Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA03080; Fri, 24 May 1996 03:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 03:44:48 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605240744.DAA03080@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #246 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 May 96 03:44:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 246 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telcos and ISPs in Canada: Setting the Record Straight (Ian Angus) Caller-ID Delay in California (Lauren Weinstein) Caller-ID/ISP Abuse, Plus Unwanted, Unsolicited Sleaze E-Mail (F. Pizer) Yet Another Scam? (John B. Rose) 911 Calls From Cellphones and Location (Ted Lee) Collect Phone Sleaze (Perry Engle) Sprint Business Sense Screwup/Scam (Arvind Derhgawen) How to Build a Private U.S. Intranet (Mike Jones) AT&T 8130 Protocol Request (Tony Aiuto) Internet MCI and Bounced Messages (Barry Mishkind) Last Laugh! The Day the Rats All Drowned (Clifford D. McGlamry) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Angus Subject: Telcos and ISPs in Canada: Setting the Record Straight Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 10:21:54 -0700 Organization: Angus TeleManagement Group The May 1996 issue of {Boardwatch} magazine carries a wildly inaccurate article about relations between telephone companies and Internet Service Providers in Canada. I wrote and submitted a response. The editor of {Boardwatch}, Jack Rickard, replied that he would not be interested in publishing it, so I am submitting it to TELECOM Digest, in the belief that you are more interested in accurate reporting than Mr. Rickard. I should perhaps add that I was personally involved in the most of the events described here. In the fall of 1995 I was retained to mediate discussions between Bell Canada and the Responsible Internet Service Companies (RISC). I have both ISPs and telcos as clients. ============================ TELCOS AND ISPs IN CANADA: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT By Ian Angus Are Canada's telephone companies out to crush independent Internet Service Providers? Are they engaged in a campaign to take over the Internet and drive out all competitors? Frank X. Sowa thinks so. He recently devoted his Cyberworld Monitor column in {Boardwatch} magazine to the lurid story of the efforts of Canadian telcos, with government support, to "dominate the new Information Superhighway, and keep it out of the reach of actual and 'would-be' competitors." Unfortunately, Mr. Sowa's sources of information were extremely unreliable. Many of the events he writes about never happened at all; others are described inaccurately. As a whole, his column thoroughly misrepresents the situation in Canada. This article attempts to set the record straight by reviewing the story, one error at a time. The indented quotations are from the {Boardwatch} article. THE STENTOR ALLIANCE "The Canadian government allowed its largest telecom companies to 'collaborate' and form the Stentor Alliance, a 'trust' set up between Canada's largest telephone behemoths." Way back in 1931, Canada's major phone companies created the Trans Canada Telephone System, to coordinate service and run the long distance network. In the 1970s, the partnership changed its name to Telecom Canada. In March 1992, Telecom Canada reorganized, and changed its name to Stentor. So the Canadian government didn't allow the telcos to create Stentor. The government had nothing to do with it. Canadian telcos have been cooperating for over sixty years. "Once established, the Stentor Alliance worked quickly to shore up control of Canada's domestic telephone market and make it harder for foreign- owned companies like AT&T, Sprint and MCI to compete there." When Stentor was created, AT&T, Sprint, and MCI were not involved in Canadian telecom except as foreign carriers who connected to Canadian phone companies at the Canada-US border. Today, four years later: ** AT&T owns 33% of Unitel Communications, the largest alternative long distance carrier in Canada. ** Sprint owns 25% of Call-Net Enterprises, which, under the name Sprint Canada, is the second largest alternative long distance carrier. ** MCI is closely allied with Stentor. If Stentor really intended to keep AT&T, Sprint and MCI from competing in Canada, it seems to have failed miserably. THE NET "Bell Canada even tried to claim 'The Net' as its registered trademark. They prepared to sue Canadian ISPs who used 'The Net' in their advertising. But the trademark was challenged by small ISPs and Bell backed down. Instead, they called their service 'Sympatico.'" This statement comes right after a description of the events