gutierre@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Michael Gutierrez) (11/22/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0524m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> you write: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 524, message 3 of 9 >A friend who works at KOMO Radio in Seattle told me that their air >traffic guy during drive time was told by THE FCC to stop using a >cellular phone from his small plane. They said it was ILLEGAL!..... This brings up a point with what radio-bandwith to use for traffic reporting. With the banning of (obviously) useful Celluar in airplanes and restrictions on using a VERY narrow spectrum in regular 2-way radio, what are they left with. Is Airphone developed enough to use in small planes, or are they allowed to use it at all??? A traffic monitoring company in Los Angeles got busted ("fined") by the FCC for using regular business-band radios to do traffic reporting. They complained that there was no other way to report traffic since they had (just back then) banned celluar in airplanes, and the 2-way radio space allocated for that purpose was hopelessly overcrowded. --------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 89 10:53:28 -0800 From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <gutierre@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: TELecom USA In article <telecom-v09i0525m01@vector.dallas.tx.us> you write: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 525, message 1 of 11 >In article <telecom-v09i0523m10@vector.dallas.tx.us>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu >(TELECOM Moderator) writes: >> "If you are an equal-access dial one-plus customer of Telecom*USA, >> you can enjoy these benefits: >> Easy Dialing: Dial 1 + 700 + 7 digit number within your area code. >This can't work here. The San Francisco LATA is comprised of three >area codes: 415, 707, and the very northern part of 408........... Actually, this CAN work here in the Bay Area. Remember, 700 is just an entry in the local telco route table directing the call to the default IXC (L.D. carrier). The L.D. carrier would then see the incoming ANI, and the switch would just translate 700-NXX-0000 to ANI/NPA-NXX-0000. You would still have to dial NPA-NXX-0000 for other A/C's. This though, leads to other problems, in that the L.D. carriers are screaming that when intra-lata competition comes around, the LEC's (local telco's) want 10XXX dialling, but the L.D. carriers want something more simpler. Remember, 700-NXX-XXXX is the only area code that does automatic routing to a L.D. carrier *right now* (other than standard inter-lata NPA's). MCI uses their 700#'s for their virtual private network ("VNET"), but all that is is a fancy telephone number translator (2 of them to be precise, in West Orange, NJ. and Richardson, TX). Each MCI switch has to poll those places (they're VAXes) to translate the incoming 700# to either a POTS (regular) telephone number or a switch-location and trunk. (Then Linc observed) >Hmm. The other question is, is it legal? In some areas, such as our >own wonderful state of California, Pacific*Bell has a legal monopoly >on all intra-LATA traffic. No one else is allowed to offer service. >The Telecom*USA service would clearly violate this provision. Not for long. Part of Pac*Hell.....uhhh, Pac*Bell's 3-part plan of de-tarriffing services is in Plan 3, "they" will allow intra-lata competition from other carriers, like MCI, Sprint, etc. This is supposed to be next year sometime??? >As for the rates being cheaper, I often use my MCI card for intra-LATA >toll calls, because it is often much cheaper than using my Pac*Bell >card....... This is true ONLY because the L.D. carriers dont have the facilities to implement routing-tables to block intra-lata calls. The problem is you have to set 2 tables, a look-up for origination and destination. Those tables HAVE to be local to the switch, there's no way a switch is going to poll some overloaded computer at a remote location for the look-up tables, especially is you call is speeding through a DMS-250 in milliseconds. You'd slow down your traffic by 30-40 percent. A good batallion of lawyers would have any PUC decision to block such calls overturned faster than you can dial 976-STUD. >...... First of all, I don't have to pay a $0.40 surcharge (if I'm >calling from anywhere in my home area code), and secondly the per- >minute charges are often lower than Pac*Bell's.......... Exactly. You're taking advantage of 2 things. One, that MCI has lower rates to begin with, and 2nd, that MCI has that "Around-Town" feature which makes your call look like a direct-dialed call. Pac*Bull...uhhh (sorry), Pac*Bell charges you station-to-station for coin calls, or surcharges you for card calls. Remember though, MCI can *NOT* refund intra-lata calls. Many people have tried to using courts-lawyers-PUC's-etc, but this is the only rule nobody (right on up to CEO Bill McGowan) can bend. The only time it can happen is if a Customer Service rep is brand new, and doesn't see the "*Intralata Call - MCI May Not Serve*" warning on the pricing screen on her terminal.
laubach@aspen.iag.hp.com (Mark Laubach) (11/23/89)
You may want to check archives for rec.aviation for more detail on this one. Basically, the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) specifically prohibit the use *any* passenger-carried electronic devices aboard an aircraft, except for a limited few things, like electric shavers, tape cassette players, etc. Anything that receives and/or transmits is deemed to be a possible source of interference for the sensitive navigation and communication systems on board the aircraft. I don't have the FARs handy or I would quote the section for you. Mark Laubach Hewlett-Packard, and Private Pilot
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (11/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0527m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>, gutierre@nsipo.arc. nasa.gov (Robert Michael Gutierrez) writes: > A traffic monitoring company in Los Angeles got busted ("fined") by > the FCC for using regular business-band radios to do traffic > reporting. They complained that there was no other way to report > traffic since they had (just back then) banned celluar in airplanes, > and the 2-way radio space allocated for that purpose was hopelessly > overcrowded. There is a small number of two-way channels that are permitted to be used for "on-air" feeds. In metropolitan areas these channels are so scarce that broadcasters have "frequency coodinating committees" made up of station representatives so that maximum use can be made of the limited resources. It has been recognized that traffic reporting services somehow need to be included in the allocation considerations for these auxillary broadcast channels. Unfortunately, at least from the meetings that I have attended and been told about, the traffic reporters are incredibly arrogant and make excessive demands concerning the use of these channels. In the San Francisco area, there are two traffic services (Traffic Central and Metro Traffic--are there others?) who seem to feel that their business takes precedence over normal broadcast licensee use of these bands. In any event, it has long been understood that under no circumstances can cellular phones be used for this purpose. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !