Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA27475; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:57:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:57:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703171257.HAA27475@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #67 TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Mar 97 07:57:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 67 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson PacTel, SBC Urge CPUC to Approve Merger (Mike King) Book Review: "Mastering Windows NT Server 4" (Rob Slade) The Value of Phone Numbers (Judith Oppenheimer) Workers Rally for Destiny Tellcomm (Tad Cook) US West Discourages Complaints to PUC (Tad Cook) Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response (Robert Bononno) 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: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives 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 tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu 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. * ************************************************************************* 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: Mike King Subject: NEWS: PacTel, SBC Urge CPUC Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 22:54:48 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 18:14:00 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: NEWS: PacTel, SBC Urge CPUC to Reject Proposed Decision and Approve Merger Without Conditions FOR MORE INFORMATION: Larry Solomon, SBC (210) 351-3990 (888) 363-2747 (pager) Lou Saviano, PacTel (415) 394-3744 PacTel, SBC Urge CPUC to Reject Proposed Decision and Approve Merger Without Conditions Preliminary Ruling Ignores Benefits the Merger Will Bring to Californians SAN FRANCISCO - In a hearing today before the California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Telesis and SBC Communications urged commissioners to reject a proposed decision by two administrative law judges and approve the two companies' merger without conditions. The proposed decision, released Feb. 21, would approve the merger, but with a number of unreasonable conditions, including penalties exceeding $750 million, and without crediting the companies for the hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits that would flow to Californians as a result of the merger. The CPUC commissioners may either reject or amend the proposed decision, or write an alternate decision. The CPUC has said it intends to make a decision on the merger by March 31. "If the commission follows the precedent it has set in deciding other mergers, the Pacific Telesis-SBC merger should be approved without onerous conditions and penalties," said Dick Odgers, executive vice president and general counsel for Pacific Telesis. "We're hopeful the CPUC will reject the proposed decision outright. It does not reflect the evidence presented or the forward-thinking decisions the CPUC has made recently which recognize and encourage increased competition in the California telecommunications market." At today's hearing, the companies said if the CPUC determines that any customer payments should be mandated in this case, then it should, in calculating the amount to be shared with customers, recognize: *The $100 million annually that would be added to the California economy by the companies creating at least 1,000 new jobs. *The $200 million to $400 million ripple effect on the state's economy from the merged companies establishing four new headquarters in California. *The $50 million the companies would give to create a Community Technology Fund, designed to bring telecommunications services to the underserved throughout California. The hundreds of millions of dollars in savings for California consumers over the next five years expected from the combined companies increasing competition and offering more competitive prices in the wireless and long-distance markets. "In addition to ignoring CPUC precedent, the proposed decision grossly overestimates the economic benefits to Pacific Bell that will arise from the merger," Odgers said. The companies said the proposed decision should be rejected because it: * Estimates cost savings and other benefits to the company over 10 years, which is not consistent with the 5 year period the CPUC has previously used in estimating benefits in the telecom industry. The companies argue that a shorter time period is essential given the difficulty of predicting cost savings in the face of fast-paced changes in the industry and the intense competition that exists in all of Pacific Bell's markets. * Applies a 10 percent "inflation factor" per year for 5 years to the financial penalty, even though inflation has been around 3 percent for the past several years. Asserts that $118 million in potential costs savings from the company's not-yet-established long-distance business and other competitive businesses should be provided to customers. *The proposed decision fails to recognize that the long-distance market is competitive and outside the commission's jurisdiction for sharing benefits with customers. In any event, any potential costs savings in this area will flow through automatically to customers through more competitive prices. * Adds a grab-bag of other conditions, most not requested by any of the parties, some of which are unlawful and all of which would result in state regulators micromanaging the merged company, and limiting its ability to invest and grow. * Fails to recognize the tremendous public support the merger has received from a broad-base of more than 100 California consumer groups and the Communications