Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA27565; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 13:16:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 13:16:02 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199703011816.NAA27565@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #55 TELECOM Digest Sat, 1 Mar 97 13:15:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 55 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Email Flood Causes Lost Messages (TELECOM Digest Editor) NYC to add 646 NPA in 1998 (John Cropper) ITU UIFN Database Shut Down to the Public (Judith Oppenheimer) California Accuses Prepaid Card Company (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Person to Person on the Internet" (Rob Slade) NYNEX Confirms 646 for Manhattan (Linc Madison) Book Review: "Web Visions" by Marlow (Rob Slade) Sprint, Contracts and Trustworthiness (John Many Jars) NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month (Dave Nye) 3Com Buying US Robotics (Tad Cook) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 08:33:36 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Email Flood Causes Lost Messages On Thursday for several hours I was subjected to a flood of email from digex.net -- literally thousands and thousands of items, all nonsense caused by a mail loop -- and this so badly overran the mail spool here that a large number of legitimate items will never be recovered. I had to spend several hours on Friday just digging through the spool of stuff deleting stuff, hundreds of messages at a time, the way one would use a bucket to try to bail out a sinking boat in the ocean. You may have noticed something wrong if you sent me mail on Thursday or Friday and got an autoreply with a receipt numbered in the thousands. I saved what mail I could, and now have digex.net blocked out from reaching me. PAT ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: NYC to add 646 NPA in 1998 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:08:59 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net From NYNEX: February 28, 1997 CONTACT: Steve Marcus (212) 395-0500 Manhattan To Get Second Area Code, 646, Next Year As Heavy Demand Rapidly Uses Up Supply Of Telephone Numbers In 212 (NEW YORK) -- Manhattan will need a second area code in 1998 because a sharp increase in the demand for telephone numbers from NYNEX's customers and competitors is rapidly using up the supply of numbers in the 212 area code. In addition, the 917 area code, which is used primarily for cellular phones and pagers in Manhattan and the other four boroughs in New York City, is expected to run out of numbers in 1999. NYNEX plans to use 646 for the new area code in Manhattan for all services, including cellular phones and pagers. "We are running out of numbers in the 212 area code because of the demand for additional telephone numbers from our business and residence customers in Manhattan and from the growing number of telephone companies that are offering local exchange service in competition with NYNEX," said Arnold Eckelman, NYNEX's executive vice president and group executive for New York. "In the past four years, the demand for numbers in the 212 area code has more than tripled," Eckelman said. In a report submitted today (2/28) to the New York Public Service Commission, NYNEX outlined three options for adding the new area code: -- A geographic split in which Manhattan would be divided along a physical boundary line such as 42nd Street or Fifth Avenue. All customers on one side of the boundary would be assigned to the new area code but would keep their existing seven-digit telephone numbers. All customers on the other side of the boundary would remain in the 212 area code and there would be no change at all in their telephone numbers. -- Transferring telephone numbers in a portion of the 212 area code, such as northern Manhattan, into the 718 area code. This method was used in 1993 when the Bronx was transferred from the 212 to the 718 area code. -- An overlay in which the new area code would be applied to the same geographic area served by the 212 area code. Under this option, no customers in Manhattan would have to make any change in their current telephone numbers or area code. Anyone ordering a new telephone line would be given a number in the new area code. This method was used when the 917 area code was introduced in 1992 to ease the demand for numbers in the 212 area code. It was also used nationally last year to implement a second, toll-free area code -- 888 -- when the 800 service area code ran out of numbers. NYNEX said in its report to the PSC that "the introduction of a new area code in New York City can affect telephone calls made by millions of New Yorkers and the businesses that operate in the city." Therefore, the report said, "all potential solutions need to be weighed for their impact on these telephone users." The report, in analyzing the three options for implementing the new area code, recommends the overlay. For customers, this option would