For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 May 2005 16:21:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 196
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Turn Your Cellphone Into a Modem (Monty Solomon)
Online Ads Moving Beyond Pop-Ups (Monty Solomon)
Intrado Delivers VoIP E-911 Solution With Verizon in New York (J Decker)
Vonage's $10-Million 911 Plan (Jack Decker)
Must Read Article: A Question of Independence (Jack Decker)
Connecticut Suing Vonage Over 911 Disclosure (Jack Decker)
Wireless Headsets for Cordless Phones (Jimbo)
Forward Fax to Email (Jeremy)
American Tower Buys Spectrasite (Telecom Daily Lead from USTA)
Need AT Command to Invoke Push To Talk Button of Motorola (vemulakiran)
Re: Spam Mentioning "242 W. 36th St" (NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO)
Re: Spam Mentioning "242 W. 36th St" (B.M. Wright)
Re: Chicago, Chicago (Julian Thomas)
Re: Unstable SS7 Links and G.703 Baluns (Scott Dorsey)
Re: How is Weather Channel Data Delivered to Cable Headend (Neal McLain)
Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders (John Levine)
Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders (BV124@aol.com)
Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders (M.D. Sullivan)
Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders (F Goldstein)
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:00:10 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Turn Your Cellphone Into a Modem
PERSONAL TECH
By Michelle Johnson | May 2, 2005
Navigating the Web on the average cellphone can be an exercise in
frustration. You're either reduced to clicking through stripped-down
screens of mostly text, or forced to squint at pages scrunched onto a
tiny display.
The PocketSurfer Web viewer, which works with a cellphone, is aiming
to change all that. However, it has some quirks.
About the size of a checkbook, the PocketSurfer looks a bit like a
tiny laptop or PDA. But the resemblance stops there, because this is a
single-function device, meant strictly for accessing the Web.
Essentially, it turns almost any cellphone into a wireless modem via a
Bluetooth connection, so it will work anywhere there's cellphone
service. (If your phone isn't Blue-tooth enabled you can purchase a
separate adapter.)
I recently tested a PocketSurfer with a Bluetooth-enabled Motorola
V600 cellphone and found that while it offers definite advantages,
setting it up and using it require jumping a few hurdles.
http://www.boston.com/business/personaltech/articles/2005/05/02/turn_your_cellphone_into_a_modem/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:02:55 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Online Ads Moving Beyond Pop-ups
@LARGE
By Scott Kirsner | May 2, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO -- Jarvis Coffin moves through the crowded aisles of
AdTech, an advertising trade show, like a union boss at the annual
picnic. He greets every other person by first name, clasping hands and
promising phone calls and e-mails; others wave at him from across the
crush.
Coffin is the chief executive and one of the founders of Burst Media
in Burlington, a broker of online advertising that has been around
since 1995. (The very first Web ad, a banner promoting AT&T, appeared
one year before that.) The company's arc, from instant ignition to
near flame-out to recent resurrection, has closely traced that of the
entire online advertising industry.
Now, thanks to Google's clever method of placing pithy and relevant
text ads next to your search results, and an array of flashy new ad
formats, advertisers are making the Net a serious part of their
marketing strategies. Online ad sales totaled $9.6 billion last year,
according to the Internet Advertising Bureau, and are expected to hit
$12.7 billion in 2004, based on estimates by the research firm
eMarketer. Morgan Stanley analyst Mary Meeker, who gave a talk at
AdTech, observed that online advertising still represents only 3
percent of total US ad spending, calling the Internet 'the most
underutilized advertising medium that's out there.'
