Software Vault: The Diamond Collection/The Diamond Collection (Software Vault)(Digital Impact).ISO/cdr16/tc15_053.zip/TC15-053.TXT

Text File | 1995-01-22 | 28KB | 690 lines

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Jan 95 06:43:00 CST    Volume 15 : Issue 53

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Mobility Canada Views on 2 GHz Spectrum (Dave Leibold)
    ATT True Voice Patents (Monty Solomon)
    Which Countries Have Competition (For FAQ Update)? (Dave Leibold)
    800 and Caller ID (Comments) (Glenn Foote)
    Teleworking Stories (Marc Schaefer)
    Corporate Creativity, was Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much? (Danny
Burstein)
    Canadian Universal Internet Access (Sarah Holland)
    Glossary Wanted (S. Cantor)
    Internet Mail With Half the Address? (Jane McMahon)

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

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

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: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address only: [e-mail] **

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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per
year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 00:23:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Mobility Canada Views on 2 GHz Spectrum


[a news release via CNW - content is Bell Mobility's]

MOBILITY CANADA READY TO BUILD THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY

OTTAWA, Jan. 16 /CNW/ - Mobility Canada, the country's leading
supplier of personal communication services (PCS), today submitted to
Industry Canada its position on the federal governments' pending
licensing of spectrum at 2 GHz.  The 2 GHz spectrum will open up a new
realm of personal communications possibilities, bringing Canadians one
step closer to accessing the Information Highway.

"Canada is on the brink of a new age in personal communications," said
Dave Wells, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mobility Canada.
"Whether it's using a video phone to call home to the family, or
transmitting an X-ray image from an ambulance to a hospital, the 2 GHz
spectrum will facilitate the introduction of radical new technology
and services that demand considerable bandwidth and are unavailable in
today's cellular environment. Essentially, we're going to see a
fundamental shift from communication between places, to communication
between people, and Mobility Canada is ideally placed to help make
that shift happen."

Mobility Canada intends to apply for a national license with a minimum
capacity of 30 MHz to offer service at 2 GHz so that its growing base
of 1.5 million customers across the country can benefit from the range
of innovative and complementary services that the additional
capability of 2 GHz will make possible. Mobility Canada is also
developing a suite of services called Customer First, to ensure that
it can meet the changing needs of its customers over time.

In preparation for this opportunity Mobility Canada recently launched
a comprehensive testing program of potential new PCS technologies --
code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), PCS 1900 and PACS. The trial,
which is the only one in the world to include all three major
contending technologies, will determine the merits of each and ensure
that Mobility Canada can provide the best possible communications
solutions.

The federal government is scheduled to award licenses for the use of 2
GHz spectrum later this year. If successful, Mobility Canada expects
that approximately $1 billion will be invested in developing and
implementing new technology and services in the next five years. As a
result, up to 1,000 direct new jobs would be created, mostly in the
high-skill areas of radio and network engineering and computer
software design. A further 2,000 jobs could be created indirectly
through an anticipated economic spin-off of up to $2 billion.

Mobility Canada recommends that the federal government takes into
account the proven track record, business plans and technical and
operational abilities of all license applicants, believing preference
should be given to those capable of developing and delivering
innovative and competent services at this new frequency range. As
well, Mobility Canada hopes to see Canadian companies taking the lead
in charting this new

[news release omitted a line or two here, unfortunately]

To date, competition has played a major role in positioning Canada as
a world leader in cellular communications. "The provision of PCS at 2
GHz will maintain competition in this emerging telecommunications
sector, which is good news for the consumer," said Wells. "And we're
confident the federal government will recognize that Mobility Canada
is ideally situated to help bring Canadians into the next realm of
telecommunications services, and are looking forward to the call for
applications."

Personal communications services at 2 GHz should offer more than just
portable voice communications. While voice will be a key basic
service, the spectrum will also enable the transmission of enhanced
voice, facsimile data and video services. Some of the possibilities
include: mobile medical imaging, mobile video phone, mobile
classrooms, virtual field trips, intelligent vehicles and wireless
e-mail. PCS will provide a "network of networks" enabling customers to
choose services that best meet their individual communications needs.