be the least disruptive and least expensive and would provide the longest period of time before the supply of telephone numbers in Manhattan would run out again, the report said. NYNEX will hold a series of industry forums to discuss the proposed options with other telephone companies that operate in New York and to obtain their views and recommendations. In addition, NYNEX will provide a variety of opportunities -- including focus groups, advisory panels and community meetings -- for consumers to present their views. The PSC will conduct Public Statement Hearings and Educational Forums to enable the public to participate in the decision process. After those hearings, the PSC will select the option that will be used to implement the new area code. The commission is expected to act by September 30th. John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:44:12 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net Organization: ICB Toll Free News Subject: ITU UIFN Database Shut Down to the Public The ITU suddenly decided to restrict public access to the UIFN database at its internet site on Wednesday -- taking down USA Global Link's access with them. According to the ITU, (1) businesses were prematurely advertising their numbers; and (2) public access was restricted to avoid "abuse." I've seen no evidence of premature advertising, or "abuse" (?). In all likeliness (based on their standard modus operandi), the larger carriers pressured the ITU to shut down public access. It's too bad -- for a brief enlightened moment, telecom managers and marketers could plan intelligently, and avoid adding to the 2,000 plus conflicts already burdening the ITU. Perhaps the ITU will see the light, and reopen public access. Judith Oppenheimer ICB Toll Free News http://www.thedigest.com/icb/ ------------------------------ Subject: California Accuses Prepaid Card Company Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:12:30 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) State accuses pre-paid phone card company of pyramid scheme OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- Law enforcement officials have accused a national phone card business of running a pyramid scheme that duped thousands of investors. Destiny Telecomm Inc. promised impossible riches to its investors, state and local prosecutors charged in a $20 million lawsuit against the company. The 18-month old company, based in Oakland, sells long-distance pre-paid phone cards and has distributors nationwide. Its president, Randy Jeffers, denied the allegations. Albert Shelden, the state's deputy attorney general, said law enforcement officials believe Destiny is operating "an illegal endless-chain scheme." He said a civil complaint alleges Destiny's marketing employees are compensated according to their ability to get new employees to buy their way into the company, not according to sales of products or services. He said attorneys general in North Carolina and Michigan have filed similar complaints against Destiny and other states are also investigating the company. The California complaint alleges the company is violating the state's laws against misleading advertising and unfair competition. Investigators conducted a search of Destiny's Oakland headquarters Thursday. A day earlier, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Sandra Margulies issued a temporary restraining order authorizing the search. The order also froze Destiny's assets. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:52:04 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Person to Person on the Internet" by Reiner/Blanton BKPTPINT.RVW 961114 "Person to Person on the Internet", Diane Reiner/Keith Blanton, 1997, 0-12-104245-6, U$19.95 %A Diane Reiner %A Keith Blanton %C 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495 %D 1997 %G 0-12-104245-6 %I Academic Press Professional %O U$19.95 619-231-0926 800-321-5068 fax: 619-699-6380 app@acad.com %P 490 %T "Person to Person on the Internet" The chapter on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) is good. It is informative, detailed, and gives something of a feel for IRC chatting. The rest of the book would have made a good magazine article, except that it is too long. Material is presented in a disorganized fashion, and topics get repeated in multiple places. Unfortunately, this repetition doesn't provide additional information. A great deal of important stuff is simply missing. The section on mailing lists doesn't cover the vital functions of subscribing and unsubscribing. The virus section has errors, internal contradictions, and nothing about "Good Times". The netiquette section has nothing about chain letters and other garbage. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKPTPINT.RVW 961114 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: NYNEX Confirms 646 For Manhattan Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 02:35:37 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! A NYNEX press release on Friday confirmed that area code 646 will be used for relief in Manhattan some time in 1998. NYNEX is recommending an all-services overlay, although a geographic split is also being put forth as an option. NYNEX's press release also mentions the possibility of shifting part of Manhattan into area code 718 with the other four boroughs, although that plan is so utterly insane as to defy belief. (Area code 718 already has 540 prefixes, so any shift from 212 into 718 would place 718 into immediate jeopardy.) The NYNEX press release is available on the web at HIGHLIGHTS: NYNEX clearly identifies local-service competition as one of the major reasons that 212 is exhausting its capacity. Demand for numbers in 212 has more than tripled in the last four years. The boundary that would be used if a geographic split is ordered was not discussed; the press release mentions two hypothetical boundary lines, 42nd Street and 5th Avenue, but neither of those is even a remote possibility for the actual boundary. (First of all, the boundary would not be one of the avenues. It would most likely be the boundary between central office territories, probably right at the southern end of Central Park, although this would leave far more than half the numbers in 212.) There's also a nice quote from NYNEX's report to the PSC, mentioning that the impact on customers of any proposed relief plan needs to be weighed. NYNEX doesn't finish the thought, but I would draw the inference, "instead of looking only at the impact on competing local exchange carriers." ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:42:27 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Web Visions" by Marlow BKWEBVSN.RVW 961109 "Web Visions", Eugene Marlow Ph. D., 1997, 0-442-02453-3, U$29.95 %A Eugene Marlow Ph. D. emabb@cunyvm.cuny.edu %C 115 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10003 %D 1997 %G 0-442-02453-3 %I Van Nostrand Reinhold (VNR) %O U$29.95 800-842-3636 212-254-3232 fax: 212-254-9499 aburt-murray@vnr.com %P 273 %T "Web Visions" Week in, week out, I get another "how to use the Web for business" book across my desk. And week in, week out, the author has gotten hold of a copy of Netscape and gone surfing to look at all the pretty little corporate logos on the net. Lots of opinion, lots of gee whiz, lots of enthusiasm, and almost no information. Marlow has gone to a number of people involved with the creation, maintenance, promotion, and business evaluation of a select number of the most successful corporate sites on the Web. He interviewed them in depth, and analyzed the results. The history and evolution of original plans to current activity is included. In addition, he has looked at the most recent business research into Internet use. The result is a thoroughly informed and tremendously practical guide to Web creation and use. (Not only on the Internet: three corporate Intranet setups are studied as well.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKWEBVSN.RVW 961109 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ From: hanuman@clark.net (John Many Jars) Subject: Sprint, Contracts and Trustworthiness Date: 27 Feb 1997 17:13:56 GMT Organization: Hanumanji Given the huge uproar about Fridays Free here a few months back, and a few months before that, and a few months before that ... I thought this might be of interest to Sprint followers. Here in Washington DC, Sprint has a PCS system in place: Sprint Spectrum. The rates are quite good, the phones are relatively cheap, and there's no contract required. Apparently, though, they offer contract rates to certain businesses and students that are even better: monthly charges of $7.50 or $10.00 a month, with .10 peak and .25 off-peak airtime charges. These rates used to include handset replacement insurance, but that's changed recently. A lot of these contract users are up in arms because Sprint apparently changed their policy recently. Though the users are bound by their contract, with high costs to cancel, Sprint has now decided that they need to pay $4/month for handset replacement insurance, and changed the terms of the insurance as well. They were sent cards in the mail informing them that if they didn't reply in a short time, they would automatically be charged the additional $4/month and if they didn't want the insurance, they could continue service at the same rates without the $4 insurance included. Granted, that $10/month is a *great* price for service, and an additional $4 is still cheap service, but it seems like Sprint is treating these contracts as applying only to the users and not to them. For some users (students, for example) that 40% increase in price can be pretty hefty, and the policy of "mail in this coupon immediately or we'll start charging you" seems kind of sneaky as well. jmj [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are talking typical Sprint business tactics. They realize many subscribers will not receive the coupons in the mail (either in time, or considering the postal service, at all) and of those who do, some will fail to read it