If 1994 to 2000 were the experimental days of online advertising, with
marketers pouring money in to see what worked, and 2001 to 2003 was an
interregnum where many dot-com companies vanished and Fortune 1000
companies stepped back to reevaluate their online strategies, then
2004 and 2005 represent a resurgence. Consumers are spending more time
on the Internet -- hours that tend to be stolen from television -- and
they're increasingly connected at high speed. Advertisers have
discovered formulas to make Internet advertising pay off, and in the
next five years, some of the same companies that developed
technologies for delivering and measuring Internet ads will sneak into
your TV set, to manage the ads that appear on your TiVo or through
your video-on-demand service.
http://www.boston.com/business/personaltech/articles/2005/05/02/online_ads_moving_beyond_pop_ups/
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 19:56:04 -0400
Subject: Intrado Delivers VoIP E-911 Solution With Verizon in New York
http://mrtmag.com/news/intrado_verizon_e911_050305/
May 3, 2005 5:51 PM
By Donny Jackson
Leading 911 vendor Intrado has announced it is installing equipment to
deliver voice-over-IP (VoIP) emergency-service calls in New York City
directly to appropriate public-safety answering points (PSAPs) with
address and call-back information through the traditional E-911
system.
Intrado has offered a 'V-911' solution that directs VoIP 911 calls to
the appropriate PSAP, but those calls are delivered to the PSAP's
administrative line instead of being routed directly to a
dispatcher. But the New York City solution uses an Intrado gateway
that directs VoIP 911 calls in the New York area to the appropriate
selective router -- owned by incumbent phone carrier Verizon
Communications -- so they can be answered by a PSAP dispatcher, said
Marcus Andronici, Intrado's product and marketing manager for VoIP
911.
"Here, we have gone another level, in that we're creating the
infrastructure to deliver calls to Verizon's selective routers,"
Andronici said. "This is going to be the first access to a Verizon
selective router."
Indeed, leading VoIP provider Vonage has repeatedly stated that
gaining access to incumbent carrier's selective routers is necessary
to provide emergency-calling service in the legacy 911 system. After
initially meeting with some resistance from incumbent carriers, Vonage
officials have said their company has reached agreements with Verizon
and Qwest Communications on selective-router access.
But access to the selective router is not just a limitation for
companies like Vonage, Andronici said. Even Verizon's own VoIP
product, VoiceWing, was not allowed access to the selective router
because the VoiceWing arm is not regulated as a telephone carrier, he
said.
Full story at:
http://mrtmag.com/news/intrado_verizon_e911_050305/
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 03:15:06 -0400
Subject: Vonage's $10-Million 911 Plan
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=11984&hed=Vonage%E2%80%99s+%2410-Million+911+Plan
Vonage will spend cash to work with Verizon and other operators to
offer emergency services.
Vonage will spend $10 million to start providing 911-style services
for its customers, partly by using Verizon's infrastructure to connect
callers with emergency dispatchers, the VoIP provider announced
Wednesday.
The investment is Vonage's first substantial attempt to close the
company's emergency calling gap. The cash is a relatively low price to
address a shortcoming that has become a publicity nightmare for the
company, which has spent tens of millions of dollars to market VoIP
service.
Vonage calls the investment a major undertaking, describing the plan
as 'the first domino to fall' in a plan to offer emergency services
nationwide. Vonage and Verizon will implement the system over the next
six months.
For now, the Verizon contract includes emergency service access in
Verizon's footprint. A Vonage call will be routed over the Verizon
network to connect to the Public Safety Answering Point, or PSAP. The
911 operator is then able to access a database of the caller's
personal information due to a unique key encoded in the call.
Full story at:
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=11984&hed=Vonage%E2%80%99s+%2410-Million+911+Plan
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@workbench.net>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 13:04:20 -0400
Subject: A Must-Read Article: A Question of Independence
Read this, print it out, give it to others to read ... Please note
that this article specifically mentions The New Millennium Research
Council, The Progress & Freedom Foundation and The Heartland
Institute. I strongly suspect that in Michigan, you could add the
Mackinac Center for Public Policy to that list, since they seem to be
pretty much "cut from the same cloth" as P&FF and Heartland.
http://news.com.com/A+question+of+independence/2009-1034_3-5681661.html
A question of independence
By Marguerite Reardon
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 2, 2005 4:00 AM PDT
Charges of "astroturf" lobbying are flying in the debate over
municipal broadband, as researchers rush to meet the growing demand
for data and economic analysis.
