Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/telecom-recent/[e-mail] _Thu Jan 18 14:28:27 1996.msg

Internet Message Format | 1996-01-21 | 25KB

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.3/NSCS-1.0S)
    id OAA21647; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 14:28:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 14:28:27 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Patrick A. Townson)
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #21

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Jan 96 14:28:00 EST    Volume 16 : Issue 21

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Three Month Wait for Basic Phone Service (Denver Post via Tad Cook)
    Book Review: "Network Management" by Leinwand/Conroy (Rob Slade)
    Re: Pacific Bell ISDN Rate Increases - Protest Web Site (Fred R. Goldstein)
    38ghz "Wireless Fiber" ([e-mail])
    Re: Reserving 888 Numbers (Bob Klemme)
    MCI Press Release on Spamming ([e-mail])
    Trunk Capacity Tables? (Peter A. Smith)
    Re: MCI Mail to Charge For Incoming Mail (Robert W. Fowler)
    Help: Need ANSI Standards (Switched 56K Lines) (Avi Chami)
    Information Wanted on Small "PBX" For New Home? (Eddy J. Gurney)
    Fiber Optic Transceivers Wanted (Chris Gettings)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.

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

                 * [e-mail] *

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

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

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

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

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tad Cook <[e-mail]>
Subject: Three Month Wait for Basic Phone Service
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 09:29:44 PST


Some US West Customers Faced Three Month Wait for Basic Phone Service
By Stephen Keating, The Denver Post

Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News

Jan. 18--US West Communications spent $1 million on cellular phone
vouchers last year for Colorado customers who waited almost three
months, on average, for basic dial-tone service, according to records
from the Baby Bell.

The information, released by US West at the request of {The Denver
Post}, highlights the phone company's "held order" problem in Colorado,
which is among the worst in the United States at a time when
competition looms for local phone markets. The standard for new phone
service across the country is five days from the date of order.

US West claims that 95 percent of its customers receive that level of
service, but population growth, demand for second phone lines and an
acknowledged lack of planning by the phone company have led to at
least 2,400 fuming customers who waited months last year. "I'm not
happy about this problem," said Bob McGinnis, director of marketing
for US West's consumer division. "We're always going to have pockets
of held orders. But those entities that have superior customer service
will succeed in the marketplace." To address the problem, US West
began a cellular voucher program last spring, which has been made
permanent by the state agency that regulates local telephone service,
the Public Utilities Commission. Customers who wait more than 30 days
for basic dial-tone are eligible for a $150-per-month voucher to use a
cellular phone until their line is connected.

The total number of held orders in a year's time -- no matter how long
the wait -- is in the thousands, but US West declines to publicly
release that number, claiming the information is proprietary.

However, the cellular voucher program profiles those that wait the
longest in Colorado. Between April 14, when the program started, and
the end of the year, 2,257 residential customers applied for cellular
vouchers and were paid a total of $947,550. Those customers waited an
average of 2.8 months for service.

A reported 173 small-business customers received vouchers totaling
$89,550 and waited an average of 3.5 months.

The number of customers currently waiting more than 30 days for basic
phone service in Colorado is 1,155, according to US West. "The
held-order situation has not improved significantly," PUC Chairman
Robert Hix said yesterday. "More work needs to be done and the burden
is with US West. Many customers are getting water, sewer, electricity
and cable TV service provided, but not getting phone service in a
timely manner."

One of those customers is Megan Carrico, who waited eight months for
basic phone service at her family's new home in Elbert, 20 miles
northeast of Colorado Springs.

"My first reaction was total shock," said Carrico, a computer
specialist for MCI Corp. and a US West customer for five years. The
Carricos finally got service on Dec. 14. They received more than
$1,000 in cellular vouchers in the meantime, which helped, but, said
Carrico, "I had to get in my car and drive a mile to the top of a hill
to get a signal." US West installed more than 100,000 new phone lines
in Colorado in 1995, the fifth straight year of four percent or more
growth. That doesn't include the churn -- the ongoing connection,
disconnection and switchover of phone service -- estimated at eight
times the number of new phone lines.

US West has said that the held-order problem should dissipate by mid-1996
 -- the same time as companies including MCI, Tele-Communications Inc.
and AT&T will be eligible to offer local telephone service that competes
with US West.

McGinnis said that held-order customers are particularly vulnerable to
competitors, but that the company has "a large segment of customers
who are very loyal." Held orders do affect US West's "credibility to
the extent that their problems are very well-publicized," said William
Deatherage, an industry analyst at Bear Stearns & Co. in New York.
"Negative advertising has an effect on your brand name. But real
competition may not come for a couple years, so it's more important
what customers think of the company then."