Workers of America, which represents nearly 30,000 Pacific Bell employees. * Fails to give the companies credit for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of benefits that will flow through to Californians as a result of the merger. "The proposed decision fails to consider many of the real benefits that the merger will bring to Californians -- more jobs, a more competitive marketplace and more investment in California's communities," said Jim Ellis, SBC's senior executive vice president and general counsel. "We urge the CPUC to embrace the approach supported by CPUC precedent and endorsed by more than 100 California community groups. This approach would provide greater and longer-lasting benefits to California's economy and those underserved by telecommunications." Odgers said, "The proposed decision ignores the benefits the merger could bring to California and provides no incentive for companies to work with California community groups on initiatives which stand to benefit millions of people throughout the state." Pacific Telesis (NYSE:PAC) is a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. Through its Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell subsidiaries, the corporation offers a wide array of telecommunications services in California and Nevada, including directory advertising and publishing. Through its operating subsidiaries, the corporation serves nearly 16.4 million access lines and offers Internet access services to both business and residential customers. Another subsidiary, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, has begun offering new wireless personal communications services (PCS) in the San Diego and Las Vegas areas, and will expand service in California and Nevada throughout 1997. SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC) is one of the world's leading diversified telecommunications companies and one of the nation's largest wireless providers. Through its subsidiaries, SBC provides innovative telecommunications products and services under the Southwestern Bell and Cellular One brands. Its businesses include wireline and wireless services and equipment in the United States and interests in wireless businesses in Europe, Latin America, South Africa and Asia; cable television in both domestic and international markets; and directory advertising and publishing. -------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:30:02 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Mastering Windows NT Server 4" BKMNTSV4.RVW 961117 "Mastering Windows NT Server 4", Mark Minasi/Christa Anderson/Elizabeth Creegan, 1996, 0-7821-1920-4, U$49.99 %A Mark Minasi mark@mmco.com %A Christa Anderson %A Elizabeth Creegan %C 1151 Marina Village Parkway, Alameda, CA 94501 %D 1996 %G 0-7821-1920-4 %I Sybex Computer Books %O U$49.99 510-523-8233 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 info@sybex.com %P 1150 %T "Mastering Windows NT Server 4, 3rd ed." You have to review them, but I must admit that I tend to try and avoid proprietary networking books because they tend to be rehashes with little added information. I was, therefore, delighted to learn two new points in the first dozen pages of this book. I tend to avoid proprietary books because they are terminally boring. This one is readable. I tend to avoid proprietary networking books because they usually simply copy the documentation. This book suggests the best and most practical solution, not just the official party line. The authors have put together a very complete and helpful guide here. I tend also to avoid books with lots of promotion and hype, but you might want to make an exception for this one. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKMNTSV4.RVW 961117 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 15:00:49 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: The Value of Phone Numbers Reprinted with permission from Telemedia News & Views. Their web site - http://www.teamtelemedia.com - is just getting online. Keep an eye on as it develops - their print publication is exemplary. Judith San Francisco, CA, March, 1997 (TELEMEDIA NEWS AND VIEWS) In an article carrying the headline 'Speculators Invest in Telephone Numbers' the Sunday Times of London reported a brisk market for so-called 'Golden Telephone Numbers.' In the U.S. we call them 'vanity numbers'. They rely on telephone keypads with letters as well as numbers, enabling callers to spell out words when dialing. According to The Times, the going price for popular numbers on the secondary market can easily exceed $16,000+ U.S. BT, the incumbent domestic carrier in the UK, believes that by 2000 roughly 80 percent of all telephones in the UK will have letters on their dialing pads. In anticipation of that day, speculators have already 'bought up a host of numbers which spell out business names, in the hope that the company will want to acquire the number in the future.' The newspaper provided two examples: 'RADIO1' is not worth over $16,000 U.S., while 'DIRECT', which is owned by an insurance company called Direct Line -- is said to be worth $160,000 U.S. ------------------- ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - 800/888/global800 news, analysis, advice. http://www.icbtollfree.com, mailto:news-editor@icbtollfree.com Judith Oppenheimer - 800 The Expert, ph 212 684-7210, fx 212 684-2714 mailto:j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net, mailto:icb@juno.com ------------------------------ Subject: Workers Rally for Destiny Tellcomm Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:27:15 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Workers Rally to Save Destiny Tellcomm in Oakland, Calif. By Boni Brewer, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News OAKLAND, Calif.