TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 May 2005 15:59:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 220

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    VOIP in Public-Safety Showdown (Jack Decker)
    Avaya-Vectors -> Routing Every xth Call (nospamplease)
    Time Warner Chief Hints at AOL Spinoff (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
    Travelling From USA to Brazil: Need Cell Phone (Frugal Sam)
    Re: Very Early Modems (Steven J. Hathaway)
    Re: AT&T - Cingular - Alltel; They Broke MY Contract! (John R. Levine)
    Re: AT&T - Cingular - Alltel; They Broke MY Contract! (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use? (Robert Bonomi)
    Re: AT&T Licensed the Transistor For Free (The Kaminsky Family)
    Re: FAQ: How Real ID Will Affect You (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
    Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out (Dean M.)
    Re: Vonage Improvement: No More Dial 1+ (Jim Hatfield)

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.  

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

From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 08:43:06 -0400
Subject: VOIP in Public-Safety Showdown


http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67557,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

By Michael Grebb

WASHINGTON -- Internet phone providers are facing static over alleged
public-safety failings, with federal regulators poised to unveil new
rules that could drive up prices and crimp growth.

VOIP providers insist they are not against providing 911 support, but
they have balked at requirements that might increase their costs and
give rival Bell operating companies a choke point to slow or prevent
their entry into themarket.

Rich Tehrani, chairman of the Internet Telephony Conference, said that
the VOIP industry generally supports the concept of offering 911
capabilities but has urged extreme caution.

"I support any initiative that may save lives and keep human beings
safe," Tehrani said. "On the other hand, I am concerned that
regulation may make it difficult to provide inexpensive VOIP service."

Tehrani said the industry is pretty much holding its breath in
anticipation of Thursday's action.

"Depending on how drastic the FCC rules are, it may be impossible to
comply in the short term," he said. "Some providers may not be able to
afford to comply."

Vonage spokesman Chris Murray said much will hinge on the incumbent
local exchange carriers, or LECs, that control access to the 911
switching centers -- known as public-safety answering points, or
PSAPs.

According to Murray, incumbent LECs have been reluctant to provide
PSAP access to VOIP providers voluntarily. Lack of access to PSAPs
contributed to the Texas incident and similar cases of people not
being able to reach 911 operators, he said. "If we had had that
access, we wouldn't have had these incidents," he said.

Some consumer advocates, who generally support 911 capabilities for
VOIP, have also urged the FCC to link any VOIP 911 requirement to
rules that force the incumbent telcos to cooperate.

"We don't want to see a requirement on VOIP providers to do 911 but
not require it to be implemented quickly by requiring the (local phone
monopolies) to work with them," said Janee Briesemeister, senior
policy analyst at Consumers Union.

Full story at:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67557,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1


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: Jens Lykke Brandt <jlb@telefaction.dk (nospamplease)>
Subject: Avaya-Vectors -> Routing Every xth Call
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 17:04:13 +0200
Organization: TDC Totalloesninger


Hi.

This should hopefully be an easy question:

I have an ACD on an Avaya PBX that receives calls. I'd like to take
every 10th call and divert it to somewhere else (ISDN/CAS/etc. - A
Dialogic card anyway).  Could that be done using vectors?

In other PBXs I've used an extra hunting-group "in front" of the real
group.  The new group then had 9 places forwarding to the real group
whilst number 10 pointed to us. But I'm told it is impossible on Avaya
because it is too smart. Anyone disagree?

Thanks in advance,

Jens Brandt

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

Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:24:17 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: Time Warner Chief Hints at AOL Spinoff


Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 18, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21678&l=2017006


		TODAY'S HEADLINES
	
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Time Warner chief hints at AOL spinoff
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Vodafone cuts roaming charges in Europe
* Fast-growing IP services not yet profitable
* Wall Street eyes Comcast, T-Mobile deal for wireless
* Wireless renters and the battle to come
USTA SPOTLIGHT 
* Time Warner Cable CEO To Speak At TelecomNEXT
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* SmartVideo announces wireless music video service
* The role of speed
* Brian Roberts: VOD era is nigh
* Mobile phone operators launch Amber Alerts
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* FCC to vote on 911 rules for VoIP
* FCC to review ownership limits for cable TV

Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21678&l=2017006

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

Subject: Travelling From USA to Brazil: Need Cell Phone
From: Frugal Sam <frugalsam@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 03:11:38 -0500


Hello,

I have a Nokia CDMA phone that I currently use with Verizon in USA.

I will be visiting Brazil in the next couple of weeks, and then
Thailand in September and would like to have the use of a cell phone
while I am in those countries.

My understanding is that I need to get hold of an 'unlocked' quad band
cell phone and then, when I am in those countries, buy a SIM card from
a local provider.

Is this correct?

If it is, how can I get hold of an unlocked quad band cell phone?

Thanks.

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

From: Steven J. Hathaway <shathawa@e-z.net>
Subject: Re: Very Early Modems
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:17:12 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com


Just a few years ago, I retired my 300 baud modem manufactured by
Western Electric.  It was grandfathered into the FCC registry.  It had
pulse-dial and a push-button to activate the data frequencies.  It
received its power from the battery voltage on the telephone circuit,
thus needed no external electrical power.  This modem was also my
first access to the Internet, and dial-up bulletin board services.

Wesrock@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 17 May 2005 07:10:57 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
> writes: 

> The passage said that AT&T strictly controlled attachments
> to their lines; the IBM system was used mostly on private lines or
> leased lines.  As we recall, many large organizations, especially
> railroads, >>maintained their own privately built and maintained
> telephone networks and such users could of course attach anything
> they wanted.  Railroads could use this IBM system to send in
> freight car movements punched at remote locations to a central
> site.  Railroads (and other "right-of-way" companies) could use
> their lines as they saw fit, including imterconnecting with Bell
> lines at their PBX (including dial PBXs).  This was true whether the
> company owned the lines or leased them from Bell.

> But I wonder if AT&T allowed private attachments to leased private
> lines it supplied.  I wonder if the rules were different for such
> lines as opposed to the switched network.  I also wonder if the
> independent telephone companies were as strict as AT&T regarding
> attachments.  The rules were indeed different on private lines.
> Generally the customer could hang anything they wanted on leased
> lines as long as they did not cause interference outside the
> bandwith.  (Leased lines included telegraph, teletypewriter, voice,
> program channels [audio channels with wider bandwith than
> voice-grade channels], television channels, and various grades of
> data channels.)  Most independent companies were even more
> restrictive than Bell in their regulations, both for lines attached
> to the switched network and for leased lines.  

> Wes Leatherock
> wesrock@aol.com

I also had several earler modems predating 300 baud.  These operated at 
110 baud, 75 baud, and 56 baud.  The slowest of the modems were used
with circuits where data was badot and tty codes.

- Steve Hathaway

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

From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: AT&T - Cingular - Alltel; They Broke MY Contract!
Date: 18 May 2005 09:06:55 -0400
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA


> I am expecting is for them to at least continue the options I've had
> with AT&T.  If you compare Alltel's offerings, you will find that
> Cingular offers much better plans, as did AT&T I believe ...

But you do have the same options you did.  Your existing contract
still is what it is.  When it's up, if you don't like what Alltel is
offering, go across the street, sign up with Cingular, and transfer
your number.

The reason they sold you to Alltel is that Cingular already operates
where you are, and the combination would have been too large a
fraction of the market.  So Cingular is there if you want them.

R's,

John

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: AT&T - Cingular - Alltel; They Broke MY Contract!
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:42:13 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.219.8@telecom-digest.org>,
Steve  <sfsokc@softhome.net> wrote:

> TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to the original writer
> about whom Steve Sobol later complained, saying:

>>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think what you will find is the
>>> contract you signed at some point or another expressly gives _them_
>>> the right to assign your contract. It did not give _you_ any rights
>>> like that however; just AT&T.  PAT]

>> Yes, the cell phone contracts generally allow companies to assign
>> contracts to third parties. Read your original contract.

> I expected this type of answer.  And I'm sure _you_ read through your
> entire contract letter-by-letter, yes? 

If you do not do it, you have only yourself to blame when something in
it bites you 'unexpectedly'.

> You miss my point though.  I
> know AT&T had the right to transfer the contract when purchased by
> Cingular.  What I don't like is the regulatory issue that then forced
> Cingular to divest to some "third party" (in this case, Alltel).  What
> I am expecting is for them to at least continue the options I've had
> with AT&T.  