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 13:23:16 EST
From: Rob Slade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: "Network Management" by Leinwand/Conroy


BKNETMNG.RVW   951108

"Network Management: A Practical Perspective", Allan Leinwand/Karen Fang
Conroy, 0-201-60999-1, U$39.76
%A   Allan Leinwand [e-mail]
%A   Karen Fang Conroy [e-mail]
%C   1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA   01867-9984
%D   1996
%G   0-201-60999-1
%I   Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%O   U$39.76 416-447-5101 fax: [phone] Fax: [phone]
%O   617-944-3700 [e-mail] [e-mail] http://www.aw.com/cseng/
%P   338
%S   UNIX and Open Systems
%T   "Network Management: A Practical Perspective"

Part one of the book provides a very useful introduction and overview
of network management by following, and explaining, the ISO categories
of fault, configuration, performance, security and accounting
management.  This acts as a tutorial for those who are becoming
involved in the activity for the first time, and will likely broaden
the view of those who may have been performing the functions for some
time without formal training.

The review of network management protocols in part two is more
technical, although not right down to a programming level.  It covers
SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol) and version 2, as well as
the less commonly implemented OSI CMIS/CMIP (Common Management
Information Services/Protocol).  Part three looks at the RFCs for
Management Information Bases while part four looks (very briefly) at
productivity tools.  A sample "request for proposal" provides a very
useful guide for choosing and buying network management products.


copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995   BKNETMNG.RVW   951108. Distribution
permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's
book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest.


Vancouver          [e-mail]         | "Power users think
Institute for      [e-mail]     |  'Your PC is now
Research into      [e-mail]   |  Stoned' is part of
User               [e-mail] |  the DOS copyright
Security           Canada V7K 2G6           |  line." R. Murnane

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell ISDN Rate Increases - Protest Web Site
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:18:17 EST
Organization: Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc.


> On December 21, Pacific Bell filed application A95-12-043 with the
> California Public Utilities Commision.  In short, the application requests
> very significant rate hikes for all PacBell ISDN users, and would all but
> end unmetered calling for Home ISDN users.

> Please visit my protest website:
>  http://www.pacificnet.net/~dcbarry/isdn.html

Interesting stuff!  A few details from PacBell's application for a
rate hike, found via that page, may give some more clues as to what's
going on.

PacBell is proposing to double local usage charges on business AND
residence ISDN lines.  A local call on ISDN will thus cost twice as
much as on POTS, whether voice or data.  But PacBell, on its own
pages, is attempting to throw a bone at resi users: They're throwing
in four "custom-calling" voice features previously available for
$4/month.

One category of ISDN users is exempt from the usage hike: Centrex
users!  A Centrex internal call remains, of course, free; a Centrex
external local call remains at the undoubled POTS price.  So a
business ISDN user will have a huge incentive to reclassify the line
as Centrex, and a resi user with significant local usage will also be
better off as Centrex, though multiple POTS lines with multiple modems
will be FAR cheaper.

What we're seeing, of course, is the Centrex-vs.-ISDN battle moving
into a new phase.  Centrex was designed to provide a CO-based
alternative to PBX voice service.  It became the RBOCs star product
overnight, when divestiture gave their embedded PBX rental base to
AT&T.  This historical quirk elevated Centrex to deific status, and
for some RBOCs, it takes precedence over everything else, and then
some.  With PacBell's new proposed rates, Centrex ISDN penetration
will likely rise, as lines are converted (tariff-wise) to Centrex.
This will make the Centrex product managers look good and the ISDN
managers look bad, but that's the way "it's supposed to work" at an
RBOC.

The voice features are no doubt useless to 95%+ of residence ISDN
users.  They're only useful to fancy ISDN feature telephone sets,
which are designed for Centrex and often don't pass FCC Class B
emissions testing.  They don't allow call bridging (two on a call at
once), a necessary residential feature.  Most residential ISDN usage
is data-oriented, and the voice usage is via an adapter to an ordinary
analog set.  PacBell's offer to remove the charge for these features
is sort of like a car maker's offering a free trailer-towing package,
taximeter and trucker's logbook holder -- in a small sports car.  It's
a ridiculous offer.

The other oddity is a proposal to offer $1/month off for resi ISDN
lines delivered more than TEN lines to ONE location.  Not a big demand
for tenth lines, is there?  Sure I know one audio-BBS owner who might
theoretically use that many channels, but this is again an absurd
offer.

