Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA09904; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:42:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 08:42:16 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199702221342.IAA09904@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #49 TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Feb 97 08:42:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 49 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bell Atlantic Sues NJ Regulators to Block Competition (Tad Cook) GTE Claims Rural Exemption from Competition in Idaho (Tad Cook) Cloud Over PacTel-SBC Merger (Mike King) Satellite Cellular? (MSgt Paul Berens) Re: Why/What Extensions to snmpd? (tmax@htconn.com) 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 hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.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: Bell Atlantic Sues NJ Regulators to Block Competition Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:13:18 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Bell Atlantic Sues New Jersey Regulators to Block Competition By Raymond Fazzi, Asbury Park Press, N.J. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Feb. 21--Bell Atlantic-New Jersey sued the state Board of Public Utilities yesterday in an attempt to block the start of medium-distance toll-call competition in New Jersey on May 5. The company currently holds a monopoly in toll-call service. The suit could lengthen the time it takes for customers to see offers from competing companies and, possibly, lower prices. Bell Atlantic is arguing the state BPU violated the U.S. Telecomm- unications Act of 1996 in setting the May 5 start-up date. Under the federal law, the company alleges, toll-call competition in New Jersey should start at the same time Bell Atlantic enters New Jersey's long-distance telephone market. "We think that Congress clearly intended that those things were supposed to go together," said Anne Babineau, general counsel for Bell Atlantic Corp., parent company of Bell Atlantic-New Jersey. A BPU official said the agency stands by its decision. "We believe that our decision is legally supportable," BPU Executive Director Michael Ambrosio said. "The BPU will defend its order." The question raised by the lawsuit is whether or not the BPU met a federal Dec. 19, 1995, deadline for ordering the start of toll-call competition. Under the Telecommunications Act, any state that did not meet the deadline cannot order toll-call competition until its local telephone monopoly is allowed to compete in the state's long-distance market, or by February 1999 -- whichever comes first. The BPU maintains it met the deadline when BPU President Herbert Tate and Commissioner Carmen Armenti voted to institute toll-competition on Dec. 14, 1995. In making the decision, Tate and Armenti said they felt competition was in the public interest because it could lead to lower prices. The board had approved limited toll-call competition in July 1994, but under that order, customers could only use competing companies by dialing a five-digit code before all their calls. Under the December 1995 order, customers will be able to choose a toll-call company in the same way they now choose a long-distance company. Bell Atlantic, however, is arguing the BPU vote only made toll-competition a public policy. The company argues in the lawsuit that the BPU did not set a date for the start of competition, or set up the rules for competition, until after the federal Dec. 19, 1995, deadline. "More than a policy decision was required at that time," Babineau said. "The statute is pretty clear that what is required is an order requiring implementation." Ambrosio said the agency is confident it met the requirements of the Telecommunications Act. "The question of whether or not we were grandfathered is certainly something we looked at and we believe we were," he said. Named as defendants in the lawsuit were Tate and Armenti. A spokesman for AT&T Corp., which would be Bell Atlantic's largest competitor in the state's toll call market, criticized Bell Atlantic's action. "It seems like every time we get close to a point where there might be some kind of competition, Bell Atlantic calls in the lawyers," AT&T spokesman Ritch Blasi said. ------------------------------ Subject: GTE Claims Rural Exemption from Competition in Idaho Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 23:01:52 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) GTE Seeks Protection from competition, Claims It Qualifies for Rural Exemption By Betsy Z. Russell, The Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Wash. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News BOISE, Idaho--Feb. 22--GTE is claiming it falls under an exemption for rural telephone companies and shouldn't have to face competition for local phone service in North Idaho. Competitors are skeptical of the claim, since GTE is the nation's largest phone company. But if it succeeds, the move could keep competitors like AT&T and GST Telecommunications out of the North Idaho phone market. Mitzi Sachs, vice president and general manager of GST Telecommunications in Spokane, said an exemption for GTE could thwart her company's plans to offer high-tech phone, data and Internet services to Coeur d'Alene businesses. "I think the consumer is the loser, especially the business consumer," Sachs said. "It'll delay technology getting to Coeur d'Alene that much faster." The Idaho Public Utilities Commission agreed Thursday to schedule a hearing on GTE's claim within the next 45 to 60 days. The move came just as the House State Affairs Committee is deliberating on a bill that would grant small, rural companies an automatic, three- to five-year exemption from competition. GTE, with 123,000 telephone customers in Idaho, is the state's second-largest provider of local phone service. But its North Idaho service area doesn't include any communities with more than 50,000 people -- which could allow the company to fit under the legal definition of rural phone companies. "This catches me totally flat-footed -- I can't imagine what their thinking is," . Ron Crane, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee and sponsor of Idaho's telecommunications deregulation bill. "There's a lot of support among the legislators for what we consider to be the rural telephone companies -- we're a rural state." But legislators generally think of the tiny firms that provide phone service in towns like Albion, Cambridge and Weippe when they think rural, Crane said. "We have a lot of rural area in Idaho that's high-cost," said Carol Rutgers, director of external affairs for GTE. "We think there should be some consideration of how that's going to impact universal service." When competitors come into the market, they tend to pick off the higher-profit business customers, not the expensive-to-serve remote residences, Rutgers said. GTE provides local phone service throughout North Idaho. Small rural companies have been lobbying the Idaho Legislature strongly on the deregulation issue. They persuaded lawmakers to give them protection from competition in the state legislation, saying immediate competition from such competitors as AT&T, Sprint and MCI would pose a hardship for small firms. GTE probably wouldn't qualify for the three-year exemption in the state legislation, because the bill includes a requirement that qualifying companies have less than two percent of the nation's subscriber lines. But if the PUC upholds the company's claim to rural status under the federal law, GTE might be able to keep competition at bay. Eileen Benner of AT&T said of GTE's claim, "That's something, isn't it? Poor old little GTE. "Is that the kind of company that needs to be shielded from competition?" she asked. Three companies have received PUC approval to compete with GTE in North Idaho, once they negotiate agreements with GTE to use its lines. AT&T, one of the three, has requested that the PUC arbitrate between it and GTE because the two firms haven't been able to reach an interconnection agreement. But Rutgers sent a letter to the PUC this week saying the agency can't arbitrate anything because GTE is a rural company that's exempt from competition. Under the 1996 federal law deregulating telecommunications, the PUC must look into whether allowing competition against a rural phone company would be economically burdensome, whether it's technically unfeasible and whether it would interfere with maintaining universal phone service. The PUC must use those criteria to decide whether to allow competition. "All we're asking is just keep that in mind as we go forward," Rutgers said. GTE has argued unsuccessfully for rural exemptions in at least two other states, Ohio and Minnesota. GTE is all for competition where it will be fair, Rutgers said. "We're talking about rural and hard-to-reach areas." ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: Cloud Over PacTel-SBC Merger Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:30:51 PST ----- Forwarded Message ----- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:20:24 -0800 From: sqlgate@sf-ptg-fw.pactel.com Subject: California Administrative Law Judges' Proposed Decision Casts Cloud Over PacTel-SBC Merger RELATED DOCUMENTS: * Additional Merger Information FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 21, 1997 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Larry L. Solomon, SBC 210 351-3990 Michael Runzler, PacTel 415 394-3643 mrunzler@legal.pactel.com California Administrative Law Judges' Proposed Decision Casts Cloud Over PacTel-SBC Merger Companies Call Proposed Penalty of More Than $750 Million, Other Conditions, "Unreasonable" SAN FRANCISCO -- Pacific Telesis and SBC Communications said today that a proposal by two administrative law judges to impose a crippling penalty of more than $750 million and other conditions on the merger of the two companies could jeopardize the deal if it is adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The administrative law judges' proposed decision will be reviewed by the full Commission over the next several weeks. The Commission will either accept or amend the proposed decision when it issues its final ruling, which is expected in late March. "While we're extremely disappointed with the adminstrative law judges' proposed decision, we're hopeful that the Commission next month