to
be used for. If the tower is for a single user, such as a cellular
telephone company to fill a gap in its coverage, the value would be
much less than if the site will be developed as a multi-user site.
The $5k/year proposal sounds reasonable for a single-user pole.
Around here (S.F. Bay Area), single-user site leases run $6k-18k/year.
Keep in mind those figures are for urban/suburban areas. Rural area
land costs are much lower, so tower site lease values would also be
lower.
In my experience, multi-tenant site owners often negotiate a lease
that is based upon a percentage of gross tenant revenue. Percentages
for prime sites can run from 15-40% of gross revenue. Another common
approach is to negotiate a fixed dollar amount for the first X
tenants, plus an escalator (like 2-3%/ year), with a percentage of
revenue applying for all tenants beyond X.
Bottom line, if $5k/year was their first offer, you need to counter
with something higher.
Bob Weller
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:08:23 -0500
From: John Stahl <aljon@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees
I too, am concerned about this subject, particularly about the 'calling
party' pays portion of the deliberation. Please look at my email note
to Mr. Kennard, FCC Chairman, regarding this issue and his answer, below.
John Stahl
Aljon Enterprises
Telecom/Data Systems Consultant
>>> John Stahl <aljon@worldnet.att.net> 02/29/00 09:55AM >>>
Mr. Kennard,
I have been reading lately about some FCC deliberation regarding "cellular
caller pays". However, I tried to do a search on the FCC internet site to
no avail with regards to this subject.
I am quite concerned that if this is confirmed by the FCC that many
unsuspecting callers will be 'automatically' charged with very high
charges when calling a cellular user who is 'roaming' far from their
home base (say based in New York and traveling - roaming - in
Hawaii). I'm sure you will agree that if this 'calling party pays' is
approved, it should have some restrictions on the cellular company to
advise the caller of as to what the charges will be in advance of call
completion.
I would really appreciate finding any internet available information
regarding the FCC meetings on this subject.
Thank you.
John Stahl
Response from FCC Chairman Kennard:
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.2
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:29:17 -0500
From: BKENNARD <BKENNARD@fcc.gov>
To: aljon@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Request to the Chairman
When considering potential adoption of these rules, we already
considered including a notification announcement to callers if they we
going to be charged.
Thank you for your concerns.
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:29:33 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Internet Merchants Fight Back
Frustrated by fraud artists, business owners take matters into their
own hands
By Mike Brunker
MSNBC
March 3 - When their pleas for help in fighting credit card
thieves in foreign lands fell on deaf ears, Internet merchants Marc
Gilbert, Pat LaMastro and Cheryl Faye Schwartz took matters into their
own hands. Their tales of international intrigue, online detective work
and, in one case, a deadly confrontation in a Eastern European capital
would make good fodder for espionage author John LeCarr's next novel.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/377221.asp?cp1=1
From: jata@aepiax.net (Julian Thomas)
Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:48:36 GMT
In <telecom20.10.6@telecom-digest.org>, on 03/04/00
at 05:20 PM, wroberts@arctos.com (Will Roberts) said:
> As I understand the issue from past discussions here, the
> problems arise when these digital carrier arrangements are
> improperly configured -- or when somebody uses them at *both* ends,
> converting back to analog before presenting the loop to the CO
> switch.
I suspect that the DLC concept is old enough that originally it had to
work with analog switches (good grief! SxS!!) as well as digital
switches -- hence the conversion back to analog.
Julian Thomas jata@aepiax.net
remove letter a for email (or switch . and @)
In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State!
Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org
WarpTech 2000: May 26-28 in Phoenix - plan NOW to attend! www.warptech.org
"Unix _IS_ user friendly... It's just selective about who its friends are."
From: Michael Hartley <Michael_Hartley@Yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: F.C.C. Debates Changes to Cell Phone Fees
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:11:47 -0000
> I would like a pair of phone numbers for my phone: one for which I pay
> the charges, and the other for which the calling party pays.
<snip>
> One potential problem with calling-party-pays is that there is no
> price pressure.
Not for call charges, in any case. Experience in the uk shows that
inbound call revenue is very inelastic to the per minute charge to the
calling party. If people want to call you, they will.
> As a caller to a mobile I have to accept the price I will be charged and
> have no way to shop for a better rate.
You can always use a calling card, or choose a tariff which offers
mobile-mobile calls at less than land-mobile rates.
> I likely won't call.
Your loss. Many others will;+)
> Of course, this perspective is from someone in an area where all local
> non-mobile calls have no per-minute charge.