Once again, a telephone company is proving its cluelessness by
insulting its "ratepayers".  Clearly PacBell wants no *customers*
(people you compete to please), and maybe even not *subscribers*
(people you deign to satisfy).  They don't take the theoretical threat
to their monopoly seriously, and are thus out to fleece their
*ratepayers* (people who can't go elsewhere).  Perhaps the CPUC can
once again save them from themselves.


Fred R. Goldstein   k1io    [e-mail]
Bolt Beranek & Newman Inc., Cambridge MA  USA   [phone]
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 38ghz "Wireless Fiber"
Date: 18 Jan 1996 09:47:49 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Does anyone have experience with this service provided by a company called
Winstar?

Thanks.

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

From: Bob Klemme <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reserving 888 Numbers
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 15:26:50 GMT


Hello,

Our LD carrier told us to get our desired numbers in to them so that
they can put them on the list.  Although this is no guarantee of
success, because others with that number may have a reserved rights to
it already, or someone else at another carrier may simply get in line
before you.  Should be an interesting frenzy in March.

Our LEC (NYNEX) also polled its business customers asking if we would
want to reserve our number if we were given the option.  (They did not
say we WOULD be able to reserve it!)


Bob

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 10:40 EST
From: Hardwire <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Announces "Spamming" Policy for Internet Users


Contact:  John R. Houser
MCI Telecommunications Corp.
312-938-4820

MCI ANNOUNCES "SPAMMING" POLICY FOR INTERNET USERS

Company Policy Designed to Discourage Abuse of Network;
Prohibits Unsolicited Mass Distributions

    ATLANTA, GA, January 17, 1996 -- MCI today announced that it has
instituted a policy designed to discourage "spamming" -- the common
Internet term that describes the unsolicited mass distribution of
e-mail messages and/or postings to multiple newsgroups -- on the MCI
Internet network.  The policy covers a variety of services MCI offers
to businesses and consumers, including electronic mail, Internet
access, World Wide Web website hosting arrangements and other online
and Internet-related services.

    "MCI will not tolerate the use of its network for spamming or
other similarly abusive behavior," said Ronald J. McMurtrie, director
of marketing for MCI Business Enterprises. "Any customer caught
spamming on our network, or who persists in the mass distribution of
unsolicited e-mail messages, will be dealt with immediately.  We
reserve the right to automatically disconnect and deny access to any
MCI customer who violates this spamming policy, and we will take swift
and corrective action."

    MCI has also pledged to cooperate with other online and Internet
service providers to discourage and resist such abuses of these
resources.  According to McMurtrie, spamming is a nuisance that costs
customers time and money.

    "Our customers should not have to bear the cost of receiving
unsolicited messages or the nuisance of having to deal with the issue,"
he said.  "We want our online services to be both useful and enjoyable
resources for business and consumer communications, and not a source of
frustration and annoyance."

    MCI's spamming policy prohibits the following:

*    posting a single article or advertisement on multiple Usenet or
other newsgroups;

*    postilicited mass e-mail messages to more than 25 e-mail
users if the distribution generates complaints;

*    falsifying user information provided to MCI.

    For complete details of MCI's policy on spamming, Internet users can
view it on MCI's World Wide Web site at http://www.mci.com or
www.internetmci.com.

    MCI, headquartered in Washington, D.C., is one of the world's
largest and fastest-growing diversified communications companies.
With annual revenue of more than $13 billion, MCI offers consumers and
businesses a broad portfolio of services, including long distance,
wireless, local access, paging, outsourcing, Internet software and
access, information services, business software, and advanced global
telecommunications services.

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

From: [e-mail] (Smith, Peter A.)
Organization: Telesat Canada
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:18:05 EST
Subject: Trunk Capacity Tables?


I'm looking for a soft copy (file or equations) for the NEAL-WILKINSON
B.01L Trunk Capacity Table.  I have a paper copy that has undergone
many faxing and photocopying.  I was hoping to get back to an
original, but I have no idea where the source of this table is.


Thanks for any help,

Peter Smith
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 12:21:40 EST
From: Robert W Fowler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Begins Charging For Incoming Email


TELECOM Digest Editor recently wrote:

> A subscriber wrote to me recently saying MCI Mail is now going to
> being charging for incoming mail ... and that would include Digests
> from the Internet.  If it is true, then my sympathies to everyone
> there. Now might be a good time to consider signing up with one of
> several good and reliable local ISPs ... people who appreciate your
> business and will offer you flat rate service.

MCI has no plans to bill for incoming Email messages. The subscriber is
mistaken.

