TELECOM Digest     Tue, 1 Feb 94 09:37:30 CST    Volume 14 : Issue 54

Inside This Issue:                         Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    FCC $crews Pac Bell in PCS Race (Van Hefner)
    More Information on CSInt'l Dial-Back Service (Wolf Paul)
    What is Datex-M? (Dave Pattison)
    Business Phone System Questions (Daniel Neil Roberts)
    BBS Getting Internet Mail (Marcus Blankenship)
    NT-Meridian vs AT&T (Jeff Bennington)
    Audio Compression -> apt-X (Lauren Weinstein)
    Telephone Service During the Quake (Lauren Weinstein)
    Clipper Petition  (Dave Banisar)
    Discount Long-Distance Digest (Van Hefner)
    Administrivia: Mail to the Digest (TELECOM Digest Editor)

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:

                 * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu *

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: ptownson@townson.com.

    ** 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 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: vantek@aol.com
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 03:35:41 EST
Subject: FCC $crews Pac Bell in PCS Race


Pacific Telesis May Be Unplugged from New Market
By Clint Swett,  {The Sacramento Bee}, Calif.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News

Jan. 31 -- A little known decision issued last month by the Federal
Communications Commission has enraged Pacific Telesis and could hobble
the company in its bid to become a major player in what promises to be
the next generation of wireless communications.

The FCC is expected to formalize a decision today to award a free
license to Cox Enterprises to serve the lucrative Southern California
market with Personal Communications Services (PCS).

Two other companies also were awarded free licenses -- one to serve New
York, which is considered the most lucrative franchise in the nation,
and the other to serve Washington, D.C.

PCS, a type of cellular phone technology, involves low-power wireless
communications that some experts say will cost about half of what
cellular does today yet offer more features. They predict that PCS
technology could in a few years make wireless phones as common as
standard phones are today.

Cox, a media conglomerate based in Atlanta, was handed one of two
licenses to be awarded in Southern California -- considered one of the
crown jewels of the wireless communications market. The other will be
sold at an auction scheduled for May.

All the heavyweights in the communications industry -- including AT&T,
the regional Bells and MCI -- are expected to join the bidding,
driving the price for the remaining license toward $1 billion.

What irks Pacific Telesis Group officials is that while it slugs it
out for the lone remaining Southern California license, Cox paid
nothing for its franchise.

"It's not just unfair to us, it's unfair to any other competitor,"
said PacTel spokesman Michael Runzler.

He said that by receiving a free license, Cox gains a huge advantage
over its potential competitors, who must recoup the hundreds of
millions they will spend on buying one of the coveted licenses.

In addition, Cox gets a head start in deploying its PCS network
because it already knows it has won a license, while other companies
must wait for the May auction.

Cox's windfall came as a result of an FCC rule called "Pioneer
Preference."  Under that rule, companies were invited to demonstrate
innovative technologies that would further the advance of PCS. Of the
50 that applied, three were chosen and awarded lucrative licenses.
PacTel was among the 47 that lost out.

Cox, which owns cable television systems in San Diego, Bakersfield,
Santa Barbara and Eureka, demonstrated a technology in which wireless
phone conversations could be sent to and from devices attached to
their cable lines. The signals would be routed through the lines to
phone switching equipment and then out to the phone network.

"I think we deserve that leg up based on the testing (and development)
we did, " said David Andersen, Cox's vice president of corporate
affairs. "Our device allows us to use infrastructure of existing cable
TV systems to provide service in a cost-efficient and expeditious
way."

He said Cox has not determined when it will deploy its PCS technology.
More than 2,000 smaller, less powerful licenses remain to be awarded
throughout the country. But only two licenses for the 30 megahertz
blocks of the radio spectrum -- which can carry the most information
and handle the most customers -- will be issued for each of 49 major
metropolitan areas. And Cox has one of four for California already
sewn up.

Winning 30 megahertz licenses in Southern California and Northern
California is especially important for PacTel, said Michael Killen, a
telecommunications consultant in Palo Alto.

With one of the four licenses for those areas already gone, its
chances have decreased, he said.

Killen, who advises companies on strategies to follow when bidding for
PCS licenses, said since PacTel has avoided branching into other
geographic areas, it must retain leadership in its backyard.