The term "astroturf" typically describes the use of artificial
grassroots groups that pose as citizen initiatives but get major
funding from corporate interests -- a strategy perfected by the
telecommunications industry in its fights with regulators.
Consumer groups complain that the Bells and cable operators are using
a similar tactic in their efforts to prevent cities from building
broadband networks that would compete with their own.
The phone and cable companies have weighed in on this topic, lobbying
state legislatures to pass new laws that would prohibit or limit these
networks. They've also taken their fight to the public, through
advertising in various communities. Supporters of municipal broadband
say these companies are also influencing the debate by helping fund
self-identified independent research groups that criticize city-owned
networks.
Groups singled out for criticism include The New Millennium Research
Council, The Progress & Freedom Foundation and The Heartland
Institute.
"It's deceptive when the public hears the name of an organization that
sounds like a respected organization with some authority behind it,
when in fact it is being backed by an interested party," said Kenneth
DeGraff, a policy advocate at Consumers Union, the publisher of
Consumer Reports. "We look at issues purely from the consumer's
perspective. Sometimes we agree with the phone companies, and
sometimes we don't. But we never accept any money from an interested
party."
Full story at:
http://news.com.com/A+question+of+independence/2009-1034_3-5681661.html
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@wthheld_on_request>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 13:46:29 -0400
Subject: Connecticut Suing VoIP Provider Vonage Over Disclosure
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/news/12400AVS07L4.xhtml
By John M. Moran
The Hartford Courant
Because Vonage does not route its 911 calls through the system used
for traditional wireline telephones, consumers placing such calls
might get sent to a non-emergency number or even a recorded message
instead of a live dispatcher, said Connecticut Attorney General
Richard [.....] Vonage spokeswoman Brooke Schulz said the company
disagreed that consumers were not fully informed about how Vonage's
911 service works, although Vonage remains "open to suggestions" for
improving its disclosure.
Working Toward Agreement
But she said the real problem is that Vonage has not yet been able to
negotiate an agreement with SBC Communications, the dominant wireline
phone company for most of Connecticut, for access to its 911 network.
Howard Riefs, an SBC spokesman, said talks between SBC and Vonage
about 911 are ongoing. "We've been meeting over the last few weeks on
this issue, and we're hopeful that we'll be able to reach agreement,"
he said.
Late Tuesday, Vonage said it had reached an agreement with Verizon for
access to its 911 network, allowing emergency personnel to receive
calls from Vonage customers directly, along with related information,
such as location and call-back number.
Full story at:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/news/12400AVS07L4.xhtml
------------------------------
From: Jimbo <jmweb@comcast.net>
Subject: Wireless Headsets for Cordless Phones ?
Date: 4 May 2005 12:02:21 -0700
I am wondering if there is a way, or a product, that would allow
someone to wear a cordless headset (like the Bluetooth earpieces used
for cell phones) and access a cordless (land line) phone setup ?
My wife is handicapped and I would like to set her up this way so she
does not have to carry the cordless phone around all day.
Thanks in advance.
JM
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am similarly situated; partially
paralyzed due to my brain aneursym, and a good cordless landline phone
with a headset (and caller-ID built in as well) is from Uniden. A
good friend of mine got it for me at a Costco store in Oregon. It is
very light weight and can be clipped on a belt or shirt pocket while
you wear the headset. Its not that I am _that totally disabled_; I can
get up and walk around, etc, but very slowly sometimes, and invariably
the person calling hangs up before I got to wherever I had earlier
left the phone. So unless I forget where I left my head (as I used to
with the phone) I can reach down and just push a button to turn it on
and off. The price was right; about fifty dollars for the whole thing.
PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jeremy <payday215@aol.com>
Subject: Forward Fax to Email
Date: 4 May 2005 10:48:30 -0700
I currently have a fax number that is widely used by my clients.
Problem is that I get a ton of fax "spam" if you will. I am looking
for the BEST solution to have these faxes forwarded to e-mail, while
keeping my existing fax number since that is the one everyone knows
and uses.