which supposedly took place in November 1995. Any reasonable reader would assume that Bell's trademark filing occurred at the same time. Not so. Bell Canada filed its trademark claim in 1992, before the term "The Net" was widely used as a synonym for the Internet. In the early 90s, Bell used "TheNet" (all one word) as a common name for its family of proprietary data communications services -- TheNet:Mail, TheNet:EDI, TheNet:FaxOnDemand, and so on. The 1992 trademark application describes various applications which the term will be used for -- it doesn't mention the Internet at all. Bell's trademark application worked its way through the government's bureaucratic apparatus for three years. In August 1995, the required announcement that the process was nearly complete appeared in Trademarks Journal. In response, the civil liberties organization Electronic Frontier Canada (not "small ISPs") launched a campaign to get the trademark application rejected. On September 18 Bell Canada withdrew its application. I know of no evidence whatsoever that Bell was preparing to sue ISPs who used "The Net" in their advertising. I have never heard any knowledgeable person in Canada make that charge. And so far as I am aware, there was never any plan to use The Net as a name for Bell's Internet access service. SYMPATICO "On November 1, 1995, Bell Canada made a major move ... launching its new 'Sympatico' Internet service.... Bell's low-cost entry package ... sent many small independent ISPs scrambling for survival." Sympatico was actually launched on November 30, not November 1, and the company which offers it is not Bell Canada itself, but an unregulated subsidiary, Bell Sygma. But let's get down to dollars and cents -- how does the price of this "low-cost entry package" really compare to similar services offered by other Canadian ISPs? Bell Sygma offers three plans for individual dial-up accounts (rates in Canadian dollars): ** $9.95/month for 5 hours ** $24.95/month for 25 hours ** $39.95/month for 50 hours These are not low prices. A quick surf through the Web found the following prices for individual dial-up accounts, offered by well-known independent ISPs in Ontario: ** Interlog: $25.00/month for 120 hours ** iStar: $29.95/month for 90 hours ** HookUp: $29.95/month for 100 hours ** Internet Direct: $26.90/month, unlimited use These are just examples -- each of these companies offers even lower rates for prepaid accounts, and other bargains. In every case, they are charging much less than Sympatico. So any ISP which was "sent scrambling" by Sympatico's rates was probably in pretty bad shape to begin with. But perhaps it wasn't Sympatico's rates which caused the scrambling. Perhaps it was the other prong of Bell Canada's "two pronged attack." Was it ... PER MINUTE ACCESS CHARGES? "On November 1, 1995, Bell Canada made a major move ... filing for the capability to charge ISPs by the minute for access." This baffles me. I work full time in Canadian telecommunications. I routinely track regulatory issues and tariff filings for clients. I receive copies of every telecom filing, every CRTC decision. And the simple fact is this: this filing didn't happen. Not on November 1, not ever. Period. But what about ... RATE INCREASES? "Bell's ... attempted price hikes for ISP connections, sent many small independent ISPs scrambling for survival..." "The Stentor companies ... were given permission to hike telephone line rates for independent Internet Service Providers. This extra burden accelerated the demise of many ISPs. Twenty of the remaining ISPs ... challenged Bell in a class action lawsuit calling the increases in conjunction with the new Internet service 'anti-competitive.' ... Initially, Bell backed down." This account flirts with accuracy, but quickly backs off before the flirtation gets serious. This is unfortunate, because the conflict between Bell Canada and the ISPs over local access rates is an important one. There isn't room here to tell the story in detail, but here are the key points. ** Most small and medium-sized ISPs in Bell Canada's territory use low-priced Centrex telephone lines for customer access. In November, Bell informed them that this use was contrary to regulations, and that they should be using higher priced Information System Access Lines. (ISALs) ** The ISPs protested. Several organizations of ISPs were formed, including RISC. They did not file a "class action lawsuit" -- they simply asked the CRTC to overrule Bell. ** After three weeks, before the CRTC ruled, Bell backed down. It offered to work with the ISPs to develop a new service which would be more appropriate for Internet access applications than either Centrex or ISAL. ** Bell