"The next growth area in the telephone business, the next generation
of phone service, will be PCS," Killen predicted. "If they don't win
that license they will be prohibited from competing for the next
generation of growth business."

In fact, when PacTel decided to spin off its cellular business into a
separate company, one of the factors driving that decision was that
cellular companies will be prohibited from getting the coveted 30
megahertz licenses in areas they already serve with cellular.

"That 30 megahertz has so much spectrum and covers such a big area,
whoever gets the 30 has incredible advantage over its competitors,"
Killen said.

Runzler of PacTel wouldn't go that far, but did allow, "The 30
megahertz frequencies are what we're most interested in."

The pioneer preference awards could face court challenges, industry
experts predict. PacTel already has written a letter to the FCC,
disputing the decision on the basis that the winners allegedly made
improper contact with FCC commissioners.

"Challenges could occur," predicted PacTel's Runzler, who said the company
would await the FCC's final decision before making any further decisions.

Another PacTel complaint centers on the loss of revenue to the federal
government that comes from handing out licenses that could be auctioned 
off for more than $2 billion.

"It's unfair to taxpayers who have a right to think that the deficit
is going to go down," Runzler said. He said PacTel's pioneer preference 
application included a provision that all winners pay a basic price for 
the frequencies they receive.

But Rodney Small, an economist at the FCC's division of frequency
allocation, said the recent federal budget bill directed the FCC to
award the pioneer preferences according to merit, and without regard
to potentially lost revenue.

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

(Geez, what a rip-off! We are serviced by Cox Cable here in Eureka, CA
and I'm pretty sure Cox isn't the least bit interested in serving US
with PCS!  We're also served by Pac Bell here as well, and I'm sure
our area isn't 'lucrative' enough for them either. Why is it these
'pioneers' are being given the most financially lucrative cities to
operate in? It's not like those areas really NEED improved, and
expanded services. Great, my tax dollars are going to be spent on
subsidizing a poor company like Cox Cable to provide state-of-the-art
expanded communications services to a bunch of 'communications
spoiled' areas like New York, L.A., and D.C.  Meanwhile I get
sub-standard, overpriced CATV service from Cox, and Pac Bell says that
POSSIBLY we'll have ISDN service available in my area in late 1996!
And their target dates are are always a bit on the optimistic side! Oh
well, just another collapsed overpass on country's information
superhighway).


Van Hefner   Vantek Communications   vantek@aol.com

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

From: cc_paul@aaf.alcatel.at (Wolf Paul)
Subject: More Information on CSInt'l Dial-Back Service
Organization: Alcatel Austria Research Centre
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 13:00:49 GMT


After Pat commented that the service he represents (Telepassport) has
a monthly minimum usage charge, I sent a query to Michael D. Beatty of
Communication Services International. Here is part of my query and his
reply:

Me:  > 1. Your information file does not say whether there is some setup
Me:  > charge for an account with you, or some fixed monthly charge or
Me:  > monthly minimum usage charge. Pat Townsend pointed out that the
Me:  > US Fibercom TelePassport service he sells has a monthly minimum charge
Me:  > of $25, "use it or lose it"; does your service have such charges?
  
MDB:   Comments:  there is no charge to set up an account, and a charge of
MDB:   $27.50 minimum per month for usage and to encourage such.

I also pointed out to him, and will point out in this forum that in
many countries a consumer would get charged for the initial call to
the dial-back provider, even though there would never be a connection
established.

To use Austria as an example, only the newer digital switches have
call supervision, on the older switches you get charged for a local
call from the time you pick up the receiver, and for the long distance
call from the time you finish dialling. Since you'd get charged for at
least one full minute for such a call, using a dial-back service for
individual short calls seems to be rather uneconomical. As Pat said,
it's not for small-time users.

Similarly, BTW, it is no longer cheaper to call the US from Austria
using USA-Direct (at least the AT&T variety) than calling at PTT
rates.  (But at least there is no monthly minimum charge on an AT&T
card).