I am somewhat familiar with e-fax, but they can not re-use my existing
number, plus you have to pay for outgoing faxes. I have seen where I
can have a forward feature put on my fax line that would forward to an
e-fax number, and I would still be able to use my fax machine for
outgoing faxes (at least that is how I understand it).
Because of the number of "spam" faxes I receive via fax, I have to
replace my toner about every other week. As you can imagine this is a
very high expense for me, so I thought if I could have them sent to
e-mail then i could print the ones I want to keep and delete the
trash.
Does anyone have any better solutions than this. Someone mentioned a
Microsoft Fax Software, but I did not have any luck finding anything
out about it, so therefore I know nothing about it. Please let me
know if there is a better alternative solution.
Thanks,
ju
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why don't you consider forwarding all
of it, _everything_, to email, then using one of the several programs
available for sorting out spam look at it and those things that are
_not_ spam have them automatically sent on to your clients through an
outbound email to fax thing. Sometimes, when things get as
overwhelming as spam has become, you have to work things in the
reverse fashion. I think it would be a lot cheaper than trying to take
it all and try to do it as you are talking about.
Take email for example: Instead of battling it all, what would happen
if everyone just used a 'white list' of what they would accept and
bashed _everything else_. Here, the 'internet postage; scheme might
work okay: To get on my 'white list' you send me some nominal amount
of 'internet postage' (off hand, let's say 5 cents), if I approve you
for my white list I return your nickle and add your email to the white
list. As of some certain day, everything else is blacklisted. If I do
not want you on my list, then I keep your nickle and ignore you. Stuff
that is not on the white list just gets automatically smashed and
destroyed. Before long, so-called 'public email' would just be
spammers (anyone who did not send a nickle one time, with a request to
be added. That way we do not need filters, and we do not need to try
and trace it back, etc. The presumption is that _all is spam_ except
the occassional good, valid pieces of email, as per the white
lists. Spammers would not send the nickle to start with, and although
valid users would send it one time to be validated on the white list,
they'd soon get their nickle returned. Maybe we should just write off
email as any sort of useful tool; force the spammers (and YOU have to
_prove_ you are not a spammer by sending that first nickle with _no
guarentee_ you would get it back from anyone) to play it our way.
Instead of trying to sort through it all, let's just asume it is all
spam, and start from scratch. Newcomers late to the initial
'enrollment' period would have to begin their 'email experience' by
sending a nickle to the person they wish to white list them. To get
that nickle to me, the newcomers (once we have gone entirely to a
white list system) would have to have a 'flag' on their email that
first time with some sort of sensible email saying 'I want to be on
your white list', otherwise of course they'd be killed like all email,
presumed to be spam, since that is how we now define email. For almost
all of us, it would be far easier to work with a handful of regular
correspondents than a few thousand items to sort through each day,
most or all of which is spam anyway. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:15:51 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: American Tower Buys SpectraSite
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 4, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21318&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* American Tower buys SpectraSite
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Speakeasy launches WiMAX network in Seattle
* Smart phones set to go mainstream
* Mergers help Verizon, SBC increase clout in business market
* Progress Telecom helps wireless providers improve coverage
* BT's 21CN vendors keep quiet
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* Carrier Grade Voice Over IP -- Now at www.telecom-bookstore.com
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Bluetooth group works with UWB backers
* VoWi-Fi emerges on the scene
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Connecticut sues Vonage; Verizon gives Vonage users access to E911
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21318&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: vemulakiran@gmail.com
Subject: Need AT Command to Invoke Push To Talk Button of Motorola
Date: 4 May 2005 06:38:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Hi,
I want AT Command to invoke Push To Talk button of Motorola V400.
please help on this. I wrote a program to communicate with Motorola
V400 through Data Cable. I need AT command for Push To talk button.
Thanks & Regards,
kiran
------------------------------
From: NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO
Subject: Re: Spam Mentioning "242 W. 36th St"
Date: 3 May 2005 22:27:27 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Why would you ever get a correct address?