also agreed to continue providing Centrex lines to ISPs, until the new service received regulatory approval. ** At this writing no new service has yet been announced or filed. ISPs in Bell territory are still using Centrex lines, and paying Centrex rates. In other words, Stentor was not "given permission to hike telephone line rates for independent Internet Service Providers." The "price hikes" which sent small ISPs "scrambling for survival" and "accelerated the demise of many ISPs," didn't happen. ISPs IN CRISIS? "Bell's low-cost entry package, along with attempted price hikes for ISP connections, sent many small independent ISPs scrambling for survival." "A few ISPs merged or were acquired. Rate changes and battles between independent ISPs began, shaking up the entire industry. Other ISPs and BBS operators providing Internet access went out of business without warning ... This extra burden accelerated the demise of many ISPs." Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? In just three months, from November to February, the Canadian telcos humbled the ISP industry, driving many companies out of business and leaving the rest in dire straits. Once again, this just didn't happen. If you know something about Canada, you might wonder how this account jibes with the fact that the Canadian ISP industry is apparently flourishing. Mr. Sowa himself reports that "American companies like Netcom and America Online ... have recently entered the Canadian marketplace." Why would such companies set up shop in Canada if the Stentor cartel was so effective in crushing all opposition? And how can we square this story of monopoly power and market dominance with the fact that the fearsome Sympatico service is still an also-ran in the fight for market leadership, with fewer customers than iSTN, HookUp, ID Internet Direct, CyberSurf, Internet Canada, and others? The Canadian industry has certainly had its share of business failures, as well as mergers and acquisitions, but there are still hundreds of independent ISPs in Canada. As Mark Twain might say, the reports of the ISP industry's death have been greatly exaggerated. IS STENTOR A CARTEL? "But, in early February, the federal Bureau of Competition Policy determined that Bell Canada and the Stentor Alliance is not a cartel practicing anti-competitive business." Mr. Sowa apparently believes that the BCP's investigation had something to do with Internet access, and with Stentor's conflicts with ISPs in the fall of 1995. In fact, the BCP announcement in February concluded an investigation which began three years ago, and which dealt almost exclusively with competition in long distance services. The Bureau of Competition Policy found, among other things, that since 1992 Stentor's long distance market share has fallen by 20%, long distance prices to businesses and consumers have declined steadily, and the CRTC has opened local telephone service to competition. Given those facts, it seems that if Stentor is a cartel, it isn't a very effective one. PER MINUTE ACCESS CHARGES AGAIN "Immediately following the favorable ruling, Bell and the other Stentor companies filed proposals with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to collect competitors' contribution payments for line-side access on a per-minute, rather than on the current per-circuit, basis. The change will mean a substantial increase in the cost for an ISP to operate in Canada." Once again, Mr. Sowa's sources have misinformed him. This filing had nothing to do with the BCP decision. What's more, this filing had nothing to do with Internet Service Providers! Stentor's February submission to the CRTC deals with the access fee paid by long distance companies. In Canada, as in the United States, ISPs are exempt from the charges which apply to access lines used for interexchange (long distance) voice services. Mr. Sowa is correct in his assertion that some telcos think the exemption for ISPs and other data carriers should be eliminated. But he is absolutely wrong when he says that Stentor has proposed that the change be made now. CONCLUSION Elsewhere in the May issue of {Boardwatch}, editor Jack Rickard writes, in reference to telcos entering the Internet business: "The ability to compete means the ability to compete. It does not assure victory. You have to do that part. Complaining about the advantages the competition has will win you nothing. You have to focus on the advantages YOU have or can develop if you want to win." That's an excellent answer to those who claim to favor competition, but quickly call for government protection whenever someone competes with them. I would add that independent ISPs will not win in the increasingly competitive market if they ignore what is really happening and base their business strategies on fables of the type offered up in the article Boardwatch published in May. The truth may set you free -- fiction definitely won't. --------------- copyright (c) 1996, Angus TeleManagement Group. Republication and distribution, with attribution permitted. IAN ANGUS Tel: 905-686-5050 ext 222 Angus TeleManagement Group Fax: 905-686-2655 8 Old Kingston Road e-mail: ianangus@angustel.ca Ajax Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 http://www.angustel.