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 Thu, 19 May 2005 19:43:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 223
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Syndicating Telecom News (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Pulver.com Blasts FCC E911 Order for Discouraging Innovation (J Decker)
FCC to VoIP: 'Be Like the Phone Company' (Jack Decker)
FCC News Release: Commission Requires Interconnected VoIP (Jack Decker)
FCC Gives VoIP 120 Days for E911 (Jack Decker)
Re: FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse? Critics Charge Engineering (T Simon)
FCC Approves Stricter 911 Rules For VoIP (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use? (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use? (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
Re: AT&T Licensed the Transistor For Free (Jen Saylor)
Re: Vonage Number Transfer (Nate)
Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out (Dean M.)
Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out (DevilsPGD)
Re: Vonage Improvement: No More Dial 1+ (DevilsPGD)
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Syndicating Telecom News
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 16:50:32 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Lisa Minter has begun working on a project to syndicate telecom news
around the net using RSS. Unlike Usenet, RSS (or Really Simple
Syndication) is a spam/scam free method of circulating news. Ever
since the section of our web site called 'Telecom Digest Extra' got
started, I have been the recipient of this new method of syndication,
as you may have noticed if you read the daily features in
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra . You may have noticed the many
news items we now have, including NY Times, Reuters, Associated Press,
United Press International, Christian Science Monitor, tech news, and
many other sources, hundreds of news items from dozens of sources each
day, but in our instance, with an emphasis on telecom news. And of
course, in the spirit of the net, RSS news feeds are free for the
taking and using at your own site.
Now the RSS people have asked, 'Why not have TELECOM as one of the
features for syndication?' Well, why not? Both Google Groups and Yahoo
Groups offer .xml type feeds, and one of my heros and geniuses is
working hard to develop an .xml feed for the Digest, but in the
interim I am using the Google Groups .xml comp.dcom.telecom feed to
get things started (until his work is completed). You can examine this
new-style RSS syndication feed at http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
where you can either cut and paste the script to use it in your own
RSS reader, or you can go to one of the feed outputs we support to see
this spam/scam-free style of reading the news (and of course you can
still continue to read news/blogs/etc of interest via our
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news pages as well.) I will
continue to send the feed to Usenet comp.dcom.telecom as before, even
though it is an older, obsolete and often-times spam-ridden way of
circulating the news, and probably I will continue to feed Usenet
until the time comes that it dies under the weight of so much spam and
obnoxious junk. For now am relying on the usenet group (via Google
Groups and Yahoo Groups) to feed the new RSS thing.
If you like it, feel free to use it regularly.
Patrick Townson
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:29:30 -0400
Subject: Pulver.com Blasts FCC E911 Order for Discouraging Innovation
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-19-2005/0003639488&EDATE=
Pulver.com Blasts FCC E911 Order for Discouraging Innovation and
Hampering Long-Term Emergency Response Capabilities
http://www.pulver.com
Leading Industry Thought Leader Urges FCC to Ensure America's Role as
the World Leader in Innovation, Communications and the Internet
MELVILLE, New York, May 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The following quotes
may be attributed to Jeff Pulver, CEO of pulver.com in response to the
FCC's adoption of an order imposing E911 obligations on VoIP providers
within 120 days:
The FCC Order is, no doubt, motivated by the most noble of goals
-- reliable emergency response systems for all Americans. No one
wants, or is pushing harder to implement these services, more than the
VoIP industry itself. Most PSTN-connected VoIP providers currently
provision at least basic 911 emergency services, and typically
provision E911 for fixed locations. If the FCC Order, in fact,
compels VoIP providers to offer technologically impossible enhanced
911 obligations within 120 days of the Order's effective date, I fear
the Order could put more Americans in harms way by denying consumers
access to useful VoIP services and, in the process, could have
detrimental consequences on the emerging IP-based communications
industry, at least the smaller VoIP providers who cannot feasibly
provide a nationwide E911 service within 120 days.