Mobility Canada, a corporation established to deliver quality mobile
communications operates Canada's largest cellular and paging networks.
Together, Mobility Canada shareholders have invested a record $1.3
billion in wireless technology products and services and directly
employ over 3,500 Canadians.

For further information: or a copy of Mobility Canada's submission:
Suzzanne Ricard [phone]; Angela Hislop [phone].

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 01:53:38 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT True Voice Patents
Reply-To: [e-mail]


FYI.

  Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 09:57:57 -0500
  From: [e-mail] (Gregory Aharonian)
  To: [e-mail]
  Subject: PATNEWS: Re-examination filed for ATT's True Voice
technology

19940113  Re-examination filed for ATT's True Voice patent

   It seems that someone is filing a reexamination with the Patent
Office challenging ATT's patent on its true voice technology.  There
are a series of files posted to misc.int-property containing documents
filed.  Here is one of the declarations filed.  Should be interesting
to see what happens.

Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service
(for subscription info, send 'help' to   [e-mail] )
(for prior art search services info, send 'prior' to
[e-mail] )
(for WWW patent searching, try
http://sunsite.unc.edu/patents/intropat.html )

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

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re:      U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132

                        DECLARATION OF LEONARD R. KAHN

I, Leonard R. Kahn, declare as follows:

1.  I am the President of Kahn Communications, Inc. located at Carle
Place, New York.

2.  I am the same Leonard R. Kahn who co-authored an article entitled
"Enhancement of Telephone Line Performance", which was presented at
the National Association of Broadcasters' Engineering Conference held
on March 23-26, 1969, in Washington D.C. (hereinafter the NAB
article).
I am also the same Leonard R. Kahn who is listed as a sole or joint
inventor in U.S. Patents Nos. 4,217,661; 3,684,838; and 3,696,298.

3.  In addition to the patents set forth in paragraph 2, I am also the
sole or joint inventor of over 80 other U.S. patents in the field of
electronics and telecommunications.  My professional qualifications
and achievements are set forth in Attachment A.

4.  My above-referenced NAB article was directed to the problem of
obtaining high quality speech in the standard telephone network as it
was available in 1969.  The explicit intention of my 1969 article was
to discuss the desirability of restoring, in a telephonic
communication
system, certain frequencies that were normally attenuated.
Specifically,
I suggested in my NAB article that the frequencies between 100 Hz and
300 Hz are desirable frequencies to be restored in a telephonic
communication system.

In the NAB article, I also discussed various devices that could be
employed in restoring low frequencies (those between 100 Hz and 300
Hz) in a telephone communication network.

5.  Frequencies in the range of between 100 Hz to 300 Hz frequencies
are normally attenuated in telephone systems.

6.  My NAB article suggested, among other solutions, using an
equalizer in a telephone network as a device to accomplish restoration
of low frequency speech signals in telephone communication.

7.  My NAB article specifically mentions the speech signal associated
with a telephone set as the signal to be selectively amplified for
more natural speech communication.

8.  It was well known, in 1969, when my NAB article was published,
that equalization, as referenced in paragraph 6 above, could be
accomplished with any of a number of electronic devices known as
equalizers or filters.

9.  The telephone network was, in 1969, controlled by American
Telephone and Telegraph Inc. (AT&T) in a manner which prevented using
an equalizer in the straightforward way as suggested in my NAB
article.  Consequently, it was necessary for me and others to develop
complex systems for restoring low frequency signals in the telephone
network.

10.  The disclosure in U.S Patent No. 5,195,132 relative to the use of
an equalizer to restore low frequency speech signals in a telephone
network merely reflects the ability of AT&T to arrange their telephone
network in accordance with the teaching of my NAB article.  In other
words, AT&T has modified its network in order to take advantage of the
equalizer arrangement suggested in my NAB article.

11.  I believe that the disclosure of my NAB article appears to
constitute the stated invention in U.S. Patent No. 5,195,132, which
provides truer voice transmission of low frequencies.

      I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to the laws of the
United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.

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

John Berryhill
1601 Market St., Suite 720
Philadelphia, PA  19103

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 00:32:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Which Countries Have Competition (for FAQ Update)?


