Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA26328; Tue, 14 May 1996 11:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 11:07:18 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605141507.LAA26328@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #235 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 May 96 11:07:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 235 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Administration Opposes ACTA Petition (Monty Solomon) GST Sues City of Tucson Over Right-of-Way Payments (Nigel Allen) Pac*Bell Targeted Direct Marketing (Linc Madison) Pac Bell Behind the Times (was: Public Comment on Area Codes) (L. Madison) Book Review: "Internet in Plain English" by Pfaffenberger (Rob Slade) Pyramid Scam on the Internet (Tad Cook) Anyone Else Slammed by Heartline? (Robert Bononno) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 00:04:59 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Administration Opposes ACTA Petition Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:13:48 -0400 From: "Thomas A. Kalil" Subject: Administration opposes ACTA petition May 8, 1996 The Honorable Reed Hundt Chairman Federal Communication Commission Room 814 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20554 Re: RM 8775 Dear Chairman Hundt: This letter addresses the petition for rulemaking filed before the Commission by America's Carriers Telecommunication Association (ACTA) in March 1996. ACTA asks the Commission to: (1) order Internet software providers to "immediately stop their unauthorized provisioning of telecommunications software"; 2) confirm the Commission's authority over interstate and international telecommunications services offered over the Internet; and 3) institute rules to govern the use of the Internet for providing telecommunications services. On behalf of the Administration, NTIA strongly urges the Commission to deny the ACTA Petition. The Petition not only mischaracterizes the existing law, but also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which the Internet operates and of the services now making use of the Internet. ACTA requests that the Commission stop firms such as the Respondents from selling software that enables "a computer with Internet access to be used as a long distance telephone, carrying voice transmissions, at virtually no charge for the call" [ACTA Petition at i]. ACTA asserts that such firms are common carrier providers of telecommunications services that should not be allowed to operate without first obtaining a certificate from the Commission [ACTA Petition at 6-7]. That argument is wrong. The Respondents provide their customers with goods, not services. Although the software that those firms sell does enable individuals to originate voice communications, all of the actions needed to initiate such communications are performed by the software users, rather than the vendors. At no time do the Respondents engage in the "transmission" of information, which, according to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is the sine qua non of both a telecommunications service and a telecommunications carrier. [See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 3(a) amending Section 153 of the Communications Act of 1934 to add new definitions of "telecommunications," "telecommunications service," and "telecommunications carrier."] In that critical sense, the Respondents are no more providing telecommunications services than are the vendors of the telephone handsets, fax machines, and other customer premises equipment that make communications possible. ACTA also asks the Commission for a declaratory ruling "confirming its authority over interstate and international telecommunications services using the Internet." [ACTA Petition at 6. While ACTA claims the Commission has jurisdiction to regulate the Internet pursuant to Section 1 of the Communications Act, citing United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968), ACTA also acknowledges that such jurisdiction is limited to actions ancillary to the effective performance of its specific responsibilities under other parts of the Act. Id. at 5,7-8. ACTA suggests that unregulated growth of the Internet presents "unfair competition" to Title II regulated interexchange carriers that "could, if left unchecked, eventually create serious economic hardship on all existing participants in the long distance marketplace" and could be "detrimental to the health of the nation's telecommunications industry and the maintenance of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure." Id. at 4, 5. Voice telephony via the Internet, however, is still a limited and cumbersome capability: both parties to the call need computers and must have compatible software. Moreover, there is no assurance that a call placed will be completed or not interrupted. While the technology involved may improve rapidly, presently there is no credible evidence to justify Commission regulation of the Internet.] In fact, as the Federal Networking Council pointed out in comments filed on May 4, there are no telecommunications services currently being offered via the Internet. The services that now involve the Internet are more likely to be "enhanced," or information services over which the Commission has disclaimed jurisdiction under the Communications Act. The Commission decision in the 1980's not to regulate enhanced services was a wise one that has conferred substantial benefits on American consumers. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 in no way requires a change in that decision. The Internet now connects more than 10 million computers, tens of millions of users, and is growing at a rate of 10-15 percent a month. This growth has created opportunities for entrepreneurs to develop new services and applications such as videoconferencing, multicasting, electronic payments, networked virtual reality, and intelligent agents. Perhaps more importantly, it creates a growing number of opportunities for consumers to identify new communication and information needs and to meet those needs. The Commission should not risk stifling the growth and use of this vibrant technology in order to prevent some undemonstrated harm to long distance service providers. If Internet-based services eventually develop to an extent that raises concerns about harm to consumers or the public interest, the Commission would have ample time to more fully address the issue. Now is not that time. NTIA, therefore, urges the Commission to reject the ACTA petition without delay. Larry Irving Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information cc: The Honorable James H. Quello The Honorable Rachelle B. Chong The Honorable Susan Ness ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 00:40:48 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: GST Sues City of Tucson Over Right-of-Way Payments Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Here is a press release from GST Telecommunications, Inc. regarding a lawsuit against the city of Tucson over right-of-way payments. I don't work for GST, and I don't have any information about the dispute beyond what appears in the press release. I found the press release on the Canadian Corporate News web site at http://www.cdn-news.com/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: GST Telecommunications, Inc. Robert Blankstein 1-800-667-4366 or GST Telecommunications, Inc. John Warta (360) 254-4700 FOR: GST TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. AMEX SYMBOL: GST MAY 13, 1996 GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc., Sues City of Tucson to End Discriminatory Licensing Practices VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON -- GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc., a subsidiary of GST Telecom, Inc., filed suit today in U.S. District Court, seeking to set aside the City of Tucson's regulations regarding telecommunications carriers' use of public right-of-way. GST alleges that the City of Tucson is violating the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by applying its regulations in a discriminatory manner. The City of Tucson seeks to impose substantial licensing and franchising fees on new entrants in the City's telecommunication market. The city has granted, without any explanation, an exemption from such fees to one favored local carrier. GST's lawsuit asks the court to strike down the city's unfair terms, or to apply them equally to all telecommunications carriers providing service in Tucson. GST maintains that the city government actions favor the incumbent local telecommunications company and that such actions violate the Telecommunications Act, which clearly mandates that state and local governments treat all competitors equally with regard to the use of public rights-of-way. Further, GST contends that the Telecommunica- tions Act prohibits local government from discriminating against one class of carrier in favor of the long-established, dominant local telecommunications carrier. According to GST Telecom President Earl Kamsky, "The city's actions have the effect of promoting one service provider over others and denying the benefits of open competition in the local telecommun- ications market. In addition, the city's actions are illegal under the Telecommunications Act. The city is creating an unfair business climate, ultimately denying the citizens of Tucson the benefit of choice." Jeffrey Mayhook, legal counsel for GST, added, "GST had no alternative but to take action against the city. After several months of negotia- tions in an effort to reach an agreement, the city insists that GST pay the fees and waive its rights under the Act." GST Telecommunications, Inc. (AMEX:GST), currently operates networks in fourteen cities in the western United States and Hawaii, with an additional six cities under construction in the San Francisco Bay area. The company provides a broad range of integrated telecommun- ications products and services, through the development and operation of competitive access and other telecommunications networks. GST's primary focus is customers located in Tier II and Tier III markets in the western United States and Hawaii. In addition, the company manufactures telecommunications switching equipment and provides network management and billing systems through its wholly-owned subsidiary National Applied Computer Technologies, Inc. of Orem, Utah. ------------------ forwarded by: Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:30:43 -0700 From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac*Bell Targeted Direct Marketing Lest any of you wonder why we're having so many area code splits, consider this letter I got in the mail last week from Pacific Bell. PACIFIC * BELL N E T W O R K How will you use it?