--Mar. 12--Several hundred Destiny Tellcomm employees Tuesday rallied in front of Alameda County's Administration Building to protest what they said are unfounded allegations by prosecutors who contend the company operates an illegal pyramid scheme. Employees said the firm operates no differently than Mary Kay, Shaklee or other multi-level marketing companies. They said they believe that Destiny is being targeted only because of its huge success and rapid growth. "We're just being picked on," said Richard Downing of Livermore, senior director of Planet Destiny, the firm's retail outlet that sells pre-paid long-distance calling cards, jackets, sweatshirts, sunglasses and other products. "We're the biggest. We're growing faster than anyone else," Downing said. Most of Tuesday's protesters work at Destiny's headquarters near the Oakland Airport, which employs more than 400 people. Destiny also has more than 500,000 independent sales representatives across the country. Law enforcement officials raided Destiny's offices Feb. 27 and seized many of the company's assets, alleging its sales structure violated state law. Destiny logistics manager Jack Jonker of Walnut Creek said the firm offers legitimate products at competitive prices and is not a pyramid scheme. "It's network marketing of a good product with a very useful function," Jonker said. "We are a legitimate company that does something for the community, creates jobs and helps (independent sales representatives) across the country help themselves." "It's growing because of the success of pre-paid long-distance phone cards and because Destiny is more than just a marketing firm." Jonker pointed to donations by Destiny's foundation to sports programs for the disabled and other charities. "It's a company that comes from the heart." Dell Montesdeoca of Castro Valley, Planet Destiny's store manager, said the firm gave him a good job after he was laid off from the defense industry. "I'm the single parent of a 9-year-old little boy and I don't need this right now," said Montesdeoca, who is among employees fearing that Destiny will be forced to move its headquarters and its jobs out of California. "We are not going to let this happen." Katy Mendenhall of Livermore said the firm, which started in 1995, has nearly tripled in size since she started working there last April. "There's been tremendous growth that you don't see a lot, " said Mendenhall, who heads up the Destiny department that develops training materials for sales representatives and designs the phone cards. "It's a great program and retail sales plan. It's a matter of (the authorities) not understanding." Destiny officials are scheduled to be in Alameda County Superior Court on Thursday, but attorney Dan Siegel said he's hopeful that a settlement can be reached before then. He said the state attorney general proposes to impose conditions on the firm that are more onerous than in other states and a sales structure more onerous than those imposed on companies such as Amway. The state's lawsuit seeks $1.6 million in civil penalties. The court has frozen some of the firm's assets. While Destiny can pay its employees and some bills, it cannot pay sales commission checks that amount to between $300,000 and $500,000 per day. "Our jobs are at stake and there are incredible people working for this company," Mendenhall said. ------------------------------ Subject: US West Discourages Complaints to PUC Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:33:05 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) U S West Tries to Discourage Customers from Complaining to Regulators By Cynthia Flash, The News Tribune, Tacoma, Wash. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Mar. 12--U S West is trying to decrease the number of complaints against it by discouraging customers from calling state regulators -- and instead encouraging them to call the company president. At least that's what comes through in a Feb. 20 letter to all telephone employees in the company's 14-state service area. "If your customer requests the telephone number of a Public Utility Commission (PUC) and declines your attempts to resolve the complaint, you should offer to immediately connect the customer to the President's Customer Advocacy Office at 1-800-246-8156, with an assurance that this group will provide more immediate attention to the problem," said the letter signed by seven U S West vice presidents. "If your customer declines the offer and continues to request the PUC's telephone number, you should provide the number," the letter continues. U S West has been under fire for the last two years for increased customer service complaints. Hundreds of customers have filed complaints with Washington's Utilities and Transportation Commission -- and the commission has ordered U S West to improve its service record. Commission spokesman Marilyn Meehan said Tuesday the number of complaints against U S West has decreased steadily since July, except for January when complaints went up. Although the total of complaints filed so far this year is fewer than last year, the numbers are still unacceptable, she said. Meehan said the numbers may be down because U S West is being more realistic when telling customers when phones will be installed, people are less willing to file a complaint with the commission, or company service representatives are handling the calls better. U S West spokeswoman Carey Macdonald said the company has had a "customer advocacy office" to deal with customer complaints for about 15 years. Recently, however, the