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
Add this Digest to your personal or
TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:04:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 273 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Your ISP as Net Watchdog (Lisa Minter) Cellphone Tax (Lisa Minter) Converting 4-Wire Autovon Phone to 2-Wire (Scott Norwood) Intel Develops All-in-One Wi-Fi Chip (Telecom dailyLead from USTA) Monitor/Recorder for Residential Power Line Outages? (AES) Re: Email to Former AT&T Phones Now Cingular (Joseph) Need Help on Wireless (PatETC) Re: Bell Divestiture (Lisa Hancock) Re: Bell Divestiture (Robert Bonomi) 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: Lisa Minter <email@example.com> Subject: Your ISP as Net Watchdog Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:16:24 -0500 By Declan McCullagh Staff Writer, CNET News.com The U.S. Department of Justice is quietly shopping around the explosive idea of requiring Internet service providers to retain records of their customers' online activities. Data retention rules could permit police to obtain records of e-mail chatter, Web browsing or chat-room activity months after Internet providers ordinarily would have deleted the logs -- that is, if logs were ever kept in the first place. No U.S. law currently mandates that such logs be kept. In theory, at least, data retention could permit successful criminal and terrorism prosecutions that otherwise would have failed because of insufficient evidence. But privacy worries and questions about the practicality of assembling massive databases of customer behavior have caused a similar proposal to stall in Europe and could engender stiff opposition domestically. The U.S. Department of Justice is mulling data retention rules that could permit police to obtain records of e-mail, browsing or chat-room activity months after ISPs ordinarily would have deleted the logs -- if they were ever kept in the first place. Bottom line: Data retention could aid criminal and terrorism prosecutions, but privacy worries and questions about the practicality of assembling massive databases of customer behavior could engender stiff opposition to the proposal. In Europe, the Council of Justice and Home Affairs ministers say logs must be kept for between one and three years. One U.S. industry representative, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Justice Department is interested in at least a two-month requirement. Justice Department officials endorsed the concept at a private meeting with Internet service providers and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, according to interviews with multiple people who were present. The meeting took place on April 27 at the Holiday Inn Select in Alexandria, Va. "It was raised not once but several times in the meeting, very emphatically," said Dave McClure, president of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, which represents small to midsize companies. "We were told, 'You're going to have to start thinking about data retention if you don't want people to think you're soft on child porn.'" McClure said that while the Justice Department representatives argued that Internet service providers should cooperate voluntarily, they also raised the "possibility that we should create by law a standard period of data retention." McClure added that "my sense was that this is something that they've been working on for a long time." This represents an abrupt shift in the Justice Department's long-held position that data retention is unnecessary and imposes an unacceptable burden on Internet providers. In 2001, the Bush administration expressed "serious reservations about broad mandatory data retention regimes." The current proposal appears to originate with the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, which enforces federal child pornography laws. But once mandated by law, the logs likely would be mined during terrorism, copyright infringement and even routine criminal investigations. (The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.) "Preservation" vs. "Retention" At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing an investigation -- a practice called data preservation. A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity." "We were told, 'You're going to have to start thinking about data retention if you don't want people to think you're soft on child porn.'" -- Dave McClure, president, U.S. Internet Industry Association Child protection advocates say that this process can lead police to dead ends if they don't move quickly enough and log files are discarded automatically. Also, many Internet service providers don't record information about instant-messaging conversations or Web sites visited -- data that would prove vital to an investigation. "Law enforcement agencies are often having 20 reports referred to them a week by the National Center," said Michelle Collins, director of the exploited child unit for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "By the time legal process is drafted, it could be 10, 15, 20 days. They're completely dependent on information from the ISPs to trace back an individual offender." Collins, who participated in the April meeting, said that she had not reached a conclusion about how long log files should be retained. "There are so many various business models ... I don't know that there's going to be a clear-cut answer to what would be the optimum amount of time for a company to maintain information," she said. McClure, from the U.S. Internet Industry Association, said he counter-proposed the idea of police agencies establishing their own guidelines that would require them to seek logs soon after receiving tips. Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, compared the Justice Department's idea to the since-abandoned Clipper Chip, a brainchild of the Clinton and first Bush White House. Initially the Clipper Chip -- an encryption system with a backdoor for the federal government -- was supposed to be voluntary, but declassified documents show that backdoors were supposed to become mandatory. "Even if your concern is chasing after child pornographers, the packets don't come pre-labeled that way," Rotenberg said. "What effectively happens is that all ISP customers, when that data is presented to the government, become potential targets of subsequent investigations." A divided Europe The Justice Department's proposal could import a debate that's been simmering in Europe for years. In Europe, a data retention proposal prepared by four nations said that all telecommunications providers must retain generalized logs of phone calls, SMS messages, e-mail communications and other "Internet protocols" for at least one year. Logs would include the addresses of Internet sites and identities of the correspondents but not necessarily the full content of the communication. Even after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush adminis- tration criticized that approach. In November 2001, Mark Richard from the Justice Department's criminal division said in a speech in Brussels, Belgium, that the U.S. method offers Internet providers the flexibility "to retain or destroy the records they generate based upon individual assessments of resources, architectural limitations, security and other business needs." France, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Sweden jointly submitted their data retention proposal to the European Parliament in April 2004. Such mandatory logging was necessary, they argued, "for the purpose of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime or criminal offenses including terrorism." But a report prepared this year by Alexander Alvaro on behalf of the Parliament's civil liberties and home affairs committee slammed the idea, saying it may violate the European Convention on Human Rights. Also, Alvaro wrote: "Given the volume of data to be retained, particularly Internet data, it is unlikely that an appropriate analysis of the data will be at all possible. Individuals involved in organized crime and terrorism will easily find a way to prevent their data from being traced." He calculated that if an Internet provider were to retain all traffic data, the database would swell to a size of 20,000 to 40,000 terabytes -- too large to search using existing technology. On June 7, the European Parliament voted by a show of hands to adopt Alvaro's report and effectively snub the mandatory data retention plan. But the vote may turn out to have been largely symbolic: The Council of Justice and Home Affairs ministers have vowed to press ahead with their data retention requirement. Copyright 2005 CNET Networks, Inc. and Declan McCullagh. NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new articles daily. *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, in this instance, CNET Networks, Inc. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ------------------------------ From: Lisa Minter <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Cellphone Tax Started in Alexandria, VA Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:22:21 -0500 By Robert MacMillan Special to The Washington Post Using a cell phone is Alexandria is about to become more expensive -- $3 a month more expensive. The City Council approved a new tax on cell phones as part of the fiscal 2006 budget. It will help make up some of the money that the city will lose after the real estate tax rate was lowered in order to provide relief to homeowners. Residents will see the new charge on their cell phone bills starting in September. The tax will bring in an estimated $1.7 million in fiscal 2006, city officials said, about one-third of 1 percent of the city's $468 million budget. Residents will pay $3 a month on cell phone bills of more than $30, while those on lower-cost plans will be charged 10 percent of their monthly bill. Other measures passed to offset the real estate tax cut include a 20-cent increase in cigarette sales tax and a new entertainment surcharge on items such as movie tickets. Taxing the growing number of cell phone users should help offset the losses created by a reduction in the real estate tax rate, Mayor William D. Euille (D) said. "I was just sitting in my car at the intersection. I looked around at 15 or 20 other cars, and everybody had a cell phone," said Euille, who estimates that he