Robert


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Robert, with no offense intended,
the reports I am getting are not quite the way you responded. The
response I got from an employee at MCI Mail applies to people who
are in what they term the Friends and Family program, but may apply
to other email users as well.

There is bad news/good news:

First: MCI Mail today does *not* charge to receive inbound mail in any
form.

Bad News:

That is changing: MCI Mail will *only* charge for receiving inbound
messages from the Internet.  The quote I heard was .03/Kilos.  That is
because of major abuses that MCI Mail has suffered from inbound
messages from the 'net to MCI Mail subscribers.  (One guy received
over 9000 messages one month! His charges?  $0.00)

Good News:

This does *not* affect people who receive their inbound mail via
internetMCI (POP3/SMTP).  If someone is using internetMCI then more
than likely they are already using that as their medium for receiving
messages.

More Good News:

MCI Mail will be the first email service to offer the option to MCI
Mail subscribers to block incoming messages from the Internet to their
MCI Mail address.  Eventually the MCI Mail subscriber will be able to
block out originating messages from certain parties.  (Say that
someone is sending nasty-grams: [e-mail] ... MCI Mail will give
the ability to block inbound messages from him.)  Also this will not
effect (at least not initially) Friends and Family mail subscribers.

So Robert, the correct answer would seem to be 'yes and no' depending
on the subscriber's exact relationship with MCI. Would you care to
refute the claim that mail from Internet direct to [e-mail]
will not be charged?  I have a couple hundred names on my mailing list
at that site who would certainly be grateful to find out otherwise.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (TMX100chk Avi Chami 3925)
Subject: Help: Need ANSI Standards (Switched 56K Lines)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 17:49:00 GMT
Organization: Telrad Ltd.


Hi everybody,

I need the titles for the following ANSI standards:
T1.306-1990, T1.314-1991, T1.109-1990.

I believe that they are related to 56K switched lines.  Send me please
the titles or a pointer to an ftp site.


Thanks in advance,

Avi Chami         [e-mail]
Telrad Comm. Inc.

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

From: [e-mail] (Eddy J. Gurney)
Subject: Information Wanted on Small "PBX" For New Home?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 9:26:06 EST


I will soon be moving into a new home and would like to install a
really nice phone system that will offer lots of nifty features.
Three lines is enough for now (probably only use two to start with)
and eight stations will be good enough, but the ability to add more
stations (but not necessarily lines, but both would be nice! would be
a plus.

I'd like some of the phones to have an LCD display, capable of
displaying calling party name and number (CID service form phone
company). All of the phones should have a speakerphone and a
"hands-free" intercomm feature where an extension can be rung and a
response given without having to push any button on the phone, as well
as the ability to "page" through all extensions.

Other extra features (such as doorbell-connections so that the
doorbell rings the phone in a special cadence and the ability to talk
to people at the door from any extension, music-on-hold, etc.) are
always welcome.

It would be nice if you could also connect standard analog devices to
the system without special adapters (i.e., modems, fax machines,
garage phone, etc.) I believe this is commonly called a "hybrid"
system.

So far, the closest I've come is the Panasonic KXT-308 system; the only
thing it doesn't do is the caller ID feature that I really want. Other
than that, it is an excellent system based on what I've heard. Are
there any comparable systems that do have caller ID, or does anyone
know if Panasonic is planning on support CID in the near future?

In any event, I'm open to other suggestions. A friend gave me a copy
of the January issue of "The Mart", but unless you know exactly what
you're looking for, its not much help. :-) So, if anyone can offer
suggestions for a nice, small "home PBX" type system that doesn't cost
a fortune, I'd appreciate ANY info (such as the AT&T Partner and
Spirit systems. What's the deal with all the different versions? I see
2.0, 3.1, 4.0, etc. in The Mart.)


Thanks and regards,

Eddy

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 12:43:31 -0700
From: [e-mail] (Chris Gettings)
Subject: Fiber Optic Transceivers Wanted


Help from the Digest!

I am looking for an economical fiber optic transceiver.  I need to
connect RJ45 jacks on Cisco routers to a pair of multimode fiber
strands to run ethernet.  I have located a Black Box product
(LE611A-ST converter) which cost $752 each.  Also, a Milan product for
about $500.  Both are more than I want to spend.  I need a quite a few
of them (50-100 initially) and was hoping for less than $300.  Maybe I
am delusional, again.  Does anyone know where to get some? Why are the
RJ45 to fiber transceivers so much more than the AUI to fiber
transceivers?


Chris Gettings
Internet: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Visit us on the World Wide Web: http:/www.econnect.net

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

End of TELECOM Digest V16 #21
*****************************