For the term of your contract, they _are_ required to provide the
services specified in that contract, at the price specified.  Unless
there is something _in_the_contract_ that allows them to change
things.

I can't speak for _your_ contract -- you *will* have to actually read
all that boring stuff -- but such contracts usually provide that the
carrier can change the service offerings, and maybe even the pricing,
"whenever they want to", *BUT* if/when they do that, you have an
'escape' window, where you can 'refuse' the new terms.  Depending on
contract language, if you _do_ refuse the new terms when offered, that
either *cancels* the contract, _without_penalty_, or they are obliged
to continue the contracted services for the contracted period.  Note
well that the contracts are written such that if you _do_not_object_
then you are deemed to have agreed to the new terms, and they are
binding on you.

> I look forward to the day when consumers have more power of choice and
> are not locked into long-term contracts.

You're not locked into long-term contracts.  You *could* have bought
service with _no_minimum_term_.  Yes, all the major carriers do offer
such contracts.  If you did that, it would have been considerably more
expensive, no "free phone", no free activation, or any other
'freebies'.  You pay for it all, one way or another.

> This is not a case where a
> company is giving its customers what they want.  Under THESE
> circumstances, we should have the RIGHT to change to another company.

You have the right to get _what_you_paid_for_.  As long as you are
getting the services you contracted for, you have no basis for
complaining about _who_ is delivering that service.

If you are _not_ getting the services you contracted for, then you
_may_ have the basis for complaint.  If however, the contract allows
them to change the services delivered, and they notified you of the
changes, and you did _not_ exercise your rights in a timely manner,
you _have_ agreed to those changes, and you do not have recourse
against them for your failure to act.

Note: this is just one reason why it *is* a good idea to read all
those messy little details on the contract -- if not before you sign,
at least sometime reasonably soon thereafter -- so you have some idea
of what rights (limited though they may be) you *do* have.  And so
that you _can_ exercise those rights , in a "use it or lose it"
situation.

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

From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use?
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:11:55 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.


In article <telecom24.218.5@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> In another thread Pat mentioned FX lines.  As mentioned, these were
> used to save on long distance changes -- customers would make a local
> call to a distant business and the business could call its customers
> for the cost of a local call.  This service was not cheap.

> At a resort I visited that had FX lines to a city 75 miles away, the
> switchboard had special heavy cord pairs.  Extensions authorized for
> FX had a second jack underneath in which the heavy cord was inserted.
> I heard FX lines used higher voltage thus the heavy cords.  I don't
> know what kind of special wiring, if any, was in the telephone sets.

> I would guess WATS and long distance packages has made most FX lines
> obsolete. 

The proverbial "yes and no".

I seriously looked at FX for my residence a couple of times within the
last 10 years or so.

The install cost was medium monumental -- hundreds of dollars -- but
the monthly recurring was a pittance -- under $2, as I recall. The
monthly was that cheap because it wasn't very far -- this was for FX
from the next exchange distant.  It was a straight per-mile thing, and
the 'worst case' distance was under 5 miles (I had them do numbers to
three nearby COs, I knew the more distant one had the right kind of
gear, wasn't sure what the others had, or how the distance stacked
up.) I was looking at ISDN, and wanted features that were only
available from certain kinds of switch.  Unfortunately the one in 'my'
C.O. did -not- support the particular features I wanted.  Hence the FX
investigation.

The poor telco rep -- who had apparently never heard of such a thing
-- had to do a _lot_ of digging, get a special services quote on the
install costs, etc.  and then was utterly _amazed_ at how low the
monthly cost was. (I was, too!)

The idea of _ISDN_ FX took a lot of the engineering people somewhat by
surprise, or so I heard, but it _was_ in the tariffs.

> There was toll free before 800 numbers but it was manual
> and a local number added a comfort factor.  Obviously today a
> business's 800 number is more convenient for anyone.  Further,
> businesses have outward long distance packages so the cost of paying
> for an FX trunk (that only worked in a specific city) couldn't be
> justified.

"In-state" long distance can still be obnoxiously priced.  Including
in-state 800 service.

I know of at least one manufacturing company -- located jut outside of
a fairly _small_ town, that maintains a tie-line to the "big city"
circa 50 miles away.  They have a national 800 number, too. but
there's enough call-volume to the city to justify the ongoing cost of
the dedicated line.  Probably not enough to justify *installing* it,
if they had to do it today, but enough to _keep_ it, since the install
is a 'sunk cost' -- long sunk, probably 50 years, now.