The FCC had a golden opportunity to take one positive steps to
promote IP-based communications. The FCC could have prohibited "port
blocking" and compelled direct access to the ILEC-controlled emergency
response infrastructure. Instead, the FCC chose to regulate the
previously unregulated, and declined to regulate those that it has
obvious authority to regulate -- the traditional telecom carriers. As
it stands, unaffiliated VoIP providers are left to the mercy or
goodwill of their retail rivals -- the telecom carriers that control
access to the emergency response network. The FCC has given
lip-service to its desire to prohibit port blocking and has been
looking for a vehicle to do so. A proceeding fell into its lap, and
the FCC abdicated its responsibility on this issue. IP technology
could allow for functions far beyond the capabilities of traditional
communications networks, but it requires farsighted regulators to look
at the technology with a fresh eye and a commitment not to stifle the
potential and allow innovators to experiment and push the limits of IP
technology.
Today, the FCC caved to the shortsighted vision and sacrificed our
long-term emergency response capabilities and America's role as a
leader in communications, the Internet and innovation. I, by no
means, intend to belittle the noble goals behind a ubiquitous E911
solution, just the method by which the regulators intend to drive us
there. I am convinced that IP technology will vastly improve
emergency response capabilities. We all want the best possible
emergency response capabilities to become available to all Americans
-- all the world -- as soon as possible. I, however, do not want to
see E911 used as an immediate tool to bring down the emerging
industry, particularly the most vulnerable start-ups without the
deep-pockets, resources, and political connections. Extending
immediate E911 obligations on the smallest, most vulnerable, but most
innovative IP-based communications providers does no one any good
(except for providing a quick political sound bite). In the end, such
actions might mean that no one will ever see the emergency response
capabilities that IP-based communications working cooperatively with
NENA could have produced.
What seems most bizarre to me is that the regulators don't even
seem willing to give the unaffiliated VoIP providers the minimum set
of tools necessary to accomplish their objective for a guaranteed
nationwide E911 network that would allow anyone, anywhere to pick up
any device, dial 911 and have an emergency responder find that caller.
If regulators tell the industry to provide nationwide E911 for nomadic
VoIP services, without simultaneously compelling fair access by
unaffiliated VoIP providers to selective routers and prohibiting port
blocking, how can they expect us to accomplish their mission? Make
excessive demands on the never-before-regulated and most-vulnerable
new start-ups, but don't dare impose any access obligation on the
traditionally regulated entities, the only ones with the essential
infrastructure?
I don't get it. It makes no sense to stifle the nomadic
capability and essentially turn every IP-based communications service
into a fixed line, because the added nomadic capability of an IP-based
service does not avail itself of an immediate, ubiquitous, localized
emergency response solution. Government will have essentially
outlawed a valuable service without having evaluated whether having
extra communications wherever there is an Internet connection could
actually increase the potential that someone's life could be saved in
an emergency. Unaffiliated VoIP providers, even if they had the time,
staff and economic resources to work towards a nationwide solution
would be at the mercy of carriers with whom the VoIP provider would
have to partner in order to establish a nationwide E911 service. The
bottom line is that a nationwide solution does not exist and will not
exist in 120 days. If nomadic VoIP services can operate anywhere
there is a broadband connection, it is impossible for a nomadic VoIP
service provider to be in compliance with our current understanding of
the FCC's likely rule.
VoIP, by its very nature, should empower a user to take her
service anywhere without having to check with the VoIP provider to
verify that the particular remote location has an arrangement with the
VoIP provider. It is one thing to compel a primary fixed-line
provider, be it VoIP or traditional telephony, to provide E911
capabilities, but what logic would be served from turning off the
nomadic capability of IP technology simply because the user cannot
access a local emergency response system when she attaches her
computer with a softphone program or other IP phone to a broadband
connection at a hotel or other remote location? Isn't it possible
that a person at a Starbucks who witnesses an armed robbery and
shooting might be able to save a life by being able to either dial the
police or dial basic 911 using her nomadic VoIP solution rather than
preventing any calls because there isn't an E911 capability? Instead
of focusing on the US marketplace, the voice over broadband
entrepreneurs, may instead decide to focus their business activities
in countries that have a more forward looking IP-based communications
strategy.
Then again, the pending FCC rulemaking may finally be the shot in
the arm the VoIP entrepreneurs need to come forward with communication
services that are not using VoIP as simple replacement or substitute
services, but rather use IP technology to launch new communication
services and applications -- something much truer to the vision of
what an IP-enabled platform promises and not just copycat products or
services. Admittedly, the limited communications network we call the
PSTN controls virtually every communications consumer out there.
