Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA03092; Wed, 15 May 1996 19:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 19:42:21 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605152342.TAA03092@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #241 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 May 96 19:42:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 241 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges (Robert McMillin) Re: Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges (Ken Levitt) Re: Does Sprint Provide NYC Local Service? (Robert Bononno) Re: Information Wanted on Omnipoint PCS Network (Richard Harris) Re: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? (Richard Harris) Re: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? (Jeff Bamford) Re: Is There a Mexican FCC? (Clive Dawson) Re: How to Learn of Planned NXX's Before Their Opening? (Peter M. Weiss) Re: How Will Local Telephone Competition Work? (Jorene Downs) Local Competition Not Just Reselling (Thomas Peters) Re: Local Competition (John David Galt) Re: Pac Bell Behind the Times (John Cropper) Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX (Josef Finsel) Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? (J Levine) Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? (DSheafer) Re: Caller ID Picks up 800 Number Calls? (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: What is "Feature Group A"? (John Dearing) GMSK Modulation and Demodulation Techniques (Ian Nigel) Re: Long Distance From Local Number? (Tim Updegrove) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:23:46 GMT On 14 May 1996 00:32:41 PDT, VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS said: > Kansas City, MO, May 13, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- In a surprising move > today, Sprint announced that it is eliminating all surcharges on it's > domestic calling card calls. > Like AT&T and MCI, Sprint has normally imposed an $.80 surcharge to > it's customers on each of their calling card calls. As of today, the > company will be begin re-issuing their Sprint FoNCARDs, and dropping > the domestic surcharge alltogether. > In addition, the company will be marketing the card at a new "flat > rate" of $.25 per minute, anywhere in the U.S., anytime of day. > Previously, the company had charged a variety of per-minute rates > that varied according to mileage and time-of-day. Wonderful. I'm a Sprint California Sense customer. Does this mean that, instead of $0.05/min for intra-California calls, I now pay $0.25/min? I can do better on my AT&T card! More games and more ruses. Long distance plans are made up to evade comparison and baffle the consumer. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 96 12:18:59 EDT From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Card Surcharges In TELECOM Digest V16 #236 Van Heffner wrires: > Kansas City, MO, May 13, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- In a surprising move > today, Sprint announced that it is eliminating all surcharges on it's > domestic calling card calls. I called Sprint today and asked about this. I spoke to a Jerry O'Connor who said that we still have a surcharge because we have a business account and the change in surcharges is only for residential customers. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They never can seem to get their stories straight can they? The press release said *all* surcharges then this guy comes along and says not really; just for one category of customer. So imagine all the business customers who read that press release and took it at face value; maybe even told thier employees to begin using the Sprint card all the time in light of this change. Won't they be suprised to get thier bill next month and see all those surcharges still there ... just like Friday Free where they said *all customers* and then later said they only meant certain customers and come back still later to say they did not mean everything free, just certain places, etc. And now, as a fitting conclusion to Friday Free, I am getting correspondence from people who say Sprint has *back-billed* them for international calls made on Fridays claiming 'international was never supposed to be part of the deal.' When challenged on it or enough of a stink is raised, Sprint is blaming it on 'a computer mixup' and crediting those calls. There was no computer mixup, the back-billing by Sprint was willful. I wonder how they will explain the 'elimination of all surcharges' notice to those customers who will still be getting surcharged? Possibly for those who notice it and call to complain, it will be just be treated as another 'computer mixup'. This is twice now in recent months this Digest has been burned by running press releases from Sprint which turned out to be -- well, basically fraudulent and misleading. There are people who read this Digest who place some credence in what is reported here. I cannot begin to catch all errors of fact which get published but when you have two as outstanding as these, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Please don't send me any more Sprint press releases; I don't have time to personally verify if they are truthful or not before running them. If you have been lied to or cheated by Sprint about all I can suggest is you put a total freeze on payments to the company until the disputes get resolved, if they ever do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bononno@acf2.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Re: Does Sprint Provide NYC Local Service? Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 23:34:32 -0400 Organization: New York University In article , vjp2@dorsai.dorsai.org (Vasos Panagiotopoulos) wrote: > Does anyone know anything about Sprint providing local service in NYC? > Any chance I can get a Sprint local line call forwared automatically > (ie no physical connection) to an existing nynex-connected number? > Anyone have any telephone numbers? (pls cc e-mail..tnx) I received a mailing from MCI a few days ago. They were offering to carry all toll calls from my region, calls that require a "1" to dial. They didn't list any rates or indicate a pricing plan as I recall. So they may not be offering "local" service but they're getting closer. Robert Bononno ++++ bononno@acf2.nyu.edu ++++ Techline ------------------------------ From: NMKL79A@prodigy.com (Richard Harris) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Omnipoint PCS Network Date: 15 May 1996 19:44:03 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Jon, Omnipoint received a pioneer preference for the New York MTA which covers approximately 26 million people in primarily, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. They also were the successful bidder on another 13 million pops in the C block auction in areas primarily in New York and Pennsylvania including Philadelphia, Buffalo, and Rochester. They are not yet operating in any of these areas so there is nothing on product offerings and pricing. Rich Harris Harris & Associates Consultants in Wireless Telecommunications nmkl79a@prodigy.com ------------------------------ From: NMKL79A@prodigy.com (Richard Harris) Subject: Re: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? Date: 15 May 1996 19:23:58 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY I estimate approximately 68 calls per month. This is based on an average of 145 minutes per user per month from an investment banker's research and 2.15 minutes per call from CTIA data. Rich Harris Harris & Associates Consultants in Wireless Telecommunications nmkl79a@prodigy.com ------------------------------ From: aa423@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Re: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? Date: 14 May 1996 17:24:58 GMT Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada. R. Schechtman (rts@bbn.com) wrote: > I'm looking for statistics on calling patterns for cellular subscribers, > in particular, average number of calls per month. Any pointers? Rogers Cantel (A-side for all of Canada) claimed something around 140 to 170 (I can't remember the exact figure) minutes/month for the first quarter of 1996 as the average usage. They commented that it grew over last year due to the increasing number of subscribers with flat-rate off-peak packages. You can check out their annual/quarterly reports at http://www.rogers.com (the website of their parent company) under the Wireless/Cantel logo. They report average use and average income per subscriber. Jeff Bamford Phone: +1-905-570-0130 fax: +1-905-570-1161 E-mail: jeffb@audiolab.uwaterloo.ca Looking for an audio consultant who has studied Ambisonics, Dolby Surround and Stereo? Check out: http://audiolab.uwaterloo.ca/~jeffb/consult/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 96 15:52:23 CDT From: Clive Dawson Subject: Re: Is There a Mexican FCC? [TELECOM Digest V16 #238] David Esan writes: > Is there an organization analogous to the US FCC in Mexico? I want to > be able to purchase TELMEX tariffs, and when competition comes, the > tariffs of their competitors. I believe the analogous organization is the "Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes" (S. C. T.) which is a cabinet-level department in the Executive Branch, (i.e. headed by the Secretary of Communication and Transportation who is a member of the President's cabinet). I don't know whether tariffs are obtained through them, or whether they can be "purchased". In fact I don't know how closely their entire tariff "system" (i.e. the concepts, the procedures, the laws and regulations) corresponds to what exists in the U.S. Clive Dawson AMD Austin, TX ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:53:16 EDT From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: How to Learn of Planned NXX's Before Their Opening? How soon before? They seemed to be announced "right here in river city" i.e., in TELECOM Digest. Pete Weiss ------------------------------ From: jcdowns@strategic-vision.com (Jorene Downs) Subject: Re: How Will Local Telephone Competition Work? Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 18:31:17 GMT Organization: Strategic Vision Reply-To: jcdowns@strategic-vision.com fringer@midget.towson.edu (Craig A. Fringer) wrote: > I am replying mostly to Pat's response to the original posting. > I agree, and further I believe that the customer is the least of > anyone's worries. The customer will get lost in the finger > pointing of who is to blame for the service outage, when it occurs. > Since I can't imagine that each company wishing to compete will > constructing outside plant facilities I have to assume that the > existing plant will support the competition. So when a customer has > trouble, their serving company will be able to say "Hey, all our stuff > checks out -- the problem is with the cable which is the Bell Company's > responsibility." The Bell Company will then say "Not us, you aren't > getting dial tone from your service provider." The customer will not > know who to go to and will get caught in an endless run around. Change a few names, and you have just described the current Internet situation. Shared ownership means multiple options for where the "blame" is directed when there is a problem with the service. This makes if more difficult for the customer, because the natural response when there is a problem is to contact the service provider. The consumer's complaint loses impact when you can't speak directly with the organization that can actually resolve the problem. This situation can get quite bloody for the customer service/tech support people in the front lines of the service provider. They take the heat even if the problem has been caused by another link in the communications puzzle that is out of their control. A lot of time will be spent educating the customer regarding the different areas of ownership/responsibility in the new world of mixed bag communications providers. However, this kind of circumstance will also - hopefully - drive those non-consumer-accessible organizations to improved service reliability. After all, it's one thing for a single individual to complain about poor service. It's another thing for a service provider to threaten to switch to another backbone (or