There's a very interesting [and contentious ;+)] uk/us comparison in
this. Here in the uk, e-business is seen to be hampered by per-minute
call charges regardless of access- leading to a less developed
e-economy. In the US, e business booms and the mobile market lags
Europe by a couple of years.....
M commerce is here in Europe already, draw your own conclusions about
how long called party pays will last in the US.
Mike
(No, I don't want to get in a standards/politics flame war here -- just
look at the market penetration figures.)
Subject: Re: Traffic Exchange
Organization: Telrad Networks Ltd.
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:46:33 GMT
Hello Sergey,
It's not clear, what do you find exactly, so send me e-mail (KOI-8,
WIN, ISO are acceptable).
Best regards,
Pavel Gavronsky
IN System Architect
Public Networks Solution
Telrad Networks Ltd.
Phone (972)-8-9134583
Fax (972)-8-9131255
mailto:pavel.gavronsky@telrad.co.il
Sergey A. Mosienko <mosienko@inncom-svyaz.ru> wrote in message
news:telecom20.6.2@telecom-digest.org...
> Hi,
> Pls,
> Where I can find the references for an IPT traffic exchange ( WWW) ?
> Soon we shall have Moscow - Nakhodka ( Russia ) min E1 ( max 36 E1 ),
> Router - Tigris AXC-711 ( Ericsson ) and Gateway AXI-511 ( Ericsson ).
> Best Regards,
> INCOM
> Telecom and Datacom Networks
> Sergey A. Mosienko
> Deputy Director on Business Development
> Tel / Fax. +7 - 095 - 795-3323
> E-mail: mosienko@incom-svyaz.ru
> Web: http://www.incom-js.ru
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Would a couple of our readers please
> correspond with Sergey in Russia and see if his questions can be
> answered. Thanks very much. PAT]
From: harad@erols.com
Subject: Information Wanted on New Company
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 05:16:58 -0800
Mr. Townson,
Are you aware of a new ip telephony co. called @IPbell? Web
site www.ipbell.com. There is info about this new start up on
the new releases of a US company, science dynamics, (OTC: SIDY).
I am interested in learning about @IPbell, believing it to be
an investment opportunity to be considered. Unfortunately, the
web site is not helpfull, and the only other source of info came
from cisco and hp news saying that they are partners.
If you could help me learn about this company, I would be greatfull.
Thanks
Harad@erols.com
From: JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vl.videotron.ca>
Subject: Internet Content vs Internet Delivery
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:49:39 -0500
I am quite puzzled as to how Wall street considers mergers between AOL and
Time-Warner to be so significant.
They mention on how Time-Warner gains a new distribution medium for
their content.
While I inderstand that AOL gains access to Time's cable
infrastructure to upgrade from modem to cable based ISP service, I
really don't understand how "content" companies benefit when they buy
"ISP" companies.
Since the internet is worldwide, and since WWW.CNN.COM is already
available worldwide through any ISP, how does it benefit CNN to since
CNN is already distributed to AOL subscribers whether Time-Warner owns
AOL or not ?
In Canada, on the heels of the Time-AOL merger, Bell Canada (BCE)
decided it had to move and bid for CTV which owns the CTV television
network as well as a few specialty TV channels in canada. BCE said
that they wanted to add content to their internet services
(sympatico). Can someone explain to me what that means ? How does
owning a TV station add to your ISP business ?
In the past, carriers (telcos, satellite, cable companies) have not
been controlled by TV networks, yet the two worked fine and TV was
delivered.
While I can see advantage of Time-Warner of controlling cable companies since
they can ensure that their own channels are carried by that cable company, I
fail to see the use of controlling an ISP, since customers can choose from any
internet site.
Can someone please explain what sort of synergy/benefits *really*
happen when a content company merges/buys an ISP ?
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:21:03 -0500
Will Roberts <willroberts@arctos.com> wrote:
> I more or less agree with Bill Horne concerning xDSL -- you just can't make
> copper pairs appear out of nowhere. The incumbent telco is not in the
> business building copper plant anymore (unless, of course, the incumbent
> telco sees xDSL as a line of business it wants to be in.)
Right, though with the right equipment out in the neighborhoods --
which allegedly is on its way from various vendors, though not yet
generally available -- telcos could provide xDSL on DLC-served lines.
> There have been discussions about DLC in this forum on several
> occassions. If properly implemented, it shouldn't matter where the
> analog-to-digital conversion happens: at the CO or in a vault near the
> subscribers' homes.