As the FAQ update is under way, one section dealt with the various
countries that have introduced telecom competition in some form or
other. I've heard of a European Community directive to the effect that
its member countries are to open up telecom markets by a given date.
Competing local networks are also emerging (including UK, US
developments).

Information on which countries have introduced, or are about to
introduce,
competition is welcome, in order to keep the Telecom FAQ comments on
this up to date.

The current FAQ excerpt on the matter follows:

Competition

Q: Which countries have competitive long distance service?

A: Most countries have a single monopoly telephone company for their
   local and long distance services. Yet, deregulation of telephone
   companies and telecommunications in general is a worldwide trend.
   For better or worse, the international marketplace is demanding
   more innovation and competition in telecom markets in such areas
   as electronic mail, fax and data services as well as the long
   distance, satellite and other network services.

   The United States has competition in terms of long distance
services
   (i.e. a choice of carriers such as AT&T, MCI, Sprint,
Metromedia/ITT,
   Allnet, ATC). This was established in the early 1980s with the
   court-ordered dissolution of the Bell System into such pieces as
   regional local telephone providers, AT&T (long distance) and
   Bellcore (research, administration of telephone standards, etc.).

   The UK has a duopoly long distance situation: British Telecom
   and Mercury can provide long distance services but that could
   be challenged as other companies wish to provide long distance
   services.

   Canada permitted public long distance competition in June 1992.
   Prior to that, there was limited competition in terms of such
things
   as fax communication services and various long distance/local
service
   resellers, aimed at business interests. Unitel and BCRL/Call-Net
   were successful in their application to compete. A subsequent
appeal
   of certain aspects of this decision was made by Bell Canada and
other
   existing telephone companies. The result of the appeal was that
   the decision could stand, and that long distance competition may
   proceed.

   New Zealand recently allowed Clear Communications to compete in
long
   distance. Australia now has Optus as a long distance competitor.
Japan
   has competition in international public long distance services.

   There are initial signs competition in the "local loop", or local
   exchange services, also. Reports from the UK indicate that there is
   significant growth in alternative local services, besides the
Mercury/BT
   long distance duopoly (competition of two). Cable companies are
touted
   as alternative local phone companies because of the available
capacity
   on cable feeds, plus the cable industry's conversion to fibre optic
and
   digital technologies. A choice of "dial tone" providers may
eventually
   be available to match the availability of competition in long
distance
   services.

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn Foote)
Subject: 800 and Caller ID (Comments)
Date: 21 Jan 1995 05:23:07 -0500
Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet


> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are NOT 'paying for the right to
> see your phone number'; they are *paying for the phone call*,
period.
> The person or company or whatever paying for a phone call is
entitled
> to know where -- to what telephone number -- the connection was
extended.

> Any 'contract' with telco regards blocking of ID is governed by
tariff.
> Furthermore, in my phone book where the enhanced custom calling
features
> are explained in detail, it says plainly 'although you may choose to
> block delivery of your number to the telephone you are calling, you
may
> NOT block delivery on calls to 800 numbers or collect calls.'  I
would
> think that 'contract' is rather plain. So people can be as 'touchy'
as
> they like -- and I know a few who are -- but that is really their
problem.
> *They* are the ones who want things both ways at the same time:
*you*
> pay for my phone call, and *you* don't have any right to know what
you
> are paying for, because I am a prima-donna about such things. Har
har har!
> Then start dialing my seven digit number and paying for it yourself,
bozo.
> Either that, or handle those calls similar to 'blocked number
blocking'
> with an intercept saying 'the 800 number you have dialed requires
your
> phone number. Since you wish to not give it, please hang up and dial
the
> regular number, paying for the call yourself.'    PAT]

     Well, Pat, maybe those who pay for the calls do have a "right" to
see the data.  But, this "right" does, or at least did, not exist in
the tariff for 800 service. And, if it does exist now, you can bet the
house, the barn, and the dog, that it is restricted by the words "...
where facilities allow".  For that matter, only AT&T actually files
tariffs with the FCC, the others "publish rates" by choice, not by
requirement. Even for AT&T this may end soon.  The other companies,
who started giving out the calling telephone number, did so (and
probably continue) for "marketing" reasons.