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 96 17:34 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Caller-ID Delay in California Greetings. At the request of Pacific Bell, the California PUC has granted a one month delay in the implementation of CNID in California, from June 1 to July 1. The reason? The local telcos have been swamped with requests by subscribers for "complete" (per line) CNID blocking, and have fallen behind in processing the backlog of phoned and written-in requests. The test numbers established for subscribers to determine if blocking is set properly on their lines have also been yielding "all circuits busy" intercepts for long periods in many areas around the state. It should be fascinating to see what the stats end up looking like. --Lauren-- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I find it just incredible that you seem to have so many people in California on this kick. What is with all these people who seem to feel they have this right to hide themselves when they make calls no matter whose time they waste or whatever fool- ish calls they originate? I'll be glad to see 'blocked number blocking' (where recipients have the right to block calls from persons who hide their phone numbers) become universal. I am going to encourage everyone to sign up for it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bidscan@mail.saix.net Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:09:24 -0700 Subject: Caller-ID/ISP Abuse, Plus Unwanted, Wnsolicited Sleaze E-Mail Pat, I'm none too sure if you are the right one to turn to, but with the undertones of caller-id and ISP abuse, I feel that even if you can't help with my problem, you would at least be able to sound some sort of warning in the right places. After the "Are you a displaced AT&T etc" message of yesterday, of which I sent you a copy, and having sent back a polite "Kindly remove from your mailing list" reply to it, (which, btw, bounced as undeliverable, bounce message attached below), I have now today received something even LESS wanted, from the same source, also attached below). I have as a first resort, mailed to postmaster@interramp.com, asking for help, but for all I know, that is the sender of the sleaze. Is there anything you or your readers can suggest to halt what looks like becoming a stream of unwanted, unsolicited, crud. The sad part of it all is that they probably don't realise that I'm not in the USA, and am unable to reply via their 800 number which they insist on as the only means of making contact, thereby making the whole thing pointless in the first place ... Cheers, Frank R Pizer Bidscan@mail.saix.net <-----------------> Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.interramp.com ([38.8.45.2]) by igubu.saix.co.za (post.office MTA v1.9.3 ID# 0-11587) with SMTP id AAA2479 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 21:14:18 +0200 Received: from [38.12.4.49] by smtp1.interramp.com (8.6.12/SMI-4.1.3-PSI-irsmtp) id OAA15931; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:34:37 -0400 X-Sender: exd78295@pop3.interramp.com (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 2 (High) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:44:23 +0130 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: exd78295@interramp.com (LIGHTNING BOLT v2.0) Subject: NEW Lightning Bolt v2.0 * Now With Enhanced Features!! X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 NEW BULK EMAIL PROGRAM! <<<<<<<>>>>>>> MADE EASY FOR "ANYONE" TO LOAD & USE! Will Strip Email Addresses, Filter and Send!! Call 1-800-351-8085 For More Information NOW FOR PC OR MAC!! This is a very SIMPLE to use UNIX SHELL/C PROGRAM. The program is designed to run directly off your internet servers computer (shell account). This program is designed for simplicity of use for ANYONE to use. Once the programs are loaded on to the Shell Account, you can log off and let the ISP's computer complete the job! This is NOT a PPP connection like FLOODGATE or EUDORA or FREEDOM where your computer PPP connection is subject to TIME-OUTS and BUGS. There are NO TEDIOUS configuration requirements! Simply load these