Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA09756; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 02:50:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 02:50:07 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199701150750.CAA09756@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #12 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Jan 97 02:50:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 12 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" (Lauren Weinstein) Book Review: "Data and Computer Communications" by Stallings (Rob Slade) US West Offers Inet Access (Roy A. McCrory) Tele-Card Pyramid Scheme? (Tad Cook) When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens (Connie Curts) 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? (Lloyd Matthews) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Michael D. Adams) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (J.P. White) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Moshe Braner) Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware (Philip G. Rissler) Re: Controversy Over Telephone Privatization in El Salvador (N. Andersson) 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: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@mirror.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Telstar 401 Goes "Poof" Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 20:11:25 PST From: Lauren Weinstein Greetings. Early last Saturday morning, AT&T's Telstar 401 satellite, with a full complement of C and Ku band transponders, apparently suffered catastrophic failure. All contact was lost by ground stations, and according to all available reports at this time it has not been regained. This satellite mainly carried television programming, including feeds for the major U.S. networks and loads of syndicated shows. The networks, as "platinum" customers, were quickly switched to backup transponders on other satellites. Most other customers started a scramble for alternate space, made all the more difficult by people being hard to reach during the weekend and by the fact that many industry folk were attending a trade show. It's reported that when the outage was initially announced at the show, many attendees thought it was a practical joke. The sudden and complete loss of a modern, fully functioning commercial geosync communications satellite in this manner is reported to be essentially unprecedented. --Lauren-- www.vortex.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 14:04:25 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Data and Computer Communications" by Stallings BKDTCMCM.RVW 961015 "Data and Computer Communications, 5th ed.", William Stallings, 1997, 0-02-415425-3 %A William Stallings ws@shore.net %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-02-415425-3 %I Prentice Hall %O +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 798 %T "Data and Computer Communications, 5th ed." That the latest edition of one of the classic data communications texts is the most up to date is not altogether surprising. What is outstanding is just how up to date it is, and how detailed. The price of cramming this amount of current knowledge into these pages is a fairly demanding text. The writing is never unclear, but it doesn't make concessions to the reader either, and requires some application. As a course text the material is well laid out. Each chapter ends with recommended readings for further study, a set of problems of suitable difficulty, and possibly appendices. Pedagogical aids are available online and separately. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKDTCMCM.RVW 961015 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Roy A. McCrory Subject: US West Offers Inet Access Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 08:00:33 -0700 Organization: High Latency Networks, High Bluster, NM Although US West is not known for pricing its services without a generous profit margin and amortization of capital investment over a very short time, they are offering unlimited internet access to Denver Public School families at a net price of $10.95 per month (plus $2.00 per month to be given to the school for computer equipment). This is the guaranteed price for five years. Check the details on this at http://www.denverpost.com/enduser/feat7.htm in the {Denver Post}. This seems incongruous besides AOL's whining that it cannot make a profit on unlimited access at $19.95/month, but perhaps that has more to do with the fact that AOL is apparently giving its services to hundreds of thousands of 'hackers' for free! Check the first two stories in the current issue of Computer Underground Digest at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/CUDS9/cud903 ... The first story mentioned is attached below. Regards, Roy A. McCrory (505) 846-6937 "La tierra es del que la trabaja!" mccrory@erebus.fc.dna.mil [The Denver Post Online] Internet offer to connect DPS with community By Alan Gottlieb [End User] Denver Post Education Writer The best Internet deal in town is finally coming on-line for Denver Public Schools families and employees. Brochures being sent home with students this week advise parents that they can hook up to the Internet through US West's new !nteract service for $12.95 a month with unlimited on-line time. And $2 of that monthly fee goes back to DPS for updated computer technology for classrooms. People can begin signing up when they receive the notice, but the service won't become available until Jan. 15. !nteract will be a full-service Internet provider, offering access to the World Wide Web through free Netscape software, as well as email and newsgroups. Most Internet providers charge $19.95 a month for unlimited usage. But the $12.95 cost for DPS families and employees is guaranteed for five years, said US West account manager Brenda Hubert. Users will have to pay a onetime hook-up charge of $15 and must provide US West with a credit card number. The monthly fee