AGRISCS@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Don Ingli) (11/28/89)
I got this note from another list I am subscribed to. Let me pass this on
in hopes that someone has better info and maybe we all (as individuals)
should send a letter...
-------
Received: from UMRVMB.BITNET by UMCVMB.BITNET (Mailer R2.04) with BSMTP id
0378; Sun, 26 Nov 89 16:44:14 CST
Received: by UMRVMB (Mailer R2.05) id 3657; Sun, 26 Nov 89 16:44:49 CST
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 89 17:34:00 EDT
Reply-To: "MAPLE::LAK8141" <lak8141%maple.decnet@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Sender: COCO - Tandy Color Computer List <COCO@PUCC>
From: "MAPLE::LAK8141" <lak8141%maple.decnet@PINE.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject: This is a possible response to the proposal to charge 6 bucks for
ALL modem calls
X-To: coco <coco@pucc.princeton.edu>
To: Don Ingli <AGRISCS@UMCVMB.BITNET>
Title: Re:Charge more for modems?
To: All
From: Cynic (71)
Date: Sun Nov 26 09:58:20 1989
To:
Chairman of the FCC 1919 M Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554
Chairman, Senate Communication Subcommittee SH-227 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Chairman,
House Telecommunication Subcommittee B-331 Rayburn
Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal
which would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the
telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an
attempt to restrict the free exchange of information among the
growing number of computer users. Calls placed using modems
require no special telephone company equipment, and users of
modems pay the phone company for use of the network in the form
of a monthly bill. In short a modem call is the same as a voice
call, and should not be subject to any additional charges.
-----
What do you all think???
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| DON INGLI |
| UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE |
| WORK: (314) 875-5344 FAX: (314) 875-5335 |
| |
| bitnet: agriscs@umcvmb.bitnet internet: agriscs@umcvmb.missouri.edu |
| attmail: attmail!attbl!arpa!umcvmb.missouri.edu!agriscs |
| |
| ALL OPINIONS IN THIS NOTE ARE OF MY OWN AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE |
| FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+davef@lakesys.lakesys.com (Dave Fenske) (11/28/89)
It appeared as though someone's 2 cents were being solicited, so why not mine. The proposed modem charge is not the only item. It seems some of the Bell operating companies are now attempting to charge business rates for lines connected to any bulletin boards. The net effect of such things is to limit the free exchange of information. Could it be that the FCC is being inspired? I rather believe that these actions stem from the desire of AT&T and the Bell operating companies to firmly entrench themselves in the information selling business. p.s. appologies to those who are going to say "what the #$@& is this doing
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (11/28/89)
In article <21536@adm.BRL.MIL>, AGRISCS@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Don Ingli) writes: > Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal > which would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the > telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an > attempt to restrict the free exchange of information among the > growing number of computer users. Calls placed using modems > require no special telephone company equipment, and users of > modems pay the phone company for use of the network in the form > of a monthly bill. In short a modem call is the same as a voice > call, and should not be subject to any additional charges. Not that I want to pay a surcharge, but... A modem phone call is not the same as a voice phone call. Modem calls are continuously transmitting tones on the line, while a voice call has lots of periods of silence. This makes modem calls harder to multiplex on the phone network than voice calls. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Conor P. Cahill uunet!virtech!cpcahil 703-430-9247 ! | Virtual Technologies Inc., P. O. Box 876, Sterling, VA 22170 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) (11/28/89)
<< [...] In short a modem call is the same as a voice
<< call, and should not be subject to any additional charges.
<
< A modem phone call is not the same as a voice phone call. Modem calls are
< continuously transmitting tones on the line, while a voice call has lots
< of periods of silence. This makes modem calls harder to multiplex on the
< phone network than voice calls.
I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above
consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they
usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an
estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use,
the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down.
Bill Wyatt, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (Cambridge, MA, USA)
UUCP : {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
ARPA: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
SPAN: cfa::wyatt BITNET: wyatt@cfaearlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) (11/29/89)
In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >... >I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above >consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they >usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an >estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, >the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. >... Why do we have to pay more bucks to operate our modems over the phone lines than a voice user? If companies charged $$ based on how much of a service you used, the Post Office should charge MORE for bulk mail rather than less :-)
parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) (11/29/89)
In article <1989Nov28.011514.4193@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >A modem phone call is not the same as a voice phone call. Modem calls are >continuously transmitting tones on the line, while a voice call has lots >of periods of silence. This makes modem calls harder to multiplex on the >phone network than voice calls. > We've been through this before (a year or so ago). Modern telephone multiplex equipment doesn't depend on the amound of silence on the circuit. There was some multiplex equipment used for early undersea cables that worked that way, but this isn't a factor for what you are concerned about. Telephone mux equipment is either analog, in which case the circuit (about 300 to 4Khz bandpass) is frequency shifted onto a carrier frequency with a bunch of other circuits on different carrier frequencies, or digital, in which case the 300 to 4K bandpass is digitized and then time-domain muxed onto a faster circuit.
