Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/telecom-recent/[e-mail] _Wed Jan 3 22:02:48 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1996-01-21 | 28KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.1/NSCS-1.0S)
    id WAA17663; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 22:02:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 22:02:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #4

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Jan 96 22:03:00 EST    Volume 16 : Issue 4

Inside This Issue:                        Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    1996 International Forecasting Conference (Peter S. Chung)
    SDSL v. ADSL (Peter Brace)
    Asymetry (ADSL) and Net Access - A Bad Thing? (Rupert Baines)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Thomas Peters)
    Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam? (Glen Ecklund)
    Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road" (Andrew C. Green)

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
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [e-mail] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: [phone]
                        Fax: [phone]
  ** Article submission address: [e-mail]

Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   *
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft.
     ------------------------------------------------------------

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 twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 19:55:14 -0500
Subject: 1996 International Forecasting Conference


Dear Patrick,

I am requesting your favor of publishing an attached E-mail in your
TELECOM Digest so that all telecommunications professionals could
benefit by attending the conference.  You have previously published
our conference "call for papers" in your Digest last November, 1995.
Your kindly gesture of publishing the attached E-mail is most
appreciated.

Yes, I was a little let down after my alma mater, Northwestern got
beat by USC.  But it was a jolly good show for NU and the Big Ten
conference.

Thank you very much,

Peter Chung, GTE - 1996 ICFC co-chairperson.

***********
Attachment
***********

   THE 1996 INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FORECASTING CONFERENCE

                 Timely  Agenda Focused on Your Needs

The International Communications Forecasting Conference (ICFC) is a
professional forum for telecommunications forecasters, demand analysts
and planners presenting state of the art information to help them do
their jobs better. The annual ICFC provides the opportunity for
discussion, presentation, and review of emerging issues as they
pertain to telecommunications forecasting and planning, demand
analysis, business research and cost analysis.  The ICFC is the
premier conference dedicated to the Telecommunications Forecasting
profession. Why is attending the 1996 ICFC important for you?

The ICFC is designed by industry experts specifically for
Telecommunications Professionals. The challenge for telecommunications
forecasters, planners, and analysts is to respond to the dynamics of
our industry by integrating marketing, technology and consumer
behavior into companies' tactical and strategic decision making
processes. As technological advances and worldwide economic
integration render international borders virtually irrelevant for
telecommunications end users, we are faced with unprecedented new
challenges. Both wireline and wireless service areas now extend beyond
familiar regional and national boundaries and most large telcos have
become multinational corporations.  Nevertheless, business planning
requirements must still be based on knowledge of customers,
competitors and markets as well as assessments of internal costs and
efficiencies. How can customer behavior be understood in an
environment of reduced regulation, increasing bypass opportunities,
offshore competition and blurring of the distinction among services?
The 1996 ICFC is the premier forum for discussion of the forecasting
and demand analysis challenges of the 90's and beyond. If you want one
cost-effective conference targeted to your needs - this is it!

Internationally Known Speakers

Reed Hundt, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission

Mr. Hundt will speak to the conference on "Competition in the
Telecommunications Industry". During Mr. Hundt's chairmanship the FCC
is making key decisions regarding industry structure and competition
which will effect the US communications industry and markets for years
to come.

Professor Alfred E. Kahn

Dr. Kahn, former Chairman of NY PUC and Professor of Economics,
Emeritus, Cornell University, will speak on "Deregulation and
Competition in the Telecommunications Industry". Dr. Kahn was a major
force behind deregulation in the US transportation sector.  Drawing
upon his rich experience in both the academic and policy arena, Dr.
Kahn always brings an invigorating perspective to a discussion of
competitive forces in the US economy.

Mr. Peter Huber

Mr. Huber, author of the much acclaimed study "Geodesic Network",
"Orwell's Revenge: the 1984 palimpsest" and many more will present his
ideas on "The Internet and Future of the Telecommunications Industry".
Mr Huber has an uncanny ability to predict the interaction of
technology with human behavior.  Attendees are sure to find Mr.
Huber's insights to be rewarding listening.

ICFC's Reputation for Quality and Excellence

Over the last 13 years, the International Communications Forecasting
Conference has developed an outstanding reputation throughout the
Telecommunications Industry. This reputation has attracted the highest
quality speakers and participants.For this conference we have expanded
our participation audience further by inviting and encouraging the
participants from IXC, CAP, CATV, Cellular and PCS industries of
domestic and foreign countries.

Forecasting Conference Outstanding Educational Opportunities

The ICFC is the only international training forum for
telecommunications forecasters and planners. In addition to the
Keynote Speakers, there will be many SPECIALIZED SESSIONS
concentrating on the cutting edge of telecommunications forecasting
and demand analysis techniques and applications as well as
pre-conference TUTORIAL SESSIONS.  Typical agenda topics include:

     -  Optimal Calling Packages
     -  LEC Entry into InterLATA Services
     -  Local Loop Competition
     -  Wireline vs Wireless Competition
     -  Internet and Telecommunications
     -  Unbundling and Access Line Forecasting
     -  Market Share Prediction
     -  One-stop Shopping for Telecom Services


Networking With Telecommunications Professionals

The ICFC provides a unique opportunity to meet your fellow
telecommunications forecasters and planners, industry analysts and
academics. Conferees will have time during the conference to share
notes on forecasting and demand analysis issues and discuss new ideas.
Informal outings will be planned in the evenings to encourage further
networking, while experiencing the excitement of Dallas.

Technology Showcase

A highlight of the ICFC is always the vendor exhibits of the latest
forecasting and analytical software and information sources that can
make your forecasting more effective and accurate. With so many
vendors in one place, it is easy to learn about and compare state of
the art tools such as:

     - Geographic-based databases
     - Statistical analysis and forecasting software
     - Economic data and market analysis information Services
     - Demographic analysis and mapping tools

Cost Effective Training

Examine the many benefits and experiences available to you at the
International Communications Forecasting Conference: increasing your
professional and technical knowledge; improving your understanding of
the globalization of the industry; seeing state of the art forecasting
and analytical techniques and tools. When you compare these benefits
to other, more costly seminars and training sessions, the ICFC has the
most to offer to help you and your company meet the ever changing
demands of the future. The low registration fee, discount hotel rates,
combined with all the outstanding speakers and features, make the 1996
ICFC your best training value. Because this conference is planned by
telecommunications professionals like you, this is the conference that
fits your budget and provides the information you need to be more
efficient and do your job better!

New and Different Challenges

The time to plan for the new telecommunications industry is not
tomorrow but today. Challenges await that, today, have not been
identified. Improve your knowledge of the new environment that is
changing our industry and its markets. With the information you will
acquire, you will be able to better steer your company's tactical and
strategic decisions. The 1996 International Communications Forecasting
Conference will enhance your understanding of "Demand Analysis with
Competition in the Information Age".

What's Included?

     - Admittance to the General Sessions with Reed Hundt,
       Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,
       Professor Alfred E. Kahn, Mr. Peter Huber, plus
       additional internationally known speakers.

    - Admittance to the Specialized Sessions, Tutorials and
      Technology Showcase.

    - Detailed conference materials, including handouts
      from the Specialized Sessions.

    - Opening reception/dinner at the hotel plus 2 lunches,
      3 continental breakfasts and coffee breaks.

DATES: April 16-19, 1996
LOCATION: Dallas, Texas, USA
HOTEL: The Grand Kempinski Dallas

Conference Logistics

Dallas Texas' cosmopolitan metropolis, also a "Telecom Capital of the
World", will be an exciting venue for this important event. The Grand
Kempinski Dallas is situated in the North Dallas/Galleria area located
off the Dallas Tollway. This provides easy access from the Dallas/Fort
Worth International Airport in only 20 minutes, and from Dallas' Love
Field Airport in 15 minutes. There are three major shopping malls
nearby, one which is directly across the street. There are over 130
restaurants, nightspots and lounges to provide entertainment.  The
Grand Kempinski Dallas provides complimentary transportation to any
destination within a three-mile radius of the hotel.

As a 1996 ICFC attendee, you will receive a special hotel rate of $110
for a hotel room, single or double occupancy plus applicable taxes.
The ICFC has negotiated these rates to be in effect three days before
and after the conference, so bring the family and visit the Dallas,
Texas area. All conference attendees MUST book their rooms DIRECTLY
with the hotel by calling 800-426-3135 or 214-386-6000 or by faxing
214-701-0342.  Please mention that you are attending the 1996 ICFC
and/or Technology Forecasting for the Telecom Industry Seminar to
receive the special rate.