spends more than $100 a month on cell service. Barry Murphy, a 46-year-old realty agent and Alexandria homeowner, said the tax amounts to about a latte a month for him. He carries two cell phones -- one that runs on Cingular's network and another on the Verizon Wireless network-- and uses whichever one gets better reception in a given part of town. "I don't mind paying some taxes as long as [we get] more value" from the city, said Murphy, who pays several hundred dollars a month in cell phone bills. But some residents said $3 could make the difference between being able to afford a cell phone and going without. Tawanda Moore said she works 25 hours a week at the Fuddruckers restaurant on Duke Street for $7.50 an hour. She said the tax will make it difficult for her to buy a cell phone. "There are other ways for [the government] to get their money," said Moore, 33. For years, Alexandria has relied on a dependable 25 percent tax on local phone service, bringing in an average of $7.50 per phone line every month. But the revenue stream has been drying up as more residents drop their regular phone service for a cell phone-only lifestyle. There were about 113,000 residential and business land lines in operation in the city as of July 2004, a drop from more than 120,000 two years earlier, according to Bruce Johnson, director of the city's Office of Management and Budget. Federal Communications Commission statistics show a similar change nationwide -- a 6 percent drop in U.S. land lines from 2000 to 2004. Four percent of U.S. households say they have cut the cord altogether in favor of cell phones, but that number could swell to 12 percent by next year, according to a report released in May by Cambridge, Mass.-based Forrester Research Inc. In another indication of an accelerating shift from hard-wired phones to mobile handsets, there were 173.2 million active phone lines as of the end of 2004, while cell phone companies counted 178.2 million users, according to IDC, a research firm also based in Cambridge. "Obviously, a lot of people have figured out that they have two phones in their life and they both serve the same purpose," said Kevin Burden, a telecommunications analyst with IDC. Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William and Spotsylvania counties already have cell phone taxes. In Maryland, however, cell phone taxes sparked an ongoing multimillion-dollar lawsuit by four cellular service providers against Montgomery County and the city of Baltimore. Montgomery County collects a $2 monthly tax on cell usage, while Baltimore collects $3.50 per month for each phone. Cell phone companies argue that the fees amount to an illegal sales tax. Montgomery County expects to raise more tax dollars from cell phones than from land lines in 2005, the first time this has happened, said Robert Hagedoorn, chief of the county's Treasury Division. Verizon Wireless is one of the companies suing Baltimore and Montgomery County, along with Cingular, Sprint and T-Mobile. It also sued Pennsylvania to force the state to repeal a 5 percent gross-receipts tax on cell phone use. That lawsuit is also pending. Verizon officials say they do not plan to sue Alexandria or any other Virginia jurisdiction because the state has a law in place that allows local cell phone taxes, said Annabelle Canning, assistant general counsel for tax policy for Verizon Wireless. Instead, the cell phone industry will try to persuade the Virginia General Assembly to approve legislation next year that would require all telecommunications services to be taxed the same way throughout the state. A similar effort to set a straight 5 percent state tax failed earlier this year after satellite companies such as DirecTV started a letter-writing campaign, urging customers to write their representatives and ask them to oppose what the companies said would be a new tax on their service. The Virginia effort highlights a debate about how different services should be taxed when technological advances allow people to communicate through a variety of devices. For example, people who use cell phones, BlackBerrys and land-line phones will be taxed in Alexandria, but not people who use increasingly popular Internet-based phone services such as Vonage, because calls made over the Internet are protected by a seven-year-old nationwide ban on Internet access taxes. Robert MacMillan is a staff writer for washingtonpost.com. He writes the Web site's Random Access column, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/technology. Copyright 2005 The Washington Post Company NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new articles daily. ------------------------------ From: email@example.com (Scott Norwood) Subject: Converting 4-Wire Autovon Phone to 2-Wire Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 17:05:19 UTC Organization: Society for World Domination Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org It seems that I am now the proud (?) owner of an ex-military 3568 Autovon phone. I would like to convert it to work on a standard 2-wire POTS line. This particular one is a 1A2-type 6-button set, with a 50-pin Amphenol connector on the end of the cable. Is there an easy way to do this (preferably using the network from a 2500 set or other easily obtainable parts) without actually modifying the innards of phone itself? Connecting pins 1 and 26 to tip and ring allows listening and dialing on line 1, but (obviously) doesn't allow transmitting speech. Ideally, I would like the phone to ring, but that isn't necessary. I don't care about whether the button lights or hold function work. If anyone has the full pin configuration for this phone, I would be very interested. It looks like there is a buzzer and potentially other fun stuff inside it. Thanks for any suggestions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:54:51 EDT From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <email@example.com> Subject: Intel Develops All-in-One Wi-Fi Chip Telecom dailyLead from USTA June 17, 2005 http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=22433&l=2017006 TODAY'S HEADLINES NEWS OF THE DAY * Intel develops all-in-one Wi-Fi chip BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH * Motorola invests in Irish software maker * BellSouth beefs up broadband staff * Telecoms buying more online ads USTA SPOTLIGHT * USTA Webinar: How to Get the Most from Your Resources EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES * Google tests mobile search technology VOIP DOWNLOAD * Skype flies high in North America * Analysis: Yahoo! accelerates VoIP push with acquisition * XO offers business VoIP service in San Antonio * Comcast: Phone exec exit won't affect VoIP plans REGULATORY & LEGISLATIVE * Verizon changes plan to expedite TV service rollout in New Jersey * RIM offers technology that skirts patent claims * Klausner sues AOL over voice technology Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others. http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=22433&l=2017006 Legal and Privacy information at http://www.dailylead.com/about/privacy_legal.jsp SmartBrief, Inc. 1100 H ST NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 ------------------------------ From: AES <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Monitor/Recorder for Residential Power Line Outages? Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:41:55 -0700 Organization: Stanford University Any have pointers to a gadget that will monitor and log power outages or glitches on 110V or 220V residential electrical service? Looking for a home or retail level gadget that will work either connected to a dedicated computer, or preferably free-standing with periodic read-out to a computer, logging time and duration of both longer outages and short glitches (anything long enough to cause digital clocks and appliance displays to reset). Asking on this group because a lot of tech-savvy people seem to hang out on this group; glad to accept pointers to any other group. Any way to make the computer itself (e.g., Mac iBook) do the sensing and recording? ------------------------------ From: Joseph <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Email to Former AT&T Phones Now Cingular Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:47:55 -0700 Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:45:44 -0400, Isaiah Beard <email@example.com> wrote: > Joseph wrote: >> Also, what works for all North American mobile numbers is >> firstname.lastname@example.org e.g. email@example.com > If you value your friendship or business relationship with the person > you are messaging, then you would probably want to avoid teleflip. > Neatly tucked into the recesses of their user agreement is a provision > which permits them to "send messages through the service to any and > all users" about "new or existing products or services to be offered > by Teleflip." In other words, they receive the right SMSpam people. Of course anyone can be paranoid that their number will be shared. I've used the service and never have been spammed. If you are so worried you probably shouldn't be sending text messages at all. Text messages are hardly secure. ------------------------------ From: PatETC <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Need Help on Wireless Date: 17 Jun 2005 05:23:42 -0700 I want to get a laptop computer to take when traveling and be able to access the Internet. I know absolutely nothing about wireless. I currently use AOL on a dial-up (the only thing available in my area). I do know that I can use a laptop within a certain distance from the wireless connection. If I were to have a laptop in a location where wireless Internet is available would I be able to access AOL and still be able to use my desktop when home? Do new laptops come with the wireless card or must it be purchased separately? Is wireless something I can have at home, even though I use dial-up for AOL? My granddaughter lives with us when not in college and she has a laptop. I'd like her to be able to use wireless when here. What equipment will I need? As you can tell I don't know much about this although I've had a desktop computer for many years and am quite computer literate -- not just about wireless. Thanks. Pat [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wireless connections consist of at least two parts: the thin card (about the size/shape of a credit card) which