Gee, it's a shame then, that they have to pay for a surchage for all
the calls from payphones.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The other thing about using payphones
is then the spammer does not get _our_ correct adress either. PAT]
------------------------------
From: B.M. Wright <bmwright@xmission.com>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 08:12:19 UTC
Organization: XMission Internet http://www.xmission.com
Subject: Re: Spam Mentioning "242 W. 36th St"
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> <NOTvalid@surplus4actors.INFO> wrote:
>> The only messages I left was telling them which payphone I was at and
>> for them to change their OGM to give correct address.
>> Tomorrow I will be in midtown Manhattan again, so I will call to let
>> them know that I am within walking distance of their office. As I get
>> closer to address they gave I may keep calling until I get correct
>> address.
> Why would you ever get a correct address?
> They are spammers. It is their _business plan_ to keep their address
> secret.
You've lost the plot haven't you Scott? It cost THEM (meaning the
spammers) money when he calls their toll free number from a payphone
to "notify" them of this. Get it now?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought everyone knew this routine by
now; apparently some people still have not caught on. For how long did
I run a 'business directory' here of spammers -- err, legitimate
business people with their 800 numbers. Maybe we need an update on the
directory. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Julian Thomas <jt@withheld_on-request>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 09:46:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Chicago, Chicago ...
[Pat, as usual, please obscure my email address]
In <20050504004837.8187A14EE3@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, on 05/03/05 at
08:48 PM, jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu typed:
> When I travel I take along a laptop to keep up with the email. My
> ISP has local access numbers in lots of places, so most of the time
> I can connect with a local call. Not so around Chicago, where it
> seems that to call from one suburb to another, or maybe from one
> prefix to another, you get dinged for a small fixed charge. A motel
> that gives free local calls can't cope with the fixed charge, so I
> have to use the ISPs 800 number, for which there is a substantial
> per-minute charge.
Check out bamnet.net -- my ISP [small regional] doesn't have local
numbers anywhere and their charge for a direct dialup internet
connection is less than almost any ISP 800# charge.
Or -- stay at a Hampton Inn or other place with free high speed
internet connection ...
Julian Thomas: jt at jt-mj period net http://jt-mj.net
In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State!
-- --
Hex dump: Where witches put used curses...
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Better quality motels are all getting
into high speed internet connections for their guests, anyway. Here in
Independence, the Microtel Inn and the Super 8 both support broadband
internet. PAT]
------------------------------
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Unstable SS7 Links and G.703 Baluns
Date: 4 May 2005 11:22:57 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
<sarkar.abhik@gmail.com> wrote:
> The links work fine most of the time. But, occasionally all the E1
> links on the Cisco SS7 equipment go down. We haven't yet found what
> causes the problem. Usually the only way for the links to come up is
> to reboot the equipment or sometimes to shutdown and startup the E1
> controllers.
> We have some connections going straight to another SS7 equipment
> through a couple of baluns. We suspect these connections might be
> causing some problem because we haven't got the grouding configuration
> correct for the balun's involved in these connections. Ever since we
> have disconnected these connections the problem seems to have
> vanished.
> Can someone suggest anything or has someone seen any problem like this
> before?
This sounds like a typical ground loop problem to me. Get out the
scope and start looking for 60 Hz trash on the balanced lines. I bet
you see some problems.
Everything should have one and only one path to the central ground.
Never none and never two.
--scott
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 18:25:11 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
Subject: Re: How is Weather Channel Data Delivered to Cable Headend
In my previous message on this subject, I included an erroneous link
for the list transponders carrying The Weather Channel. Here are the
correct links:
List of transponders carrying The Weather Channel:
http://www.lyngsat.com/nettv/United-States.html
Format of a typical analog transponder:
AMC-ll tp 13 (3960 MHz, Vertical)
http://www.lyngsat.com/amc11.html
Format of a typical digital transponder:
AMC-10 tp 24 (4180 MHz, Horizontal)
http://www.lyngsat.com/amc10.html
Format of a proprietary digital transponder:
DirecTV 1R/2/4S transponder number unknown
http://www.lyngsat.com/dtv101.html
Also, I forgot to mention how closed-caption data is carried. It's
carried on Line 21, the universal standard for such data. It passes
unchanged (hopefully) through the entire encryption/decryption
process, ultimately being decoded by the viewer's TV receiver.