     The "contract(s)" at the local level are different depending on
the state and the local telephone company. Also, some (many) phone
companies have no provisions for making the tariffs available to the
public.  For example, although the various PUC's usually require
copies of the tariff to be available in "public offices", there is no
provision that the Telco must actually have a "public office".  So
some (many?) the Telco's just did away with "public offices", in favor
of "service locations".  Everything else is just the same, except no
tariff availability.  Therefore, if access to the tariff is
restricted,
by design of the Telcos, the "public" must rely on the assertions of
the Telco.  Neat, for the Telcos; for the public, it's a problem, and
not just in the area of Caller ID.

     In response to your question/comment: "Are you suggesting because
I get this information I 'paid to get your number'?  All I paid for
was the phone call, which legally means the call *belongs to me*, and
I am entitled to know the uses made of my phone when I am charged for
those uses.

     Yes, I am stating that you get this information because you paid
to get it.  (Incidently, the "you" here refers to anyone who is using

·
a 800 number and gets the caller data, not you personally, Pat.).
This data has been made a large part of the marketing effort, and the
aftermarket IS software and hardware product area for some time. To
claim that you are not paying for the data, as an integral part of the
call, is naive. For some time, there was, and still may be, an extra
charge for this data when small companies (light traffic) are/is
involved.  I can point to major companies who have switched carriers
just to get this data when it was not available from AT&T.

     As to "who owns a telephone call", the various courts are in
disagreement on that issue as we speak.  It may be that a call is
"owned" by both parties.  There is a lot of history that supports that
contention.

     About "entitled to know": Yes, you are!  The right, and ability,
to audit Telco bills was a hard won battle. I would be among the first
to fight against giving up that right or ability.  However, the
ability to audit the bill is not as important as the individual
privacy/security right of the consumer, nor are they incompatible.
The existing technology is more than adequate to provide both.

     It is very easy to say "pay for it yourself, bozo.".  Speaking
for myself, and my clients, and I think many others as well, (none of
whom are "prima-donnas") paying for it is NOT a problem.
Unfortunately,
many companies do not allow calls except to 800 numbers, and/or will
only "give out" 800 numbers.  Increasingly, the reasons for this seem
to be the intent to penetrate the privacy/security of the caller,
while "hiding" behind a 800 number front which itself cannot be
readily
identified as to location, company, or purpose.

     At the risk of repeating myself, It will be interesting to see
what will happen when (not, I expect if) this challenge takes place
... makes me kind of glad I retired from the Consulting business ... ;-
).


Glenn L Foote   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 07:25 MET
From: [e-mail] (Marc SCHAEFER)
Subject: Teleworking Stories
Organization: ALPHANET NF - Research and information - Not for profit


Hi,

Do you happen to know a teleworking story?  Especially in the aspect
of worker-firm interaction/conflicts. Do you know about court cases
(featuring piracy, privacy/non privacy of mails in commercial
environment, snooping of mails from employees, successful examples,
etc).

This would be for a thesis.


Thank you!

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

From: [e-mail] (danny burstein)
Subject: Corporate Creativity, was Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much is
Real?
Date: 21 Jan 1995 01:43:59 -0500


[Summary until now: The points raised basically question how much of
the
claimed cellular phone losses to fraud are "real" versus fiction.
i.e.,
when they claim $20 million in losses, is that actual cost to them, or
is
based on, say, 20 million minutes at their full retail price of
$1/minute].

This overstating of losses is common by Big Business, and by numerous
other groups, for the following reasons:

a) It gets a lot more publicity;

b) It can be used to justify rate increases;

c) It can boost insurance payments;

d) It can reduce taxes.

Let's take a couple or so examples, not necessarily telecom:

Police grab 100 pounds of cocaine. Well, umm, maybe they grabbed a bit
more, but they show off 100 pounds. They state: "This was worth
$1,000/pound on the street, so we just kicked ORGANIZED CRIME for one
hundred thousand dollars."

