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 ****************************