henry%angel@Sun.COM (Henry McGilton -- Software Products) (11/29/89)
This thread doesn't belong in this forum, but while it's here, this is my contribution: In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >... >I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above >consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they >usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an >estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, >the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. >... And in article <20589@Apple.COM> earlw@Apple.COM (Earl Wallace) writes: * Why do we have to pay more bucks to operate our modems * over the phone lines than a voice user? If companies * charged $$ based on how much of a service you used, the * Post Office should charge MORE for bulk mail rather * than less :-) Telephone exchanges are costly animals to build and maintain. A telephone exchange is usually amortised over a period of thirty or more years. A telephone operating company sets out in (say) 1980, to build a (say) 10,000-line exchange, based on tried and trusted technology available at that time, and the exchange must then stay operational until the year 2010. As I'm sure you all know (or should know), there is not a piece of switching equipment dedicated to every subscriber 100% of the time. The amount of switching equipment actually dedicated to subscribers' lines is based on past history of and projected future traffic patterns -- a complex distribution of the number of calls per unit time, times length of call. Events that perturb traffic upwards from the normal patterns can overload the capability of the switches to connect calls. The earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area on 17th October was a classic example -- the telephone switches were swamped for days. Where you'd have to wait upwards of 90 seconds for a dial tone you'd normally get within one or two seconds. What does this lecture have to do with modems? Simply this: a user of a modem is perturbing the traffic patterns in a big way. The number of calls made are probably about the same, but the holding time of a call is now orders of magnitude more than the average projected holding time. The huge increase in use of personal computers and modems have created a singularity in the traffic patterns for telephone calls. The operating companies simply cannot respond to this increased demand in any reasonable amount of time given the current technology. Expect the situation to get worse for the next ten years or so. To build the extra capacity before they are ready to do so, to handle the increased traffic that'll be there before they expected it, they'll need more cash to build the next generation of exchanges. Therefore, they must charge more money now. I suspect, by the way, that it's not the FCC that initiated the rate increases. I suspect that the operating companies reacted to the bind they're finding themselves in, and went to the FCC asking for a rate increase. ............ Henry +------------------+------------------------+---------------------------+ | Henry McGilton | I saw the future, | arpa: hmcgilton@sun.com | | Sun Microsystems | and it didn't work. | uucp: ...!sun!angel!henry | | Mt. View, CA | | | +------------------+------------------------+---------------------------+
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (11/29/89)
Greed again. I'm sure that the FCC didn't start this. Phone companies *love* to get into your pocket. What about FAX's. They are similar to modems. They chew up gobs of bandwidth too. Is the FCC going to start singling out faxes? I think that the FCC needs to pull up it's pants, and straighten up...Bending over for the phone companies is not thier business.
mjb@tahoe.unr.edu (Mike Brown) (11/30/89)
In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >... >I don't want extra charges either, but in addition to the above >consideration, modem calls are not the same simply because they >usually last much longer than a voice call. Somewhere I read an >estimate that if only 20% of household had modems in regular use, >the phone system would be hoplessly bogged down. >... I tend think that if calls of a longer duration cost more to maintain than a shorter call, anyone making a longer call should be billed accordingly. If it doesn't matter what you are doing while connected then you shouldn't be billed based on what you are doing. I have read somewhere that just taking the phone off the hook instead of unplugging it (to block all calls) causes a lot of work for the phone company (detecting an idle line, signaling it, cutting it off, then checking it to see when it goes active again). The length of calls argument falls to pieces in any case. Life with capitalism...