will reach a decision which allows the merger to go forward to create new jobs, more competition and tens of millions of dollars in new community investment in California," said Phil Quigley, Pacific Telesis Group chairman and chief executive officer. "If the proposed decision is adopted by the CPUC, it could seriously jeopardize the merger." "This merger will create a stronger, more competitive company that will be able to offer better services to Californians at more competitive prices," said Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., SBC chairman and chief executive officer. "The merged company will generate 1,000 new jobs and establish four new company headquarters in California, creating a positive ripple effect of more than $100 million on the state's economy over the next few years. Also, we'll expand Pacific Bell's commitment to the technologically underserved communities of the state, with potentially more than $80 million in new investments, if the merger is approved without penalty." "The proposed decision ignores the facts presented in weeks of hearings and appears designed to severely penalize the companies and discourage the merger," Quigley said. "If the merger is terminated, Pacific Telesis shareowners -- including almost 200,000 Californians -- will be very seriously harmed. "Any penalty is unwarranted," Quigley said. "We hope the commissioners will look at the facts and make a final decision which allows the benefits of the merger -- more competition, jobs and community investment -- to flow through to Californians. While other states eagerly seek new jobs and investment, California's ALJs have recommended a payment that penalizes an effort which will create jobs." The proposed decision is based on the ALJs' interpretation of a California state law which provides that customers share in the benefits of a merger between "utilities." The companies have maintained they are not utilities, but diversified holding companies. "Also, the law was written when we didn't have competition in the local telephone business like we do today from about 100 competitors," Quigley said. The companies stress that customers will benefit from the merger through lower prices and more choices brought about by increased competition in the local long-distance and wireless service markets, and that a merger penalty is unjustified. Since the merger was announced April 1, 1996, it has been approved by 97 percent of the voting shareowners of both companies. The U.S. Department of Justice and the California Attorney General said the merger would not reduce competition in the state's telecommunications markets. The Federal Communications Commission unanimously said the merger is "in the public interest." The Nevada Public Service Commission approved the merger in December. In addition, the merger received widespread support at seven public hearings the CPUC held throughout the state last year. "Not surprisingly, the main opponents of the merger have been our competitors," Quigley said. "AT&T and MCI want to prevent creation of a new company with the resources to give them a run for their money. Clearly, the public interest is best served by having several healthy competitors who will vie for the business of Californians." Pacific Telesis (NYSE:PAC) is a diversified telecommunications corporation based in San Francisco. Through its Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell subsidiaries, the corporation offers a wide array of telecommunications services in California and Nevada, including directory advertising and publishing. Through its operating subsidiaries, the corporation serves nearly 16.4 million access lines and offers Internet access services to both business and residential customers. Aer subsidiary, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, has begun offering new wireless personal communications services (PCS) in the San Diego area, and will expand service in California and Nevada throughout 1997. SBC Communications Inc. is one of the world's leading diversified telecommunications companies, with tens of millions of customers in 13 U.S. states and eight counties. Through its subsidiaries, it provides innovative communications services under the Southwestern Bell and Cellular One brands, including local and long- distance telephone, wireless, paging, Internet access, cable TV and messaging services, as well as telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising and publishing. SBC (www.sbc.com) reported 1996 revenues of $13.9 billion. ----------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: MSgt Paul Berens Subject: Satellite Cellular? Date: Fri, 21 Feb 97 16:45:00 PST Coincidence? Teledesic is projecting four cents a minute as their cost. They don't seem to be the company involved in this MLM froth, but their cost is the same ... See www.teledesic.com BTW, there's a slight bias in the below. He refers several times to deployments "this decade". If he's referring to the decade from 1997 to 2007, there are more than just Iridium. If he's referring to the decade from 1990 to 2000, it's hardly a big statement since we're 60% through ... Wonder if he owns Motorola stock??? I OTOH have no vested interest. I'm