Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA12842; Mon, 6 May 1996 12:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 12:29:40 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605061629.MAA12842@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #218 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 96 12:29:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 218 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service (John Mayson) Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service (Al Varney) Re: MFS Purchases UUNET (lr@access1.digex.net) Re: MFS Purchases UUNET (Russell Blau) Re: MFS Purchases UUNET (Barry Margolin) Re: Possible Work-Around to Avoid 911 ANI? (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave (TELECOM Digest Editor) PTT Voice Mail Outside the US (David Yewell) Paying More and Getting Less? No Way! (David M. Seldon) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Mike Fox) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Manuel Maese) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Mike Morris) GSM Datacard Under Linux? (Roman Maeder) 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: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.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: jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) Subject: Re: Big Problems With AT&T Worldnet Service Date: Mon, 6 May 96 10:04:29 EDT The debate over AT&T Worldnet Service continues, so I thought I'd get my two cents in before Pat kills this thread. ;-) I had to request my Worldnet software FOUR times before I received it. I had basically given up, then it arrived one day in the mail. I opened it up and discovered there is no local number for Melbourne/Cocoa, Florida. When I got to work the next day, I e-mailed them explaining how a Cocoa number is dialable by over 350,000 residents of one of the most technologically advanced counties in the nation, Brevard County, Florida, home of Kennedy Space Center. I don't know if anything will come of this. I called BellSouth and asked if there is any way I could call Orlando or Daytona at a reduced rate, or a plan to call those cities as if it were a local call. They said such plans do exist, but not for Melbourne. I decided to sign-up anyway, use their toll-free 1-800 number sparingly, and wait for a local number someday. Signing up was a nightmare. I started before dinner and didn't actually have a sign-on until around midnight. The sign-up program resembles a stripped down version of Netscape and the whole process was very, very, very, very slow. It was at this time I realized my mail didn't work. I kept getting "connection timed out {10060}". It would take five days of phone call after phone call to get this problem remedied. I finally decided to reload the software from scratch and the problem went away. I must've flubbed something up while installing it the first time. I was pleasantly surprised to discover other mail programs work with AT&T Worlnet, as do various telnet and ftp programs. This is a true PPP service, not some cheesy "on-line, info superhighway, get people wired" service like AOL or Prodigy. I'm sticking with Worldnet for a number of reasons. One is the nationwide portability. This is a nationwide service. They even have a number for San Juan, PR (with a 787 NPA listed to boot!). Second is the 24/7 help line. Now, we do have many, many, ISPs in this area (perhaps why AT&T has no number here), but they tend to come and go and at best people at work say they're all "okay". They "usually" don't get a busy signal and "sometimes" it's not too slow. So far I've never had a busy signal and everything seems really fast. If you can survive the sign-up process, Worldnet is worth the trouble. John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | john.mayson@harris.com ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp4.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service Date: 5 May 1996 23:18:23 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies (partially-owned by AT&T) In article , wrote: > In , Greg Eiche com> writes: >> Does anybody have any insight in the problems that AT&T WorldNet has >> been having in registering new accounts? I tried to register for a >> new account today with the software they just sent me, and was >> unsuccessful. When I called AT&T's tech support, I was told that >> their server was overloaded with people trying to sign up and that >> they were having major problems. I couldn't help but laugh when I >> recalled all the reports that AT&T was going to give the ISPs a real >> run for their money. It's quite amazing that the world's largest >> telecom can't get it right!! I, for one, plan to stick with my local >> ISP ... > Except for the fact that no "local ISP" could handle thousands or tens > of thousands of registrations PER DAY either. It's when you get a > *busy* signal calling AT&T Worldnet that you should feel free to > laugh ... Not an excuse, just a data point: AT&T's quarterly report indicates calls to WorldNet for new accounts ran 212,000 in the first two weeks, or a new call every 4 seconds, 24 hours a day. Probably more than estimated ... Al Varney - not an official spokesperson for anyone/anything ------------------------------ From: lr@access1.