Regards,

Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center      wnp@aaf.alcatel.at
Alcatel Austria Research Center  +43-1-391621-122 (w)
Ruthnergasse 1-7                   +43-1-391452 (fax)
A-1210 Vienna-Austria/Europe        +43-1-2206481 (h)

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

From: pattison%xstacy.dnet.dec.com@nntpd.lkg.dec.com (Dave)
Subject: What is Datex-M?
Date: 1 Feb 1994 12:38:34 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Reply-To: pattison%xstacy.dnet.dec.com@nntpd.lkg.dec.com (Dave)


Can anyone tell me anything about Datex-M?

I know it's something developed by Deutsche Bundespost Telekom, and
that it is ATM-based, but I'd like more information, such as for
instance service details, AVAILABILITY and pricing.


Thanks,

Dave Pattison   pattison@xstacy.enet.dec.com

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

From: neilr@netcom.com (Daniel Neil Roberts)
Subject: Business Phone System Questions
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 00:31:06 GMT


I have been suddenly put in charge of finding a phone system for one
of our offices in Florida and hoped that I could get some advice from
this group about evaluating systems. In general, I want the following:

 -About 30 extensions and 16 incoming lines with capacity to grow at
least double.

 -Hands free operation on all extension phones, display on about 12 of
them.

 -All of what I take to be the standard goodies such as call groups,
follow-me forwarding, a good operator console, smart "holds", etc.

I won't bore you with the details of my requirements as dictated to
me, but I was wondering if any readers here could reccomend particular
vendors or models or tell me which ones to avoid.

For reference, they have apparently been given a quote for a TelRad
digital key pbx and a digital Legend (Merlin) AT&T system, both
including voice mail.  Both of the quotes were delivered without any
formal requirements analysis that I am aware of, and both of them are
in the $23k to $25k range. I don't know if these prices are even
within a mile of reasonable yet ...

Any advice will be appreciated, email is fine.


D. Neil Roberts   neilr@netcom.com  CI$:17051,1073   neil@mcs.com
Child Health Systems,Inc. 1909 S. Highland #100C Lombard, IL 60148 

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

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 16:26:22 PST
From: blankenm@seq.oit.osshe.edu
Subject: BBS Getting Internet Mail


A friend and I are looking into setting up a BBS that we would like to
have access to Internet e-mail.  Just something where once/twice a day
we connect to a host and send/get messages out the gate.  Is this
possible/available/done anywhere else?

If this is not, just how much overhead is required to hook up with a full 
connection? Leased line? 


Marcus Blankenship  Alpha-Telcom Inc
Payphone Tech.   Grants Pass, OR


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No leased or other special lines are
needed. There are BBS software packages available -- many for free --
which have a UUCP-style interface built into them which allows the
BBS to call and exchange mail/news with some other site. Waffle is
one such program, and there is a newsgroup devoted to it.   PAT]

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

From: jgb@mcm.com (Jeff Bennington)
Subject: NT-Meridian vs AT&T
Reply-To: jgb@mcm.com (Jeff Bennington)
Organization: Mellon Capital Management Corp., San Francisco
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 04:42:41 GMT


My company is about to choose either an AT&T Generic 3i or a Northern
Telecom Meridian-1/Option 11 PBX as a replacement for our Isotek/228
switch.

If you have personal experience with either PBX (ups, downs, gotchas,
etc.) and/or integration experience with an Octel ASPEN (Branch XL) or
VMX-200 voice messaging platform with either of these PBXs please let
me know.

Also, if you've worked with PacTel/Meridian, or AT&T and can comment
on their service/support, please let me know.

Please reply via email:  jgb@mcm.com


Many thanks!

Jeff Bennington, Systems Administrator jgb@mcm.com

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

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 19:03:00 PST
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Audio Compression -> apt-X


A realtime (hardware-based) digital audio compression system that has
seen considerable acceptance in pro-audio applications (especially due
to its comparative tolerance to multiple encode/decode cycles) is the
"apt-X" system from Audio Processing Technology (APT).  They have a
wide line of related products including Mac/PC-based cards.

Some of their products have already been used to allow, for example, a
BBC music program presenter to operate from his home on a regular
basis over ISDN circuits.  APT can be reached at +1 (213) 463 2963.


 --Lauren--

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 94 23:53:00 PST
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Telephone Service During the Quake


It's worth noting that most telephone service during the L.A. quake
was amazingly stable.  At no point were either GTE nor PacBell
services with which I have to work disrupted on any of many lines,
except for circuit overload conditions on both companies' switches
(and such overload could hardly be unexpected under the
circumstances).

