Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA14431; Fri, 10 May 1996 10:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:21:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605101421.KAA14431@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #229 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 96 10:21:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 229 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Excel Agents Sue Company (Discount Long Distance Digest) CTS/WorldxChange Stops Taking Orders in California (DLD Digest) FBI Refutes Charges Against Compuserve (Van Heffner) Caller ID Picks up 800 Number Calls? (Robert Bulmash) PCS Basestation Location: What Does it Take? (Bob Jacobson) Charging For 800 Calls Really is Illegal (John R. Levine) MobiLink Cellular Carriers Standardize Recordings (Stanley Cline) Help Wanted on ISDN Layer 2 and 3 Programming Protocols (Florian Damas) French ISPs Arrested on Net Pornography Charges (Jean-Bernard Condat) Information Wanted on Omnipoint PCS Network (Jon Zerden) Toshiba Strata and Voice Mail (Charles Meyer) Is There an Internet - Postal Service - Fax Connection? (Michael Snider) Can CID be Altered? (Stan Schwartz) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 06:06:01 -0700 From: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS Reply-To: vantek@northcoast.com Organization: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 1-707-444-6686 Subject: Excel Agents Sue Company Discount Long Distance Digest, Friday May 10, 1996 EXCEL BEING SUED BY AGENTS - AS STOCK GOES PUBLIC TODAY Tulsa, OK, May 10, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- Two big news stories involving Excel Telecommunications today. Excel (NYSE: ECI) finally opened up the company for public trading today in a $150 million Initial Public Offering on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock's initial trade value will be at $15 a share, with 10 million shares being offered to the public. Kenny Trout, president of the Dallas, TX based reseller, and a small number of other Excel insiders will keep over 97 million shares of the stock for themselves. Troutt's stock alone is valued at over $961 million. Unfortunately, the company's stock may not do as well as had once been expected, due largely to Thursday's announcement of a $400 million lawsuit being brought against Excel, Troutt and vice president of marketing Steve Smith. "The company is featureless as far as any expectations for big upside potential," stated David Menlow, president of IPO Financial Network. He equated the company to "blue smoke and mirrors" and stated, "We just keep hearing that this is a company that may not end up as good as some think it is." The lawsuit, filed by Independent Excel Representatives Linden Wood, Brad Campbell, Candy Campbell and Jerry Szeszulski of Tulsa, OK, claim that Smith and the company "interfered with their sales of long-distance time and training materials", as well as threatening them with termination for using training materials not sold to them by the company. Excel makes profits from the sale of training materials, and other products/services, to their independent agents. Wood is currently Excel's #2 top paid independent representative, and earns an average commission of $500,000 a month with the compamy. In addition to the above complaints, the suit also accuses Excel of being a "multilevel marketing scheme", and goes on to accuse the company of defamation, unfair competition and interference with contractual relations. On a related note, an article in Friday's edition of {The Tulsa World} blasted the company as being a "pyramid of expanding recruits originating from a single representative". Industry insider Judy Reed Smith of Atlantic-ACM, Inc. claimed in a recent interview with the paper that "You have very low potential to earn anything as an Excel IR, Independent Representative ... the vast majority never make any money." According to the paper, over half of Excel's customers drop out on average each year, and that in 1995, 86% of their independent reps opted not to pay the annual fee Excel charges to keep their positions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 06:06:01 -0700 From: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS Reply-To: vantek@northcoast.com Organization: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 1-707-444-6686 Subject: CTS/WorldxChange Stops Taking Orders in California Discount Long Distance Digest, Friday, May 10, 1996 CTS/WORLDxCHANGE STOPS TAKING ORDERS IN CALIFORNIA San Diego, CA, May 09, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- After months of pressure from groups such as the California Public Utilities Commission, The San Francisco Chronicle, DLD Digest and a local televison station, WORLDxCHANGE (aka: CTS) has finally decided to throw in the towel. The company announced in a letter to their agents this week that they would no longer be accepting commercial orders for new long distance customers within the state of California. The move comes after authorities in the state had received tens of thousands of complaints against the company for everything from deceptive marketing practices to slamming (switching a customer's long distance carrier without their prior authorization). The company has been under increasing scrutiny not only from regulators, but from the press as well. A local televison station near the company's headquarters in San Diego aired a highly critical piece about them earlier this week, and negative press has been circulating concerning the company via various newswire services for months. The company was recently ordered by the Public Utilities Commission to cease the provisioning of new customers within the state pending the outcome of an investigation into their operations. Strangely enough, in a carefully-worded letter sent to their agents, the company claimed that it had NOT been ordered to "cease doing business in California", although the company no longer has the legal ability to provision any new customers within the state. We will have even more news about CTS in tomorrow's edition of the DLD Digest Webzine. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 01:24:39 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: FBI Refutes Charges Against Compuserve CLEVELAND, May 8 (Reuter) - CompuServe, Inc and a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation said the company is not being investigated by the FBI for adult-oriented material available on its on-line network. CompuServe called "erroneous" a story in the Columbus, Ohio, {Dispatch} newspaper saying such a probe was under way. Justice Department spokesman John Russell said, "They're not under investigation. The FBI has not launched a probe." The newspaper editor could not be reached for comment. "There is absolutely, positively no investigation of CompuServe by the FBI or Department of Justice ... related to the Communications Decency Act," CompuServe spokesman Jeff Shafer said in a telephone interview. The newspaper reported that the FBI was investigating in response to a complaint from the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association which calls itself a Christian organization concerned with the biblical ethic of decency in society. Patrick Trueman, who heads the group's Washington, D.C., office, told Reuters that some material available on an on-line forum called MacGlamour contains full frontal nudity. "I felt that this was clearly what Congress intended to outlaw" in the Communications Decency Act, he said. That amendment to telecommunications law enacted in 1996 is under review in federal court. CompuServe said it offers "some of the strongest parental controls in the world" so parents can block their children's access to a variety of materials contractors offer on-line. "We feel that that is the direction we need to go -- that you need to empower the user and that it's not up to us to decide what you can and can't see" on-line," Shafer said. CompuServe said it has more than 4.7 million users. It was owned by H&R Block Inc but began trading on Nasdaq earlier this year. Block is still the majority owner. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 326 Eye Street, Suite 148 Eureka, CA 95501-0522 U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Caller ID Picks up 800 Number Calls? Date: 10 May 1996 03:37:09 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Need a conundrum? I got one for you! Someone ... please figure this out for me. I have seven phones at my business. All the lines (except the last one) hunt from one to the next. I have an 800 number camped on my primary line (first line in the hunt sequence). I have Caller ID installed on line two. Lately, when people call my 800 number, and it hunts over to line two, I get the Caller ID readout of the calling party. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home ------------------------------ From: Bob Jacobson Subject: PCS Basestation Location: What Does it Take? Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 23:20:47 -0700 Organization: Worldesign Inc., Seattle - Advanced Interface Design The location of basestations (miniature transceivers) for PCS, personal communication services, is a complex process. I would be interested in discussing with PCS network planners and engineers the intricacies of this process, to better understand what is involved and how the tools and techniques used can be improved. Thank you. Email will suffice. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 20:48:11 EDT From: John R Levine Subject: Charging For 800 Calls Really is Illegal While wandering around the net I visited the U.S. House of Representatives, where they have conveniently put the entire U.S. code on line. 47 USC 228 lists a bunch of rules the FCC is required to make, including this one: (c)(6) Billing for 800 calls A common carrier shall prohibit by tariff or contract the use of any 800 telephone number, or other telephone number advertised or widely understood to be toll free, in a manner that would result in - (A) the calling party being assessed, by virtue of completing the call, a charge for the call; (B) the calling party being connected to a pay-per-call service; (C) the calling party being charged for information conveyed during the call unless the calling party has a preexisting agreement to be charged for the information or discloses a credit or charge card number during the call; or (D) the calling party being called back collect for the provision of audio information services or simultaneous voice conservation services. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Trumansburg NY Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: MobiLink Cellular Carriers Standardize Recordings Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:52:00 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services It seems that MobiLink (the organization of B-side cellular carriers that establishes "quality standards" for themselves) has made another (unique?) requirement ... In addition to requiring participating B-side carriers to utilize standard dialing codes (*611/711/811 for customer service / roaming assistance / tech support), offer Follow-Me Roaming(tm) and meet certain other standards, MobiLink carriers are now required to use standard *intercept recordings.* These new recordings are prefaced by a short "chime", followed by the same man's voice: (for example) " The cellular customer you're calling is not available at this time. Please try your call again later. announcement one.) A few markets, such as Chattanooga, have older versions of the recordings, sans chime, which I guess is OK. The new recordings make *no* mention of the carrier's name (unless a carrier, such as 360 Communications, embeds it in the "carrier specific codes." Most carriers do identify the city the switch is in, either using the city name ("Tampa", for example) or sometimes cryptic codes ("CHT" for Chattanooga.) I found this out when I was roaming in Atlanta today and someone called me and asked, "Why did I get another recording?" (I had failed to turn call delivery off, so calls were going to the Atlanta system rather than my voice mail ... in the past, a woman's voice would answer "The BellSouth Mobility customer you have called cannot be reached ..." Most B-side carriers do not signal the home switch to route unanswered calls to voice