Schedule

Registration opens at 12:00 noon on Tuesday, April 16th.  For those
who arrive early, there will be a tutorial session in the afternoon.
The Conference will open with a reception at the hotel beginning at
6:00 p.m. The 1996 ICFC will conclude at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, April
19th.

Conference Registration

The early registration fee for the 1996 ICFC is $500 in US dollars or
after March 25th a late registration fee of $550. You must register by
mail and payment must be by check or money order. Complete
registration details are provided below. If you have any registration
questions, please call Don Gorman at 610-469-0515.

First Name_____________________Last Name_____________________
Company Name & Title_________________________________________
Street___________________________ City_______________________
Prov./State__________Country_____________Postal/Zip__________
Tel__________________Fax______________E-Mail_________________
Check/Money order enclosed_______$500 for early registration
                          _______$550 for late registration

FORWARD THIS REGISTRATION FORM ALONG WITH YOUR CHECK OR MONEY ORDER to:
           ICFC 1996
           ATTN: Don Gorman
           204 Murray School Road
           Pottstown, PA 19465       Tel: [phone]
           U.S.A.                    Fax: [phone]

Any Other Questions?  Please direct your questions to:

           Peter S. Chung- GTE, Co-chairperson
           Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone] or -4977
           Internet E-mail: [e-mail]

"Dallas Skyline Courtesy of the Dallas Convention & Visitor Bureau"
(Sorry: we are unable to show Dallas skyline on-line)

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

From: Peter Brace <[e-mail]>
Subject: SDSL v. ADSL
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 07:22:26 -0800
Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia


Fellow telecomers,

Is there really much commercial difference between SDSL and ADSL? And
is SDSL likely to have much of an impact on cable rollout? (i.e. is
coax/fibre no longer needed??

Interested in opinions ...


Peter Brace

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

From: Rupert Baines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asymetry (ADSL) and Net Access - A Bad Thing?
Date: 3 Jan 1996 23:23:59 GMT


There seems to be a widespread opinion amongst digerati that Internet
applications require symetric services. I'm not convinced (see below)
 -- I *like* assymetry -- but I haven't heard many convincing arguments
in either direction.  I'd love to hear some comments on this!

WIRED slagged ADSL on this basis (HYPE list in Nov), Scott Moore posted
on it (below), and there is a John Perry Barlow article
(http://www.alumni.wesleyan.edu/WWW/Info/JPB.html) that forcefully argues
on similar lines.

I have been meaning to try to write a response, but haven't quite got
round to it ... but here goes a few thoughts:

The quote below is from Scott Moore's post before Xmas.


>>>    2. SDSL will be marketed as both an internet connect and as
>>>       videoconferencing. People other than coporations will balk
>>>       at the cost of the special equipment and special connect
>>>       rates that videoconferencing will require (remember that the
>>>       local bells are going to want extra to transport that call
>>>       to grandma in Chicago). However, because it is short haul,
>>>       SDSL may take off as an internet connect tool, after which
>>>       videoconferencing may take off, curiously, when done via
>>>       computer using it as and encoder/decoder with a cheap ($100)
>>>       camera.


RB>> Huh ??
RB>> Why is SDSL better for Internet access than ADSL ?

> Even AT&T is advertising that. It amazes me that there is so much effort
> going into asymetric access right now. Cable modems are built assuming that
> you want huge downstream with small upstream capacity, which is a model
> that applies mainly to sitting passively flipping web pages. But the most
> exciting thing about the internet is that it is interactive.

All these seem to confuse SYMETRY with INTERACTIVITY.  They are not at
all the same, and I think it is possible -- even desirable -- for an
attractive interactive service to be aymmetric.

There are four reasons I suggest, in a vague order of relevance:

One is philosophical -- not practical, but is so fundamental it is
easy to overlook: Human I/O is assymetric to a huge degree -- your
eyes have a bandwidth that could be in the Gigabits/sec, your ears are
>1Mbps, and heaven only knows what it would be for taste (food via the
net!?), smell, touch (tele-sex ?) not to mention the weirder ones of
proprioception or the like. Compare that to the output in terms of
position, speech, and the like; shouldn't any system at least try
to reflect the user?