I *really* confused their switchboard one day, when I called "out of
the blue" to request a quote on an order.  I was calling from two
states away, and the call came in on their city tie-line, *not* their
800 number.  For which there was a _simple_ explanation, I had family
in the city, had called _them_ to get a referral, _and_ the phone
number.  Oddly enough, the 800 number was _not_ listed in the local
phone book _there_.  Since my then place-of-work had flat-rate
(unmetered) _outgoing_ Long Distance, I didn't bother to check for any
other numbers.

After I got a salesman, that conversation got sort-of funny.  He was
reluctant to quote on the order -- stated that he 'almost surely'
would not be competitive, "particularly with the cost of shipping
figured in", with suppliers around Chicago, where I was.  As it turned
out, _including_ shipping, his price was almost 1/3 *under* the best
price I got locally.  My order was comparatively small for a
manufacturer, low 4 figures.  But, as it turned out, they got a *LOT*
of other business from the Chicago area as a result of my purchase --
some _big_ users heard about the pricing I got, and were placing
rail-car size orders.  For several years they even had a sales office
here.

> But there is another type of "FX" service that seems not to have gone
> away even though the need has.  Philadelphia has a local city zone and
> message units for more distant suburban calls.  Many suburban
> businesses had a city phone number for the same reason companies had
> FX lines.  Even some suburban homeowners who made a lot of city calls
> had a second line with a city number.  AFAIK, many suburban businesses
> still maintain their existing city phone numbers even though today the
> need isn't as much.

> (The following is the economic analyis for those interested).

> The message unit charge has been 7c for at least the last 40 years.
> Now 7c 40 years ago was like 50c today and say a monthly usage of 100
> units comes to some serious money in today's terms (equivalent of $50)
> while today it's $7 which isn't a big deal.  Further, Verizon has
> increased local calling area sizes and reduced zone charges.  My guess
> is today it probably costs a business far more to maintain the city
> line than whatever they save in message units, and customers don't
> give making a suburban call a second thought today.

> In looking through the yellow pages I noticed many businesses had
> multiple numbers.  However, for some time Verizon offers remote
>forwarding -- that is you get a local number but it really isn't a
> line -- it just forwards calls to your actual number.  That's more to
> imply a business has a local presence than to save customers toll
> charges.

Remote forwarding is relatively *expensive* -- you pay a 'message units'
charge for every call.  Depending on what the monthly is for for the 
FX pair, it can be a _lot_ cheaper.

Making a WAG about the monthly for an across-town like that FX,
The break-even point could easily be only 6-8 calls a day.

> I guess that businesses maintaining a distant line never gave it any
> thought and just pay for it month after month.

"Keeping" it can be relatively inexpensive.  Putting it in, in the first
place was where the big expense was.

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

From: The Kaminsky Family <kaminsky@kaminsky.org>
Reply-To: kaminsky@kaminsky.org
Organization: None Whatsoever
Subject: Re: AT&T Licensed the Transistor For Free
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 06:03:19 GMT


hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> I had always wondered why AT&T never seemed to make any money
> from the invention of the transistor.

> I presume other Bell Labs patents were also available free;
> indeed, I never knew of AT&T making money from licensing
>  its many inventions.  It appears patents were more for
> freedom of use than profit.  IBM adopted a similar policy
> in the 1950s.  Both did so from anti-trust settlements.

Don't I wish that were true!  A company I once worked for got
sued by AT&T for patent infringement, and spent a considerable
effort in proving that we were not infringing.  They came back
with something to the effect that, "You don't get it.  Here are
fifty more patents you are infringing on.  We have thousands more
once you prove that you're not infringing on these.  Just give up
and pay us!"

I don't know the whole story -- I was not working there at the
time -- but as I understand it, the settlement was a yearly fee
in a rather significant amount (for a small company).

