Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA17027; Tue, 14 May 1996 14:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 14:34:50 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605141834.OAA17027@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #237 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 May 96 14:34:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 237 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Drastic Changes at BellSouth -- $33 For All Features (Joseph Singer) NYNEX, et al, Have Never Marketed! (John Stahl) Re: Is There an Auto-Gain Control on my Data Line? (Colin Povey) Re: ISP Sharing Protocol (to Compete With Big Money ISPs) (Kevin Shea) Re: WUTCO, WECO, Graybar (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) (G. Wollman) Re: Excel Agents Sue Company (Ken Leonard) Re: A Further Note to Those Who Ordered Clocks (Eric A. Roellig) Re: Want History of (US) Telecom Book (Michael Ward) Re: Want History of (US) Telecom Book (Ronda Hauben) About This Digest: See notes at the very bottom of this issue about who we are and how we operate. It's important! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 07:45:24 -0700 From: jsinger@scn.org (Joseph Singer) Subject: Re: Drastic Changes at BellSouth -- $33 For All Features Reply-To: jsinger@scn.org relkay01@fiu.edu (Ron Elkayam) wrote: > BellSouth is now offering Complete Choice plan for residential lines. > Lets you pick from virtually all touchstar services, as many of them > as you'd like, for a flat rate of $26/month. (Comes out to $33 when > you add access charges and taxes). You can even add and remove from a > generous list of services as often as you'd like with no connection > /disconnection fee. It's simply an amazing offer. > * Call Waiting Deluxe - includes Caller ID Name/Number, Anonymous Call > Rejection, and Caller ID while in the middle of the call. US West doesn't offer anonymous call rejection here, but in the package they are offering they are offering the specific call rejection (up to 12 numbers.) > * Speed Calling - the rep actually gave me a choice between 8 and > 30 number-memory ... guess which one I picked... US West is offering _both_ speedcall 30 _and_ speed call 8. > * Preferred Call Forwarding - I always liked forwarding certain people > to #'s like "All circuits are busy" or "Please deposit 25 cents" > * Flexible Call Forwarding - some complex service to assure you always > get the call (or something...) When I get the instructions on how > to use it, I'll be smarter... US West calls this selective call forwarding. e.g. if you want only calls from your mom to go through only only this one call will go through and the others go to another destination such as voice mail. > * Call Tracing - Three times and you're out kinda thing. No charge now. In US West area charged on a per use basis. Also in the US West package is continuous re-dial. US West is only charging $14.95 per month with a one time installation fee. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From what we have seen at one time or > another in the past, as soon as one telco starts a new plan, quite > often the others offer the same thing shortly thereafter, so perhaps > it will not be long until all the Bell Companies offer this sort of > fla rate package for features. PAT] It probably also has to do with the fact that the local Bell companies are shortly not going to be the only game in town. They've got to have some incentives to keep people around. JOSEPH SINGER ======= SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA ======== jsinger@scn.org == ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 14:52:23 GMT From: BigJohn Subject: NYNEX, et al, Have Never Marketed! In V16, #233 of TELECOM Digest, Van Hefner, Editor, Discount Long Distance Digest, wrote about NYNEX advertising their name while the merger with Bell Atlantic grinds along. Perhaps we all forget that even though the AT&T divestiture happened over 12 years ago, most all of the resultant RBOCS have never lost the "only game in town" attitude toward their perceived customer. They have put in place, albeit it reluctantly, a token sales and marketing organization. But for the most part, the people manning these positions have come from within the organization, most probably have the ingrained 'old Bell mentality' and are not seasoned professionals who have experience satisfying present and future customer needs while recognizing that there are other players in town. The RBOCS will have to open their eyes even wider as newer "rules of competition" are before them from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The CATV MSO's, the CAP's and other telecommunications providers, with eyes towards the large established customer base these LEC's have enjoyed for many years, are certain to grab many of these customers away with enhanced and combined services. To reinforce this point, just recently, there also appeared in TELECOM Digest, a report that related how the new Bell Atlantic/NYNEX company would abandon any establishment of video services; presumably originally targeted to compete with the CATV providers. As the report indicated, the company would instead concentrate on long distance service. Their reasoning regarding the comparative costs to get into each of these business' is certainly financially prudent, but, in effect, they are telling the world that anyone can come in to their territory to provide enhanced services to the home or business with out any competition of a similar kind from them. Talk about providing an open opportunity for anyone to jump in, Wow, I would certainly like to be their