From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jan 7 16:08:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA17492; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:08:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 16:08:29 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801072108.QAA17492@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #1 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jan 98 16:08:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 1 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Better Late Than Never: Another Year Underway (TELECOM Digest Editor) Online Conference: RBOCs Into Long Distance? (Adam Gaffin) New Minnesota Area Code (Tad Cook) US West Is in Pact for Fiber-Optic Network (Tad Cook) CIUG PPP Interoperability Workshop (Bob Larribeau) Book Review: "Handbook of Local Area Networks", John P. Slone (Rob Slade) 55th UCLA Engineering and Management Program (Bill Goodin) Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (Declan McCullagh) Everything Happened Around the Switchboard (Pat O'Neil) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:03:47 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Better Late than Never: Another Year Underway Yes, I know I said last Wednesday night that I would be back with the first issue of the new year on Monday ... but then some funny things happened on the way to the forum ... By the way, I still do not have all the new entries, etc, for the web page installed but I thought I better get an issue or two of the Digest out before massis.lcs.mit.edu either (a) gets its file system full again or (b) simply shuts down and blocks off the outside world again ... I'll try to do the web stuff today and Thursday, I promise. Thursday (New Year's Day) and Friday I was very sick with some sort of flu or virus from a bad cold. My energy level was zero. Saturday and Sunday I was called out of town to a funeral. Sunday night I had a marathon session starting about 6 pm and running through 615 am Monday morning loading many new files into the archives and updating the index of subjects for the past year. Off to bed, only to wake up later Monday and try to get an issue of the Digest out, to find out that the massis 'write system is full' and no way to do anything on line and too late to reach anyone at MIT. Tuesday I was able to reach a couple admins there who very promptly did give massis a very good cleaning out and rebooted it -- it had been up for 61 days at that point. Great, now I can work on the Digest -- I thought -- only to get on line for all of five minutes Tuesday night and have the thing crash again. So not only could I not work on the Digest, I could not do anyting on the web pages either ... :( This brings us to Wednesday morning -- the present time -- and I am starting to get a little fidgity and itchy. It is time to start 1998 for sure, and even the flu bug or whatever that has pestered me for a few days is now apparently gone. So welcome to another year of TELECOM Digest. There are lots of new messages waiting in the queue, and we'll share them together over the next couple of days. In the meantime you should have received *two* special mailings in the past couple days. One was an updated catalog of the Telecom Archives, and the other was a HUGE file containing an index of the authors and subjects which have appeared here over the past three years, January 1995 through December, 1997. If you somehow did not get the latter file and want it, you casn pull it using FTP or the web from the archives. Happy New Year! PAT ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: Online Conference: RBOCs Into Long Distance? Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 17:13:44 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com Network World Fusion next week (1/12) sponsors a threaded discussion on one of the more contentious questions in telecommunications today: Whether RBOCs should be allowed into the long distance market. Randy L. New, vice president of legislative implementation for BellSouth Corp. and C.K. Casteel, regional executive of public policy, MCI Telecommunications Corp. will debate the question with each other and with users. This week, you can see their opening position papers along with background articles. We've also opened up the conference area early so that folks can discuss the ramifications of last week's federal court ruling on RBOC long-distance services. The URL: http://www.nwfusion.com/forum/ld.html If you haven't used NWFusion before, you'll have to register first, but it's free. Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 "We are becoming a nation of 'rutabaga men'" - Boston Globe ------------------------------ Subject: New Minnesota Area Code Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:06:16 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New Minnesota Area Code for St. Paul, Suburbs Takes Effect in July By Martin J. Moylan, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Minn. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 6--Here are three digitqs residents of the eastern metropolitan Twin Cities should memorize and pass along if they want to stay in touch with the rest of Minnesota and the world: 6-5-1. That's the new area code for St. Paul and other points east now assigned to the 612 area code. They're scheduled to start using 651 in July. Bellcore, a telecommunications organization that does research for the Baby Bells, announced the code assignment Monday. During a "grace period" from July 1998 to January 1999, calls between eastern and western metropolitan communities will go through with -or without -- callers dialing an area code. But starting in January 1999, those calls will require 10 digits -the appropriate area code plus a seven-digit telephone number. Ten-digit dialing will not incur toll charges. Calls that are toll-free now will remain toll-free after the area code split. Calls within each of the two metropolitan area codes will require only the usual seven digits. The dividing line between the 612 and 651 area codes runs north to south. St. Paul, Roseville, New Brighton, Arden Hills, Lino Lakes, Forest Lake, Mendota Heights, Eagan, Rosemount, Farmington and other points east get 651. Minneapolis, Columbia Heights, Fridley, Mounds View, Blaine, Bloomington, Burnsville, Apple Valley, Lakeville and other communities in the west keep 612, for now. Given the Twin Cities' voracious appetite for new numbers for cellular telephones, second lines, computer modems and other devices, the state Public Utilities Commission expects to consider the need for yet another area code in the summer of 1999. By 2001, the western half of the metropolitan area could need another area code, the PUC believes. That code would be 952. ------------------------------ Subject: U S West Is in Pact for Fiber-Optic Network Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:11:11 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) U S West Is in Pact for Fiber-Optic Network By Leyla Kokmen, The Denver Post Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News As Williams Communications jumps into the telecommunications business after a three-year hiatus, US West Communications is standing alongside the Tulsa, Okla., company as the "anchor tenant" of its next-generation fiber-optic network. Williams, which touted itself as the nation's premier "carrier's carrier" at a news conference Monday at New York City's Madison Square Garden, plans to work as a wholesaler -- selling capacity, or bandwidth, on its fiber-optic network to other companies. US West is the first Baby Bell to forge such an alliance, said David Beigie, spokesman for US West. This partnership will give consumers who want to work with a regional Bell company one place to go for voice and Internet service over a national fiber-optic network, he added. With the explosion of people sending data over telephone lines and the Internet, having more bandwidth is essential. Williams officials said the company's network is more efficient than both traditional telephone networks and the newer fiber-optic networks now under construction by younger companies. As it strives to build upon its data networking services, US West will be the primary user of Williams' network. Terms of the partnership weren't disclosed. An energy company, Williams is a major transporter of natural gas. Its fiber-optic networkstretches through conduits buried along the rights of way of its pipelines. The network now consists of a single strand of fiber stretching across 11,000 miles. By the end of this year, Williams plans to add another 7,000 miles. It also will add more fibers where greater capacity is needed, said Ophyll D'Costa, vice president of business development for US West Enterprise Services, the Denver company's data networking arm. While other companies also may offer state-of-the-art fiber-optic networks, they are only in the building stages now, D'Costa said. One of the reasons US West formed its partnership with Williams is that the company already has so much fiber in place. "They have the capacity to serve our needs today," D'Costa said. Williams sold all but that one strand of fiber to WorldCom in January 1995. After the expiration Monday qof a three-year non-compete agreement with WorldCom, Williams can re-enter the telecommunications market. For US West, Williams' network will allow the company to expand both its data transmission services, which target mainly business customers, moving into areas outside of its traditional 14-state region. Key network hubs include San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. US West will begin offering data services over the Williams network later this year, Beigie said. Eventually, US West also will offer long-distance telephone service over the lines, he added. During Monday's announcement, Sol Trujillo, president and CEO of US West, called the partnership with Williams a "virtual acquisition" of a nationwide backbone system. The value of the partnership, he said, is that US West can continue focusing on the growth of its data services while Williams focuses on building, operating and taking care of the network. "We don't have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars up front or tens of millions maintaining the backbone network," Trujillo said. Because this reduces the cost of US West's infrastructure, consumers eventually will see lower prices, D'Costa said. But some competitors said they prefer to have their own fiber-optic network. "The middle and upper end of end of business customers in this country, they don't want to talk to people who are resellers," said Joseph Nacchio, president and CEO of Qwest Communications Inc. "With the Fortune 1000s or multinationals, you'll have a tough time unless you demonstrate control of the asset and architecture from level one." Qwest, based in Denver, is building its own 16,000-mile high-speed, high-capacity fiber-optic network around the country. Its network consists of 48 strands of fiber buried in conduits along railroad rights-of-way, with the ability to add 100 more fibers over time, Nacchio said. Calling the Williams network "fundamentally different" than the one Qwest is building, Nacchio said the telecommunications market is large enough for competition from numerous companies. "If we're not worried about networks that have been build by AT&T, MCI, Sprint and WorldCom, we're not worried about who's building behind us," Nacchio said. "This market is a big market." ------------------------------ From: Bob Larribeau Subject: CIUG PPP Interoperability Workshop Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 05:44:05 -0800 Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 The California ISDN Users' Group will be holding its next PPP Interoper- ability Workshop the week of February 23 at the Park Plaza Hotel in Burlingame, just south of the San Francisco airport. If you are a manufacturer of ISDN equipment, this is an opportunity to test the interoperability of your equipment against that from 50 other companies. Leading companies for the U.S., Europe, and Asia attend. You can pick up an application and further information at or . Bob Larribeau Chairman California ISDN Users' Group ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:45:53 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Handbook of Local Area Networks", John P. Slone BKHBKLAN.RVW 970408 "Handbook of Local Area Networks", John P. Slone ed., 1995, 0-7913-2416-8 %E John P. Slone %C 823 Debra St, Livermore, CA 94550 %D 1995 %G 0-7913-2416-8 %I Auerbach Publications %O 510-455-9493 212-971-5000 800-950-1216 auerbach@wgl.com %P 360 %T "Handbook of Local Area Networks: 1995-96 Yearbook" I was disappointed in the first few chapters. The topics were important, but the content was quite simplistic, and didn't even address the level of knowledge that managers would need to have. Slone's own article on the World Wide Web started to change my opinion: it was a good, basic backgrounder, although not really addressing the newest technology. The individual articles vary greatly in quality and usefulness. None are really very technical, although the best are technically informed. The primary audience appears to be technical or telecommunications management, rather than staff. Ordering and division of the individual pieces is not very clear. The two Frame Relay articles are in separate sections. (One is not much more than you would get in a standard sales seminar; the other is an excellent guide to choosing frame relay in comparison with other technologies.) In total, there is something here for pretty much everyone. Article topics include hubs, 100M bit ethernet, Internet connectivity, frame relay, remote access, the Web, CORBA (Common Object Request Broker Architecture), desktop operating systems, servers, wiring, client/server, conferencing, hierarchical storage management, LAN analysis, and remote monitoring. As an overview of some of these technologies, it can be valuable, although there can also be a lot of wasted ink. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHBKLAN.RVW 970408 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: 55th UCLA Engineering and Management Program Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:04:28 -0800 March 29-April 3, 1998, on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. For more than 40 years, UCLA Extension's Engineering and Management Program has provided "how to" answers to the challenges that technical managers face daily. The program is designed for experienced first-level technical supervisors, mid-level technical managers, technical professionals with high qadvancement potential, and non-technical managers in technology-based organizations. A special benefit is the opportunity for participants to personalize their own curriculum by selecting four courses, each one meeting two hours per day. Participants may choose from 24 course offerings to address these and other important management questions: o How can I develop products and services that will have a market? o How can I use technology as one of the drivers of organizational change? o How can I influence persons who do not report directly to me or to my boss? o How can I create a culture that nourishes creativity, customer service, risk taking, and accountability? o How can I successfully communicate in-house with peers, subordinates, and superiors, and with global customers and suppliers? o How can I carry out my managerial role in the face of major change in the organization? o How can I prepare myself for emerging trends and an uncertain future? o How can I better use or change aspects of my style of leadership to get desired results? o How can I identify and eliminate costly, nonvalue-added activities? Instructors are drawn from the UCLA faculty, other universities, and the business community. All combine research and theory with practice and application. The program advisory committee, which includes technical managers from Hewlett Packard, Trillium Digital Systems, TRW, Sandia National Laboratories, Beckman Instruments, Amgen, Vertel, Rockwell, Boeing, Davidson & Associates, Sony Pictures Imageworks, and ARCO, actively participates in the selection and evaluation of the courses and instructors. The program fee of $2,095 includes all texts and materials for courses in which the participant is enrolled, five continental breakfasts, five luncheons, social events, parking at UCLA, and use of University facilities and equipment. For additional information and a complete program booklet, please contact Beverly Croswhite at: Phone: (310) 825-3858 Fax: (310) 206-2815 e-mail: bcroswhi@unex.ucla.edu WWW: http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:26:57 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See my comments about the Microsoft/USDJ debacle at the end of this 'pass-along' which came to me from Declan McCullagh. PAT] ------------------------------- Important point: If you were subscribed to f-c-a, you are now subscribed to politech. -Declan ************* Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:32:38 -0500 (EST) From: James Packard Love This is the fax that Microsoft sent to Professor Lessig, asking that he remove himself as special master. Microsoft complained about Lessig earlier "equating Microsoft with the devil," among other things. The email messages that MS refers to are displayed on the MS web page at http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/doj/1-5email.gif Jamie --------------- January 5, 1998 BY FACSIMILE Professor Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School, Griswold Hall 502, 1525 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. Re: United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation Dear Professor Lessig: Microsoft is now in possession of the document referred to by the government at the conclusion of our meeting in New York on December 30, 1997. (See 12/30/97 Tr. at 127-28.) The document appears to be a collection of three electronic mail messages exchanged between you and employees of Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape"), the third of which bears a date of July 29, 1997. The first of the three messages is one from you to Peter F. Harter, whose title is Global Public Policy Counsel for Netscape and whose responsibilities reportedly include spearheading Netscape's government affairs campaign against Microsoft. In the message, you complain to Mr. Harter about the Macintosh version of Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0. You begin by stating, "OK, now this is making me really angry." You go on to state that you have discussed your complaint with someone named "Charlie Nesson," and that he is of the view that the two of you should "file a lawsuit," presumably against Microsoft. In the message, you also compare installing a Microsoft product on your computer to selling your "soul," apparently equating Microsoft with the devil. In his responsive message, Mr. Harter advises you that he has passed your complaint along to another Netscape employee, Eric Bradley, as well as to Netscape's general counsel, Roberta Katz. Mr. Harter offers to introduce you to Ms. Katz, whom he describes as a person "interested in matters concerning" Microsoft Internet Explorer. In the third message, which you received a copy of, Mr. Bradley, although acknowledging that he has never "actually installed [Microsoft Internet Explorer] of any flavor on my Macintosh," proceeds to deliver what can only be described as a diatribe against Microsoft, accusing the company of a variety of anticompetitive practices. Mr. Bradley concludes his message, which he himself labels as "ranting," by proclaiming, "I really do hate that company [Microsoft]." As a special master appointed to discharge important judicial functions, you are subject to all of the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as to statutes governing the disqualification of judges. See Jenkins v. Sterlacci, 849 F.2d 627, 631 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Under 28 U.S.C. ' 455(b)(1), a judicial officer is required to disqualify himself "[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge concerning disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." In addition, a judicial officer is required, under 28 U.S.C. ' 455(a), to disqualify himself when, as an objective matter, his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 856-60 (1988); In re Barry, 946 F.2d 913, 916 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Edwards, J., dissenting). Under both of these provisions, it is clearly improper for a judicial officer to proceed with a case if he has formed an adverse opinion about a litigant based on information obtained from an extrajudicial source such as your experience with Microsoft technology on your Macintosh, your discussions with "Charlie Nesson" and your communications with employees of Netscape. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 552-55 (1994). Needless to say, Microsoft regards the sentiments expressed by you and your acquaintances at Netscape as exhibiting clear bias against Microsoft, disqualifying you from any further participation in this case. Netscape is a fierce rival of Microsoft in developing and marketing Internet-related software; the mere fact that you would raise a complaint about Microsoft with an acquaintance in the Netscape legal department, expressing the views you did, indicates that you are or, certainly, may reasonably be perceived to be a partisan of Netscape, and thus that you cannot be seen to be impartial in this case. It is an aggravating factor that the subject of your complaint to Netscape and the responses you received from Messrs. Harter and Bradley are so closely related to the subject matter of this case. It would be bad enough if you had voiced a complaint about Microsoft in general, but you raised the possibility of bringing a lawsuit against Microsoft presumably concerning the Macintosh version of Internet Explorer, a counterpart to the very aspect of Windows 95 that is the subject of the proceeding before you. Microsoft is also disturbed that you did not disclose these communications with Netscape to Microsoft voluntarily, but rather offered to explain them only after the government, no doubt aware of their implications, stated that it had a copy of an electronic mail message from you to Netscape. (See 12/30/97 Tr. at 127-28.) Nor did you disclose at the outset of this proceeding that you have a relationship with a senior lawyer at Netscape. Given that you have been less than forthcoming about these matters, Microsoft is reasonably concerned about what other communications may have occurred between you, Mr. Harter, Ms. Katz or others at Netscape. In a similar vein, and exacerbating the already grave concerns Microsoft has about your impartiality, Microsoft has learned that you were a participant in a public forum at Harvard University entitled "Business and the Internet: Strategy, Law and Policy." One of the coordinators of that forum was Professor Charles Nesson of the Harvard Law School, presumably the person referred to as "Charlie Nesson" in your electronic mail message to Mr. Harter of Netscape as suggesting a lawsuit against Microsoft. The seventh session of the forum, which took place on February 24, 1997, had the provocative title "Should Microsoft Be Allowed to Swallow the Net?" A principal topic of discussion at that session was whether Microsoft had engaged in anticompetitive behavior by including Internet Explorer in Windows 95, the precise issue now pending before you. One of the two speakers at the session was Gary Reback of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Netscape's outside antitrust counsel. You apparently were present at this session and asked Mr. Reback questions about "what sort of a solution he would like to see embodied in a decree against Microsoft",presumably a reference to a new decree resulting from a hypothetical government enforcement action against Microsoft. (See http://roscoe.law.harvard.edu/HyperNews/get/www/ courses/techseminar97/calendar/discussions/session7_discussion.html/7.html) As you are no doubt aware, summaries of views expressed by participants at various sessions of the forum are archived on the Harvard Law School's site on the World Wide Web. (See http://www.law.harvard.edu/courses/tech97/calendar/sessions.) Inexplicably, the summary relating to the session at which Microsoft's inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows 95 was discussed is no longer available on the Internet. Such a summary plainly existed at one time because it was assigned a Uniform Resource Locator (www.fas.harvard.edu/~jbmarks/notes.html); the question is why it has been removed and what it would have revealed. Microsoft requests that you promptly supply the parties with a copy of the summary of the February 24, 1997 session, as well as any other documents that reflect statements made by you on that occasion. In addition, Microsoft requests that you provide the parties with any documents reflecting any other communications you have had with Mr. Harter or other employees of Netscape, as well as any communications you have had with Mr. Reback or other lawyers representing Netscape. Lastly, Microsoft requests that you provide the parties with all other documents in your possession concerning Microsoft that might reasonably be seen as bearing on your partiality. In light of the evidence that has now come to light demonstrating your actual bias against Microsoft, it is difficult to see how you can in good conscience preside over further proceedings in this matter. Microsoft is justifiably concerned that you are not able to serve as an impartial arbiter in any matter in which the company is involved. Microsoft therefore requests that you disqualify yourself immediately. If you are unwilling to do so, this matter should be referred to the Court so that appropriate steps can be taken to safeguard Microsoft's rights. Given that there is a conference call scheduled for 4:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday, January 6, 1998, Microsoft needs to know as soon as possible how you intend to proceed. Respectfully submitted, Richard J. Urowsky cc: Hon. Thomas Penfield Jackson (w/ attachment) A. Douglas Melamed, Esq. Phillip R. Malone, Esq. ------------------- James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176 ------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First things first: All the long time readers here are aware that Microsoft awarded a grant of ten thousand dollars to this Digest about three years ago. There were no strings attached to it; no conditions for its use; no requirement on editorial policy, etc. It was a gift intended for unrestricted use as needed. It was obtained from Microsoft through the efforts of two employees there who 'went to bat' with management to obtain it. Although no strings were attached, I said at the time that common courtesy required giving the company either favorable review or no review at all, at least for the duration of the grant. For the year it was intended to last, in fact I did not publish any derogatory comment about Microsoft. I still feel indebted to the company for its generosity, but am willing to publish criticism about them now that their formal participation in -- may I be frank? -- my basic survival financially in life has ended. Their grant paid my rent and heating bill all that winter. With that said upfront, let us continue. I am not really surprised to see that the current attack on Microsoft is now coming to light as not so much our dearly beloved public servants trying to protect the con- sumers of America, but instead as a cry of sour grapes by the company's primary competitor. Microsoft discovered an excellent marketing strategy which has worked quite well: put together an entire package of software including browser and other features in a well-integrated form which can be -- if the user so chooses -- 'all you ever need' in your computer. The results are in; the public loves it. Where Netscape controlled the browser market two years ago, now Microsoft has nearly half the market. What do you do when faced with stiff competition in business? Why you go get a few cronies in the Justice Department to rescue you of course. The US Department of Justice (some say Injustice) has a long history of corruption, attornies who work two sides of the fence at the same time, investigative services, i.e. the FBI which start their 'investi- gation' with a pre-planned agenda, etc. If you remember the way Justice and Judge Greene bullied and harassed AT&T several years ago for no other reason than AT&T had the audacity to run a first-rate telephone system making it hard for anyone else to get into the market, then you should not be surprised at the current assault on Microsoft. I was very fortunate to obtain a Toshiba Satellite 220 laptop computer a little over a month ago from one of the Digest's sponsors, Mike Sandman, and I am quite grateful for it. With Windows 95 on it, it was as you would expect, loaded with Microsoft stuff. I immediatly went out and got a copy of Internet Explorer 4.0 (the latest version) to replace the version 3 which had come installed. But I didn't stop there. I also got a copy of Netscape 3.0 and installed it. As a consumer I also want a choice, and I have both icons on the desktop ready for use. One browser is good for some applications, and the other is better at other things. They each keep trying to nudge the other out of the way, starting up with a message saying 'this is not listed as your default browser, would you like to make it so?' and I just keep saying no. Maybe I should have gone to get a government lawyer instead to make the choice for me. Or perhaps Professor Lessig, like all good professors at Harvard, can assist in making an impartial judgment .. .. but what really burns me is that the govern- ment and the Court knew of Lessig's involvement with Netscape yet chose to withhold that information from Microsoft until the company got the information from elsewhere. That should fill you in on where the Justice Department and the federal court is at in this matter. Maybe Lessig will do everyone a favor and resign; if he won't and/or the Court decides to have him continue arbitrating this, then my recommendation would be for everyone to remove Netscape from their computer and trash all the associated software in protest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Pat O'Neil Subject: Everything Happened Around the Switchboard Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 07:56:11 -0500 Organization: Hughes Network Systems, Inc. Pat, I read your comments about this book and dropped some broad hints to my wife that it would make a great Christmas present. She came through. I just finished the book. It was every bit as delightful as you said. Thanks for the recommendation. Pat O'Neil Hughes Network Systems Germantown, Md [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, isn't it a perfectly delightful look at the 'old days' in telecommunications; a time when 'mom and pop" phone companies were very prevalent all over the United States. For those of you who missed the earlier mention of this book, I suggest if you would like to read a very warm, very human account of a little telephone company in Maine which was owned and operated by a man and his wife with the help of a part time operator for more than thirty years, then get a copy of "Everything Happened Around the Switchboard". You can get the complete review done here in the Digest last year from the Archives, as well as the original articles which announced the company going out of business which appeared in this Digest fifteen years ago in 1982. The book is $15.95 and can be obtained via mail order from Mike Sandman, a Digest sponsor. Check out http://www.sandman.com or call his office in Roselle, IL which is a west suburb of Chicago on the number 630-980-7710. Also ask for the current catalog of telecom- related products, eighty-plus pages of very informative reading even if you don't choose to order anything. It is free, and you can use any major credit card to pay for the book. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #1 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jan 7 22:13:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA12250; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:13:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:13:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801080313.WAA12250@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #2 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jan 98 22:13:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 2 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "The irc Survival Guide", Stuart Harris (Rob Slade) San Francisco to Consider 311 (Jack Hamilton) SBA to FCC: Stay, Recind, and Reconsider! (Judith Oppenheimer) SBC in $4.4 Billion Southern New England Merger (Monty Solomon) Pacific Bell and Spam (Afshin David Youssefyeh) Plan 9 From AT&T (Adam H. Kerman) UCLA Short Course on CNS/ATM (Bill Goodin) Correction Re: How Sprint Got Its Name (Ronald D.Havens) The Voice of Bell Atlantic (Greg Monti) Is Cellular Tracking A Profit Opportunity? (Greg Monti) Telephone Sounds File Wanted (Sam LaMacchia) I'll Be on the Radio Friday Night (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:04:43 -0800 Subject: "The irc Survival Guide", Stuart Harris Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKIRCSVG.RVW 970408 "The irc Survival Guide", Stuart Harris, 1995, 0-201-41000-1, U$17.95/C$22.95 %A Stuart Harris %C P.O. Box 520, 26 Prince Andrew Place, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 2T8 %D 1995 %G 0-201-41000-1 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$17.95/C$22.95 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 bkexpress@aw.com %P 213 %T "The irc Survival Guide: Talk to the World with Internet Relay Chat" I must admit that I agree with those who see IRC (Internet Relay Chat) as a profound waste of time. Yes, a dozen years ago, I conducted an international conference via CompuServe's CB Simulator, and I figured that there was potential in real-time chat. But that was a far cry from the anarchic noise that goes on in pretty much every IRC channel. So, why am I going to keep Harris' book? Because it's the most realistic, balanced, complete, and positively helpful book I've read on the application to date. Harris gives some background, netiquette tips, time savers, self defense, a glossary, a list of client software, and a list of servers. Mostly, though, he provides a list of commands--and commands, and more commands, and options for the commands. As he admits, up front, not all commands are available on all IRC clients. (Appendix A gives some detail on where you are likely to find, and not find, specific commands.) It's *almost* enough to convince me to give it another shot. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKIRCSVG.RVW 970408 ------------------------------ From: jfh@alumni.stanford.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: San Francisco to Consider 311 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 05:30:09 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1997 by Jack Hamilton According to an article in the January 6 {San Francisco Examiner}, San Francisco is considering creating a 311 number for non-emergency police calls, similar to the 911 number for emergencies. San Jose, a larger city to the south of San Francisco, implemented the 311 system last November. Calls to 911 have dropped by 20%. Supervisor Jose Medina says that this would be a good time to add 311 services, since the city is implementing a new 911 system, but the project director for the 911 system says he is waiting for the results of a state task force. (San Francisco is a combined city and county, which means that the problem of finding the appropriate police agency will come up less often. I can think of at least five police agencies which operate there -- the SFPD, the University of California, Bay Area Rapid Transit, the National Park Service, and the California Highway Patrol -- but only the SFPD has general responsibility for the area. Los Angeles County has dozens if not hundreds of police agencies with complicated borders.) The search engine for the combined {Chronicle and Examiner} at found a longer article in the Chronicle of January 2. It said that: - The number of 911 calls put on hold in Baltimore, which has also implemented a 311 system, has been reduced by 60%. - San Jose's system is getting 14,000 calls per week after only five weeks of operation. - Los Angeles may implement a 311 system this year. Only 20% of the 911 calls there are real emergencies. Jack Hamilton jfh@alumni.stanford.org PGP ID: 79E07035 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 21:05:26 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: SBA to FCC: Stay, Recind and Reconsider! The U.S. Small Business Administration characterizes the FCC's Toll Free Second Report and Order as 'failing to recognize marketplace realities, arbitrary and capricious'. Washington, DC January 6, 1998 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) In one of the most compelling petitions file to date, the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration filed an Exparte Petition for Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order for Toll Free Service Access Codes, on December 12, 1997. The Office of Advocacy was established by Congress in 1976 to represent the views and interests of small business with the federal government. Its statutory duties include reviewing federal government policies and regulations that affect small business, developing proposals for changes in federal agencies' policies, and communicating those proposals to the agencies. The Office also has a statutory duty to monitor and report on the FCC's compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, which factors substantially in this petition. The petition details 'the tremendous economic impact on small businesses that this Second Report and Order will impose. Most importantly, these comments also detail the material flaws in the Second Report and Order's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.' Among its admonishments, the SBA specifies that the FCC: 1. failed to provide proper public notice of a proposed rule to small business in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis; 2. finalized a rule that is not a logical outgrowth of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRPM); 3. failed to identify properly, describe and reasonably estimate the number of all small entities to which these rules will apply; 4. failed to detail all of the compliance requirements that small businesses subject to the rule must undertake; 5. and failed to analyze the impact of its rules on small business end users, and small business toll free providers, especially those engaged in the secondary market. The petition goes on, 'Toll free use also involves the provision of toll free service by entities that are not telecommunications companies ... The variety of private entities that also provide access to a toll free number, (either by sale or lease) are loosely classified as the secondary market. The Commission has not explained in the substantive body of the Second Report and Order, nor the FRFA, how the ex post facto finding of illegality for the sale of a toll free number or the possession of multiple toll free numbers, including the provision of forfeitures and criminal sanctions for hoarding and brokering, serves to encourage rapid private sector deployment in all telecommunications markets as envisioned by Congress. Neither has the Commission fully explained nor justified how the elimination of businesses engaged in the secondary market deplete an allegedly scarce resource and/or does not service the public interest.' Asserting that the Second Report and Order is in direct contradiction to the congressional intent of the 1996 Act to foster competition in all telecommunications markets, the Advocacy Office characterizes the Second Report and Order as 'failing to recognize marketplace realities and arbitrary and capricious, and asks the Commission to grant the petitions for an emergency stay of the rule, rescind certain sections of it entirely, and revise other rules in accordance with a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that includes a properly executed Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. In its reconsideration of the rule, the Advocacy Office recommends that the Commission eliminate the rebuttable presumption that the mere posession of multiple toll free numbers indicates illegal behavior; revise or reclarify its definition of hoarding and brokering to eliminate impermissible vagueness; explicitly exempt all entities that provide "collateral" services such as shared-use, telemarketing, advertising, and marketing consulting services; and adopt protective measures, pursuant to due process, that give the Commission sole enforcement authority of pronouncing illegal behavior and executing a termination policy. Authurs of the petition are Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel, and S. Jenell Trigg, Assistant Chief Counsel for Telecommunications, Office of Advocacy, U.S. SBA. Judith Oppenheimer Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:14:09 EST From: Monty Solomon Subject: SBC in $4.4 Bilion Southern New England Merger SAN ANTONIO, Texas, (Reuters) - SBC Communications formerly Southwestern Bell, said Monday it would merge with Southern New England Telecommunications, the phone company for most of Connecticut, in a deal valued at $4.4 billion. SBC said the acquisition price equals $65.83 per Southern New England share. Under the terms of the agreement Southern New England shareholders would get 0.8784 of an SBC share for each of its shares. Upon completion of the merger SBC will serve over 34.7 million access lines in high-growth areas and have access to more than 92.6 million potential wireless customers across the country, it said in a release. "This merger reflects the confidence we have in the growth prospects of our companies' wireless and wireline businesses," SBC Chief Executive Edward Whitacre said in a press release. The transaction, which is subject to regulatory approval, involves a merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC into SNET. Southern New England will continue to be based in Connecticut. The companies hope to complete the transaction by the end of 1998. ------------------------------ From: Afshin David Youssefyeh Reply-To: kashi@ibm.net Subject: Pacific Bell and Spam Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 00:06:55 -0800 Recently, I received a piece of spam from a company that receives its internet access from Pacific Bell. When I complained to Pacbell, the response that I received, is below. I live in a Pacific Bell service area and because I know Agis is their upstream provider, I had dissuaded many people from signing up with them, this just affirmed my belief: > Hi Afshin: > > Thank you for writing > > The message you forwarded to me involved one of our dedicated customers. > Although Pacific Bell Internet expects its dedicated customers to abide > by our Acceptable Use Policy (which is published at the following URL: >http://public.pacbell.net:8001/dedicated/aup_ded.html), we allow them to > adopt their own procedures for handling complaints. > > Please note that this is *not* a brush-off. Pacific Bell Internet > *does* monitor compliance by its dedicated customers with its acceptable > use policy. We are referring you to our dedicated customer due to the > fact that the records and logs reflecting abusive activity are in the > possession of the dedicated customer. > > I will direct a copy of your complaint to our dedicated customer. > Please let us know if you are unable to reach a satisfactory resolution > of this matter with our dedicated customer. Pacific Bell Internet can > and will intervene if the dedicated customer is the source of the > abusive activity or if our dedicated customer fails to take action > against abusive activities committed by its customers. > > Please do not hesitate to write again if you have any questions or if > you wish to report other instances of abuse by Pacific Bell Internet > dialup or dedicated customers. > > Regards, > > Nick Nicholas > Senior Policy Manager Nick Nicholas Senior Policy Manager Pacific Bell Internet Services policy@pbi.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 22:21:08 CST From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Plan 9 From AT&T Notice is hereby given that AT&T of Illinois has filed price increases in certain of its Dial Station IntraLATA price schedules, Simplified Plan No. 9, Simplified Lifestyle Calling Plan, CTS Yellow Sense Promotion, and Blue Sense I Promotion, to become effective 12/30/97. From a legal notice published Wed, 12/31/97, announcing (I assume) a retroactive rate increase. The practice in legal notices to the public over the last several years in Illinois has been to publish these cryptic notes. Until three years ago, legal notices used to contain actual descriptions of the plans and services, and the rates being changed. As you well know, often plans are marketed under entirely different names than appear in the tariffs. As I don't happen to live in my state capital, and tariff filings are no longer kept up-to-date at any company business office convenient to me, and they aren't published on the Web, how am I to get convenient access to information? The state legislature has made the Chief Clerk's office of the Illinois Commerce Commission a profit center. They charge an outrageous 50 cents a page for copies of tariffs! What is the experience in other states? Is your state legislature friendlier to consumer interests? What devious shenanigans are covered under Plan 9 from AT&T? ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on CNS/ATM Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:04:16 -0800 On March 30-April 2, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Satellite-Based Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance for Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM)", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Mr. Cary R. Spitzer, MS, President, AvioniCon, Inc.; Mr. Wayne Aleshire, Captain, United Airlines; Mr. Michael J. Morgan, Honeywell; and Mr. Roy T. Oishi, ARINC, Inc. After a decade of work by the Future Air Navigation Systems committees of the United Nations-affiliated International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the aviation industry is implementing satellite-based communications, navigation, and surveillance for air traffic management (CNS/ATM) on a global basis. CNS/ATM promises substantial increases in airspace system capacity and benefits to both aircraft operators and air traffic services providers. This course begins with a review of avionics concepts to ensure a solid foundation for subsequent material. The rest of the course traces the development of the CNS/ATM concept, introduces its underlying principles, and presents each of the three cornerstone technologies -- communications, navigation, and surveillance -- from an airborne perspective. These technologies are discussed in detail by experts who contributed to the design and development of the avionics intended to reap CNS/ATM benefits which are now being installed on many aircraft. The course concludes with a summary of real-world experience by a major airline that has already equipped some of its fleet with first-generation CNS/ATM systems. This course is intended as an introduction to CNS/ATM. The level of detail presented makes the course suitable for a broad range of career backgrounds including technology (both air- and ground-based aviation systems), business development, and technical management. The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: RONALD.D.HAVENS@sprint.sprint.com Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:40:35 -0500 Subject: Correction Re: How Sprint Got Its Name Hi Pat. I subscribe to the TELECOM Digest and read same on a time permitting basis. Recently in the December 16, 1997 edition (V17|348) you were talking about the meaning of the name "Sprint". I've been with Sprint for 22 years, and started with Southern Pacific Communications. I was at the time that SPC began offering their dial-up service which later came to be known as "Sprint" the engineer responsible for transmission and interface design of the network used to provide the service. The origin of the name is as follows: We began offering a dial-up service shortly after the Execunet II decision late in 1978 (there had been prior attempts to do this, but they had met with limited success at best in obtaining FCC approval). Prior tot the Execunet II decision our offering was limited to a FAX service called "SpeedFAX, since competitive dial-up voice was not permitted. When we began to offer dial-up voice it was decided that we needed a name for the product that would differentiate the service from the FAX offering, and that we needed a name for the service. Rex Hollis, the VP of Marketing at the time (now with Loral), ran a contest to select a name. The winning entry was "Sprint", and was submitted by Tony Broadman (now with Qwest). "Sprint" never really meant anything, but it makes an interesting story. It was only after the name began to catch on that attempts were made to "force-fit" it into an acronym. Ron Havens ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 00:16:36 From: Greg Monti Subject: The Voice of Bell Atlantic On Friday, January 2, 1998, the _Washington Post_ ran a piece on page D1 entitled "Smooth Operator" by Elizabeth Kastor. A summary: Eryca Dawson, a 29-year-old resident of the suburb of Mount Rainier, Maryland, is becoming the voice of Bell Atlantic. BA's CEO Ray Smith wanted a consistent voice and sound for all Bell Atlantic recorded messages. (Dawson does not replace the commercial and promotional sound of James Earl Jones, who remains spokesman.) Dawson was chosen because her voice is, as the writer put it, "not like a machine; accentless and utterly without regional or ethnic idiosyncrasy". Dawson grew up in a small town in central New York State. To date, Dawson has recorded over 6,000 phrases and messages for Bell Atlantic. She limits her recording sessions to four hours on a given day. Messages like: "For what city?" "Thank you. For what listing?" "Thank you for calling Bell Atlantic. To discuss an overdue bill, make payment arrangements, or if your service has been turned off for non-payment, press one, now." "Your call cannot be completed as dialed." The article has two photos of Dawson, wearing a dark sweater, hoop earrings and a pleasant smile. She has a 2-year exclusive contract with BA. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 00:40:44 From: Greg Monti Subject: Is Cellular Tracking A Profit Opportunity? On December 13, 1997, the _Washington Post_ ran a story entitled "Cellular Phone Firms Zero in on Tracking; Locator Capability May Offer Profit Potential" by Mike Mills. It begins on page F1, the Business front. A summary: Recent requirements for 911 call handling by cellular carriers have ignored the possibility that there is a business case to offer tracking services profitably. The first new cellular 911 rule, to take affect in April 1998, requires cellular carriers to display the cellular tower and direction from which each 911 call originated. That's not very exact, since the mobile could be miles from the tower. By October, 2001, carriers will also be required to install new hardware and software that can track a caller's location down to 400 feet at least 67 percent of the time. That could cost $50,000 per cellular tower. Cellular customers shoud expect to pay 50 cents to $1.50 extra per month to help pay for the 911 tracking services. Cellular strategists are considering whether customers also might pay for services like: - emergency road service which finds you when you don't know where you are; - a concierge service that finds the nearest hotel; - stolen vehicle tracking and recovery, - navigation assistance. Managers of 911 systems are hoping that the carriers can make tracking profitable so they they don't need to bear the burden of financing the feature. The article notes that safety is one of the main reasons consumers buy cell phones. About 30 percent of all 911 calls come from cellulars. That's about 60,000 cellular 911 calls per day. There are 52 million cellular phones in Americans' cars. The writer wonders why they couldn't be used as location transmitters in competition with Global Positioning Systems that have been in service for years. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 03:01:09 -0800 From: Sam LaMacchia Reply-To: slamac@digidesign.com Organization: Digidesign Incorporated Subject: Telephone Sounds File Wanted Hello Patrick, I've looked high and low to see if someone's got a soundfile of the old "crybaby" busy/reorder tone. Where in the world can I find a recording of it? Thanks! Sam LaMacchia ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: I'll be on the Radio Friday Night Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 22:00:00 EST Readers in the vicinity of Buffalo, NY may wish to listen to me on the radio Friday night and call in with questions regarding the new fee being imposed on telephone subscribers with more than one line. I was invited by John Otto to be a guest on his program which is aired on station WGR, 550 kc on the AM dial. The show will be from 10:10 pm to 11:00 pm Eastern time this Friday (tomorrow) night. Although WGR is only a five thousand watt station, late at night the signal gets around, so readers in other parts of the USA and certainly around the east coast of Canada should be able to hear it. Certainly it will be great to chat with Digest readers in the Buffalo, NY area. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #2 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jan 7 23:36:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA18274; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 23:36:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 23:36:10 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801080436.XAA18274@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #3 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 Jan 98 23:35:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 3 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FYI - Federal Judge Strikes Down 271-75 as Unconstitutional (E.E. Holling) Federal Judge Declares Portions of Telecom Act Unconstitutional (W.Gucwa) Judge Says Telecom Act Unconstitutional (Dave Stott) 'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices (Monty Solomon) V&H Coordinates: Conversion To Lat/Long (Greg Knight) Unable to Make International Calls (Domestic is OK) (Yoohwan Kim) Need For an Unusual Type of Service (Clive D.W. Feather) Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX (Fraser Orr) Educational Seminar (Jerry Kaufman) MCI Service in Hawaii - Sounds Like 1960's All Over Again (ncom1@hotmail) Question About Ameritech ISDN Tariffs (Jack Decker) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: E. E. Holling Subject: FYI - Federal Judge Strikes Down 271-75 as Unconstitutional Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 08:58:59 -0500 Organization: The InTech Group, Inc. In response to an SBC petition the US District Court for the Northern Texas found section 271-75 of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 unconstitutional in its baring of Bell companies from providing long distance service, electronic publishing and equipment manufacturing. Judge Joe Kendell state the Act singled out for "punishment" SBC and "extremely onerous" by the jurist. He wrote that these provisions of the act "strip the {Bells} of their ability to enter new markets and tie their hands while their competitors such as GTE, AT&T and MCI take their punches." -------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe see http://www.intech-group.com/FYI.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ernie Holling Mailto: info@Intech-Group.com The InTech Group, Inc. +1-610-524-8400 Consultants and Analysts FAX:+1-610-524-8440 305 Exton Commons, Exton, Pennsylvania 19341-2450 A Member of The Society of Telecommunications Consultants The Eastern Technology Council MultiMedia Telecommunications Association Building Industry Consulting Service International Copyright 1998 All Rights Reserved Permission to distribute the F.Y.I.'s with this signature block included is granted. ------------------------------ From: Wayne Gucwa Subject: Federal Judge Declares Portions of Telecom Act Unconstitutional Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 15:00:12 -0500 Organization: Planet Access Network Inc. By Charles Richards, Associated Press, 01/01/98 09:54 DALLAS (AP) - Moving the ``Baby Bells'' a step closer to offering long-distance service, a federal judge has struck down part of the landmark Telecommunications Act of 1996. U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall of Wichita Falls ruled Wednesday that Congress unconstitutionally singled out and barred regional Bell subsidiaries from providing long distance and other services. The chairman of SBC Communications, which filed the lawsuit in July, said the ruling was the single most important victory for phone customers and competition since the divestiture of the Bell system in 1984. "We intend to provide our customers with one-stop shopping for all their telecommunications needs by offering the simplest, most affordable long-distance plan available," said Edward Whitacre Jr., head of San Antonio-based SBC. Liz Rose, a spokeswoman for the Federal Communications Commission, said the agency likely will ask the Justice Department to appeal. "I am extremely concerned about what seems to be a court's invalidation of much that Congress, this commission and the affected phone companies have done to bring consumers the benefits of competition," FCC Chairman William Kennard said. Mark C. Rosenblum, AT&T vice president for law and public policy, called the ruling "inexplicable and clearly erroneous." Courts, Congress and regulators "have long recognized that the Bell monopolies differ from other local companies in size and scope," he said. The Bells see their local markets as an opportunity to offer one-stop communications most cheaply and efficiently. But these markets are where the federal entry requirements are toughest - and they are where the potential is the greatest for local phone companies to have customers subsidize the companies' investment in long distance, which is not allowed. The 1996 law deregulating the telecommunications industry allowed the Bells to seek permission to provide long-distance service in local phone regions. The law frees local and long-distance companies to enter each other's businesses, subject to regulatory approval. So far, no regional company has been cleared by the FCC to provide long-distance service within the states of its region. In its lawsuit, SBC contended the act was unfair because rather than establishing classes or categories, it identifies Baby Bells by name and bars them from entering the long distance and other businesses - such as electronic publishing or electronic alarm monitoring - that other local phone companies may provide. The suit was filed after unsuccessful attempts by SBC to enter the long-distance business in Oklahoma, a state served by its subsidiary, Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. It also operates under the Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell names. The company challenged only the portion of the act that singled out and excluded SBC from competing in certain business, said Lonny Morrison, a Wichita Falls attorney who represented the company. SBC said the ruling will enable it to provide long distance in its service region of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, California and Nevada. Whitacre said the company plans to seek permission to offer long-distance service first in Oklahoma. Another Bell company, Bell Atlantic, said it will file an application with the FCC soon to provide long-distance service in New York and eventually to other states. "Bell Atlantic never thought it was the intent of Congress to impose burdens to keep some players out of long distance and allow others in," spokeswoman Susan Butta said. Sol Trujillo, president and chief executive officer of US West Communications, said the ruling "will further accelerate the day when consumers can see the benefits of full competition in the long-distance market." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 00:17:05 GMT From: Dave Stott Subject: Judge Says Telecom Act Unconstitutional According to Rueters News Service, a Federal judge in Texas has voided a key part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He agreed with SBC that the law was unconstitutional because SBC and the other RBOCs were singled out for punishment by the portion of the bill requiring them to open their markets to competition before they could enter the LD market. According to the article, written by Roger Fillion: 'Judge Kendall wrote that these provisions of the act "strip the (Bells) of their ability to enter new markets and tie their hands while their competitors such as GTE, AT&T and MCI take their punches." In the case of long-distance entry, the act requires the Bells to meet a 14-point checklist. But Judge Kendall called the checklist requirements "extremely onerous." Wonder what happens next? No wonder we used to refer to this as the Telecommunication Attorneys' Full Employment Act of 1996. Dave Stott 602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ====================================================================== Helping you profit from changes in the telecommunications industry ====================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:24:01 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices 'E911' Turns Cell Phones into Tracking Devices by Chris Oakes 3:10pm 6.Jan.98.PST Cell phones will be taking on a new role in 1998, beginning a slow transition to becoming user tracking devices. The outcome of this shift reassures some, but has others calling for restrictions on how cell-locating information can be used. The impending first phase of the FCC's rules is aimed at enabling emergency services personnel to quickly get information on the location of a cell phone user in the event of a 911 call. By April, all cellular and personal communications services providers will have to transmit to 911 operators and other "public safety answering points" the telephone number and cell site location of any cell phone making a 911 call. The aim of the law is to bring to cell phone users the same automatic-locating capability that now exists with wireline phones. But while the FCC's aim is simple on the surface - to make it easier for medical, fire, and police teams to locate and respond to callers in distress - the technology is also giving rise to concerns over the ease with which the digital age and its wireless accouterments are bringing to tracking individuals. "The technology is pretty much developing to create a more and more precise location information. The key question for us is 'what is the legal standard for government access?'" says James Dempsey, senior staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology. Those seeking restrictions on the use of cell phone tracking information emphasize that, unlike the stationary wireline phones, a cell phone is more specifically associated with an individual and their minute-by-minute location. In December, the FCC began requiring wireless providers to automatically patch through any emergency calls made through their networks. Subscriber or not, bills paid or unpaid, anyone with a cell phone and a mobile identification number was thus guaranteed to see their 911 calls completed. 1998 brings new rules into place that take that initial action much further. By April, emergency service personnel will receive more than just the call - they'll also get the originating cell phone's telephone number and, more significantly, the location of the cell site that handled the call. The FCC's "Enhanced 911 services" requirements that wireless providers make this information available is the beginning of a tracking system that by 2001 will be able to locate a phone within a 125-meter radius. To provide this precise location information, Jeffrey Nelson of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association says different carriers will choose different methods of gathering location information, but all of them involve detecting the radio frequencies sent from the phone to service antennas. Because a phone sends additional signals to other antennas in addition to the primary one, "triangulation" lets them calculate the caller's whereabouts within that multi-antenna region. All this happens automatically when a cell phone is turned on. The upshot, Nelson says, is that cellular callers will "be able to make a call to 911 or the appropriate emergency number without having to explain where they are." He cites a case in which a woman stranded in a blizzard, unable to tell where she was, was located by use of her cell phone. Various systems are being tested by most providers, he reports, but many are already working with methods to provide such location information today. But this tracking issue has privacy advocates seeking preventive legislation to see that the instant accessibility of the information to emergency units doesn't just as easily deliver the same tracking information to law enforcement agencies - from local police on up to the FBI. "The FCC has been in the picture from the 911 perspective," says Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology. But to him, this obvious emergency benefit of E911 necessitates legal action to draw boundaries around its use by other organizations, namely law enforcement. That's where the issue runs into the same waters as the controversy surrounding the expansion of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. That 1994 law was meant to keep communications companies from letting the advancement of digital and wireless technology become an obstacle to the surveillance needs of law enforcement agencies. But the CDT and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, among others, have argued that as CALEA undergoes actual implementation (a process that is still ongoing), the FBI is seeking to expand its surveillance capabilities by seeking unjust specifications for phone systems' compliance with the law. Dempsey wants to see both CALEA and the new E911 requirements be implemented with clear restrictions on the ability of law enforcement to tap into personal information on users, especially their whereabouts at any one time. With the implementation of E911, Dempsey says that in effect, "your phone has become an ankle bracelet. Therefore we are urging the standard for government access be increased to a full probable cause standard. [Law enforcement agencies] have to have suspicion to believe that the person they are targeting is engaged in criminal activity." Currently, he says, to get a court order allowing the surveillance of cell phone use, law enforcement only has to prove that the information sought - not the individual - is relevant to an ongoing investigation. "It says to law enforcement you've got to have a link between the person you're targeting and the crime at issue," Dempsey says. "It cannot be a mere fishing expedition." While the CDT and others seek beefed-up constitutional restrictions on the ability for law enforcement to obtain court orders in such cases, the FBI says the process for obtaining such court orders is already adequate. "We work under the strict provisions of the law with regard to our ability to obtain a court order," said Barry Smith, supervisory special agent in the FBI's office of public affairs. "Law enforcement's access to [cell phone data] falls very much within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment." He also says that under CALEA, the call data the FBI seeks does not provide the specific location of a wireless phone. The FCC and its E911 requirements are distinct from CALEA, but because they offer the ultimate form of tracking information - far more instantly and explicitly than the FBI is seeking in the implementation of CALEA, E911 may be ripe for access by law enforcement for non-emergency needs. As for the distinction between the dispute over CALEA and the FCC's E911 services, Smith says the latter has nothing to do with the FBI. "There's not any crossover between the two." But, says Dempsey, when law enforcement serves a court order, they could get location information through the requirements established by E911. ------------------------------ From: Greg Knight Subject: V&H Coordinates: Conversion To Lat/Long Date: 8 Jan 1998 02:05:58 GMT Organization: Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc. Does anyone out there have the formula for converting the V&H coordinates used in the NNACL and LERG Bellcore documents? Any help would be appreciated. Greg Knight gknight@cris.com ------------------------------ From: yxk14@po.CWRU.Edu (Yoohwan Kim) Subject: Unable to Make International Calls (Domestic is OK) Date: 7 Jan 1998 20:08:52 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: yxk14@po.CWRU.Edu (Yoohwan Kim) I could not make international calls since I had my line installed a week ago. After struggling with AT&T and Bell Atlantic for several hours, I gave up and converted to MCI. Does anyone know why it happened? Neither company had international call blocking. I want to go back to AT&T and don't want to repeat the same problem. Please mail me (yoohwan@lucent.com) if you have any clue. Thanks. -- Yoohwan ---------------------------------- Here is the log of what happened. Dec. 23 1997 Requested phone line installation, requested AT&T for all long distance calls. Dec. 30 1997 supposed to be connected, but line was not activated. called repair service, repairman came to apt. and fixed the switch. we found that we cannot make international calls, but domestic long dist. is OK. The msg is " The number dialed is not allowed from your calling area. Please hang up and check that you have dialed dialed the correct number" called AT&T, she just said to try 10288 access code and hung up. We tried 10288 but still got the same message. Jan x 1998 called AT&T, he says the message is not from AT&T and Bell Atlantic's 700/900 blocking may be blocking international calls. Jan x called BA, they said all long distance problem is AT&T's and they've never heard the msg. Jan x BA performed test, taking my dialtone from their central office and did internal circuit test, (but they did not actually called the international number), they found no problem. Jan. 6 Tried call using 10222 (MCI) and successfully made calls to Korea and Japan, 10288(AT&T) does not work for any country. Changed the long dist. to MCI. Jan 7. morning. Bell Atlantic found that our call is directed to MCI instead of AT&T, and mistakenly thought that it had been the problem. So they reconnected to AT&T. We lost even domestic call capabilities. We asked reconnecting to MCI. Jan. 7 afternoon. MCI is restored. regular 011+... international call works through MCI. I have three reasons to believe that this is AT&T's problem. One. I could make international call using 10222(MCI), but not using 10288(AT&T). Two. After I called all the digits, I wait a few seconds and hear the msg. (There is no ringing signal inbetween.) I think the call was already transfered to AT&T at this point. Three. I converted to MCI and can successfully make the calls. What would be the problem in AT&T ? (I know their answer : "call Bell Atlantic") [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can say this much, that the message 'number you are dialing is not allowed from your calling area' almost always applies to toll-free 800 numbers you dial which have limited areas from which they will accept calls. For example, if an 800 number is set up as intrastate only (in some state) then attempts to call it from outside that state will get the recording mentioned. Would you mind telling us what number (county code/city code) you were dialing and how you dialed the call? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 22:08:49 +0000 From: Clive D.W. Feather Reply-To: Clive D.W. Feather Subject: Need For an Unusual Type of Service Organization: Demon Internet We're looking at putting some equipment into either New York (Manhattan) or New Jersey (Hoboken-ish), and have some slightly unusual telephone requirements. Not the physical lines, but the phone number. - It should not be a free or fixed-cost call for anyone (so not a local number in 212). - It should not generate a per-minute charge for us (otherwise we might as well switch to 800/888/877 and charge back to the customer). - It should not be likely to be blocked from hotels (so not a 900 number). - Ideally it should be cheap to call (no more than normal long distance would be; certainly no more than calls to the UK). Can anyone provide suggestions ? Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email: Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | | Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address | ------------------------------ From: ifo@xnet.com (Fraser Orr) Subject: Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:37:04 -0600 Organization: XNet-Midwest's Leading Network Service Provider 630-983-6064 I wonder if someone here could help me with a problem I have. I work in a location that has a PBX, and I want to use it to connect my modem to an ISP. Unfortunately I can't just unplug the phone at the wall like usual, and plug in the modem. I am no expert in telecoms but I understand that the phone sends some digital signal down that line, rather than analog. Various people I have spoken to seem to indicate that it is simply not possible to connect a modem via these telephone systems, but I simply don't believe them. I remember when modems were still operating at 1200 baud, that you could buy a device called an acoustic coupler, that you strapped onto the phone, and it seems to me that this would surely work. It seems rather an unsophisiticated solution though. Is it possible to simply unplug the handset of the phone, and, using a suitably modified jack, plug the modem in there? Even if it can't necessarily dial the number, I would be happy to dial it myself. Any suggestions? Confused in Illinois. Fraser Orr ------------------------------ From: Jerry Kaufman Subject: Educational Seminar Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 11:59:30 -0600 Organization: Alexander Resources THE NEW WIRELESS REALITY A Critical Analysis and Educational Seminar covering the Fundamentals, Applications & Limitations of The Wireless Revolution * The NEW Cellular, PCS, Satellite, & Fixed Wireless Access networks and services * The WIRELESS Technologies, standards, spectrum, and modulations schemes * The REALITY: Fact & Fiction, Applications & Limitations At this seminar you will learn: * The basics, capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of various terrestrial and satellite wireless: - Technologies - Network architectures - Air interface standards - Spectrum choices - Modulation techniques * The role of land line networks and services in the new wireless reality * The hurdles to integrating/interfacing various wireless networks and services * The reality of using new wireless technologies to replace or augment traditional wired voice and data networks * Where wireless increases productivity, produces a ROI and where it doesn't * What it takes to make one phone number and one phone per user a reality * The differences between single, dual, and triple mode phones, networks and services * The capabilities of single (private or public), dual, & triple domain networks, systems, phones and services * How new wireless technologies will impact existing private and public networks and services At the New Wireless Reality seminar you will not only gain a fundamental understanding of these new networks and services but be armed with the knowledge to separate fact from fiction. 1998 SEMINAR SCHEDULE Phoenix, AZ March 9-10, 1998 The New Wireless Reality seminar was developed and is sponsored exclusively by Alexander Resources Contact: Carole Kaufman Telephone: 972-818-8225 Fax: 972-818-6366 E-mail: CaroleK@AlexanderResources.com The two day seminar will be taught by Jerry Kaufman, President of Alexander Resources. Mr. Kaufman is an internationally recognized consultant, lecturer, author and expert on wireless communications and the foremost authority on wireless telephone systems. Alexander Resources Co. 15851 N. Dallas Pkwy, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75248 USA ------------------------------ From: RAdler Subject: MCI Service in Hawaii - Sounds Like 1960's All Over Again Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1998 17:53:07 -1000 Organization: IBM.NET I presently use AT&T for res. long-distance service; for the most part sounds great - even calling the mainland. I even dialed a 56k x2-access number in Florida (that's over 5000 miles away) and got an x2 connection. Before I switched to AT&T, I was using MCI. Even on inter-island calls (less than 250 miles) I would normally have extreme amounts of echo and noise - reminding me of how phone calls USED to sound. I complained MANY times to MCI customer (non)-service, and it still hasn't changed to this day. A friend of mine on Oahu switched to MCI - now, when he calls, I get "Out of Area" on my caller ID, and E C H O !!!!! Now, from what I'm told, all the alternate intra-lata carriers use GTE facilities -- none have their own. So why does MCI sound SO bad? (Sounds bad to the mainland, too.) And why don't I get the caller id? (Well, when an MCI customer calls from the mainland, I don't get the ID either, but I do if they're on AT&T or Sprint.) Also - On Thanksgiving day, "All circuits are busy" comes on for HOURS. This is not your normal 'all circuits are busy' - I could not even get an operator (00 - produced all circuits are busy); the code on the message was '322' which is the exchange of the CO switch serving my remote office. Whose fault is it? The local carrier (GTE) or my long-distance carrier? This also happened when I was on MCI on Subject: Question About Ameritech ISDN Tariffs A friend of mine asked me a question recently about what he thought might be a rather strange quirk in Ameritech ISDN tariffs in Michigan. I know a lot more about POTS than ISDN, so I wondered if anyone might enlighten us a bit. Basically, as he understands it, residential ISDN lines are untimed (we are, of course, talking about local calls here) - when you make an ISDN connection, you do not get dinged for a per-minute charge. However, he has been told that business ISDN lines are different - that there is in fact a per-minute charge for the duration of an ISDN connection. But, he was also told by someone that there is a quirk in the tariffs, and if you order "digital for analog" (???) the per-minute charge does not apply. The way it was explained to him, the "digital for analog" is used to get two voice grade lines on an ISDN channel, but once the line is installed it can be used just like a standard ISDN line, however the phone company doesn't make any guarantees about the ability of the line to actually handle a data connection. My question is, does this description of the situation make any sense at all, and does anyone have sufficient knowledge of Ameritech tariffs to know whether what I've described might in fact be the way things work? Whoever told him about this said that some ISP's actually advise their customers to get this type of connection, whatever it is. If this is indeed the case, can anyone give me a more specific description of what he'd need to order from Ameritech in order to get one of these lines installed in a place of business (without hopelessly confusing the service rep and/or getting stuck with the kind of ISDN line that does carry the per-minute charge)? To reply by e-mail, please remove the ".REMOVE-THIS" from my return address. Spammers, please do NOT send me e-mail; I *never* buy anything from unsolicited e-mail ads. Jack ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #3 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 8 00:46:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA22813; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:46:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:46:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801080546.AAA22813@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #4 TELECOM Digest Thu, 8 Jan 98 00:46:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 4 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson LA 911 Outage (Jay R. Ashworth) Wireless World Competition (Wireless Guru) Advance Program: SPIE/ACM Multimedia Computing and Networking 98 (K Jeffay) Re: 101XXXX Implementation Schedule (Chris Boone) Re: 101XXXX Implementation Schedule (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: AOL Victorious Over Spammer (Kim Brennan) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1997 10:38:41 -0500 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: LA 911 Outage Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA From the AP wire, with comment: LOS ANGELES (AP) - A failed switch caused the 911 emergency telephone system to go down for nearly two hours in the nation's second largest city on December 30. No unusual levels of crime or fire were reported during the failure Tuesday night as police scrambled to divert calls to local stations and the fire department sent helicopters aloft to scout for any signs of trouble. _Helicopters?_ Police routed calls through a backup system that uses shortwave radio. The city Fire Department apparently experienced a systemwide 911 breakdown and used alternative local telephone numbers that were broadcast over local media. "The system failed, but the people behind the system ... immediately placed backup plans into effect, similar to what they would do after an earthquake," said fire spokesman Brian Humphrey. Pacific Bell technicians determined the breakdown was caused by a switch failure in a number of circuits that all converge at the downtown dispatch center. The traditional single point of failure. This was, presumably, the tandem to which the LA PSAP connects? The Sheriff's Department's 911 system was operating, but people who heard about the problems clogged agency lines, Deputy Henry Garza said. ... but if it _was_ the tandem, how could this be true? Perhaps the county PSAP dies, and LASD operates another one? Police Capt. Mike Downing, who commands the city's Central Dispatch Center, said calls were rerouted to 18 local police divisions. The downtown dispatch center handles between 5,000 and 10,000 calls per day. I suspect "rerouted" is not the proper term, if the "911 system" actually "failed". A similar breakdown occurred last month. Which leads us to wonder what sort of failure mode analysis is being done? Are there different failures, or are the solutions not being figured out correctly ... or are the solutions simply not being _implemented_, and if not, why not? In the early hours of Nov. 10, hundreds of police officers lost normal radio communications with the city's 911 dispatchers for several hours due to a technical malfunction, possibly in a battery-charging system. Again, single point of failure ... Are there any readers to either digest situated to comment in more depth? The piece carries an AP copyright; I hope this has constituted fair use through commentary. ;-) And Happy New Year, y'all! Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: pbdevine@NOSPAM.aol.com (Wireless Guru) Subject: Wireless World Competition Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 08:01:21 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. During mid-December a California man was arrested for espionage in Russia. News reports say the man was a technician for a wireless phone company, installing equipment in Russia. Here's the news behind the news: Although probably not a spy, this man is more like a prisoner of war. The war is a global war being fought over which company will supply most of the world with wireless digital phones. The competition is so intense -- not just in Russia, but also in China, Latin America, and the rest of the world -- that it has now come to this: People being arrested and imprisoned. The stakes are huge: 2/3 of the world has never used a phone. And phone companies from American and Europe are fighting to be the ones to build equipment for this multi-billion dollar industry. Attached is a piece from Don Bauder, the Business Editor of the {San Diego Union}, and a column that appeared in the {LA Daily News} a month or so ago, which gives some good detail about what is at stake -- and why this battle is so important -- important enough, apparently, to put someone in prison. I have also included a link to a site that contains several other pieces documenting this fermenting war. There is also a link to a site that has been documenting this escalating war. ---------------------------------------------------- DON BAUDER Business Editor The San Diego Union 03-Oct-1997 Friday The grass is always greener ... on the other side of the ocean. Consider Qualcomm, San Diego's fast-growing telecommunications company. It competes vigorously with Ericsson, a Swedish concern. Ericsson pushes its Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) technology. Qualcomm pushes its newer Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technology. Recently, Expressen, a newspaper in Stockholm, Sweden, took its hometown giant to task. TDMA, and its Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) derivative, might be out of date, warned the paper's writer, stating ominously, "Thirty thousand jobs can disappear when the new technology (CDMA) takes over." Commented the author, "More and more experts are now asking themselves: Has Ericsson gone for the wrong technique?" A Stockholm stock analyst predicts Ericsson shares might fall. A Wall Street analyst expresses the same fears. The article quotes an unnamed insider at Ericsson, who says the company should push the older TDMA now, and then switch to CDMA later. "CDMA is the technology of the future," declares the article. Ericsson, which once denounced CDMA, now claims it owns important rights to the technology, says the publication, quoting a Qualcomm executive saying that Ericsson doesn't even have a license for CDMA. Ah, but a prophet is seldom appreciated at home. Qualcomm is getting bad press here -- specifically, in the Sept. 8 issue of the magazine Telephony. "Of the numerous manufacturers of CDMA, Qualcomm is among the smallest," says the magazine. "The number of people in the world with CDMA phones is dwarfed by the millions who are using other types." The magazine did a long study of CDMA, and concluded that its capacity is far less than advertised, it has problems when subscriber growth is burgeoning and it "is far from being as mature as other digital wireless technologies." Says the publication, "Unfortunately, any meaningful dialogue among operators and vendors to solve inherent problems in the standard has been muted by a crusade to establish CDMA as a viable technology at all costs." Discussions of ways to correct the problems in Qualcomm's system "have been intentionally suppressed while the benefits have been hyped beyond all reason," says Telephony. Then in a long discussion, the magazine asks whether Qualcomm's version of CDMA costs too much in relation to its benefits. The question of whether Qualcomm "will ever carry home the trophy of digital wireless champion is far from certain," says Telephony. Forbes, however, offers a bit of a mea culpa in its Oct. 6 issue. "We were skeptical" about CDMA, says the magazine, referring to a late 1995 story. Now, however, "CDMA has caught on surprisingly fast," says the magazine. CDMA should have 45 percent of the U.S. mobile phone market by 2004, according to the Yankee Group consulting firm, says Forbes. ***************************************************** For a complete reprint of the Espressen article of June '97 and other related postings, go to: Digital Wireless Phone Digest ****************************************************** >From Los Angeles Daily News "FAST-TRACK" MASKS REAL ISSUE: U.S. BUSINESSES AHEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT IN CREATING JOBS; FREE TRADE THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP IT UP by Brian P. Devine 11/08/97 FORGET NAFTA and "fast-track." That's not the biggest story on international trade. By itself, fast-track won't create one job or make one sale for an American company. Only American companies can do that. And they are - all over the world. Including companies from Southern California. The troubling part of the fast-track debate is that some people believe that international trade is bad for America and American jobs. And that is a bigger story than the NAFTA/fast-track controversy. It's clear from the "Stop foreign trade, save American jobs" tenor of the discussion over fast-track that many people are not aware of how many American jobs are created right now through trade. For example, around the world, American companies are waging a good old fashioned trade war over a new kind of telephone called wireless digital phones. All Americans need to know about this new war is that telephone companies in America, Europe and Asia are drooling over the two-thirds of the people on this planet who have never used a telephone. And providing billions of new phones for the world will create hundreds of thousands of jobs - either here, or in Europe and Asia. So the stakes are huge. Traditional phone systems require copper, roads, wire, technical expertise, laws, and other infrastructure that we take for granted, but that most of the world simply does not have. Perhaps a part of a country is too remote, or mountainous, or wire laid in the morning is stolen by the next day. Whatever the reason, for the first time, phone companies around the world think the new wireless digital phone systems will enable them to provide phones to these people. Billions of phones. That is because these new wireless digital phones are so powerful that countries will not need the roads, copper, and much of the other infrastructure to install them. Just a few base stations and handsets. Wireless digital phones are instant infrastructure. A quantum leap that, for many countries, will be the most important piece of industrial infrastructure they will ever get. An instant passport into the Information Age. But not all wireless phones are created equal - and here is where the battle begins for American companies. Countries around the world are deciding - even as you read this - whether to use the newer, more powerful, American-backed standard, called CDMA; or the 20-year-old European standard, variously called TDMA or GSM. The European companies like the TDMA standard because they've been using it for more than a decade. It's not as powerful as its American counterpart, but it is more familiar. And because Europeans have billions invested in this technology - that although outdated, they think is good enough for some of the less demanding countries of the Third World - they are going to fight to get the most they can out of this investment. But if {The Wall Street Journal} is to be believed, the Europeans may be fighting a losing battle. {The Wall Street Journal} recently reported that South Korea had created tens of thousands of jobs and become a telecommunications powerhouse in Asia because it had backed, early on, the American CDMA standard. Other journals report TDMA systems in Europe cause problems with medical devices such as pacemakers and hearing aids. (So much so that one wag says that TDMA really stands for Terminally Disables Medical Appliances.) In journals and newspapers across the U.S. and in Sweden, Mexico, Brazil and Korea, the drumbeat for the American CDMA technology is getting louder and louder as its superiority is demonstrated over and over throughout the world. One of the biggest proponents of TDMA is in Sweden. But even this company's hometown paper, Expressen, recently reported that Swedish telecom engineers and others fear that Sweden will lose 30,000 jobs because their country's most important export is based on a soon-to-be obsolete technology. All this has little to do with NAFTA. Left to their own devices, American companies are quite capable of winning this war over telecommunications standards. The most troubling aspect of the NAFTA/fast-track debate is that American politicians in Washington seem to be uncertain about our place in the world economy. That means, more than just raising or lowering a few tariffs, our leaders may not be devoting the resources to the educational and trade infrastructure that will help our companies compete in the global economy. That's bigger than NAFTA, more important than fast-track and the biggest reason why hundreds of thousands of Americans will be creating products for export around the globe. Or not. ------------------------------ From: jeffay@cs.unc.edu (Kevin Jeffay) Subject: Advance Program: SPIE/ACM Multimedia Computing and Networking '98 Date: 7 Jan 1998 19:28:00 -0500 Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Advance Program & Call for Participation SPIE/ACM MULTIMEDIA COMPUTING AND NETWORKING 1998 San Jose, California January 26-28 1998 Conference Kevin Jeffay, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chairs Dilip Kandlur, IBMJT.J. Watson Research Center Timothy Roscoe, Persimmon I.T., Inc. Program Peter Beadle, University of Wollongong Committee Ming-Syan Chen, National Taiwan University Wu-Chi Feng, Ohio State University Martin Freeman, Philips Research J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, U.C. Santa Cruz Anoop Gupta, Stanford University Mark Hayter, DEC Systems Research Center Sugih Jamin, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor Paul Jardetzky, Sun Microsystems Chuck Kalmanek, AT&T Research Ian Leslie, University of Cambridge Sape Mullender, University of Twente Klara Nahrstedt U.I. Urbana-Champaign Guru Parulkar, Washington University Lawrence A. Rowe, U.C. Berkeley Debanjan Saha, IBM T.J. Watson Henning Schulzrinne, Columbia University Doug Shepherd, Lancaster University Brian Smith, Cornell University Cormac Sreenan, AT&T Research Ralf Steinmetz, T.U. Darmstadt Harrick Vin, University of Texas at Austin Jonathan Walpole, Oregon Graduate Institute Raj Yavatkar, Intel Corporation Hui Zhang, Carnegie Mellon University Registration & hotel info can be found at URL: http://www.spie.org/web/meetings/programs/pw98/ei98_home.html +------------------------------------+ | | | Register by January 7, 1998 for | | for early registration discount!! | | | +------------------------------------+ MMCN '98 ADVANCE PROGRAM ----------------------- Monday 26 January 8.45 am: Welcome and Opening Remarks 9.00 to 10.30 am: Session 1: Multimedia System Development Tools Middleware support for distributed multimedia and collaborative computing, K. Birman, R. Friedman, M. Hayden, Cornell Univ.; I. Rhee, Emory Univ. Multiplatform simulation of video playout performance, L. Gharai, R. Gerber, Univ. of Maryland/College Park A Software-only video production switcher for the Internet MBone, T.H. Wong, K. D. Mayer-Patel, D. Simpson, L. A. Rowe, Univ. of California/Berkeley 11.00 am to 12.30 pm: Session 2: Operating Systems I Applying statistical process controls to the adaptive rate control problem: a framework for the streaming of hetergeneous streams, N. R. Manobar, M. H. Willebeek-LeMair, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr.; A. Prakash, Univ. of Michigan/Ann Arbor An integrated input/output system for kernel data streaming, F. W. Miller, S. K. Tripathi, Univ. of Maryland/College Park Measurement-based admission control and resource allocation for multimedia applications, N. Stratford, P. Barham,S. Crosby, F. Toomey, M. Huggard, Univ. of Cambridge (UK) Lunch Break 2.00 to 3.30 pm: Keynote Address: Enhanced Display Environments for Telecollaboration and Personal Computing in the Office of the Future Henry Fuchs, Federico Gil Professor of Computer Science, Univ. of North Carolina/Chapel Hill 4.00 to 5.30 pm: Session 3: Video-on-Demand Supporting interactive scanning operations in VoD systems, G. Apostolopoulos, Univ. of Maryland/College Park; M. Krunz, Univ of Arizona; S. K. Tripathi, Univ. of Maryland/College Park Modelling prerecorded compressed video streams for fast bandwidth smoothing implementations, W. C. Feng, M. Liu, C. C. Lam, The Ohio State Univ. A system for demonstrating dynamic service aggregation in VoD scenarios, P. Basu, A. Narayanan, R. Krishnan, T. D. C. Little, Boston Univ. Tuesday 27 January 8.30 to 9.15 am: Plenary Speaker Multimedia Communications: What's Next? Leonardo Chiariglione, CSELT/Telecom Italia (Italy) 9.30 to 11.00 am: Session 4: Operating Systems II Symphony: an integrated multimedia file system, P. J. Shenoy, P. Goyal, S. S. Rao, H. M. Vin, Univ. of Texas/Austin Adaptive prefetching for device independent file I/O, D. Revel, D. McNamee, D. Steere, J. Walpole, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology Resource kernels: a resoure-centric approach to real-time and multimedia systems, R. Rajkumar, K. Juvva, A. Molano, S Oikawa, Carnegie Mellon Univ. 11.15 am to 12.45 pm: Session 5: The World Wide Web Characterizing videos on the World Wide Web, S. Acharya, B. C. Smith, Cornell Univ. Static caching of Web servers, Z. Liu, P. Nain, N. Niclausse, INRIA Ctr. Sophia Antipolis (France); D. Towsley, Univ. of Massachusetts/Amherst Resource-based caching for Web servers, R. Tewari, H. M. Vin, Univ. of Texas/Austin; A. Dan, D. Sitaram, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr. Lunch/Exhibit Break 2.00 to 3.30 pm: Keynote Address: Low Latency Media Delivery in a Consumer Internet Service Michael Schwartz, Director of Server Engineering and Senior Scientist, @Home Network 4.00 to 5.30 pm: Session 6: Multimedia Applications Integrated audio-visual processing for object serialization and tracking, G. S. Pingali, Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs. Accelerating M-JPEG compression with temporal information, H. Boenisch, K. Froitzheim, P. Schulthess, Univ. Ulm (FRG) Cross-model retrieval of scripted speech audio, C. B. Owen, F. Makedon, Dartmouth College Wednesday 28 January 8:30 to 9:15am: Plenary Speaker The Computer Revolution Hasn't Happened Yet Alan Kay, Disney Fellow and Vice President of Research and Development, The Walt Disney Company 9.30 to 11.30 am: Session 7: Flow and congestion control Adaptive source rate control for wireless video conferencing, H. Liu, M. El Zarki, Univ. of Pennsylvania Flow and congestion control for internet streaming applications, S. Cen, C. Pu, J. Walpole, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology Invited Paper 11.30am to 1.00 pm: Panel Discussion: The Future of Multimedia Research, Or, What Am I Doing And Why? Moderator: Lawrence A. Rowe, University of California/Berkeley ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: 101XXXX Implementation Schedule Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 20:26:55 -0600 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Dallas, Texas Reply-To: cboone@earthlink.net Tom Crofford wrote: > What is the current schedule for implementing the new 101XXXX carrier > access codes? I believe there was a previous thread here regarding > implementation during the Summer of '98. I'm looking for confirmation > of the timetable. From what I saw on the FCC News Digest I get from the Commission, the 4 digit IXC codes were supposed to go into permissive dialing as of Jan 1, 1998, with end of permissive dialing sometime in June I think...I'll go back over it and post the info here ... a lot of small telcos have asked for and got relief from the start of permissive dialing ... but I think end of permissive dialing is a set date and noone has been granted a waiver ... YET! Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1998 08:55:51 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: 101XXXX Implementation Schedule Tom Crofford wrote: > What is the current schedule for implementing the new 101XXXX > carrier access codes? I believe there was a previous thread here > regarding implementation during the Summer of '98. I'm looking for > confirmation of the timetable. Actually, the question should be 'what is the mandatory date of when existing 10-XXX+ CACs _must_ be dialed as 101-0XXX+'. For about two (maybe three) years now, there _have_ been assigned CACs of the new format 101-XXXX+ in the 101-5XXX+ and 101-6XXX+ ranges. And since that time two or three years ago, where the new format has been dialable, existing 10-XXX+ CACs _have_ been _permissively_ dialable as 101-0XXX+. In Spring 1997, the FCC mandated that as of January 1998, existing 10-XXX+ CACs must disappear, becoming mandatory dialable as 101-0XXX+. However, due to many replies (complaints) of resellers and other telecom entities, this past Fall (October 1997, IIRC), the FCC extended the date of mandatory dialing until the Summer of 1998, in the June/July 1998 timeframe. There is information on this at the FCC's website (http://www.fcc.gov), in various downloadable files at the "Common Carrier Bureau" section. While the FCC's mandates apply "de-jure" only to the US portions of the NANP (this includes Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands in the Caribbean, and Guam and the Mariana Islands in the Pacific - all of which have "Feature-Group-D Equal Access"), since Canada is also an _integral_ part of the NANP (and using the same pool of fg.D CACs/CICs), this FCC mandate would apply "de-facto" to the Canadian portion of the industry. Canada's own industry forums (such as the CSCN, Canadian Steering Committe on Numbering) and regulatory (CRTC) have been aware of the matter and have been 'mirroring' what is presently taking place in the US, regarding the expansion. The "non-US" but still NANP Caribbean (including Bermuda, the Dominican Republic, and other "British" islands of the Caribbean), AFAIK, don't have fg.D "Equal Access", at least not yet. But since they do participate in the NANP, 10(1X)XXX+ CACs are available to them for originating access if they ever decide to implement originating fg.D "Equal Access". And "Caribbean-based" NANP carriers/entities/etc. can also apply to NANPA for their _own_ 101-XXXX+ CACs, available from the same NANP pool. Since there had been _no_ assigned 10-XXX+ CACs of the format 10-10X+, 10-15X+, 10-16X+, it was possible for Bellcore and the Industry to develop an expansion program, back in the late 1980's and early 1990's. However, I _don't_ yet know when NANPA (soon to be Lockheed-Martin) will begin assigning _new_ CACs format ranges 101-1XXX+ thru 101-4XXX+, and 101-7XXX+ thru 101-9XXX+. HOPEFULLY, enough players in the Industry (particularly COCOTs, Cellular, PBX, etc., as well as smaller 'independent' LECs) will have made existing 10-XXX+ CACs _mandatory_ dialable as 101-0XXX+ _BEFORE_ any _additional_ ranges of 101-XXXX+ CACs become activated! MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:44:12 -0500 From: kim@aol.com (Kim Brennan) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: AOL Victorious Over Spammer The Editor continues: > And sadly, Steve Case and AOL have never had, since the early days of > that service, exactly a sterling reputation. I don't know how long > *you* have been a member there, but let me tell you the years past > have seen lots of mischief originate at aol.com, admittedly by users > as well as staff members and government agents. Users are not all I've been a AOL member for ten years. > angels by any means, but AOL's lack of any security at all for many > years was a netwide scandal. 'Screen names' were valid one day and > gone the next, with little or no way to audit or backtrack on who said > what. I can still subscribe there, set up a screen name to pollute the > net with one day and kill the screen name the next, letting complaint > mail bounce all over the place. Hmm, as I recall, AOL's email only got access to the internet circa five years ago. Yep, the marketing of accounts which were free for one month had detrimental aspects from an internet standpoint. The benefit for AOL was that there were a small number of bad apples in a large basket of new customers. As has been demonstrated with spammers, a few bad apples can cause ENORMOUS amounts of problems. Your basic complaint then hinges on your dislike of AOL's marketing scheme, which is designed to get as many people as possible to sign on to AOL with the minimum amount of hassles (security checks.) > It just seems to me Steve Case has always been *too friendly* with > government agents. Now, any responsible ISP will certainly respond to > a subpoena served upon him, a search warrant or wire tap order issued > legitimatly in response to the activities of some one or more > users. But with AOL it seems like instead of starting off with the > premise that they will respect their users' privacy as a default > arrangement, while making it relatively difficult to misbehave in an > undetected way (i.e. those ever-changing screen names) they instead > leave themselves wide open to every jerk who comes along and then > get the FBI to do the job *they* should be doing instead. PAT] I still see no evidence that Steve Case, aka AOL has been 'too friendly' with government agents. Cooperative in criminal cases, and as a guide in Parental controls situations, but I don't see where you get the idea that there is special treatment for government, call them spies, to entrap people. The whole AOL set up is such that ANYONE can be anonymous (not just government agents). Next you want AOL to do enforcement of laws, rather than the FBI (or other appropriate organizations). If that isn't an invasion of my privacy I don't know what is. The FBI, with proper jurisprudence is entitled to snoop IF there is reasonable cause. And AOL is entitled to request their assistance if they notice a problem. I remember several months ago a problem with inbound internet mail on AOL being EXTREMELY slow getting delivered. This was due to spam filtering, according to what I heard. It seems to me that what I read in your responses would lead to even worse performance on AOL in general to impliment the heavy security you seem to think AOL's service needs. I wonder how often people would use credit cards if it took 30-60 minutes to validate each purchase? Kim Brennan (kim@aol.com) Duo 2300c, Red VW Fox Wagon GL, Black VW Corrado SLC http://members.aol.com/kim Duo Information Page: http://members.aol.com/kim/computer/duo Questions should include "Duo" in the subject, else they'll be deleted unread [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Kim, you present some excellent responses to my original statements, and I am going to seriously consider what you have stated above. Perhaps I need to rethink some of my complaints about AOL. Thanks very much for responding. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #4 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jan 9 13:54:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA09428; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:54:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:54:16 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801091854.NAA09428@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #5 TELECOM Digest Fri, 9 Jan 98 13:54:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 5 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CLEC's by Neighborhood? (Pat Miller) ... and *I'll* be on the Air Sunday (Ed Ellers) NANPA's Transfer from Bellcore to Lockheed (Mark J. Cuccia) Switch Translation and Default Routing of 911 Calls (P.B. Schechter) Qualcomm's "Prisoner of War" (Bob Goudreau) Book Review: "Cyber Investing", David Brown/Kassandra Bentley (Rob Slade) Help: Anyone w/Realtime Digital Switching Experience (Cynthia Creswell) Telecom Update 1/98 (Digital Wireless Digest) Listen to WGR via the Web (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Miller Subject: CLEC's by Neighborhood? Date: 9 Jan 1998 05:45:50 GMT Organization: Telephone Answerette Systems Inc. For a preview -- what I envision would be thought of mostly by building owners/businesses who's buildings/organizations may contain hundreds of phone lines. Instead this business now is a group of residence in a neighborhood. Have we ever looked at why there is not a big push for CLEC's in residential areas. They say it is not profitable, but is it. Perhaps not for a big group like AT&T, but for a neighborhood that may get together as a group, have fiber pulled a block to abut the area and plug a slick 96 or something into the CLEC serving larger customers (the neighborhood.) The CLEC with the fiber need not worry about the copper or end customers. Taking care of the end customers is the job of the CLEC (the neighborhood group) buying a connection to the fiber ring. At some point the neighborhood section may be bought out. No matter what the services may be cheaper, and new services may arrive earlier. High quality lines ... direct connections to the Internet, etc. The question I have is what costs would be involved? What equipment might one look for? How would one go about setting up something like this? Why hasn't this been promoted/tried? After all we are talking about doing it neighborhood by neighborhood where someone within the area (ma and pa) encourage it. Where they can possibly get nearly 50% of the phones in a rather dense area. Not leasing lines from Bell (or maybe so.) Not installing broadly where many 10% of the phones switch to the new provider; or the courts come in and say this big company is ignoring the poor area's. NO this is done by residents ... perhaps even poor ones. I just finished watching C-SPAN where one of the big wigs in the government who works with the communications industry said "I like to see Ma and Pop organisations." To paraphrase: They are the ones who make a difference. Pat Miller--Communications Consult+ full/expanded info on web/finger email/finger pmiller@tas-kc.com | http://www.nyx.net/~pmiller backup finger pmiller@nox.nyx.net | email pmiller@nyx.net voiceONEnumber 816-523-2474 | fax 816-968-968-5 (you-you5) ----------------------------------+Heartland TEC #145 155 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you want to run a telephone company for the people in your immediate neighborhood, be my guest. I imagine the established telco in your town would join me in wishing you the best of luck. Believe me, if it was at all profit- able these days (or did you plan to operate a not-for-profit cooperative society) the telcos would be fighting each other to do it. You plan on handling the billing, customer service, operator and directory functions also? Telephone cooperative societies serving small customers (i.e. farmers) were experimented with quite a number of years ago, but almost all of them eventually sold out to Bell as the times got tougher and the going got rougher. If you have a very rich 'mom and pop' who can put some money in it and wait around a few years to see any of it back, go ahead and try your proposal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: ... and *I'll* be on the Air on Sunday Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 22:16:39 -0500 Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] The TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Readers in the vicinity of Buffalo, NY may wish to listen to me on > the radio Friday night and call in with questions regarding the new > fee being imposed on telephone subscribers with more than one line. I > was invited by John Otto to be a guest on his program whch is aired on > station WGR, 550 kc on the AM dial. The show will be from 10:10 pm to > 11:00 pm Eastern time this Friday (tomorrow) night. Although WGR is > only a five thousand watt station, late at night the signal gets > around, so readers in other parts of the USA and certainly around the > east coast of Canada should be able to hear it." I'm tentatively set to be a guest on the Dr. Stan Frager show on WHAS (840) in Louisville, Kentucky, starting just after 9 pm (Eastern) on Sunday night. The show runs until midnight, but I expect to be on only the first hour. The topic will be invasions of privacy; my contribution will be to talk about how the Internet might be used by private eyes, stalkers and others to get the goods on a subject. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your show sounds interesting also. Is WHAS on the internet? If it is, people can listen that way if they are outside the signal range. I've found that WGR can be obtained on the internet at www.wgr.com. Good luck with the show! PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 18:20:36 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: NANPA's Transfer from Bellcore to Lockheed As many of us have known, Lockheed-Martin is taking over Bellcore's duties with regard to the North American Numbering Plan Administration. NANPA's facility at Bellcore in Piscataway NJ will close at 5pm on Friday 16 January 1998. It will open up at Lockheed-Martin's Washington DC facilities at 9am on Monday 19 January 1998. Lockheed is also going to be taking over local Central-Office NXX Code administration for those parts of the NANP under US FCC jurisdiction (all 50 states including Alaska and Hawaii, DC, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) over the next 12 to 18 months. These assignments have traditionally been handled by the dominant incumbent local telcos in each area code. Lockheed is also going to be handling more duties regarding local number portability/database administration. While at this time the new Lockheed-NANPA website comes up as "Under Construction", the mainpage URL is http://www.nanpa.com (also mirrored at http://www.nanpa.net). Bellcore and Lockheed have prepared various transition planning documents, press releases, etc., including a _FREE_ Bellcore NANP Planning Letter (PL-NANP-106) dated 23-December-1997. Some of these items are available for _FREE_ download from the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry website. The following URL gives a list of links for FTP Download (in MS-Word) of various meetings and documents regarding the transition: http://www.atis.org/atis/nanp/nanpdocs.htm Scroll down to the bottom of this page under "NANP Transition Task Force Documents". A printed/paper copy of the Bellcore PL-NANP-106 can also be ordered for _FREE_ from Bellcore's 800-521-CORE (2673) order center. Although NANPA is being transferred from Bellcore to Lockheed-Martin, Bellcore will continue to maintain the functions of the Traffic Routing Administration (TRA), which includes such documents and databases as RDBS, LERG, NIPC, NNACL/NNAG, BRIDS/BRADS, TPM-VH, etc. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: pb@Colorado.EDU (P.B. Schechter) Subject: Switch Translation and Default Routing of 911 Calls Date: 8 Jan 1998 19:28:20 GMT Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder In Colorado, we are considering rate center consolidation as a means of conserving CO codes. However, rate center consolidation encounters a potential problem because of the way rate centers interact with 911 default routing. Currently, if the 911 tandem gets ANI from the 911 caller's serving central office, that information is used to route the call to the appropriate PSAP. However, if ANI information is not available, then the 911 tandem routes the call to a default PSAP iaccording to its incoming trunk group. This means that there needs to be an assignment of each CO code to a trunk group, depending on the default PSAP associated with the customers served by that CO code. If we consolidate rate centers to one, then there will no longer be a simple correlation between CO codes and PSAPs (since there are about 9 different 911 jurisdictions within the 303 area code -- which is the one in which we are considering rate center consolidation (this is because Colorado has very strong local -- or, anti-central-- government)). We have been informed, however, that at least NorTel (DMS-100 and DMS-10), Ericson, and Siemens switches have a field in translations (EMR, in the NorTel switches) that is specifically for routing 911 calls (one of the smaller companies in Colorado uses this field--they use it first to route a call over a specific trunk group to the 911 tandem, and then, as a backup (if that trunk group, or the 911 tandem, is down), to the appropriate PSAP's serving central office. Finally, my question: Do "all" switches have this "EMR" field in their translations? In particular, do Lucent 5ESS switches? (Representatives of a company that uses 5ESSs think that they do not, but they don't work in translations, specifically.) Thanks in advance for any replies. PB Schechter pb.schechter@dora.state.co.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:16:09 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Qualcomm's "Prisoner of War" Wireless Guru (pbdevine@NOSPAM.aol.com) wrote: > During mid-December a California man was arrested for espionage in > Russia. News reports say the man was a technician for a wireless > phone company, installing equipment in Russia. > Here's the news behind the news: Although probably not a spy, > this man is more like a prisoner of war. The war is a global war being > fought over which company will supply most of the world with wireless > digital phones. Actually, he is no longer a prisoner, and it now looks like the Russian federal government is hoping the whole thing (an embarrassing mistake by a local-level government agency) can fade quietly away. The American in question, Richard Bliss, was arrested in November (not December) for the "crime" of using Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment to survey the Rostov-on-Don area for suitable antenna locations to be used by the area's new mobile phone system. None of this should have been a surprise to the local authorities, as Bliss is an employee of Qualcomm, which won the contract to install the system. The Russian government eventually let Bliss return to the US just before Christmas, on the promise that he would return to Russia this month to continue the legal proceedings. This release in itself was a pretty obvious admission that the arrest was a goof-up, since it is inconceivable that the FSB (one of the KGB's successor agencies) would let someone they *really* believed to be a spy to walk free. The latest news (see http://www.newsline.org/newsline/1998/01/080198.html or today's http://www.reuters.com/briefing/) is that the Russian government still hasn't formally asked Bliss to return to Russia, and now looks unlikely to do so. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 08:25:42 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Cyber Investing", David L. Brown/Kassandra Bentley Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKCYBINV.RVW 970408 "Cyber Investing", David L. Brown/Kassandra Bentley, 1995, 0-471-11926-1 %A David L. Brown %A Kassandra Bentley %C 5353 Dundas Street West, 4th Floor, Etobicoke, ON M9B 6H8 %D 1995 %G 0-471-11926-1 %I Wiley %O 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 lwhiting@jwiley.com %P 286 %T "Cyber Investing: Cracking Wall Street with Your Personal Computer" I am quite willing to grant you that an investment strategy and plan is better than no plan at all. I am even willing to grant that the strategies outlined in the book are prudent. (I am less willing to be enthusiastic about a book that counsels you to accept a growth rate of 15% but admits that any monkey with a handful of darts can make 13%.) So, why do the first few chapters remind me so strongly of those "get rich quick" infomercials on late night TV? The book is long on strategy, and the strategies can be helpful whether you have a computer or not. Of course, they are far easier to use if you have a computer to do the bull work and searching for you, rather than calculating your way through a bunch of stocks (chosen by dart?) until one matches the strategy. Actually, the computer tools don't get mentioned too often. And what gets the shortest shrift is the fact that you need data -- lots of data -- to make it work. While sometimes producing excellent titles, Wiley does seem to have this predilection for overpriced marketing pamphlets. One of the authors of this book works for the company that makes the software that comes on the included disks. Surprise! Of course, you do get a thirty-day free trial. (Given the recommended complexity of the search strategies, thirty days full-time work would be a bare minimum time to get used to the software.) And buried at the bottom of the book, you find one (1) mention that the online service behind the software costs almost a dollar an hour ... copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCYBINV.RVW 970408 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:35:04 -0500 From: pulaki@aol.com (Cynthia Creswell) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Help: Anyone w/Realtime Digital Switching Experience To whom it may concern, I need some advice with a digital switch I have up and running which is having some problems. SETUP: 166MHz Pentium/128MB ram/512k cache/3GB IDE HD/Ethernet card on a peer-peer OS/2 network; 4 T1s connected to 4 NMS AGT1 cards (96 ports) connected via a DSU for voltage control; OS/2 Warp 4.0, DB/2 ver 2.1, Call processing software programmed using Mastermind Technology's MasterVox program; WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH IT: We process debit cards ... quite successfully until recently. The problem I believe is related to increased traffic. THE PROBLEM: The way we have it set up, we should be able to process 48 simultaneous incoming calls. Until recently, all things were running smoothly on a continuous basis. We were processing up to 34 calls at once without incident. Then, sales increased and our concurrent usage at peek hours increased to 38-40 calls -- and all hell broke loose. I am finding that at peek times when we reach this new ceiling, the computer simply locks up and I need to reboot to get back up and running -- not a good situation when callers are trying to get thru. I am certain that there is plenty of RAM. The processor gauge at the top of the screen is not peeking so I believe the processor speed is adequate. I have adjusted the DB/2 database configuration parameters to the best of my knowledge to allow up to 100 concurrent connections to the DB (although some further tweeking here may be necessary). I'm really not sure what could be the cause of this traffic problem and I can't find anyone else who is doing this. We are toying with the idea of moving the DB to another machine on a peer to peer network to decrease processing on the call processing machine (we also have another switch to hook up to it as well). We are also considering mirroring the switch to cover our butts when the thing locks up, etc. I guess I am looking for anyone with some experience with this to suggest some changes to make (i.e faster machine, different DB, different OS, etc.) I know other people are doing this with even greater traffic than I am looking at, but can't find them. Any thoughts? Thank you kindly for any and all responses. Cynthia Creswell Pulaki@aol.com ( that's Pulaki ) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 21:02:04 PST From: McCarthy_telecom@phoenix.edu (Michael McCarthy) Reply-To: digital_telecom@phoenix.edu Subject: Telecom Update 1/98 DIGITAL WIRELESS DIGEST January 5, 1998 A digital publication for investors and professionals in the field of Telecommunications. ************************************************************************ Chicago Sun-Times: CDMA Orders "Pouring In." TDMA "Out Of The Picture."... The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that CDMA orders are "pouring in" from around the world. In a December 26th story, Sun-Times says telephone manufacturers such as Motorola have a "new edge" with "code division multiple access, or CDMA, which has been generating a lot of interest among the new digital phone services in the United States, Latin America and Asia." According to Motorola's Gene Delaney, "We expected good market acceptance for CDMA. It offers cellular operators greater capacity. And subscribers appreciate the voice quality." "Delaney said the attraction of CDMA is that it allows operators to offer a greater number of calls than possible with other technologies while delivering calls with near-land-line voice quality. Cellular companies that use CDMA can fit three to four times the number of call channels on the same bandwidth as competing digital technologies." Clint McClellan, a wireless industry analyst with Dataquest in San Jose, Calif., said Motorola has chosen wisely in technologies. "They didn't put all their eggs in one basket, and they also didn't invest in more limited technologies," he said. About half of the contracts for new and expanded cellular systems are for CDMA. McClellan said that because they miscalculated CDMA's potential, major competitors, such as Ericcson and Nokia, are out of the picture for the present. ***************************************************************** EL LATINO: "TDMA Would Be A Disaster For Mexico."... As wireless digital phone wars heat up in Latin America, America's largest Spanish-language newspaper, El Latino, has weighed in: "TDMA would be a disaster for Mexico" because of the "damage it would do to Mexican companies and workers who would be forced to try and compete in the world market with a second class system. This new phone system will be the most important piece of industrial infrastructure in Mexico over the next twenty years. It will open up most of Mexico to voice, fax, and computer communications in way that most of us never thought possible." "But today it is possible. And the benefits of getting the best system -- CDMA -- are enormous: Better phones, less expensive phones, and thousands of new jobs. "The drawbacks of installing an out-of-date, inferior, even dangerous TDMA system are equally enormous. We must choose wisely. And not just between CDMA and TDMA. The real choice is whether we want Mexico to have a Third World communications system for an economy whose only asset is cheap labor. Or do we want a new system for the new Information Age, where Mexicans are using the latest technology to learn new skills and create new jobs to fuel a new, growing, economy. It's an easy choice." (Translation provided by author.) ******************************************************************* From Canada's ATLANTIC CHAMBER JOURNAL, January 1998 ... Telecom writer Silas DeMorte tells us to "Forget Fast Track" because the real focus should be on the escalating international business war within the digital wireless arena. "Wireless digital phones are instant infrastructure," says DeMorte. " A quantum leap that, for many countries, will be the most important piece of industrial infrastructure they will ever get. An instant passport into the Information Age. "But not all wireless phones are created equal -- and here is where the battle begins for American companies. Countries around the world are deciding -- even as you read this -- whether to use the newer, more powerful, American-backed standard, called CDMA; or the twenty-year old European standard, variously called TDMA or GSM." DeMorte goes on to state that "European companies like the TDMA standard because they've been using it for more than a decade. It's not as powerful as its American counterpart, but it is more familiar. And because Europeans have billions invested in this technology -- that although outdated, they think is good enough for some of the less demanding countries of the Third World -- they are going to fight to get the most they can out of this investment. "But if the Wall Street Journal is to be believed, the European may be fighting a losing battle. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Korean had created tens of thousands of jobs and become a telecommunications powerhouse in Asia because it had become, early on, the American CDMA standard." He touches upon many documented hazards linked to TDMA, reporting that "...other journals report TDMA systems in Europe cause problems with medical devices such as pacemakers and hearing aids. (So much so that one wag says that TDMA really stands for Telephones Destroy Medical Accessories.)" DeMorte finishes his piece with the observation that "from Forbes to the Los Angeles Times to technical phone journals to foreign language papers in Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, and Korea, the drum beat for the American CDMA technology is getting louder and louder as its superiority is demonstrated over and over throughout the world." ******************************************************************** For related topics or forum postings, go to: "http://members.aol.com/pbdevine/diginews.html" ******************************************************************** Feel free to offer submissions or feedback to: Michael McCarthy, Publisher 1807 Maple St. Wilmington, DE 19805 302-996-2691 mickmcart@prodigy.net ------------------------------ From: ptownson@telecom-digest.org (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Listen to WGR via the Web Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 13:45:00 EST Just a reminder to readers that if you want to hear me on the radio Friday night discussing telecom topics in general and the matter of additional charges for second lines you may do so by tuning in to WGR, Buffalo, NY on Friday night at 10:10 pm Eastern (9:10 pm Central) time. WGR is 550kc on the AM band at 5000 watts, so they should be receivable around a lot of the eastern USA and parts of Canada. But you can also listen over internet at http://www.wgr.com ... Actually when I tested it that way yesterday, I was not able to ever connect with their server, but when I went instead to a service like Real Media Guide and entered from their link instead, it went through fine. The show is hosted by John Otto and takes phone calls, so perhaps some of you will want to call in. It will last for fifty minutes, until 11:00 pm. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #5 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 13 20:07:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA29353; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:07:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:07:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801140107.UAA29353@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #6 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jan 98 20:07:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 6 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Wireless Companies Hide Towers (Greg Monti) South Korean Telecom Engineer Needs Advice (Jongwoo Park) AT&T and MLM Together at Last! (Wayne Dolesman) UCLA Short Course: Communication Systems Using Digital Signal (B Goodin) Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 (Donald M. Heiberg) Teleport ATT Merger (Richard Barnaby) Passing FCC PIC Fee to Customers (Eli Mantel) FAQ for comp.dcom.telecom? (Steve Krauster) Map Wanted Showing RBOC Territories (Bill McMullin) Re: Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX (dlover@dave-world.net) Any Other Newsgroups For Telephone Technology? (Steve Krauster) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 22:45:29 From: Greg Monti Subject: Wireless Companies Hide Towers In the January 11, 1998, edition of _The New York Times_ (on page 17 in the national edition), therer's a story entitled "Phone Companies Seeking to be Heard and Not Seen; Wireless Antennas Hide in 'Stealth Towers'" by Andrew C. Revkin. A summary: With the explosion of PCS companies, some areas now have eight wireless phone companies competing. All eight need to have towers to communicate with mobile phones. Beautification efforts and cranky neighbors have caused some cell site applications to be denied. Town councils and zoning boards don't want to outlaw cellular phones entirely, they just want to minimize the number and unsightliness of transmission towers. This requires either sharing towers among rival carriers or camouflaging them. Two sites are described, with photographs. One is a strangely mechanical-looking 100-foot pine tree located in the side yard of a nursery in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. Wireless antennas are hidden among the imitation branches and pine needles well above ground level. The tree serves AT&T, Bell Atlantic Mobile and Omnipoint. The other photo shows a fiberglass extension of a church steeple with cellular antennas hidden inside, in Derby, Connecticut. Other tales: in Mendham, NJ, a 14-story mock bell tower was built entirely as a cellular communications tower. In Phoenix one telco has applied to construct a 30-foot-tall artificial Saguaro cactus plant. More common places to hide antennas: on commercial signs a truck stops, on water towers, on the Green Monster left-field scoreboard at Fenway Park. Typical rent is $1,500 per site per month. The number of sites is being driven by wireless industry growth, along with new applications: some outdoor vending machines now use cellular to call home when they run low on stock. Federal law pre-empts communities from banning wireless towers outright, so they are resigned to getting all the parties, phone companies and complaining neighbors, into one room and hammering out negiotiated settlements everyone can live with. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: Jongwoo Park Subject: South Korean Telecom Engineer Needs Advice Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 14:29:37 +0900 Organization: HANARO corp. Reply-To: xcode@chollian.net I am in South Korea. I'm working for a telephony company called, "HANARO". HANARO WEB site = http://www.hanarotel.co.kr/ DACOM WEB site = http://www.dacom.net/ HANARO is a Local Telephony and Multimedia Service Carrier in S. Korea. My company was newly founded last year, and is preparing services which will be provoded by the end of this year. These days, my company is also considering on the installation of Integrated Network Test-Bed, for various testing activities to be made. I was engaged to this project and soon I found some materials from advanced telephony carrier's experience in maintaining Network Test-Bed. If is there anyone who are working in telephony operating company which has test-bed network, or who knows the people who have experiences on this, let me know it. Materials, or E-mail address of the engineers will be very helpful to me. MAIL? : mailto=xcode@chollian.net NAME? : Park, JongWoo. Manager System Development Team 1 Engineering Planning Uint HANARO corp. Informations I need to get is concerning like follows ... 1. How many years has the TEST-BED been maintained? 2. For what the TEST-BED is being used? (%) Testing / Developing / Diagnosis / Fixing Problems in Network 3. How many personnels are engaged to operation of the TEST-BED? 4. Do you think TEST-BED is very helpful to your company? HAVE A GOOD LUCK, 13/JAN/1998 Park, JW. Seoul, Korea. ------------------------------ From: Babu Mengelepouti Subject: AT&T and MLM Together at Last! Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:52:05 PST AT&T: Do you really want a reseller of your products marketing this way? This is about the seventh spam I've received from this idiot. Whoever runs "boulevards.com" - Please deal with this spamming moron or I will notify your upstream provider. > From 46167440@juno.com Sat Jan 10 18:03:04 1998 > Received: from boulevards.boulevards.com (boulevards.boulevards.com [204.162.28.70]) > by vcn.bc.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA06832 > for ; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 18:02:53 -0800 (PST) > From: 46167440@juno.com > Received: from 204.162.28.70 by boulevards.boulevards.com via SMTP ( 950215.SGI.8.6.10/940406.SGI) > id RAA02833; Sat, 10 Jan 1998 17:36:46 -0800 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 98 18:32:51 EST > To: Friend@aol.com > Subject: AT&T and MLM Together @ Last!!! > Message-ID: <> > AT&T and MLM, > N-COM > This will amount for the biggest explosion in the history of MLM > MISS THIS ONE IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT!! > GET IN NOW!!! DON'T MISS THE OPPORTUNITY > OF A LIFTIME ON THE GROUNDFLOOR!!! > Ok so you think you're dreaming right? WRONG. AT&T has signed a deal > with N-COM. This MLM is going to be a billion dollar giant in its first > year and NOW has stormed into pre-launch and will explode the > advertising medium as it becomes official March 1st with celebrity > promotion. > DO NOT MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY!! > OK so what is it? > Pre-Launch JUST STARTED 1/1/98 !!! > AT&T AND MLM > Don't wait! > We have just signed a contract utilizing the AT&T Network. > AT&T is the largest name in the telecommunication industry. We currently > have around distributors nationwide. This opportunity is so new and > so unique that the first 20,000 to 30,000 distributors will earn enormous > amounts of money in 1998. > We offer : > - 9.9 cents flat rate long distance service > exclusively utilizing the AT&T Network > - 9.9 cents flat rate inbound 800/888 service > - 16.9 cents flate rate calling card > - Prepaid rechargeable calling cards > - Collectable prepaid calling cards > - Multi-function prepaid calling cards > - Hottest technology - Virtual office > - Prepaid cellular phones > - Billed cellular phones > - Pager services > - Internet services > - Local telephone service > - Cable services > - Digital satellite services > - WEB TV > - and more!!! > MULTIPLE CONCURRENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM > > - Earn up to more than $4300.00 per day > - Substantial residual income potential > - Earn profits on your FIRST DAY > - Commissions calculated daily, 7 days a week > - Commissions paid weekly > - Multiple ways to earn commissions > SPONSORING HAS NEVER BEEN EASIER! > With our Virtual Sponsor (TM) you can now have prospects automatically > signed up for you! > - Explains the program FOR you in 7 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES!!! > - Automatically signs AND places prospects for you > - Notifies you of your new downline > - Advertise and it signs up your prospects > - Patentable technology applied to MLM for FIRST TIME! > - 800 number works for you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week > OK so stop drooling. I know you want in because you are going to get > rich sitting on the ground floor and only $110 locks in your position. > The best part? You don't even have to personally sponsor anyone to get > paid!! > IF YOU MISS THIS ONE IT'S YOUR FAULT!! > Call the fax on demand @ 205-922-1155 doc. #8049 > or 716-720-2721 doc. #1 > Then email me today with your fax number, phone number or email number > and I'll get you started immediately. Our new Virtual Sponsor will do > all the rest of the work for you! > This is not TPN, EXCEL, or TEL 3, We are going to Blow away ALL > competition! > Email me. Put in the subject box ATT and I will get back with you i mmediately > Kim Bailey > GrtBiz4U@hotmail.com > Thank You Very Much For Your Time !! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, I got a few mailings from Kim also, each one saying the same as above. You'd think AT&T would not do business with marketing firms who use these techniques, but maybe they are not aware of exactly how the company is operating. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: Communication Systems Using Digital Signal Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:23:05 -0800 On April 6-10, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Communication Systems Using Digital Signal Processing", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bernard Sklar, PhD, Communications Engineering Services, and frederick harris, MS, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, San Diego State University. As part of the course materials, each participant receives a copy of the text, "Digital Communications: Fundamentals and Applications", by Bernard Sklar. This course provides comprehensive coverage of digital communications. It differs from other communications courses in its emphasis on applying modern digital signal processing techniques to the implementation of communication systems. This makes the course essential for practitioners in the rapidly changing field. Error-correction coding, spread spectrum techniques, and bandwidth-efficient signaling are all discussed in detail. Basic digital signaling methods and the newest modulation-with-memory techniques are presented, along with trellis-coded modulation. Many traditional communication applications such as modulation/ demodulation, channelization, channel equalization, synchronization, and frequency synthesis are being implemented with new digital signal processing techniques to achieve high performance. The course analyzes these techniques, including multirate filters, I-Q sampling, and conversion between I-Q and real signals. UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since 1990. The course fee is $1595, which includes the text and extensive course notes. These course materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/ This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:21:25 -0700 On January 2, the Colorado PUC released final information on 10 Digit Dialing and Area Code Overlay in Colorado, see http://www.puc.state.co.us/10dig.html Now the PUC is wavering, see http://insidedenver.com/yourmoney/0110code1.html Rocky Mountain News, Denver, January 10: Denver customers should gird for 1st shot at 10-digit dialing Education campaign will begin Monday. By Rebecca Cantwell Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer Comparing it with getting a flu shot, the chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission said it's time for metro Denver residents to prepare to dial 10 digits to make a local call. The telecommunications industry and the commission have worked for months to prepare a $1 million public education campaign beginning Monday that will let metro Denver residents know they can start dialing 303 in front of each local number, beginning Feb. 1. A requirement to use 10 digits for local calls is scheduled to start June 1 in preparation for the new 720 overlay area code, beginning as early as Aug. 1. But PUC commissioners made it clear Friday they don't like the idea of imposing the new area code and still want to pursue alternatives. They expressed frustration at foot-dragging by the telecommunications industry. At the end of the morning's discussions, the commission said the education plan should proceed and businesses should continue preparing for 10-digit dialing. "This is the vaccination,'' Chairman Robert Hix said. But commissioners also said they want to continue exploring alternatives since an estimated 3 million of the 8 million numbers in the 303 area code are not being used -- although most of them have been assigned to companies. The commission has been seeking conservation of numbers in the last several months, but so far there's been little action. Commissioner Brent Alderfer was the most outspoken, saying the commission had been clear in ordering exploration of ways to avoid imposition of the 720 code. Among the options they want to look at: . Requiring wireless users to switch to 720 and giving the new area code only to future wireless users. The explosion in pagers and mobile phones is a big reason the 303 numbers are running out. Requiring those devices to use the new code might give 303 another six or seven years of life. State regulators rejected a wireless-only new area code last year because the Federal Communications Commission had ruled against such codes, saying they were unfair to the wireless industry. But states, faced with proliferating area codes, want to revisit the issue. . Consolidating rate centers. The big supply of unused 303 numbers stems from traditional telephone technology, which assigns prefixes to specific rate centers, the geographic point of measuring and billing long-distance calls. Blocks of 10,000 numbers at a time are allotted, which means that each new telephone company wanting to serve all of 303 has a block in each of 42 rate centers, or 420,000 numbers. The commission is starting public meetings with one Monday in Longmont to review whether to shrink the number of rate centers, which could free lots of 303 numbers. As a side benefit, that could lead to a bigger local calling area. That would mean higher monthly bills for all customers. . Waiting for local number portability to free more 303 numbers through pooling of numbers. Metro Denver residents this year are scheduled to start being able to take their numbers with them when they move. That might delay the need for a new area code, but the timing is uncertain. The issue involves regional centers and centralized software, said PUC telecommunications engineer Bruce Armstrong. Armstrong said a software deadline of mid-December will not be met until July. "We don't have a clue what that will mean for Denver,'' he told the commission. That's just one of the very unclear timing issues facing the commission. And that left the commission emphasizing that the movement toward 10-digit dialing in preparation for the new area code must proceed, even if a delay turns out to be possible. The current plan is to give only users of new numbers the new 720 code. But duplication of numbers between the codes will require everyone to dial 10 numbers. January 10, 1998 Submitted by Don Heiberg, Denver 303-589-1539 ------------------------------ From: barnaby@barnaby.net (Richard Barnaby) Subject: Teleport ATT Merger Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:10:24 GMT Organization: Business Support Services Just wondering ... The Teleport/ATT merger is being heralded as a "great thing" by (it seems) everyone. Teleport has built its business (so it seems to me) by being IXC neutral. Since Teleport (AFAIK) was not competing in the LD area (to any great extent if at all), any IXC would feel comfortable placing their business with them rather than the ILEC in that city, all other things being equal. Now how will the *other* IXC's feel with ATT knowing all their business connections. If I were an IXC I'd be just a tad nervous. Does this portend well for other CLEC's to have business migrated to them? Does it *even* matter anymore :-) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it is interesting that last week AT&T claims massive losses attempting to get into the local business and said they are out of it for good; then this week they buy up Teleport and approach the local business from a different angle. Maybe this method will work for them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Passing FCC PIC Fee to Customers Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:52:27 PST If there has been any media coverage of the new charge that long distance companies are now required to pay for each subscriber who has that company selected as their PIC, I have missed it. By chance, I did come across a legal notice about a $0.53 monthly charge for such a fee, but I don't recall the details. I do remember that the fee was to be charged to the customer if there was no long distance company selected as the primary interexchange company. My latest long distance bill from MCI contains the following notice: The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to each usage customer. I suppose we should not be surprised that this fee is being passed along to customers, just as the per-call charge for toll-free calls made from pay phones is passed along to the telephone customer who is ultimately paying the bill. But MCI is charging this fee even when MCI is not being charged, because not everyone who uses MCI has selected MCI as their PIC. In fact, MCI is charging $1.07 for each "usage customer"... perhaps there's one charge for interlata access and another for intralata access? By the way, I also called AT&T, and was told they filed a tariff update on 12/18/97 to allow for charging $1.50 per line after the first. I thought I had heard something about this, but am surprised it's being billed by the long distance company. I thought this charge was to be billed by the LEC. ------------------------------ From: antispam@bigmoney.idiom.com (Steve Krauster) Subject: FAQ for comp.dcom.telecom? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:09:30 GMT Organization: Slip.Net (http://www.slip.net) Is there an FAQ for comp.dcom.telecom? Steve krauster@slip.net (the "from" field of this posting is bogus) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes there is. You will find it in the Telecom Archives. Go to http://telecom-digest.org PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 22:28:56 -0400 From: Bill McMullin Reply-To: bill@interactive.ca Organization: InfoInterActive Inc. Subject: Map Wanted Showing RBOC Territories Hey Pat, would you happen to have or know where to find a map of the U.S. showing the RBOC territories? Or, if there is one with more detail that would be fine too. Thanks, Bill McMullin InfoInterActive Inc. ------------------------------ From: dlover Subject: Re: Help Connecting a Modem to a PBX Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 12:57:13 -0600 Fraser Orr wrote in message ... > I remember when modems were still operating at 1200 baud, that you > could buy a device called an acoustic coupler, that you strapped onto > the phone, and it seems to me that this would surely work. It seems > rather an unsophisiticated solution though. Is it possible to simply > unplug the handset of the phone, and, using a suitably modified jack, > plug the modem in there? Even if it can't necessarily dial the number, > I would be happy to dial it myself. Depends ... Is it an analog phone or a digital phone? If it is an analog phone like on a Lucent Definity G3, you can run the modem right into the wall jack. If it is digital, then you'll ruin the port or the modem or both. If it is digital (and a Lucent Definity G3) ask to get an 8411D phone. It is a digital (DCP) phone that has an analog port on the back of it that is perfect for modems/fax/etc. You can NOT plug the modem into the handset cord of either type because of voltage mismatches. ------------------------------ From: antispam@bigmoney.idiom.com (Steve Krauster) Subject: Any Other Newsgroups For Telephone Technology? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 00:20:55 GMT Organization: Slip.Net (http://www.slip.net) Are there any other newsgroups besides this one, comp.dcom.telecom, for discussing consumer noncomputer telephone issues? Like types of cordless phones, telephone wiring, answering machines, etc? Steve krauster@slip.net (the from field of this posting is bogus) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two that come to mind are these: alt.dcom.telecom and comp.dcom.telecom.tech. Both of those newsgroups had their origin from this one several years ago. In addition, if you look at the telecom web page (http://telecom-digest.org) you will find a selection of other resources worthwhile to visit. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #6 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 13 22:44:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA08788; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:44:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801140344.WAA08788@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #7 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jan 98 22:44:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 702 Area Code Fight May Split Nevada (Tad Cook) Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal- Huh? (Richard Barnaby) USWest Admits 3-Way Problem (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids (Monty Solomon) Wanted: Merlin Programming Documents (Tele Monster) Telecom Update (Canada) #115, January 12, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) USN Communications News Release (Bryan Williams) The Microsoft Witchhunt (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 702 Area Code Fight May Split Nevada Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:12:46 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 702 area code fight may split Nevada CARSON CITY (AP) -- Unhappy northern Nevadans are making emotional pleas to hold onto something that southern Nevadans might soon claim -- the state's 702 area code. Members of the state Public Utilities Commission heard northern Nevadans beg Monday to retain the 702 area code and assign a new code to Clark County, encompassing booming Las Vegas. Carson City eighth-grader Josh Growth recited a poem, urging commissioners not to let southern Nevada "coldheartedly seize" the number. Another student, Stephanie Jackson spoke of the coyotes, sagebrush and natural beauty of northern Nevada. Such beauty should remain in the same place as the 702 area code, she said. But the pleas may have fallen on deaf ears. The telephone industry proposes to give Clark County the 702 area code, which was assigned to the entire state in 1947. The rest of the state would receive an as yet undisclosed new code. Doug Hescox, area code administrator for Nevada and California, said Nevada needs another number because the 7.9 million potential numbers on the 702 code are nearly exhausted. He and telephone company leaders want to give the 702 code to Clark County because it is home to two-thirds of the state's population. That way, fewer telephone users would be disrupted by a change. A formal hearing on the plan will be conducted Jan. 20 in Carson City. The commission is expected to make its decision at a later date. Under the proposal, people outside Clark County would voluntarily begin using a new area code Dec. 12. Then, in May 1999, they'd have to use it. While students and retirees in northern Nevada lamented the proposed change, Clark County countered with some of its top officials -- including four legislators -- who said the 702 code should remain in the south. Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, maintained southern Nevada should retain possession of the code because Las Vegas is the "financial engine that drives the state." Rob Powers, a spokesman for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, said other parts of the state have fewer tourists. Powers said 31 million of the 42 million Nevada visitors last year went to Clark County. While Nevada has been given two potential new code numbers, Hescox refused to divulge them until the plan receives commission approval. He expects that a third area code will be needed in the state within five or six years. That code likely will be put in place in Clark County. Because of that, Carson City resident Tony Marangi said, the commission should let the rest of the state keep the 702 code. "Clark County will go on like Los Angles and eventually need another code," Marangi said. "Why put off the inevitable?" ------------------------------ From: barnaby@barnaby.net (Richard Barnaby) Subject: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:11:48 GMT Organization: Business Support Services Just looking at a newspaper clipping discussing a new area code for Nevada. Among other propositions, the two major ones seem to be: Propostion A: Let Clark County (Las Vegas) have the existing 702, and the rest of the state have the new number. Proposition B: Let everyone who already has 702 keep it, and let the "new folks" get the new one. I had always *assumed* from looking at area code maps, etc that area codes do not overlay each other. I mean what business *wouldn't* like to keep their investment in stationery, etc. Any NANP mavens know if there is any precedent for overlaid area codes? ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@NOSPAMcompuserve.com Subject: USWest Admits Three-Way Problem Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:51:43 GMT Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] You may recall my message from a few months back about how US West had activated three way calling on all lines in New Mexico, with billing on a per use basis (.75). I mentioned that I didn't have a problem with per use billing, but that I thought that the user interface was a really bad idea, especially for the thousands of people that have no experience with flashing a switchhook. I called the business office and immediately deactivated the feature. Apparently, a large number of people are getting stung by this. From the 1/12/98 {Albuquerque Journal}: US West Admits Three-way Problem US West customers must wait a full two seconds between calls or risk triggering a new three way calling service at .75 per use, US West has told state regulators. [...] New Mexico customers, who been offered the three way calling service since September, have complained about getting billed for accidentally activating it. Consumers have also objected to not being warned about the problem. [...] The same three way calling problems have occurred in other US West service territories, including Colorado and Arizona. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:28:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids New Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids By CAROL SMITH c.1998 {Seattle Post-Intelligencer} It was a simple enough wish -- Fred Raxter of Seattle wanted to join the telecommunications revolution and use a cellular phone. The hitch: Raxter wears hearing aids. So, to use the new generation of digital phones without enduring a high-pitched squealing, he'd have to turn off his aids. But then he couldn't hear anything. Call it Catch-22. Turns out the new digital cell phones interfere with most hearing aids, causing disturbances that range from low-pitched buzzing to what sounds like a motorboat whine, a phenomenon that is frustrating consumers and the wireless industry. The industry is working on a solution, but no one knows when the problem will be fixed. ``We hope we're not far away,'' said Laura Ruby, manager of external affairs for AT&T Wireless in Kirkland. Even if researchers were able to fix the situation tomorrow, it could still be a year or more before products hit the market, she said. The push is on in part because aging baby boomers _ those born between 1946 and 1964 _ are showing signs of hearing loss at earlier ages than previous generations, auditory specialists say. The suspected cause is repeated high-level amplification of stereos, Walkman-type headphones and loud concert speakers. About 28 million Americans _ 10 percent of the U.S. population _ have some degree of hearing loss, according to the Better Hearing Institute in Virginia, a non-profit organization serving the hearing-impaired. About 7 million Americans have been fitted with aids, the institute said. But the numbers are increasing. ``Business is booming,'' said Brandon Dawson, president and CEO of Sonus, a Portland-based network of hearing clinics across the United States and Canada. ``We're seeing increasing numbers of people coming to clinics to be fitted for hearing instruments at younger and younger ages.'' Sales of hearing aids were up 15 percent in the first nine months of 1996 in Washington, according to the Hearing Industries Association, a Virginia-based trade organization representing companies that make or sell hearing aids. Between January and September, 35,831 units were sold in Washington. Audiologists estimate that about 17 percent of people between ages 35 and 54 could benefit from hearing aids, Sonus spokesman Randy Drullinger said. Indeed, the country's most prominent baby boomer _ Bill Clinton _ was fitted with hearing aids in October after experiencing difficulty hearing in crowded rooms and at noisy events. Audiologists blamed his hearing loss on his enthusiasm for the saxophone and a fondness for loud rock music. Raxter, 73, may not be a boomer. But like them, he wanted to take advantage of the latest in communications technology by getting a cellular phone. ``It would let me take the phone with me,'' he said. ``It would give me more freedom.'' Raxter assumed federal laws requiring telecommunications manufacturers and service providers to provide access to people with hearing loss would guarantee that a cell phone would work with his hearing aids. But the law is ahead of the technology. Complaints started about two years ago when carriers such as AT&T Wireless started using digital systems instead of analog devices, which don't interfere with hearing aids. Analog systems in older phones use a continuous wave signal to transmit sound information. Digital phones, in contrast, break the sound signal into bits of information, encoding it like computer data. The information is then decoded and reconverted to sound at the receiver's end. Digital systems can carry a lot more information, so the new digital cell phones offer features such as caller identification and message waiting that aren't available on analog cell phones. But all digital cell phones produce an electromagnetic pulse that hearing aids can detect, and it interferes with how the aids work. The task for researchers is to develop a hearing aid with ``electromagnetic immunity,'' Ruby said, which would allow the device to operate in a world full of electronic gadgets, including cell phones, without interference. AT&T Wireless currently uses both analog and digital phones. Its digital phones can be programmed to act as analog phones to reduce interference, Ruby said. But the whole wireless industry is moving toward digital equipment. ``Right now all we can say is that as long as there are analog phones out there, we will continue to support them,'' she said. ``But as far as the future goes, nobody really knows. This technology is still so young, who knows what will happen in the next couple of years?'' The wireless industry, including manufacturers and carriers, has founded the Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility Center at the University of Oklahoma to solve the interference problem. Hearing-aid manufacturers also are working on the problem and have created shielding devices to keep out unwanted signals. ``We're very aware of the technological problems with hearing aids and cell phones,'' said Pam Hurst, an audiologist with the Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center in Seattle. The problem has been growing in the workplace where more companies are requiring employees to use cell phones for communication. For hearing-impaired employees, that presents a problem. It is also a problem for senior citizens, many of whom don't know the differences between digital and analog phones, said Gordon Nystedt, coordinator for Self Help for Hard of Hearing People in Washington. Nystedt's organization recommends all hearing-aid users try a variety of phones before buying one to see if any cause less interference than others. But Raxter and others want a more permanent fix. ``We are all waiting and hoping for research to find a solution for us,'' Ruby said. ``It will be to everybody's benefit to find a solution.'' ------------------------------ From: telmnstr@norfolk.infi.net (Tele Monster) Subject: Wanted: Merlin Programming Documents Date: 13 Jan 1998 21:52:05 GMT Organization: 757 Elite I recently bought a used Merlin 410 for home use. However, It didn't come with much (hardly) any documentation. I located some information on Administrating the Merlin Plus system thru a dealer's homepage. However, I am using the good ol' Merlin 410 and I don't believe it has all of these features. I was wondering if anyone knew of a good internet resource or other resource for obtaining the programming information for this system? The system (as said before) is a Merlin 410 w/ Feature Pack 1 and Music on hold. I am also looking for information as far as the different features from pack #1 and pack #2. So far I know Pack#2 adds broadcast page. There was another web page : http://www.dcpc.nci.nih.gov/help/Merlin.html Which gives some information. However, this is more for the user end. I noticed I was unable to change the ring cadence (the 10 button phones? BIS-10?). Any information would be appreciated. I'm thinking about putting together a WWW resource for Merlin systems. (Maybe others as well, as I stumble into them). Tele Monster www.757.