Neal McLain
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards closed caption, since I
sometimes these days do not hear as well as I would like, I frequently
leave closed caption turned on (it is an on/off option on my
television set) even though I am also using sound as well (closed
caption allows me to keep up with words I miss or do not understand
occassionally.) But has anyone else noticed how they really _blow it
bad_ sometimes, with trash symbols instead of the words, etc, or
sometimes just approximations of the phrases used instead of the
actual words? And in the case of VCR or DVD movies, I assume the
closed caption is just encoded right on the finished product, is that
correct? And if it is a 'live program' such as a newscast instead of
some pre-recorded stuff, it appears they also create the closed
caption live, since it drags behind the audio by a few seconds. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: 4 May 2005 00:46:26 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders to Test
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But SBC in those days was
> Southwestern Bell, and its eastern boundary was Missouri. Please
> correct me as needed, but weren't all or most of the -A- or
> 'competing' carriers in fact one 'Celluar One' (as a brand name) or
> another?
They were, but a whole lot of those Cell Ones were SBC (or maybe SWB
at the time) underneath. My cell phone here in upstate NY is now
Cingular and was originally Cell One, but it was always SWB/SBC
underneath. Ditto the Bell Atlantic Cell Ones in much of New England
before they merged with NYNEX and had to sell them off.
R's,
John
------------------------------
From: BV124@aol.com
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:32:56 EDT
Subject: Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders to Test
Did you mean "anathema"?
[TELECOM Digest Editors Note: -- err, goof. Yes, I guess I did. Sorry
about that. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Michael D. Sullivan <userid@camsul.example.invalid>
Subject: Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders to Test
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 02:51:58 GMT
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But the _original_ cell phone carriers
>> were the telcos (and still mostly are).
> Not exactly. AMPS licenses were granted to *two* carriers in every
> market: one "wireline" (incumbent LEC) telephone company, and one
> independent carrier. So it is only right to say that *half of* the
> original cell phone carriers were the telcos.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are correct. The 'A' side was the
> 'competitor' and the 'B' side was the wireline incumbent. Now, let's
> examine those roles as they were played out in two metropolitan
> areas, Chicago and St. Louis, circa 1982-85.
> In Chicago, 'A' was (still is?) "Cellular One", a brand name used by
> various carriers, in this instance Southwestern Bell. 'B' was
> Ameritech Mobile Services, back then a division of Illinois Bell. So,
> Southwestern Bell 'competed with' Illinois Bell in Chicago.
In Chicago, the A block cellular carrier was originally Rogers Radio
Communications Service, a long-time radio common carrier and Bell
competitor. Its network was ultimately acquired by Soutwestern Bell
Mobile Services, which was building up a nationwide presence as a
nonwireline carrier in markets where it didn't own the telco.
This company became part of SBC, and its licenses were ultimately
transferred to Cingular, which SBC co-owns. The B block carrier was
originally AT&T's AMPS subsidiary, which transferred the license to
Ameritech Mobile as part of the AT&T breakup. When SBC merged with
Ameritech, the B block license was divested to GTE, which later became
part of Verizon Wireless. So the non-telco A block license is now
owned by an affiliate of the telco, and the original telco B block
license is now owned by a telco that isn't a telco in Chicago. All
clear?
> Now go to St. Louis, and the roles were switched: 'A' was the
> 'competitor', Ameritech Mobile; and 'B' was the established wireline
> incumbent, in this instance d/b/a/ 'Southwestern Bell Mobility'.
A was originally licensed to the nonwireline company Cybertel, which
sold out to Ameritech. B was AT&T/AMPS/Southwestern Bell Mobile
Services, the local telco affiliate. The Ameritech license was
transferred to GTE and then Verizon Wireless, as in Chicago, when SBC
merged with Ameritech, and SBC's license went to Cingular.
> Move a bit west in Missouri/Kansas around KCMO; lo and behold, the
> incumbent on the 'B' side was United Telephone Company, a cousin to
> the Bells, and on the 'A' side was "Cellular One", but this time the
> Dobson outfit d/b/a.
Dobson Cellular is affiliated with the Dobson Telephone Company, but
it's involved in cellular in rural markets all over.
> So, at least in Chicago/St. Louis (and wherever else) it was telco
> versus telco. "Cellular One" you see, at least in those days was
> just a brand name used by various companies, as often as not telcos
> who were _not_ allowed to market telephony under their own name in
> that area. No way, in those days at least, Southwestern Bell would
> have ever been allowed to 'move into or take over' the Chicago
> market, which was Illinois Bell (and soon to be) Ameritech.
The Cellular One brand was originally created and owned by the
Washington Baltimore Cellular Telephone Co., the Washington/Baltimore
A block licensee, which was owned in part by the Washington Post; the
name was created for licensing as a common brand name for A block
licensees, who didn't have the national brand recognition that the
telcos had on the B side. Ironically, Southwestern Bell bought out
the Washington Post and, eventually, the other owners of the
Washington Baltimore Cellular Telephone Co. It continued to use the
Cellular One name for its A block systems, and continued to license
its use by others, until it formed Cingular. When it was decided that
Cingular would use its own name and not Cellular One, the Cellular One
name and licensing rights were sold to Western Wireless, which alredy
used the name widely. And now Western Wireless is being acquired by
Alltel.
Funny thing about the phone business. Almost every company in the
business either started out as a phone company or becomes one.
Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD (USA)
(Replace "example.invalid" with "com" in my address.)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I _think_ my original response to Lisa
Hancock is still true however. We were discussing VOIP troubles and
how cellular phone companies 'never got sued' (in the old days)
because of their inability to route 911 correctly. I suggested that
rarity of lawsuits may have been a function of their underlying
ownership; unlike VOIP, which is coming in cold, the cellular
companies all had 'telco' in their family trees somewhere. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 23:48:32 -0400
From: Fred Goldstein <SeeSigForEmail@wn6.wn.net>
Subject: Re: Who Answers 911? Cell Phones and VoIP Put Responders to
John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote,
>> Not exactly. AMPS licenses were granted to *two* carriers in every
>> market: one "wireline" (incumbent LEC) telephone company, and one
>> independent carrier. So it is only right to say that *half of* the
>> original cell phone carriers were the telcos.
> Pat is right -- most of the A carriers were LECs from somewhere
> else, or perhaps for the first 15 minutes someone who bought a kit
> to bid in the cellular auction and then turned around and sold his
> ticket to SBC or Bell Atlantic.
It didn't happen that way at first. The original A licenses were
handed out to existing Radio Common Carriers -- mainly paging
companies. Metromedia nabbed several important licenses on the East
Coast, including Washington and Boston, and they created the Cellular
One brand name, which was licensed to many other A-side carriers.
After the big city licenses were handed out free, and some license
lotteries were scandalous, the FCC went to an auction system, which is
how all of the 1900 MHz PCS licenses were assigned (except for a
couple of "pioneer preference" gifts).
Metromedia sold out to Southwestern Bell, which kept the Cellular One
name until it joined forces with BellSouth and came up with the new
Cingular brand. McCaw sold out to AT&T. Connecticut's A-side
carrier, Metro Mobile, sold out to Bell Atlantic, and is now VZW. So
yes, by the mid-1990s, a good share of the A-side ("non-wireline")
licenses were owned by ILECs.
Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
------------------------------
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, Yahoo Groups, 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@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 oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.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 *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 fifty 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.
End of TELECOM Digest V24 #196
******************************
| |