[SM] Use an extra phone line from Pacific Bell and you can talk, fax, e-mail and surf to your heart's content Dear Linc Madison: Chances are, you like to talk on the phone whenever you want. For as long as you want. That's why you have one additional phone line already. But these days, phone lines can be used in many different ways. Besides just talking, you may want to use your lines to fax, e-mail or surf the Internet. All of which can make it more challenging to share the phone, even when you already have two lines. Add a third phone line and keep it to yourself [cartoon text balloon: "for just 37 cents a day!"] It can make a lot of sense to get another phone line from Pacific Bell. Especially if you'd like to make it easier to work at home. Or use your phone line for more than just conversation. Think about it. You could use one line to talk. Another line to send faxes to the office. And a third line to hit all the hot web sites on the Net. An extra line is surprisingly affordable. For just $11.25 a month, our flat rate residential line offers you unlimited local calling. With this option, your local service is only 37 cents a day. If you don't make many local calls, you can lower your cost even more by using our measured rate service for $6 a month. And with a low installation charge of $34.75 (we can bill you over three months, interest free), adding an extra line makes it easy on your budget, too. Sign up now and save up to $326 on a Panasonic phone or fax machine. Order a third line from Pacific Bell by May 31, 1996, and you can save from $20 to $50 on a Panasonic phone. Or from $163 to $326 on a Panasonic fax machine. See the enclosed insert for complete details. So let Pacific Bell help you enjoy another one of life's little extras. Just call us at 1-800-314-6712 to set up an appointment to have a third line installed in your home. Then if you ever want to talk, fax and surf the Net -- all at the same time -- there won't be anything to stop you. Sincerely, Mark Pitchford Vice President, Consumer Markets P.S. When you order an extra line, check out the enclosed insert to get great savings on a Panasonic phone or fax machine. [fine print at the bottom of the page: ... Due to capacity levels, Pacific Bell cannot guarantee the availability of additional lines in all areas. ...] ------------------------------------------------ Well, I know for a fact that the wiring in my apartment will not handle a third line; it's good old RGBY. I don't know the gauge by sight, but it's definitely thicker than the stuff used in modern multi-pair wiring. Aside from that, if I were to get a third line, it would probably be ISDN, which they don't mention. It is interesting, though, that they seem to pretty clearly imply that I can get measured rate on the new line even if I have flat rate on the existing lines. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Eureka.vip.Best.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac Bell Behind the Times (was: Public Comment on Area Codes) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:52:46 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Tad Cook wrote: > SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 10, 1996-- > [Pac Bell press release about the CPUC decision to allow Pac Bell to > present both overlay and geographic split options for area code relief] > Nationwide, the first overlay area code was introduced in New York in > 1992. And last year, the Maryland State Public Utilities Commission > ordered an overlay for the 301 area code serving the entire state. Hello? Pacific Bell? There's this little thing called "area code 410." It covers about half of the state of Maryland. It has since 11/1/91. The state of Maryland will be adding *TWO* overlay area codes, one for each of the existing area codes. Oh, by the way, area code 268* (Antigua & Barbuda, active for over six weeks now) is still blocked at the switch by Pacific Bell. Perhaps the merger with SBC is getting bogged down because Pacific Bell keeps trying to dial 512 for San Antonio. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:21:48 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet in Plain English" by Pfaffenberger BKINTIPE.RVW 960417 "Internet in Plain English", Bryan Pfaffenberger, 1994, 1-55828-385-4, U$19.95/C$25.95 %A Bryan Pfaffenberger bp@virginia.edu %C 115 West 18th Street, New York, NY 10011-4195 %D 1994 %G 1-55828-385-4 %I MIS Press/M&T Books/Henry Holt %O U$19.95/C$25.95 +1-212-886-9378 fax: +1-212-633-0748, +1-212-807-6654 %O 76712.2644@compuserve.com http://www.mispress.com fburke@fsb.superlink.net %P 463 %T "Internet in Plain English" This isn't an Internet guide. Or, then again, maybe it is. Pfaffenberger has compiled a glossary of Internet related terms and jargon. Beyond simply giving you the definitions, though, he has added real explanations of the significance of most of the items. The book is somewhat daunting in size, or, at least, thickness. (The small page size produces one oddity: the publisher has put headers showing the first and last term on the page. Since a single definition can easily span more than one page, and very few pages have more than three definitions, these headers are of much less help than they might be otherwise.) If the author has erred, it is on the size of inclusion. Very few Internet users will need to know what a High-speed Digital Subscriber Loop (HDSL) is. On the other hand, a few will be very interested. By and large, the definitions, and explanations, are excellent. There is a strong emphasis on netiquette and net culture. For once, in a general work, the definition of virus contains sound advice and not a single error. (Not all of the book is perfect. The entry for telnet, while it is not in error, gives an unusually misrepresented picture. The very complete coverage of the "V." data communications standards even includes a panning of the misleading "V.32terbo" marketing phrase -- but *doesn't* include the valid v.32ter standard.) This book is highly recommended for those who are new to the net, and active, but are finding themeselves constantly asking "what do you mean by _____?" copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKINTIPE.RVW 960417. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. ================== Vancouver roberts@decus.ca | This space Institute for rslade@vcn.bc.ca | intentionally Research into rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | *not* left blank User Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca | Security Canada V7K 2G6 | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to remind all readers that the Telecom Archives also has a glossary area, with several differeent glossaries on file for review. When using the Telecom Archives Email Information Service, the glossaries can be searched interactively via email by using the GLOSSARY command. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Pyramid Scam on the Internet Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:11:39 PDT Here is a news item about a pyramid scam that is being promoted on the net. By the way, I am looking for a listserver where pyramid and Ponzi schemes are discussed, and where I could post updates on scams like this. Any suggestions anyone? Tad Cook tad@ssc.com ----------------- Some Kentucky Investors Say Fortuna Alliance Is A Pyramid Scheme By Sam Greene, Lexington Herald-Leader, Ky. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News LEXINGTON, Ky.--May 13--An organization known as Fortuna Alliance which promises members 2,000 percent in profits-is apparently making inroads in Kentucky. Before investing in such a program, consumer groups like the Better Business Bureau caution potential participants to carefully consider claims of quick profits. But some Fortuna investors say they already feel duped. "It's a total scam," said Kevin Stinnett, a senior at Centre College in Danville who invested $250 in Fortuna in January. "Either it's just not going to work, or it was a total scam to begin with. I can't get a straight answer." Fortuna Alliance, described as "a profit-sharing association" on several Internet sites in the United States and abroad, promises members who invest $250 profits of $5,250. The system, in which every investor must be supported by many more investors, resembles a pyramid in structure. In Kentucky, operating or participating in a pyramid scheme is a felony, punishable by five to ten years imprisonment and up to $10,000 in fines. (The fine may be replaced by double the monetary gain from the crime, whichever is greater.) The state Attorney General's office does not have statistics about pyramid schemes because complaints are filed by company name and not by category, said Jennifer Schaaf, director of communications. Fortuna has several web sites on the Internet, but recent calls to office telephone numbers in Bellingham, Wash., and in Texas have reached only recorded messages. Fortuna did not return calls seeking comment. In Washington, the Better Business Bureau opened a file on Fortuna in November, but no complaints have been filed. The BBB said Fortuna is not licensed with the Washington state Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division. Fortuna is also not licensed as a financial institution in Kentucky. "We haven't been able to identify what it is that they (Fortuna) sell," said Tracey McLarney, president of the Better Business Bureau of Central and Eastern Kentucky, which recently listed pyramid schemes as one of the top three scams of 1996. One person who has been trying to get an answer to that is David Anderson, a professor of economics at Centre College. He has been following Fortuna mathematically ever since one of his students started promoting it. "It requires an infinitely expanding investment pool from a finite population," Anderson said. "Only the people at the top of the pyramid are going to make what they are supposed to." ON THE INTERNET: Visit Kentucky Connect, the World Wide Web site of the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader. Point your browser to: http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/heraldleader ------------------------------ From: bononno@acf2.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Anyone Else Slammed by Heartline? Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 02:03:38 -0400 Organization: New York University A few weeks ago I received a bit of a shock when I opened my phone bill and found a bill from some outfit called Heartline Communications in Texas. My local is NYNEX and my ld has been MCI for at least two years. The bill came from an outfit called US Billing (I believe), whom I had never heard of. The bill consisted of some short ld calls and a "monthly fee" for about $6. When I called US Billing, they said I would have to pay. I then called MCI. They had me listed as a customer in their database but said it didn't mean much and that I should dial the 713 number to find out my _current_ ld carrier. When I dialed I was shocked to hear a recording from someone called Frontier Communications. (???) I then called NYNEX and told them what had happened. One of the reps was familiar with Heartline and told me that get around 50 complaints a day about them. NYNEX changed me back to MCI and put a lock on the account. I called MCI and had to switch back to their service. I called Heartline (after being put on hold for around 45 minutes) and spoke to a rather antagonistic rep. I was told that I had switched and I had to pay. When I told them I had never heard of them and asked for proof in writing, they told me I had authorized the switch and they would fax me the proof in 48 hours. Well, 48 hours came and went. A week later I received a letter from Heartline stating that they wanted "my signature" so they could compare it with their records and resolve my concerns. They sent me a photocopy of some simple form with nothing more than a name and address and signature. It had my name and address on it and a signature, but it is clearly a fraud. So I'm wondering a) where they got this and b) how they have the audacity to forward it to me? Does anyone have any additional information on Heartline? I'd be interested in hearing other reports. I'm seriously considering writing to the Public Service Commission here in NY and the FCC. I mean, this is fraud after all. >> Robert Bononno ++++ bononno@acf2.nyu.edu ++++ Techline << ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #235 ******************************