fits in the side of a laptop computer, and the 'base station', which typically will be a 'wireless router' or some other device which feeds into the modem. Typically, this 'base station' is attached to some high speed, or broadband internet connection. I suppose it could feed into a dial up connection, but I have never seen it done that way. You _can_ use AOL or any other ISP on a high speed connection, such as you have probably read about. To your modem (or router and modem) the WiFi 'base station' is the computer, although you often times have to 'register' the MAC address of the wireless device with the ISP, as a 'new computer being used at your location'. At least, that is needed on cable internet or DSL. When I have purchased new routers for my system here, and put them on the cable, the first thing the cable provider did was wake up and say, "oh, something new" and take me to a 'registration screen' where the cable internet provider wanted to know all about the 'new computer' it would be dealing with. If you buy a new laptop for your grandchild, you may get a wifi card as part of the deal, but if you do not need a new laptop, I suggest you buy the unit as a separate thing. A NetGear wireless router and WiFi card costs about a hundred dollars total, but you can buy the cards as a separate thing if you already have the 'base station'. The card costs maybe $40-50 by itself for a decent card to use in a home computer/laptop, and comes with a full instruction/set up manual. An important word of caution: The range for these units is typically between 100-200 feet, more or less, and line-of-sight is important for best performance. _Anyone_ with a wireless card in _their_ computer within that range will be able to intercept and monitor your work, any passwords or other details, unless you take a few precautions: (1) it is a good idea to _not_ 'broadcast' your wireless station's availability, and (2) it is a good idea to encrypt your transmissions. Your instruction book will explain all that in more detail. The encryption process will slow down your transmission speed a little, but if you are going to be working via dialup as you said, it probably will not make much difference. If you are paranoid like me, only two or three people here in town even know of my wireless connection: I can sit on my back porch or back yard garden by the bird sanctuary and communicate pretty well, then I can come inside the house and switch to my desktop machine (a different port on the same router) and continue from there. I _can_ go out on my front sidewalk and sit on the ledge there also but when people occassionally walk past they see me doing it; and anyway, there is a fellow across the streeet with a Wi-fi set up and I have noticed I can get now and then _his_ setup, so I assume he can 'see' mine also. But not from my backyard. If you get a wireless router (as well as the card) then you should be able to go back and forth between desktop and laptop with ease. And when your grandchild is there she should be able to use her laptop with the wireless card as well, but probably not both of you at once unless you get a bigger 'pipe' than dialup. Do you have any more questions? I am sure the experts here will be glad to help you or walk you through the installation as needed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Bell Divestiture Date: 17 Jun 2005 07:00:37 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Fred Goldstein wrote: > Monopolies in LD transmission? That > would have held up the price of data transmission, slowing down all > sorts of datacomm. Ma Bell viewed leased lines, so necessary for > data, as a substitute for profitable long distance minutes of use, so > they overpriced them. The RBOCs still do the same thing with their > Special Access tariffs! But long distance rates for both switched and private line service were both on the way down well before actual divesture. Also, faster and faster digital lines were being installed before divesture. I maintain it was mostly technology -- cheaper terminal equipment and carrier media followed by higher call volume and greater economies of scale -- that caused and still cause long distance rates to fall. As Pat noted in his comments, in the early days MCI had a big advanage serving only the high profit markets with no obligation to handle the expensive stuff or provide support services. Any time a phone call had trouble they dump it into AT&T's lap. > Let's say digital leased line rates were, instead, regulated at > cost-based levels. Are you sure they weren't? I'm not that familiar with private line tarrifs, but as mentioned my own employer's network went down in price and up in speed before divesture. Private networks, such as owned and run by railroads, were shifted over to AT&T since it was cheaper for AT&T to provide it than doing it themselves. Considering they already had a network in place, there must be have been good cost savings to dump it for AT&T. > But without local competition in 1996, and with the Internet going > public when it did in 1992, I suggest that the BOC networks would have > collapsed in 1996! The RBOC networks came within months of doing so. > Dial-up Internet