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:41:26 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #115, January 12, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 115: January 12, 1997 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** AT&T Buys Owner of ACC ** BCE Sells Bell Sygma to CGI ** PCS Suppliers Report Subscriber Figures Bell Mobility Clearnet Microcell Rogers Cantel ** CadVision Loses Case Against Telus ** City Dial Sold to Applied Cellular ** AT&T Canada LD Network Fails ** Bell Mobility Slashes Handset Prices ** Local Competition Clarification ** MetroNet Buys Three Local Resellers ** Teleglobe Plans 12% Rate Cut ** Telus Asks More Time for Digital Cable Trial ** Telus Forms Partnership for Prepaid Calling ** Mitel's Millard to Retire This Year ** Competitive Payphone Association Proposed ** ExpressVu Opts Out of Gray-Market Court Fight ** The Day 800 Died ============================================================ AT&T BUYS OWNER OF ACC: Telecom Update #110 reported that U.S. local carrier Teleport Communications Group is buying the parent company of ACC TelEnterprises, Canada's fourth largest alternative long distance provider. Now AT&T is buying Teleport for US$11.3 Billion; there has been no statement on how this might affect the Teleport/ACC deal. BCE SELLS BELL SYGMA TO CGI: Bell Sygma, BCE's computer consulting and outsourcing business, is being sold to Montreal-based CGI Group. BCE now owns 43% of CGI, with an option to buy another 13%. PCS SUPPLIERS REPORT 4Q NEW-SUBSCRIBER FIGURES: ** Bell Mobility: Bell Mobility reports 114,000 new PCS and analog subscribers in Ontario and Quebec in the fourth quarter, its first quarter of digital sales. ** Clearnet: Clearnet Communications won 50,676 PCS digital subscribers following its service launch in October. Clearnet's Mike business service gained 14,899 subscribers in the quarter, bringing its subscriber base to 44,549. ** Microcell: Microcell CEO Andre Tremblay says Microcell fourth-quarter results, to be released this week, will show a total of more than 60,000 PCS subscribers. ** Rogers Cantel: Cantel reported 63,000 new PCS/cellular subscribers in the fourth quarter. CADVISION LOSES CASE AGAINST TELUS: Calgary-based Internet provider CadVision Development Corp. has lost its court action against Telus for its failure to provide CadVision with equal access to ADSL service (see Telecom Update #114). An Alberta court ruled January 7 that co-location delay would not cause irreparable harm to CadVision. CITY DIAL SOLD TO APPLIED CELLULAR: Canadian Network Services, whose main subsidiary is City Dial Network Services, has been purchased by Missouri-based Applied Cellular Technology. City Dial provides flat-rate long distance services to about 4,000 customers in Montreal, Toronto, and Calgary. AT&T CANADA LD NETWORK FAILS: AT&T Canada's long distance network was out of service from 11:30am to 5:30pm (est) on Friday January 9. AT&T is investigating the cause of the problem. BELL MOBILITY SLASHES HANDSET PRICES: On January 1, Bell Mobility reduced the price of its PCS handsets to $269 ($169 for customers with a one-year contract). The previous price range was $499-549, or $199-$299 for two-year contract customers. LOCAL COMPETITION CLARIFICATION: CRTC Telecom Order 98-1 rejects Stentor's argument that only carriers offering unlimited flat-rate local service should be eligible for a contribution subsidy. The Commission also confirms that carriers are not required to operate as CLECs in all exchanges where they operate. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o981_0.txt METRONET BUYS THREE LOCAL RESELLERS: MetroNet Communications has bought three Western Canada Centrex resellers: VoiceTek Communications and Touch 9 Communications of Vancouver and ABTel Communications Alberta. TELEGLOBE PLANS 12% RATE CUT: Commenting on the CRTC's recent authorization of switched hubbing (see Telecom Update #113), Teleglobe says it will cut overseas rates by more than 12% this year. TELUS ASKS MORE TIME FOR DIGITAL CABLE TRIAL: Telus Corp. has asked the CRTC for more time to begin digital service on its Calgary and Edmonton cable market trial. Last month, the Commission told Telus to shut down the trial because it has failed to provide digital service. (See Telecom Update #114) TELUS FORMS PARTNERSHIP FOR PREPAID CALLING: Telus Communications has formed a national partnership with Calgary-based Revere Communications for joint marketing of prepaid calling cards. MITEL'S MILLARD TO RETIRE THIS YEAR: Mitel Corp's President and CEO John Millard has announced he will retire this year. He will continue as a Mitel Director. COMPETITIVE PAYPHONE ASSOCIATION PROPOSED: Cameron Stuart of Independent Payphone Management is organizing the founding meeting of the Canadian Independent Payphone Association. For information, email: ipm@interlog.com EXPRESSVU OPTS OUT OF GRAY-MARKET COURT FIGHT: ExpressVu, one of the Canadian broadcasters that recently filed suit against 18 gray-market dish companies, has withdrawn from the court action. (See Telecom Update #114) THE DAY 800 DIED: On November 26, computer crashes shut down toll-free service across Canada for several hours. In the January issue of Telemanagement, published this week, Ian Angus explains the causes of the crash, the measures taken to prevent a reoccurrence, and some crucial issues that have not yet been addressed. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 228. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:27:53 EST From: Bryan Williams Subject: USN Communications News Release NEWS RELEASE Contact: Andrea Weber Director, Corporate Communications 312-559-5311 Colin McWay Chief Operating Officer Connecticut Telephone 203-284-4703 Allan Jordan Golin/Harris Communications 212-697-9191 USN COMMUNICATIONS TO ACQUIRE CONNECTICUT TELEPHONE Chicago, IL (January 9, 1998) - USN Communications, Inc. announced today that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Connecticut Telephone, the fourth largest cellular reseller in the country. The acquisition will enable USN to add cellular services to its local and long distance product bundle, as well as adding the Connecticut footprint to USN's service area. "Cellular service is a critical and logical extension to our product offering," said Thomas Elliott, chairman, president and chief executive officer. "For our target market of small to medium businesses, cellular is a frequently requested service." "We are looking forward to joining USN Communications," adds Colin McWay, chief operating officer of Connecticut Telephone. "Their vision of offering a full complement of communications services corresponds with our strategy. We will be able to use our efficient and successful wireless service model to provide cellular products throughout the USN service territories." Founded in 1985, Connecticut Telephone and its affiliates resell cellular, paging, long distance, local and Internet service throughout Connecticut. Connecticut Telephone, the first Connecticut-based company to be certified as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in Connecticut, currently provides cellular service to more than 64,000 subscribers and paging service to more than 15,000 subscribers in the Connecticut area. USN, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), offers one-stop shopping for local, long distance and enhanced communications services for small- and medium-sized businesses and adds value to business telecommunications products and services with a highly customer-focused sales and service staff. In 1995, USN Communications was the first CLEC in the country to sign a local resale agreement with a Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC), Ameritech in Illinois, to provide competitive local services to area businesses. Headquartered in Chicago, USN Communications is a privately held company founded in 1993. It currently provides service in more than 40 states, with 34 offices in Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Investors include the venture affiliates of Bankers Trust, Chase Manhattan, Canadian Imperial Bank, Fidelity Capital, HarbourVest Partners, LLC and Prime New Ventures. ------------------------------ From: Telecom Digest Editor Subject: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:30:00 EST So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in supplying software to the masses. When Ayn Rand commented on how often one might hear the phrase, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his need ...' I thought she was exaggerating. This however certainly seems to be the case in the Microsoft matter. Gates is doing a great job and operating a very prosperous company? He is meeting the computational needs of millions of Americans you say? Well then, let's fine him a million dollars per day until he plays by the rules we have set forth. Rules, which I suspect were bought and paid for by Netscape, through their mouthpiece who will try to pretend he is a disinterested third-party and a concerned consumer. If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal and vigor they are using against Gates? Why not require them to remove the browser from their software-in-common on line and when a subscriber wants to 'go web' put up a message on the screen saying 'okay, bring up the browser you paid for of your own free will and start making your connections, etc ...' Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- loading. Admittedly, Netscape *is* one of the better, high-end products on the market. I am particularly fond of its ability to do 'server-push' and the way it works with applets of all kinds and Java. They have a very good product to be sure. I see Gates doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including Internet Explorer. And Explorer is lacking in some areas that Netscape does quite well, as per above. As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to remove either one you don't want. Obviously you need to take care in removing a program making sure you remove the files peculiar to the program while leaving alone files which service various programs in common. Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including Real Player. And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get them to stop doing it? I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) at Bill Gates' head. And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this point? "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #7 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 13 22:44:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA08788; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:44:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 22:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801140344.WAA08788@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #7 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jan 98 22:44:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 7 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 702 Area Code Fight May Split Nevada (Tad Cook) Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal- Huh? (Richard Barnaby) USWest Admits 3-Way Problem (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids (Monty Solomon) Wanted: Merlin Programming Documents (Tele Monster) Telecom Update (Canada) #115, January 12, 1998 (Angus TeleManagement) USN Communications News Release (Bryan Williams) The Microsoft Witchhunt (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: 702 Area Code Fight May Split Nevada Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:12:46 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 702 area code fight may split Nevada CARSON CITY (AP) -- Unhappy northern Nevadans are making emotional pleas to hold onto something that southern Nevadans might soon claim -- the state's 702 area code. Members of the state Public Utilities Commission heard northern Nevadans beg Monday to retain the 702 area code and assign a new code to Clark County, encompassing booming Las Vegas. Carson City eighth-grader Josh Growth recited a poem, urging commissioners not to let southern Nevada "coldheartedly seize" the number. Another student, Stephanie Jackson spoke of the coyotes, sagebrush and natural beauty of northern Nevada. Such beauty should remain in the same place as the 702 area code, she said. But the pleas may have fallen on deaf ears. The telephone industry proposes to give Clark County the 702 area code, which was assigned to the entire state in 1947. The rest of the state would receive an as yet undisclosed new code. Doug Hescox, area code administrator for Nevada and California, said Nevada needs another number because the 7.9 million potential numbers on the 702 code are nearly exhausted. He and telephone company leaders want to give the 702 code to Clark County because it is home to two-thirds of the state's population. That way, fewer telephone users would be disrupted by a change. A formal hearing on the plan will be conducted Jan. 20 in Carson City. The commission is expected to make its decision at a later date. Under the proposal, people outside Clark County would voluntarily begin using a new area code Dec. 12. Then, in May 1999, they'd have to use it. While students and retirees in northern Nevada lamented the proposed change, Clark County countered with some of its top officials -- including four legislators -- who said the 702 code should remain in the south. Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, maintained southern Nevada should retain possession of the code because Las Vegas is the "financial engine that drives the state." Rob Powers, a spokesman for the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, said other parts of the state have fewer tourists. Powers said 31 million of the 42 million Nevada visitors last year went to Clark County. While Nevada has been given two potential new code numbers, Hescox refused to divulge them until the plan receives commission approval. He expects that a third area code will be needed in the state within five or six years. That code likely will be put in place in Clark County. Because of that, Carson City resident Tony Marangi said, the commission should let the rest of the state keep the 702 code. "Clark County will go on like Los Angles and eventually need another code," Marangi said. "Why put off the inevitable?" ------------------------------ From: barnaby@barnaby.net (Richard Barnaby) Subject: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 13:11:48 GMT Organization: Business Support Services Just looking at a newspaper clipping discussing a new area code for Nevada. Among other propositions, the two major ones seem to be: Propostion A: Let Clark County (Las Vegas) have the existing 702, and the rest of the state have the new number. Proposition B: Let everyone who already has 702 keep it, and let the "new folks" get the new one. I had always *assumed* from looking at area code maps, etc that area codes do not overlay each other. I mean what business *wouldn't* like to keep their investment in stationery, etc. Any NANP mavens know if there is any precedent for overlaid area codes? ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@NOSPAMcompuserve.com Subject: USWest Admits Three-Way Problem Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:51:43 GMT Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] You may recall my message from a few months back about how US West had activated three way calling on all lines in New Mexico, with billing on a per use basis (.75). I mentioned that I didn't have a problem with per use billing, but that I thought that the user interface was a really bad idea, especially for the thousands of people that have no experience with flashing a switchhook. I called the business office and immediately deactivated the feature. Apparently, a large number of people are getting stung by this. From the 1/12/98 {Albuquerque Journal}: US West Admits Three-way Problem US West customers must wait a full two seconds between calls or risk triggering a new three way calling service at .75 per use, US West has told state regulators. [...] New Mexico customers, who been offered the three way calling service since September, have complained about getting billed for accidentally activating it. Consumers have also objected to not being warned about the problem. [...] The same three way calling problems have occurred in other US West service territories, including Colorado and Arizona. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 13:28:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids New Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids By CAROL SMITH c.1998 {Seattle Post-Intelligencer} It was a simple enough wish -- Fred Raxter of Seattle wanted to join the telecommunications revolution and use a cellular phone. The hitch: Raxter wears hearing aids. So, to use the new generation of digital phones without enduring a high-pitched squealing, he'd have to turn off his aids. But then he couldn't hear anything. Call it Catch-22. Turns out the new digital cell phones interfere with most hearing aids, causing disturbances that range from low-pitched buzzing to what sounds like a motorboat whine, a phenomenon that is frustrating consumers and the wireless industry. The industry is working on a solution, but no one knows when the problem will be fixed. ``We hope we're not far away,'' said Laura Ruby, manager of external affairs for AT&T Wireless in Kirkland. Even if researchers were able to fix the situation tomorrow, it could still be a year or more before products hit the market, she said. The push is on in part because aging baby boomers _ those born between 1946 and 1964 _ are showing signs of hearing loss at earlier ages than previous generations, auditory specialists say. The suspected cause is repeated high-level amplification of stereos, Walkman-type headphones and loud concert speakers. About 28 million Americans _ 10 percent of the U.S. population _ have some degree of hearing loss, according to the Better Hearing Institute in Virginia, a non-profit organization serving the hearing-impaired. About 7 million Americans have been fitted with aids, the institute said. But the numbers are increasing. ``Business is booming,'' said Brandon Dawson, president and CEO of Sonus, a Portland-based network of hearing clinics across the United States and Canada. ``We're seeing increasing numbers of people coming to clinics to be fitted for hearing instruments at younger and younger ages.'' Sales of hearing aids were up 15 percent in the first nine months of 1996 in Washington, according to the Hearing Industries Association, a Virginia-based trade organization representing companies that make or sell hearing aids. Between January and September, 35,831 units were sold in Washington. Audiologists estimate that about 17 percent of people between ages 35 and 54 could benefit from hearing aids, Sonus spokesman Randy Drullinger said. Indeed, the country's most prominent baby boomer _ Bill Clinton _ was fitted with hearing aids in October after experiencing difficulty hearing in crowded rooms and at noisy events. Audiologists blamed his hearing loss on his enthusiasm for the saxophone and a fondness for loud rock music. Raxter, 73, may not be a boomer. But like them, he wanted to take advantage of the latest in communications technology by getting a cellular phone. ``It would let me take the phone with me,'' he said. ``It would give me more freedom.'' Raxter assumed federal laws requiring telecommunications manufacturers and service providers to provide access to people with hearing loss would guarantee that a cell phone would work with his hearing aids. But the law is ahead of the technology. Complaints started about two years ago when carriers such as AT&T Wireless started using digital systems instead of analog devices, which don't interfere with hearing aids. Analog systems in older phones use a continuous wave signal to transmit sound information. Digital phones, in contrast, break the sound signal into bits of information, encoding it like computer data. The information is then decoded and reconverted to sound at the receiver's end. Digital systems can carry a lot more information, so the new digital cell phones offer features such as caller identification and message waiting that aren't available on analog cell phones. But all digital cell phones produce an electromagnetic pulse that hearing aids can detect, and it interferes with how the aids work. The task for researchers is to develop a hearing aid with ``electromagnetic immunity,'' Ruby said, which would allow the device to operate in a world full of electronic gadgets, including cell phones, without interference. AT&T Wireless currently uses both analog and digital phones. Its digital phones can be programmed to act as analog phones to reduce interference, Ruby said. But the whole wireless industry is moving toward digital equipment. ``Right now all we can say is that as long as there are analog phones out there, we will continue to support them,'' she said. ``But as far as the future goes, nobody really knows. This technology is still so young, who knows what will happen in the next couple of years?'' The wireless industry, including manufacturers and carriers, has founded the Wireless Electromagnetic Compatibility Center at the University of Oklahoma to solve the interference problem. Hearing-aid manufacturers also are working on the problem and have created shielding devices to keep out unwanted signals. ``We're very aware of the technological problems with hearing aids and cell phones,'' said Pam Hurst, an audiologist with the Hearing, Speech and Deafness Center in Seattle. The problem has been growing in the workplace where more companies are requiring employees to use cell phones for communication. For hearing-impaired employees, that presents a problem. It is also a problem for senior citizens, many of whom don't know the differences between digital and analog phones, said Gordon Nystedt, coordinator for Self Help for Hard of Hearing People in Washington. Nystedt's organization recommends all hearing-aid users try a variety of phones before buying one to see if any cause less interference than others. But Raxter and others want a more permanent fix. ``We are all waiting and hoping for research to find a solution for us,'' Ruby said. ``It will be to everybody's benefit to find a solution.'' ------------------------------ From: telmnstr@norfolk.infi.net (Tele Monster) Subject: Wanted: Merlin Programming Documents Date: 13 Jan 1998 21:52:05 GMT Organization: 757 Elite I recently bought a used Merlin 410 for home use. However, It didn't come with much (hardly) any documentation. I located some information on Administrating the Merlin Plus system thru a dealer's homepage. However, I am using the good ol' Merlin 410 and I don't believe it has all of these features. I was wondering if anyone knew of a good internet resource or other resource for obtaining the programming information for this system? The system (as said before) is a Merlin 410 w/ Feature Pack 1 and Music on hold. I am also looking for information as far as the different features from pack #1 and pack #2. So far I know Pack#2 adds broadcast page. There was another web page : http://www.dcpc.nci.nih.gov/help/Merlin.html Which gives some information. However, this is more for the user end. I noticed I was unable to change the ring cadence (the 10 button phones? BIS-10?). Any information would be appreciated. I'm thinking about putting together a WWW resource for Merlin systems. (Maybe others as well, as I stumble into them). Tele Monster www.757.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:41:26 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #115, January 12, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 115: January 12, 1997 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** AT&T Buys Owner of ACC ** BCE Sells Bell Sygma to CGI ** PCS Suppliers Report Subscriber Figures Bell Mobility Clearnet Microcell Rogers Cantel ** CadVision Loses Case Against Telus ** City Dial Sold to Applied Cellular ** AT&T Canada LD Network Fails ** Bell Mobility Slashes Handset Prices ** Local Competition Clarification ** MetroNet Buys Three Local Resellers ** Teleglobe Plans 12% Rate Cut ** Telus Asks More Time for Digital Cable Trial ** Telus Forms Partnership for Prepaid Calling ** Mitel's Millard to Retire This Year ** Competitive Payphone Association Proposed ** ExpressVu Opts Out of Gray-Market Court Fight ** The Day 800 Died ============================================================ AT&T BUYS OWNER OF ACC: Telecom Update #110 reported that U.S. local carrier Teleport Communications Group is buying the parent company of ACC TelEnterprises, Canada's fourth largest alternative long distance provider. Now AT&T is buying Teleport for US$11.3 Billion; there has been no statement on how this might affect the Teleport/ACC deal. BCE SELLS BELL SYGMA TO CGI: Bell Sygma, BCE's computer consulting and outsourcing business, is being sold to Montreal-based CGI Group. BCE now owns 43% of CGI, with an option to buy another 13%. PCS SUPPLIERS REPORT 4Q NEW-SUBSCRIBER FIGURES: ** Bell Mobility: Bell Mobility reports 114,000 new PCS and analog subscribers in Ontario and Quebec in the fourth quarter, its first quarter of digital sales. ** Clearnet: Clearnet Communications won 50,676 PCS digital subscribers following its service launch in October. Clearnet's Mike business service gained 14,899 subscribers in the quarter, bringing its subscriber base to 44,549. ** Microcell: Microcell CEO Andre Tremblay says Microcell fourth-quarter results, to be released this week, will show a total of more than 60,000 PCS subscribers. ** Rogers Cantel: Cantel reported 63,000 new PCS/cellular subscribers in the fourth quarter. CADVISION LOSES CASE AGAINST TELUS: Calgary-based Internet provider CadVision Development Corp. has lost its court action against Telus for its failure to provide CadVision with equal access to ADSL service (see Telecom Update #114). An Alberta court ruled January 7 that co-location delay would not cause irreparable harm to CadVision. CITY DIAL SOLD TO APPLIED CELLULAR: Canadian Network Services, whose main subsidiary is City Dial Network Services, has been purchased by Missouri-based Applied Cellular Technology. City Dial provides flat-rate long distance services to about 4,000 customers in Montreal, Toronto, and Calgary. AT&T CANADA LD NETWORK FAILS: AT&T Canada's long distance network was out of service from 11:30am to 5:30pm (est) on Friday January 9. AT&T is investigating the cause of the problem. BELL MOBILITY SLASHES HANDSET PRICES: On January 1, Bell Mobility reduced the price of its PCS handsets to $269 ($169 for customers with a one-year contract). The previous price range was $499-549, or $199-$299 for two-year contract customers. LOCAL COMPETITION CLARIFICATION: CRTC Telecom Order 98-1 rejects Stentor's argument that only carriers offering unlimited flat-rate local service should be eligible for a contribution subsidy. The Commission also confirms that carriers are not required to operate as CLECs in all exchanges where they operate. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1998/o981_0.txt METRONET BUYS THREE LOCAL RESELLERS: MetroNet Communications has bought three Western Canada Centrex resellers: VoiceTek Communications and Touch 9 Communications of Vancouver and ABTel Communications Alberta. TELEGLOBE PLANS 12% RATE CUT: Commenting on the CRTC's recent authorization of switched hubbing (see Telecom Update #113), Teleglobe says it will cut overseas rates by more than 12% this year. TELUS ASKS MORE TIME FOR DIGITAL CABLE TRIAL: Telus Corp. has asked the CRTC for more time to begin digital service on its Calgary and Edmonton cable market trial. Last month, the Commission told Telus to shut down the trial because it has failed to provide digital service. (See Telecom Update #114) TELUS FORMS PARTNERSHIP FOR PREPAID CALLING: Telus Communications has formed a national partnership with Calgary-based Revere Communications for joint marketing of prepaid calling cards. MITEL'S MILLARD TO RETIRE THIS YEAR: Mitel Corp's President and CEO John Millard has announced he will retire this year. He will continue as a Mitel Director. COMPETITIVE PAYPHONE ASSOCIATION PROPOSED: Cameron Stuart of Independent Payphone Management is organizing the founding meeting of the Canadian Independent Payphone Association. For information, email: ipm@interlog.com EXPRESSVU OPTS OUT OF GRAY-MARKET COURT FIGHT: ExpressVu, one of the Canadian broadcasters that recently filed suit against 18 gray-market dish companies, has withdrawn from the court action. (See Telecom Update #114) THE DAY 800 DIED: On November 26, computer crashes shut down toll-free service across Canada for several hours. In the January issue of Telemanagement, published this week, Ian Angus explains the causes of the crash, the measures taken to prevent a reoccurrence, and some crucial issues that have not yet been addressed. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 228. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:27:53 EST From: Bryan Williams Subject: USN Communications News Release NEWS RELEASE Contact: Andrea Weber Director, Corporate Communications 312-559-5311 Colin McWay Chief Operating Officer Connecticut Telephone 203-284-4703 Allan Jordan Golin/Harris Communications 212-697-9191 USN COMMUNICATIONS TO ACQUIRE CONNECTICUT TELEPHONE Chicago, IL (January 9, 1998) - USN Communications, Inc. announced today that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Connecticut Telephone, the fourth largest cellular reseller in the country. The acquisition will enable USN to add cellular services to its local and long distance product bundle, as well as adding the Connecticut footprint to USN's service area. "Cellular service is a critical and logical extension to our product offering," said Thomas Elliott, chairman, president and chief executive officer. "For our target market of small to medium businesses, cellular is a frequently requested service." "We are looking forward to joining USN Communications," adds Colin McWay, chief operating officer of Connecticut Telephone. "Their vision of offering a full complement of communications services corresponds with our strategy. We will be able to use our efficient and successful wireless service model to provide cellular products throughout the USN service territories." Founded in 1985, Connecticut Telephone and its affiliates resell cellular, paging, long distance, local and Internet service throughout Connecticut. Connecticut Telephone, the first Connecticut-based company to be certified as a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) in Connecticut, currently provides cellular service to more than 64,000 subscribers and paging service to more than 15,000 subscribers in the Connecticut area. USN, a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), offers one-stop shopping for local, long distance and enhanced communications services for small- and medium-sized businesses and adds value to business telecommunications products and services with a highly customer-focused sales and service staff. In 1995, USN Communications was the first CLEC in the country to sign a local resale agreement with a Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC), Ameritech in Illinois, to provide competitive local services to area businesses. Headquartered in Chicago, USN Communications is a privately held company founded in 1993. It currently provides service in more than 40 states, with 34 offices in Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Investors include the venture affiliates of Bankers Trust, Chase Manhattan, Canadian Imperial Bank, Fidelity Capital, HarbourVest Partners, LLC and Prime New Ventures. ------------------------------ From: Telecom Digest Editor Subject: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:30:00 EST So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in supplying software to the masses. When Ayn Rand commented on how often one might hear the phrase, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his need ...' I thought she was exaggerating. This however certainly seems to be the case in the Microsoft matter. Gates is doing a great job and operating a very prosperous company? He is meeting the computational needs of millions of Americans you say? Well then, let's fine him a million dollars per day until he plays by the rules we have set forth. Rules, which I suspect were bought and paid for by Netscape, through their mouthpiece who will try to pretend he is a disinterested third-party and a concerned consumer. If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal and vigor they are using against Gates? Why not require them to remove the browser from their software-in-common on line and when a subscriber wants to 'go web' put up a message on the screen saying 'okay, bring up the browser you paid for of your own free will and start making your connections, etc ...' Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- loading. Admittedly, Netscape *is* one of the better, high-end products on the market. I am particularly fond of its ability to do 'server-push' and the way it works with applets of all kinds and Java. They have a very good product to be sure. I see Gates doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including Internet Explorer. And Explorer is lacking in some areas that Netscape does quite well, as per above. As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to remove either one you don't want. Obviously you need to take care in removing a program making sure you remove the files peculiar to the program while leaving alone files which service various programs in common. Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including Real Player. And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get them to stop doing it? I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) at Bill Gates' head. And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this point? "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. PAT ------------------------------ End of TEECOM Digest V18 #7 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 13 23:44:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA12771; Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:44:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:44:30 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801140444.XAA12771@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #8 TELECOM Digest Tue, 13 Jan 98 23:44:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 8 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AOL Accused of Privacy Violation (TELECOM Digest Editor) Pat Does Talk Radio (oldbear@arctos.com) ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? (Bill Levant) ClearNet PCS Service (Canada) Billing Surprises (Hardy Rosenke) ACM Policy 98 (USACM Washington Office) Microsoft vs. Netscape (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (James Bellaire) CLEC's Headquarter Location Info (John Stahl) Book Review: "Using Eudora, 2nd ed.", Dee-Ann LeBlanc (Rob Slade) Ameritch ISDN Usage Costs (Rick R. Cox) Re: Map Wanted Showing RBOC Territories (John R. Levine) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:13:57 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: AOL Accused of Privacy Violation Attention AOL apologists: I'll be expecting to hear from you today or tomorrow at your earliest convenience, reminding me once again of how poor AOL gets picked on unfairly. I *still* contend that AOL seems far, far to cozy and comfortable with law enforcement officials hanging around all the time. The message which follows was forwarded to me. PAT] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 15:40:07 -0800 (PST) From: William Knowles Subject: AOL accused of privacy violation America Online (AOL) may have violated its own policy and perhaps the law when it allegedly revealed the identity of a member to a Navy investigator. The United States Navy is recommending that a U.S. sailor be discharged for "Homosexual Conduct Admittance" because he typed the word "gay" on his member profile under "Marital Status." But the sailor, Timothy McVeigh of Hawaii (no relation to the Timothy McVeigh convicted of bombing the federal building in Oklahoma), and his attornies said that the Navy may never have been able to legally link him with the profile if an AOL employee hadn't provided his identity to a Naval investigator, violating AOL's own privacy policy. The Navy linked the profile to McVeigh after the military investigator called AOL and said he wanted to find out the identity of the person who had sent him a fax that belonged to the screen name. Without identifying himself, he said an employee named "Owen" revealed the name of the account owner as McVeigh along with his state of residence, according to transcripts of sworn military testimony provided by McVeigh's advocates. But AOL spokeswoman Wendy Goldberg said AOL does not release the identity of a user unless it is "presented with a search warrant, a court order, or subpoena. Federal law prohibits release of any personal information. We take this in our members' policy very seriously." When asked if AOL had, in fact, released the user's identity, she replied, "There is nothing in the transcript to suggest we gave out private information." However, others who have read the transcript think otherwise. "AOL appears to have violated its much-touted privacy policy and destroyed a subscriber's life," said David Sobel, an attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center."Every AOL subscriber needs to be concerned about this incident." The investigator said he called AOL and asked for the identity of the person who owned the screen name, according to the transcripts. The investigator, who did not identify himself, said that on Sept. 12 an employee in "tech services" revealed to him that the owner of the account was named "Timothy R. McVeigh" and that he lived in Hawaii. That information was enough to get McVeigh drummed out of the military, and privacy experts now are concerned about the privacy of other AOL members. AOL's policy states it will "not to disclose identity information to third parties that would link a member's screen name(s) with a member's actual name, unless required to do so by law or legal process served on AOL, Inc. (e.g., a subpoena)." Deirdre Mulligan, a staff attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology, said that when the Navy investigator called AOL seeking to connect the screen name with McVeigh, it also violated a federal law: the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which requires that a government agency seeking information about an individual's online communication or subscriber information must go through an "appropriate legal process in which, at the very least, they seek an administrative subpoena." "The military clearly violated the law," she said. "They are not just allowed to call up and say who they are and seek information about an individual." She added that AOL may also have violated the law, which prohibits private companies from giving that information to a government agency. According to the hearing transcripts provided by McVeigh's advocates, the Navy investigator said he called AOL and asked for the identity of the person who had sent an email message without identifying himself. That may not matter when it comes to the question of the law, she said. "From the transcript, this person said he asked for information and it was provided without any check of who he was and his right to get information," she said. == The information standard is more draconian than the gold standard, because the government has lost control of the marketplace. -- Walter Wriston == http://www.dis.org/erehwon/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I said, I do hope the folks at AOL who write me from time to time complaining that treat AOL unfairly here will respond with the version of the facts as they see them. I see this as just another example of AOL's hospitality to the government; their willingness to violate the privacy rights of their subscribers whenever it suits them to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:19:15 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Pat Does Talk Radio Having spent an hour Friday night listening to Pat as guest on WGR talk radio (thanks to real-audio and the 'net), I must say that Pat is as rational and insightful "live" as he is in ASCII. This was not easy to do, as the talk-show host had a very clear political agenda and really just wanted to use Pat as an "expert witness" to prove the hypothesis that the second line access charge is just another example of the Clinton administration duplicitously imposing hidden taxes on the unsuspecting American public. Regardless of the politics, Pat did a great job of explaining that the access fee was only on second telephone lines and not a fee being imposed on the phone extension in the upstairs bedroom. I would have liked to have heard more discussion of the whole idea of using the phone system (if one can still call it a system) as a way of shifting expenses between one set of telephone users and another. Certainly this kind of cross-subsidization was the portrayed as the villian which prompted divestiture, but no one seems to be saying that "deregulation" is far from deregulated and that the cross-subsidy game is now just being played by different interests on a slightly different playing field. Pat did make the point that the "computers-in-schools" surcharge in many ways resembles the old doctrine of universal service. Unfortunately, I think this went over the head of the program host -- and probably many listeners as well. I appreciated the brief digression into the subject of discount long distance calling plans being not all that they seem. But it worries me that people will debate national telecommunications policy without being able to figure out that the five-dollar a month fee their "discount" long distance service charges should be considered in figuring their actual cost per minute for calls. Possibly the "computers-in-schools" surcharge should be redirected to teaching basic life skills mathematics. Anyway, Pat deserves a 'well done' for his keeping his cool and coming across as the intelligent voice of reason. Regards, Will The Old Bear [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your compliments. Others have said they also enjoyed the show. I wish he had kept me on for the phone calls which followed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:27:57 EST Subject: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Well, we finally broke down and bought one of those new-fangled Pentium computer thingies :-), but it is apparent that POTS dialup is going to be almost intolerably slow (when we were using the poor old 386, who noticed?). BA's web pages are generally uninformative. Is there anyone out there who actually *has* ISDN from BA-Pennsylvania, and can tell me : 1) What does it REALLY cost per month (exclusive of usage) 2) What usage is charged for, and how (is LD charged as usage PLUS toll, are incoming calls charged; does BA allow flat-rate voice-over-bearer?) 3) Are you happy with it? I realize that this is a bit off-topic, but I've come to trust those who post here; E-Mail is welcomed, so we don't drive POP (poor old PAT) crazy with off-topic posts ... Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Toshiba Satellite 220-CDS laptop I now have which was a gift from Mike Sandman has Pentium/Intel on it. As I mentioned before, it came loaded with Microsoft stuff. I made a mistake earlier in quoting the amount of memory in it. It has 16,134 kb of ram, and a 1.4 gig drive. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hardy@null.net (Hardy Rosenke) Subject: ClearNet PCS Service (Canada) Billing Surprises Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:43:19 GMT Organization: Home HARDware (!) BBS Reply-To: hardy@null.net (especially if you are in Greater Vancouver area) -- take note ... Check your invoice (if you've received it *__VERY__* carefully. On mine, there are NUMEROUS calls that are indeed local (verified by dialing from a landline) that I have been charged LD tarriffs on. They are mainly to new exchanges, which, after the 604/250 area code split are numbers that are being assigned for the first time in the "NEW" 604, but which used to have LD counterparts in the "NEW" 250/"OLD" 604. Just on my paltry one month bill, it amounted to around $8.00 in exraneous charges. When I called and got thru, I was told that they were aware of the problem and a credit would be issued on my next statement. I don't know if they are going to willingly go thru and GIVE BACK money, so I urge everyone to scrupulously check their invoices when they get them!! On a related note, I also checked to see that they had my credit card information on file for payment, an option that I took when I signed up with them -- suprisingly enough they did not, and I was a mere four days away from getting docked interest charges. Something else to harrass them about .... Regards, Hardy Rosenke Vancouver, BC ------------------------------ From: usacm_dc@acm.org (USACM Washington Office) Subject: ACM Policy 98 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:54:40 -0500 Organization: Association for Computing ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING (ACM) ANNUAL CONFERENCE * * * POLICY98 * * * "Shaping Policy in the Information Age" Washington, DC, Renaissance Hotel May 10-12, 1998 Preliminary Notice For Conference and Registration information see: http://www.acm.org/usacm/events/policy98/ The ACM Annual Conference will focus on public policy issues affecting future applications of computing. Our goal is to forge stronger links between computing professionals and policy makers. Attendees will interact with prominent leaders from academia, industry, Congress, and Executive agencies, and participate in debates on policy issues including Universal Access, Electronic Commerce, Intellectual Property, and Education Online. The conference will promote more regular engagement of computing professionals in democratic processes related to productive use of computing and information processing innovations. A blend of technical skills and policy insights are essential to cope with the inherent opportunities and dangers of any transformational technology. Continuing collaborations between computing professionals and policy makers will benefit citizens, consumers, entrepreneurs, researchers, and students. You can make a difference! May 10: Ethical and social impacts papers and panels May 11-12: Public policy panels and featured speakers All Policy98 attendees are invited to the Annual ACM Awards Banquet on Sunday evening May 10th, and a conference reception on Monday evening May 11th. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ PANEL TOPICS AND COORDINATORS =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Universal Service: Ollie Smoot What can be done to promote widespread access to the benefits of the Internet? What is the role of government and the role of the private sector in wiring schools, libraries, and medical facilities? Electronic Commerce: Jim Horning How much public policy does EComm need? What problems would inadequate, excessive, or misguided policies cause? Can compromises in areas like fair trade practices, fraud prevention, security, privacy, law enforcement, and taxation advance the interests of all stakeholders? Intellectual Property in Cyberspace: Pam Samuelson What will be the impact of the WIPO agreements on copyright in cyberspace? How should intellectual property be protected and what safeguards are necessary to protect libraries and academic institutions? Education Online: Charles N. Brownstein The Internet offers unparalleled opportunities for learning and teaching. What public policy and technical challenges must be met to realize these prospects? +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRS =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Ben Shneiderman, USACM (U.S. Public Policy Committee) C. Dianne Martin, SIGCAS (ACM Special Interest Group on Computers & Society) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ PROGRAM COMMITTEE CHAIRS =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Marc Rotenberg, Public Policy Keith Miller, Ethics and Social Impacts +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ REGISTRATION INFORMATION =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ For more information, contact: policy98@acm.org or to register electronically, see: http://www.acm.org/usacm/events/policy98/reginfo.html Early registrants and ACM members receive discounts. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:30:09 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Microsoft vs. Netscape Pat said: > I immediatly went out and got a copy of Internet Explorer 4.0 (the > latest version) to replace the version 3 which had come installed. But > I didn't stop there. I also got a copy of Netscape 3.0 and installed > it. As a consumer I also want a choice, and I have both icons on the > desktop ready for use.] Then PAT said: > Maybe Lessig will do everyone a favor and resign; if he won't and/or > the Court decides to have him continue arbitrating this, then my > recommendation would be for everyone to remove Netscape from their > computer and trash all the associated software in protest. PAT] Isn't this contradictory, Pat? Choice dosen't mean deleting all non-Microsoft products, although I'm sure Microsoft would be delighted. I think that it's more than Netscape sour grapes, Pat. The real problem with Microsoft entering the browser market is that they are GIVING THEIR BROWSER AVAILABLE FOR FREE. It's just like the early history of the Bell system, when Bell went into a town to compete head-to-head with the family-owned telco that had served the people there for years. They put in a switch, built infrastructure, and immediately began giving THEIR phone service away almost free -- financially breaking their competition, refusing to interconnect, and eventually putting the "phone company family" out on the streets. What's the difference between this and Microsoft's behavior in the browser market? They GIVE IE AWAY FOR FREE. Netscape doesn't (except for academic use), nor can they afford to give a product that costs them a lot of money to develop away for free. Now, I am not discounting the fact that the Dept. of Justice just pulled out a boner the size of Omaha here, but that speaks nothing on the merits of the case. I think trying to put your competition out of business by giving your product away for free is antitrust. Do you really honestly believe that once Netscape is out of business and Microsoft owns the market MSIE will still be free? Or any other Internet related software for that matter? Somehow I suspect the party will end, just as it did in all of the small towns that Bell invaded. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 13:21:14 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? In TELECOM Digest V18 #1 Pat Townson wrote: > Maybe Lessig will do everyone a favor and resign; if he won't and/or > the Court decides to have him continue arbitrating this, then > my recommendation would be for everyone to remove Netscape from > their computer and trash all the associated software in protest. PAT] Sorry Pat, but Netscape will remain on my machine. I decided against IE a long time ago. I have contact with two Windows 95 machines. An old 486/66 that has been upgraded in steps from Win 3.11 at home, and a new Pentium that came with Windows 95 and Microsoft Plus! that I use at work. (I also have Plus! on my home machine.) The work machine came with Microsoft's IE 3.0, my home machine has been a kind host to Netscape Navigator, as well as a Fasttrak server that I use for testing web pages. (SHTML, Livewire, all the tricks!) The existance of Internet Explorer on the work machine has changed the 'Internet' control panel, removing the 'connect on demand' option that is available on my home machine. Which means that a simple piece of software that I wrote to grab files (using the command prompt FTP) works fine on my non-IE machine at home, but not on the IE machine at work. Thanks to Internet Explorer I cannot run a simple anonymous FTP script from the command line or in a batch file. IE has caused a pain in this user's neck! And no level of uninstalling has allowed me to run my script on the machine it was intended to run on. (I need it to run on the office machine so it can post the FTP'd files through the office Novell LAN.) I don't like the way that Microsoft integration messes up software written by others, forcing further purchase of MS software. Netscape does not intefere with the normal operation of my machine. It won't be removed from my machine. As for the case ... It does seem that Professor Lessig has a conflict of interest, which is unfortunate. Microsoft's should not be requiring purchasers of Windows 95 to use their browsers. (What's next? Will they buy Rand McNally and prevent me from using DeLorme Street Atlas? I use as little of the Microsoft integration that I can.) It is a shame that these two companies can't fight fairly, with BOTH Microsoft and Netscape trying to write SOFTWARE that competes instead of legal briefs. Maybe we should delete both browsers from our systems. I have Lynx for Windows 95 on my machine and it seems to work ok. (But no frills.) James Bellaire (Still using anonymous FTP, lynx, telnet, and the command prompt. I even use tracert and ping occasionally!) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have Lynx (the latest version) installed on my unix accounts everywhere (I have about five unix accounts through various universities, etc) and I love it. It allows me to browse via my old terminals which I use to connect with the net for working on this Digest, etc. I do not know what the trouble is with your 'on demand' panel, which Windows refers to as the 'application launch' area. I took the IE icon down from there and put a few others there which I wanted to use instead. I tend to keep the most used stuff on the desktop, and the tiny icons on the bottom of the screen for the lesser-used stuff that I want from time to time. Why not just edit yours to get rid of the IE thing if that is what you want? PAT] ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net Subject: CLEC's Headquarter Location Info Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:07:01 +0000 Can anyone identify the following list of CLEC's? Have uncovered this partial list showing the state suspected of containing their headquarters. Have visited http://www.clec.com but these are not listed. Would appreciate knowing their locations and telephone numbers: The Phone Co. (PA) A.R.C. Networks (NY) KMC (NJ) MSI (PA) Thanks for your help. John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications, Data and Internet Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:15:51 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Using Eudora, 2nd ed.", Dee-Ann LeBlanc Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKUSEUDR.RVW 970706 "Using Eudora, 2nd ed.", Dee-Ann LeBlanc, 1997, 0-7897-1166-4, U$24.99/C$35.95/UK#22.99 %A Dee-Ann LeBlanc %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1997 %G 0-7897-1166-4 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$24.99/C$35.95/UK#22.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 306 %T "Using Eudora, 2nd ed." With the explosion of growth in dialup IP Internet connections, Eudora very quickly surged to the front of the pack in terms of mail user agents. Until Netscape Navigator 3.0, it was the preferred program for local Internet Service Providers to hand out (not least, perhaps, because of the free version). Even the Lite edition has a number of advantages over both the Netscape and Microsoft products, and while Eudora is not as functional or flexible as Pegasus, it is certainly better known. Over the last few years, I have had numerous interchanges with email users, and even trainers, who, it slowly became clear, saw email exclusively through the Eudora screen. Therefore, I was delighted to find that LeBlanc starts with some basics, background, and fundamentals before jumping into the menus. At appropriate points (such as Styled Text) the reader is reminded that not everyone uses Eudora--certain special features are *not* universal. Netiquette is dealt with in detail, down to aspects of how much text to quote in a reply. The coverage of Eudora itself is clear, comprehensive, and logical. The most common, and necessary, functions are explained first, with advanced functions later. (Oddly, the one piece of information that most frustrated me when starting to use Eudora -- the keystroke to use to go to the next message -- was not covered in the text. It was provided in the quick reference chart.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKUSEUDR.RVW 970706 ------------------------------ From: Rick.R.Cox@ait4.ameritech.com (Rick R. Cox) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 98 03:31:23 GMT Subject: Ameritch ISDN Usage Costs Jack, I saw your request for ISDN usage info on TELECOM Digest V18 #3. I don't claim to know what analog usage rates are in Michigan so I won't comment on them. Your description of ISDN (BRI) usage seemed way off. Currently in MI, business usage for a local call (BRI) is $.0842 per call, per channel, untimed. Call it 8.5 cents for ease of multiplication. So it's possible to, for example, place a call to your ISP in the morning and let it run all day for 8.5 cents at 64k or 17 cents for 128k. Residential BRI gets 50 free, untimed, local calls per month as part of their standard price. Additional calls are charged at the same rate as business calls. Note: there are other residential plans available. These rates have been in effect since 11 August 97. They can be found on our web page www.ameritech.com/teamdata If the BRI line in question is older than Aug. of 97 they may still be under the old tariff which was grandfathered for one year. If you want to change to the new tarriff, call the Ameritech ISDN Provisioning Center at 800-432-4736. They can switch your BRI line over. If you have other ISDN questions feel free to call me, or one of my co-workers at 800-832-6328. I hope this helps, Rick Cox Data Design Consultant Ameritech Team Data ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1998 02:44:57 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Map Wanted Showing RBOC Territories Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Hey Pat, would you happen to have or know where to find a map of the > U.S. showing the RBOC territories? Or, if there is one with more detail > that would be fine too. There's a simple but adequate one on the home page at www.555-1212.com. RBOC boundaries follow state lines with only a few exceptions, e.g., Greenwich Conn. is served by New York, er, NYN, er, Bell Atlantic while the rest of the state is served by SNET, uh, SBC. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #8 **************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 15 02:48:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA11556; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:48:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:48:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801150748.CAA11556@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #9 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Jan 98 02:48:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Microsoft Suck-up in TELECOM Digest V18 #7 (Gene Gaines) Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (Tim Hogard) Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? (James Bellaire) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bill Levant) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Fred Farzanegan) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Eric Florack) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bud Couch) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bob Lombard) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (David Wuertele) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Eric Ewanco) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Richard Shockey) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Al McLennan) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Christopher Wolf) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steve Bagdon) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (James Bellaire) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Derek Balling) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Lee Winson) Re: Microsoft vs. Netscape (Ed Ellers) Last Laugh! Using Sound Files With Windows (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:10:39 -0500 From: Gene Gaines Subject: Microsoft suck-up in TELECOM Digest V18 #7 Patrick, Good lord, man. Don't you know the history of Microsoft? Aren't you aware of the dishonest pressure tactics which Microsoft employs? I simply do not understand how you can be so far removed from the software industry. You are wrong, repeatedly, in your statements in your editorial. Please do some research and start over. Gene Gaines ggaines@generation.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In this very large, double-size issue of the Digest, I have included *lots* of responses to the Microsoft commentary which appeared yesterday. In fact, this entire issue is devoted to responses. If someone's response is not included here, I'll try to include it in another issue in the next day or so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tim Hogard Subject: Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:46:14 CST TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Jim Bellaire: > I do not know what the trouble is with your 'on demand' panel, > which Windows refers to as the 'application launch' area. I took > the IE icon down from there and put a few others there which I > wanted to use instead. I tend to keep the most used stuff on the > desktop, and the tiny icons on the bottom of the screen for the > lesser-used stuff that I want from time to time. Why not just > edit yours to get rid of the IE thing if that is what you want? PAT] This is the root of the anti-Microsoft feeling. Those of us that make a living dealing with software are quite tired of wasting our time trying to undo Microsoft's features. Each new release they will remove things that we were counting on. Each new release will remove about as many features as it adds. The problem James had is that IE4 updated the DLL that draws the Internet control panel and the new one removed the "insecure" dial on demand click box. Now he can't have a simple command line program transfer files automagically as now the system requires a human to log in first. It has changed an automatic function to a manual one which I think is a step backwards. Keep in mind we should be using computers to do our work and they should not be creating more work for us to do. As for the millions of jobs Billy has created, keep in mind how productive those people would be if they didn't spend all day fighting stupid software. -tim http://web.abnormal.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:03:30 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Microsoft's Fax to Larry Lessig: Bill Gates as Satan? In TELECOM Digest Pat Townson replied to me: > I do not know what the trouble is with your 'on demand' panel, > which Windows refers to as the 'application launch' area. I'm not talking about anything on the taskbar panel. Dial up networking has a feature that will automatically connect you to the internet when that connection is needed by some piece of software. You will notice it (if active on your machine) when you start a program like Netscape or IE and ask it to connect to a web page. It is turned on (at home) through Control Panel - Internet on the tab that says 'AutoDial'. There is no on screen icon or anything to mess with. I can go straight to a command prompt, type 'ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu' and my machine will dial me in then make the FTP connection. At least at home it will. At work the machine that had IE installed has a completely different set of tabs on the Control Panel - Internet box. Most of them have to do with IE's settings and what to do with web-like objects. There is no AutoDial setting. Going to a command prompt and typing 'ftp' does nothing unless the user has wasted the time to connect to the net first. And connecting to the net cannot be automated through System Agent. (The win95 version of chron.) IE has disabled a function that I want on my computer, a function that works fine on a non-IE system. (Note that Win95 w/IE will still connect you to the net IF you are starting IE or some other large program, but not from command line programs such as ftp.) James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Note new server - old URL should still work * ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:43:00 EST Subject: Re : The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) PAT, the issue with Win 95 and Internet Explorer *isn't* whether Microsoft does or doesn't write good software. It also makes no difference whether Microsoft would start giving away IE CD-Roms if forced to "decouple" IE from Win95. What the Justice Department is trying to do is prevent Microsoft from trampling all competition by using its sheer size to force others to play *its* game, or else no game at all. Once Microsoft drives Netscape and the other browser companies out of business, they could then charge a million dollars a copy for IE; there'd be no other alternative for the users. With total control, the concept of "open" anything goes right out the window; everything becomes proprietary, and subject to change on five minutes' notice, making it harder and harder (or impossible) for a new competitor to get even a toehold. Think back to the big oil trusts in the early part of this century. Once the competition was bought (or driven out of business), the trusts could charge literally anything they wanted; supply and demand become irrelevant when there is no alternative. Diamonds are a good present-day example ... the current pricing is related *only* to the artificial shortage that the diamond cartel strictly enforces; if diamonds were subject to true supply and demand, they'd cost a LOT less. Two months' salary, my butt. Imagine that Microsoft decided to purchase a very small peripheral manufacturer ... call 'em Modems-is-us. Fine. Now, all of a sudden, if you want to buy Win95, you gotta buy a modem from Modems-is-us. Then, after everyone has one, the standards start to change. Slowly at first, but before too long, only an M-I-U modem will do the latest compression thing; if M-I-U refuses to license its new (call it 4Q ;-) technology, presto, all of the other modem manufacturers are unemployed. That's called "tying", and it's been illegal as long as we've had antitrust laws. Surely, PAT, you aren't against antitrust laws generally ? Bill Levant [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, generally I *am* against the antitrust laws. I think we would all be much better off if we looked out for ourselves instead of asking the government to do it for us. And regards the oil trusts of the nineteenth century, perhaps you will consider me biased, but it seems to me we have many good and wonderful organizations, universities, churches and other things in this country today which were established -- and continue in operation even now a century later -- as a direct result of the largesse of John Rockefeller. Much of my childhood was spent in a community largely controlled by Standard Oil -- Whiting, Indiana. I saw time and again the generosity of the Whiting Refinery Corp- oration and the Rockefeller family. The residents of Whiting pay no municipal taxes, you know. The refinery pays it all. Every year at high school graduation time the superintendant of the refinery would come around and hand out five thousand dollars to the class valadictorian. My grandfather worked for Whiting Refinery for about forty years, and it was on account of his inquiry to someone on the Board of Directors there that I got employed at the University of Chicago while I was in high school, working in the UC telecom department. The fellow on the board at Refinery was also a trustee at UC. I seem to recall in dim memory a time when I was about eight years old and a neighbor's house burning down. The next morning a very prim lady with a briefcase showed up at the place where the (burned out) family was staying and introduced herself as 'in charge of the refinery welfare fund.' She gave them a check from the refinery for a thousand dollars and then reached in her briefcase a second time and said, "oh, Mr. Rockefeller (not the original John obviously, but one of his descendants at that time who operated the refinery) was quite disturbed to hear about this, and felt a personal responsibility to help you rebuild ..." and handed them a letter of credit drawn on his personal account for ten thousand dollars. That would have been in 1940-50's money. "Just give this to whomever you choose to make the repairs; Whiting State Bank will handle the payments." JDR endowed the University of Chicago, Riverside Church in New York City, a few other schools, and a museum or two. His gifts put any number of deserving high school students completely through college. He, along with Clifford Barnes endowed the Chicago Sunday Evening Club. What else do you think he should have done? No ... I see no problem with the oil trusts at all. And Gates gives lots of money to deserving institutions as well. He gave a million dollars last year to the Chicago Public Library to insure complete internet connectivity in all branches. And for those of you who came in late, he also gave me ten thousand dollars a couple years ago for the benefit of this Digest. The money was not to preach his gospel, nor was it intended as an inducement to shut my trap and keep it shut. There were no strings attached at all. I have no problems with his methodology at all in business matters. And God speed to anyone who wants to work on a new OS or other software to get away from using his. We will all benefit from the competition. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1998 13:17 EST From: Fred Farzanegan Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt In article , Telecom Digest Editor writes: Even being so off-topic, I feel compelled to respond to PAT's troll. > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser AOL and Compuserve are optional. Every (99%) PC you buy has MS Windows pre-installed on it. For most vendors, you don't get a choice not to have it installed, and are charged the same price. So, MS has a captive audience: it is not optional. > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, > but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when > I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the > same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line > made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't > the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal > and vigor they are using against Gates? Why not require them to You have dozens of ISP choices, some offering Brand I, others Brand J. As part of a value-added package, you can decide which ISP to choose from. You cannot do this with your PC. This is the difference. > doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of > Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including > Internet Explorer. MS need not do anything to enhance sales of Win95. Every PC has it. > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? Because the majority of the public cannot do this. MS has a captive audience and is _admittedly_ using its monopoly position in the OPERATING SYSTEM arena to take over the internet browser arena. > sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. That's impressive. Most users are not as knowledgable. They just want a PC that's like a toaster. Plug it in, and click a few colorful icons. That is the market being fought over. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? I fully expect that. That's only fair. People can then decide to get the 'free' one from MS or the free one from brand x. If Brand A's broswer is already on their PC, most users will just stick with it, as they don't have to go through the trouble of installing a new program. You already said the two programs are similar in function -- why would Joe User bother? > I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there > are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, > and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so > they might as well take the one that is free. Well, we agree. When the free one is already on their PC, brand X doesn't have a chance -- especially when the entire OS is 'designed' around it. > re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free > goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for > example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior > to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) I cannot believe you are serious throwing this out. If 'mighty' IBM and Apple can't compete, why do you think a one-product company can suddenly develop an OPERATING SYSTEM and ink distribution agreements with the PC vendors and software vendors. What makes you think that Brand A wouldn't give the OS away for free until Brand X buckles under? Your suggestion is ridiculous. However, I do believe that in the long run, OS's will not be as important as long as they can run a browser. An OS provides an interface between applications and system resources -- applications are the important part of the puzzle. Software vendors (and everyone) would love to be able to write application software that would run on any OS through standard interfaces. Just as telcos demand industry standards (TR303, TR08, etc.) the same thing will eventually happen for consumers so that their MAC, Unix, or PC, or XXX will be able to run the same application. The question on purchasing software will not be 'will it run on my OS?', but 'which is the better choice?' > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than Well, there is such thing as a level playing field. And industry standards, and uncompetitive practices. I agree though, that the marketplace will decide, but in the browser war, Brand A is trying to take away the choice for the consumer. Let's face it, until Brand X made this new softare there wasn't a market for it. Almost overnight the market changed from being PC-centric to being 'internet enabled'. Brand A has been playing catch-up and is trying to do anything to stop the competitors. Do some reading at the CNET site (listed later) and see some of the memos that the justice department obtained relating to why they felt compelled to step in. > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. > And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality > and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign > now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, > Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, > getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this > point? Oddly enough, most informed users feel the same way. It would be darn hard to find someone completely impartial. Most of them haven't received grants from Brand A to 'pay their heating bill', but instead look at the market and agree that the Justice Department investigation is legitimate. For example, here is a quote from MS's attorney: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,18049,00.html He said that "removing the Internet Explorer retail product from the operating system would seriously degrade the operating system." If anyone believe that REMOVAL of a software application seriously degrades an OS ... > "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." > The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. The solution is for MS's OS and software areas to be separate entities. Lucent is a good example of thriving, once the umbilical cord was cut. The editor has in the past tried to put down the breakup of the Bell monopoly, but the great majority of consumers have benefitted. Most of the readers of the Digest have benefitted. I expect we will see the same gains if other players are able to get into the software market. Regards, Frederick Farzanegan (not speaking for my employer, brand X or brand A) ------------------------------ From: Eric Florack Organization: FreeFIleFarm Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:11:29 -0500 Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Neither AOL or Compuserve force you to use ONLY their browsers. Nor do they force companies to use their browser exclusivly, under threat of losing the operating system. And both of these are the issue. Microsoft does both. They had nowhere near the scope of use Netscape did until such time as they started to employ these thugish tactics. Far be it from me to agree with much of anything the Clinton Justice Dept does, Pat, but I have to back someone when they are correct in their actions. And in this rare instance, Reno is right on the beam. ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:05:04 -0800 TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite > easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to > remove either one you don't want. Is it? Look at First Aid 98. See anything on the outside of the box about IE? As it installs, a message appears: Installing Internet Explorer. Whoa! Wait a minute, I have Nav 3 (don't like Communicator) don't want IE. Stop, I tell it. "Are you sure you don't want to install IE?" it asks. "Yes". Finish installation. *Try* to start FA98. IT WON'T RUN WITHOUT IE! (mentioned in passing deep within the instuction booklet). There is no reason to require that a browser of any sort be ensconced on my hard drive in order to run an internal system monitor program. This is here simply to FORCE IE onto my machine. There is where Microsoft has crossed the line. Give IE away? I have no problem with that, AS A DISTINCT PROGRAM. When it gets "integrated" with unrelated programs is where Bill has moved from smart marketing to economic coercision, expecially with respect to Windows, which is the de facto standard. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? Fine. Do it. Just don't make the operation of OTHER programs contingent on it's presence. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. Pat, you grew up in Chicago. You know as well as I do that this is the way it's *always* done. You aren't naive enough to think that Bill doesn't have his own set of "fixers" working the Justice Department, Commerce, the White House and every member of Congress, do you? > And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality > and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign > now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, > Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, > getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this > point? I don't particulary care *who* does it. I'm getting paid off by neither side, and I still think that Microsoft has crossed the line and deserves to have it's collective ass kicked. Bud Couch - ADC Kentrox |When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.| bud@kentrox.com (work) | -Tom Lehrer | budc@hevanet.com (just me) | ... - me | |insert legalistic bs disclaimer here | ------------------------------ From: Bob Lombard Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: SPAWR Systems Center San Diego Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 21:53:49 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. However, and this is *the* key point ... neither AOL nor Compuserve, nor Prodigy *REQUIRE* that I accept their software to as a condition of using a computer or operating system, and further, none of them even requires that I use their software to use their service. They mail out bazillions of floppies and CD's as a pure marketing move. get an account, toss their software, use netscape, ie, even telnet. > ... Why doesn't the 'justice' department go after those guys with > the same zeal and vigor they are using against Gates? Because its simply not a comparable situation. > Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers > are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- > loading. Precisely. So How can Microsoft claim that IE "is an integral part of Windows" (One of their main arguements) if there are dozens of other browsers that do the same things ? > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons > sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both > browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including > Real Player. Good for you. So do I. So do many *techies*. So what. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there > are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, > and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so > they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to > re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free > goodies as part of the package. The free stuff is marketing strategy. Give a lesser version free, sell the bells and whistles. All of the vendors do it. The issue is forcing a product with leverage not available to your competitor, then claiming its legit because "windows isn't windows' with out it. > What is to prevent Netscape, for example, from devising a new > operating system which is far superior to Windows (and many believe > *anything* is superior to Windows) and selling it, tossing in their > browser stuff as part of the deal? The incredibly large investment it would take? Restrictive licensing deals MS already has in place with PC manufacturers (Ie if you want to sell our Office products, one of our operating systems must be licensed for each PC you sell which automatically inflates the price of any competing operating system Did you ever see OS2 included for free on a PC. No, and it was because that manufacturer had to buy DOS/WIN anyway, so that's he sold.) > Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get them to > stop doing it? In a heartbeat. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers... Yes, exactly right. And that can't happen if the inclusion of IE is a requirement of licensing MS operating systems. > "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." > The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. While I have great respect for this Digest and your efforts here, insulting the Justice Department because you don't agree with them is beneath you. Get some air, ok ? /r Bob [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Listen, with or without the Microsoft matter, the United States Department of Justice is *so corrupt* that I could start an entirely new Digest just dealing with the topic. One small example: which software company was it that specializes in software for attornies which found *hundreds of pirated copies* of its main product on computers at Justice? It proceeded to sue the government to force Justice to pay for all the copies it had illegally copied and it is still waiting to get paid. The name Westlaw rings a bell ... don't quote me on the name. Another small example: About three dozen members of a vicious street gang in Chicago were put on trial in federal court here, and were all found guilty and given long prison terms. Then, quite after the fact, comes word that one of the federal prosecutors had used perjured testimony obtained from an inmate at the Metropolitan Correctional Center *which he knew was false* and which was conjured up in an all-night booze, sex and drugs party at the federal building here with the inmate in particular as the star of the show. In addition, the prosecutor had smuggled some drugs into the prison as a favor to the inmate who wove the little story together. None of this of course was known to the court or the defense attornies prior to the trial, and as you might expect, the government was reversed on appeal in *every single conviction* in that case. In the well-publicized 'Operation Greylord' matter here in which about thirty of the judges in Cook County were sent to prison, the {Chicago Tribune}, while applauding the job done noted that Justice would do well to clean its own house sometime soon. Oh, there are some very rotten people in that agency, let me tell you. I do not need Gates as an example. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jan 1998 21:59:07 -0000 From: David Wuertele Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. You could look at this process as Netscape "going in a back room," crying to momma, but you could also look at it as a whole lot of pissed-off people using any weapon they can to protect their industry from a marketing machine so successful that technical superiority is actually a disadvantage. You quote Ayn Rand, but do you think one of Ayn Rand's heroes would have built Windows? What was that architect's name, Rourke? If he would build anything, it would be UNIX. And he would take a stick of dynamite to anything that MS built, damn the legality. UNIX is actually in great danger from MS. I am an engineer and I have seen the effect that Microsoft has on a mature industry, namely EDA tools. All the tools for designing chips were developed on UNIX, and engineers built an incredible infrastructure in UNIX to use these tools. The engineers have invested many many years of their carreers and lives to learn effective design on UNIX. So you would expect the EDA tool makers to want to continue developing on UNIX? Unfortunately, management doesn't understand UNIX, and they hold the purse strings. So when EDA toolmakers propose ditching UNIX in favor of NT, engineers cringe and managers drool. Engineers are apparently not good enough communicators to show their managers why such a move would actually cost more than keeping the UNIX option open. And now, there is very little development being done for UNIX. Microsoft has bullied a previously strong industry into fearing the demise of UNIX and the rise of NT as a standard. It's sad and frustrating, and I for one support any attempts to hinder the marketing machine's progress. David Wuertele [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My personal preference is for Unix; and I am going to see if I can put it, or something close to it like Linux on my laptop in a partioned area. I may not be successful; I won't know until I try. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eric Ewanco Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 14 Jan 1998 17:25:42 -0500 Organization: 3Com [this post represents strictly my own opinions] Telecom Digest Editor writes: > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, > but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when > I am about to explore the web. I suspect other services may do the > same thing; ie. provide a browser as part of the software on line > made available in common to all their subscribers. Why doesn't > the 'justice' department go after those guys with the same zeal > and vigor they are using against Gates? Because first of all, these companies are not monopolies. Second of all, what these companies provide is relevant to browsers: you have a choice of which online service to use, and, for your convenience, they include a free browser guaranteed to work well with their system. Most of all, no company is compelled against its will to supply these wares to their customers: anyone who bundles AOL or CompuServe does so because they have negotiated a deal with AOL or CompuServe and consent freely to what is being done. What stinks to high heaven about the Microsoft action is that they are compelling -- threatening even -- vendors to include MS software with all their PCs. They are using their virtual monopoly on operating system software to strong-arm vendors into biasing their systems against MS's competition. It would be as if AT&T resorted to extortion to compel the RBOCs to make AT&T the default long distance carrier for all new customers, prejudicing them against their competitors. > I see Gates doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of > Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including Internet > Explorer. I don't see that, strictly speaking, as the issue. The issue is that vendors have no choice: they are obliged to include the IE software, even if they do not want to, and some vendors have been threatened by MS for not following their demands. MS issues an ultimatum: Include the software, or we cancel your license. > I have both icons sitting side by side on the desktop and use them > as I wish. Both browsers use some of the same software in common > anyway, including Real Player. But your average user is going to get his computer with IE installed, and he's going to be too lazy or uninformed to make an alternate browser choice. MS wins by default. That's their tactic: gain marketshare by leveraging their monopoly to ensure that the first browser every PC user sees is IE, and taking advantage of human laziness to deprive the competition of a market. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? Doesn't matter; that issue is irrelevant, because if that was the situation, it would be a lot different: then every competitor would be on a level playing field, and MS would not have a default victory on every system. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. How do you propose we let the marketplace "do its own thing" when MS compels all PC vendors to serve up IE on a silver platter preinstalled, regardless of whether the user has requested it? And do you not suppose that having done this, MS will claim a number of IE users equivalent to the number of Windows 95 systems shipped with IE installed, so they can promote IE as gaining market share and eclipsing Netscape, regardless of whether people actually use IE, care about IE, or even deinstall IE? If the DOJ lets this go on, the only thing that the market will do is MS's thing. Where do you want the market to go today? Where does MS want the market to go today? > And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality > and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign > now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, > Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, > getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this > point? Whence this gratuitous swipe? If you have an objective and justified complaint to make about this man, present it. I will not be swayed by empty rhetoric. I am quite surprised, and not a little perplexed, at the fervor with which you make your contentions. Perhaps you might more clearly articulate the principles by which you make your argument: Exactly what common good or virtuous end is being compromised by the DoJ action? Do you see this as a matter of prejudice against laissez-faire economics? Do you affirm certain intrinsic virtues or benevolences of monopolies that are endangered here? I cannot help but suspect (please correct me if I have drawn the wrong inferences) that you are basing your conclusions by way of analogy with the negative effects of telecom deregulation (which you have expressed on several occasions). I would suggest that the metric by which we judge this action is the metric of what is most beneficial to the industry, in general, and to customers, in particular. My reply, to express it briefly, is that the actions of Microsoft are inimicable to innovation and threaten to stifle creativity, by rendering utterly barren and infertile the the competitive ground so necessary for innovation to grow and bear fruit. Call it the kudzu threat, I guess. I suppose your rejoinder might be to offer as a counterexample the bitter weeds of the telecom world, the toxic IXCs and seedy CLECS that have marred the telecom economy. If I may anticipate, such a line of reasoning may, arguably, not be apropos to what is in fact an entirely different industry and an entirely different question. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:15:44 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt The error in your logic, Pat, is that neither AOL or CompuServe developed the browser that ships with their product. AOL ships Microsoft Internet Explorer (a customized version), and CompuServe has shipped both browsers, depending on whether you're dealing with them directly or their Sprynet division. Usually, ISPs which ship Microsoft Internet Explorer are permitted by Microsoft to do so for free provided that they optimize their web page for MSIE and display a "This page best viewed with MSIE" banner. Those ISPs which use Netscape Navigator pay Netscape for each copy of Navigator used by one of their customers. The real problem with Microsoft giving away their product for free in order to put out competition is fundamental. I'm not sure why the Justice Department doesn't go after Microsoft for that, rather than the fact that they ship MSIE with Windows 95 OSR2. ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:33:16 GMT Organization: Netcom TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- > who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold > Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in > supplying software to the masses. > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? AOL and Compuserve are not monopolies, Microsoft is and must be held to higher standards. The issue is not about the browser. The issue is whether Microsoft is "acting" like a monopoly by "bundling" the browser in the OS, thus requiring consumers to accept a product as a condition of sale of Windows in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act. The law and court decisions are quite clear here. You can be a monopoly by merit of your product and service, its just that you cannot act like one. Intel is a similar monopoly, however they take great pains NOT to act like one and have been cleared by the Justice department and the FTC several times. The precedent in this case that should be well known to readers of the Digest is the Carterphone decision which held that phone companies [the monopoly] cannot require consumers to purchase specific equipment or services [ phones ] on their network. The enforcement of Sherman here opened the market for 3rd parties to produce telephone equipment and services that enhanced competition and lowered costs for consumers. IBM was sued over this very issue, and though Justice ultimately dismissed the larger case, IBM unbundeled its pricing schemes for mainframes to conform, creating the "plug compatiable" markets and ultimately growing the market for IBM mainframes in general. It is still under consent decrees in many areas of its marketing. For an intelligent discussion of the theory of anti-trust as it applies to this case I would suggest a article in the latest issue of {The New Yorker} Jan 12, 1998 by John Cassidy > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? Because capitalist markets do not always work as they should, which is why we have anti-trust laws, meat inspection,the SEC, FTC, FDA, EPA and FAA. Democratic Capitalism requires sensible regulation of markets to allow them to function efficiently. IMHO Justice is being quite conservative here in its demands. You can properly argue what is and what is not "sensible regulation" but regulation is essential. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? They could and probably should. This would probably pass muster under Sherman. Microsoft is being particularly stupid in its behavior in this case. Its just not very smart to poke a sharp stick in the eye of the Federal courts. They are getting really bad advice. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than > adopting Netscape's approach of going in a back room with some > cronies in the United States Justice Department, whispering back and > forth and having the lawyers come out with all sorts of bogus > arguments which they present while holding a proverbial gun (the > unmitigated and often abused power of the United States government) > at Bill Gates' head. Oh and Steve Balmer and his merry little band of cutthroats dont sit in back rooms and scheme on which markets they are going take over next?? I respectfully suggest that we let the Justice Department do its job. Contary to popular opinion, the goverment can, once and a while, act in the public interest. Richard Shockey 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 Voice 314.918.9020 FAX 314.918.9015 Internet rshockey@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ From: ljm3@lehigh.edu (Al McLennan) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 14 Jan 1998 09:25:55 -0500 PAT: I always enjoy and respect your commentary, but can't let this one go by without a rejoinder. First of all, the complaint is not that the browser is included for free, it is that Microsoft wants to require that the OEM include the browser as part of the package. This is possible only because of the non-competitive environment. With competition, Microsoft would be unable to dictate terms to its largest customers, but would instead adjust to their wishes. Microsoft actually has a very poor record for innovation. Such big killer apps as the spreadsheet, word processor, data base, GUI, HTML, browsers, were all invented elsewhere. One is hard put to think of a major innovation due to Microsoft. It is also the case that Microsoft's product is sometimes rather shoddy. One notorious example is the 640K memory limit, which could have been eliminated when the 80286 (or was it the 80386?) appeared, but stayed through MS-DOS and Windows until Windows95. Has everyone forgotten the days of the boot disk, needed for some large programs even though the machine had ample memory and a memory manager? Other OS's had 32 bit memory access years before Microsoft's. The other, superior, OS's lost out because of Microsoft's clout and anti-competitive practices. {The New York Times} had an article a few days ago on the user-unfriendly nature of the PC, which is unquestionably a barrier to a wider market. One must be somewhat a techie to deal with this forbidding product, and the OS is a big part of the problem. Windows95 is more stable than Windows 3.1, but less so than DOS and far more inscrutable. Every DOS and far more inscrutable. Every few months I must reinstall the OS to solve some mysterious problem, but re-installation of application programs is rarely necessary. The online help is frequently useless. This is not a satisfactory OS, and the prospect for improvement is not helped by the absence of competition. Al McLennan ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:42:22 GMT In article , ptownson@telecom-digest.org says... > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. No, that's not the complaint. Since you're arguing against something that Microsoft isn't charged with, you can make a strong argument, but it's only knocking over a straw horse. Microsoft was accused of some pretty nasty stuff a few years ago, and then entered into some antitrust agreements. Without rehashing history, suffice to say that they promised to stop "tying" sales of Windows OS products to other products. With IE, they're requiring OEMs who sell PCs with Win95 licenses to *pre-install* IE as a condition of selling IE. This sounds *exactly* like "tying", except that MS simply defined IE as part of Windows, and therefore it's not "tying". They also said they could include a ham sandwich (their example) in Windows if they so desired, and it wouldn't be tying. The Justice Dept., who enforces antitrust, says that that isn't kosher. Licensing is a funny thing. As a non-lawyer, I'd assume that if I buy a license for software, I get the right to use it, and if I want to use *part* of a product, I may have to pay for the whole thing, but I can use whatever part I want. MS feels otherwise. They don't allow Win95 OEMs to install "part" of it. Either it all goes on the hard drive as shipped to the end user, or no deal. The OEM can't "uninstall" IE or simply leave it out, even if they pay the full price. MS calls this preserving the integrity of the OS. Others call it tying. It is unreasonable for a PC vendor to try to go to market without access to Win95; while some of us don't use it, the non-Windows market is tiny and users often include it anyway, just for those cases when no alternative is workable. Therefore MS has extreme market control. This is not the case with AOL or CIS -- you can sell a PC without either, use the Internet from a PC without either, etc. Neither has market control. Had MS merely given IE away for free, at the taker's or OEM's option, this probably wouldn't have occurred. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:15:27 CST From: "Christopher Wolf"@micro.ti.com (Christopher Wolf) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- > who seems more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold > Microsoft in contempt for the great job the company is doing in > supplying software to the masses. > When Ayn Rand commented on how often one might hear the phrase, 'From > each according to his ability and to each according to his need ...' I > thought she was exaggerating. This however certainly seems to be the > case in the Microsoft matter. Gates is doing a great job and operating > a very prosperous company? He is meeting the computational needs of > millions of Americans you say? Well then, let's fine him a million He's not, though. They may have had a joke at his expense in "Tomorrow Never Dies", but it's more true than joke. The software is bad. The software loses data (see the "big red X" fix for graphics). The software gets included for free or for very little extra with the OS. Why? So you'll use the free product instead of buying a competitor. But why should it? > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, Because they are in the same group as Netscape, not with Microsoft. They too will be out the door when the day of the fully integrated desktop comes. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone And do you think it will still be free when they force Netscape out of the market? When they're the only one left, will you be happy with your only choice? If they want to give it away free, fine, but allow others to enter the same niche. Don't give it away only because it has a competitor you wish to squash. > who asks? I think Netscape should wise up to the fact that there > are lots of places to get for free what *they* are trying to sell, > and that a lot of folks won't know the difference in browsers, so > they might as well take the one that is free. Maybe they need to > re-think *their marketing strategy* and include lots of free > goodies as part of the package. What is to prevent Netscape, for > example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior > to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) > and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the > deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get > them to stop doing it? The point is that Microsoft cannot include anything they want in the OS and say it must be there. What if they started including MS Office in the "OS" and started charging more. What if they started including Microsoft Money in the "OS". Well, they'd put Corel and Quicken out of business quickly, and then start charging for it. Yes, this is directly linked to the stupid consumer too lazy to look at other options and pay a few bucks, but instead take what they're given for free. But in the process, the non-stupid consumers also lose the ability to make choices as Microsoft shuts down the alternatives by giving away similar (less stable) products. There's no reason they have to include IE buried in the OS. They can set a series of hooks for linking into other browsers and editors, and it will work just as fine with IE, but be extensible to other interfaces. Well, considering your previous espousings on the Unabomber, I doubt you'll spend much time on this letter, but what the heck. -W [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regarding Ted K., have they finished searching his little hut yet, or are they still looking for more typewriters and bomb-making materials? I wonder if he will be allowed his constitutional right to represent himself (no matter how foolish that course of action may be) or if they will insist on keeping the government-paid attornies on the case to insure that the 'proper' things are said and done? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:25:29 -0400 From: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers > are a dime a dozen. Browsers might be a dime a dozen to people like you and me, but to the 'average' computer purchaser they take what's on their computer when they buy it, and that's what they use. I don't have many answers, and I don't know all the questions, but I do know this -- after spending ten years supporting end-users (mainfraime, PC, Mac, etc) I've discovered that the 'average' person has the computer literacy of a lamp post. OK, so the world is filled with 25+ and younger people who are computer literate, have grown up with computers all their lives, and can make their own decisions. But the majority of computer buyers are people who have fallen for the hype that if they don't own a computer they are missing out on something in life. They go to CompUSA, they buy a computer with Win95 (and hence IE?), Microsoft Office and AOL, and they never figure out how to do anything but turn it on, click a few buttons, and complain when their tech support period has ended. I'm not picking sides, but I am also not over-estimating the intelligence of the 'average' computer buyer. They will use what's on their computer when they buy it, and that's about the limit of their computer experience. I'm not going to pick sides with the DOJ, but either unbundle IE from Win95 and make the buyer acquire it and install it on their own (so figure it won't get installed, or they'll have to pay the ten-year-old next door to do it), or else bundle a 'similar' version of IE and Netscape. Steve B. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Obviously you would agree then that because most people are computer illiterates, the court should punish Bill Gates. Am I right on that? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:56:37 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt In TELECOM Digest V18 #7, Pat wrote about Netscape: > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL IIRC Netscape designed the improved browser for AOL. In any case, AOL/Compuserve sell the web as a small part of their 'information services'. Their integrated user interface includes a web browser, and so do many 'packages' that ISPs sell when they hook you to the net, but the consumer is paying for internet access. To not provide a browser would be illogical. Microsoft is providing a popular operating system. It is the pre-installing of the optional web browser that is getting them in trouble. Users like me who have had problems with IE don't want it pre-installed on our machines, taking up space and affecting the operation of other programs. But under Microsoft's rules every new machine would be 'infected' by their browser. Supplying the browser on a separate CD would be appropriate. Making it a stand alone product instead of integrating it into the 'Internet' portion of the operating system would help. But the current requirement to have IE pre-installed by the manufacturer or lose Win95 is inappropriate. > "From each according to his abilty; to each according to his need." > The new motto at the 'justice' department I guess. "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. ... From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Luke 12:47-48 I'm not sure the Justice Department will like the source. James ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:08:39 -0600 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with > Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser > as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my > AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my > eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, > but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when The difference is that AOL and Compuserve don't have a monopoly on the operating system. They can't dictate to Packard Bell, Micron, Dell, etc. "You MUST put our service, and our service alone, on your machines, otherwise you can't use this operating system that 94% of your customer base demands installed". > As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite > easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to > remove either one you don't want. Except that IE4 is VERY ugly in its uninstall procedures. Try it some time, and if you're not completely hosed, call Microsoft and rejoice, for you are among the few. IE4 (and up) seem to be designed strictly from the "yeah, you can uninstall me, but god have mercy on your soul if you do" perspective. Also, many users, who are not "savvy" will not even realize that other browsers exist, and thus because Microsoft has taken unfair advantage of its monopoly position, those companies will never even see a CHANCE at revenue. > And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the > Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available > free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone > who asks? That's fine. That's a very acceptable answer. As long as when it gets to the end user, it is NOT installed as a mandatory part of the OS load. Derek J. Balling | J: "You ARE Aware Elvis is dead, right?" dredd@megacity.org | K: "Elvis isn't dead, son he just went http://www.megacity.org/ | home!" - Men In Black [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would *never* run Uninstall with IE. Never ... there is a great risk of trouble as you point out. I would instead resort to manually removing it, by going into DOS and the proper directories, then one by one removing the files which were used just by IE, while leaving alone the files which although used by IE were common to other aspects of Windows 95. And I would be rather conservative at that, preferring to err in favor of leaving a file around that I was unsure of rather than removing it if I was not sure. I could live with a little unidentified/unused trash on the hard drive if I was not certain of its purpose. And obviously before I began any removal action, I would have a complete backup of the whole thing. But I really cannot see myself removing it; there are some things I've found that IE is better at while in other situations, Netscape is superior. By now as you might have guessed, I have gone through the telecom web pages with a fine tooth comb, looking at them both via IE and Netscape in great detail. I've made a few minor adjustments to improve the appearance of my web pages. I'm lucky to have both installed, as well as Lynx. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 03:16:39 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on personal computer operating system. You buy a new PC, it's gonna come with Windows 95 whether you want it or not, and the cost of that is included in the price. You have no choice. Including an internet browser with this, especially under the false guise of claiming it is a component of the operating system, will prevent competitors like Netscape from selling their system. IMHO, this is not in the best interests of the marketplace. I see nothing unreasonable with Microsoft being asked to sell its Internet browser as a separate product, rather than bundle it with its operating system. Years ago, IBM had a virtual monopoly in computers. Through government pressure (and fear of anti-trust action), IBM ceased "bundling" software and support with the hardware. This opened the opportunity for third party suppliers to supply hardware and software products. Not all products were successful, and it wasn't easy for the competitors. However, this did create competitive pressure for IBM to offer improved products sooner, which was good for the marketplace. And independent software houses developed many valuable systems and application products. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Microsoft vs. Netscape Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 02:16:37 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Babu Mengelepouti wrote: > I think trying to put your competition out of business by giving your > product away for free is antitrust. Do you really honestly believe that > once Netscape is out of business and Microsoft owns the market MSIE will > still be free?" You're assuming that Microsoft *intends* to put Netscape out of business. Microsoft's position seems to be that their giving IE away will drive the market for other Microsoft products using Web protocols -- not just on the Internet, but (perhaps more importantly) on corporate intranets as well. What I fear here is that, if Microsoft's detractors are successful in forcing them to remove IE from Windows (which goes beyond the present case), the precedent will be set to also force them to remove all sorts of other capabilities that are included with Windows that formerly were sold separately -- networking features, fax software, a backup program, a defragmenter, a disk error testing program, a file finder, and on and on. We could end up with a situation where OS makers can only sell bare-bones products, in order to "preserve" the market for add-ons, or -- perhaps even worse -- a situation where just one company is prevented from enhancing its product, which would remove a lot of incentive for other OS vendors like IBM to try to beat the basic Microsoft OS (since they could just throw in a bundle of goodies). ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Last Laugh! Using Sound Files With Windows Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:40:00 EST Purely for entertainment, I've been experimenting with the use of various .wav files to open and close not only Windows 95, but also various programs therein. I picked up an interesting CD-ROM the other day of sound effects for this purpose, and these include segments ranging from just one or two seconds in length to much longer (thirty to forty second) items. You can install this in a directory which Windows will look for and you can either have them play once or repeat as desired. You can add various affects like reverberation and echoes. If you wish, add your own .wav files of speech or singing or whatever. Some of the items I tested were: For opening Windows 95, a crazy witch who cackles insanely and shouts 'come on in!' When a browser closes, a nice lady with a very British accent who questions me, 'Going so soon?' I have a clock synch program which goes to tick.usno.navy.mil 37 and I stuck a sound effect in there when it returns with the correct time to set my system clock the same lady mentioned above says, 'at the signal tone, the time will be ...' and the crazy witch cackles about it. When a file cannot located by Windows or some other error condition occurs, a man's voice angrily says 'not so fast! NOT SO FAST!' When Windows is closing, a man's voice says, "Don't be gone long dear, I'll miss you until you get back." Other .wav files included with it are: bird calls, animal noises, an approaching train with a whistle blowing, a storm with thunder and rain, an audience in a theatre applauding noisily and the same audience laughing very hysterically. I suppose you could send this latter one over the wire to someone else's Real Player for a joke. Also, a 35 second very grandiose one stanza version of 'America the Beautiful' sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir; a file of about the same length of the opening passage of 'Toccata and Fugue in D Minor' of J.S. Bach, and a couple others. Oh, and I got my very first obscene 'Net Meeting' call the other night. Does *anyone* use 'Net Meeting' for anything but hot chat type calls? I had logged in, I guess it was to ils3.microsoft.com and was just looking at the directory of users when I got a signal that a call was coming in. I accepted the call; the little side- window opened, and a man's -- ummm -- 'thing' was on display. And in the written chat box next to it he had typed, 'are you m or f? how old? how do you like what you see?' I should have reported him to the management ... and ... had I been thinking quickly I would have played back one of the sound effects to him; probably the one of the audience laughing hysterically or perhaps the one of the crazy witch cackling before disconnecting him. Bye for now! PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #9 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 15 03:47:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA14059; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:47:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 03:47:19 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801150847.DAA14059@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #10 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Jan 98 03:47:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 10 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New MCI FCC Charge (Jack Decker) Re: Teleport ATT Merger (David G. Lewis) Re: Teleport ATT Merger (T. McLough) Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 (Adam H. Kerman) Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? (acarr@aol.com) Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? (Edward Kern) Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? (Joe Vallender) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bruce Wilson) Re: Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids (Fred R. Goldstein) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:43:11 -0500 From: Jack Decker Subject: New MCI FCC Charge I got a bill for long distance usage on my residence line from MCI today. This line gets very little long distance usage, and none at all some months. Every since the inception of "equal access" I've always had my primary residence line set up as "no PIC" (no default long distance carrier) - at first, when I lived at my previous residence, it was a protest against being sent a "Russian ballot" (I used that terminology back then, which of course was prior to the fall of the Soviet empire!) that contained only ONE carrier choice. Later on, I figured out that having "no PIC" was a good primary line of defense against people making toll calls on my phone without my knowledge, and it never bothered me to have to dial the extra digits on the very few toll calls made from that line. When MCI long distance service eventually became available at my previous residence I got a "10XXX" account with them, which basically made me an MCI customer in the same way as someone who had MCI as their "Dial 1" carrier, the only difference being that my phone line was not actually presubscribed to MCI. Then, when I moved to GTE territory a few years ago, I had my new residence line set up in the same way, and had my MCI "10XXX" account transferred to the new number. Well, today when I got my MCI bill, there were three short calls on it (one of which was really a misdial, where I actually wound up being charged for a call within my local calling area!). The call total was 72 cents, and there was another six cents in federal and state taxes . So far, so good. But then there was also a "National Access Fee" surcharge of $1.07 on the bill. That brought the total bill up to $1.85, for what started out as 72 cents worth of calls. A notation on the bill offers this explanation: "The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to each usage customer." Well, the first thing I did was to fire off an e-mail of complaint to my representative in the U.S. Congress. I for one, am fed up the federal government treating phone service as though it's some kind of luxury, and phone users as sheep waiting to be fleeced every time the FCC has some pet project they want to fund. I figured that maybe if a few of the "sheep" start kicking and screaming a little, Congress just might take notice, especially given that this is an election year. Keep in mind that we already get hit with a federally-mandated "intrastate access charge" on local telephone company bills, so how much more are we expected to bleed on the whim of the F.C.C.? But after that, I got to wondering -- if the carriers are charged based on number of lines subscribed, and my line isn't subscribed to MCI (nor to any other carrier), then why should I be paying MCI this fee? After all, wasn't the whole idea of the "10(10)XXX" codes that you could, if you so desire, place each toll call you make with a different carrier so as to get the best rate? It kind of defeats the purpose if every time you use a different carrier, they soak you with their own version of this "National Access Fee." So I called MCI, and guess what -- it's even worse than I thought. I spoke to TWO different representatives, and both confirmed that I would be billed this monthly fee every month *even if I did not make any long distance calls.* I asked how they could do that, since my line isn't presubscribed to MCI. Apparently, in their view that doesn't matter -- as long as I have an account with MCI, they intend to bill me the $1.07 each month, even though my line is not presubscribed to them and even though I may never make a call using MCI again. They view a "10XXX" account as no different from a regular account in this regard. Now granted, it's not going to be a big loss to MCI, but chances are that in a couple days I'm going to call back and cancel my MCI account completely. It's bad enough to be assessed an access fee in the months when you only make a few short toll calls, but worse yet to have this monthly charge build up in months when you don't use the service at all. I'm trying to figure out now if there is any way that I can place intraLATA calls using GTE (so far, no one in or out of GTE has been able to provide me with a 10(10)XXX code that lets me use real GTE service for intraLATA toll calls -- I asked about that here a few months ago, but though many suggestions were made, none of them actually worked in this area). If I find a way to do it (I'm waiting for a call back from someone at the local GTE office), I'll just cancel my MCI account entirely and use the access code to place whatever few calls we make from that line through GTE. From what I have been reading here, however, I gather that some carriers are NOT directly passing along this monthly fee to their customers. I'd be interested to know if there are any that a) accept casual calls and bill through the local phone company, b) do NOT charge a monthly charge of any kind beyond the actual price of the calls, and c) have reasonable per-minute rates on calls within Michigan. Obviously, for the calling volume on this line a difference of a couple cents per minute is not as important as not getting stuck with that infernal monthly fee. Every now and again we get ads in the mail from some long distance company that uses "10XXX" access, but lately almost every one of them has included fine print that indicates that there will be some kind of fixed charge of a few dollars tacked onto your bill if you use their service even once in a month. I will close this by saying that if anyone else is upset about this new charge, you ought to consider writing your member of congress. Since this is an election year, they may not be as likely to just blow you off, and as long as you are writing you might consider also mentioning the subscriber line charge that appears on you local phone bill, both to indicate that you realize that we are already getting dinged by the feds for that charge, and (if you so desire) to express your displeasure with that charge as well. It would probably be a good thing for our lawmakers to realize that we can't be fooled just because the various charges are spread out all over the bill(s). I realize that some who object to this latest charge may choose to simply change carriers, but even if you do, it wouldn't hurt to let your representatives know if you feel that telephone users are not a bottomless money pit to be mined whenever they feel the urge to start up some new federal project. (If your representative has a Web page, it is probably linked from the page at http://www.house.gov:80/MemberWWW.html and if you go to your rep's page, you should be able to find their e-mail address, assuming that they are not still living in the stone age). To reply via e-mail, please make the obvious modification to my return e-mail address. Jack ------------------------------ From: David.G.Lewis@att.com Subject: Re: Teleport ATT Merger Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:17:52 -0500 Organization: AT&T - NCS Reply-To: dglewis@ems.att.com Richard Barnaby wrote: > Just wondering ... > The Teleport/ATT merger is being heralded as a "great thing" by (it > seems) everyone. Teleport has built its business (so it seems to me) > by being IXC neutral. Since Teleport (AFAIK) was not competing in the > LD area (to any great extent if at all), any IXC would feel > comfortable placing their business with them rather than the ILEC in > that city, all other things being equal. > Now how will the *other* IXC's feel with ATT knowing all their > business connections. If I were an IXC I'd be just a tad nervous. > Does this portend well for other CLEC's to have business migrated to > them? Does it *even* matter anymore :-) That is, of course, a matter of opinion; note that (a) TCG does have a long distance product offer, called PrimeDistance (SM) service; and (b) TCG has an agreement to purchase ACC Corp., which has an agreement to purchase US WATS Inc., another LD provider. Thus, it's not precisely true that TCG isn't in the LD business. Furthermore, as the industry boundaries continue to dissolve, there will be more and more cases of companies being both competitors and customers. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it is interesting that last > week AT&T claims massive losses attempting to get into the local > business and said they are out of it for good; then this week they > buy up Teleport and approach the local business from a different > angle. Maybe this method will work for them. PAT] Actually, it wasn't last week, it was last November, and the announcement was that AT&T was suspending marketing of local service, not that AT&T was getting out of the local business (USA Today even printed a correction ...). David G. Lewis AT&T Network and Computing Services Network Planning The future - it's a long distance from long distance. ------------------------------ From: root@newsb.cb.att.com (T. McLough) Subject: Re: Teleport ATT Merger Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:52:58 -0500 Reply-To: tmclough@erols.com Pat's comment: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it is interesting that last > week AT&T claims massive losses attempting to get into the local > business and said they are out of it for good; then this week they > buy up Teleport and approach the local business from a different > angle. Maybe this method will work for them. PAT] The really interesting thing is how even telecom-savvy people like Pat completely misinterpreted AT&T's statment. The reporting media are at fault for being too generic in their reporting. If you read the AT&T press releases, it was perfectly clear. AT&T was discontinuing the strategy of reselling the local connection from the LECs. They found that they could not profit given the prices and errors that the LECs were charging and generating. AT&T said it would find other ways to reach the local customer. The Teleport aquisition is perfectly consistent with that strategy. Side note: If the LEC cost to connect to a local customer really is as high as wholesale rates they are offering to the IXCs, then the LECs are in trouble. If not, then they really are dragging their feet on opening up competition. trm ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 Date: 14 Jan 1998 13:57:09 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Donald M. Heiberg wrote: > Denver customers should gird for 1st shot at 10-digit dialing > Education campaign will begin Monday. > The telecommunications industry and the commission have worked for > months to prepare a $1 million public education campaign beginning > Monday that will let metro Denver residents know they can start dialing > 303 in front of each local number, beginning Feb. 1. Does this mean that the "1" dialling prefix never needs to be used to dial an interLATA call? Or, is it required to dial an intraLATA intraNPA call? How did they arrange things so that there's no transition from mandatory eleven-digit dialling on some calls to optional eleven-digit dialling? I thought that couldn't be done. At least, that's what they claim in Chicago. > But commissioners also said they want to continue exploring > alternatives since an estimated three million of the eight million > numbers in the 303 area code are not being used -- although most of > them have been assigned to companies. > 1. Requiring wireless users to switch to 720 and giving the new area > code only to future wireless users. This option is silly. Then, there will be no incentive to find a way to share NPA-NXX combinations among wireless and wireline resellers. > 2. Consolidating rate centers. The big supply of unused 303 numbers > stems from traditional telephone technology, which assigns prefixes to > specific rate centers, the geographic point of measuring and billing > long-distance calls. > Blocks of 10,000 numbers at a time are allotted, which means that each > new telephone company wanting to serve all of 303 has a block in each of > 42 rate centers, or 420,000 numbers. This is ridiculous. "Rate center" is an artificial concept, particularly for wireless carriers. You can't make an outgoing call on a pager, last time I looked. And, with respect to a cell phone, it won't affect long-distance rating if there's only one rate center in Denver, and every third or fourth rate center is used in the suburbs. No one at all would be affected if two thirds of the rate centers were eliminated for a wireless carrier attempting to cover all of 303, and the currently-held NPA-NXX combinations were reassigned to remaining rate centers. > As a side benefit, that could lead to a bigger local calling area. That > would mean higher monthly bills for all customers. How is this possible? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:37:47 -0500 From: acarr@aol.com (ACARR) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? Bill, Here are the rates for ISDN BRI in PA for Bell Atlantic: Residential: B Hours) Monthly Rate Best Package For You 20 Hours $31.00 33.1 hrs or less 60 Hours $41.25 33.1 hrs - 78.3 hrs 140 Hours $55.50 78.3 hrs - 176.5 hrs 300 Hours $84.00 176.5 hrs - 331.4 hrs 500 Hours $108.50 331.4 hrs - 680.1 hrs Unlimited $249.00 NA For residential, usage is charged for local data AND voice calls (ie no DOVBS). local usage in excess of the allowance are charged at $0.02 per min per B channel peak and $0.01 off-peak. more info at B Hours) Business: $31-$39 per month plus depending on where you live. $0.02 per minute per B channel for local circuit switched data normal business voice rates for circuit switched voice (or DOVBS). Usage packages for business are coming out soon. BA only charges for the monthly fee and local usage. Toll calls are rated at the normal voice rate. Long distance are billed by the LD carrier. Usage allowances count only towards local usage. Initial installation and setup is sometimes challenging, but most people love it once its set up. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 12:07:36 -0500 From: Edward Kern Subject: Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? Bill Levant writes: > BA's web pages are generally uninformative. Is there anyone out there > who actually *has* ISDN from BA-Pennsylvania, and can tell me : > 1) What does it REALLY cost per month (exclusive of usage) > 2) What usage is charged for, and how (is LD charged as usage PLUS toll, > are incoming calls charged; does BA allow flat-rate voice-over-bearer?) > 3) Are you happy with it? I'm making the assumption that you're looking at residential ISDN, and not business rates. The rates they post for different usage packages are all-inclusive, except for the $3.50/mo federal tax. The well-hidden web site http://www.bell-atl.com/isdn/consumer/getcon.htm (get conned? Hrmm.. :> ) has all the rates for residential ISDN. According to BA, you get charged for all outgoing calls, voice or data. Incoming calls are not metered. However, my bill (which is 30+ pages - they itemize all ISDN calls) shows that I wasn't charged at all for outbound calls, both local and long distance (I did get charged from my long distance carrier, like normal, for the long distance voice calls I placed). My guess is that they're billing me incorrectly. ISDN has really been great. It's really fast, and connections are more stable than modem calls. However, I've had problems with inbound calls being transferred to a BA operator if my line is busy. I've run through tech support with 3com/USRobotics (my TA manufacturer), BA InfoSpeed (residential ISDN folks), and a switch tech named John, and everyone says everything is ok. I'm not sure if I'm just going to get more analog lines for incoming and just live with BA's problem, or if I'm going to start pestering the PUC at this point. One final thing: BA will send you TONS of literature and signup kits for their own ISP, BellAtlantic.net. I'd recommend against using them -- their backbone provider, IConNet, has the worst quality service I've ever seen. Edward Kern (dag@soulfood.org) The Soulfood Group ------------------------------ From: Joe Vallender Subject: Re: ISDN in Pennsylvania, Anyone? Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:16:42 -0800 Reply-To: javallender@sprintmail.com Bill Levant wrote: > Well, we finally broke down and bought one of those new-fangled > Pentium computer thingies :-), but it is apparent that POTS dialup is > going to be almost intolerably slow (when we were using the poor old > 386, who noticed?). > I realize that this is a bit off-topic, but I've come to trust those > who post here; E-Mail is welcomed, so we don't drive POP (poor old > PAT) crazy with off-topic posts ... You might want to post this query on the COMP.DCOM.ISDN newsgroup. That's where a lot of the ISDN users hang out. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 01:35:29 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt In article , Telecom Digest Editor writes: > So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- who seems > more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold Microsoft in contempt > for the great job the company is doing in supplying software to the masses. What was it, Pat? Was this a Microsoft press release? Are you worried about the value of your Microsoft stock? The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a computer. Bruce Wilson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Microsoft does not send me press releases. Hardly any company does except those who want me to sell something for them -- for free usually -- and then they send the press release in the form of snail-mail to my post office box; anywhere from three to ten or more pages which they expect me to type in I guess. I do not own any stock in Microsoft, or any other company for that matter. And how are things with you these days Bruce? Did you get that woman with the deadbeat son straightened out? Has she gotten any more phone bills with unusual charges since we last chatted here? PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Digital Cell Phones Jam Hearing Aids From: fgoldstein@bbn.NO$LUNCHMEAT.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 15:50:30 GMT In article , monty@roscom.com says: > It was a simple enough wish -- Fred Raxter of Seattle wanted to join > the telecommunications revolution and use a cellular phone.... > The hitch: Raxter wears hearing aids. So, to use the new generation of > digital phones without enduring a high-pitched squealing, he'd have to > turn off his aids. .... > AT&T Wireless currently uses both analog and digital phones. Its digital > phones can be programmed to act as analog phones to reduce interference, > Ruby said. But the whole wireless industry is moving toward digital > equipment. AT&T Wireless has a big problem of their own making, and there's no quick fix. The trouble is that there are two basic types of digital cell phone air interface, CDMA and TDMA. AT&T uses D-AMPS TDMA. In this system, the cell phone turns its transmitter on and off rapidly, allowing different users' transmitters to share a channel by transmitting at different time intervals. The resulting signal is a pulsed wave, which is essentially an AM transmitter 100% modulated with a square wave, which is rectified by nearby electronics. A super-shielded hearing aid *might* be able to resist it, but I doubt it would fit into an ear! (GSM is a different form of TDMA, with the same problems.) CDMA, used by many other carriers now, leaves the transmitters running all the time during a call. Each uses spread-spectrum to spread the signals over a wide band, while the receivers use correlation functions to pick out the desired signals from the many others on the same frequency at the same time. It sounds tricky and there's some heavy math behind it, but thanks to fast DSP silicon it works and requires very little power. (A Sony/Qualcomm CDMA cell phone gets 60 hours standby and 4 hours talk time per charge.) While there is an AM component too (power adjustment of 1 dB 800 times per second), it's a small fraction of TDMA's. I don't know if hearing aids have any problem with any CDMA phones, but I'm sure it'll be much less severe. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies, Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #10 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jan 16 18:39:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA24129; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:39:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:39:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801162339.SAA24129@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #11 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jan 98 18:39:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 11 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Urgent FCC Information (Andrea Fortus) Book Review: "Come to Grief", Dick Francis (Rob Slade) Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: New MCI FCC Charge (John McHarry) AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (David Schuetz) Re: Y2k Compliant Software Release (Tony Toews) Re: AOL Accused of Privacy Violation (Steven R. Shepherd) Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? (Daniel Rothman) Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? (Linc Madison) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: afortus@salestar.com (Andrea Fortus) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:51:00 -0800 Subject: Urgent FCC Information This letter is to inform you that the recent FCC decision to detariff all long distance services also eliminated the requirement for long distance carriers to provide pricing and service information to the public. If not modified, this decision will deprive U.S. consumers, particularly small-to-medium sized businesses and residential customers, access to critical information necessary to make their telecommunications carrier and service selections. The decision will make it difficult for consumers to obtain thorough and timely pricing information. Salestar is a San Francisco based telecommunications research company. Together with the Center for Communications Management Information and Tele-Tech Services, we have formed the Telecommunications Management Information Systems Coalition (the "Coalition"). The Coalition's purpose is to advocate consumers' right to view pricing and service information. The Coalition and the Utility Reform Network ("TURN"), a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of California's residential and small business customers of telecommunications, electric and gas services, filed a petition for further reconsideration of the FCC's decision on December 4, 1997, the deadline for filing such petitions at the FCC. The Coalition's petition may be found at Salestar's webpage at www.salestar.com. A summary of the public disclosure issue as well as a model letter of support for the Coalition's petition for further reconsideration of the elimination of the public disclosure requirement may also be found at Salestar's web page. In addition, we are mounting an aggressive campaign to rally supporters. We would like to take this opportunity to urge you to add your support to our efforts by sending a letter to the FCC stating your opposition to the elimination of the public disclosure requirement and supporting our petition for further reconsideration. For your convenience, a model letter of support may be found at www.salestar.com. Please feel free to use it as a guide in writing your own letter or forward it to other groups who my be interested in this issue. We would like all letters in support of the Coalition's petition for further reconsideration to be submitted to the FCC no later than January 20, 1998. With a strong collective effort, we feel that the FCC will take notice of our concerns and reinstate the public disclosure requirement. Thank you for your support! Andrea Fortus Salestar Telecom Analyst afortus@salestar.com 415-356-2166 ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 08:32:15 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Come to Grief", Dick Francis Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKCM2GRF.RVW 971003 "Come to Grief", Dick Francis, 1995, 0-515-11952-0, U$6.99 %A Dick Francis %C 200 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 %D 1995 %G 0-515-11952-0 %I Ace/Berkley/Boulevard/Charter/Diamond/Jove Books %O U$6.99 +1-800-788-6262 http://www.berkley.com/berkley %P 368 %T "Come to Grief" OK, I've already admitted that I like Dick Francis, OK? But I *do* have a reason for reviewing this one as well as "Driving Force" (cf. BKDRVFRC.RVW). Yes, a *technical* reason. Two or three, actually. First, this book involves the use of cell phones, and the interception of cell phone conversations. As in "Driving Force", Francis' technical details are a mixture of good and bad. It is good to see that he is making the public more aware of the vulnerability in using cellular phones to conduct confidential or private business. (Or, as Prince Charles found out to his chagrin, pleasure.) However, in this story, the lead character is told that getting a digital cell phone, as opposed to analogue, is an automatic guarantee of security. Granted, a digital scanner is a lot harder to build than an analogue one but without the use of spread spectrum or encryption, or both, digital communications alone cannot ensure security. Second, the main character admits that he is not keen on computers, and uses them as little as is consistent with his business. Fair enough. We can, though, therefore rule out the possibility that his home computer is even moderately sophisticated, let alone running a multiuser operating system. In fact, we can probably assume that, like most people, he turns the computer off when he is not using it. So how come he can call up his home computer from the office of the bad guys, and transfer files from theirs to his? (In fact, given the lengths to which they have gone in order to secure and hide their machine, how come it even has a modem?) OK, as long as we're here, how about one more? You know how in all the movies, when the good guys get into the bad guys' office/hideout headquarters, and they discover the secret files/computer, that as soon as they put the disk with the secret data into the floppy drive the prompt "PASSWORD" appears on the screen? Yup, you guessed it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:41:13 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Colorado PUC Wavering on 720 Overlay of Denver 303 Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Donald M. Heiberg wrote: >> Denver customers should gird for 1st shot at 10-digit dialing >> Education campaign will begin Monday. >> that will let metro Denver residents know they can start dialing >> 303 in front of each local number, beginning Feb. 1. > Does this mean that the "1" dialling prefix never needs to be used to > dial an interLATA call? Or, is it required to dial an intraLATA > intraNPA call? > How did they arrange things so that there's no transition from > mandatory eleven-digit dialling on some calls to optional eleven-digit > dialling? I thought that couldn't be done. At least, that's what they > claim in Chicago. Metro Denver, and most likely the entire state of Colorado, has used 1+ to indicate that the remaining digits are a _toll_ call. Local calls have been dialable as _straight_ seven-digits, while toll calls, whether inTRA and inTER LATA, as well as toll calls to both home and differing NPAs, have been dialed as 1/0+ten-digits. Prior to interchangeable N0X/N1X format central-office codes in (any of) Colorado's NPA(s), which was also prior to interchangeable NNX format NPA codes in 1995, 'home' NPA toll calls in Colorado could be dialed as 1/0+seven-digits. Metro Chicago's dialing and numbering plans developed differently, as did its switch history (and local and nearby-toll billing/rate plans - Denver being a geographically large monthly unlimited flat rate plan, with Chicago being message units and/or measured rate). Metro Denver (and Colorado) have probably made sure that none of its close-by NPAs have any local c/o codes 303, 970, 719, 720. However, in Metro Chicago (which is _far_ more dense and populated) there are NXX combinations used as local central-office codes _and_ used as nearby NPA codes. I think this is also the case in metro areas of California, as well as in New York City. >> But commissioners also said they want to continue exploring >> alternatives since an estimated three million of the eight million >> numbers in the 303 area code are not being used -- although most of >> them have been assigned to companies. >> 2. Consolidating rate centers. The big supply of unused 303 numbers >> stems from traditional telephone technology, which assigns prefixes to >> specific rate centers, the geographic point of measuring and billing >> long-distance calls. >> Blocks of 10,000 numbers at a time are allotted, which means that each >> new telephone company wanting to serve all of 303 has a block in each >> of 42 rate centers, or 420,000 numbers. > This is ridiculous. "Rate center" is an artificial concept, > particularly for wireless carriers. You can't make an outgoing call on > a pager, last time I looked. And, with respect to a cell phone, it > won't affect long-distance rating if there's only one rate center in > Denver, and every third or fourth rate center is used in the suburbs. > No one at all would be affected if two thirds of the rate centers were > eliminated for a wireless carrier attempting to cover all of 303, and > the currently-held NPA-NXX combinations were reassigned to remaining > rate centers. >> As a side benefit, that could lead to a bigger local calling area. >> That would mean higher monthly bills for all customers. > How is this possible? Ratecenters are tariffed items. While most inTER-LATA carriers are offering 'flat-rate-per-minute' toll plans, inTRA-LATA toll calls (much of which will still be handled by USWest, even with the presence of CLECs) are calls _between_ particular ratecenters. To comply with the _state_ tariffs for inTRA-state calls (also inTRA-LATA), a CLEC will need at least one NXX central-office code for each ratecenter where it wants to provide service. A customer who spends much of his time in a particular town some distance outside of metro Denver, and a toll call to/from Denver, wants a pager or cellular phone, but wants it to be a local call from the area where he is going to be spending most of his time. The central-office code prefix for his wireless device will need to be based in his local ratecenter. In addition to cellular/paging/mobile/wireless services, we now have the CLECs. Their 'basic' local calling areas will need to conform to that of the incumbent LEC(s), although they can provide enhanced or optional local calling plans. To conform with 'basic' local calling of the incumbent LEC, each ratecenter that the new CLEC provides service in will need at least one local NXX c/o code. Consolidating ratecenters has been done in some areas, such as Phoenix AZ, Minneapolis-St.Paul MN, and elsewhere. In these cases, there had been individual ratecenters which at one time might have been _toll_ between each other, but _over_time_ (thirty to forty years) had evolved to all become local (EAS - Extended Area Service) to/from each other. When a CLEC would apply for NXX c/o codes for services, it would need codes for numerous ratecenters. By consolidating the ratecenters into one or only a handful, there are fewer NXX c/o codes that the CLEC would need assigned, depending of course on how many customers it would serve overall. But to consolidate a large number of ratecenters over a large geographic area into a single ratecenter, by changing short-haul inTRA-LATA and tariffed _toll_, into a _local_ call could mean a "loss of revenue" for USWest and other LECs. That's why customers would have a higher monthly telephone bill. But it would still be a flat-rate for unlimited calling within this larger geographic region, albeit a higher monthly flat-rate. The big urban areas with forced measured-rate or message-units, in California, the Midwest, and the Northeast, have numerous ratecenters for short-haul or instate calling. They are called "zones" and are frequently indicated as such in the front of the local directory, as well as in state tariff filings and telco/Bellcore rating/routing documents. The rate centers are usually called things like " zone 1", " zone 2", etc. and then " zone 1", " zone 2", etc. Each city zone and suburban zone also has its own V&H co-ordinate for short-haul toll call billing/rating. But for long-haul interLATA and/or interstate calling, when still using traditional time and distance based billing plans, there is a V&H co-ordinate applied to the city 'itself', regardless of which 'zone' where the call originated or terminated. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: New MCI FCC Charge Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:27:46 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:43:11 -0500, Jack Decker wrote: > I got a bill for long distance usage on my residence line from MCI > today. ... > A notation on the bill offers this explanation: > The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to > pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines > subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long > distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to > each usage customer." ... > But after that, I got to wondering -- if the carriers are charged > based on number of lines subscribed, and my line isn't subscribed to > MCI (nor to any other carrier), then why should I be paying MCI this > fee? ... Actually, it is even worse. Your local carrier will charge you for your non PICed line. (MCI should not.) I think what is going on is a lowering of the LEC's skim off of the long distance charges (IXCs pay more to the LECs to originate and terminate a call than it costs them to carry it across the country.) Since this was a local service subsidy (or so they say) it is being replaced with per user charges. The government doesn't get any of it. The LEC pockets the whole wad. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:09:36 EST From: David Schuetz Subject: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA After arriving late in a hotel last night, I tried calling home but had forgotten my MCI calling card. So, I tried the hotel's AT&T Credit Card option. I punched in my "Major" credit card number (Citibank Visa), only to get a couple "invalid card number" errors and eventually an operator. I read her my number aloud, and she told me that they wouldn't take that visa card. Thinking it was a problem with the card, I asked why, and she said that "AT&T doesn't take all Visa cards, just certain ones." She told me that a while back they'd dropped all Visa, and now they're accepting (she thought) at least the AT&T Universal cards. I told her that if AT&T didn't want my money, that was fine with me, and made the call a different way. This raises (to me) two questions. * Why the heck would they want to do this? Seems pretty stupid to me (they lost my business). * Can they even do this? I thought Visa was Visa ("It's everywhere you want to be"). If a retail outlet puts a visa logo in their window, don't they have to take *ALL* Visa cards? (provided they're legit/current/etc.) I'm wondering if I should complain to the FCC, to Visa proper, or to Citibank, or if this is "accepted practice" and I should just live with it. david. ['splain to me again why we *want* AT&T providing local service? Will they refuse checks from my bank, because it's not their favorite bank? Seems like a natural extension of the pick-and-choose visa thing...] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If a merchant takes some VISA cards, he has to take all VISA cards (assuming sales authorization approval, etc). This sounds to me like a continuation of the redlining AT&T does with regards credit cards (and its own calling card) from payphones in 'bad' neighborhoods in inner-city areas. For a long time AT&T has illegally refused connections (or actually, improperly refused an extension of credit) based purely on the location of the caller and the place he was calling. As an example, you can be in Skokie or Winnetka, IL (where I am) and use a payphone with a credit card or a telco calling card to call any nice, English-speaking country in the world, i.e. Australia, the UK, etc. Now on the other hand, if you go a few miles south into Chicago, and attempt to use the very same calling/credit card to call, let's say, Israel, India, Iran, or some third-world country -- and immigrants to Chicago would quite likely be from one of those places -- the call via a payphone will be refused. That's because AT&T stereotypes those people as likely to be dishonest or deadbeats. They claim historical evidence for this in their records. You have to use a private phone to call those countries so that there can be some absolute recourse for billing and collection. It is very likely that something about your call triggered an alarm to them. It might be the hotel where you were at has had a high fraud rate. It might be the particular VISA series. It could have been the time of day, or the destination point. Or it might have been an operator acting ignorant. The cute part is how the operators are instructed to lie to the customer about it. The operator is NEVER to say there is a strong possibility you are making a fraud call. She is NEVER to say 'there is a problem with calls from your ethnic neighborhood in Chicago to (whatever) country and AT&T has a hard time collecting payment.' Saying those things could easily lead to a discrimination lawsuit, etc. So instead, the operator has a few lies she is instructed to say, which ninety percent of the time or so will shag away the customer with no further ado. The three most common are: 1) The AT&T calling card is not accepted in (whatever) country. 2) The authorization system (to get approval for the charge) is down right now; no way to handle the call. 3) AT&T does not accept that particular type of VISA/MC/Amex. If you answer back to (1) saying this is a SENT PAID call and the method of payment is of no concern to the foreign telco, sometimes the operator will 'accidentally' hit the release key and dump your call. Other times she may very haughtily refer you to a supervisor who you spend ten minutes waiting on hold for if she answers at all. If you answer (2) saying the initial charge for the call is under the 'floor limit' and that normally all that happens at first is verifying the check-digit, with approval obtained ONLY after the call reaches a certain dollar-amount, you'll probably get the same response as (1). If you persevere and insist on getting a supevisor on the line and keep working your way up the ranks past the supervisor to the GCO (group chief operator) or whatever they call the person in that position these days, if your call is international, you will probably eventually reach someone at the Pittsburgh IOC who may or may not decide to manually override the computer block on your call/method of payment and put the call through. Most customers of course will not wait that long. They'll give up long before that, which is the idea. AT&T claims its behavior is legal; it claims it is not discrim- ating on the basis of national origin, area of residence, etc. It is not likely that an inner-city resident of Chicago trying to call his homeland from a payphone at the corner liquor store is ever going to be in any position to challenge the company. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ttoews@telusplanet.net (Tony Toews) Subject: Re: Y2k compliant software release Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:14:58 GMT Organization: TELUS Communications Inc. john.kuzemka!@nt.com (John Kuzemka) wrote: Thanks to the original poster for including the c.s.y2k newsgroup in the posting. I added comp.dcom.telecom as well. >> Does anyone know what release of DMS100 software >> will be ready for the year 2000? > NA00008 is the Y2K compliant SW load So what about the rest of the Nortel line. I have no idea what the DMS100 is. I'm concerned about the switches in the telco office as well as the ones in business. It's my understanding that the Nortel software is Y2K complaint. Is this correct? Do the telcos and others have access to your source code? This is it possible they've made changes which must be merged into your new source? What about links to your competitors switches for the purposes of handing off calls and exchanging billing information? BTW someone at my local telco, Telus in Alberta, has indicated that the Nortel switches are fine. However some of your competitors switches they were unsure about. Needless to say I don't expect you to comment on competitors but more the general nature of the interconnections. For example, if my telco is unable to verify that they can exchange such information with other telco's, be they in North America or overseas, I won't be able to make calls to that country. Or will I be able to make the calls, because then I pay for the call here but I will be unable to recieve calls because my telco don't know if they will get paid by the telco at the other end? Thanks, Tony Toews, Independent Computer Consultant The Year 2000 crisis: Will my parents or your grand parents still be receiving their pension in January, 2000? See www.granite.ab.ca/year2000 for more info. Microsoft Access Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:27:27 EST From: Steven R. Shepherd Subject: Re: AOL Accused of Privacy Violation Although legally/morally (if AOL has morals, which I highly doubt), AOL should not have given this information to the officials, the information that they gave was freely submitted by McVeigh to AOL to be placed in his "Profile" which ANYONE with an AOL account can obtain. Seeing that this was public (for AOL users) information, they were wrong morally/ethically but I doubt legally. If however, McVeigh did not choose to have a personal profile on AOL, or put a fake name/location, etc. in it and AOL told the officials the TRUE information (which was not the case) then there would be the legal issue. I think it's pretty sad that the military goes "gay hunting" through the Internet to find persons violating the vague and IMHO unconstitutional "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. S t e v e n R. S h e p h e r d CyberGate Internet Technologies | ICQ: 1412432 An ACSI Company | NetDudeFL @ EFnet Field Engineer | E-Mail: steven@gate.net (800)NET-GATE/(954)429-8065 | 9542595004@alphapage.airtouch.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: His online profile, as I understand it, contained only references to his sexual interests; it said nothing about a last name or place of residence. There were no specifics given in the profile. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Daniel Rothman Reply-To: drothman@geocities.com Organization: Global One Global Data Network Engineering (GDNE) Subject: Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:25:30 GMT NYC has overlaid area codes - 202, 718, 917. I'm not exactly sure how the EO routing works, but the feature is in use. daniel rothman [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 917 is for pagers and cell phones and it is overlaid on 212. However 212 and 718 are separate and distinct areas, for Manhattan versus the other boroughs of New York. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Nevada Area Code (702) Proposal - Huh? Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:26:28 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , barnaby@barnaby.net (Richard Barnaby) wrote: > Just looking at a newspaper clipping discussing a new area code for > Nevada. Among other propositions, the two major ones seem to be: > Propostion A: > Let Clark County (Las Vegas) have the existing 702, and the rest of > the state have the new number. > Proposition B: > Let everyone who already has 702 keep it, and let the "new folks" get > the new one. > I had always *assumed* from looking at area code maps, etc that area > codes do not overlay each other. I mean what business *wouldn't* like > to keep their investment in stationery, etc. > Any NANP mavens know if there is any precedent for overlaid area > codes? The only full-fledged overlays currently in effect are the two in Maryland that started June 1st, and the brand new one in the Atlanta area. Area code 301/240: Maryland, southern and western, incl. D.C. suburbs Area code 410/443: Maryland, northern and eastern, incl. Baltimore Area code 404/770/678: Georgia, Atlanta metro area Area code 917 in New York City is an overlay of both 212 and 718, but is used mostly for wireless customers. There have been many others planned and cancelled, in Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, and Pittsburgh; and several others proposed. However, New York City is planning to overlay 212 later this year and 718 next year, and Florida is planning overlays for Miami and Tampa Bay. Texas is discussing overlays in the Houston and Dallas areas. The fact that several of these areas have recently undergone splits has added impetus to the drive to move to overlays. Among the obstacles to overlays: * With the exception of the "grandfathering" of 917, overlays that differentiate between wireless and wireline customers are not allowed under current FCC rulings. The Chicago overlay was to be wireless-only, but it was shot down by state and federal regulators. Several states have made noises about revisiting the issue, but none has done so with any seriousness. * The new competing local carriers have felt that they would be unfairly disadvantaged by an overlay, since they expect that a much higher proportion of their customers would have numbers in the new, unfamiliar area code, while the incumbent would have mostly the old, familiar code. As a result, the FCC has ordered that in all overlay situations, all local calls must be dialed with the area code, even if it is the same. People seem to go apoplectic at the thought of dialing 10 or 11 digits for every local call. The competitive disadvantage issue surfaces even more strongly in the resistance that the CLECs give to overlay proposals. Local Number Portability, allowing customers to keep their numbers when they change local providers, will answer this charge, as will a scheme that is planned for New York City. In order to allow CLECs an equal shot at giving brand new customers numbers in the old area code, all numbers that go out of service will be returned to a common pool, from which all carriers will be able to draw. As we begin the next century, area code splits will occur less and less often, and overlays more and more often. Also, industry projections indicate that the entire U.S. will go to mandatory full-number dialing (all 10 digits, even on local calls in the same area code) within the next 10 years, give or take a couple. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #11 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jan 18 22:27:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA13003; Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:27:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 22:27:42 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801190327.WAA13003@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #12 TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 Jan 98 22:27:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Leonard Erickson) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bruce Pennypacker) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Derek Balling) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bill Ranck) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (David Roston) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (dmeldazis@focal.com) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (timc@aminal.blarg.net) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Julian Thomas) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steve Bagdon) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Elaine Poncelet) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Tom Watson) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Bob Natale) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Orin Eman) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steven J. Haworth) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (morgan@datingconnection.com) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 02:50:47 PST Organization: Shadownet Telecom Digest Editor writes: > Someone should make sure Netscape understands something: browsers > are a dime a dozen. They are all over the place, free for the down- > loading. Admittedly, Netscape *is* one of the better, high-end > products on the market. I am particularly fond of its ability to > do 'server-push' and the way it works with applets of all kinds > and Java. They have a very good product to be sure. I see Gates > doing nothing more than enhancing and encouraging the sale of > Windows 95 by including lots of neat software for free including > Internet Explorer. And Explorer is lacking in some areas that > Netscape does quite well, as per above. As has been demonstrated > in recent days, it is possible and quite easy to install both > browsers in your machine if you want, and to remove either one you > don't want. Obviously you need to take care in removing a program > making sure you remove the files peculiar to the program while > leaving alone files which service various programs in common. > Why do we need the 'justice' department and some professor from > Harvard badgering Microsoft in the meantime? I have both icons > sitting side by side on the desktop and use them as I wish. Both > browsers use some of the same software in common anyway, including > Real Player. Pat, You are apparently unaware of some of the tricks Microsoft has pulled. For example, deliberately putting code in Win 3.1 to prevent it from working with DR-DOS. Or the more recent "upgrade" to Win 95 that was purported to give better font renderings (fewer "jaggies" on large characters). Only thing is, someone noticed that when he installed it, Netscape started doing *worse*. Upon digging into the new DLLs, he found that they specifically *checked* for Netscape and *disabled* the anti-jaggies code if the requesting process was Netscape. MS has a *long* history of this sort of thing, and also of things like not documenting features of the OS, so that MS products could run faster by using the undocumented features, while everyone else had to stick to the documented ones or risk crashes by trying to *guess* how the undocumented features worked. There are *several* lawsuits pending against Micrsoft for this sort of thing. > What is to prevent Netscape, for > example, from devising a new operating system which is far superior > to Windows (and many believe *anything* is superior to Windows) > and selling it, tossing in their browser stuff as part of the > deal? Do you suppose Gates would then go to court and try to get > them to stop doing it? The fact that MS *will* do what they did when someone tried that stunt with DOS. Write MS apps to not run on the new OS. Which will restrict the hell out of the market for it. And want to bet that there wouldn't be a "look and feel" lawsuit? Of course, now we *do* have folks like Caldersa making their DOS (formerly NovellDOS, formerly DR-DOS) free for home use. But MS is now trying to "kill" the DOS market. > I respectfully suggest we allow the marketplace to do its own > thing, with the winner to be decided by the consumers, rather than But when one party has as overwhelming a market share as MS *and* has it in both OS *and* applications software, they can make competition next to impossible. If MS was split into OS and applications divisions *and* the only communication between said divisions was via *published* specs, I think that 90% of the complaints would go away. And MS would *still* make money hand over fist. But they'd have to do it by *competing*, not by underhanded tricks in their code. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 13:57:57 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies Political satire cartoon seen in today's {Boston Globe} (and undoubtedly others): Picture two lawyers in a jail cell talking to Ted Kaczynski (of Unabomber fame), the title of the cartoon reads 'The Justice Department Solves Two Problems at Once.' One of the lawyers is speaking to Kaczynski: "We can offer you lifetime employment at Microsoft." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:32:59 -0600 (CST) From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Obviously you would agree then that > because most people are computer illiterates, the court should punish > Bill Gates. Am I right on that? PAT] If he is going to take advantage of them, then yes. And I mean take advantage NOT in a "take advantage of a business opportunity" sense, but in the "take advantage of a mentally deprived individual" sense. Derek J. Balling | J:"You ARE aware that Elvis is dead, dude?" dredd@megacity.org | K:"Elvis isn't dead, son, he's just gone http://www.megacity.org/ | back home!" - W.Smith, T.L.Jones, MiB ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 15:25:20 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Christopher Wolf (@micro.ti.com) wrote: > The point is that Microsoft cannot include anything they want in the > OS and say it must be there. What if they started including MS Office > in the "OS" and started charging more. What if they started including > Microsoft Money in the "OS". Well, they'd put Corel and Quicken out > of business quickly, and then start charging for it. I'm not 100% sure which side of this issue I'm on, but your examples don't hold up in my opinion. Take car sales as an example. When was the last time you could buy a family sedan without a radio already installed from the factory? Is the radio necessary to the operation of the car? No. Are there other vendors who want to sell you car radios with better/nicer features? Yes. Do those aftermarket vendors complain about the car makers putting in radios by default? You bet! Is it really an anti-competitive monopoly situation? The government isn't taking GM, Ford, or Chrysler to court over it. > Yes, this is directly linked to the stupid consumer too lazy to look > at other options and pay a few bucks, but instead take what they're > given for free. But in the process, the non-stupid consumers also > lose the ability to make choices as Microsoft shuts down the > alternatives by giving away similar (less stable) products. Well, the aftermarket car audio business seems to be doing OK. It's been about 20 years since (I think Chrysler was first) some cars came with a radio by default, with no choice to leave it out. > There's no reason they have to include IE buried in the OS. They can > set a series of hooks for linking into other browsers and editors, and > it will work just as fine with IE, but be extensible to other > interfaces. Maybe my analogy is flawed, but you will have to show me where. A car radio is not required for the car to operate, it just lets you access some entertaining and informative information sources while you use the car. Much like a Web browser lets you access some entertaining and informative information sources while you use your computer. If Microsoft wants to include it in the operating system, how is that different from car companies including a radio in your new car whether you want it or not? Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ From: David Roston Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:35:24 -0600 To say that this (a browser) or that (a wordprocessor) is or is not part of an operating system is not for customers or the government to say. Neither a consumer nor the government goes to the manufacturer of products and tells them what is or what is not part of a product, except in unusual circumstances where Congress has given government agencies specific power in an area, e.g. food, drugs, and automobiles. If the critics are right, there is a market for a stripped down, Windows compatible operating system. It may be about the same size as the market for Intel compatible CPUs. If the market is there, someone will step into it. If it is not there, the Department of Justice has no business telling Microsoft how to go about encouraging the development of the market. The same people who are worried about having to buy Microsoft Explorer may want to look at/criticize the other programs that Microsoft has built into Windows, a word processor, a calculator, a painting drawing program, a communications program, backup/restore programs etc. What's the problem with them? Is the reason that there are no complaints about them the fact that they aren't as good of quality as Explorer? It seems as though the fact that the internet is an important communication medium (see Marshall McLuhan) is what makes the difference here. If it were merely an economic problem capitalism and the market would solve it. ------------------------------ From: dmeldazis@focal.com Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:53:10 -0500 Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt "Also, many users, who are not "savvy" will not even realize that other browsers exist, and thus because Microsoft has taken unfair advantage of its monopoly position, those companies will never even see a CHANCE at revenue." Incredible. Microsoft, by providing it's browser for free, prevents any other software company from marketing it's own product or setting up deals with PC manufacturers. I did not think that Microsoft was that strong. Let's hope that the Justice Dept. gets it right this time so only a few million of our tax dollars will be wasted. Dan ------------------------------ From: timc@animal.blarg.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 08:49:22 -0800 Derek Balling writes: >> If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with >> Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL >> and Compuserve? Both of those service providers include a free browser >> as part of your online experience with them. If I log onto either my >> AOL account or my Compuserve account and ask to 'go web' what to my >> eyes appear on my screen but a browser. Not one of mine, mind you, >> but one the service provider pops up on the screen for me to use when > The difference is that AOL and Compuserve don't have a monopoly on the > operating system. They can't dictate to Packard Bell, Micron, Dell, > etc. "You MUST put our service, and our service alone, on your > machines, otherwise you can't use this operating system that 94% of >your customer base demands installed". 94%? You wouldn't want to substantiate that would you? Silly argument anyway. MS doens't have a monopoly. You DO have a choice. There are still several operating systems to choose from. lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) writes: > Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on personal computer operating system. > You buy a new PC, it's gonna come with Windows 95 whether you want it > or not, and the cost of that is included in the price. You have no > choice. This is completly and totally untrue. You can buy a pc with many varieties of Linux on it, you can buy a Mac, you can buy an Amiga, You have a very clear choice. > Including an internet browser with this, especially under the false > guise of claiming it is a component of the operating system, will > prevent competitors like Netscape from selling their system. That doesn't seem to be happening. browserwatch.com lists over 50 browsers for more than five platforms. Where's the monopoly? > IMHO, this is not in the best interests of the marketplace. Then don't buy M$ products. > I see nothing unreasonable with Microsoft being asked to sell its > Internet browser as a separate product, rather than bundle it with > its operating system. Why should the government decide what features M$ should include in it's software? If you don't like the features, simply don't buy the product. > Years ago, IBM had a virtual monopoly in computers. Through > government pressure (and fear of anti-trust action), IBM ceased > "bundling" software and support with the hardware. This opened the > opportunity for third party suppliers to supply hardware and software > products. Not all products were successful, and it wasn't easy for > the competitors. However, this did create competitive pressure for > IBM to offer improved products sooner, which was good for the > marketplace. And independent software houses developed many valuable > systems and application products. ------------------------------ From: Julian Thomas Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 98 12:05:17 -0500 Organization: epix Internet Services In , on 01/14/98 at 01:17 PM, Fred Farzanegan said: > You have dozens of ISP choices, some offering Brand I, others Brand J. As > part of a value-added package, you can decide which ISP to choose from. > You cannot do this with your PC. I did. There are a few vendors who sell machines with no OS or with OS2 (for example) preloaded. Heck, by now, there are probably even some who will preload Linux. Julian Thomas jt@epix.net http://www.epix.net/~jt In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:29:52 -0600 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Fred R. Goldstein wrote: > Microsoft was accused of some pretty nasty stuff a few years ago, and > then entered into some antitrust agreements. Without rehashing > history, suffice to say that they promised to stop "tying" sales of > Windows OS products to other products. With IE, they're requiring > OEMs who sell PCs with Win95 licenses to *pre-install* IE as a > condition of selling IE. > ... > They don't allow > Win95 OEMs to install "part" of it. Either it all goes on the hard > drive as shipped to the end user, or no deal. The OEM can't > "uninstall" IE or simply leave it out, even if they pay the full > price. MS calls this preserving the integrity of the OS. Others call > it tying. Here's a quote from the OSR2 "OEM Preinstallation Guide": "Since the release of Windows 95, Microsoft has become aware of instances in which OEMs are modifying the product as a method of differentiating their hardware. This has caused considerable confusion with our end user customers. As a result, Microsoft is taking this opportunity to define the requirements and restrictions of the preinstallation process, so that all of our end users have a consistent experience with our products." This is followed by about four pages of requirements, such as not modifying the "favorites" page for IE, not deleting anything (say, the IE icon?) from the desktop, etc. In fact, an OEM is prohibited from even setting up a screen saver or desktop wallpaper! (Obviously, the big guys can negotiate out of this; witness Compaq's "Tabworks", whatever that thing is that Packard Bell puts on their machines, etc.) This completely precludes a small OEM from delivering a turnkey system; according to Microsoft an OEM must require the _end user_ to complete the installation of applications, entering registration numbers, and so on. The requirement to include IE is buried in all this as a side-effect of the fact that Microsoft chose to include it in the pre-install (from which the OEM can delete nothing). Sure, if there's no browser then some aspects of the system don't work, such as double-clicking on an HTML file. But that's not really the problem. I can't bundle up a corporate intranet solution, using Windows 95 and Netscape, without violating Microsoft's licensing agreements! I must provide half of a solution, let the customers spend an hour or so having their "End-User Experience", and _then_ I can come back and customize what is now an already-installed system. Stupid! I think it's important to loosen these restrictions, and I suppose busting the IE requirement is a Good Start. But it's not enough. Anyway, the real problem is not actually a software issue, it's just an issue involving the language and intent of Microsoft's OEM licensing agreement. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 13:26:03 -0500 From: Steve Bagdon Reply-To: bagdon@rust.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > I'm not picking sides, but I am also not over-estimating the > intelligence of the 'average' computer buyer. They will use what's on > their computer when they buy it, and that's about the limit of their > computer experience. I'm not going to pick sides with the DOJ, but > either unbundle IE from Win95 and make the buyer acquire it and > install it on their own (so figure it won't get installed, or they'll > have to pay the ten-year-old next door to do it), or else bundle a > 'similar' version of IE and Netscape. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Obviously you would agree then that > because most people are computer illiterates, the court should punish > Bill Gates. Am I right on that? PAT] Not at all. I was trying to communicate that all users should start on equal ground, and be forced to download browsers (and not be spoon-fed any particular brand). Right now, whether through design or accident, IE is the default for Win95. Make all users pick a browser, don't give them one - if Microsoft wins more power to them. Steve B. ------------------------------ From: witchy@zianet.com (Elaine Poncelet) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 18:32:32 GMT Organization: Southwest Cyberport On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 07:25:29 -0400, bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) wrote: > I'm not picking sides, but I am also not over-estimating the > intelligence of the 'average' computer buyer. They will use what's on > their computer when they buy it, and that's about the limit of their > computer experience. I started using the "net" before there was IE or Netscape. I had just moved on from bbsing into the whole world. I got a lot of help from all of the friends that I made through the years of bbsing because I was not that computer literate. I, personally, enjoyed being able to pick and choose and update and everything else that came with learning new computer habits. I also personally beleive that most people would be better off if they would get a more rounded computer education, but I also like the fact that just about anyone can use a computer and get information at their fingertips. I really do beleive that in the end all will be worked out by the consumers themselves. Elaine ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:16:30 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. This is a very interesting discussion. You have an (alleged) operating system, i.e. Windows 95 that "requires" Internet Explorer to run. Then you have another system (Mac OS) that (funny about that) doesn't need the SAME hunk of software (Internet Explorer) to run. According to the nice people in Redmond Washington, in one case it is an "integral part", and in the other it isn't. Now which is it?? I heard that some internal memo said that the only way Microsoft can compete in the browser market (which translates to the BIG money server market) was to require the installation of IE on machines. I don't know how substantiated that rumor is, but it sounds pretty close. Today we have Internet Explorer as an "integral" part of the system, the logical conslusion is that tommorow Microsoft Word is "integral", or Microsoft Excel is "integral". Well, everyone needs to edit files, and make spreadsheets, don't they?? Simple excercise for the "unbelivers": The next time you order a computer, ask if there is a discount for NOT having Windows 95 (or whatever the next piece of stuff is) installed on the machine. I can see the dialog now: Me: "How much is Windows 95?" Mfr: "Oh, its included." Me: "No, how much is it, I need to know for accounting purposes?" Mfr: "Oh, I'll ask" ...time passes... Mfr: "Our agreement says that we pay Microsoft (enter figure here) for the installation of Windows 95 on the computer." Me: "I don't want it installed, will you deduct that cost from my invoice?" Mfr: "But you NEED an operating system!" Me: "I'm going to use another one, please deduct the cost, and don't install it" Mfr: "But we have to pay Microsoft for every one, even if we don't install it!" Me: "But I don't want it!!" Mfr: "And our procedures always put it on the disk drives!!" Me: "But I don't want it!!!" Mfr: "OK, we'll take it off. To do that, will cost an additional ($$$) of 'special' installation." Me: "You mean it is going to cost MORE to not have Windows 95??" Mfr: "That seems to be it." Me: "Never mind......" You get the picture.... ObTelecom: The phone company doesn't make you buy telephones from it, but some do provide the service. That was what the Carterfone decision was all about. tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 14:26:16 -0500 From: Bob Natale Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Bruce Wilson ) and others wrote: This comment (made by Bruce and several others on this thread)... > The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part > of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and > spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a > computer. ... may be true in general, but is incorrect when applied to IE in particular. The explanation for Microsoft's chosen course of action in this matter lies mostly in the fact that IE (or browser-like functionality) *will* no longer exist as an application distinct from the OS. This is an inevitable change, tied to the nature of the Internet/www phenomenon, and will ultimately affect many, many interfaces beyond those for computing devices. To oppose this evolution is somewhat Neanderthal, at this time. I believe the foregoing is a factual observation. In terms of opinion, I admit I lean far more toward Pat's view of the matter than that of his critics. The words and actions of the Justice Dept lawyers, Judge Jackson, and "Special Master" Lessig really fail to impress me, thus far. Indeed, I suspect that the apparent PR bonanza for NetScape and Sun in this matter, fueled for now by mostly hordes of jealous weenies, will soon wither on the vine. At least I for one sure hope it does. Yep, some of what MS does as a corporate giant is less than wonderful (but definitely not uncommon). However, what they are doing that's positive is raising the bar across the board ... eventually, someone--maybe you, maybe me (I know I've been working on my high jump) -- will hurdle it and then MS'll have to play catch up themselves. This too is inevitable. I'd much rather have to whip myself into shape for the challenge than have some lawyer/judge/ special_master hit team chop off the defending champ's legs at the knees for me. BobN ------------------------------ From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 19:50:16 GMT Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) writes: > The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part > of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and > spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a > computer. It's not that simple. Consider help files which are in some Microsoft format. Someone says: "Why not use html and dump the special format." Great idea. No special format required, we can use the browser, no need for a special viewer any more. Can you say this is bad? Well maybe with some such files which seem less capable than the help files they replace, but as a long term solution? I don't think so. Do this for OS help files and it does become a requirement to ship a browser with the OS. BTW, I do NOT use IE and usually delete it and use Netscape instead. Why? For the most trivial of reasons. I can't configure its stupid toolbar buttons to be text only like I can with Netscape and it uses too much screen real estate. Orin ------------------------------ From: sjh@idm.com (Steven J Haworth) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 20:13:10 GMT Organization: Information Data Management Fred Farzanegan (fredf@nortel.ca) wrote: > However, I do believe that in the long run, OS's will not be as > important as long as they can run a browser. An OS provides an > interface between applications and system resources -- applications > are the important part of the puzzle. Software vendors (and everyone) > would love to be able to write application software that would run on > any OS through standard interfaces. Just as telcos demand industry > standards (TR303, TR08, etc.) the same thing will eventually happen > for consumers so that their MAC, Unix, or PC, or XXX will be able to > run the same application. The question on purchasing software will > not be 'will it run on my OS?', but 'which is the better choice?' I've been reading this Digest for a while now, and this really needs a response (if you haven't already gotten a boat full, Pat). The new computer language Java does exactly what Fred describes above, namely allowing a vendor to write an application once and have it run on multiple operating systems w/o any changes. Everyone in the software industry is rapidly endorsing it as a new standard. Except (no suprise) Microsoft. They have 'enhanced' Java with some of their own features, so that anyone writing software w/Microsoft's brand will be forced to use Microsoft products to run it -- thus breaking the most attractive nature of Java. No it's not portable at all, except on Microsoft products. Sun (who owns the standard) is suing Microsoft over this very issue. It's yet another instance of Microsoft trying to own and control a market for their own profit. And borrowing yet another innovation developed elsewhere, but that's another story ... Steven Haworth (sjh@idm.com) Software Quality Assurance Specialist Information Data Mgmt, Inc Rosemont, IL USA My opinions are just mine ... ------------------------------ From: Morgan Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 16:03:23 -0500 Organization: @Home Network Everybody has an opinion on the Microsoft vs. USA case, so here's mine: Do not forget how Microsoft got itself into this position! They agreed to not require OEMs to bundle applications software ONLY because the feds were threatening to investigage Microsoft's onerous and possibly illegal licensing arrangements. Microsoft thought at the time that it would be better to give a little (no bundling of apps) than have them investigate other monopolistic practices involved with licensing the basic operating systems themselves. Being cocky, Microsoft conveniently forgot that it had made a deal with the devil. They deserve to pay the price. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #12 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jan 19 00:13:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA19858; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:13:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 00:13:23 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801190513.AAA19858@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #13 TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Jan 98 00:13:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 13 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Michael P. Deignan) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Jason Lindquist) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Daniel Seyb) Re: (Alleged) Microsoft Witchhunt (Bill Levant) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (J.F. Mezei) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Jeff Colbert) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Robert Wiegand) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (pastark@cloud9.net) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (David Wuertele) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Jeremy Parsons) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Steve Hayes) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Tim Gorman) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Adam Atkinson) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Gail M. Hall) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (mord@rum.org) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (rtcy@bigfoot.com) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Anthony Argyriou) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (Barry Adair) Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt (J.D. Baldwin) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kh6hz@anomaly.ideamation.com.NO-SPAM (Michael P. Deignan) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 17:47:57 -0500 Organization: The Ace Tomato Company In article , Steve Bagdon wrote: > Browsers might be a dime a dozen to people like you and me, but to the > 'average' computer purchaser they take what's on their computer when > they buy it, and that's what they use. Years ago, Norton had a dos shell called "NDOS". Using the logic behind the DOJ action, Microsoft should have been forced to unbundle COMMAND.COM from their operating system, so users could be free to install NDOS.COM or COMMAND.COM, whichever they purchased separately. MD (microsoft butt-boy) ------------------------------ From: linky@see.figure1.net (Jason Lindquist) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 1998 23:31:41 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign An infinite number of monkeys masquerading as David Wuertele wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My personal preference is for Unix; > and I am going to see if I can put it, or something close to it > like Linux on my laptop in a partioned area. I may not be successful; > I won't know until I try. PAT] Many people have installed Linux, and other free UNIXes on laptops. You might find this URL a good starting point for Linux: Jason Lindquist <*> "Holograms don't lie, Danny boy..." linky@see.figure1.net -- Michael Garibaldi, January 2762 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 20:34:27 -0500 From: Daniel Seyb Reply-To: danseyb@snip.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt A couple months ago there was a thread complaining about 'sleazy' pay phone operators. Someone pointed out that the customers were not the people using the phones, but the people who owned the bus stations, airports, malls and the like. There was a great cry that "something MUST be done" and then the thread faded away. Now we have a very similar thread, only for some reason TELECOM Digest is on the other side of the argument. There may be a few people out there who went out, bought Windows 95, and installed it, but 90% (probably more like 99.99%) bought a machine that already had Windows 95 installed. Microsoft's customers are not the people using the computers. Microsoft's customers are companies like Dell and Gateway and CompUSA. If it is immoral to make people walk across the street to save ten cents on a phone call, how much worse is it to make them spend hundreds of dollars on "free" software? ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:14:27 EST Subject: Re: (Alleged) Microsoft witchhunt Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) PAT said : > ...And regards the oil trusts of the nineteenth century, perhaps you > will consider me biased, but it seems to me we have many good and > wonderful organizations, universities, churches and other things > in this country today which were established -- and continue in > operation even now a century later -- as a direct result of the > largesse of John Rockefeller. > ... > What else do you think he should have done? Not to be an ingrate, but you should call it what it is ... bribery, pure and simple. If you make ungodly amounts of money, and spend some here and there for "good" causes, the usual rules don't apply to you? Baloney. Besides, who says that a Rockefeller (or a Gates, for that matter) has *my* best interests at heart? Admittedly, it's all very nice that Rockefeller spent all that money in and around Chicago (as did Andrew Carnegie on libraries across Pennsylvania), but at what cost? Monopolies cause artificially high prices, so it's only fair that Rockefeller spent some of his bucks money on the po' folks; if he hadn't run one of the most blatantly anticompetitive business organizations in American history, then the po' folks mightn't have been so poor. Be not fooled ... the ends DO NOT justify the means. Fred Goldstein's post hit it right on the head. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the concept of antitrust law generally, several years ago, Microsoft >specifically< agreed to abide by certain provisions of those laws. It's a basic principle of law (yes, I'm a lawyer) that you can't bellyache about the terms of a consent decree (non-technically, a settlement agreement) after you sign it. If Microsoft didn't like the antitrust laws, or the terms of the deal offered, they shouldn't have settled the case. No one forced them to do so, but they did; now they've been caught cheating, and badmouthing the cops doesn't change anything. Bill Levant ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:32:31 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Any company who is aware that they are in danger of being anti-trusted would thread very lightly to avoid attracting attention of the feds. Microsoft, instead of downplaying its near monopoly, is flaunting it and trying to extend its monopoly beyond the operating system. WAY BEYOND. It is that arrogance which is making authorities very curious about MS. Just how far do you allow Microsoft to go before you wake up and have to force it to dismantle itself ? Bill Gates is making no excuses about its plans to control the world. Its intentions are good: by controlling the world, they can move it forwards faster. (No need to wait for committees to set standards etc). By controlling many areas of life from microwave ovens to computers to television distribution, Bill Gates will be able to integrate everything into "information appliances". (And your toaster won't operate unless IE is installed in it :-) I think that IE is just a small issue. The bigger issue is: just how far can you allow MS to go, and once you do force MS to disband, just what will the computer industry look like. Perhaps the governments have decided what the long term direction will be and are using IE to start to set a direction. MS has proven that it has no intention to self control its monopoly. So who will? ------------------------------ From: AntiSpam.Jeff.Colbert@mci.com (Jeff Colbert) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: Aqua Knights of Atlantis Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:36:50 GMT James Bellaire wrote: > In TELECOM Digest V18 #7, Pat wrote about Netscape: >> If their complaint is that a browser is included free of charge with >> Windows 95, then shouldn't they have a similar complaint about AOL > IIRC Netscape designed the improved browser for AOL. Just a minor point ... IE is the browser in AOL, but it is IE 3 not 4 with a desktop ... etc. If I remember correctly, Microsoft purchased Mosaic, which was languishing in Netscape's shadow. They slapped their name on it and sent it out. Since then they have been improving and adding on to it. I believe that the founders of Netscape were involved in the initial design of Mosiac before before leaving the National Center for Supercomputing at Champaign-Urbana to start Netscape. Jeff ------------------------------ From: Robert Wiegand Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 15 Jan 98 22:47:05 GMT Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group Eric Ewanco writes: > What stinks to high heaven about the Microsoft action is that they are > compelling -- threatening even -- vendors to include MS software with > all their PCs. They are using their virtual monopoly on operating > system software to strong-arm vendors into biasing their systems > against MS's competition. Actually, I believe it's worse then that. My undrstanding is that Microsoft not only required computer vendors to include IE but they also required them to NOT install Netscape. Bob Wiegand | Remove the "$" from my e-mail address before replying. "Bill, I don't do Windows" - Ray Bradbury to Bill Gates ------------------------------ From: pastark@cloud9.net Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: 16 Jan 1998 04:46:02 GMT Organization: Cloud 9 Internet, White Plains, NY, USA TELECOM Digest Editor said: > And regards the oil trusts of the nineteenth century, perhaps you > will consider me biased, but it seems to me we have many good and > wonderful organizations, universities, churches and other things > in this country today which were established -- and continue in > operation even now a century later -- as a direct result of the > largesse of John Rockefeller. To paraphrase a famous quote - "Bill Gates ain't no Rockefeller." Look at some of the other current philanthropists. Ted Turner gave how much to the UN -- was it a billion bucks?? George Soros has donated tremendous amounts to all sorts of causes. So Bill Gates is an order of magnitude richer, and what has he done for charity lately? December 13, 1976 (or perhaps 1975 - don't remember any more), Bill Gates wrote a letter to the editor of the {Wall Street Journal}. It was in response to a fairly mild comment about Microsoft that had been earlier made by Manzi of Lotus. I would suggest that you make an effort to get and read it, because it shows the true nature of the man. It is a vicious personal attack on Manzi, totally out of proportion to Manzi's comments, which were in no way personal, but merely stated that, as a huge monopoly, Microsoft should be held to a higher standard of conduct than the ordinary corporation. Gates ended with something to the effect that "while they talk, we innovate." That's ridiculous -- name one Microsoft product which is truly original. Basic? Existed before Gates wrote his Altair code. MS-DOS? Microsoft bought that from another company. Excel? Visicalc and 123 were much earlier. Windows? Xerox and Apple were there first. Access? Lots of other DB programs existed before. Internet Explorer? Mosaic and Netscape were there first. Go ahead -- try to find something they did first. The closest might be Visual Basic, but even in that case there was at least one outfit that had some addon functions for Quick Basic that did a lot of the functions first. The truth is that Microsoft has a tremendous marketing savvy. They can recognize other companies' products that would make a hit, write a knock-off copy (if they can't buy the company), and then market the hell out of it. The result is that they pounce onto a market, and by sheer marketing muscle, product tie-ins (and huge amounts of cash) drive the previous companies out of it. Look how neatly they killed off DrDOS just by bundling DOS 7 with Windows 95. By bundling network software with Windows, they are killing off Novell. By bundling in disk compression, they got rid of Stac. By copying the look-and-feel of the Mac, they are killing Apple. People used to joke about the "domino theory" of communism. What is different about Microsoft's approach to software domination? Most software companies have come to realize that once you hook a customer onto a product, you can then nickel-and-dime him to death by selling him upgrades. Only Microsoft is rich enough at this point to hook the customer by giving him a free product like Internet Explorer. I think people would be a lot less likely to pounce on Microsoft if they were to promise that IE will forever be free. But we all know that that will not be -- once people get hooked on it, and once the competition is gone, IE will suddenly become yet another cash cow for Microsoft. Before WIndows 95, at least DOS came with a programming language - GWBasic. At the very least, that meant that a sufficiently astute user could write his own programs to do things. But note that WIndows 95 no longer comes with Basic. That means that today's user is totally dependent on purchasing additional software to do anything with the machine at all. You MUST buy more software to use the computer. And Microsoft's aim is to dominate that application market. That is not a healthy state of events. Take another example: Suppose that one oil company - say Mobil - were to become so dominant that it drove all other oil companies out of business. Once that was done, suppose it modified the gasoline so that a certain engine modification were absolutely necessary to allow an engine to use it -- and only Mobil made the modification kit. The fact that every car manufacturer would now have to purchase that mod kit from Mobil, and every car owner would have to buy all his gas from Mobil, would be a national disaster. The government would be forced to step in to prevent Mobil from taking advantage of the situation. Well, the current dominance of Windows is also a potential disaster, for it is no different. Every business needs a computer; regardless of who you buy a computer from, you must get certain modifications to it to get it to run Windows, you must buy Windows to get it to run, and in some application areas, you almost cannot get software from anyone else besides Microsoft. If computers were merely a luxury, that sort of situation could be tolerated. But they are not a luxury any more -- they are a necessity. As such, a monopoly cannot be tolerated any more than a monopoly in transportation, or communications, or food, or medical care, any other necessity. If Microsoft were a "beneficent monopoly" which was content to make a "reasonable" profit, then perhaps an exception could be made. But Microsoft is in no way beneficent - they are a cut-throat company which does not hesitate to kill off competition in attempts to maximize its own profit. Total dominance - or even 80 or 90% dominance - by such a company of any market - especially of a market for a necessity - is a menace. Pete ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt From: David Wuertele Date: 15 Jan 1998 14:48:02 -0800 TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > And Gates gives lots of money to deserving institutions as well. > for those of you who came in late, he also gave me ten thousand > dollars a couple years ago for the benefit of this Digest. The > money was not to preach his gospel, nor was it intended as an > inducement to shut my trap and keep it shut. There were no strings > attached at all. I have no problems with his methodology at all > in business matters. Heh. I'm sure you don't now. > And God speed to anyone who wants to work on a new OS or other > software to get away from using his. We will all benefit from the > competition. Too bad this isn't true. Working on a new OS (or old OS, for that matter) in no way provides competition with MS. If you want to compete with MS, you must use marketing, the law, and every sneaky trick you can slip by the law in order to create the *perception* of "benefit." If you want all to "benefit," you will find a way to expose and halt MS's manipulation of the market, so that the market will be free again to choose. David Wuertele ------------------------------ From: Jeremy.Parsons@iname.com (Jeremy Parsons) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:53:08 GMT blw1540@aol.com (BLW1540) wrote in : > In article , Telecom Digest Editor > writes: >> So, they had Microsoft in court today, trying to get the judge -- who seems >> more confused than ever as each day goes by -- to hold Microsoft in contempt >> for the great job the company is doing in supplying software to the masses. > What was it, Pat? Was this a Microsoft press release? Are you > worried about the value of your Microsoft stock? > The simple fact is that applications, of which IE is one, are NOT part > of an operating system any more than are word processing programs and > spreadsheets, essential as either may be to someone's actual use of a > computer. I don't especially mean to be an apologist for Microsoft, but I think there's a real case that a browser is exactly the sort of thing you put in a modern operating system. After all, without one, you don't have an Intranet solution, and that's the current sharp edge of competition. As far as I can see, it only becomes anti-competitive if the intention is specifically to knock out the competition unfairly. Given Microsoft's supremacy in operating systems, I think that if they ever charge for the browser (which would indicate that it wasn't really part of the o/s after all), or hike the price of the operating system unreasonably (which is the commercial equivalent), that would be very suggestive. If you compare this situation to Microsoft's strategy with DOS to Windows, there is only really one difference - timescale. Way back when there were a number of viable competitors in DOS family PC operating systems, extensions and GUIs. By the time you reach Windows 95 that door is firmly shut - which took several years. With Internet Explorer the whole process is happening in a period of months. Curiously, with 20/20 hindsight I think that over-commitment to the standards process is what has stopped Netscape from leveraging its early dominance. It needed to keep itself, and the market with it, far enough ahead of Microsoft that the latter would have been forced to build open interfaces into the operating system. As it is, Microsoft put its formidable resources into overtaking Netscape in key areas, and has then been able to exploit the fact that DOS/Windows isn't subject to standardisation. I think of (and admire!) Microsoft as the 'odd-shaped cog' company. They have recognised the power of being different, while trying hard to force everyone else to be standard ... Jeremy Parsons ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:37:47 -0500 From: Steve Hayes Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Recently, we've all had a chance to have a good moan about Microsoft. Personally, I can think of plenty of things to moan about too: the bloatware, the bugs, the incomplete documentation. Some of Microsoft's business ethics and practices are pretty dubious too. However, most of the moaning seems to be from the viewpoint of frustrated programmers complaining about how impossible it is to compete with Microsoft. As a sometime programmer but mainly a user of computer systems , my viewpoint is a bit different. The harsh fact is as follows: Suppose that it costs one million dollars to write (or buy in) some utility. If Microsoft is expecting to ship 10 million copies of some software, they can buy 10 such utilities, mark them up 100% and stick them on the CDROM for a price increase of $2 per copy. As a user, I might only want one of the 10 utilities, but to go out and buy it elsewhere is bound to cost me $20 or more plus my time to investigate and purchase. It'll cost that much for another manufacturer to duplicate, package and distribute the program, let alone recoup the million dollars from a much smaller number of buyers. Even in the shareware channel, there are per registration costs and lots of people who won't register. This is a fundamental fact of the software market, as unavoidable as the sun setting at night. If it wasn't Microsoft in that position, someone else would be and they might be even more rapacious. At least Microsoft does seem to have some sort of vision for the computer industry beyond mere short term profits. As a user, I'm also glad to know that everyone who has installed Windows is going to have access to a standard set of utilities. They might not be "best of breed" but they will work, so I can send them files or programs or give them instructions over the phone to carry out some task at hand. The Internet browser is just a particularly visible utility. Before we attack ordinary computer users for technical illiteracy, we should remember that most people use computers because they have to in order to do their jobs. They don't want to learn lots of technical details or evaluate various bits of software (any more than they want to check the tariffs of a dozen phone companies before they make a call -- to get a telecom related bit in). They just want to turn the damn thing on and get on with what they have to do. If they can buy a single CDROM from Microsoft or whoever, insert it, click INSTALL and have a working system set up for them, they'll be happy. If only Microsoft would ditch the animated paperclips and work on the bugs, I'm sure most of us would be happy to sup with them. And yes, the Mac was closer to the ideal. If only Apple hadn't been so greedy ... Steve Hayes South Wales, UK ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:55:00 -0600 An operating system today typically has an integrated user interface. What is integrated is determined by the designer of the user interface, not by government lawyers. Lotus SmartSuite provides integrated Web access to all kinds of things such as dictionaries, news headlines, and weather. Why shouldn't the user interface provided with Windows do the same thing? Saying that it shouldn't simply because Microsoft is a monopoly is not sufficient. That isn't a reason, it is an excuse. As usual, what it appears is really happening is that the government is expanding its sphere of influence. This time they are trying to become de facto experts at user interface design. I think they have adequately shown their inability to even understand the simplest software design issues. I certainly wouldn't want them designing any user interface I am going to use. Why can't Microsoft include anything they want in the operating system? As long as they don't prevent optional programs from being used, they have not limited any customers choice in any way. Customers being stupid or unable to make choices is NOT a reason for the government to become the product designers for Microsoft products. That, in itself, limits the choices available for knowledgeable customers. Since when was the Constitution amended to provide the government the power to design software products? Where were they given the power to define MY choices? > The issue is not about the browser. The issue is whether Microsoft is > "acting" like a monopoly by "bundling" the browser in the OS, thus > requiring consumers to accept a product as a condition of sale of > Windows in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act. This is going to sound nasty and I mean it to. It amazes me to see such a knowledgeable group of people unable to even fully define the issue here. This is NOT just a question of bundling a stand-alone product into an operating system. IE is being integrated into Windows to ENHANCE the capabilities of Windows by providing seamless access to Web resources. This isn't a battle of standalone products. The mere fact that it is being framed that way stands as evidence to the ability of Netscape and DOJ lawyers to spin the issue into a narrowly defined sphere. I mentioned Lotus Smartsuite above. It is a prime example of the concept being developed by Microsoft. Smartsuite's integrated, synergistic access to word processor, spreadsheet, graphics, time mgmt tools, and web resources is the reason I purchased it and use it every day. THAT is where I want my operating system to go as well. I want it to be an integrated, synergistic tool for my use, not just a grouping of standalone products being run by a piece of software interfacing a hard disk. If that was all I wanted I would have stayed with DOS and Lotus 123. Netscape is being left behind in the advancement of software usability. It developed a good product and made a lot of money off of it. Rather than continue to develop their vision, however, they focused on making a fancier and fancier standalone product (kind of like American auto manufacturers in the 70's). What you are seeing now is a last gasp effort to keep its standalone product viable in the face of advancing user interface/cyberspace resource paradigms by playing on the dreams of government bureaucrats looking for a high profile issue on which to build careers. The resemblance this whole situation has to Chrysler/GM/Ford versus Toyota more than two decades ago is hilarious. Chrysler/GM/Ford didn't really make any headway against Toyota until they finally revamped their vision and their product paradigm, regardless of the penalties they convinced the government to apply against the imports of Toyota. The same thing is going to apply to Netscape. Tim Gorman SWBT ( I speak only for myself) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:43:19 +0000 From: Adam Atkinson Reply-To: etlaman@etlxdmx.ericsson.se Organization: Ericsson Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt I don't see the problem with the bundling myself. After all, with Windows you get Write (free crap word processor) and Paint (free crap paint package). What I do object to, though, is e.g. telling ISPs they can distribute IE to users free as long as they promise not to admit any other browser even exists. Plus e.g. PCs coming with Windows whether you like it or not. Adam Atkinson (etlaman@etlxdmx.ericsson.se) Man is a giddy thing, and this is my conclusion ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:08:33 GMT Organization: APK Net, Ltd. On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 06:08:39 -0600, Derek Balling posted to comp.dcom.telecom about "Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt": > The difference is that AOL and Compuserve don't have a monopoly on the > operating system. They can't dictate to Packard Bell, Micron, Dell, > etc. "You MUST put our service, and our service alone, on your > machines, otherwise you can't use this operating system that 94% of > your customer base demands installed". I have no problem with Microsoft shipping applications such as a browser with Windows. I think, though, that installing Microsoft products should not mess with my use of other software that I want on my system whether I install those MS products before or after I install products from other companies. >> As has been demonstrated in recent days, it is possible and quite >> easy to install both browsers in your machine if you want, and to >> remove either one you don't want. But if you install one after the other, the last one will try to associate itself as THE browser. Only later will you be asked, "Hey, which one do you want?" Windows should allow us to associate more than one software with extensions. Because of Microsoft's refusal to realize that more than one application can do things, we have to figure workarounds or buy yet more software to get around the Microsoft trickery. > Except that IE4 is VERY ugly in its uninstall procedures. Try it some > time, and if you're not completely hosed, call Microsoft and rejoice, > for you are among the few. IE4 (and up) seem to be designed strictly > from the "yeah, you can uninstall me, but god have mercy on your soul >if you do" perspective. This is what the judge should be looking at, not whether it shows up on your Desktop! You should be able to uninstall any Microsoft product without hurting your other applications. > Also, many users, who are not "savvy" will not even realize that other > browsers exist, and thus because Microsoft has taken unfair advantage > of its monopoly position, those companies will never even see a CHANCE > at revenue. Personally, I didn't like Hyperterminal, so I went and got another comm program. If the product is really good, then we will be happy to use what comes with the system. If not, we go buy one that works better for us. >> And do people seriously think that if IE is removed from the >> Windows 95 distribution that Microsoft won't make it available >> free of charge anyway on a separate CD-Rom they send out to anyone >> who asks? > That's fine. That's a very acceptable answer. As long as when it gets > to the end user, it is NOT installed as a mandatory part of the OS > load. _And_ that it will not interfere with other software that we want to use! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would *never* run Uninstall with > IE. Never ... there is a great risk of trouble as you point out. That is exactly why the judge needs to look into this issue. If Windows comes with an uninstaller, then the uninstaller should not do harm to my system if I choose to uninstall any application, especially from a competing company! > I would instead resort to manually removing it, by going into DOS and > the proper directories, then one by one removing the files which were > used just by IE, while leaving alone the files which although used > by IE were common to other aspects of Windows 95. And I would be > rather conservative at that, preferring to err in favor of leaving > a file around that I was unsure of rather than removing it if I was > not sure. I could live with a little unidentified/unused trash on > the hard drive if I was not certain of its purpose. And obviously > before I began any removal action, I would have a complete backup > of the whole thing. But I really cannot see myself removing it; > there are some things I've found that IE is better at while in > other situations, Netscape is superior. By now as you might have > guessed, I have gone through the telecom web pages with a fine tooth > comb, looking at them both via IE and Netscape in great detail. > I've made a few minor adjustments to improve the appearance of my > web pages. I'm lucky to have both installed, as well as Lynx. PAT] This is what a good uninstaller should do. The "average" PC user does not generally have the knowledge and time to be this careful. Windows supposedly comes with an uninstaller. It is fraud to the consumer if that doesn't work properly and leave the machine in good working order when the uninstall is done. Maybe someone should put Microsoft in court for defrauding the consumers by saying they have an uninstaller when it doesn't do what they promised. Their uninstaller might be looked on by a clever lawyer as a Trojan horse. ;-) Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:30:51 -0500 From: Mord Organization: Rum Consortium Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt > product away for free is antitrust. Do you really honestly believe > that once Netscape is out of business and Microsoft owns the market > MSIE will still be free?" It's not a "free" product now. The use of said product requires you to have already purchased (well ignoring the piracy issue) a MafiaSoft product. I think calling IE free muddies the issue greatly. If there was versions available for as much of a variety of OS's as netscape currently supports all freely downloadable, then I would say yes its free. But as it stands now it's either Mafiasoft OS, MacOS, or Solaris (not a very good implementation either.) I did notice that Microsoft released NetShow for quite a few different OS's however this product is hobbled on platforms other than the "selected" platforms by missing codecs. The strange thing about the whole DOJ deal is all the DOJ is asking is for them to unbundle the browser from the OS (on new installs done by companies, not consumers.) I think it's important to remember here that the DOJ isn't asking M$ to quit giving it away, merely to unbundle it. And yes this could give rise to companies building bundles out of m$ and other products as a single entity, and I'm not sure legally how that would work if m$ is not allowed to do something that other companies are allowed to do (but I'm not a lawyer thankfully.) Anyway just a few thoughts ... ------------------------------ From: rtcy@bigfoot.com Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 05:31:57 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On Tue, 13 Jan 1998 20:30:00 EST, Telecom Digest Editor wrote: [lots of ASS kissing snipped from the brown nose of PAT] What a blow hard you are PAT, IE NEVER has been or will be part of the OS and to download a 20 MEG demo from EUDORA only to find that 2/3's of the file is IE$(this is not a typo MS paid them $)ie4 something I have three dozen copies of in my cd's that come in evry month and then to see EVERY piece of software out there CRAM this stuff down my throat angers me to no END. GOD kill MS into bankruptcy please! I never have or ever will use ie4! NETSCAPE FOR EVER! AMEN. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 06:04:47 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:56:37 -0500, James Bellaire wrote: > IIRC Netscape designed the improved browser for AOL. James remembers incorrectly. The browser which comes with AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 is MSIE 3, partially crippled. In particular, the mail and news are not available, and the controls on the top of the browser window are the same as the old AOL browser. Netscape offers an AOL version of its browser, since an AOL connection is a regular internet connection. When I got it (about ten months ago) it did not come with the page-editing that 3.01 Gold offered, and it came with a special set of bookmarks. A list of browsers used by AOL in its various incarnations can be found at: http://webmaster.info.aol.com/BrowTablePrint.html Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: Barry Adair Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:54:50 -0600 Pat, I have been reading about the Microsoft IE4 and Windows 95, I really don't think Win95 is what they are complaining about. Windows 95 the browser can be changed fairly easy, but in Win98 it is a part of the OS, but it has not been released yet so if Netscape and Janet Reno have it, it is stolen and they cannot say that, so they are complaining about 95. I was running IE4 and Netscape both, but after the silly, court thing started, I deleted Netscape, and it will never be on my computer again, I have always been told if you want to sell your product, DO NOT put the other product down, but to sell the good points on yours. This to me looks as if Netscape can not make a product as good so they want the other to be down on there level. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How do you know Justice does not have a pirated copy of '98? Hey, they have pirated copies of lots of software at Justice. They tend to buy one copy then mass-produce it in-house for every attorney in the place. They've been sued for it, and the one company finally had to go out of business when Justice refused to pay them for the several hundred copies the department ripped off of the product the company was making. PAT] ------------------------------ From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) Subject: Re: The Microsoft Witchhunt Organization: Revealed on a need-to-know basis. Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 17:55:14 GMT In article , Eric Ewanco wrote: >> And when is the Professor going to quit the charade of impartiality >> and disinterest, and resign as special master? If he were to resign >> now, it would be to his credit, and that of his principal employer, >> Harvard University. Or does he plan to just brazenly stick around, >> getting a laugh out of the mock-proceedings as he has done up to this >> point? > Whence this gratuitous swipe? If you have an objective and justified > complaint to make about this man, present it. I will not be swayed by > empty rhetoric. My Microsoft-hating credentials are in pretty good order, but it's worth noting that if even a tenth of what's been alleged (and not denied, I note) about the professor's strongly and repeatedly expressed anti-Microsoft sentiments, as well as his direct personal and professional ties to Microsoft's major (only?) competitor in the field under review, then justice demands that he step aside, and immediately. Even Ted Bundy deserved a fair trial, and Microsoft has legitimate cause for complaint if this guy is allowed to go forward. From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _,_ Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to _|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The latest word on this from late last week is that not only has he refused to step aside, the court has told Microsoft to shut up and deal with Lessig running the show. In fact, the court told Microsoft that if they dared to complain about Lessig at all they would be severely punished for doing so. Isn't that marvelous? Apparently there is not going to be even a pretense of a fair trial. You'd have thought between the Justice lawyers and the court they would have taken Lessig aside and told him to cool it just a little; to not allow his hatred and bias toward Microsoft to be quite so apparent, lest Microsoft get them reversed on an appeal. But no, Lessig will be allowed to let it all spill out; to froth at the mouth to his heart's content and the court has warned Microsoft to not speak up about it. My advice to Microsoft at this point in time -- not that they asked me anything -- that ten thousand did not purchase legal advice or consulting services -- would be to bail out as soon as they can. Find the cheapest way out and run for their corporate lives. There isn't going to be a fair, unbiased proceeding. Decisions have already been reached and the current mockery is just to make it all 'look right' and make the government look good in the eyes of consumers. But you want to know the truth? The consumers be damned! At this point it is just a question of whether they hold a gun to Gates' head and pick a few million dollars out of his pocket or if they follow him to the bank and clean him out completely. Police always tell folks to never argue with someone who is pointing a gun at you in a holdup; just give them what they asked for and hope they remain somewhat rational. I have to suggest the same course of action to Microsoft at this point. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #13 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 20 08:17:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA22925; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 08:17:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 08:17:14 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801201317.IAA22925@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #14 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jan 98 08:17:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 14 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson www.nanpa.com is Up and Running (Linc Madison) Two Years After Big Telecom Bill: Promises Unfulfilled (Tad Cook) Telecom Update (Canada) #116, January 19, 1998 (Telecom Update) Users Don't Mind Mergers if They Get New, Better Services (Adam Gaffin) Reverse Billed Callback (Ankur Lal) Being Fired for Personal Web Site Content (Cameron Barrett) Bell Atlantic (in NYC) Yanking Flat Rate? (Jeremy M. Posner) Reminder: CEME '98 (Soon Y. Choi) Usenet and the New Millenium (Ronda Hauben) Stupid Question of the Week (Bill Levant) Connection Speeds Over 28.8k (John J. Brassil) Sprint Asks for SSN (Anton Sherwood) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:46:09 -0800 From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: www.nanpa.com is Up and Running Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM The new website for Lockheed-Martin's North American Numbering Plan Administration (NANPA) is up and running without requesting a password. Evidently, the password protection over the weekend was just to keep the public out until the official unveiling today. The website contains a number of useful items, plus a blurb that says that all future Planning Letters (PLs) will be available electronically on the website for free; Bellcore started charging $10 each for these a year or two ago. The website is accessible at < http://www.nanpa.com/ > Better yet, they don't have those @#@$!@!! "bc.dynjava?GHSLHWRYQOWIEYRQER" URLs that Bellcore started using in their website upgrade a couple of months ago! (Although I must say the ugly URLs were worth it, if only to get rid of the hideous yellow telephone that used to (dis)grace the Bellcore NANP pages.) ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Subject: Two Years After Big Telecom Bill: Promises Unfulfilled Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 17:43:37 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Two years after big telecom bill: Promises unfulfilled By Jeannine Aversa Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- These were the promises of the telecommunications bill: lower cable TV rates, lower phone bills and a dazzling array of work and entertainment choices only a touchtone away. Two years later, the reality is higher prices and not much competition. The average American doesn't have another local cable or phone company to switch to. And the promised explosion of innovative new services is more a whimper than a bang. "This new law is truly revolutionary legislation that will bring the future to our doorstep," President Clinton said when he signed the measure Feb. 8, 1996. He predicted "consumers will receive the benefits of lower prices, better quality and greater choices in their telephone and cable services." Supporters in Congress, at the Federal Communications Commission and in industry made the same claims. "It will start an explosion of new devices being available to American citizens. There will be an explosion of new investment in our country," said then-Sen. Larry Pressler, a co-author of the measure. But those optimistic forecasts have yet to come true. In 1997, cable TV rates rose 6.9 percent, local phone rates rose 1 percent and in-state toll call rates went up 2.8 percent while interstate long-distance rates declined 4.3 percent, according to the government. Consumer prices for all goods and services went up 1.7 percent during the same period. In 1996, the bureau reported across-the-board increases in cable and phone prices. It also costs more to make a call from most pay phones. Rep. Thomas Bliley, R-Va., another co-author of the bill, predicted it would break up "two of the biggest government monopolies left -- the monopolies in local telephone service and in cable television. Beside lower rates and better service, the result will be innovative new products and services." Instead, long-distance companies have had trouble building local phone businesses, and local phone and cable companies have scaled back plans to invade each others' businesses. And key provisions in the 1996 law aimed at opening the $100 billion local phone business to competitors were overturned in federal court rulings last year. Federal regulators are now scrambling to find ways to boost competition for cable and local phone companies and to lower soaring cable rates. AT&T has stopped marketing local phone service and MCI has suffered steep losses from local phone investments. Both companies in part blame regulations they say make it too expensive to provide local phone service. Authors of the law assumed it would encourage cable companies to get into the telephone business and phone companies to start offering cable. "Talk about broken promises, one of the premises of the `96 act was that the telephone companies would get involved in the provision of video," said Clinton's top telecommunications policy adviser, Larry Irving. Banking on more competition, Congress decided to end the FCC's authority to regulate cable TV rates on March 31, 1999. With competition not materializing as envisioned, some in Congress say they'll push to extend the FCC's rate authority. "Americans do not have real choice in the provision of cable TV services," said FCC Chairman Bill Kennard. A new FCC report found that there's head-to-head cable competition in only 81 communities. And competition to cable from satellites, wireless cable and others is growing more slowly than anticipated. Consumer groups, which want the government to do more to hold down cable and phone rates, call the law a failure. "Virtually none of the promise of price reductions and competition has materialized. On the contrary, these industries are becoming more entrenched monopolies with rates spiraling upwards," said Gene Kimmelman, co-director of Consumers Union's Washington office. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:07:10 -0500 From: Telecom Update Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #116, January 19, 1998 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 116: January 19, 1998 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Ice Storm Cuts Phone Service to 115,000 ** Telcos Restructure Accounting, Take Writedowns ** Gray Market Suit Withdrawn ** Bell Sells Major Office Buildings ** AT&T Cuts International Rates ** RCMP Adopts FleetNet From MTS ** Teleglobe, Qwest Swap Capacity ** SR Telecom Partners With Siemens ** Nortel Completes Broadband Networks Purchase ** MetroNet Completes Toronto Network ** ISPs Plan Challenge to Sympatico ADSL Rates ** Save 50%-75% on Telecom Books ============================================================ ICE STORM CUTS PHONE SERVICE TO 115,000: At its peak, the ice storm in Quebec and Eastern Ontario cut phone service to 115,000 Bell Canada customers. Service to another 2.2 million was maintained through Central Office backup generators in areas of power failure. On January 15, about 4,000 customers were still without service. TELCOS RESTRUCTURE ACCOUNTING, TAKE WRITEDOWNS: Responding to the introduction of price caps and local competition, several telcos have announced one-time charges resulting from a change in accounting practices to reduce the book value of capital assets. The following writedowns have been announced for the fourth quarter of 1997: ** BCE Inc (Ontario, Quebec): $2.9 Billion ** Bruncor (NB): $69.6 Million ** Island Tel (PEI): $11 Million ** MTS (Manitoba): $28.3 Million ** MT&T (Nova Scotia): $190 Million ** NewTel (Newfoundland): $85 Million Similar announcements are expected soon from BC Tel and Telus. GRAY MARKET SUIT WITHDRAWN: On January 9, lawyer William McKenzie withdrew a suit filed in the name of several Canadian broadcasters against 21 dealers and distributors of gray market satellite dishes (see Telecom Update #114 and #115). ** WIC Western International Communications said January 15 that it will step up legal moves to get gray market satellite dealers to hand over customer lists so that U.S. satellite companies can block access. BELL SELLS MAJOR OFFICE BUILDINGS: Bell Canada has sold its major office buildings in Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa to TrizecHahn Corp. for $750 Million. Previously, Bell's real estate arm, Nexacor Realty Management, had planned to spin off these assets into a real estate investment trust. AT&T CUTS INTERNATIONAL RATES: AT&T Canada has reduced rates for residential customers to 56 countries by an average of 15%. Flat-rate round-the-clock pricing will now apply to 60 countries. RCMP ADOPTS FLEETNET FROM MTS: MTS Mobility has signed a 10-year, $60 Million agreement to provide the RCMP with Manitoba-wide FleetNet service. FleetNet, an enhanced mobile radio service, combines features of a cellphone, walkie-talkie, and pager as well as transmitting data. TELEGLOBE, QWEST SWAP CAPACITY: Teleglobe will provide U.S. fiber carrier Qwest with four 155 Mbps transatlantic circuits. In exchange, Teleglobe will receive unspecified U.S. circuits from Qwest at a later date. SR TELECOM PARTNERS WITH SIEMENS: Montreal-based SR Telecom and Siemens have made a deal to jointly market and do research for SR Telecom's SR500 point-to-multipoint networks and Siemens' Wireless Local Loop products. NORTEL COMPLETES BROADBAND NETWORKS PURCHASE: Northern Telecom has completed the purchase of all common shares of Broadband Networks Inc, a developer of wireless broadband equipment. Winnipeg-based BNI will become a unit of Nortel's Wireless Networks division. (See Telecom Update #106) METRONET COMPLETES TORONTO NETWORK: MetroNet Communications has completed installation of a fiber optic network running through 9 km of abandoned water pipes in downtown Toronto and will officially begin service January 21. ISPs PLAN CHALLENGE TO SYMPATICO ADSL RATES: A group of ISPs are considering a challenge to Sympatico's $69/month ADSL rate on the grounds that Sympatico is offering the service at "far below its 'apparent' cost." Contact Lorien Gabel at lgabel@interlog.com SAVE 50%-75% ON TELECOM BOOKS: Angus TeleManagement is offering overstocked titles on Canadian telecommunications for 50%-75% off regular prices, while excess stocks last. ** Canadian Telecom in Transition (1995) -- $13.95 (Save 50%) ** Long Distance Alternatives in Canada (1994) -- $12.25 (Save 75%) ** Phone Pirates (1993) -- $27.50 (Save 50%) ** For full descriptions and reader evaluations, go to http://www.angustel.ca/educatn/bk.html To order, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1998 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 225. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: Users Don't Mind Mergers if They Get New, Better Services Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:46:40 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com Last week, following the AT&T/Teleport announcement, we commissioned a survey to see how our readers felt about telecom mergers and competition. By a narrow margin, users gave thumbs up to the idea of carrier consolidation if that union delivers unified, end-to-end WAN services. But users demanded a quid pro quo: a quick end to the telephone company legal wars, with full freedom for regional Bell operating companies to offer long-distance service - some 80% said they felt the RBOCs should be allowed into long distance now. This is in contrast to our (completely unscientific) online conference on RBOCs and long distance, in which most participants said RBOCs should be kept out of long distance for failing to open up their local markets. You can get the complete results (and jump into our conference) at http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0119survey.html In addition, you'll find a link there to an article about AT&T getting ready to announce a wide range of partnerships, with everybody from vendors that provide monitoring of service level agreements to RBOCs. If you haven't used NWFusion before, you'll have to register first, but it's free. Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 ------------------------------ From: Ankur Lal Subject: Reverse Billed Callback Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:47:52 +0530 I would like to find out if there are intelligent switches which can identify calling party using caller-id' and then re-initiate a call to that number. One could use callback for Toll-free effectively. The user calls the DID number and hangs up after two minutes; the computer finds out the user's phone number and stores it in memory. If then calls the host for DID (Say Infozech). Once the Infozech rep comes on-line, it calls the user number (from memory) and completes the Reverse billed CALLBACK call. This is like REVERSE billed CALLBACK!!! One could have very many uses for it. For instance instead of calling DELL or Microsoft and waiting 40 minutes on hold, one could call the DID NO; and then get a callback as soon as operator is free. The called party saves 40 minutes of long-distance charges and the calling party saves 40 minutes of waiting. I would like to hear from readers if this would work. Ankur Lal Infozech Software for Telecom Service Providers Tel: +91-11-6856452, Voicemail: +1-408-490-2842, Fax: +1-408-490-2840 email: ankur@infozech.com visit us at http://www.infozech.com<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:42:31 -0500 From: Cameron Barrett Subject: Being Fired for Personal Web Site Content Hi Pat and Gang: I'm sure that some of you by now have heard about my case, as it was first reported by the {New York Times} and then run in papers by the Associated Press last week. Here are the articles: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/011298page.html http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/internet.firing.ap/index.html I'm opening this up for discussion on this list. Feel free to comment and/or send me your opinions about this. Thanks, a devoted TELECOM DIGEST reader for a long time. Cameron Barrett http://www.camworld.com ------------------------------ From: jposner@panix.com (Jeremy M. Posner) Subject: Bell Atlantic (in NYC) Yanking Flat Rate? Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:38:18 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC I'm in NYC, on an ISDN line, set up with a Bell Atlantic (nee NYNEX) flat rate billing plan. I opened my phone bill this month to find that my nice, low flat rate plan for local calling had been removed, causing my phone bill to go up by around $40. I called Bell Atlantic, and the unusually helpful representative I spoke to said that there was mention in my file of the service being removed, but none of the notation that's required when removing such a service. He immediately reinstated the service retroactive to when it was removed. I wrote it off as a minor error that has been fixed. Yesterday, I spoke to my boss. Apparently, exactly the same thing just happened to the bill for her POTS lines. This got me thinking ... if two people got their flat rate plans yanked, how many others did? Did anyone around here find their phone bill to be mysteriously higher this month? | Jeremy M. Posner | "I don't want parole, I'm too busy | | jposner@panix.com | working on my web site." -Charles Manson, 3/27/97 | | (212) 426-7967 | http://www.panix.com/~jposner/ | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 02:12:47 -0500 From: Soon Y. Choi Subject: Reminder: CEME '98 A Short Reminder of an Upcoming Event: Conference on Electronic Marketplace and Economics (CEME '98) February 16-17, 1998 Austin, Texas 1998 is shaping to be the year of electronic commerce. How will electronic commerce affect you? Conference on Electronic Marketplace and Economics (CEME '98) will help you understand the effects of EC technologies and applications by evaluating their uses in the broader context of electronic markets and the digital economy. More information is available at http://cism.bus.utexas.edu/news/ceme98.html Co-sponsored by the Center for Research in Electronic Commerce at UT-Austin and IBM's Institute for Advanced Commerce Soon Y. Choi, Ph.D. (soon@mail.utexas.edu) http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~soon The Center for Research in Electronic Commerce, UT-Austin http://cism.bus.utexas.edu ------------------------------ From: rh120@columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Usenet and the New Millenium Date: 19 Jan 1998 07:24:42 GMT Organization: Columbia University Researching the past toward envisioning the future of the Net Studying the history and impact of the ARPANET Mailing lists, Unix, Usenet The new millenium is less than two years away! The birth and development of Usenet, the Internet and of Unix are some of the wondrous developments that have been achieved to set the foundation for the start of the next millenium. To mark the new millenium it would be good to see the study of the history and impact of these important developments toward increased public discussion of how to build on them and spread access. Toward this end I welcome comments and discussion on some of the work that has thus far been done and on what future research and writing will be helpful. In the effort to go forward, it is important to have a vision of the future one is working toward, and the study of the past developments is one way to begin to document and discuss what the vision for the future of the Net should be. Following are some draft papers that I hope will be helpful: ARPANET Mailing Lists and Usenet Newsgroups Creating an Open and Scientific Process for Technology Development and Diffusion The URL is http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/msg.hist/ --------------- Early Usenet(1981-2) Creating the Broadsides for Our Day The URL is http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/usenet.hist/usenet_early_days.txt Usenet and the ARPANET Mailing Lists (1981-1982) The Emergence of the Modern Public Sphere A Habermasian Approach The URL is http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/usenet.hist/public_sphere_use.txt -------------- Also, there are some interviews I have done with unix pioneers and pointers to interviews done by others. And there are some articles about the history and impact of Unix. The URL is http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/unix.hist/ Comments are welcomed on any of this work, as are pointers to others doing similar work, or suggestions for collaboration and support for such work. In the early 1960's there was a conference at MIT where several computer pioneers were gathered to discuss the future of the computer. The organizers of the conference also invited C.P. Snow to open the conference and to present a broad perspective toward the discussion of what would and should be the future of the computer. C. P. Snow's talk described the importance of having many people involved in the discussion if it were to be fruitful. The creation and development of ARPANET mailing lists a few years later and eventually of Usenet and the Internet have made such broad ranging discussion not only possible but necessary. As the new millenium grows closer it is important to find a way to have this discussion of the vision for the future of the Net and of the impact it can have on the rest of society occur both online and to have such discussion available for those not yet online as well. ronda rh120@columbia.edu http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~ronda/ See also Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ and in print edition ISBN # 0-8186-7706-6 ------------------------------ From: Bill Levant Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 18:12:02 EST Subject: Stupid Question of the Week Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) Thanks to everyone who wrote with info about ISDN. I now know what I need. Being as it's Sunday, the beginning of a whole new week, I have a whole new dumb question: I have a Motorola Tele-T-A-C 550 (flip) cellular phone with the standard, NiCD battery, and Motorola's combination slide-in stand and charger. The battery is only good for about two hours of standby, or 15 minutes on the phone (down from 8 hours and 1 hour when new) and I want to replace it with an NiMH battery. Question: Do I need a new charger, too? No one will give me a straight answer; Radio Shack's catalog (now THERE'S an authoritative source) sez "you MAY need a new charger..." (thanks lots), but none of the third-party catalogs I've looked in say anything about a different kind of charger ... Once again, slightly off-topic, so E-Mail welcomed. Bill ------------------------------ From: John J. Brassil Reply-To: John J. Brassil Subject: Connection Speeds Over 28.8k Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:29:15 -0600 (Central Standard Time) This seems to be the most knowledgeable group of folks about all things telephonic that I have seen gathered around a virtual cook fire, so perhaps one (or many) of you can answer a connection speed question for me. We have 6 Shiva Access switches at Vandy for dial-up that were upgraded last year to support 33.6k connections. Oh boy, I thought, an excuse to upgrade my external U.S. Robotics Sportster Vi to 33.6. Well, a long story later, I finally got the chip in my modem and prepared myself to enjoy 15% faster downloads. Hoo hoo! Now, I should say at this point that I had been getting a 28.8 connection about 70% of the time, the rest being 26.4, but never any lower than that. This has been several months ago and I have never gotten any connection faster than 28.8 in the intervening time. In fact, after a few days of not reaching the promised land, I suspected a bum chip or a bad local loop and brought my modem into work and hooked it up to an analog line here and tried a connection - 31.2 was the best I could get, but at least I verified that the chip and the Shiva were capable of 28.8+ speeds. This leads me to suspect the connection between the campus switch and the machine room where the modems live that is probably not that great. Fast forwarding to the near-present, we had a discussion Monday in our Campus Technology Forum (basically IT weenies from across campus, including a Telcomm rep) about how the modem pool was being upgraded again, so that 40% of the 288 (6x48) lines would now support 56Kflex and the rest would remain at 33.6 for the time being. Just for grins, I took a poll of the assemblage to see if *anyone* had ever gotten better than a 28.8 connection. Going once, going twice ... nope. [Since I'm reposting, I'll note here that since then someone has actually gotten 31.2 from home (about half the time) since I asked the question originally, proving that it is at least possible from off-campus.] Since Network Design & Engineering (my group) is soon to take over the modem pool, I'd like to hear some definitive guesses :) as to why this is so, and how usual or unusual it is in relation to the rest of the world, or North America, anyway. I mean, if 33.6 is a pipe dream, when someone asks me what kind of 56K gear to get, how loudly should I laugh? On the upside, ISDN is cheap in Tennessee, and we have @home cable modem service in Nashville now - neither at Vandy, though (yet.) Thanks, John J. Brassil | Network Engineer, Vanderbilt ACIS Networks | 615.322.2496 ------------------------------ From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) Subject: Sprint Asks For SSN Organization: That would be telling Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 06:52:46 GMT Friday I decided, what the hell, I'll get a cellphone and see how I like it. Who knows, after a month I may wonder how I ever lived without it. So I went into the Sprint salesroom (across the street from my office) ... and was promptly asked for my Social Pseudo Security Number for a credit check. "I don't like to give that out," I said. "Can't I pay a deposit instead?" "Even if you pay a deposit, we still need to do a credit check." Then he told me about the prepayment plan, which has fewer features and a much higher time rate. What's the point? "I'm not going to further compromise my privacy for a luxury," I said, and left. All very polite and civilized and understanding. But dammit, am I hallucinating when I think that previously when I ordered new phone service (about four times in the Eighties) I didn't go through this nonsense? Wasn't there a time in America when one could do business without baring one's soul at every turn? My ISP didn't ask for my SSN. My maildrop didn't ask for my SSN. Pac Bell Information Services (voicemail, see below) didn't ask for my SSN, at least I don't think it did. End rant. Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com "How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since they began in the early 1980's, cellular phone companies have always run credit checks, and set the amount of the required deposit accordingly. This was probably because their rates were so much higher than conventional phone service. If your monthly charges to some company are likely to be in the twenty, thirty or forty dollar range, doing a credit check when opening the account is of dubious value, since getting those credit reports costs money also. If your relationship is likely to lead to larger amounts of money -- and cellular phone service can tend to generate large bills -- then credit checks can be warranted. Some of the long distance carriers now do credit checks also, but it is not as common with local telcos. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V18 #14 ***************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 20 16:14:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA23601; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:14:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:14:17 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199801202114.QAA23601@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V18 #15 TELECOM Digest Tue, 20 Jan 98 16:14:00 EST Volume 18 : Issue 15 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Northeast Ice Storm: Free Emergency Phone Service (Danny Burstein) 100 Ameritech Calling Cards Deactivated in Software Upgrade (Tad Cook) Nice New Bell Book (Jim Haynes) ID This Bizarre Terminal! (Xmal Havoc) ISDN Standards in South Africa (W.K. Williams) Florida Overlay Hearing Coming Up (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: New MCI FCC Charge (D. Larry Martin) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Craig Macbride) Re: AT&T Credit Calls - No VISA (Nils Andersson) Re: Teleport ATT Merger (Darrell Hale) 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: * telecom-request@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 07:54:22 EST From: danny burstein Subject: Northeast Ice Storm: Free Emergency Phone Service STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of Albany on January 16, 1998 COMMISSIONER PRESENT: John F. O'Mara, Chairman CASE 98-C-0065 - Petition of New York Telephone Company for Immediate Approval of a Tariff Allowing the Provision of Emergency Telephone Facilities and Service Without Charge to Emergency Residential Shelters. ORDER APPROVING TEMPORARY TARIFF ALLOWING FREE EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE (Issued and Effective January 16, 1998) On January 15, 1998, New York Telephone Company requested our approval pursuant to Section 91 of the Public Service Law, of an emergency temporary tariff and waiver of the notice requirements of the State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA) and the Commission's rules so that free emergency telephone service may commence as soon as possible. The purpose of this tariff is to permit the company to provide free telephone service to emergency shelters where customers have been displaced from their homes and telephone service has been interrupted by the recent severe ice storm. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Due to the recent ice storm, residents in many upstate counties are without telephone and electric service and have been forced from their homes into emergency shelters. New York Telephone has requested authorization to provide free telephone facilities and service to the emergency residential shelters so that the health and well-being of New Yorkers temporarily residing at these shelters can be maintained and monitored. Section 91 of the Public Service Law prohibits a telephone corporation from giving any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, corporation or locality. Therefore, under normal circumstances the proposed tariff providing free telephone service to a limited number of customers would be violative of the Public Service Law. In the instant situation, however, the Governor of the State of New York has declared a state of emergency in the affected upstate counties as a result of the damage to the electrical and telephone infrastructure from the recent ice storm. In addition, the state Emergency Management Office reports that over 17,000 people were in shelters. Accordingly, the Commission finds that it is reasonable to provide free telecommunications services to residential shelters providing emergency accommodations to New York State residents. The Commission also finds that the provision of free telephone service under these circumstances is in the public interest, and will approve the requested tariff for the duration of the emergency. The company also requests waiver of the notice provisions of the State Administrative Procedure Act and of applicable publication requirements. As compliance with the procedural requirements would preclude the timely effectiveness of the emergency tariff provisions, the Commission finds that immediate approval of this tariff request is necessary for the preservation of the public health and safety, and compliance with the advance notice and comment requirements of Section 202.1 of SAPA would be contrary to the public interest. It is ordered: 1. New York Telephone Company's request for approval of an emergency tariff establishing a service classification for the free provision of telephone facilities and service to emergency residential shelters is granted. Such emergency tariff shall become effective on filing with the Commission. The approval of this tariff shall continue for the duration of the state of emergency in the affected counties. 2. The approval described in Clause 1 is effective as an emergency measure pursuant to Section 202.6 of the State Administrative Procedures Act. 3. The requirement of Section 92(2) of the Public Service Law as to newspaper publication is waived. 4. This proceeding is continued. _________________________ JOHN F. O'MARA Chairman-Commissioner ------------------------------ Subject: 100 Ameritech Calling Cards Deactivated in Software Upgrade Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 21:54:20 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 100 Wisconsin Ameritech Calling Cards Deactivated During Software Upgrade By Judy Newman , The Wisconsin State Journal Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News Jan. 20--While the UW hockey team spent a triumphant weekend in Omaha, Neb., Coach Jeff Sauer tried to telephone an injured player in Madison. But his Ameritech calling card didn't let the call go through. Administrative assistant Rob Malnory wanted to check on other teams' scores and assistant coach Pat Ford attempted to phone home. But none of the calls on their Ameritech cards cleared, either. "I've had this card almost since I've been here -- about 13 years," Sauer said. "It was unique; We all tried to make some calls and it just didn't work." They weren't alone. About 100 Ameritech calling card holders from the Madison area couldn't get their calls through, thanks to what Ameritech spokesman Bill Pendergast in Hoffman Estates, Ill. calls "one of the more unusual problems we've encountered." A switch that handles calling card calls into the 608 area code was programmed incorrectly last Thursday night, Pendergast said, deactivating the numbers. It resulted when the software was revised, possibly to change billing codes or to route calls more quickly. "It's one of those random things that happens," he said. The cards should be back in service some time today, Pendergast said. ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:28:04 -0800 Subject: Nice New Bell Book "Alexander Graham Bell - the Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone" by Edwin S. Grosvenor and Morgan Wesson, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., www.abramsbooks.com, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1. A biography of A. G. Bell with pictures on nearly every page: Bell and his family, early telephone equipment and offices, early telephone advertisements, other things Bell experimented with. Highly recommended. ------------------------------ From: xmalh@merv.martnet.com (Xmal Havoc) Subject: ID This Bizarre Terminal! Date: 19 Jan 1998 21:50:21 GMT Organization: MartNet Communications Hello All: I thought perhaps someone in this newsgroup could help me id a telephony-based terminal for me: I managed to get me hands on something which I would very much like some information on, if anyone is familiar with it (particularly pinouts for the ports). What it is, is this: It appears to be some sort of Telephone Operator's terminal, circa 1984. I'm not sure if the unit was used strictly by the telephone companies, or by any company which needed such a thing for their mailorder department or something like that. Anyway, the terminal is beige and dark brown, with AT&T's insignia on the upper left corner of the unit. It's approx. 17" deep x 7" tall x 11" wide. The keyboard is reminiscent of and old 286 laptop keyboard (which is self contained, BTW). Above the main keyboard is a rubber membrane keypad with digits, explicitly for dialing telephone numbers. To the right of the numbers are more rubber keys such as Redial, Recall, CMD, Mail, Redraw, and Lcl Dir. The screen on this self-contained unit is an 8"x3.5" monochrome (amber) display, around which are more (unlabeled) rubber membrane keys. These keys obviously correspond to whatever data is on the screen (i.e. Next to each button there is probably a menu option on the screen). On the left-hand side of the unit is a telephony handset which rests on its plastic arm. Ports: Next to the handset is a jack *similar* to an RJ45, but it's *not*. It's an 8-connector jack, too small for an RJ45 connector, too big for an RJ11. I've never seen these before. On the bottom of the terminal, there's an AC jack, a port that appears to be Centronics, and a 15-pin port (female), which I'm thinking might be an AUI (network) port. The sticker on the bottom gives the following info: Teletype Corporation Model: 5430 Code: 5430 CAA Serial: Now, the PROMware: When you turn the terminal on it says: Copyright AT&T Teletype Corporation 1984 Software Version 1.4 ... And on the bottom of the screen there's: HOLD LINE1 LINE2 LINE3 LOCAL SIGNAL ... which correspond to some of those rubber membrane keys I was talking about. If you hold down SHIFT while pressing the LclDir key, you get the setup mode, which allows you to change options such as the brightness, contrast, ringer volume, buzzer volume, terminal mode (local/line), baud rate, parity, flow control, Aux. baud rate, backspace and break key codes, etc. This thing is really, really neat. Oh yeah, and one more thing ... Hitting the LclDir button alone brings up a LOCAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY mode, where you can add/edit/delete phone numbers stored inside the terminal. Any stored phone numbers are displayed along side the rubber membrane keys to the right and left of the display, so that if you were to hit the corresponding key, it would suppossedly dial that number for you. Now, what I'm trying to find out is information regarding the pinouts of the ports on the side and bottom (obviously). If anyone knows *anything* about these (or similiar) units, even if you've seen them in use before and can tell me where, I would be *extremely* grateful. Thanks very very much in advance! Xmal Havoc 215-4T xmalh@martnet.com ------------------------------ From: warren.williams@worldafrican.com (W.K. Williams) Subject: ISDN Standards in South Africa Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 02:10:01 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I have some co-workers in South Africa who are telling me they have ISDN service over there. My question is, is ISDN in South Africa compatible with ISDN in the US? Can I dial their number from my ISDN line in the US and get a digital connection at 64/128Kb? Warren Williams ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Florida Overlay Hearing Coming Up Date: 18 Jan 1998 03:39:48 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates I propose to comment at a public hearing to be held by the Florida Public Service Commission, in favor of an overlay as proposed by GTE, and in opposition to another split, as proposed by subscribers in a workshop last week. Unfortunately, having just lost a major client, _and_ having been in a car accident last week, I'm not in much shape to research my arguments coherently. Would those of you who are proponents of overlays, either for technical or economic reasons, be so kind as to take a moment and drop me a note with commentary or pointers to why overlays are better. I _know_ the primary arguments, I just need some backup. And some ibuprofen. I know I'm asking y'all to do my homework for me, it's a favor I appreciate. I'll summarize my presentation to the Digest. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: nospam.damos@cyberramp.net (D. Larry Martin) Subject: Re: New MCI FCC Charge Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:05:21 GMT Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333 On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 00:27:46 GMT, mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:43:11 -0500, Jack Decker THIS.com> wrote: >> I got a bill for long distance usage on my residence line from MCI >> today. >> A notation on the bill offers this explanation: >> The FCC is now requiring MCI and all other long distance companies to >> pay a fee to the local phone companies based on the number of lines >> subscribed to each carrier for originating and terminating your long >> distance calls. As a result, MCI will pass along a subscriber fee to >> each usage customer." >> But after that, I got to wondering -- if the carriers are charged >> based on number of lines subscribed, and my line isn't subscribed to >> MCI (nor to any other carrier), then why should I be paying MCI this >> fee? > Actually, it is even worse. Your local carrier will charge you for > your non PICed lin