> As I understand the issue from past discussions here, the problems arise
> when these digital carrier arrangements are improperly configured -- or when
> somebody uses them at *both* ends, converting back to analog before
> presenting the loop to the CO switch. If the ILEC wanted to accommodate
> v.90 modem traffic (and those nasty long duration calls which internet
> junkies and VPN-using telecommmuters make), they very well could.
That's what I've been trying to get across. In my area we were served
by a Western Electric 1A ESS, and since this was an analog switch a
DLC installation would have had to present the loop to the switch in
the analog domain. We were cut over to a Lucent 5ESS-2000 in December
1996, and as best I can tell -- though no one at BellSouth has been
honest enough to give a straight yes *or* no answer -- the
DLC-extended loops were simply cut over from the 1A ESS to the
5ESS-2000 in the same way that all-copper loops were, rather than
being converted to use digital line cards on the switch.
> The thing that amazes me most, however, is the difficulty that the ILECs
> seem to have in understanding that CLECs are not going to go away and that
> if they stopped digging in their heels they could make their wholesale
> business very profitable indeed.
> If the 'carrier hotels' that are spring up can make money renting space to
> various service providers, why aren't the ILEC's building or leasing vault
> space in subdivisions or city blocks where they can terminate short
> subscriber copper loops and lease rack space and fiber backhaul to wherever.
> Nobody's going to build competing last mile facilities if the ILECs maintain
> their advanatage as efficient producers and progressive stewards of that
> portion of their plant.
> Somehow, however, I think that the ILECs are so focused on long distance
> services -- ironically an increasingly competitive market with decreasing
> margins and under the sword of Damocles caleld internet telephony -- that
> they cannot figure out the long-term profit opportunities imbedded in their
> local plant, engineering expertise, relationships with local government, and
> remaining craft workers.
Excellent point. One thing to remember is that, in most places, there
is or soon will be *one* potential CLEC that does not need to build
new outside plant for voice services -- that's the local cable TV
company, most of whom are either rebuilding their systems to 750 or
860 MHz capacity and full two-way capability. If ILECs seriously go
into the business of selling the last mile to CLECs, that admittedly
would bring in a lot more CLECs -- but it might fragment the market
enough to prevent the cable companies from swinging a wrecking ball
against the ILECs.
From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com
Subject: Re: The DLC Epidemic Spreads to the Northeast
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:43:04 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
wroberts@arctos.com (Will Roberts) wrote:
> There have been discussions about DLC in this forum on several
> occassions. If properly implemented, it shouldn't matter where
> the analog-to-digital conversion happens: at the CO or in a
> vault near the subcribers' homes.
I agree. SLCs have a bad rap because their initial installations were
not integrated with the CO. There would be a SLC in the neighborhood
that would concentrate 20+ lines on a single copper pair back to the
CO, then another SLC that would demux the lines, where the would be
wired individually to the switch. There's a limited amount of
bandwidth you can put on a copper pair and the extra mux/demux cycle
didn't help either.
Modern SLCs do the conversion once and send all the lines digitally
right into the switch, usually on a fibre pair direct from the
SLC. This can actually be a preferred solution, as the fibre is immune
to induced noise. The problem here is that space for a DSL DSLAM in
the SLC cabinet is at a premium, if it exists at all. This makes it
hard for the telco or CLEC to provide highspeed internet access.
SLCs are also confused with "pair gain" type devices that are used
when there isn't enough copper from the vault to the demarc on the
house. These are nasty as they usually do a frequency split/shift for
one of the two lines that destroys any modem performance.
Ken
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Kevin Mitnick Speaks to Congress
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:25:22 -0500
David Chessler <Chessler@capaccess.org> wrote:
> Mitnick may not need publicity among the cognizenti (I guess that's us),
> but his career as a black-hat hacker is probably over. He's now
> repositioning himself as a "security consultant," quite possibly to the CIS
> departments of the same government agencies and private companies (such as
> the New York Times) that tried so hard to put him in jail. Moreover, he can
> do this without ever actually *touching* a computer."
Except that the same probation order that prevents him from using a
computer also prevents him from giving such advice to clients, though
public statements like this are not covered.
Personally, though I happen to believe that Mitnick should have been
locked up for what he did, I don't think this probation order makes
any sense. IMHO, either the court should have let him loose entirely,
or -- if he is still a danger to society -- should have kept him in
prison.