There was once a time when the stagecoach controlled most of the
transcontinental traffic. Some day, perhaps now even sooner than some
anticipated, the wireline PSTN will be relegated to be little more
than a minor, single-lane off-ramp on the IP-based network of
networks.
About Pulver.com
Jeff Pulver is the President and CEO of pulver.com, and one of the
true pioneers of the Internet telephony/VoIP industry. Mr. Pulver is
a globally renowned thought leader, author and entrepreneur. He is
the publisher of The Pulver Report and VON magazine, and creator of
the industry standard Voice on the Net (VON) conferences.
Additionally, Mr. Pulver is the founder of Free World Dialup (FWD),
the VON Coalition, LibreTel, WHP Wireless, pulverinnovations, Digisip,
and is the co-founder of VoIP provider, Vonage. Last year, the FCC
granted Pulver's petition for clarification declaring Free World
Dialup as an unregulated information service. The landmark Pulver
Order was the first decision made by any major regulatory body on IP
communications, and provided important clarification that
computer-to-computer VoIP service is not a telecommunications service.
For more information, please visit http://www.pulver.com .
Contact: Jonathan Askin - 631-961-1049
jaskin@pulver.com
SOURCE pulver.com
Web Site: http://www.pulver.com
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: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:52:26 -0400
Subject: FCC to VoIP: 'Be Like the Phone Company'
http://voxilla.com/voxstory164.html
Regulation
By CAROLYN SCHUK
for VOXILLA.COM
The Federal Communications Commission unanimously ruled to require
VoIP service providers to offer 911 service similar to that offered by
telecom giants such as SBC and Verizon in a mere 120 days.
Industry advocates say the action is anti-competitive, will prove
costly to consumers and actually stifles the type of innovation that
could lead to more robust and efficient emergency calling services.
The action marks a clear departure from previous FCC policy to allow
VoIP to develop as an emerging technology unfettered by federal and
state regulation. This is the first major VoIP-related ruling handed
down by the commission since President Bush appointed Kevin Martin to
replace VoIP-friendly Michael Powell as FCC chief in March.
Saying that 'the situation where [911] callers are not routed to
emergency operators is unacceptable,' Martin led the commission in
approving the ruling, which places requirements on both VoIP providers
and ILECs.
First, all VoIP providers must deliver 911 services and deliver 911
calls to 911 emergency operators specifically targeting recent
situations where 911 calls were routed to administrative numbers.
Second, recognizing the technical limitations inherent in nomadic VoIP
services, providers must give customers a way to update their
information in emergency calling databases and inform them of any
limitations of their 911 service.
Third, the item requires ILECs to provide access to their 911
infrastructure to any telephone carrier.
Finally, VoIP providers must comply with the order within 120 days and
submit a letter detailing their compliance within that time.
The FCC's view is clearly that if it walks like a duck and quacks like
a duck, it is a duck. This was expressed most pointedly by
Commissioner Michael Copps, "For so many years the commission has
engaged in word-parsing and exegesis splitting hairs about what is
a phone service and what is an information service that we have
endangered public safety.
While the FCC presumably is acting in the interest of U.S. consumers,
the move could drive prices up and customer choice down by making it
more difficult for smaller, more innovative providers to enter and
compete in the market.
The decision 'has the potential to hasten the move toward the
traditional players and cable companies,' says Kevin Mitchell,
Infonetics Directing Analyst, Service Provider Voice and Data.
Already some providers are talking about curtailing service as a
result of the proposed decision. "If we can't provide 911 [in the
customer's area] it is our intention not to allow customers to sign
up," says Paul Erikson, SunRocket co-founder.
Ultimately, the ruling might very well be counterproductive by tying
VoIP to an antiquated system.
"If they let the industry grow the way it has been," says Ravi
Sakaria, VoicePulse CEO, "it's likely we would develop a solution
that's better than what we have today."
Because VoIP is based on Internet Protocol, it could potentially offer
a much richer 911 service. For example, in the case of elderly or
disabled people, emergency services could receive information about
the person's medical condition before arriving on the scene.
Other issues posing a challenge to VoIP providers are cost and timing.