powerful programs and sign off ... go play golf or take a nap. These programs are designed to run on their own. PROGRAMS WRITTEN BY A CERTIFIED UNIX SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR. 1ST PROGRAM: - SEARCHES AND STRIPS EMAIL ADDRESSES FROM THE 'NET! - FILTERS OUT DUPLICATE ADDRESSES AND DOMAINS "YOU" CHOOSE. LIGHTNING BOLT v2.0 will run continuously 24 hours a day. Your provider will NOT know that it is operating on his computer. - LIGHTNING BOLT v2.0 ***AUTOMATICALLY sends ALL your email***. There is NO LIMIT on the capacity! ******************************************************************************* BIG BENEFIT: (You DO NOT have to stay Logged On!) Once you execute this program it runs AUTONOMOUSLY on your ISP's COMPUTER! NO TEDIOUS TIME OUTS, TIME CONSUMING SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS OR COPYING AND PASTING! ******************************************************************************* The entire process is so simplified, that even a beginner can IMMEDIATELY use these programs. The cost of both programs cost $249.00 including a clearly written easy to follow instructions. FREE OFFER: ORDER NOW AND RECEIVE 150,000 "FRESH " EMAIL ADDRESSES TO START YOUR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN. All Free email addresses are .com, .net, .org. No gov.or edu., unless otherwise specified For Ordering Information Please Call: Eunuchs. Etc. 1-800-351-8085 Call the 800# ONLY ... we do not reply by email. We'll Be Happy to DIRECTLY Answer Any Questions! PLEASE ALLOW 7 DAYS FOR DELIVERY ... INDICATE PC OR MAC FORMAT Best Success, Eunuchs, Etc. 5901 J. Wyoming Blvd. NE Suite 284 Albuquerque, NM 87109 P.S. We have perfect ANI. Those who call to harrass will have their names, addresses and phone numbers posted in alt 2600, phrack,crack and hack for ALL to have fun. Have a nice day;) ----------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This of course is the old master creep himself, Jeff Slaton. Slaton has looted and ransacked many mailing lists. He has broken into computers to do it. A lot of system admins seem to be afraid of him because he thinks nothing of striking back at users and others who 'harass' him by starting vendettas the likes of which you thought only Usenetters were capable of when someone disagreed with their precious little opinion in some precious little newsgroup. For instance, in a university setting how about calls to the homes and *family members* of the people on the Boards of Trustees? Slaton has done it. He is wrong when he says admins will never know his program is running on their machine. An admin who takes a few minutes once in a while to do something like 'ps -uagx' will get information on every job running whether a user is on line or not. Of course those same admins are the ones who can never spend any time seeing what sort of very sick and vicious child porn they are holding on thier spools either, or they consider it a violation of their user's 'First Amendment' rights to say or do anything so for now the status quo is safe; Slaton, and others of that ilk are in fine hands. In one of the few things he has said at one time or anther that is not a lie, he *does* get ANI on calls to his 800 number, so I can only suggest that if you wish to call 800-351-8085 you do so from pay phones or large phone systems where you can *guarentee* for yourself in advance that the results will be useless to him. Loop arounds also work fine or what have you. But be forewarned, he is vicious, and anyone who would actually send him money thinking they were going to get a product delivered in return is a fool. By the way, that 8501 Wyoming address is just a maildrop; not a real address, but he is still probably in the Albuquerque area unless this is our lucky day and for whatever reason police somewhere arrested him and have him in a lockup. I do encourage you to discuss your feelings with Jeff on the phone but be careful when you do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cables@ibm.net (John B. Rose) Subject: Yet Another Scam? Date: 23 May 1996 12:29:40 GMT Organization: Rose Business Systems Inc. Reply-To: cables@hamptons.com (John B. Rose) Dear Pat: This must be another scam, but how does it work? My NYC apartment phone (listed in my wife's name) rang at 6:30 this morning. The caller said she was Saundra Walker with the FCC in Washington. "Someone has been illegally charging phone calls to this number," and she could be reached at 1-800-879-6614. Suspicious, I asked for an office address. The caller replied with a long hit on one of the touch-tone buttons and a disconnect. (My Radio Shack call forwarding box disconnects the call when you press zero.) I wonder what the scam was -- and whether I'm going to get some bogus long distance charges on my next phone bill. I didn't call the 800 number. John Rose [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried the 800 number from here and got the three tones with an intercept that the number was not in service. I can tell you the FCC does not call people at 6:30 in the morning. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tmplee@MR.Net (Ted Lee) Subject: 911 Calls From Cellphones and Location Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 22:46:26 -0600 Organization: Minnesota Regional Network (MRNet) One of the local Mpls/St.Paul TV stations had a ratings-type story on how 911 cellular phone calls are swamping the system. (Four calls from the St. Paul Cathedral concerning an apparent heart attack, for instance.) Apparently all such calls get routed to the state patrol, since initially the assumption was they were all from highway accident problems, and for a while that was true. There were statistics on the volume; I didn't note them, but it seemed like at least a ten times increase in the last half-dozen years. The story closed with sort of a teaser about new technology being available, in some indefinite timeframe, to better locate the origin of such calls and route them to the nearest law enforcement agency. Does anyone know what that technology might be and how accurately (and by what means) it can locate a call? The impression given was that it was more accurate than just identifying the cell region you were in. Dr. Theodore M.P. Lee Consultant in Computer Security PO Box 1718 tmplee@MR.Net Minnetonka, MN 55345 612-934-4532 ------------------------------ Subject: Collect Phone Sleaze Date: Thu, 23 May 96 16:55:31 -0400 From: Perry Engle This just happened to a co-worker, and I happen to have the bill in my hands: They were expecting a collect call from a friend, and a computer called, and said to press 1 to receive a collect call. They did, and instead of their real friend, a make-believe friend started talking, giving a menu of other "friends" to talk to. Well, they quickly hung up, but not before getting a $15.47 phone charge for their next bill. Here are the specifics on the companies, who, after three phone calls, said that they would issue a credit, but may take the matter up "with a collection agency" if a "double-trace-back" showed that my friends "really made the phone call" ... In case anyone is interested: Telephone company: Telephone Billing Services - TBS Inc. Customer Service 1-800-748-4309 Phone "Services" company: Goldphone - Miami,FL [ Surprise ] phone number 1-305-548-3305 TBS will put a block on a line to anyone who calls the 1-800-748-4309 number. Be ready for a long wait, though. Perry Engle [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for providing the number on TBS. This is still one more number people need to call if you want to make sure fraudulent collect and third number billings do not reach you. Remember also to call Integratel direct to get on their list, but surprise! I just now called 800 directory and they have no listing for Integratel any longer. I wonder why? . Your local telco or AT&T can add you to the negative list where most other telcos are concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Arvind Derhgawen Subject: Sprint Business Sense Screwup/Scam Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 01:42:34 GMT Organization: University of Illinois Please advise on how to hold the payment to Sprint till they resolve this screwup issue. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you do very simply is refuse to send them any money. When they call and want to know why you are not paying, you tell them to make a formal demand in writing to which you will respond in writing. What you tell them in writing at that point is that due to contract irregularities and your inability to reach the person at Sprint who unlawfully voided the original contract (Robin Loyed) that you have directed your accounts payable department to put a complete freeze on payments to Sprint until the matter is resolved. That will only occur if/when you have contact with Robin Loyed. You further warn them in your letter that if the company attempts to retaliate by (a) disconnecting your long distance service or interfer- ing with your use of the phone in other ways or (b) making a degogatory report about you or your company to any credit reporting agency without noting there is an unresolved dispute that you will escalate the matter immediatly to the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. Depending on the amount they claim you owe them versus what damages you have experienced as a result of Robin Loyed's decision, you may want to offer to accept a credit of the entire amount claimed due as liquidated damages caused to you by Sprint's decision to no longer honor the contract. Then you do nothing more for the time being until/ unless they contact you again *in writing*. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mike@zb.com (Mike Jones) Subject: How to Build a Private U.S. Intranet Date: 23 May 1996 17:17:01 GMT Organization: Jones Inc Hi, I have a couple of questions on building private WAN Intranets. I basically would like to know how people are building private networks across the U.S. using ISDN technology for local connections? What network technology is used to get local ISDN traffic across the country? Long distance ISDN is to expensive is it not? Are there better options? What service providers provide solutions? Is ISDN for local bandwidth with frame relay technology used cross country the way to go? Here is our specific situation: We have about 600 locations which we need to get connected into a private Intranet. These locations need a minimal of 64kbps bandwidth. Majority of these locations around the U.S. have ISDN services so seems the most logical approach is to use ISDN for the local connections when available. When ISDN is not available we will use switched 56 or dedicated 56kbps connections. All 600 of these connections need to be connected with our home office in St. Louis. We plan on using multiple T1 leased lines for local loop from our office to our providers local POP. The question I have is what approach is best for getting the 600 local ISDN connections back to St. Louis. I assume it would be best to terminate the ISDN connections into a local number and then connect to a frame relay connection. What companies provide this type of service? I contacted MCI and they did not have local numbers to terminate ISDN. They either wanted me to pay long distance ISDN back to St. Louis for each of the connections or dial into an 800 number which then would allow me to connect to frame relay. The 800 number was like 20 cents a minute. Would it be better to lease some space and setup my own equipment where the ISDN connections could be terminated and then have a dedicated T1 from this leased space to my service providers frame relay POP and then use frame relay technology to get back to St. Louis? The equipment for move IP traffic from ISDN to frame relay was going to be a Cisco 4500 with both ISDN interfaces and 1 frame relay interface. Is there any better options to moving IP traffic from ISDN to Frame Relay? Does anyone know the approximate price of a frame relay circuit with a CIR of 128kbps from say Atlanta to St. Louis? The price excluding local loop charges? I was once told that MCI has a fixed price independent of distance. I believe the port charges were approximatly $300.00. Does this mean that if I had offices in Chicago, Atlanta and St. Louis that I would pay for three port charges into the frame relay cloud? Thanks for any help, Mike mike@zb.com ------------------------------ From: tony@ics.com (Tony Aiuto) Subject: AT&T 8130 Protocol Request Date: 23 May 1996 14:35:50 GMT Organization: Integrated Computer Solutions, Inc. Does anyone know the protocol spoken by the AT&T 8130 telephone? It has a little serial port out the back which passes caller id information out to a computer. It works fine with the provided Windows software, but I want to make it talk to my own applications. I have been trying to decipher it, but still can't make sense of their caller id info. It is NOT the standard ascii stream, but some binary protocol. For those of you who don't know the phone, it is a wonderful device. It is a nice two line speaker-phone, with display and caller id. You can be out all day, review who called you, and when you see a number you like, can press the autodial button to reply to the call. If you attach your Windows machine to it, you can keep the phone directory on-line and have the thing do a screen pop of your contact information from the caller-id. The only bad thing about it is that AT&T killed it after only five months of sales, so there are getting somewhat hard to find. Since it is discontinued they don't want to publish a technical manual. Any help would be appreciated. Please respond to tony@ics.com, as my news connection is flakey. Thanks, tony@ics.com Tony Aiuto voice: 516-829-3434 Integrated Computer Solutions email: tony@ics.com 5 Apple Tree Lane Great Neck, NY 11024-1925 ------------------------------ From: Barry Mishkind Subject: Internet MCI and Bounced Messages Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 01:08:11 GMT Organization: The Eclectic Engineer First, thanks to those who wrote to remind me the error messages I got from Internet MCI in response to mailing list output were VAX style messages, and that Internet MCI is using a soon-to-be-updated version of PMDF. There were two issues that occurred: 1. bounce messages that didn't tell whose mailbox was in trouble. This is slowly being fixed, and I am told the next edition of PMDF will have more "illuminative" messages. In the meantime, the bounced header now seems to have the actual address hidden in one of the "Received" lines. 