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 21:24:45 -0500
From: Don Kimberlin <dkimberlin@prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Telephone-Pole Battle: Steel Takes On Wood
... In typical short-accounting-cycle American style, the utility
companies have prolonged use of wooden poles. Resource-limited
Europeans have used steel (actually cast iron) poles since the Year Dot
of Telecommunications. Metal poles made for Siemens' overland adventure
of extending a telegraph line to India in the 1860's are still standing
and in use across the Middle East today. Who could argue those have not
been economical, since wooden poles, even under the best circumstances,
would have required 3 to 5 replacements since then.
... A typically poorly researched bit of American reportage, since anyone
who understands a bit of telecommunications history knows that the
telegraph was using poles a good 50 years before the AT&T line reported
here ...
... The article later goes on to say that metal poles have been shown
to survive better in heavy weather locations like Puerto Rico, but ask
any traveler parts of the world that the British built their empire
in, like East Africa, if they haven't seen metal poles over a good
portion of the globe.
... Metal poles? "New technology?" Humbug!
Don Kimberlin, NCE
From: heywood@gloucester.com (Heywood Jaiblomi)
Subject: Dial 1 LD Carrier Options in AC 248
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 04:02:34 GMT
Organization: Uncle Heywood's Trousers of Fun
Hi!
1. Welcome back Pat. Take care of yourself, eh?
2. I'm sure this is an elementary question, but I'm not in Michigan so
maybe someone can help me. My mother in 248-651-xxxx spends half the
year in FL, and still has to pay AT&T $3/month for the privilege of
them being her dial 1 carrier.
She's a low volume LD user, and I'm sure someone has already done the
research on this. Do most reliable dial 1 carriers now charge a
monthly fee? If not, who should I suggest she go to?
Thanks!
Woody
If I had my life to live over, I think I'd like to live over a liquor store.
From: Joel B Levin <levinjb@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Intuit Acts to Curb Quicken Leaks
Organization: On the desert
Reply-To: levinjb@gte.net
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:22:41 GMT
In <telecom20.10.4@telecom-digest.org>, John David Galt@acm.org wrote:
> I've seen such code used in both e-mail spam and newsgroup postings,
> and Netscape Communicator automatically executes it upon viewing the
> message. (Communicator has settings to turn off Java and JavaScript
> in messages, but not HTML. The only reliable way to avoid
> connecting to the web site in such cases is to download your
> messages, unplug your PC from the network, then read the messages.)
My solution is to read mail with a mail reader[1], not a web browser.
I also read Usenet with a news reader[1], not a web browser. I surf
the web with a web browser[2] (that gets me in enough trouble).
Nothing I receive gets saved to disk, much less executed, till I
explicitly request it; and all-HTML messages and articles I usually
flush without trying to decipher, on principle (though I make certain
exceptions, for instance if I get one as junk mail I'll try real hard
to make sure the right admins find out about it).
/JBL
[1] I use Agent, $29 from www.forteinc.com, for both mail and news.
There are also other good choices, both free and for money, available,
except from what I gather most Microsoft products are os closely
integrated with Internet Explorer that reading mail or news with them
is almost as risky as using a browser.
[2] I use Netscape (fwiw).
Reply-To: Vaios Savviou <Vaios@cableinet.co.uk>
From: Vaios Savviou <Vaios@cableinet.co.uk>
Subject: Information About Telephone Switching Systems
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 02:24:40 -0000
Organization: None
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a student in the University of Abertay Dundee in Scotland. I am
doing as a project a telephone switching system.
Could you please send me any information on how telephone switching
systems work.
Thank you,
Vaios Savviou
BSc Mechatronics
University Of Abertay Dundee
vaios@cableinet.co.uk
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Anyone care to write direct to the
author above with information on telephone switching systems? PAT]
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:39:10 -0500
From: Ted Koppel <tkoppel@mediaone.net>
Subject: The demise of an IP LOng Distance Service?
Until this past week, I was a customer of the ICG/Netcom IP Long
Distance service -- wherein one dialed a local access number, then the
number of the person to contact, and the call would be completed over
the Netcom IP network. Although the local access number still answers
(here in Atlanta), the calls do not complete -- they are intercepted
by a message for Thinklink -- whatever that is.
Netcom was purchased by Mindspring some months ago. ICG hasn't heard
of their IPLD service. Netcom phone calls are now answered by
Mindspring, who also don't have a clue. So, without any notice to
customers (how typical!) a company that ostensibly exists to serve the
public drops off the scope.
Anyone know what really happened to ICG Netcom IPLD? And what this
ThinkLink is?
Thanks.
End of TELECOM Digest V20 #12
Visit the Crazy Atheist Libertarian
Visit my atheist friends at Arizona Secular Humanists
Some strange but true news about the government
Some strange but real news about religion
Interesting, funny but otherwise useless news!