competition! This seems to be the general mentality of the RBOC's: Take the path of least resistance, pretend they are the only game in town and above all else satisfy the stock holders. Aside from the obvious point that they will have a very difficult time to close the flood gates opened by the Act, they may also find that their future is drastically limited by these types of 'business' decisions. Perhaps, instead, the RBOC's should think of their customers communication needs for the future and how THEY will satisfy them. ISDN, ADSL, HDSL, ATM, etc., will all open the pipeline wider to satisfy the future communication requirements but who will own the pipeline that will be used and who will provide the resultant enhanced services? There are plenty of knowledgeable marketing and sales people available in the "real world" with the talent and knowledge to help the RBOC's effectively identify and satisfy their customer's future needs. But the RBOC's need to make the decision to tap this resource. Is it too late? Probably not, if they react quickly. After all, their competition seems to be doing it! John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultants ------------------------------ From: Colin Povey Subject: Re: Is There an Auto-Gain Control on my Data Line? Date: 14 May 1996 13:15:01 GMT Organization: AT&T >> A quick question, is there anything I can ask my Telco to change on my >> data line that may make it perform better? >> Is there some Auto-Gain control they can twiddle? >> I'm just wondering if I can push my V.34+ to it's absolute limits >> since I only get 26.4Kbps to my ISP's V.34+ modems. > Sounds like you might be on a SLC-96. If so, 26,400 is as good as it > is going to get. Your only hope is to get off the SLC-96. Being on a SLC (of any type) has little or nothing to do with the quality of the circuit you are receiving. In fact, most newer buildings/areas are on SLC's and operate fine at the maximum data rate of the modem. All the SLC does is convert the analog modem signal into a digital (T1) signal for transmission. The telco is going to convert the signal eventually anyway, and the closer to your house the conversion is done (i.e. a SLC), the better. Under the tarriffs as they exist for phone service, there is nothing that you local telco must do for your line, if you can make an acceptable quality voice call over the line. If local competition is available in your area, you can try threatening to change your service to the competition. Or, you can try and get to a person at your telco who cares and try and get them to look at the line. But be aware that not every line is going to support 28.8 Kbps. Distance to the CO, age of the wire, and many other things affect the quality of your circuit. According to my companies engineers, the new unofficial 33.6 Kbps rate is likely to work on only about 20% of the local lines in the US, and even fewer outside North America. We are simply too close to the theoreaical limit for a modem/phone line combination. The theoreatical limit is around 36-38 Kbps, by the way. Hope this helps. Colin cpovey@gw.paradyne.com ------------------------------ From: telres@Gramercy.ios.com (Kevin Shea) Subject: Re: ISP Sharing Protocol (to Compete With Big Money ISPs) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:48:02 GMT Organization: Internet Online Services jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) wrote: > AT&T is now in the dialup slip and ppp business -- other long distance > companies and other big money companies are soon to follow. Long > distance carriers have a distinct advantage over smaller ISPs: they > can provide the travelling internet user with nation (and perhaps > world) wide access, without the need for making long-distance calls. > Smaller ISPs must deal with this issue, or AT&T and friends will > quickly put them out of business. > I propose that ISPs adopt a sharing protocol. This protocol will > allow a travelling internet user to dial any local internet provider > without having to go through the process of signing on and without > having to worry about paying multiple bills. How about forming a database, or databases, which would be administered by a third party and giving ISP's the opportunity to become a 'member' of this database, for a monthly or yearly fee? For example, each ISP would pay a fee to the administering party for each member (user) which it allows to be included in this database. The administering party would not be a competing company. The database would hold domain, user and password information for each member of this service. Each participating ISP would then allow other members, who are not direct customers, to log onto the net. Those members would then call a local ISP (if necessary and assuming this ISP is participating) and that local ISP would then query the database for the needed information. Once the ISP confirms the needed information, it allows the user to use it's system to access the net via PPP, SLIP, Shell, etc. Another scenerio could be that the database is not a "true" databse. It's sole purpose could be to do domain and login queries. This would be a 2 step process. The originating ISP (1st call from user) queries the primary database. Then the database queries the user's home base for login information and relays the information back to the originating ISP. Some of the statements made below refer to usage billing. I don't think this would work. The reasoning is that most ISP's promote unlimited access for a flat fee. If the ISP would incur time usage charges, they would need to pass those charges to their users. This would defeat a major marketing and