traffic was exploding. Bell System culture bought > switches on a 5-year planning schedule, so they could not react > quickly. CLECs were authorized in February, 1996, and by the end of > the year they were carrying substantial dial-up ISP traffic. ... > AOL did not use CLECs in 1996, and the RBOCs could > not provide circuits fast enough (I know; I was working on AOLnet at > the time). Other ISPs did, and that prevented more RBOC switches from > melting down under the load. I'm not sure "months of collapse" is an accurate characterization. The Internet boom did not happen suddenly overnight. Remember that since the 1960s people used dial-up to communicate with computers and this traffic continued to grow. Hobbyists with early home computers began to talk to each other then BBS's came along. The RBOC were serving this growing traffic all along; and it was well recognized and expected it would increase greatly. There were the early services such as Compuserve and Prodigy. Remember too that many users got a second telephone line for their computer use. At the same time, the real (inflation adjusted) cost of local phone service went down and more people got second lines for their kids. The phone companies were planning and responding to this all along -- expanding switch and local loop capacity. > America will, as a result, fall even farther behind the rest of the > world in most matters of telecom. Is the U.S. really "behind" the rest of the world? Ironically, prior to divesture the U.S. was by far the leader in telecom service. Indicators like cost, lines per person, etc. all were best for the U.S. Tim@Backhome.org wrote: > The No. 1ESS was basically a No 5XBAR with stored program control > (SPC). The real motivator was to cut labor cost and secondarily to be > able to market special calling features. Well, basically every switch was an advancement on the basic Strowger unit which itself was to eliminate manual operators. But I suspect the ESS offered more benefits than you suggest. I believe it took up less floor space and operated faster, so it could handle more calls in the same building. I believe it was more reliable and more flexible. Also, since the Bell System's rates were based partly on cost, cost savings would be passed along to the customer which they were. In a time of great inflation local rates remain nearly level. > Not knocking that nice forward step in switching, but it was good for > Ma Bell first, and the customer could (would) ride along for whatever > benefits it gave to the subscribers. But isn't that what EVERY business does? Any large business has teams of engineers figuring out ways to do things cheaper. Then the marketing people tell us something that is more inconvenient is actually an "improvement". When airlines buy new jet planes, they do so because the planes are more fuel efficient and need less crew to fly, rather than making flying better for the passenger. Indeed, in many telephone service has gotten worse for us end users because of cost savings. Instead of a live PBX operator serving us, we get a machine and phone mail jail. Ironically, the old Bell System constantly implored its business customers to provide excellent service on their PBXs -- it offered training and guides and support services. [Telecom Editor's Note] > Bell got hit so bad for a few years, they finally decided they had > to rebuild the entire phone system from the ground up, and the answer > to that was ESS. So as you stated, Bell did not develop ESS in order > to make a few dollars selling 'custom calling features' to users; ESS > was developed so the telephone company could regain control of a > network which was rapidly getting out of control. Another major reason for the system rebuild was to protect the network itself. The "phone phreaks" were using 'blue boxes' to take control of the network and lock up long distance trunks. While mostly used to save money, it was potentially very dangerous. As to the issue of not interested in providing the customer with advanced features, I'm not sure I agree. According to Bell Labs Record and the history books, advanced service features (especially for business users) were important. The Bell System did not have to retrofit Step-by-step exchanges with Touch Tone converters -- it didn't save them any money. But they still developed four models for various SxS situations. The Bell System didn't have to develop the Princess or Trimline telephone sets. But they did. And we know they put a heck of a lot of effort into optimizing the design for user comfort. The entire history of the Bell System has been one of improving the economies of scale to lower the cost to get more traffic and make more money. ------------------------------ From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: Bell Divesture (was Re: Schools Prohibit Personal E-mail Sites) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:17:18 -0000 Organization: Widgets, Inc. In article <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Robert Bonomi wrote: >> If the "Bell System/AT&T/Western Electric" had remained a monolithic >> entity, The rate of change in the "Internet" would likely have been >> much slower. There probably would