However, the actual and replacement cost to the Bad Guys is only $25
plus
shipping and handling ... but that wouldn't be newsworthy.

Or, let's say you are Mega-tele-sleaze, Inc. You're about to make $100
million in profits. But the IRS will take $50 million of it. So what
do you do? Well, for starters, you give $100,000 to the local "take-a-
buck
political club", but in addition, you tell your accountants to come up
with "losses" to offset your profits.

Aha!, they say. Let's see ... hmm, there were 10 million minutes of
FAKE CALLS!. So we can claim $10 million in losses. Poof, there go $5
million in IRS payments!

Or even better ... These calls "would have been" at the Roaming Rate
of $5/minute. Wow!.

(It's not quite that simple to claim tax losses, but at these figures,
it's worth having the tax lawyers work out creative charts).

BTW, if I might give an analogy that shows how absurd this can become:

Let's say you're a former felon who was given a pardon by an
"uindicted
co-conspirator", and, in addition to owning a shipyard, you're also
the
principal shareholder of a major league baseball (remember them?)
franchise.

You sell tickets to your stadium at $25-$1,000 dollars (depending on
location).

Lo and behold your security staff finds a dozen kids climbing a tree
and
watching the game from the outside. You've just had a $1,200 loss ...

And, since your payments to the City are based on your profits ...

(Now Corporate America would never use logic like that, would they???)


[e-mail] (or [e-mail])

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

Date: 21 Jan 95 02:51:54 EST
From: Sarah Holland <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Universal Internet Access


My last message to TELECOM Digest was about how SaskTel was offering
universal Internet access, and BC Tel was reported as saying that it
wouldn't. I'd like to take credit for their change of heart ...


{Vancouver Sun}, January 20, 1995, Bits & Bytes Column

Canadian phone companies are joining forces to offer access to the
Internet from anywhere in the country, especially rural areas.
[Sarah's comment -- yippee!!]

Executives from the Stentor alliance, which includes BC Tel, are
working on a plan to allow Canada's estimated one million Internet
users to dial into the computer network from anywhere in Canada
without having to phone long distance.  ***


Sarah Holland    [e-mail]
Fort St. James, BC, Canada - "Historic Capital of New Caledonia"


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good for you! I hope the connection
gets turned on soon, and it works out well for everyone.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (S Cantor)
Subject: Glossary Wanted
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 09:11:14 -0500
Organization: The Internet Access Company


I'm looking for a good laymen's type glossary of common data
communications and telecommunications terms.

E.g. how would you define "internetworking"?

How would you describe "physical plant" to non-techie?

Any suggestions?  Is the FAQ of this sort floating around?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes it is. The Telecom Archives has
several
glossary files available. There are various ways to access them. You
can
use anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu. When connected, 'cd telecom-archives'
and
then 'cd glossaries'. The glossary files can also be searched
interactively
using the Telecom Archives Email Information Service. To do this you
send
mail to the Archives ([e-mail]) in the usual way --
see the
help file for assistance), using the command GLOSSARY <argument> where
the
argument is the word or phrase or abbreviation being searched. You
will
receive back in email the appropriate excerpts from the various files.
PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 09:06:00 +1000
From: /I=C/G=JANE/S=MCMAHON/O=DEMO.SALES.NSW/@telememo.au
Subject: Internet Mail With Half the Address?


Pat,

I know this looks like a lonely hearts type message, but the answers
might be interesting to other readers. Thanks for your help. Here
goes:

How do find someone using Internet?

Is it possible to send a mail message to someone knowing only half
their Internet address? I'm trying to track down a Jesuit priest by
the name of Bill Roach (broach@ I assume), who's last known physical
address was a Jesuit seminary in Menlo Park California.

Is there a directory of addresses or some way to get a message to all
the
"broach"s on the Internet?

I've tried American telephone directory assistance - no luck.
Couldn't even find Menlo Park.  Excuse my ignorance - We Australians
are reasonably new at this Internet stuff -- bloody crocs keep chewing
up the phone lines!


Thanks in anticipation.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps it is about time for someone to
write an article describing the Internet 'white pages' and how to use
them. I think searching those would be a good way for you to start.
PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #53
*****************************