carefully, etc. Sprint's attitude has always been that contracts apply to customers, not the other way around. I've always been amazed that after the Free Friday fiasco, where they bait-and-switched how many ever thousands of people into changing their long distance service fraudulently that various attorney's general did not get a cease and desist order against the company and or start a class action lawsuit. Sprint is really getting as bad as a couple of pyramid telco resellers I could name. Given their extreme anti-labor tactics (remember the telemarketing hellhole Sprint was running in San Francisco?), their attitude that customers can be damned when it comes to honoring the bogus deals their customer service people cook up apparently with no authority at all, etc, it really is hard to imagine that the government has not slapped them very hard by now. Money talks, I guess, and Sprint has a lot of it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: evil@Empire.Net (Dave Nye) Subject: NH-NYNEX Rant of the Month Date: 27 Feb 1997 17:42:36 GMT Organization: Empire.Net Inc. info@empire.net Here's my NYNEX rant of the week ... three actually. Get CTC to get NYNEX to install a FR line and 32 Centrex lines into a POP location for us. They say, 45 business days, *grumblebitchmoan* Okay says I. 45 business days go by, Saturday I wake up in a cold sweat thinking that for some reason CTC and/or NYNEX forgot to put the order in for the FR line ... even though I've checked with CTC twice. Monday arrives, I get a call from the NYNEX tech; he's ready to install the Centrex lines. I say great! I'll be right there. He works on getting things done and I mention that the FR T-1 would be installed today as well so he had to make room on our 100 pair cable patch board, etc. He calls for me to check on the fate of the NYNEX T-1 guy after a few hours of waiting, they don't have an order. Panic sets in and I call CTC (Computer Telephone) and ask why the NYNEX guy can't find a record of the order. He finally fesses up that he didn't make the order, I go a tad balistic and tell him that this is only the 6th POP we've done in a few months and we always get 32 centrex lines and a FR link ... why did he think this was different??? I tell him to expedite at all costs the order for the FR T-1, I figure it can't be that bad I can throw a rock to the CO (yes, I actually did throw a few). He comes back a couple days later and says he's made the order but I can't have a date yet. (Time goes by ... I am now calling 2 x daily for a install date.) Nynex tech calls, says I am ready to install your FR T-1, can you open the door. I say GREAT!! I go up and call CTC asking why they hadn't told me, he says he hadn't heard a thing and no date was scheduled. Well, someone has a date because the NYNEX tech is standing next to me working on the line, the CTC rep comes over to the POP and sees for himself and chats with the NYNEX guy. Problem ... they don't have a circuit id and he's got to get the CO to do their handywork anyway, so he's just gonna do the physical work in the POP today. Two days go by and CTC still can't find out who did the job for the link ... and still no Circuit ID. Now the NYNEX tech calls again, things are ready and he's ready to test out to the CO. Done ... Call CTC ... NYNEX has no clue about an install date. I said it's INSTALLED already; just give me the damn Circuit ID so I can start passing packets. *sigh* ... still nothing; nobdy has a clue at NYNEX and I still can't light my fire. Different POP than above. NYNEX is supposed to install 32 centrex lines, I always have them extend the demark and give me a RJ21x connection for my special Octopus cable. (And I force the CTC folks to burn this into the order with a hot iron.) I drive over and the tech complains that he hadn't even started the job from the street box four blocks away and he was going to have to wire down a bunch of lines and get them connected to the telco room. And down the hall to the office ... right.. Huh says he ... extending the demark says I. Hmm, that's not on this order. It is now says I and he calls his NYNEX handler and they go around and around. Okay says they, but it's gonna take another day of work because he doesn't have a helper or the 100 pair cable long enough, etc. No problem says I, just for kicks ... these are Centrex and on a hunt group, right? Yeah, they're Centrex; ummm ... hunt group? *Doh!* He calls the handler again who knows me by name and decided she better not talk with me today as I slowly boil over. Tech gets most of the job done to the telco room done the first day and comes back with help and cable and gets it all wired up before noon, except only ten lines; he's gonna have to work on the other lines. No problem, I finish my install of equipment and test out the first ten lines, no problem. Go home, test the full 32 that evening, everything is working, even the hunt group!! Great says I. Next morning test again before we sign up customers; works great. Sign up customer, he logs in; great, working good. Noon he calls saying it's just ringing, is something broken already? *doh!