whatever) company. This kind of competetive leverage should -- in the long term! -- create a situation where not only the costs are reduced by competition, but those providing the more reliable service will be the ones to survive. Jorene Downs ------------------------------ From: tpeters@hns.com (Thomas Peters) Subject: Local Competition Not Just Reselling Date: 15 May 1996 16:47:49 GMT Organization: Hughes Network Systems > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course if your company were to > completely sever its connections with Bell and become totally self- > reliant by stringing its own wire and building its own phone exchanges > and such, then there would really be true competition wouldn't there? > Essentially all the local 'competition' is going to be doing is just > reselling the local Bell. What sort of competition is that? Pat, Reselling is only part of the story of local competition. Cable TV systems will provide independent phone service in many parts of the nation within a few years. I'm sure the horror stories about lousy cable plants are all true, but that just means it is going to take longer and cost more than the optimists hope. Cable companies have to improve their equipment anyway to stop the telcos from taking over the cable business. Also look for a lot of the PCS bandwidth recently auctioned off to be used for wireless local loop. This technology is already in large scale use in some parts of the world. It is especially good in areas where low population density and difficult terrain drive up wiring costs, but it is also used in urban areas. Fixed wireless systems can be much more reliable than mobile cellular because: 1. Phone weight is not an important issue. 2. Phones can plug into the wall for power. 3. RF coverage is always the same and can be verified at installation. 4. Bigger antennas and more transmit power can be used if needed. 5. No handoffs. 6. There is no roaming so the telephone company can control the phones. The last point is crucial. By supplying and maintaining the phones the carrier can add important features like compression and encryption without having to worry unduly about standards organizations and millions of old AMPS phones from coast-to-coast. Tom Peters ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Local Competition Date: Wed, 15 May 96 14:01:24 PDT > [... What sort of competition is that? But if > the newcomers had to invest the money, time and effort the Bells have > put into things over the past century, it is doubtful they would ever > get in business. Let that be a lesson to any of you who think you > have something the world needs and wants. If you do, and are at all > successful over a century or so, expect the government to come in and > rip you off when late-comers are sore because they did not think of > it first. PAT] Turnabout is fair play. The present local-service monopolies, and the Bell System's past near-monopoly on long distance on which you look back so fondly, did not come about because only Ma Bell was willing "to invest the money, time and effort." It came about because Bell threw its weight around in predatory schemes to destroy its competitors -- as you yourself recently described here -- and then got laws passed to make its monopoly permanent (or so it hoped). Is THAT the kind of "investment" you would like to see the newcomers make? If I were running things, I would not have just made the Bell System split up. I would prosecute the past officers of AT&T, if still alive, for antitrust violations and the like -- and since pretty much the entire company is the proceeds of those crimes, I would have the government confiscate it and sell it piecemeal, paying the stockholders nothing. John David Galt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well ex-cuuuuuse me! You certainly do not resemble the John Galt of which Ayn Rand wrote about so fondly. I often wondered if that was by coincidence your real name or if you selected it as a screen name to make a point. I guess it must be your real name. PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Pac Bell Behind the Times (was: Public Comment on Area Codes) Date: 14 May 1996 20:23:08 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On May 13, 1996 22.52.46 in article , 'Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)' wrote: > 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. Errr, Linc ... you mis-read that. They actually meant the overlay was intended for the entire state, not just 301 ... either way, the report is dead wrong. On the bright side, look at PacBell's track record ... > 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. Naah, they're still trying to find the operator to plug them in to SBC's office ... John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice: (800) 247-8675 fax: (609) 637-9430 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 96 16:31 EDT From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > At the University of Michigan, we need to dial '9' to access external > lines. The switch is programmed in such a way that, if while dialing > 9-1-(long distance number), the pause is too long after 9-1, it > completes the call as 911. Sometimes the problem is user error. The phones tell you to "dial 9 + number for a local call," "dial 9 + 1 + area code + phone number" for a long distance call. But some people, especially foreigners unfamiliar with the US phone system, see a number listed as "1 800 123 4567" and end up dialing "9 + 1 + 1 + 800 ..." Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ From: Snoopy Subject: Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:40:00 -0400 Organization: Internet Access Cincinnati 513-887-8877 Indeed, I've made a wrong call to 911. I was using the fax phone in the computer room because it was the only one handy and dialed 9 but didn't get anything so I dialed 9 again, then 1 and didn't hear the beep so 1 again. From that point on the digits all beeped correctly. I had been having intermitten problems with the keys sticking so I thought nothing of it until I heard the 911 operator on the other end of the line. I apologized and hung up graciously, but it was still embarassing. Josef Finsel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you one of those foreigners Joel discussed in the previous message? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 96 19:54 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > HOW could this happen? Does not the routing of calls through the LD > carrier's switch cause this *69 feauture to be disabled? Not if they support SS#7, which they have to these days to support CLID. It's in the same package of features, if you pass the info for one, you pass the info for all of them. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof ------------------------------ From: dsheafer@delphi.com Subject: Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? Date: Wed, 15 May 96 09:07:02 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) In Massachusetts (NYNEX) if you prepend 10288 on an intralata call *69 will still work from the called party's phone. Don't know about other 10xxx codes. David http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dsheafer ------------------------------ From: jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com Subject: Re: Caller ID Picks up 800 Number Calls? Date: Tue, 14 May 96 16:42:50 PDT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article , writes: > 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. Not when the 800 caller dials *67 first! When you say hunt group, is this a simple hunt group based on Call Forward Busy? If so, when A calls B and B is CFB to C and B is "busy", then C will see A's Caller ID information, eg. the calling number, "Private" or "Out-of-Area". This can be extended to D if C is CFB to D and both B and C are "busy", etc. It doesn't matter that B does not have Caller ID display feature. Incidentally, when you see the calling number, this may be different than the ANI or billing number. For example, an ISDN phone has two numbers assigned to it. The ISDN customer only gets one bill. It is simpler to make a billing system recognise ANI as the billing number, which is the same number as one of the ISDN numbers but not the other, so that the billing system does not need to keep track of which calling numbers are associated with which billing numbers. All the billing system needs to do is collect all the billing records for a given ANI and then show the calls for each calling number. Concentrating on ANI, not calling numbers, helps an ISDN LEC to NOT bill long distance calls that are invoiced separately by a long distance company. This is tricky and nobody wants to bill the customer twice for the same call. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ From: jdearing@netaxs.com (John Dearing) Subject: Re: What is "Feature Group A"? Date: 15 May 1996 01:04:50 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider Jason Fetterolf (jasonf@p3.net) wrote: -=[ Discussion about Feature Group A deleted to conserve space ]=- > 1. What is the purpose of FGA? I don't know what the original purpose of FGA was but the big advantage is that, at least in PA, outgoing calls placed from an FGA line are untimed and cost a very small amount of money (somthing like 2 cents each). Also, you can make these 2 cent calls to anywhere in the LATA. Yes, that's right, the LATA! As far as the end user is conecerned, it's a telephone line with a phone number associated with it but it has "special" billing characteristics (noted above). These things are great for companies that have to make a large number of outgoing calls all in the local area but that might otherwise involve local toll charges. You pay more than a regular business line but not that much more, as I recall. > 2. What are the more cost effective alternatives to FGA usage? Don't know. I supoose there might be for certain applications. > 3. Is this obsolete technology? Nope. It is provisioned right out of your local switch so it is as modern as your switch. > 4. Can I offer a more simple technology (dialer to route intraLATA calls, > etc) to help them reduce costs? It's all going to depend on the tariffs and if FGA is available in your area. Needless to say, this isn't something that Bell Atlantic is taking out ads to promote. 8-) John Dearing : Philadelphia Area Computer Society IBM SIG President Email : jdearing@netaxs.com U.S.Snail : 725 Ripley Place, Phila PA 19111-2524 (USA) Voice Phone : +1.215.725.0103 (after 5pm Eastern) ------------------------------ From: inc@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ian_Nigel CHAN) Subject: GMSK Modulation and Demodulation Techniques Date: 14 May 1996 07:14:53 GMT Organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne Does anyone know of a VCO that operates at around 200MHz and is fairly sensitive to minute frequency changes. Please notify me if you have a specific model number. Your help is much appreciated. ------------------------------ From: tdu@enter.net (Tim Updegrove) Subject: Re: Long Distance From Local Number? Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 04:52:46 GMT Organization: ENTER.NET > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phones can certainly be forwarded to > wherever the owner wishes to have them go, however the cost of forwarding > is the responsibility of the person who does it, not the responsibility > of the people dialing in. ... Report results here please. PAT] I called the phone company to dispute the charges and as soon as I mentioned Scranton, they asked if I belonged to AOL. I said yes (GNN is an arm of AOL) and she indicated AOL had some problems with their local number and somehow switched the calls to the long distance number. She said I was about the one millioneth caller asking about these charges. Then, without asking, she told me to drop these charges off of my bill! Boy, it's great getting a nice customer service person on the phone. Thank-you for all of your help in this newsgroup. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am still curious to find out *how* they actually did it however, aren't you? PAT] ------------------------------ 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 #241 ******************************