res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli) (11/30/89)
>What does this lecture have to do with modems? Simply >this: a user of a modem is perturbing the traffic patterns >in a big way. The number of calls made are probably about >the same, but the holding time of a call is now orders of >magnitude more than the average projected holding time. No. I have a phone line with a modem connected to it. I receive 5-6 calls per day and the average holding time is probably in the 1-2 minute range. The point I am trying to make is this: although statistically modem lines may have a longer holding time than voice lines, to base a rate on this fact would be as ludicrous as, say, charging psychiatrists more for a line than opthalmologists because statistics say they talk more. In fact, just about anyone with a monitored burglar alarm would be similarly affected, and you don't seriously believe burglar alarm modems tie up central office equipment significantly (Mind you, I am not talking about their effect on police lines here). No, if this is really an issue that is causing BOC executives to pull out their hair, they should attempt to solve the problem directly: get their Utilities Commission to allow them to to institute time/distance charging. If there is an unlimited-use provision in the tarriffs, I think it is only reasonable to expect high usage customers take to advantage of it, and this is just as valid an option for the modem user as for the family with 3 teenagers. To try to discriminate based on the use of a modem is possible because those supporting such maneuvers realize it would be a public relations disaster to try to resolve the problem the straight-forward way. There are more equitable solutions, though, and these should be the ones pursued if this is really a problem. -- Rob Stampfli / att.com!stampfli (uucp@work) / kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio) 614-864-9377 / osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp@home)
sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) (11/30/89)
< A modem phone call is not the same as a voice phone call. Modem calls are
< continuously transmitting tones on the line, while a voice call has lots
<...
True for the presently used modems. Just the reverse for low speeds in an
all-digital system. A 3KHz voice transmission requires about 6000 bits per
second (OK, maybe 4800bps?), so less than 6000 bps can be multiplexed better
than voice. The comparison is affected by pauses in speed, full versus half
duplex (few humans speak and listen simultaneously), etc.
Extra charges for "modems" could be applied as well to "modems" on digital
networks where the "modems" are actually less overhead than equivalent
voice circuits. More profit for less effort.
A lot can be done with 1200, 2400, or 4800 bps half duplex. Of course,
we all want to work faster...
--
Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco
Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco
I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) (11/30/89)
In article <23679@datapg.MN.ORG> sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) writes: >A 3KHz voice transmission requires about 6000 bits per >second (OK, maybe 4800bps?) 6000 bps for a 3Khz bandwidth means only 1 bit resolution. 1 bit speech is surprisingly intelligible, but the quality is very poor. The telephone system uses 8 bits per sample, as do the cheapo ADDACS you can buy for personal computers. This gives a theoretical dynamic range of 48 dB. (For speech research we try to get at least 12 bits resolution - good research quality ADDACs give a theoretical 16 bits.) So the data rate for telephone speech is 48K bits per second.
davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts) (12/01/89)
In article <128505@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, henry%angel@Sun.COM (Henry McGilton -- Software Products) writes: > This thread doesn't belong in this forum, but while it's > here, this is my contribution: My thoughts exactly, so here goes: I have a hard time accepting anything the phone company tells me about costs and billing policy. First of all they have to clean up their act and stop shafting the majority of their customers by changing them extra for DTMF ("touch-tone") service, which actually costs them LESS because: 1. Modern switching equipment uses DTMF, not pulse. A pulse line requires an extra conversion step to convert pulse to tone. (Actually, there are a few old pulse exchanges still out there. These can be distinguished by a different sounding ring (when calling a number on the old exchange) and you can hear the pulses clicking in the background after dialing from a tone line on such an exchange.) 2. DTMF is much faster than pulse, and ties up the system for less time spent dialing a phone number. Fortunately, you can fight back. If you are being charged more for a tone line, ask for a pulse line. SURPRISE! Unless you have an old pulse phone exchange, you still can use tone on the `pulse' line - the pulse-to-tone converter lets the DTMF tones through to the exchange. If the phone co. sends you an "Aha! You're using tone on a pulse line so we'll charge you more!" letter they can be taken to court. The Federal Trade Commission has ruled that if anyone gives you a service that you haven't asked for, it's a FREE GIFT and you don't owe them a cent. -- David Barts Pacer Corporation davidb@pacer.uucp ...!fluke!pacer!davidb
drears@pilot.njin.net (Dennis G. Rears) (12/01/89)
To ask a simple question: How can the fcc or at&t determine which calls are modem based calls and which calls are voice calls without violating the privacy of the call? Dennis
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (12/01/89)
Ahh, paranoia... From article <253@zircon.UUCP>, by davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts): > > I have a hard time accepting anything the phone company tells me > about costs and billing policy. What "phone company"? There is no longer a big monolithic "phone company", remember? > Fortunately, you can fight back. If you are being charged more for a > tone line, ask for a pulse line. SURPRISE! Unless you have an old > pulse phone exchange, you still can use tone on the `pulse' line - the > pulse-to-tone converter lets the DTMF tones through to the exchange. Sorry. I've tried using tone on a "new" pulse line and tone just doesn't get through. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. aqdata!sullivan@jarthur.claremont.edu San Dimas, CA
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (12/01/89)
In article <Nov.30.13.56.28.1989.10845@pilot.njin.net> drears@pilot.njin.net (Dennis G. Rears) writes: > To ask a simple question: How can the fcc or at&t determine which >calls are modem based calls and which calls are voice calls without >violating the privacy of the call? The same way they do now, or were you unaware that FCC tariffs require you to notify the phone company when you attach a modem to the line?