2. Lack of response from InternetMCI. As far as I can tell, they never did answer anything to Postmaster. Neither did I ever get any response from repeated calls to the manager of the service. Finally, MCIMail sent me an 800 number to contact InternetMCI. A lengthy discussion with the first person who answered went nowhere, and although she spent a lot of time trying to disuade me from talking to a supervisor, I did finally get to a supervisor who took the time to call back, confirm the problem, give me the original party line, "it is a privacy issue to tell anyone whose email box corresponds to the bounced message." After several days, she eventually called to tell me whose mailbox caused the problem. The "story" was that a "database error" caused the box to be full and bounce... At least she made the effort to call. Barry Mishkind Tucson, AZ http://www.broadcast.net/~barry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They still seem to think the majority of internet users and the mailing list managers in particular are idiots don't they? Since they are 'slowly getting around to fixing the problem' I suggest you go ahead and pull all the internetMCI names off your list and once they start responding to your mail in some sort of timely and reasonable way tell them you will 'slowly' get around to adding the names back on your mailing list. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 96 17:28:43 EDT From: CLIFFORD D. MCGLAMRY <102073.1425@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Last Laugh! The Day the Rats All Drowned Thought y'all might appreciate this . . . ----- Forwarded Message ----- TO: CLIFFORD D. MCGLAMRY, 102073,1425 FROM: INTERNET:NBJimWeiss@aol.com, INTERNET:NBJimWeiss@aol.com DATE: 5/19/96, 2:08 PM Subject: Legally speaking... A tourist wanders into a back-alley antique shop in San Francisco's Chinatown. Picking through the objects on display he discovers a detailed, life-sized bronze sculpture of a rat. The sculpture is so interesting and unique that he picks it up and asks the shop owner what it costs. "Twelve dollars for the rat, sir," says the shop owner, "and a thousand dollars more for the story behind it." "You can keep the story, old man," he replies, "but I'll take the rat." The transaction complete, the tourist leaves the store with the bronze rat under his arm. As he crosses the street in front of the store, two live rats emerge from a sewer drain and fall into step behind him. Nervously looking over his shoulder, he begins to walk faster, but every time he passes another sewer drain, more rats come out and follow him. By the time he's walked two blocks, at least a hundred rats are at his heels, and people begin to point and shout. He walks even faster, and soon breaks into a trot as multitudes of rats swarm from sewers, basements, vacant lots, and abandoned cars. Rats by the thousands are at his heels, and as he sees the waterfront at the bottom of the hill, he panics and starts to run full tilt. No matter how fast he runs, the rats keep up, squealing hideously, now not just thousands but millions, so that by the time he comes rushing up to the water's edge a trail of rats twelve city blocks long is behind him. Making a mighty leap, he jumps up onto a light post, grasping it with one arm while he hurls the bronze rat into San Francisco Bay with the other, as far as he can heave it. Pulling his legs up and clinging to the light post, he watches in amazement as the seething tide of rats surges over the breakwater into the sea, where they drown. Shaken and mumbling, he makes his way back to the antique shop. "Ah, so you've come back for the rest of the story," says the owner. "No," says the tourist, "I was wondering if you have a bronze AT&T or MCI telemarketer." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or a bronze Jeff Slaton or Kevin Lipsitz perhaps so that others of their kind will climb out of the sewers and run to the water's edge and drown. This hospital stay the past few days has really left me bummed out. Maybe in a few days I will feel better. 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 #246 ******************************