Secondly is still philosophic but a bit more real. The difference
between 'data' and 'information' is heavily related to how much you
can discard.  I typically subscribe to a few newsgroups, and read a few
dozen posts for every response I make. That is an assymetry of ~100:1
 -- and it seems an asymmetry we would want to encourage. Obviously it
varies with application (see #4), but it still seems that more data
flows in than information flows out.  There is a word for people who
do not respect that asymmetry -- we call it spamming!

Third is a consideration of the actual applications: Other than
video-conferencing, nearly all are asymetric.  Many people watch
videos, very few will want (or afford) to produce them at home.
Client/server systems predicate an assymetry. Many people access web
pages -- fewer host their own at home.

I'd like to expand on that: Yes, having a web-server is popular and
growing (but still orders of magnitude less content rich than
accesses), and I'm sure that 'what's your URL' is indeed the chat up
line in Palo Alto bars, and posting pictures of the family at
Thanksgiving is lovely, and , and ... that is irrelevant. Arguing from
that to a criticism of asymetry is deeply flawed.  Those personal home
pages may well become ubiquitous, but they will not be located *at
home*: they will reside on servers at the ISP -- with reliable 24x7
uptime (does your home PC have that? why?), adequate disk and memory,
expensive server software (which is rapidly getting smarter and more
complex) etc etc.

Oh yes, the ISPs also have very fast *symetric* (T3, OC3, OC12 etc),
shared between many users and many accesses, with individuals reaching
the ISP on assymetric links.  And I think this is true in general:
some people will want to host their own sites, but not many, and
perhaps they will pay (more) for a symetric service.  This probably is
true for some SoHo applications, and that is a role for SDSL or
HDSL, but in general I really do see the vast majority outsourcing (as
they do now with email server, for the same reason).

Finally, there is practical experience: Bob Olshansky at GTE Labs has
done a lot of work on this in connection with ADSL (see TELEPHONY Nov
94, and many -excellent- ANSI/ETSI contributions), and has reported
that logs of *real* internet traffic show an average asymetry of 15:1.
There is a wide variation (from <1:1 up to 55:1), but the clear
conclusion is that real traffic now, over existing (symetric) lines,
is highly assymmetric.  In fact, it is even more extreme -- much of
that lower speed path is handshakes and flow control from the TCP/IP
protocol. That is why ADSL shouldn't get too asymetric (10:1 say?) but
does *not* justify any attitiude that "The Internet is symetric, and
symetry is required in access to it."

What do people think?  What have I missed?  Comments or suggestions
please :)

HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!

r

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

From: [e-mail] (Thomas Peters)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 3 Jan 1996 19:36:21 GMT
Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc.


Some thoughts:

1. These sex lines, horoscopes, and even Western Union aren't tariffed
services. They are just normal purchases of services which happened to
be billed to a telephone account. Therefore normal contract and
consumer laws should apply.

2. Until the purchaser understands the terms and agrees to them either
explicitly or implicitly, there cannot be a contract or legal
obligation to pay. You can argue about what constitutes sufficient
disclosure and what constitutes consent, but dialing a wrong number
surely does not qualify.

3. I don't see any problem with billing these services to a phone
number if everyone is in agreement that they want to do this:
information provider, LEC, PUC, and consumer. Of course this means
that they have to mention how they plan to bill along with the price
and other terms.

4. Intentionally submitting false bills is fraud and a crime.  If the
LEC knows someone is doing this and keeps doing the billing anyway,
they are accomplices.

5. Because these are nontariffed services being billed to the
telephone account for convenience, any contract is clearly with the
person using the telephone, not with the owner of the telephone. If
the owner of the phone refuses to pay, the phone company should bow
out immediately, no questions asked. By not doing so they are abusing
their position as a public utility.  The IP is still entitled to
collect money legally owed. Their rights are exactly the same as, for
instance, the local furniture store which sells on credit. This means
they can try to figure out who really bought the merchandise and sue
them.  Of course they may have a hard time proving their case, but
maybe that is why the furniture store is careful to establish identity
and credit worthiness before they hand over the goods :-).