Getting dialtone took patience, and the PacBell Canoga Park CO service
area (just a few miles from the epicenter) required multiple attempts
to complete even local calls during some periods, especially the
morning of the day *after* the quake when, apparently, everyone in the
area (including me) was attempting to reach every manner of plumber,
electrician, and the like.

So, while power failed for most of the day, and water was severely
disrupted in some areas, phone service by both companies was, overall,
a bright spot.

HOWEVER, it is about time that the telcos start informing the public
the proper manner to get dialtone in load situations.  Yes, during an
emergency, the best policy is to stay off the phone unless you really
need it.  But often the people who DO need it *think* their phones are
"broken" because they don't get an immediate dialtone when they pick
up the handset.  They keep picking it up and hanging up, losing their
place in the queue each time.

It needs to become general knowledge that in the vast majority of
cases, if your line is still hooked up at all (and that can be
determined by the presence of sidetone) you may need to *wait* for
dialtone.  Maybe it'll take 30 seconds.  Maybe it'll take a minute or
two or even longer.  But most of the people who thought they were
unable to place calls due to "broken phones" simply didn't know that
they needed to wait.


 --Lauren--

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

Organization: CPSR Washington Office
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 15:59:20 EST    
Subject: Clipper Petition 


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to Monty Solomon and others who
sent this identical message from other places where they saw it. We'll
just go with the original instead.   PAT]


                Electronic Petition to Oppose Clipper  
                      Please Distribute Widely

On January 24, many of the nation's leading experts in cryptography
and computer security wrote President Clinton and asked him to
withdraw the Clipper proposal.
  
The public response to the letter has been extremely favorable,
including coverage in the {New York Times} and numerous computer and
security trade magazines.

Many people have expressed interest in adding their names to the
letter.  In response to these requests, CPSR is organizing an Internet
petition drive to oppose the Clipper proposal.  We will deliver the
signed petition to the White House, complete with the names of all the
people who oppose Clipper.

To sign on to the letter, send a message to:

     Clipper.petition@cpsr.org

with the message "I oppose Clipper" (no quotes)

You will receive a return message confirming your vote.

Please distribute this announcement so that others may also express
their opposition to the Clipper proposal.

CPSR is a membership-based public interest organization.  For
membership information, please email cpsr@cpsr.org.  For more
information about Clipper, please consult the CPSR Internet Library -
FTP/WAIS/Gopher CPSR.ORG /cpsr/privacy/crypto/clipper

=====================================================================

The President 
The White House 
Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. President:

     We are writing to you regarding the "Clipper" escrowed encryption
proposal now under consideration by the White House.  We wish to
express our concern about this plan and similar technical standards
that may be proposed for the nation's communications infrastructure.

     The current proposal was developed in secret by federal agencies
primarily concerned about electronic surveillance, not privacy
protection.  Critical aspects of the plan remain classified and thus
beyond public review.

     The private sector and the public have expressed nearly unanimous
opposition to Clipper.  In the formal request for comments conducted
by the Department of Commerce last year, less than a handful of
respondents supported the plan.  Several hundred opposed it.

     If the plan goes forward, commercial firms that hope to develop
new products will face extensive government obstacles. Cryptographers
who wish to develop new privacy enhancing technologies will be
discouraged.  Citizens who anticipate that the progress of technology
will enhance personal privacy will find their expectations
unfulfilled.

     Some have proposed that Clipper be adopted on a voluntary basis
and suggest that other technical approaches will remain viable.  The
government, however, exerts enormous influence in the marketplace, and
the likelihood that competing standards would survive is small.  Few
in the user community believe that the proposal would be truly
voluntary.

     The Clipper proposal should not be adopted.  We believe that if
this proposal and the associated standards go forward, even on a
voluntary basis, privacy protection will be diminished, innovation
will be slowed, government accountability will be lessened, and the
openness necessary to ensure the successful development of the
nation's communications infrastructure will be threatened.

     We respectfully ask the White House to withdraw the Clipper
proposal.