will be billed to the credit card. Hubert said the phone company hopes most DPS teachers sign up "in the first wave." US West anticipates about 2,000 accounts in the first couple of months, though the company's Internet "platform" can accommodate more. In fact, the US West brochure promises users that they will "virtually never" encounter the busy signals that so often plague Internet users. "We can grow the pipe very quickly if we need to," said Susan Hartley, a sales manager. As part of the new partnership between US West and DPS, all teachers will get two voice-mail boxes by next spring, to foster efficient communication with parents. Under the Parent/Teacher Exchange program, one mailbox is used to receive messages from parents, the other can be used to inform parents of homework assignments, upcoming field trips and other relevant matters. DPS Chief Operating Officer Craig Cook said administrators will strongly urge all teachers to use the mailboxes. Hubert said US West will monitor usage and report back to Cook the names of teachers who have had their mailboxes turned off for two weeks or more. Over the next few months, the school district also will be rolling out its World Wide Web site, which officials promise will offer up-to-date statistical information on individual schools and the district as a whole. Data including test scores, graduation rates, budgets, historical data on enrollment by race, suspensions, expulsions and dropouts will be posted on the Web and available to anyone with an Internet account. The "Webmaster" hired by the district will help schools build individual Web sites, which could include information such as the school paper, PTA news, lunch menus and minutes from collaborative decision-making team meetings. The cost of the new Web service will be about $42,000 a year, for one full-time salary with benefits. Alan Gottlieb is a Denver Post Education Writer and can be reached at alangot@rmii.com. Dec. 11, 1996 ------------------------------ Subject: Tele-Card Pyramid Scheme? Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 01:42:20 GMT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Escondido-Based Tele-Card Network Changes to Comply With Regulators By Mario C. Aguilera, North County Times, Escondido, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News ESCONDIDO--Jan. 11--After four states levied cease-and-desist orders against Escondido-based Tele-Card Network, the long-distance phone card business revamped its marketing approach to comply with state regulators. TCN sells prepaid telephone cards under a multilevel marketing "binary matrix" system. The company's operations raised the attention of agencies in New York, Michigan, West Virginia and North Carolina, each leveling cease-and-desist orders against the company. "We developed some information from the company and looked at their marketing practices and found they were in violation of New York state business law," said Wes Goforth, spokesman for New York State Attorney General Dennis Vacco. "Under the state's definition, we felt TCN fell under a pyramid scheme." Goforth said his office contacted the company and negotiated a settlement that lifted the order without charges being filed. A similar agreement was recently reached in Michigan, while a draft resolution has been written for West Virginia. An agreement for North Carolina is still in negotiation. "The company has been making a good faith effort to comply in all states we operate in," said TCN CEO David Pohl. "The challenge has been developing a network operating strategy to comply with every state's unique regulation laws." Pohl said TCN hired an attorney with expertise in network marketing law to advise the company on compliance. At the heart of the matter is the amount of recruiting in accordance with actual selling of the retail product. Goforth says the incentive to make a profit was solely on recruiting new members into the network. "We needed to see a product being sold," said Goforth. Apparently that's what the company did with its new sales structure released last week. The company has dispensed with a mandatory $40 membership fee, instead offering an optional sales starter pack for $45, and now retails "Timepaks" of 600 units of calling time for $150. TCN, which was founded by Jeff Rogers and Damon Westmoreland in 1995, has apparently taken the rift with state regulators in stride. The company said it is making plans to take its 120 employees into a 17,000-square-foot San Marcos building, as rapid growth has called for more space. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:46:01 CST From: Connie Curts Subject: When Technical Jargon Requires Hyphens Please consider sharing this with all your readers, so they can pass it along within the industry. We all know that proper written communications is vital in any technical career, but hyphenation is very tricky and often misused in advertisements, proposals, etc. Thank you. ----------------- Several professionals have asked me over the years how to properly write technical phrases, because the use of hyphens confused them. Until I started writing articles, I did not understand the rules either. Here's the scoop. When words are intended to be read together as a single adjective, those words should be hyphenated. For example: There is an on-line system. It is a PC-based T1. I have a three-year-old son. When those same words are to be read as a noun, they are not hyphenated. For example: We are on line. It is a PC based in the control room. I have a three year old. This rule is followed by most professional publications. I find it interesting that it is in several English books, but it is seldom explained or emphasized in English classes. Prof. Connie Curts Telecommunications Faculty DeVry Institute of Technology 11224 Holmes Rd Kansas City, MO 64131 phone: (816) 941-0430 ext. 467 fax: (816) 941-0896 email: ccurts@unicom.net email: ccurts@kc.devry.