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (12/01/89)
In article <246@cfa.HARVARD.EDU> wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes: >...modem calls are not the same simply because they >usually last much longer than a voice call. True. That is good reason for charging by the minute. It is not good reason for charging more for modem calls. What is really happening is that the fairest way of charging, by time and distance, is unpopular with the public. So the telephone companies keep on trying to get the same effect by other devious ways. But some parts of the country (Chicago, I believe) already charge for all phone calls by distance and time. There is no justification for imposing any new rates in such places. As for long distance calls, there is enough competition now that the long distance companies ought to be allowed to choose any charging algorithm they want. I fail to see why the FCC keeps on trying to make strange rules. Existing mechanisms, mostly measured service, do a fine job where they are being used. Where they aren't they should be. Why is this in comp.unix.wizards? (Not any more.) Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (12/01/89)
In article <128505@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> henry%angel@Sun.COM (Henry McGilton) writes: >The huge increase in use of personal computers and modems >have created a singularity in the traffic patterns for >telephone calls. The operating companies simply cannot >respond to this increased demand in any reasonable amount >of time given the current technology. Expect the situation >to get worse for the next ten years or so. Nonsense. Telephone companies have known for more than ten years about increasing modem usage. Anybody with an ounce of sense who has been reading the microcomputer journals has known the same thing for about ten years. A glance at any popular computer publication will show you that increasing modem usage, far from being a secret, has been repeatedly commented on by journalists. Where have the telephone companies been hiding? Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
barmar@think.com (12/01/89)
In article <11721@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >or were you unaware that FCC tariffs require you to >notify the phone company when you attach a modem to the line? I thought the only thing you were required to give to the phone company when attaching a device to a phone line was the ringer equivalence number. And I think this requirement went away a few years ago, when owners were given possession of the lines within the building. Now it's the phone company's responsibility to safeguard their lines against whatever the user might attach, and we don't have to tell them what we're doing. Modem manuals used to include instructions to call the phone company, but the last modem I got didn't. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) (12/01/89)
From article <128505@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, by henry%angel@Sun.COM (Henry McGilton -- Software Products): > This thread doesn't belong in this forum, but while it's > here, this is my contribution: [much deleted] > What does this lecture have to do with modems? Simply > this: a user of a modem is perturbing the traffic patterns > in a big way. The number of calls made are probably about > the same, but the holding time of a call is now orders of > magnitude more than the average projected holding time. > The huge increase in use of personal computers and modems > have created a singularity in the traffic patterns for > telephone calls. The operating companies simply cannot > respond to this increased demand in any reasonable amount > of time given the current technology. Expect the situation > to get worse for the next ten years or so. To build the > extra capacity before they are ready to do so, to handle > the increased traffic that'll be there before they expected > it, they'll need more cash to build the next generation of > exchanges. Therefore, they must charge more money now. I > suspect, by the way, that it's not the FCC that initiated > the rate increases. I suspect that the operating companies > reacted to the bind they're finding themselves in, and went > to the FCC asking for a rate increase. I don't buy this argument for a number of reasons. First off, the phone companies all have some surge capacity built in. If that extra capacity is being gobbled up faster then anticipated by modems which have longer connect times, then the phone companies revenues are also telescoping upwards. In short, although I agree with you that the phone company costs are escalating because of modems, I also see that the phone company revenues are escalating because of modems. The reason that I see for the request is somthing like this, the phone company builds a phone exchange and based on traffic patterns projects a upgrade cost and replacement cost into budgets years down the road. Now, unexpectedly, modems cause a higher connect time, and the phone system will require extra money or an accelerated upgrade and replacement schedule. But they also get additional revenues that were unplanned. So what do they do? Do they apply a portion of the increased revenues against the new costs? -NO-. They give a stock dividend to their stock holders, give themselves bonuses and a pat on the back, and go to the FCC complaining about modem use. Note that this cycle is unlike the outages caused in the San Francisco Earth Quake, as this is an unplanned increase in demand that can span years or even decades, and that the phone companies CAN respond to adaquately. As a second reason, much of the heavy modem traffic is done at night, where the phone companies have no problem handling the demand. Hope this helps... -- Larry Taborek ..!uunet!grebyn!macom1!larry Centel Federal Systems larry@macom1.UUCP 11400 Commerce Park Drive Reston, VA 22091-1506 My views do not reflect those of Centel 703-758-7000
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/02/89)
In article <253@zircon.UUCP> davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts) writes: > The Federal > Trade Commission has ruled that if anyone gives you a service that you > haven't asked for, it's a FREE GIFT and you don't owe them a cent. But that won't stop them from blocking touch-tone on your line, which may make it impossible to use any services that require touch-tone if they elect to block it for more than the call setup period. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (12/02/89)