office received the more prestigious name of "President's Customer Advocacy Office." Macdonald said the office is available for customers who are unsatisfied with the response they receive from their local customer service representative and ask to speak to a "higher authority." The office handles about 3,000 calls a month from throughout the company's 14-state region. "It's to give it a heightened focus, a heightened importance, to indicate the importance of the effort to everyone out in the field," Macdonald said. She said the company sent the letter to employees to remind them of U S West's customer service guidelines. The letter advises employees that they first must "take responsibility" for resolving the customer's complaint immediately and within their own work unit. If the front-line employees are unable to resolve the complaint, they are to refer the customer to the next management level. If the customer is still dissatisfied, U S West employees are advised to connect the customer to the President's Customer Advocacy Office, the letter says. "As we work to make life better for our customers, the above complaint-handling policy demonstrates that our company is committed to taking immediate action to address customer dissatisfaction as quickly, efficiently, and effectively as possible," it says. Macdonald said that while U S West tries to discourage people from calling their utility regulators, she believes many of the people who call the President's Customer Advocacy Office also complain to their public utilities commissions. Lacey resident Fred Stripp is one example. U S West sent him through the customer service route outlined in the letter. When U S West was unable to provide him with a telephone line to his new home on Sept. 3, he went up the chain of command. A month later, on Oct. 4, he was connected with someone in the president's office, he said. For weeks, the person assigned to him told Stripp U S West was working on solving a hardware problem to bring phone service to his new subdivision. Finally, on Dec. 20, he got his phone -- after U S West added 50 telephone lines to serve nearby residents. Stripp, who also filed a complaint with the UTC, said the U S West employees were polite and "lent a sympathetic ear. I think they genuinely tried, but I had a feeling they were compartmentalized. I think they were up against something they couldn't control. "It was one of the most frustrating experiences I'd ever had," he said. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 12:53:09 -0500 From: rb28@is4.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Slammed Again: NYNEX's Response Organization: Techline Someone asked me about NYNEX's response to being slammed by AT&T. Basically NYNEX said, er, um, uh, that it couldn't have happened. I have two phone numbers. I was slammed last year by Heartline. At the time I specifically requested that NYNEX put a freeze on *both* numbers. And they told me they had. When I called right after the AT&T mishap, they told me there was a freeze only on *one* number. They said they would correct the situation at once. When I told them that both numbers had been switched to AT&T, the operator said that couldn't have happened. Well, it did happen. Another weird thing is that AT&T said they couldn't give me any idea of the number or cost of calls made until just before the bills go out. The operator insisted she had no usage information on those numbers. She also said that because I had been a former customer of theirs (which I was several years ago), they continue to maintain a record on me. I never knew about this practice in the industry. Ironically, I received a letter from Heartline indicating that they had been notified of an informal complaint about them (by me) to the FCC and that they were going to call me to investigate. I wonder if I should even talk to them? Robert Bononno - rb28@is4.nyu.edu - CIS:73670,1570 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had an interesting experience with AT&T over the weekend. They sent me a check for eighty dollars, as a bribe to get me to sign up with them. But get this: several months ago they had placed me in collection **on the very same number** they are now offering to pay me to return to them. Readers may recall my mention a couple times in the past about the fiasco which resulted when AT&T decided to pull their billing arrangements away from the local telco Ameritech, and how mixed up the billing was the first month following the conversion. AT&T's response to the billing mixup was to simply place a large number of customers with the Gulf Coast Collection Agency in Houston. I ignored GC and just kissed AT&T goodbye, giving the lines in particular to other carriers. So the check over the weekend was quite interesting to say the least. When I try to dial 10288 plus a long distance number on the line in question (which AT&T sent me a check on) I still get the 'access to the AT&T network is denied' message. I guess I will cash the check and tell them go ahead and put that line on their network ... grin ... and see how they choose to handle it. The letter which arrived with the check touted their 'one rate' (fifteen cents per minute) program and promised 'no gimmicks and no games'. I suppose if they try to put that number back on their service, it will bounce around for a while through their collection department which has a 'hold' on it for the earlier alleged non-payment. Meanwhile, I will have cashed their check. Has anyone else gotten a check from AT&T for a line which the company earlier had cut off from service? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #67 *****************************