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: MFS Purchases UUNET Date: 6 May 1996 13:48:51 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank TELECOM Digest Editor (ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu) wrote: > In a press release Tuesday, the companies said the merger will create > a single source for Internet, voice, other data and video services > over its international fiber optic network. Thanks, but no thanks. I've been a UUNET customer since practically it's inception, first with UUCP service and then with Alternet. When they started service was exemplary. In the past two years customer service has gone in the toilet. We've had numerous unexplained outages. Network Operations *never* returns calls or e-mail. One time I called and they just put the phone down on the desk without even speaking a word. They put a nice web page in for outages, but when their entire DNS system went to pot one day, they never bothered to mention it there. > I am wondering what Digest readers think of this, and what differences > they see in the months ahead in the performance of the two companies. > In particular, what about UUNET and its long standing role with the > net for many years. Comments welcome. I think we ought not let UUNET rest on it's glory from being one of the first commercial providers but demand a level of service competitive to the industry. ------------------------------ From: RussBlau@cris.com (Russell Blau) Subject: Re: MFS Purchases UUNET Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 16:38:20 GMT On Thu, 2 May 96 11:40 CDT, rem@dsiinc.com (Ron Mackey) wrote: > Frankly, I'm more concerned with the smaller ISP's that currently use > MFS as their primary Internet connection. If I'm not mistaken, all of > the major ISPs in the Chicago area currently use MFS's services, in > one form or another. My question is "Now that MFS owns their own > major ISP, what is going to happen to all the other independent ISP's > currently serviced by MFS?" I suspect that they will find service as good as ever, if not improved. The reason is quite simple. As pointed out earlier in this thread, there are a few other telecommunications carriers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint to name a few) that have a little bit of Internet expertise as well as some modest network facilities. :-) I'm sure these guys would be more than happy to provide service to any ISPs that become dissatisfied with MFS. So, expect MFS to provide top-flight service at highly competitive prices. The UUNET merger should be a positive development for other ISPs. Disclaimer: My firm represents MFS in regulatory matters, but the above opinions are my own. Russell M. Blau RussBlau@cris.com Swidler & Berlin, Chtd. Phone: 202-424-7835 Washington, D.C. Fax: 202-424-7645 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: MFS Purchases UUNET Date: 5 May 1996 18:28:11 -0400 Organization: BBN Planet Corp., Cambridge, MA In article , Ron Mackey wrote: > My question is "Now that MFS owns their own > major ISP, what is going to happen to all the other independent ISP's > currently serviced by MFS?" Most likely, very little. Supplying circuits to other ISP's is a major source of MFS's income, and it's unlikely that they would abandon that market. MFS isn't the only circuit provider that has gone into the ISP business. Last year, AT&T started selling our Internet connectivity service (it's their "Worldnet MIS Plus" service). Yet they continue to sell circuits to other ISP's. To me, this seems about the same as the recent mergers between telephone and cable companies. They'll make little difference to cable and telephone customers. The purpose of the mergers is to take advantage of synergies that are possible in the emerging technologies. Barry Margolin BBN PlaNET, Cambridge, MA barmar@bbnplanet.com Phone (617) 873-3126 - Fax (617) 873-6351 ------------------------------ From: jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com Subject: Re: Possible Work-Around to Avoid 911 ANI? Date: Mon, 06 May 96 06:11:48 PDT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article , writes: > If I do *67 and call the local non-emergency number, and then get > transferred to the dispatcher; and assuming that the non-emergency > number does not have ANI but the dispatch number does, can the > dispatcher do ANI after the call has started? > PS. Um, I know how CID works and when -- that's why I'm asking. I think you are confusing Caller ID with Automatic Number ID. 911 calls deliver ANI using MF signaling to a 911 Operator. *67 is used with CID to prevent display of the caller's calling number, not the caller's ANI. *67+1800numbers deliver ANI to the 800 owner, but not the caller's calling number to the party that answers the 800 call. A separate data line is needed to deliver ANI to the party that answers the 800 call. Where are all these parties anyway ;-). CID uses privacy bits to indicate whether the delivered calling number is to be displayed or not. Only 1 bit is needed but 2 are used anyway. 00+CID means "OK to display my number and if you use that to look up my name then it's OK to display my name, too." 01+CID means "Display Private or Anonymous, not my name or number." Also, *67 will not prevent your calling number from being delivered to the called switch for tracing or reporting the call to law enforcement officials. It will only prevent its display to the called party who can use *56 at the end of the call to cause a printout of the calling number at the called switch. CID has never been delivered to a 911 center since CID requires ISUP signaling for inter-switch calling and, at least as far as I know, emergency centers only have MF signaling. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ Date: 06 May 1996 08:57:08 GMT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Re: Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave Someone wrote me over the weekend with the following response to the subject line which appeared last week. Unfortunatly the header information got botched up; I do not know who sent it, but it seems to make some good points. PAT ------------------ Theresa Riter wrote on the subject: Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave. Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 11:22:18 -0500 > I would like to find out some basic information about direct link > microwave. We got a price quote on a T-1 from South Dakota to > Arizona ... ouch! A friend suggested that we look into direct link > microwave for voice and data transmission. Any information would be > appreciated. Theresa: Watch your back! Although I have an admittedly biased perspective, there are a lot of things radio salesmen forget to mention. 1. Insurance, for the physical equipment, and for loss of businees when it breaks (notice I said "when", not "if"). 2. Periodic calibration and checks by licensed technicians. 3. Air Rights. Never heard of them? What if someone puts another building/tower/billboard in your microwave path? If you don't own the "air right", you're stuck with moving your microwave to a higher tower or even buying a mid-point location to put in a relay. 4. Power requirements: a rainstorm can turn a perfectly good link into a perfectly useless radio. Be sure your system is engineered by an independent professional who'll tell you the class of equipment you need up front, instead of selling you an underpowered "starter" unit and bumping you after the first failure. 5. FCC rules changes. If the technology changes to allow higher channel density, the FCC will order you to upgrade so more users can get licenses. You have no say in this. 6. Backups. Sooner or later, you'll take a lightning hit. If you don't have signed contracts in your pocket that specify prompt response and prices, you'll be buying new houses for the people who come to fix it. And if you think I'm joking, ask yourself how many men you know that are willing to climb a two hundred foot tower. 7. Complaints of interference: if your antenna is on leased space, as most are, you'll be forced into expensive arbitration if any other user complains that your signal interferes with theirs. Even if you own the site, others can complain to the FCC or even sue you if their system's performance changes when you turn yours on. ------------------------------ From: David Yewell Subject: PTT Voice Mail Outside the US Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 14:49:49 -0700 Organization: Netcom I'm interested in learning about the availability of PTT supplied voice mail or voice messageing services in Europe, specifically in Germany, France and Holland. Very simply, 1. Is PTT provided voicemail available? 2. How long has it been available, is it successful? 3. Are there technical barriers to introducing voice mail? I would appreciate any info you could e-mail me. Thanks, Dave Yewell yewell@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:29:38 -0700 From: dseldon@ix.netcom.com (David M. Seldon) Subject: Paying More and Getting Less? No Way! On May 1, 1996, TUrner-7 writes; > As an individual consumer, not a telco employee/provider/beneficary -- > I fail to see how we consumers have benefited from long distance > competition. In the mid 1970s, I made lots of long distnace calls, > and AT&T rates were quite modest back then -- and it wasn't competition > that forced them down. > Rationalize it any way you want, thanks to divesture, I'm paying more > and getting less. Consider the facts - Example: An 11 minute, 700 mile interstate phone call, placed in the evening (not nights/weekends) on AT&T residential service. The cost of such a call over time has been as follows: 1975 $2.52 1982-3 $2.95 (Divestiture 1987 $2.08 1992 $1.54 1993 $1.65 1994 $1.76 1995 $1.87 These costs are undiscounted -- since about all one needs to do to get a 25% discount is ask, a more realistic 1995 cost would be $1.40. Discounts were not available for small residential customers from pre-divestiture AT&T. So the cost of a call these days is approximately 1/2 of the cost of the same call at divestiture. If one considers the effects of inflation, today's effective cost is only about 30% of the cost at divestiture. Calls placed for other distances, and at other time periods, as well as calls placed with other carriers rates have followed a similar pattern. The example above is not "rationalization", but simple math. I am paying less, and getting more. The current system is certainly not perfect -- what system is? But because of divestiture, costs of the long haul portion (POP - POP) of long distance calls have been stripped of "fat" by market competition. The only fat remaining is in the costs of the local access portion, which are paid to the monopoly local exchange carriers. These costs are under tremendous pressure, and are bound to come down as local competition increases. We're soon to see increasing chaos and confusion in the telecom marketplace, perhaps similar to the first years after divestiture. Competitive markets are messy and confusing, but they are the only way the customer gets to vote with dollars every day. Those votes