From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Apr 9 01:48:08 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i395m8T08854; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 01:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 01:48:08 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200404090548.i395m8T08854@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #172 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Apr 2004 01:48:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 172 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson VoicePulse Expanding Rate Center Availability (VOIP News) As Goes VoIP, So Grows Softswitches (VOIP News) California Becomes VoIP Regulatory Battleground (VOIP News) Skype's Cell Division (VOIP News) Jeff Pulver Blog Entry on CRTC (VOIP News) Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 - Regulatory framework (VOIP News) Forbes: VoIP Revolution Underway (Sam_Chen) Re: Apparent Hidden Advertisements in Telecom Digest (Steve at SELLCOM) Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards (Clarence Dold) Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards (Tony P.) Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine (Michael D. Sullivan CPU Load on Catalyst4006 (Joe Shen) FCC Backs Nextel Paying More For Swap - W.Post (Monty Solomon) 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: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:37:20 -0400 Subject: VoicePulse Expanding Rate Center Availability Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com There's no official announcement about this yet, but several people have reported that VoicePulse sent them a notification that there were new ratecenters available in their area code. When something official comes along we'll let you know, but in the meantime, if you've been waiting for a certain ratecenter to become available, you may wish to check VoicePulse's web site to see if that ratecenter has been added. 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: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 17:05:58 -0400 Subject: As Goes VoIP, So Grows Softswitches Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3337911 By Ron Miller The market for softswitches, the platforms that connect wireline phone calls to IP networks for Voice over IP, is poised for explosive growth through 2008, after a jump of more than 42 percent in 2003, according to In-Stat MDR. But all that growth is contingent on how fast VoIP goes mainstream. Norm Bogen, director of networking for In-Stat MDR and the author of a new report about the softswitches ("Softswitch Architectures Evolve as VoIP Goes Mainstream"), said he expects VoIP to hit the mainstream sooner than expected. "All of the major carriers are deploying it on a trial basis or for real revenue right now. They are all going to do it and they will all need these switches," Bogen said. Full story at: http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3337911 ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 14:49:56 -0400 Subject: California Becomes VoIP Regulatory Battleground Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://news.com.com/2100-7352_3-5187436.html By Ben Charny Staff Writer, CNET News.com Small Net phone service providers were united but alone back in October, when they began fighting California utility regulators who wanted them to follow traditional phone rules. But six months later, Vonage, 8x8 and others have been joined by some powerhouse telephone companies -- which shows just how important the battle in California has become to determining whether states should regulate Internet phone service providers. Verizon, SBC, cable provider Cox Communications, Sprint, Level 3 Communications, AT&T and Nextel Communications are among the companies now recommending that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) take, at best, an extremely light regulatory approach to most Net phone service providers, according to comments the companies made to the CPUC. The comments were made public this week. "Do not develop detailed policy at this time," Verizon stated in its comments. "There is no current looming threat" from voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), so no regulation is necessary, Cox told the commission. Full story at: http://news.com.com/2100-7352_3-5187436.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 02:48:42 -0400 Subject: Skype's Cell Division Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com http://www.forbes.com/networks/2004/04/06/cx_al_0406skype.html Aude Lagorce, 04.06.04, 3:27 PM ET NEW YORK - By threatening to make extravagant phone bills a distant memory, voice-over-Internet Protocol technology, also known as VoIP, has become the most ominous cloud hanging over the future of traditional phone companies. In recent months, giants like AT&T and Verizon Communications have responded to its threat by launching their own discount VoIP services. Meanwhile, cell phone carriers thought they were relatively safe. That assumption may yet turn out to be wrong: Skype, a company founded by the developers of the file-sharing service Kazaa, announced this morning that it is bringing the disruptive technology to handheld devices. "We knew it was just a matter of time before VoIP services came to mobile devices," says Jane Zweig, chief executive of the Shosteck Group, a telecom research firm. Full story at: http://www.forbes.com/networks/2004/04/06/cx_al_0406skype.html ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:46:19 -0400 Subject: Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 - Regulatory Framework Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com Telecom Public Notice CRTC 2004-2 