In article <253@zircon.UUCP> davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts) writes: >Fortunately, you can fight back. If you are being charged more for a >tone line, ask for a pulse line. SURPRISE! Unless you have an old >pulse phone exchange, you still can use tone on the `pulse' line... Unfortunately not true in all the places I've tried it. Apparently the telephone company installs a DTMF-blocking filter on the lines of subscribers who aren't paying for DTMF. So what happens? The people who are paying more for DTMF aren't really paying for DTMF. They are paying for the DTMF-blocking filters needed on the lines of those who aren't paying for DTMF. This is the opposite of the way it ought to be. People who don't pay for DTMF should be made to pay for the DTMF-blocking filter. And people who pay for DTMF then wouldn't have to pay for the filter any more, so they wouldn't have to pay for DTMF at all. Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (12/02/89)
In article <11721@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >...or were you unaware that FCC tariffs require you to >notify the phone company when you attach a modem to the line? This is one of those things, like the 55 mph speed limit, that people (justifiably) think you're crazy if you do it. In my case, the telephone company representative that I tried to notify was almost scandalized that I bothered. The implied question was, "Why are you bothering me with this stuff?" Then, when I insisted, she listened in a bored way while I ran through the long list FCC identification numbers, not even trying to disguise the fact that she thought I was weird. I didn't do it again. Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
davef@lakesys.lakesys.com (Dave Fenske) (12/02/89)
I hate to 'date' myself, but.... For those of you that don't know, the phone companies were the first to sell modem services back in the ##'s.
michael@stb.uu.net (Michael Gersten) (12/02/89)
This may sound like a dumb question, but... How can the phone company multiplex any conversation, voice or modem? The phone company does not know ahead of time when there will be silence on the line, both are sampled at the same frequency, so there is the same total amount of data to be sent off, so they should be identical for multiplexing purposes, right? Or am I missing something very important here? Michael
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (12/03/89)
In article <21536@adm.BRL.MIL-> AGRISCS@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Don Ingli) writes:
->I got this note from another list I am subscribed to. Let me pass this on
->in hopes that someone has better info and maybe we all (as individuals)
->should send a letter...
.....
(Header deleted - all pertinent text included - wjv)
->Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal
->which would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the
->telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an
->attempt to restrict the free exchange of information among the
->growing number of computer users. Calls placed using modems
->require no special telephone company equipment, and users of
->modems pay the phone company for use of the network in the form
->of a monthly bill. In short a modem call is the same as a voice
->call, and should not be subject to any additional charges.
->
->
->What do you all think???
Well of course the phone company argument is that it ties up lines longer,
etc,, etc , etc ....
Singling out a subset of a group isn't fair (IMHO) and computer modem users
are just a subset of all modem users, since a FAX machine contains a modem.
The proposal should consider all devices containing modems. Then everyone who
owns a FAX will get involved, and should spell defeat for the proposal.
If computer modems only are affected I would suspect there would be grounds
for a suit of some sort.
Hey - how about a surcharge for slow modems, and let us with high speeds
(9600) go free. After all we don't use the lines nearly as much :-) :-) :-)
--
Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill
: bill@bilver.UUCPmichael@stb.uu.net (Michael Gersten) (12/03/89)
In article <11721@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <Nov.30.13.56.28.1989.10845@pilot.njin.net> drears@pilot.njin.net (Dennis G. Rears) writes: >> [How can they tell if it is a voice or modem call?] > >The same way they do now, >or were you unaware that FCC tariffs require you to >notify the phone company when you attach a modem to the line? 2 problems. 1. On a PER CALL, not per line basis, how will they tell if it is a modem call versus a voice call? 2. My local company (GTE, los angeles) told me 4 years ago that they no longer needed, nor cared, for information about modems because they had upgraded their equipment. Now, I know that the electronic switching systems can tell in one second if a constant tone is on the line (and they use that to stop phreakers). My question is: Without paying attention to the type of tone, and in doing so violating privacy, how can they tell if someone is humming or if a modem is squaking? (And what about trailblaizers which are not constant tones?) Michael
condict@cs.vu.nl (Michael Condict) (12/04/89)
In article <31848@news.Think.COM> barmar@think.com writes: >In article <11721@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>or were you unaware that FCC tariffs require you to >>notify the phone company when you attach a modem to the line? > >I thought the only thing you were required to give to the phone company >when attaching a device to a phone line was the ringer equivalence number. >And I think this requirement went away a few years ago, when owners were >given possession of the lines within the building. Now it's the phone >company's responsibility to safeguard their lines against whatever the user >might attach, and we don't have to tell them what we're doing. Modem >manuals used to include instructions to call the phone company, but the >last modem I got didn't. Surely you are not suggesting that it is legal for me to connect to my telephone line one of the following: (1) A "device" consisting of a 0.1 ohm resistor (why pay the gas or oil company for heat, when the phone company will heat your house for free?). (2) A light bulb (why pay the electric company?). (3) A "60-baud modem" whose output is obtained by copying its input (the 115V power line) onto the telephone line (that should "light up the switchboard" as the expression goes :-). Or is the phone company's equipment really smart enough to use current limiters in both directions, so you can neither steal power, nor fry their equipment with externally-generated power? -- Michael Condict condict@cs.vu.nl Vrije University Amsterdam
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (12/04/89)
I'm not usually a reader of this group (I was tipped off to look here by
a certifiable unix wizard) but this discussion belongs in, and overlaps,
comp.dcom.telecom, which is moderated... Anyway, I'd like to SQUASH
THE RUMORS that are cropping up here in c.u.w!