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

From: vantek@aol.com
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 01:14:47 EST
Subject: Discount Long-Distance Digest


DISCOUNT LONG-DISTANCE DIGEST is a weekly moderated internet mailing
list available to all individuals involved in, or interested in
becoming involved in, the discount (reseller) long-distance industry.
The Digest mostly focuses on different companies which are resellers,
wholesalers, or aggregators of long-distance services supplied by
other companies (AT&T, Sprint, MCI, WilTel, ITT, Etc...).

    It is mostly geared towards people who are independent agents of
these companies, or are still looking for a company to become an agent
for. This is a growing industry that is picking up rapid speed as of
late.

    To subscribe to DISCOUNT LONG-DISTANCE DIGEST just send you name
and internet address to: telconet@aol.com. In the 'SUBJECT:' field of
your e-mail print: 'SUBSCRIBE DIGEST' to be added to the list, or:
'UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST' to cancel your subscription. Submissions to the
Digest can be sent to the same internet address. Each issue is sent
out Late sunday night/early monday morning. Upon recipt of your
request for addition to the list you will be sent our FAQ, which
includes a list of many resellers, aggregators, wholesalers, etc.. and
info on their sales programs, prices, and how to become an agent for
them.

    This list has been running on AOL for a couple of months now, and
I am just starting to make it available via internet. Please excuse
the slowness of our mail system, since America Online has numerous
outages, interruptions in service, duplicated mailings, lost mail, and
many other problems that I will not get into. This Digest is NOT
available as a USENET Newsgroup.

    I, myself, am an independent agent for Business Network
Communications, a reseller of AT&T, WilTel, and MCI services. BNC
agents are especially welcome, and I'd like to see the list act as a
support vehicle for BNC agents as well as provide non-biased news on
other vendors. I have no personal axe to grind and only wish to share
information on this industry with other internet users. I personally
was helped a great deal by other internet users and would like to help
others looking to get into this industry.

    BTW, I would like to thank Pat for the great job he does with
TELECOM Digest. It's helped me a great deal. I couldn't start to
duplicate the kind of job he does here.


Van Hefner   Vantek Communications
     

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks very much for your kind words of
encouragement. Like Avis, the rental-car people, I try harder. Best
wishes for the success of your Digest.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 08:44:22 CST
From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Administrivia: Mail to the Digest


As most of you know, some changes were made around here about a week
ago, and a new computer is now installed in place of the old machine
which served us well for a few years. The trouble is, the new one
required lots of minor, somewhat obscure, long-forgotten scripts to
be slightly re-written. A few such scripts were those used by telecom
for filtering and sorting incoming mail, issuing the autoreply message
and similar matters.

Well, nothing goes right the first time. The only thing you can count
on for sure in conversions like this is trouble, and I have seen my
share. It became obvious several days ago that I was losing a certain
amount of incoming mail due to the way the new machine 'thinks' about
certain instructions pertaining to 'awk' and other things in the
scripts used. On a daily basis, the sysadmin here has been working with
me to debug things and it appears the mailer is just about back to
normal in terms of volume of mail received. Last week I suspect I was
getting only 15-25 percent of the mail (based on historical data as
to what I usually receive) with the remainder vanishing in the stream
as it made its way through the incoming filters and into the files
where it belongs. As bugs were exterminated, that percentage increased
but new bugs took the place of the old ones, etc ... now this morning
when I woke up and connected to the site, the incoming queue was
stuffed once again. 

If you did not get the usual autoreply message to something you sent
last week, it is quite likely your mail was not received *by me* even
though it may well have (and probably did) reach the site. Please bear
in mind the volume of mail has become so heavy (I am not complaining;
I am actually very gratified) that there is *no way* I can tell what
got here and what did not unless I actually read it and see it myself.
If it were not for the filters in place to handle daemons, subscription
requests and other stuff, the mail would be even slower getting into
print than it is already some days. Had we removed the filters for
several days while the debugging was underway, then I would have gotten
all the mail, but the mistakes would have taken much longer to find.

So it is the old 'rock and hard place' analogy. I am certain dozens
of letters were lost in transit over a period of a few days and extend
my apologies, but there was (and still is, as the work goes on) no
other way to correct the problems than to watch them as they occur.
Gradually things are getting back to normal here.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #54
*****************************


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