*, I put him on hold and test out a few numbers; only the second number out of 32 work, all others just ring no answer *sigh*. I give him the working number and call CTC and NYNEX again. So ... what was that about a free month on a down time of a leased line?? :) I've had at least one four hour outage. Three hours of that time it was sitting on the repair service tech's screen while she went (somewhere, no clue) I call three times and finally get a tech. He finds the note and says OH! This is a T-1! Duh ... Yes, says I ... We'll get right on this he says. And this is just THIS month's happy NYNEX stories ... *sigh* I want my money back!! :) Or at least a competitor or three to liven things up around here..tis' far too boring. :) Dave [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You want your money back? Why did you pay in advance knowing the reputation they have? Did anyone see the feature in the {New York Post} recently regarding Nynex? Nynex referred to it (the article) as a 'hatchet job' on the company, and I have to say after reading the copy sent to me that frankly I was embarassed for the two people I know by name who work for the company. Nynex is a lot like Sprint in this regard: You should NEVER pay them up front for anything until they do whatever they have promised to do. In Sprint's case I long ago recommended that readers should instruct their accounts payable department to put a complete freeze on payments Sprint alleges are due until a lot of the problems in the company are cured. The same situation would appear to be the case with Nynex: tell them until the work meets your requirements that you will not authorize payment on the job. If by chance you have already paid them for a job on which the work is unsatisfactory then hold back payment on another job. Do not turn it into a situation where you have to beg them to give you credit for downtime; reverse it so that telco comes to you looking for payment. That is the one thing they understand. Do not let their collection department bully you or get obnoxious with you. Tell them your payment terms are 45 days ... maybe; just like their promises. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: 3Com Buying US Robotics Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:34:52 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) 3Com buying U.S. Robotics for $6.6 billion By CLIFF EDWARDS AP Business Writer CHICAGO (AP) -- 3Com Corp., a maker of computer networking products, is buying modem maker U.S. Robotics for $6.6 billion as the two seek to become a leader in the business of connecting computers. The deal, announced Wednesday, will create a high-tech company with $5 billion in annual revenue and more than 12,000 employees. "The combination of 3Com and U.S. Robotics dramatically alters the networking landscape," Eric Benhamou, 3Com's chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. Computer networking involves linking groups of machines, often within a single company, to allow employees to work together even if they are several hundred miles apart. It is one of the fastest-growing areas in the computer business today. 3Com will acquire U.S. Robotics for its own stock, giving Robotics shareholders 1.75 shares of 3Com for each share they hold. The works out to $6.6 billion as of the market's close, or $68.25 a share. The combined company will retain the 3Com name and Benhamou will remain chairman and CEO. 3Com and U.S. Robotics together will be able to provide customers with the hardware necessary to create networks, including interface cards that allow computers to understand each other, and high-speed modems. Casey Cowell, chairman and chief executive of U.S. Robotics, said the combination will allow the new company to sell its products to a variety of customers including big and small corporations, telephone carriers, network and Internet service providers, and consumers. The news was announced after markets closed Wednesday. 3Com shares closed at $39, down 12 1/2 cents on the Nasdaq Stock Market. U.S. Robotics was off 50 cents at $61 in Nasdaq trading. 3Com shares have fallen by almost 50 percent in the past month amid concerns about general weakness in the networking sector that have also weighed on U.S. Robotics' stock. Cowell will become vice chairman of 3Com after the deal is completed, which is expected this summer. The companies said there would be an unspecified charge against earnings to account for the deal in the quarter in which it is completed. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This came as quite a surprise to us locals here in Skokie also; of particular interest to me was the announcement that few or none of the employees based here in Skokie will be offered employment on the west coast with the merged companies. Whether or not they plan to continue any local presence here is uncertain at this time. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #55 *****************************