Happy New Year,

Tom Peters

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

From: [e-mail] (Glen Ecklund)
Subject: Re: ITA Dating Service Rip Off: Is This a Scam?
Date: 3 Jan 96 20:02:43 GMT
Organization: Heurikon Corporation


[e-mail] (Shubu Mukherjee) writes:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you *did* call their number.
>> You said so yourself.

> Never!  :-) Don't jump to conclusions.  Never ever did I say that any
> where in my posts.  We called them ___after___ we received our bill.
> Clear?

> If you still doubt it, check my previous posts and show me where I
> said so.

>> we know you called them and how long you were on the line,

> Aren't you being a bit judgmental?

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well okay ... let's let it pass for now
> with my wishes to you for a Happy New Year.    PAT]

I think I can clear up a misunderstanding here.  Shubu mentioned ITA
on a different newsgroup.  I directed him here, because I had read
something about ITA here before.  Shubu started this thread.  (I know
him from my previous job.)

Another person, with a previous experience with ITA, responded.  He
mentioned that he had called their number.  PAT seems to have confused
Shubu with the other person.  All better now?

(Glen, who feels like a matchmaker fixing up a spat.)


Glen Ecklund              Email: [e-mail]
Heurikon Corporation      Phone: [phone]
8310 Excelsior Drive      FAX:   [phone]
Madison, WI  53717  USA   http://www.heurikon.com

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jan 1996 14:40:11 -0600
From: Andrew C. Green <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "PCS Faces Rough Road"


Rob Hickey <[e-mail]> writes:

> An interesting article appeared in the {Globe and Mail} (Canada) regarding
> the future of PCS.  The author, Geoffrey Rowan, appears to cast doubt
> on the viability of PCS providers; he maintains that cellular technology
> will not be quickly missplaced for the following reasons:

I used an Ameritech PCS for about fifteen months back in '92 and '93
during a long-term trial, and can make some observations (purely as a
semi-itinerant user only, you understand):

> 1)  PCS phones cannot compete with cellular phones on price since they are
> practically giving away cell phones;

This strikes me as a marketing angle only; those cellphones have a real
cost which is simply being stashed elsewhere (say, in monthly fees),
and I would assume that PCS equipment would have to be marketed the
same way.

> 2)  PCS air time cannot compete with cellular air time charges since most
> cellular companies are not charging on evenings and weekends;

I'm afraid you lost me there; my cellular service charges for evenings
and weekends, albeit at a lower rate than peak, and my PCS also charged
at those times. If the provider wants to waive it as a marketing thing,
fine, they can, and I don't quite see how the technology in use has
anything to do with that.

> 3)  PCS phones cannot be practically any more portable than the latest
>cell phones;

My Motorola CT2 SilverLink PCS was an ounce or two lighter than the
NEC 701 cellphone I bought a couple of years later, and I saw a couple
of even lighter PCS models (I've forgotten the brand; I think it's in
my files) of about four ounces that were also used in the PCS trial.
Sizewise they were proportionally smaller as well, to the point of
being just plain fiddly to operate.

> 4)  PCS phones will not work in moving vehicles.

Assuming Mr. Rowan is referring to handoff capability here, the word
back then was "Real Soon Now", and I would imagine they now do. In 1992
I had no problems using it in a stationary vehicle, BTW.

> Mr. Rowan questions why the PCS industry would spend billions in
> infrastructure to duplicate services that already exist.

Ah, well, so would I, and so did most people who saw my PCS. They were
especially skeptical upon hearing of the reduced range of PCS
transceivers and microcells as compared to present-day cells,
considering how many transceivers would have to be socked into our
infrastructure to provide service. In the limited PCS trial we saw PCS
antennas stuck on the front of bars, hung on our local train station
roof, embedded in false ceilings of public buildings, etc.

> Is there merit to these arguments, and do the same conditions apply in
> the United States (given that millions have already been spent on
> licenses)?

I suppose there's some merit, yes. From a user-level perspective, the
most frequently-asked question I hear is simply, "Why do we need PCS
when we've already got cellular?" I'm stuck for a short answer myself.


Andrew C. Green
Adobe Systems, Inc. (formerly Frame Technology)
Advanced Product Services
441 W. Huron               Internet: [e-mail]
Chicago, IL  60610-3498

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

End of TELECOM Digest V16 #4
****************************