mail; to do so was considered a violation of the MFJ.) I called BellSouth, and asked what was going on (Atlanta couldn't possibly be getting a new switch! ) and that's what they told me. I did a quick check of various carriers (calling roamer ports, and trying to find *my* phone which is here at home) and most MobiLink carriers (BellSouth, 360, Contel/GTE Mobilnet, Ameritech) all complied. Some BellSouth markets (i.e. Birmingham) haven't changed their recordings yet ... they're probably just slow. ALLTEL Mobile, which is *supposedly* MobiLink, did not in any of their markets I checked. It's possible that a few non-MobiLink carriers, under switch agreements with MobiLink carriers, may comply "by accident." United States Cellular, who is *not* MobiLink (don't ask me why), is *not* required to comply ... neither are most small carriers (InterCel in GA/AL, etc.) The "announcement numbers" seem to be standardized as well ... I have a list of those announcements (obtained when doing some casual trouble- shooting for BellSouth). At least this will make life easy on those B-side roamers who do misdial, etc ... no more having to interpret what a carrier's recording means. They are all the same (most of them, anyway). Stanley Cline, d/b/a Catoosa Computing Serv., Chatta., TN mailto:scline@usit.net -- http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CIS 74212,44 -- MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: Florian DAMAS Subject: Help Wanted on ISDN Layer 2 and 3 Programming Protocols Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 16:58:27 -0400 Organization: Immix Telecom Inc. Reply-To: immix@immixtel.com Has anyone programmed ISDN layer-2 and layer-3 protocols? What kind of algorithm did you use? How did you test your software? Do you have any good book to suggest on programming protocols with examples? florian damas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 07:57:03 +0100 From: Jean-Bernard Condat Subject: Two French ISPs Arrested on Net Pornography Charges Paris, France: May 9th, 1996 -- After the fact that a French association of Jewish Student (Union des Etudiants Juifs de France, UEJF) has issued a writ against nine French Internet Service Providers on the grounds that ISPs allow their clients to access services with negationist messages infringing French criminal law, two ISPs managers (WorldNet and FranceNet) have now been arrested for having distributed pedophilia computer files. Founded in 1994, these two companies are members of the AFPI (Association Francaise des Professionnels de l'Internet), an group of ISPs working against all forms of perversion. Rafi Heladjian (CEO of FranceNet) and Sebastien Socchard have take position in France as two major services with 2,500 customers each. Judge Berkany will be in charge of this affair. Some curious affairs will be covered such as the recently discovered publication of the entire content of the private Francois Mitterrand's book from Gruber on a French Web, the uncredible $30,000 ad of FranceNet service on all Minitel electronic phonebook ... and the delicate confusion between French WorldNet service and the same AT&T service! The poor usage of Internet ressources in France will greatly be affect by this affairs due to a stupid research of more monies. We urgently need an ethical foundation of this media in France. Jean-Bernard Condat Phone: +33 1 46963770, fax: +33 1 46963765, Itineris: +33 07238628 email: jeanbc@informix.com ------------------------------ From: Jon Zerden Subject: Information Wanted on Omnipoint PCS Network Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 02:01:56 -0400 Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc. Reply-To: zerden@nicom.com Does anyone know anything about the Omnipoint PCS network, ie. when it will be available, where it will be avaialble, prices or any other information? Thanks, Jon ------------------------------ From: charles meyer Subject: Toshiba Strata and Voice Mail Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 06:34:22 -0700 Organization: University of Minnesota I am looking for a voice mail system to work with the Toshiba Strata digital key system. The way we want to use it is fairly basic -- real person answers the phone, gives the caller option of connecting to party's voice mail then transfers call to voice mail extension. Obviously the voice mail system has to be able to answer one of the extensions of the digital key system. Any leads on systems out there? Thanks, chuck ------------------------------ From: snider@idirect.com (Michael Snider) Subject: Is There an Internet - Postal Service - Fax Connection? Organization: Internet Direct, Canada Date: 5 May 96 14:09:04 UTC Does anyone know whether there exists a link bewteen the Internet and local postal services and fax services? I want to send E-Mail over the Internet to be delivered to a non-computer user via the remote country's postal service, or send E-Mail to be faxed to the recipient at a remote location. Thanks in advance. Michael snider@idirect.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:05:16 EDT From: Stan.Schwartz@IBMMAIL Subject: Can CID be Altered? For the last few weeks, I've been puzzled by a number that had been appearing on my all of my CID devices (I'm up to 5 in the house). It wasn't any valid NPA or NNX and the name showed up as "--------------". Last night, it clicked. The number displayed is the first ten digits of an account number that I have with a bank in the northeast. This doesn't seem like mere coincidence to me. What piece of software is able to manipulate CID, and does the FCC know about this? This has the potential of rendering CID data useless. Stan stan@vnet.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Has the above display been on every call you have received over the past few weeks, or only on certain calls? If only on certain calls, has it been the same caller in each instance or different callers? Have you ever talked to the caller(s) who presented you with that display? Who else besides yourself and the bank would know this number? Please give us more information so we can work on this mystery. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #229 ******************************