Ottawa, 7 April 2004 Regulatory Framework for Voice Communication Services Using Internet Protocol Reference: 8663-C12-200402892 and 8663-B2-200316101 The Commission has received both an application and a letter requesting it to address the regulatory requirements for the provision of voice communication services using Internet Protocol (IP). With this public notice, the Commission provides its preliminary views on the regulatory framework applicable to those services. The Commission is of the preliminary view that voice communication services using IP that utilize telephone numbers based on the North American Numbering Plan and provide universal access to and/or from the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) (referred to in this public notice as "VoIP" services) have functional characteristics that are the same as circuit-switched voice telecommunications services. In the Commission's preliminary view, its existing regulatory framework should apply to VoIP services, including its determinations related to forbearance. The Commission considers, on a preliminary basis, that to the extent that VoIP services provide subscri bers with access to and/or from the PSTN along with the ability to make and/or receive calls that originate and terminate within the geographic boundaries of a local calling area as defined in the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers' (ILECs) tariffs, they should be treated for regulatory purposes as local exchange services, and be subject to the regulatory framework governing local competition, established in Local competition, Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8, 1 May 1997 and subsequent determinations. In this public notice, the Commission also expresses preliminary views on the following three matters: (i) the applicability of existing tariffs, and requirements to file tariffs; (ii) the provision of 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 service, message relay service and privacy safeguards; (iii) the applicability of the national contribution collection mechanism as introduced in Changes to the contribution regime, Decision CRTC 2000-745, 30 November 2000. Interested parties are invited to provide co mment s on the Commission's preliminary views and any other pertinent matters and to participate in a public consultation. Full text of notice at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2004/pt2004-2.htm ------------------------------ From: VOIP News Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 13:30:38 -0400 Subject: Jeff Pulver Comments on CRTC Ruling Reply-To: VoIPnews@yahoogroups.com This is from The Jeff Pulver Blog at http://192.246.69.231/jeff/personal/index.html April 07, 2004 CRTC: Legacy Rules should Apply to VoIP The CRTC just ruled that new IP Communication Service Providers in Canada should meet the same requirements as traditional telephony providers. While the CRTC's "preliminary view," will be subject to public comment, this is not a good starting point from the perspective of would be communication disruptors who wish to do business in Canada. Canada faces some of the same social policy issues as the United States and it was my hope that the CRTC would have followed the leadership of the FCC rather than following in the footsteps of Panama. The CRTC's public hearing on VoIP will be taking place May 19-20 in Gatineau, Que., where the CRTC has its headquarters, at the same time when VON Canada will be taking place in Toronto. Posted by jeff at 01:31 PM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My point of view is that Canada is not the United States, and while Panama is not the best 'example' for anyone to follow, the United States F.C.C. is certainly not the best either. Let Canada remain Canada and do things the way it sees best. PAT] ------------------------------ From: schen5547@yahoo.com (sam_chen) Subject: Forbes: VoIP Revolution Underway Date: 8 Apr 2004 18:49:59 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com 4/26 edition of Forbes has a feature on how VoIP and soon VoIP over Wi-Fi are the first real threat to the revenue of the Baby Bells on their home turf -- the local calling market. Some choice excerpts: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In a world of Net phones, local monopolies and duopolies will no longer exist; Internet consumers will have every telco in the country competing to win their business ... As voice revenue fades, carriers must use the same cheap networks to sell a bundle of other services instead. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "I believe that IP-based services such as [Voice over Internet] should evolve in a regulation free-zone," [FCC Chairman Michael Powell] said. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "If you don't do it, next year or the one after that you won't be playing in the game," says Qwest Chief Executive Richard C. Notebaert, who shocked the industry last fall by announcing plans for Qwest to become the first regional Bell company to offer cheap Internet-based phone service. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Looks like Qwest is the only ones who get this. They, along with Vonage and Savvis, could start becoming major competitors in wired areas like Verizon's and SBC's regions. What does everyone think about VoIP over Wi-Fi? VoIP is already huge and has a bright future, but more and more Wi-Fi networks are locked down, secured, or require payment to access -- what are the chances you'll happen to be in an open wireless zone on any consistent basis? ------------------------------ From: SELLCOM Tech support Subject: Re: Apparent Hidden Advertisements in the Telecom Digest Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 04:22:07 GMT Phil Earnhardt posted on that vast internet thingie: > The moderator's apparent compensation for promotion of a > telecommunications product in the Digest is a conflict of interest. That's silly. Steve at SELLCOM http://www.sellcom.com Discount multihandset cordless phones by Siemens, AT&T, Panasonic, Motorola Vtech 5.8Ghz; TMC ET4000 4line Epic phone, OnHoldPlus, Beamer, Watchguard! Brick wall "non MOV" surge protection. Mini-Splitter log splitter! If you sit at a desk www.ergochair.biz you owe it to yourself. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, he really was not being silly; he expressed a legitimate concern. I hope I explained myself to his satisfaction. If phone bills were the only thing in the world I had to worry about, and Vonage was paying them all (they are, where VOIP is concerned) and they were slipping me a little extra on the side (which they are not) to tamper with the messages here and *only* print postive things about them and negative things (or nothing at all) regards their competitors then he would have a legitmate beef. And he would not know either way unless he asked, which he did. But I have a lot of expenses and concerns in addition to my VOIP phone bills (which I could easily get along without if I absolutely had to). Speaking of VOIP phones, bandwidth issues, the squeeze I get on my LAN when the phone wants to talk while the cameras are FTP'ing, etc and such: I was downtown this afternoon to pay off my cable bill and got into a discussion of this with the lady in the office. She said, "how would you like a full meg instead of only 500 K *and* have your bill each month reduced by five dollars." Sure, who wouldn't. They now have a new package called 'Digital Internet' which instead of the 60 channels of television garbage I get (and rarely watch) will give me a couple hundred channels of assorted stuff *AND* a full meg on the modem *AND* two converter boxes with remotes for the two television sets I have *AND* no more 'monthly rental fee' for the Motorola cable modem. The total bill each month is about five dollars per month less than I pay now. I told her all I was intersted in was the bandwidth on the cable and being able to listen to (variously) KRPS 89.9 from Kansas State University (NPR) or the Tulsa equivilent at 89.5 which are on Cable One free from their tower over on Oak Street. She said keeping the package I had and adding the extra bandwidth only would cost me ten dollars per month more. "Or would you be willing to take all the above for five dollars per month less." I was not in a position to carry two digital converter boxes home with me this afternoon since I was actually going over to Marvins to get some groceries. "How about if my guy comes over to see you tomorrow late morning and does it all for you?" Okay, I guess so. She taps on the computer and says, "okay its all on now, I just turned you on for the bandwidth. Everything will work the same as it always has since you like KRPS, and if you decide you want to start watching television, you should find something on to watch." And guess who is going to start local phone service around here on the cable? They are ... to quote her: "Southwestern Bell has always been too big for their britches anyway, and we will probably be able to meet or beat Prairie Stream prices, and have local number porta- bility, same as Prairie Stream or Vonage." I told her it sounds exciting; it really does. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dold@Wal-MartXM.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 02:16:14 UTC Organization: a2i network TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Charles Cryderman : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think your mistake here is when you > talk to those people referring to your mode of payment as a 'debit card' > instead of a 'credit card'. Instead, refer to your mode of payment as > 'my VISA card' or 'Master Card' is . Since (when you are > calling on the phone) they are not going to see the plastic or any > logos on it, they won't know the difference. PAT] I was successful in using my debit card at one Hertz in NYC, and not another, where they said they absolutely could not accept it because of the inability to place a hold. When I said it worked the day before, she said they can sometimes force a hold of one dollar, just to make sure the card is good, usually done only if someone is paying cash. But she could not accept the debit card. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Mix Up Balancing Credit Cards Organization: ATCC Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:39:48 GMT In article , Charles.Cryderman@globalcrossing.com says: > In TELECOM Digest V23 #168 J Kelly inquired: >> I'm curious about "blocking". Does anyone know what happens if I >> call a hotel and reserve a room for sometime in the future, say six >> months, and I use a debit card to guarantee the room, do they >> generally block your card for the amount of that room? Or do they >> not do anything with you card number until check in time. I only >> have a debit card and I have an aversion to using it for hotel >> reservations, but maybe I shouldn't be concerened about it. I have >> used my PayPal debit card at check-in time and they blocked 5 days >> worth of the room cost to it at that time. They did not unblock it >> when I paid the total at the end of the week, only charged the final >> amount. The blocked charge "falls off" the PayPal card after 10 >> days if it isn't finalized by the merchant." > I have tried to use a "debit card" to reserve a hotel room and retinal > car and was told by both that banks do not permit "debit cards" to be > used for those purposes. If you don't use a credit card they told me I > couldn't have the reservations. > Chip Cryderman > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think your mistake here is when you > talk to those people referring to your mode of payment as a 'debit card' > instead of a 'credit card'. Instead, refer to your mode of payment as > 'my VISA card' or 'Master Card' is . Since (when you are > calling on the phone) they are not going to see the plastic or any > logos on it, they won't know the difference. PAT] You're right. The debit cards have account numbers that are indistinguishable from a credit card. I've booked hotels, rental cars, etc. on mine with no problems whatsoever. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Cell Phones Exceed Land Lines in Maine Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:25:08 GMT In article , Joe_Wineburgh@cable.comcast.com says: > I contacted Peter Reilly (the VZ spokesperson quoted in the article) > for clarification and it looks like the numbers were VZ wireline > customers vs. all wireless customers (not just VZ wireless). His reply: > ------------------------------------------- > Mr. Wineburgh, > I was the Verizon spokesman quoted in the AP story. The comments I > made were based upon information from the following sources. The > landline numbers represent the 483,612 Verizon Maine residential > access lines in service for 4Q-2003, as reported at Verizon's Investor > Relations website http://investor.verizon.com/business/wireline.html . > The number of wireless subscribers in Maine reported in the most > recent FCC Report on Local Competition > http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html was 524,246 for June, 2003 and > represents customers from all reporting cellular carriers in Maine. > Note that this latest FCC reported number is different from the number > of Maine wireless subscribers offered in the article, written by > Kathryn Skelton of the Sun Journal in Lewiston, ME. I hope this > information helps to answer your questions. > Peter > ----------------------- > So I guess the question now is, do the other independant telcos > represent more than 40,633 customers. The same FCC report cited by the Verizon spokesperson for the 524,246 wireless subscribers in Maine (in Table 13) also states that there are 791,352 LEC and CLEC access lines (i.e., wireline subscribers) in Maine (in Table 6). So, yes, there are more than 40,633 non-Verizon wireline subscribers; there are 307,740 of them. Based on the full number of wireline subscribers, the wireless/wireline ratio is 66%, not >100% as suggested. Verizon is far from the only telco in the state; there are 6 ILECs (i.e., Verizon and five others) and 4 CLECs whose data is included in the FCC's report. The full URL for the report is http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC- State_Link/IAD/lcom1203.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/3c43q . Michael D. Sullivan Bethesda, MD, USA Delete nospam from my address and it won't work. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I wonder if the 'Peter Reilly' referred to above is/was the technical book publisher by the same name with various technical works on the net and in bookstores. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Shen Subject: CPU Load on Catalyst4006 Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:01:10 +0800 Hi, The CPU load of our Catalyst4006 increases steadily in past days, and it is observed CPU load get as high as 98% some time. 'show proc cpu' shows something like: PID Runtime(ms) Invoked uSecs 5Sec 1Min 5Min TTY Process 153864 17871130 8 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0 Per-Second Jobs 12599429843831335909 328 6.63% 6.91% 6.75% 0 Cat4k Mgmt HiPri 3269298281067594379 306 32.93% 32.68% 32.55% 0 Cat4k Mgmt LoPri 749292 70964735 10 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0 Galios Reschedul And 'show platform health' shows something like: Ebm-host-review 1.00 4.51 8 5 100 500 2 3 2 7463:26 KxAclPathMan - Path 1.00 25.01 10 5 100 500 16 21 20 59322:35 I don't know what "KxAclPathMan" and "Ebm-host-review" stands for. Is there anybody could do some help? Thanks in advance. Regards, Jing Shen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:58:26 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Backs Nextel Paying More For Swap - Washington Post WASHINGTON, April 8 (Reuters) - A majority of U.S. communications regulators support moves requiring Nextel Communications Inc.(NASDAQ:NXTL) to pay up to $2.35 billion to swap airwaves and reduce interference problems with public safety communications like the fire service, the Washington Post reported on Thursday. Nextel, the No.5 U.S. wireless carrier, has proposed paying $850 million to reorganize the 800 megahertz band where it and scores of public safety groups operate as well as upgrade equipment used by fire and other public services. The company would also move its operations out of that band and into another band of airwaves, the most controversial part of the plan as the spectrum it wants is highly sought by rivals. Three of five Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioners have voted to require Nextel to pay between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion more than it has proposed, but details on how much it would pay and the method of payment were undecided, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed FCC sources. - http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?story=41034853 ------------------------------ 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. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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 V23 #172 ******************************