Somebody started this last week with a posting from some BBS that
insinuated that the FCC was re-enacting their previously-dismissed
proposal to charge additional fees to "enhanced service providers"
(ESPs, in FCC parlance). The rumor is FALSE!
A couple of years ago, a LOT of us spent a lot of time and money
fighting a proposal that would effectively classified "ESPs" as
interstate carriers, and subjected them to the same charges that long
distance carriers (MCI, AT&T, et al) pay to the local Bells. Right now,
there are two very different types of attachments to local US telcos.
You can be an end-user, and pay a state-tariffed rate. Or you can be a
carrier, and pay a federally-tariffed rate, which includes several cents
per minute (about $5/hr, actually) for usage. This usage fee provides
the bells with the subsidies that hold down residential local monthly
rates in most areas (especially rural ones) to something below cost.
Reclassifying ESPs as carriers would thus add about $5/hr to their
costs, which they'd pass along to users.
ESPs are hard to define. The FCC appeared to include any time-sharing
service (i.e., CompuServe), packet carrier (Tymnet) or other service
that allowed messages to be passed across state lines. Most use modems
for access, and much modem access could be classified "enhanced". The
actual definition, though, would have been fuzzy and no doubt have led
to many court cases. Most Bells supported the FCC on this, but few
others did.
The FCC, facing extreme opposition, relented. Then the FCC members'
terms mostly expired, and new commissioners were appointed. During the
confirmation hearings, new FCC chair Alf Sykes pledged, on the record
before Congress, that the FCC would NOT revive that proposal.
Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.), whose subcommittee has FCC oversight,
made very clear that Congress was ready to pass a law in a minute's time
that would overturn such a plan; they didn't ban it in the FCC's
appropriation this year out of courtesy to Sykes and his pledge.
I do have the official statements from Markey here, and the sense of the
Congress is clear. ESPs, which are mostly modem users (but also some
audio services like voice mail), will be treated as end users and not as
interstate carriers. If the FCC tries to change this, they will get a
fight and it will cost them plenty (in their appropriations), and it
will probably be overturned by Congress. Yes, the Bells still want the
charge, but they don't seem at all likely to get it.
Now there is a very different state regulatory issue in some states
where some telcos are trying to discriminate against modem users, but
that's unrelated to the FCC and beyond the scope of this post. (In
particular, the regulatory commissions who regulated Southwestern Bell
filed support with the FCC for the Bell position for the high ESP
charges. Makes you wonder. But remember that these states are
dominated, politically, by knownothings who hold all technology suspect,
not to mention educated people.) And if you're interested in the "costs"
of modem usage, to the telco, check out comp.dcom.telecom (the Telecom
Digest). So PLEASE, stop rumormongering AND CHECK THE FACTS! Thank
you.
fred perry@Morgan.COM (Perry Metzger) (12/05/89)
Warning: This has gotten WAY off the original topic, and has nothing to do with unix-wizardry any more. Lets move it somewhere else, shall we? In article <11721@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >or were you unaware that FCC tariffs require you to >notify the phone company when you attach a modem to the line? Ever try actually calling them up to tell them? I know that some places are set up for it, but I have tried several times to inform New Jersey Bell of the ringer equivalence number of equipment I have hooked up to the line and, law or no law, they have no idea what I am talking about or how to record the data. For the most part, the phone companies don't actually record the information they lobbied so hard to require that they get. It would cost too much to add a way to record it to the network operations systems. Perry
davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts) (12/05/89)
Let's move this thread out out comp.unix.wizards. Comp.misc may not
be the best place, but there's no alt.phone-phlames group :-).