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for the tips. If/when I get to the point once again (ever again?) that I have time to actually edit this little newsletter in detail I'll try to remember your guidelines. In the meantime, perhaps writers to the Digest will take note of your comments and incorporate those rules in their own submissions. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lloyd Matthews Subject: 10321 = Cheap 20-Minute Calls? Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:24:53 +0000 Organization: TRW-SIG Sunnyvale Reply-To: lloydm@pop.svl.trw.com Can anyone tell me which company is behind the "10321" code? They have been agressively advertising cheap rates for 20-minute or longer long-distance calls in both Northern and Southern California. I would appreciate hearing by email from anyone who has used them, and who have compared their rates to those of the Big Three. -- Thanks! Lloyd Matthews (Lloyd.Matthews@trw.com) ------------------------------ From: mda-970114a@triskele.com (Michael D Adams) Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 02:31:57 GMT Organization: Triskele Reply-To: mda-970114a@triskele.com On Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:11:25 +0500, Dave Keeny wrote: > Federal law allows telephone conversations to be taped as long as at > least one of the participants agrees to it -- this allows you to record > your own conversations; however, state laws may differ and the legality > is not always clearcut ... IANAL, but state laws are moot as far as interstate or international commerce is concerned, according to the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court early in '95 in the Terminex (sp?) case, and other, more recent cases. Michael D. Adams mdadams@triskele.com http://www.rahul.net/starowl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:46:37 -0800 From: J.P. White Reply-To: ffv.aerotech@ffvaerotech.com Organization: FFV Aerotech Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Torsten Lif wrote: > I'm forced to conclude that they are both equally guilty in this. So > far, Sprint is the only one of the "Big Three" that hasn't made any > false promises. If nothing else happens to change my mind, I will be > calling them about their rates to Sweden as soon as the "Thanks for > switching" check from AT&T has cleared. It seems that even the smaller carriers are guilty of making such promises. I switched to NOS communications for my domestic service, they promised 35c/min to the UK which was much better than MCI at 55c/min. They did honor the rate, but six months later I got a really BIG bill. The rate had jumped to 85c/min. I complained and was informed that there had been an across the board price increase, when presured they agreed to get me back to 35c/min and refund the overcharges, which they did. I know that the 'across the board' price increase was bogus since the company I work for who was also with them did not get a similar price hike. They were just trying it on to see if I'd notice. If you're calling Sweden, then the Big Three will probably always be expensive. NOS are OK but I have recently discovered better rates elsewhere. Try LCI communications see them at http://www.lci.com/, and Telegroup see them at http://www.telegroup.com/ Both these companies seem to offer Sweden at around 23 or 24c/min with six second billing increments, no 'bong' charge. With LCI you'll need to switch, but telegroup do not require you to switch, they just get your name and address telephone number and give you an 800 number to dial to access their international service, I tried it at work for a while and it seemed to work as advertised. I'll probably sign up at home before long and keep NOS for domestic long distance only. JP White Manager Information Systems FFV Aerotech Inc., Mail to : ffv.aerotech@ffvaerotech.com Web : http://www.ffvaerotech.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original writer said Sprint was the only one he had not caught lying, but there are a lot of readers here who could tell you Sprint is as bad as the others. The program they offer called 'Friday Free' is a good example. Now they are claiming they will give you free calls on Friday through the end of 1997, but in actual practice what they do on this is sign people up, give them a couple of free Fridays, and then force them to switch to other plans if they think the person's calling patterns are not going to be profitable for the company. To heck with any contracts or promises made. They simply violated and broke the contracts of many of the customers who signed up for Free Fridays last year; I assume they are still conducting business the same way. If you don't like them breaking their contracts, well you can always call them on the phone Yeah, I would have to say Sprint is among the worst when it comes to telemarketer fraud along with Bait and Switch advertising. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:53:34 -0500 From: Moshe Braner Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware > Torsten Lif wrote: >> Fine, we accepted MCI. But when the paperwork arrived, I found that >> the prices were a 6-month promotional and would double after that >> date. Annoyed, I called and they denied any responsibilty - "the sales >> person was not authorized to make those promises - Sorry". While I was shopping for LD service (gave up on a long term loyalty to ATT) I was frustrated by the meaningless hype spouted by the salesmen. Sprint, in particular, brushed past answering any precise questions, such as "what is your basic rate?". Then I got a call from an MCI salseman. He promised 9 cents per minute (from Vermont to the West Coast, at night), and above that a deep discount for the first 6 months. When the bills arrived it was 11 cents AFTER the discount. Moreover, the bills were impossible to decipher, i.e., I could not tell how much was the nominal charge and how large was the discount. They also promised monthly promos, turned out you have to call each month and go through agonizing messages to try and figure out the promo, which is usually something like "free calls to other MCI customers on Friday the 13th only". Needless to say, I dropped them. Picked a carrier that charges me 10 cents per minute 5pm to 8am, no gimmicks. (I won't name that carrier so nobody will think I'm pushing them. :-) Moshe Braner 47 McGee Road, Essex Junction, VT 05452 USA (802) 879-0876 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sprint brushed off your question about a 'basic rate' because they have no 'basic rate'. It is what- ever the telemarketer they hired that day wants to quote. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:27:06 -0500 From: Philip G. Rissler <104707.706@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: MCI Bait-And-Switch Beware Organization: The SABRE Group, Inc. In TELECOM Digest V17 #11, brand@nortel.ca (Brand Hilton) wrote: > After reading all this about AT&T and MCI, I just wanted to throw in a > plug for a company I've recently started using for long distance: > VarTech(sp?). Their rate plan is fairly simple. $5.00 a month and 10 > cents a minute in the US, INCLUDING IN-STATE, any time, day or night. > You don't have to sign up for anything. The first time in a calendar > month you use 10811, you get charged the $5.00 monthly fee. So, if I've been using a company called either Southern Communications or Southwest Communications. I don't have my phone bill in front of me. The access code is 10005. They charge 9.9 cents intERstate and 14.9 cents intRAstate 24 hours/day. There is no monthly charge and the charges show up on my Southwestern Bell phone bill. The fine print says the minimum charge per call is two minutes but I've had calls charged 10 cents. I've used 10005 for quite some time from my home in Oklahoma, but it doesn't work in Phoenix. I don't know what states are covered. Does anyone know of a better deal for small volume calling from home? Philip Rissler ------------------------------ From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: Controversy Over Telephone Privatization in El Salvador Date: 14 Jan 1997 20:01:13 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > The new privatization law will hurt workers and consumers > alike. Workers risk losing their unions and their jobs in one of the > few decent-paid sectors of the economy. Consumers, especially > peasants, risk losing the limited public phone access they have, while > rates could increase nationwide, further limiting who is able to use > the phone system. A few rich families will benefit as this public > property is sold at bargain-basement prices. There are several issues here. I will do them point by point: > The new privatization law will hurt workers and consumers > alike. Workers risk losing their unions and their jobs in one of the > few decent-paid sectors of the economy. This statement presupposes many things: 1) Transfer payments are a good thing; 2) Transfer payments disguised in the form of higher than market wages are even better. 3) Current employees of government or currently-government-controlled businesses are particularly worthy recipients of this largesse. 4) Users of certain currently-government-services, telco in this case, are particularly deserving to be the milk-cows for this largesse, in effect imposing a very high but hidden sales tax on telco. One can make a good argument that this kind of thinking is a major factor holding back poor countries, i.e. one of the factors that keep them poor. A few govt/telco employees win in the short run, everybody loses in the long run (and most lose even in the short run). > Consumers, especially peasants, risk losing the limited public phone > access they have, while rates could increase nationwide, This depends on how the privatization is done. Obviously, selling of a govt monopoly to let it become an un- or loosely- regulated private monopoly is NOT a good idea, it will merely shift the "sales tax" to be received by investors; the government is in effect selling out the cash cow for a one-time payment. Selling the telco NOT as a monopoly and/or with the understanding that rates will be carefully watched and expected to come down has wide benefits, however. The other bugaboo, universal access, has often been used in the US, accusing start-ups of "skimming the cream" while not serving unaccessible locations. This is not nearly the big issue that it has been hyped up to be. There may, however, be some cases where inaccessible locations were/are in fact subsidized under the monopoly, i.e. paying the same rates as everybody else although they were expensive to serve. To the extent that the subsidy was less than the overall markup payable to the employees, this is not a problem, they would just not see as big a rate reduction as everybody else. To the extent that the rural/inaccessible rates would actually need to be higher to cover costs, the government has at least three options: 1) Specifically require that the buyer maintain rural nets at current standard and rates, regardless. 2) Add a telco tax (similar to US levies for 911, TDD, whatnot) levied on all telcos, including future competitors, and use the money to support outlying areas. 3) Require that old sold telco and new telcos serve rural areas in proportion to the amount of business they do (the bookkeeping will look different, but in essence, same as alt 2)). 4) Pay a subsidy to outlying areas out of general revenue (why should telco users in particular be taxed?). > A few rich families will benefit as this public property is sold at > bargain-basement prices. If the telco is sold competitively by bid, there will be no "bargain basement price". If the number of bidders is artificially constrained, by insider deals or by restricting purchase to domestic buyers, you could be right of course. As with many things, openness is the key, open pricing, open offer, open competition. Regards, Nils Andersson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #12 *****************************