Mark

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

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: FAQ: How Real ID Will Affect You
Date: 18 May 2005 09:32:03 -0700


> I highly recommend reading the opinions of Bruce Schneier, of
> Counterpane Internet Security:
>   http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0505.html

Very good stuff and recommended.  Two paragraphs stand out:

> "The REAL ID Act requires driver's licenses to include a "common
> machine-readable technology." This will, of course, make identity
> theft easier. Already some hotels take photocopies of your ID when you
> check in, and some bars scan your ID when you try to buy a
> drink. Since the U.S. has no data protection law, those businesses are
> free to resell that data to data brokers like ChoicePoint and
> Acxiom. And they will; it would be bad business not to. It actually
> doesn't matter how well the states and federal government protect the
> data on driver's licenses, as there will be parallel commercial
> databases with the same information. "

He is absolutely right.  It already is a scam where a restaurant
employee secretly copies a credit card and its mag stripe for illegal
purposes.  Nothing would stop hotel workers and others from doing the
same thing.  Remember many of these workers tend to be low paid,
transitory without much loyalty, and not much love for their
customers.  The minute the new cards and readers go into service
someone will hack and illegally copy them.

Beyond that, there is a legitimate sharing of information as
described.  Note that the "Privacy Policy" booklet we all get says the
company will share data with its "business partners" which could mean
anyone.

(the next paragraph I quote said):

> "REAL ID doesn't go into effect until three years after it becomes
> law, but I expect things to be much worse by then. One of my fears is
> that this new uniform driver's license will bring a new level of "show
> me your papers" checks by the government. Already you can't fly
> without an ID, even though no one has ever explained how that ID check
> makes airplane terrorism any harder. I have previously written about
> Secure Flight, another lousy security system that tries to match
> airline passengers against terrorist watch lists. I've already heard
> rumblings about requiring states to check identities against
> "government databases" before issuing driver's licenses. I'm sure
> Secure Flight will be used for cruise ships, trains, and possibly even
> subways.  Combine REAL ID with Secure Flight and you have an
> unprecedented system for broad surveillance of the population."

We're not gonna wake up one morning and discover we need "our papers"
with us at all times.  But we are seeing is requiring "our papers" to
do more and more things of everyday life.  In Boston, they had ID
checks during the convention.  Some libraries require a real ID for
entry (not merely your library card).  Young adults must show ID to
guy cigarettes or drink.  In the interest of "fraud control" and
"terrorist security" or "criminal security" we are being ordered to
show real ID in more and more places.

I like to walk and have been occassion stopped by cops on patrol for
neighborhood safety.  When I walk around my own neighborhood I don't
carry my wallet and have no ID at all on me.  I wonder what will
happen if I'm stopped then.

I have national unlimited phone service.  I wonder if despite that,
the ESS is keeping a log of every phone call in and out and just
storing it someplace.  On TV, they imply those logs exist and the cops
may get to them.

Can anyone defend this new stuff?  Are there real benefits I don't
see?

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

From: Dean M. <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:44:10 GMT


You are essentially relegating every IP communications device to a 911
caller first and then any other type of communications (and only after
the customer jumps through a number of hoops remembering to drop
cookie crums so she can find her way back should she need to change
something). I agree with you that this solution would probably be a
quicker one to implement, but I don't think it would ever be
considered satisfactory. Any 911 solution needs to be more transparent
to the user than what you describe. Therefore, it probably has to be a
technology solution (naturally any technology will be implementing
policy!).

Your points about GPS and its relatives are well taken. Sadly, even
though I consider your suggested solution inadequate, I have nothing
better to suggest at this time ... Frankly I think it's too soon to
suggest anything in this field, except that users of VoIP should be
*warned* that their service doesn't include 911. I would hazard the
guess that most anyone who at some point in time needs to dial 911
from a VoIP phone, also has a cell available to do that job. Maybe for
now we should only mandate that anyone who dials 911 from a VoIP phone
should be given an announement to the effect "use your cell phone to
make this call!"


Dean

Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote in message 
news:telecom24.218.11@telecom-digest.org:

> In article <telecom24.215.13@telecom-digest.org>, Robert Bonomi
> <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:

> [[..  munch  ..]]

>> The "easy" solution is a two-part one.

>>  Part 1:  The VoIP 'head end' tracks the 'most recently used' IP
>>    address for each customer. _EVERY_TIME_ the customer IP
>>    address changes, the phone goes *out*of*service* with a
>>    notice that the customer must update their "calling
>>    location".

>>    Possibly with an added hook that if the phone has been 'off
>>    line' for some non-trivial period, that when it goes back
>>    'on line', the customer is queried (in an automated
>>    fashion) to confirm that they are still at "thus and such
>>    location"; where "thus and such" is the previously
>>    specified location for the phone.