In article <1146@cirrusl.UUCP>, dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
-> Unfortunately not true in all the places I've tried it. Apparently the
-> telephone company installs a DTMF-blocking filter on the lines of
-> subscribers who aren't paying for DTMF.
Yeah, I goofed. I had tried this enough times, and it always worked
for me, but there's more exxhanges in the country than the dozen or
so I've tried it on :-).
-> So what happens? The people who are paying more for DTMF aren't really
-> paying for DTMF. They are paying for the DTMF-blocking filters needed
-> on the lines of those who aren't paying for DTMF.
->
-> This is the opposite of the way it ought to be. People who don't pay
-> for DTMF should be made to pay for the DTMF-blocking filter. And
-> people who pay for DTMF then wouldn't have to pay for the filter any
-> more, so they wouldn't have to pay for DTMF at all.
My thoughts exactly. So even if I'd be living in a place where they
filter out the DTMF during the dialing stage, I'd still order a pulse
line. I'd get a nice warm feeling from paying less for a line that
costs the phone company more.
... Until everybody starts doing this and then the phone co. would
RAISE rates on pulse lines so they'd be more than DTMF. :-(
--
David Barts Pacer Corporation
davidb@pacer.uucp ...!fluke!pacer!davidbgwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (12/06/89)
In article <572@colorado.Morgan.COM> perry@Morgan.COM (Perry Metzger) writes: >>notify the phone company when you attach a modem to the line? >Ever try actually calling them up to tell them? Yes, every time I attach a modem to the line. Mostly it's the ringer equivalent that matters, because it may require tweaking of the current generator on the local loop.
grimesg@makalu (George Grimes) (12/06/89)
In article <1989Dec2.070734.3853@stb.uu.net> michael@stb.uu.net (Michael Gersten) writes: >This may sound like a dumb question, but... > >How can the phone company multiplex any conversation, voice or modem? >The phone company does not know ahead of time when there will be >silence on the line, both are sampled at the same frequency, so there >is the same total amount of data to be sent off, so they should be >identical for multiplexing purposes, right? > >Or am I missing something very important here? > > Michael Yes, you are missing something very important. There is no requirement for predictable periods of silence for multiplexing. Find a book with a description of time division multiplexing and read it. George ******************************************************************************* Any similarity between my opinion and my employer's is purely coincidental and subject to immediate review if you bring it to my attention! +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | DOMAIN: grimesg@sj.ate.slb.com | George Grimes | | UUCP: {decwrl,uunet}!sjsca4!grimesg | Schlumberger Technologies | | INTERNET: grimesg%sjs@sdr.slb.com | 1601 Technology Drive | | PHONE:(408)437-5305/Fax:(408)453-0137 | San Jose, Ca. 95115 | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
pcf@galadriel.bt.co.uk (Pete French) (12/06/89)
From article <1989Dec2.070734.3853@stb.uu.net>, by michael@stb.uu.net (Michael Gersten): > This may sound like a dumb question, but... > > How can the phone company multiplex any conversation, voice or modem? > The phone company does not know ahead of time when there will be > silence on the line, both are sampled at the same frequency, so there > is the same total amount of data to be sent off, so they should be > identical for multiplexing purposes, right? > > Or am I missing something very important here? No, your not missing anything, they are all sampled the same and multiplexed the same. There is no difference between the calls - they are just audio signals as far as the exchange is concerned - that the the whole point of a modem, to make turn a binary signal into a form which is identical to a voice so that it can be carried over the PSTN. I find it extremely difficult to think of any reasons for a telephone company to not want to carry modem calls - BT actually started a service (PRESTEL) to encourgae people to use modems to increase the revenue from local calls. I think the French did something similar and handed out freee terminals ! The only modem calls that I have ever heard objected to were those using Bell frequencies rather than CCITT, aparrently because they interfered with signals used between exchanges. -Pete French. -- -Pete French. | "The rhythm's gone, British Telecom Research Labs. | The radio's dead. Martlesham Heath, East Anglia. | And the damage done, All my own thoughts (of course) | Inside my head."
farinas@geocub.greco-prog.fr (Luis Farinas) (12/08/89)
>the french handed some free terminals..
COmpletely right.
You can get a free terminal (called minitel in France) from the French
administration to replace your paper phone book.
The minitel is now widely used in France by everybody to make
Plane and train reservations, to buy things from different stores, to
get information on quite any subject (meteo, holydays, cars,...).
The minitel is a 75/1200 bauds terminal.
But there is a particularity in the French system; these minitels
are always used to call special numbers which will connect the user
to the TRANSPAC system, which is completely devoted to computers
communication.