promotional effort by the provider community as a whole. You might as well just stick with AT&T or AOL for that matter. Another issue addressed below is the credit problem. Well, while this might be a problem for smaller ISP's if each provider was charging time usage fees. However, if each ISP needed to pay a fee to the adminstrators of the database, there would be only one company risking the cash flow problem. This would be remedied by the administrator by removing the ISP from the database if they didn't pay their monthly fees I realize this is a raw suggestion to an increasing concern. However, if the telecom industry can form a similar solution when porting telephone numbers, I think the Internet community can collectively think of a possible solution in their scenerio. The whole issue is portability and I like the discussions happening about it. Actually, I would like to know more. If anyone knows of similiar discussions or is interested in pursuing something of this nature, I would appreciate an email. Kevin Shea Telecom Research Services telres@gramercy.ios.com http://gramercy.iios.com/~telres/telres2.html ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: WUTCO, WECO, Graybar (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) Date: 13 May 1996 15:38:58 -0400 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > suite in the local United Fruit Company office building). AT&T started > radio station WEAF New York (which later became WNBC/WRCA and I think > is now WFAN-660am). You can tell this came from an AT&T source ... AT&T's original radio license in New York was actually a station called WBAY. (The callsign doesn't mean anything; the Department of Commerce, and later the FRC and FCC assigned call signs in sequence starting with WAAB and continuing in the form WxAy, WxBy, and so on.) The original idea behind WBAY was "the telephone booth of the air"; that is to say, it was a precursor of today's leased-time radio stations. The general public were invited to make their way to the location of WBAY's transmitter in Manhattan, pay AT&T some amount of money, and then broadcast whatever they wanted for fifteen minutes. Unfortunately, WBAY was located on top of a solidly-constructed steel-and-concrete building surrounded by a whole bunch of other steel-and-concrete buildings. When the then president of AT&T, who lived in southern Connecticut, held a gathering in his home to listen to the inaugural broadcast of WBAY, his party heard nothing but static. He was furious, and the WBAY effort was immediately cancelled. It turned out, however, that WEAF's transmitter was in a much more favorable location. WEAF was used to produce more traditional (for the time) radio programming, and WBAY sank without a trace. AT&T did its best to forget that it ever existed. AT&T and its affiliates also owned a number of other stations. The only one I can think of at the moment was WCAP, in Washington, D.C., which did stand for something: the >CaP Discount Long Distance Digest, Friday May 10, 1996 > EXCEL BEING SUED BY AGENTS - AS STOCK GOES PUBLIC TODAY The representative in question is very obviously in non compliance with corporate policy and hasn't a leg to stand on. The courts will prove this out. Also, the expected damaging results against the IPO did not occur per: By John Kirkpatrick, {The Dallas Morning News} Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 12--Dallas-based Excel Communications was a smash hit at its Wall Street debut Friday, when its shares nearly doubled from $15 to $29.375 in an initial public offering. The New York Stock Exchange's opening bell was rung by Excel founder and CEO Kenny Troutt. By the end of the day, Mr. Troutt had rung up about $1.9 billion in the value of his Excel stock putting him officially in the leagues of Texas' Big Rich. Mr. Troutt, 48, holds almost 64.2 million shares, none of which were part of the initial offering. The offering was for 10 million shares, with Excel getting $15 per share, or $150 million. Friday's performance made Excel the highest percentage-gainer on U.S. exchanges. It also was the third most active stock. Excel has become a somewhat controversial company in recent weeks, as some analysts criticized its accounting methods and other matters. But buyers evidently were unfazed. Shares went as high as $33.125 at one point Friday. "It's definitely a controversial company. Most people either love it or hate it," said Ryan Jacob, director of research at IPO Value Monitor in New York. "If you look at their growth record for the past three years, you can understand the interest in the stock." Excel's revenue grew from $30.8 million in 1993 to $506.7 million in 1995. During the same period, net income rocketed from $2.4 million to $44.5 million. In the first quarter of 1996 alone, net income was $34 million on revenue of $280.8 million. Excel is a reseller of long-distance service, although it is eyeing building parts of its own network. The company relies on multilevel marketing, whereby independent sales representatives -- not employees -- sell the service. These sales reps get commissions based on sales to their own customers, as well as the customers of reps they've signed up for Excel. In an unrelated matter, four Excel sales representatives have sued the company for $400 million in Tulsa, alleging that the company interfered with their incomes. Bloomberg Business News contributed to this report. ON THE INTERNET: Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web. Point your browser to http://www.pic.net/tdmn/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 13:37:50 -0500 From: Eric A. Roellig Subject: Re: Further Notes to Those Who Ordered Clocks Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola In article you write: > In article roellig@cig.mot.com (Eric > Roellig) writes: >> TELECOM Digest Editor writes: >>> This is a note to those of you who contacted Jim Hill regards getting >>> Western Union clocks. >> I finally got mine last week. > It's nice to hear that somebody got a response from Mr. Hill. I sent I must admit that I was beginning to get rather upset at Mr. Hill myself. After I sent a bank check to him, it was several weeks before he sent my clock -- and at that I found that the packing left much to be desired. There had been some (not critical) damage due to shipping. The damage consisted of a bend in the face. Jim Hill does not seem to reliably read his email. I did find out that after I had sent my check he was in the hospital for some back surgery and is (was) suffering significant pain. I finally found the best way to contact him was via his home phone number that he had sent me when he was exchanging email with me. His address and phone number is: Jim Hill 517 E. Bush Ct. Lompoc, CA 93436 805-737-0272 As Pat had said, he knows a person that got "the cream of the crop" and has them available for a higher price. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had been reluctant to give out the street address and phone number since he first said to me he would prefer email, but he recently supplied me his phone number also with a note of apology 'for being in the hospital'. Well, no one needs to apologize for being in the hospital with back trouble; I know what awful pain that can be. Once a few years ago I sprained by back a little; it was nothing permanent but for a few days I had to walk around like a gorilla; you know, bent over in the middle with my hands dangling in front of me as I walked around. Any effort to stand up straight was very painful. I imagine whatever WUTCO clocks he is able to round up at this point will probably be more epensive, but also probably in better shape. The one I got from him keeps perfect time. I had a bit of a hassle at first getting the pendulum adjusted correctly on it, and I had to go to a guy here who repairs old clocks and get a suspension spring from him which would support the pendulum correctly. All of the old 'self-winders' need a suspension spring which have a certain temper to them; more stiffness than usually found. Other than that and some rust plus a broken glass on the front it does fine. Anyone else who plans to buy one or two of these old clocks from Jim might want to contact him first to find out what the current status is and how long he thinks delivery will take, etc. If he has to bargain with someone else in the process it might take awhile. Also, unless you plan on spending $300-500 for one in mint condition, you might assume that for a couple hundred dollars you will get a running clock in need of cosmetics. You can probably hang it and operate it; but ... plan on spending a little bit of time fixing it up some. You can assume there is going to be some rust and possibly a few dents. If you already got one from Jim in the batch that he had available and are having trouble getting it installed or otherwise operating you can send me a note and I will try to help you. It is really too bad that someone abused these and left them laying in a damp, dirty warehouse for thirty years. The guy who runs the clock repair shop in Skokie has one that is in mint -- that's M-I-N-T condition. Perfect case, perfect hands and face; winds quickly (five seconds) and very softly. Accuracy is about five to ten seconds per month, depending on the weather and humidity, etc. Unlike others in his shop, it has no price tag. When I asked how much, he said five hundred dollars. He also has a grandfather clock with Western Union/Self-Winding Co. works in it. He'll 'consider' parting with that one for six hundred. I'm glad Jim could scrounge up the ones he did for us in the much lower price range. Anyway, stay in touch; let me know your results. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael R. Ward Subject: Re: Want History of (US) Telecom Book Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:59:42 +0000 Organization: Univ. of Illinois You might want to look at "The Fall of the Bell System," by Peter Temin with Louis Galambos, Cambridge University Press, 1987. This covers exactly the period in question from a policy perspective. Also, Gerald Brock has two excellent books on the effects of regulation and technology on the U.S. telecommunications industry (I do not have titles nearby). The first book starts with the telegraph and goes through divestiture. The more recent book covers the subsequent decade. Brock was an economist at the FCC during divestiture and now is at George Washinton Univiversity's Telecom program. ------------------------------ From: ronda@panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Re: Want History of (US) Telecom Book Date: 13 May 1996 12:08:50 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Leo J. Irakliotis (irakliot@lance.colostate.edu) wrote: > I am looking for one (two at most) books outlining the history of the > telecom industry in the US. In particular, I am insterested in the > era spanning from Theodore Vail's universal service vision, all the way > to MCI's judicial fight in the late 1970s and AT&T's divestiture in > early 1980s. The book "Wrong Number" by Alan Stone is valuable. It was published in 1989. Unfortunately it seems to be out of print. Ronda ------------------------------ 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 #237 ******************************