"They are going to require in an unreasonable time that providers
interface with ILECs," says Ravi Sakaria, VoicePulse CEO. "The
cell phone industry has had 15 years to get it together. We're being
required to do it in 120 days."
But Sakaria continues, "it doesn't require ILECs to offer this at a
reasonable price. It's a weapon the ILECs can wield to eliminate
competition."
There's also a liability issue involved in the order.
"VoicePulse has made it abundantly clear to customers that we don't
provide this [911 service] to avoid liability," Sakaria says. Under
the proposed requirements we'd be forced to provide something
that's not true 911 and open ourselves up to liability. Basically,
we're being forced to increase our liability without any
protection."
Canada has already tackled the VoIP 911 problem in a way that might
supply an example for the U.S.
In April, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) mandated that providers offering fixed VoIP service
that can only be used from a specific location offer 911 emergency
calling at the same level of 9-1-1 emergency service that is provided
by the incumbent telephone companies to their existing customers
within 90 days from the date of this decision, according to a CRTC
press release.
However, the order exempted nomadic VoIP services -- those that can be
used from any broadband internet connection -- from this requirement,
specifying that these providers must offer an interim solution
'comparable to Basic 9-1-1 service' within 90 days. The CRTC also
ruled on May 12 that telecommunications regulations are only
applicable to companies that offer fixed service.
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: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:43:26 -0400
Subject: FCC News Release: Commission Requires Interconnected VoIP
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-258818A1.pdf
NEWS
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20554
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of
the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See
MCI v. FCC. 515 F 2d 385 (D.C. Circ 1974).
News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
TTY: 1-888-835-5322
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Mark Wigfield, 202-418-0253
Email: mark.wigfield@fcc.gov
Commission Requires Interconnected VoIP Providers to Provide Enhanced
911 Service Order Ensures VoIP Customers Have Access to Emergency
Services
Washington, D.C. The Federal Communications Commission today took
steps to protect consumers by requiring that certain providers of
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) phone service supply enhanced 911
(E911) emergency calling capabilities to their customers as a
mandatory feature of the service.
The IP-enabled services marketplace is the latest new frontier of our
nation's communications landscape, and the Commission is committed to
allowing IP-enabled services to evolve without undue regulation. But
E911 service is critical to our nation's ability to respond to a
host of crises. The Commission hopes to minimize the likelihood of
situations like recent incidents in which users of interconnected VoIP
dialed 911 but were not able to reach emergency operators.
Today's Order represents a balanced approach that takes into
consideration the expectations of consumers, the need to strengthen
Americans' ability to access public safety in times of crisis, and
the needs of entities offering these innovative services.
The Order places obligations on interconnected VoIP service providers
that are similar to traditional telephone providers in that they
enable customers to receive calls from and terminate calls to the
public switched telephone network (PSTN). It does not place
obligations on other IPbased service providers, such as those that
provide instant messaging or Internet gaming services, because
although these services may contain a voice component, customers of
these services cannot receive calls from and place calls to the
PSTN. The Order adopted today reaches the following conclusions:
Interconnected VoIP providers must deliver all 911 calls to the
customer's local emergency operator. This must be a standard, rather
than optional, feature of the service.
Interconnected VoIP providers must provide emergency operators with
the call back number and location information of their customers
(i.e., E911) where the emergency operator is capable of receiving
it. Although the customer must provide the location information, the
VoIP provider must provide the customer a means of updating this
information, whether he or she is at home or away from home.
By the effective date, interconnected VoIP providers must inform
their customers, both new and existing, of the E911 capabilities and
limitations of their service.
The incumbent LECs are required to provide access to their E911
networks to any requesting telecommunications carrier. They must
continue to provide access to trunks, selective routers, and E911
databases to competing carriers. The Commission will closely monitor
this obligation.
Interconnected VoIP providers must comply with these requirements, and
submit to the Commission a letter detailing such compliance, no later
than 120 days after the effective date of the Order.
Finally, the Commission stated its intention to adopt, in a future
order, an advanced E911 solution that includes a method for
determining the customer's location without the customer having to
self report this information.
Action by the Commission May 19, 2005, by First Report and Order and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 05-116). Chairman Martin,
Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein, Chairman Martin,
Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein issuing separate
statements.
WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196
Wireline Competition Bureau Staff Contact: Christi Shewman, (202) 418-1686.
-FCC-
News about the Federal Communications Commission can also be found
on the Commission's web site http://www.fcc.gov.
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 13:08:30 -0400
Subject: FCC Gives VoIP 120 Days for E911
Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com
http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/articles/2005/fcc-voip-911-regulations-120-days.htm
By David Sims, TMCnet CRM Alert Columnist
As widely expected, the Federal Communications Commission issued a
decision today that Voice-over Internet Providers must provide access
to E911 service to their customers in 120 days. The decision surprised
few observers.
According to Reuters, the FCC 'unanimously voted to require
carriers to provide emergency call centers the location and telephone
number of callers who dial 911 from Internet phones and ensure that
callers reach emergency dispatchers instead of nonemergency lines.'
In the months leading up to the decision there were lots of sharp
words, apocalyptic predictions and political jockeying for position on
the issue, as one might expect over the issue of access to the
nation's nearly 6,200 "public safety answer points."
Some were sure the heavy hand of government would crush the innovative
entrepreneurs who created the VoIP industry in the first place, in
favor of the fat cats, the lumbering, established telcos who would
come in and simply sweep up all the profits made possible by others:
"They (indie VoIP providers) were in the market space first, they have
far better offerings, and much better pricing as well," wrote
TechKnow Times. "So how to kill them? Simple. Force them to have to
buy a service where the traditional telephone companies can set the
price. And what is one thing that the traditional phone companies
still pretty much have a monopoly on? The provision of 911 service."
Others argued that 911 is simply something you don't fool around with,
no matter how many quick bucks irresponsible upstarts are making at
the expense of public safety, what with not telling their customers
their 911 calls get routed to administrative offices and don't even
work after hours:
Full story at: http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/articles/2005/fcc-voip-911-regulations-120-days.htm
------------------------------
From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Subject: Re: FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse? Critics Charge Engineering
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:47:04 UTC
Organization: Public Access Networks Corp.
Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com
In article <telecom24.221.1@telecom-digest.org>,
Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@workbench.net> wrote:
> http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/63675
> FCC's 911 Move a Trojan Horse?
> Critics Charge They're Engineering Death of Indie VoIP
> Written by Karl Bode
> Tomorrow the FCC will release an order that forces all independent
> VoIP providers to offer 911 service within 120 days. On the surface
> the move seems like a simple way of ensuring public safety, but
> critics believe it's really an incumbent engineered attempt to crush
> upstart VoIP competitors.
And critics of Jack Decker believe that he's really a paid PR flack
with write-only access to comp.dcom.telecom that he uses to post a
neverending barrage of "news" stories carefully selected by his
puppetmasters to tell their self-serving story about the choice of
certain large VoIP providers (but not others, which puts the lie to
most of what he says) to avoid the costs associated with 911 service
as a means of undercutting the prices of traditional POTS carriers.
Now, you may not believe my paragraph above, but you have just as
much rational warrant to believe it -- if not significantly more,
given that Jack *does* in fact seem to maintain a write-only
attitude to this forum -- as you have to believe the text that
begins with "critics believe..." in the quoted text.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is
to be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Jack Decker _primarily_ writes the VOIP
newsgroup on Yahoo Groups. Through an earlier agreement between Jack
and myself (mainly, because _he_ thought of the idea of a news forum
for VOIP before myself), his articles are also distributed here in
Telecom Digest. Please recall at one time a few months ago, Jack was
discouraged about the content of what _he_ was receiving for _his_
group, and he stated he was going to put the group on hiatus. I very
promptly announced that _I_ would snatch it up in a hurry, but Jack
thought better of it and he re-instated his 'VOIP News' in a day or
two.
He is not on any _write only_ basis with me. When his articles come
through via email to me, Jack and I have an agreement, that his
address will be withheld_on_request, mainly because of the horrible
problem with spam that all of us moderators -- who sit out in the open
all the time -- must endure. And although I _could_ leave his
'Reply-to: VoIP-News@yahoogroups.com' line intact, I generally do not,
perhaps selfishly wishing to see replies to his articles seen via this
Digest to come back via this Digest rather than his. No matter, I
guess, if replies went to him and were published his Digest, they
would come back here anyway when _his_ published articles arrive here
usually later the same day, but it gets confusing trying to construct
all my '>' marks in a neat way.