>>  Part 2:  The VoIP 'head end' maps the various 'calling locations' to the
>>    appropriate PSAP, upon need.

>> Add an option for the customer to intentionally _not_ specify his
>> location, but which also totally disables 911 calling. This protects
>> his 'privacy' at the expense of his safety, but it is the customer's
>> decision.

>> The last part of the puzzle is ensuring that the customer is aware
>> that the "location information" provided is used for "emergency calls"
>> and that deliberately providing FALSE information can (and probably
>> _will_) lead to criminal prosecution if emergency services are
>> directed to an incorrect location as a result of said false
>> information.  There is already existing enforcement mechanism for this
>> -- "filing a false police report", etc.

> [[..  munch  ..]]

>> Now, silly as it sounds, something that "works right" 98% of the time,
>> but "invisibly" does the _wrong_ thing the other 2% of the time is
>> *worse* that something that 'almost never' gets it right.

>> An essential element of a 911 'locator' system it that it either gives
>> a 'right answer', or it gives *NO* answer.  "Wrong answers" are simply
>> not acceptable -- wrong answers (a) delay the response to the location
>> where it is needed, *and* (b) tie up resources that may be needed to
>> respond to a 'real' emergency.

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well ... regards your first point, of
>> a 'tunnel' to some remote place, do you remember when 'Foreign Exchange
>> Service' (or FX) was quite common?

> It still exists today. Either as actual hard-wire to the remote CO (with
> a *BIG* one-time install charge, plus a moderate monthly) or, more 
> commonly,
> as a 'virtualized' service.

>> So, one day in my office, a masked man breaks in, and waving his
>> gun around, he announces, "I am going to rob all the cashiers and
>> rape all the men". I say, 'oh no you are not!' and rush to my phone
>> to call the police. But in my haste I grab up the FX tie-line phone
>> and dial '911' -- (or as Bonomi would say, ooops) ... -- and wind
>> up lodging my complaint with the politce in Kalamazoo and Timbuck also.

> Funny thing about FX lines, the telco _does_ know where the end of
> that line is.  In your scenario, if you called 911 on that line, while
> the call _might_ go to the PSAP for locale where the switch is, the
> *location* *information* given to the police would be accurate.

> The accurate POTS parallel to the VoIP 'location' problems is the
> situation where there the telephone company service terminates at a
> PBX, and there are 'extensions' *BEHIND* the PBX to 'remote'
> locations.  The *telco* _does_not_ _know_ anything about what goes on
> behind the PBX, and can only report where =their= service terminates.
> Which leads to the telco providing "wrong answers" to the 911 center.

> Cell phone systems have the same problem.  The point at which a
> cell-phone call is connected to the PSTN is _not_ necessarily anywhere
> "close" to the tower which is handling the call.  AND, that tower may
> be in a different 'jurisdiction' than the one where the person
> _placing_ the call is.

> A review of actual 911 history will show that *both* of the above
> scenarios were real problems in the early days of 'enhanced 911'.  In
> the first case, governmental regulations were issued that require PBX
> owners to keep the PSAP 'location database' updated with the
> *actual*location* of all extensions that are behind that PBX.

> The cell-phone problem was considerably thornier -- and went through a
> number of steps:

>   1) cell phone links were *blocked* from calling 911 because "wrong data"
>      was being displayed.
>   2) 911 calling was re-enabled when it became possible to return "no 
>      data" for those calls, instead of "wrong data" as to the location.
>   3) enhanced technology was mandated/deployed _on_the_cell_ network 
>      (*NOT* a part of the PSTN) that allowed fairly precise _caller_
>      location determination 'on the fly'.
>   4) Where that technology was deployed, "good" (as in valid/accurate)
>      'location' data was then passed to the PSAP, instead of the prior
>      "no data".

> Dealing with VoIP involves much 'harder' problems than either of the
> above.  To have the phone itself figure out "where it is" it has to
> have straight-line inputs from a minimum of two sources that it (a)
> knows where are, *and* (b) can take directional bearings on, OR a
> minimum of three sources that it can measure signal timing from.  AND
> it has to be able to reliably derive that information at _any_
> location where the phone might be used.