In fact, computers and human voices are using different nets.
(Of course, you can connect two computers using standard numbers
but it's much more expensive; TRANSPAC is quite cheap).
In fact, it would be long to explain the whole thing, but it is a
great succes (financially) for the French telecom. (BTW, the phone
company is a state company in France).adk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Andrew D Kailhofer) (12/11/89)
In article <253@zircon.UUCP> davidb@Pacer.UUCP (David Barts) writes: >In article <128505@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, henry%angel@Sun.COM (Henry McGilton -- Software Products) writes: [ some stuff that I comment to in comp.dcom.telecom ] Let's move this thread!!!
Kemp@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL (12/13/89)
Bill Poser writes: > Scot E Wilcoxon writes: >> A 3KHz voice transmission requires about 6000 bits per >> second (OK, maybe 4800bps?) > > 6000 bps for a 3Khz [sic] bandwidth means only 1 bit resolution. > 1 bit speech is surprisingly intelligible, but the quality is very > poor. The telephone system uses 8 bits per sample, as do the > cheapo ADDACS you can buy for personal computers. This gives a > theoretical dynamic range of 48 dB. (For speech research we try > to get at least 12 bits resolution - good research quality ADDACs > give a theoretical 16 bits.) So the data rate for telephone speech > is 48K bits per second. Scot is right. Bill's facts are correct but not his conclusions. Speech with a bandwidth of 3.6 KHz can be transmitted with very good quality at 4800 bps, using an algorithm known as Code Excited Linear Prediction. In fact, the Federal Government is in the process of ratifying Federal Standard 1016 specifying the details of this method of digital speech coding at 4800 bps. The telephone companies presently use ADPCM coding at 32 Kbps for most of their trunks, but work is underway on a low-delay CELP at 16 Kbps. Speech coding at 4.8 - 8.0 Kbps will be used first on digital cellular circuits where bandwidth is extremely tight. Bill Poser's comments on bit rate and distortion apply only to straight PCM, not speech compression systems. Dave Kemp <Kemp@dockmaster.ncsc.mil> "My sister is a yahoo"
poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) (12/13/89)
In article <21728@adm.BRL.MIL> Kemp@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL writes: >Bill's facts are correct but not his conclusions. >Speech with a bandwidth of 3.6 KHz can be transmitted with very good >quality at 4800 bps... >The telephone companies presently use ADPCM coding at 32 Kbps for most >of their trunks, but work is underway on a low-delay CELP at 16 Kbps. >Speech coding at 4.8 - 8.0 Kbps will be used first on digital cellular >circuits where bandwidth is extremely tight... >Bill Poser's comments on bit rate and distortion apply only to straight >PCM, not speech compression systems. Actually, my conclusions are essentially correct for the technology in use, which I believe is what were discussing. ADPCM produces a relatively small compression over straight PCM. I am well aware of the existence of a variety of speech compression techniques that produce lower bit rates. Indeed, the theoretical lower limit is considerably lower than 4800bps. I have heard demos of research coding techniques at as low as ~50 bps. (The theoretically ideal technique is to recognize the speech at the input, transmit codes for the recognized segments, and then resynthesize it again. Since speech recognition is hard, this kind of compression is hard too.) But the present telephone system does not use the more elaborate compression techniques.
CCDN@levels.sait.edu.au (david newall) (12/18/89)
poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) writes: > (The theoretically ideal technique [for speech compression in telephone > systems] is to recognize the speech at the input, transmit codes for the > recognized segments, and then resynthesize it again. Since speech > recognition is hard, this kind of compression is hard too.) What comes out of this "theoretically ideal" technique would sound like me? Or is it not "theoretically" useful to be able to recognise someone's voice? Humbug! David Newall Phone: +61 8 343 3160 Unix Systems Programmer Fax: +61 8 349 6939 Academic Computing Service E-mail: ccdn@levels.sait.oz.au SA Institute of Technology Post: The Levels, South Australia, 5095
poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser) (01/08/90)
In article <3883@levels.sait.edu.au> CCDN@levels.sait.edu.au (david newall) writes: >What comes out of this "theoretically ideal" technique would sound like me? >Or is it not "theoretically" useful to be able to recognise someone's voice? >Humbug! None of the relatively highly compressed speech that I have heard seemed to preserve much information about the speaker's identity. Unfortunately, very little is known about the locus of speaker-specific information in the signal, so it is impossible to make a good theoretical estimate of the minimum amount of information necessary to transmit speaker identity as well as the linguistic content. Presumably one could set an upper bound by determining how many different voices a speaker can distinguish. To my knowledge this has not been done.