Jack has stated that he prints _all_ the press releases he gets, no
matter how self-serving many of them are. If _I_ printed all the
press releases that Lisa Minter sees in a day's time, you'd probably
feel the same way about TELECOM Digest. But I have one 'luxury' that
neither Jack nor Lisa (as of yet) enjoy: a _huge_ volume of readers
and message writers -- writing on their own merit and not just as
press release writing puppets -- so I do not have to rely quite as
much on 'press releases' as Jack does. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 13:29:04 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: FCC Approves Stricter 911 Rules For VoIP Providers
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
May 19, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21714&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* FCC approves stricter 911 rules for VoIP providers
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Motorola announces $4B stock buyback
* Huawei makes strides in DSLAM equipment market
* Verizon's TV system, WealthTV sign carriage deal
* Cable adds more phone subscribers
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* At SUPERCOMM: Register today for the IP Video Conference
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Nokia broadens scope of wireless gaming efforts
* Yahoo! Messenger adds VoIP
REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE
* Report: Federal Wi-Fi networks have security weaknesses
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21714&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use?
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 02:45:28 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
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.
That does not sound like POTs FX service; rather some kind of tie line
set up.
True FX service is a nailed interoffice trunk between your c.o. and the
distant c.o. The line side of the service; i.e. from your c.o. to your
premises, is no different than any local loop and requires no special
equipment on your premises.
Then, there is "phantom" FX service, still in use in the Los Angeles
metro area (and perhaps other areas where SBC rates a particular
office code (prefix) as being in downtown LA when, in fact, it is in a
c.o. in a nearby town that would otherwise be a toll call to downtown
LA. That is simply a billing accounting exercise.
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Foreign Exchange (FX) Lines Still in Use?
Date: 19 May 2005 12:28:37 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Isaiah Beard wrote:
> There is something else too that is going the way of the dodo: tie
> lines. These were useful for large universities with multiple campuses,
> as well as businesses with more than one hub operation in distant cities.
They were fairly common in organizations with more than one location.
As mentioned, years ago 7c message units could add up to some serious
money so even a local tie line between plants within a city was cost
justified. (Our hospital had five tie-line trunks to the independent
rehab center next door.)
Also, many PBXs of the old day limited extensions to in-house dialing
only, no outside calls to save money. But tie-lines weren't charge so
they were allowable and allowed employees to conduct business.
Tie lines usually allowed direct dialing in a PBX at another location.
You dialed a special code (often 8 or 8+) and either merely
immediately dialed the distant extension or waited for a second
dial-tone, then dialed the extension. For larger organizations, the
tie-line access codes could be quite large. For Centrex users, tie
lines had their own 3 digit code different than the outside code to
allow direct inward dialing.
Some tie-lines were relayed from PBX to PBX, you kept dialing the
access code and tied together a bunch of systems. I don't think that
was the preferred way, however.
Tie-lines usually allowed dialing in both directions between the two
PBXs. I know one switchboard could connect an outside caller through
the tie-line to the remote location, but they didn't like to do so as
a matter of policy. The tie-line jacks on the switchboard were a
little more complicated -- there was a pair for each line, one jack
used for answering, one used for calling.
Other remote locations may have been served by a simpler extension
basis. That is, the home PBX could only reach the remote PBX operator
who would have to complete the call to the desired remote extension.
I presume this wiring was far simpler than tie-lines due to one-way
instead of two-way signalling.
> Nowadays, cheaper LD and Voice over IP is making tie lines quite
> obsolete.
Yes. My employer once had a network of tie lines to our various
locations and associated codes for them -- each location having its
own code. Our centrex phone numbercards had two lines -- one our
regular number, one our tie-line number. Some years ago all that was
eliminated. To reach a distant location outside our local PBX or
Centrex, we just dial 9+ the external number. The equipment switches
it the most economical way available when the call is made. (My
employer has a series of LD methods from outward WATS lines down to
regular toll network, maybe some tie-lines or FX lines remain but they
are hidden to us.)