> Using GPS is not a viable option -- 'indoor' reception is too poor.
> And the 300 ft accuracy is problematic.  That last can be remedied by
> using DGPS, but that makes for a more expensive receiver.  And doesn't
> do anything for the fundamental reception problems. The only solution
> for _that_ problem is to replace the transmitters with more powerful
> ones.  Which is *awfully* expensive.

> LORAN-C might be a possibility, it carries indoors fairly well.  BUT,
> it operates at 100kHz, which requires a non-trivial antenna for decent
> reception. *AND* it is only accurate to around 1/4 of a mile.  "within
> several blocks" is simply not good enough for emergency-service
> dispatch.

> One is left with the possibility of direction-finding on local
> commercial stations.  This could possibly be made to work, but
> requires access to a fairly massive database of *precise* transmitter
> locations.  The equipment required to get a precision bearing on a
> transmitter isn't cheap, either. (If you're 10 miles from the
> transmitter, a _one_degree_ uncertainty in direction makes for +/-
> nearly a thousand feet in your location.)

> "Technology" is not the solution for this, "Policy" is.  The two-part
> solution described previously does get the job done.
> Administratively, not via technology.  All the burden (what burden
> there is) is on the VoIP provider and the actual 'owner' of the phone.
> And it probably takes 30 days, or _less_, to get it into 'production'
> status at any/every major VoIP provider.

>> If a _real man_ does not know where his broadband service is out of,
>> then he has no business calling the police to start with, does he? PAT]

> I stand "corrected".  PAT _has_ come up with the ultimate solution.
> With his proposed 'local ISP'-based handling of emergency calls,
> *NOBODY* but the person who set up the VoIP service -- and knows where
> it connects through -- is allowed to use the phone in an emergency.
> "So what" if that person is unconscious on the floor from a heart
> attack, and the VoIP phone is the only one available, and someone who
> _doesn't_know_ that it is an IP phone, or where it connects through,
> cannot call for help.

> No need to even consider the situation of the person who takes "their"
> phone to a friends place, because they may have to make some lengthy
> toll calls, and simply _don't_know_ where _that_ broadband service is
> out of. After all, that could _never_ happen, could it?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, of course it _could_ happen, but
> what are the odds?  Figure the 'odds' based on these things: the VOIP
> phone is on the road somewhere, not in its usual place. The subscriber
> has an incident and needs help. Not only does _he_ not know where he
> is at (or is not in a position to speak to the police) and the _phone_
> does not know where it is at. There is no landline available, and/or
> the person in trouble not only cannot get to the (landline) phone, or
> whatever. My personal reaction is _all those factors taken in combin-
> ation_ are so negligible as to not matter at all. As soon as any
> one of those conditions does not exist, the problem is dealt with. We
> do not live in the town of 'Perfect' as the commercial for Walgreens
> states. And you know what, Robert? Even if magically, every one of
> those rare obstacles were overcome tonight, magically, _YOU_ would
> come up with still more obstacles, wouldn't you? And after all, why
> not? You swear on a stack of tech reference manuals that _nothing_ can
> be done to tame the 'wild west' lifestyle of the internet. I have
> never yet seen you ever admit to any possible cure for the nastiness
> on the internet. It just has to be the way it is, because Robert has
> all the (non) answers. Why shouldn't any problems with E-911 and VOIP
> turn out the same way. You don't really want to see any answers to
> any of those problems, do you?  And rather than do _something_ and
> bring some small amount of relief to the vast majority of users, there
> will still be some iota-percentage we are unable to help, given our
> understandings. So better to do nothing at all, right Robert?  I
> thought your thinking was absolutely ludicrous where spam/scam/viri
> was concerned, but people have seen nothing at all until you explain
> the 'hassles' (as you see them) with 911 and VOIP.  PAT]

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

From: Jim Hatfield <jim.hatfield@insignia.com>
Subject: Re: Vonage Improvement: No More Dial 1+
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 18:05:12 +0100
Organization: Insignia Solutions
Reply-To: jim.hatfield@insignia.com


On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:10:31 -0400, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in 
response to Scott Kramer <witheld@giganews.com>:

> eight digits pressed, so why not just press ten?  Thet # pound or
> 'carriage return' as it is officially known is better used where it

I thought it was officially known as an octothorpe? It certainly
isn't called a pound in the UK!


Jim Hatfield

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


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 #220
******************************