not have been the telecom boom/bust >> of circa 5 years ago, > What is your basis to claim "the rate of change in the Internet > would likely have been much slower"? A knowledge of telecom history. :) Bell system/AT&T/WEco was _very_ conservative in outlook. They didn't deploy anything until it was thoroughly tested and determined to be sufficiently reliable. They were driven mostly by "what is best for the telephone company", and only incidentally by 'what is best for the telephone customer". Most "improvements" in customer capabilities came because the monolith waqs -pushed- into it. And were implemented on a "gouge the end-user for all it is worth" basis. Look at the deployment of 'touch tone' dialing for one example. The primary advantage of touch-tone was to the telco. it reduced the time that 'expensive' switching resources were tied up for the handling of a given call; this allowed the telco to reduce the _number_ of such expensive resources required to handle a given volume of calls; thus reducing the telco's _cost_ for handling that volume of calls. Yet the telco made the user _pay_extra_ to use this 'save the telco money' feature. As a result, some FORTY YEARS LATER, the telco _still_ has to support 'pulse' dialing. And the expenses of *two* signal schemes for dialing. Imagine what would have happened if the telco had offered a _discount_ (even a small one, say $0.50/month) for lines that were touch-tone dialing *only*, from day 1. I suspect that 'pulse' dial would have dropped out of the tariffs 20 years ago; because nobody was using it. The Bell/AT&T/WEco record on 'data communications' is similarly 'lagging edge'. I've _never_ heard of a "Bell Standard" for speeds above 1200 baud over voice-grade (aka dial-up) circuits. And that specification was 'unusable' except for direct-connect hardware; If you were stuck with 'acoustic coupler' interface requirements, The best telco spec was "Bell 103", 450 baud or below, (an 'enhanced' specification, added later, pushed the upper-limit to 600 baud -- wow!) Racal-Vadic, on the other hand, had an acoustic coupler capable specification for 1200 baud that worked. And with far less of a 'noise' problem than "Bell 212". Don't forget U.S.Robotics, or Hayes, who had 9600-baud over dial-up units. Or Trailblazer, that had one capable of 19,200 baud. Yet, the Bells only offered 'lease-line' service for 2400 and above. either 4-wire lease-line for 202, 206, 208, 209, etc type modems, or DDS. And, DDS was priced at "an arm and half a leg". > It seems that many critics of the former Bell System "freeze it" at > the time of divesture. That is, they presume the Bell System's > physical plant and operating policies would never change and remain in > 1983 technology. That premise is absurb. Strawman argument. > Throughout its history the Bell System was improving its plant. The > system of 1983 was radically different than the system of 1973, and > clearly the system of 1993 and 2003 would be radically different > than 1983. > I know that data communications improved greatly just during the late > 1970s, for example. Digital lines replaced analog lines for faster > speed and higher reliability. Private line costs were coming down. > It is also clear operating policies and service plans would have > changed, too. (They were always envolving in the past). How or what > is tougher to say -- it depends on the external environment. > Don't forget the Bell System was heavilly controlled by (1) > regulation and (2) the consent decree. We know that deregulation > became popular later on. It's possible the Bell System may have > been allow to adjust its rates so the the profitable corridors (the > "cream") may have gotten discounts so Bell could compete fairly > against newcomers. It's possible the Bell System may have escaped > the consent decree -- just as IBM was able to do -- and go into new > markets previously closed to it. > Who knows, perhaps LANS and WANS would've been bult FASTER had > the Bell System been allowed to be involved and use it strengths. Actual history argues against that 'unfounded speculation'. Starting with their 'concept' of how high-speed/high-volume data networking should be done (ATM). Which, because of the miniscule size of the 'payload', has an _incredible_ layer of overhead; with all sorts of 'per connection' overhead carried in _every_ packet -- primarily to ensure that every packet could have 'cost accounting' done at _every_intermediate_ point. And it disregards the existance of the various 'public packet-data networks' (Tymenet, Telenet, Bitnet, Autonet, etc.) that were _already_ in existence. ------------------------------ 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: email@example.com Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe:email@example.com 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) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308 and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest ************************************************************************* * 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, firstname.lastname@example.org, 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 #273 ******************************