Probably the biggest network is the Federal Govt's "FTS" network and
the military's Autovon network. I don't know how they work today. I
always thought "Autovon" used special TouchTone phones, but at my
father's installation, the Autovon lines came in the PBX just like any
other trunk and the phones in his place were plain rotary. They used
Autovon for plain business, not "combat" situations as the literature
suggests. FWIW, they converted to Centrex from PBX, then closed the
whole place down about six months later. It appeared the govt owned,
not leased, the PBX switchboard and switchgear--with govt employees
doing the maintenance on it, not Bell people, even though it was
connected to the Bell System.
Of course on the other hand, Centrex is now available to very small
businesses with wide locations using regular numbers. (Originally you
got a dedicated or near dedicated NNX all to yourself and a huge block
of numbers. For some reason, many, though not all, of the oldest
Centrex's of the 1960s have received new exchanges; I don't know why.)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And don't forget the other close
relative in that cluster of service types: the OPX or 'off-premise-
extension'. When I worked (back in the late 1950's/early 1960's) at
University of Chicago in the phone room, there were a bunch of these
that were located all over the Hyde Park neighborhood. You'd see
phone booths around the area with both a payphone in them _and_ a
University of Chicago OPX. Almost all the dormitories had their own
switchboards with outside phone numbers, but two or three OPX numbers
terminated on those switchboards as well. Those OPXs were all of the
four digit extension type number, and I guess when the most recent
form of Centrex was installed a few years ago, all those OPXs took
the new number 753-xxxx. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 00:16:20 -0400
From: Jen Saylor <jen7saylor@no.spam>
Subject: Re: AT&T Licensed the Transistor For Free
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> From time to time critics of the old Bell System gripe that the
> company was "guaranted profits" by the regulators and as such, owed
> something back to the community.
> Aside from the fact that regulation actually limited profits, AT&T was
> indeed required to give things back. One of which was the rights to
> its invention of the transistor, which were available free of charge.
> (Per Ziff-Davis history).
> I had always wondered why AT&T never seemed to make any money from the
> invention of the transistor.
You seem misinformed. Yes, AT&T allowed other companies to "borrow"
the transistor invention, but they didn't do this with a smile on
their face. It was one of the many concessions made during one the
many antitrust concerns. AT&T was kind of in a bind with antitrust
concerns due to the technology and markets at the time and were stuck
between breaking up the company or continuing to make such deals --
which were short lived. The government had plenty of antitrust actions
with AT&T over the years before the last antitrust case which of
course ended in 1983. If AT&T had kept the rights to the transister,
it would probably be a completely different company today -- that's
how big that one invention was.
------------------------------
From: Nate <nnord@maxitd.com>
Subject: Re: Vonage Number Transfer
Date: 19 May 2005 06:22:42 -0700
Nate wrote:
> Well ... it's been 2 1/2 months now waiting on my phone number to
> transfer to Vonage. I'm not sure who's holding up the transfer but
> this is ridiculous. Vonage claims it's not their fault (probably
> isn't) but my question is, who do I complain to? My current carrier
> (MCI) doesn't want to hear about it and, again, Vonage claims it's not
> their fault.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well again, like the other day, in this
> case MCI is _probably not_ the underlying carrier, but probably just
> a UNI-P operation. Like the guy using AT&T for 'local service' the
> other day, more than likely MCI in this instance is at the mercy of
> whomever the 'real' carrier of record in your area is. Southwestern
> Bell perhaps? When Vonage put in the transfer request to MCI, then
> MCI in turn had to tell the 'actual carrier' about it. What does
> Vonage say other than 'not our fault'? Can you get them to audit or
> trace the transaction for you? You also said 'MCI does not want to
> hear about it'. Can you be more specific? Does your number actually
> _belong_ to you? Do you have that part of it under control? Please
> give us a few more details. PAT]
I called MCI again and they say there is absolutely no reason why the
number can't be transferred. Vonage says they have no idea why it's
not being transferred so, again, who do I call? I asked MCI if they
were the actual carrier or if there was a third party involved and the
rep said that MCI was the actual carrier... but the guy didn't sound
very sure of himself. My guess is that there is a third party and
that's where it's being held up. Not sure what I can do at this point
other than wait ...