really count -- they are what has dragged the cost of long distance calling down so drastically. Dave Seldon TeleCom Consultants dseldon@ix.netcom.com 615-646-1649 ------------------------------ From: Mike Fox Date: 6 May 96 12:47:59 GMT Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop > Take the money! > If the endorsement states that, by cashing the check, you are giving > your consent to have your service switched it seems like a legitimate > contract. > The fact that your consent is not sufficient to switch is something > that is not within the four corners of the agreement. The phone companies are getting more and more sophisticated about this. The check he got probably says that 1) he certifies that he is the person authorized to change LD on the line (not true in this case) and 2) he agrees to the switch. At least that's what was on an MCI check I recently received. They had screwed up and sent me one of these checks for someone else's phone line. I examined it very carefully before deciding to toss it. BTW, the check also required that I call them from the line in question to get an authorization code that had to be written in a box on the front that says "void if incorrect code here" -- though how the bank could verify that I have no idea. I bet it would sail through my bank and bounce at their bank, which is probably a captive institution like AT&T Universal Bank and therefore trained to verify the codes. So I think it's getting harder and harder to screw the phone companies on these checks, as each time they get burned they react in the next bunch they send out. Later, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 21:01:51 -0500 From: Manuel Maese Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop Dear Atri, Lucky one! I lived for three years in a similar situation (college dorms), but despite similar pestering dinner-time calls, I never got any check. My two cents: go ahead and cash the check. But don't assume that the telemarketing calls soliciting your switch to AT&T will stop. The department responsible for switching you may not be in perfect communications with their marketing department. Who knows, you may eventually get yet another check! Enjoy the extra cash! Manuel Maese mmaese@geotek.com ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Mon, 5 May 1996 05:35:33 GMT Atri Indiresan writes: > Here's another twist on checks for LD switching. > I live in University housing, and we have to use their phone service > for local and long distance. However, this has not stopped AT&T from > calling me at least three times asking me to switch to them. Each time > I explained to them that given the nature of my phone service, it was > not possible to me to make the switch to them, or anyone else. > Yesterday, I received a check for $100 which, if I encash, authorizes > them to switch me to their LD service (with 40% True Reach savings for > the first 6 months). I really have no objection to being switched to > AT&T - their rates seem better than what I get now. Do you think I > should encash the check, and let them try to switch my LD service? > Once they realize that I cannot be switched, maybe they will stop > pestering me by phone? The way I see it, in spite my of telling them > more than once that I cannot be switched, if they send me a check for > $100, they deserve to lose the money. You've done your best to educate the idiots, go ahead and cash the check, but deposit in a savings account. Wait six or nine months, if they ask for it back, give it to them, but keep the interest. If they don't then have fun with it. Mike Morris morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us #include I have others, but this works the best. Looking for CDA-banned material? Try the bible: Genesis 19:30-38, or Ezeikel 23:20. ------------------------------ From: Roman Maeder Subject: GSM Datacard Under Linux? Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 13:49:36 +0200 Organization: MathConsult Dr. R. Mder Reply-To: maeder@inf.ethz.ch GSM cellular phones (which operate almost the world over, with the notable exception of the USA; GSM info is at the end of this post for those who have never heard of it before) can be connected to laptops using a special PCMCIA "data card". Such cards come with Windows software only. Before I buy my laptop and get Linux for it, I need to know whether it will be possible to drive this card. It is not listed in the list of supported PCMCIA cards in the Linux docs, but some Modem and ISDN cards are (GSM is compatible with ISDN, but the data rate is lower). How difficult would it be to write the necessary driver, starting with existing code for modem or ISDN cards? I am grateful for any hints you can give me. If you send me email, I will summarize the responses I got if something useful turns up. Roman Maeder About GSM: GSM is a European standard for mobile communication that is now adopted in many countries even outside of Europe (Australia, far east, etc.). Communication is digital and encrypted. World-wide roaming is standard. The system is similar to ISDN in its operation and supports data transmission. The identity of a subscriber is contained in a small chip card that can be inserted into any GSM phone. Phones and cards are password-protected and stolen phones can be traced or disabled if they are used. Some links about GSM: GSM/Network Information PTT GSM Info. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #218 ******************************