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If MCI is telling you there is
'absolutely no reason why the number cannot be transferred' then
tell them to please transfer it while you are waiting on the line
attempting to audit/trace the procedure. I can assure you that MCI
was NOT the 'actual carrier'. When phone numbers and area codes, etc
were first assigned, there was no such 'phone company' as MCI. The
actual carrier is one of the Bells, no doubt. I assume your Vonage
line is working with its own number which is what you wish to have
transferred. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Dean M. <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 18:27:38 GMT
I certainly should have typed "VoIP communications device" not
"IP". Funny what a couple of characters can do ... I stand by the rest
of my spiel: any emergency services solution needs to be transparent
to the user. Among other reasons, VoIP is a personal service more like
cell phones than PBX extensions. And we should be making progress, not
regressing to old and tedious solutions (even if they work:-). We'll
probably be better served by not mandating anything vis-a-vis
emergency services and VoIP until we can do it right (at least on a
national level).
Dean
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote in message
news:telecom24.221.15@telecom-digest.org:
> In article <telecom24.220.11@telecom-digest.org>, Dean M.
> <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 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).
> How do you figure that? In my proposal, *ONLY* the VoIP functionality is
> ffected by the need to 'drop cookie crumbs".
>> 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!).
> This solution is *exactly* what PBX admins have to do when they move
> hard-wired phones behind their PBX. It is in real-world use today.
> It works.
> If you want to be your own phone service provider, there are
> responsibilities that go along with that task.
> Doing VoIP *does* mean that you are the 'last mile' phone service
> provider -- The VoIP provider is providing the 'port' on the switch,
> at their premises. It is *your* responsibility to provide the
> connection to that point.
>> 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 ..]]
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Vonage Changes 911 to Opt-Out
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 21:55:27 -0600
Organization: Disorganized
In message <telecom24.221.14@telecom-digest.org> AES
<siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article <telecom24.220.11@telecom-digest.org>, Dean
> M. <cjmebox-telecomdigest@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Maybe for now we should only mandate that anyone who dials 911 from
>> a VoIP phone [which does not provide 911 service] should be given
>> an announement to the effect "use your cell phone to make this call!".
> Not a bad idea ...
Vonage already does this -- If you don't have 911 enabled in your
account you get a message that says something like "Stop! You cannot
use this phone to dial 911. Please hang up and use another phone"
Which isn't technically true, I just did use the phone to dial 911, it
just didn't get me through to anybody who can help.
In message <telecom24.221.15@telecom-digest.org>
bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> This solution is *exactly* what PBX admins have to do when they move
> hard-wired phones behind their PBX. It is in real-world use today.
> It works.
> If you want to be your own phone service provider, there are
> responsibilities that go along with that task.
> Doing VoIP *does* mean that you are the 'last mile' phone service
> provider -- The VoIP provider is providing the 'port' on the switch,
> at their premises. It is *your* responsibility to provide the
> connection to that point.
And therein lies the problem. People are afraid of taking
responsibility for their own actions, and they need someone to blame
when life doesn't work out the way they planned.
Blaming the VoIP carrier because they forgot to inform the carrier
when they moved is a perfect example.
------------------------------
From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Vonage Improvement: No More Dial 1+
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 21:55:28 -0600
Organization: Disorganized
In message <telecom24.221.6@telecom-digest.org> Tony P.
<kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net> wrote:
> In article <telecom24.218.3@telecom-digest.org>, john@katy.com says:
>> Recently ordered a new Vonage line. The new line does not require a "1"
>> prefix.
>> I was spending $50 per new line for a device that inserted the 1. This
>> is Great news!
>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since there is no price differential
>> on Vonage in most cases (I still have a 500 minute limited account
>> but most users do not) the '1' is pointless and a waste of time.
>> _Everything_ is ten digits; even locally, and the price is the same
>> no matter what. However, some people do not know that Vonage can also
>> be _seven digits_ with area code (where the box was installed, or
>> 'home area') assumed. Like telco, if nothing is dialed after seven
>> digits, then it sits there for a few seconds to time out, and deals
>> with what it got. PAT]
> The problem is that they're transmitting caller ID with a 1, so when you
> go to re-dial a number from CLID guess what happens.
Your phone dials the number with a 1. So what?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So you don't rely on your caller ID
for redial purposes. Use the same feature on your phone instead.
PAT]
------------------------------
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 #223
******************************
| |