active duty military so I've got no business connection to the issue, and the only stock I own is Sunshine Mining. (And that just about says it all regarding my investment acumen!) Paul J. Berens pberens@spacecom.af.mil > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 13:27:21 -0800 > From: Van Hefner > Subject: "Satellite Phone" Scam Hits Internet > Eureka, CA, Feb. 11, 1997 (DLD Digest) -- We have been flodded this past > week with inquiries about a new "breakthrough technology" which is being > touted via the internet, junk faxes and junk mail. > The vaguely worded press releases we have seen proclaim that this is > the MLM opportunity of a lifetime. It goes on to claim that satellite > telephones will soon be available to consumers which will lower the > price of long distance calls to as low as 4 cents per minute, anywhere > in the world. > The releases also claim that "major corporations" are backing this project, > although those releasing the info refuse to name the actual companies. > The claims are quite simply FALSE. Though we do not know who the actual > company is that is distributing this "spam", we do know that the entire > thing is a hoax. ------------------------------ From: tmax@htconn.com Subject: Re: Why/What Extensions to snmpd? Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:07:34 GMT Organization: Hi-TECH Connections Reply-To: tmax@htconn.com Mark Lo Chiano mentioned last Tue, 21 Jan 1997 in comp.protocols.snmp > Dru Nelson wrote: >> I see some people asking a lot about extensions to >> snmp daemons running on various platforms. Can some >> people post some interesting examples of what they >> are monitoring/controlling? (certain processes, >> a proxy for something, a coke machine?)? > Interesting is an "interesting" word :-}. It is all in the > perspective. > We traditionally use an "SNMP multiplexing" approach to solving our > partners needs for several primary reasons: [snippage of reasons for "modular design"] > ====================================================== > As far as real-world uses of extensible agents, we have > instrumented a wide array of capabilities: > -- Virtual Private Networks. In this arena, a public service [and other cool "leading edge designs" which don't relate directly to extensible agents] > Respectfully, > Mark Lo Chiano > President >Center Technology Mark and Dru; Extensions is an "extensible" concept, it would appear. Sorry for the snippage, Mark, but it wasn't technically relevant, or specific enough to answer the question. I don't mean to flame you personally, and I'm sorry for the burnt lapels, but this is a technical newsgroup, and I didn't see any technical information in your response (great marketing, yea, but nothing detailed enough to be helpful). I am greatly interested in hearing some answers to Dru's question, but I find I'm confused about what exactly the question is. Respectfully, Mark, you're the President of Center Technology. Do you think maybe we could hear from your engineers on _actual_ extensible agent implementations they've _actually_ done? I'm not saying you haven't put management in place for VPNs, or applications management, or legacy equipment support (the other two examples you sited, without giving any indication how the extensibility of the agent technology has helped to implement them). I'm not saying you haven't used "extensible agent technology" (probably one of the commercially available agent development environments, like EMANATE or Bridgeway EventIX, to name the two I am most familiar with) to do this. But you haven't answered the question. Or have you? I realize now that I'm confused about the term "extensions to agents". Your question, in retrospect, Dru, seems to simply wonder 'why'. The easy answer (sorry, Mark, but this is the one you gave ;-}) is that you start with sort of a "core agent" which supports a standard MIB, and then add locally developed "private" extensions to cover specific instrumentation. Whatever that instrumentation may be (coke machine, serial interface to a device like a PBX, or even database server function calls, to name three examples I'm familiar with), this would be what I would term a "statically extensible" agent. This seems to be primarily what "agent development kits" such as those I cited were built for. But the problems they're solving could just as easily be solved by a "monolithic" agent which is developed from the ground up by a single developer. There is currently an IETF working group attempting to standardize a methodology for extensible agents, the agentx specification. The debates I've seen on the mailing list (subscribe at agentx-request@fv.com) tend to center around making sure it works in what I would term a "dynamically extensible" environment. This means that various sub-agents will be added or removed from the implementation on a semi-routine basis. The example I am most interested in would be a master agent which monitors a host, with sub-agents being incorporated within major applications (server processes, mostly). As a package is installed on the host, application-specific MIB support would be made available automatically via the master/sub agent capabilities. This type of capability is far more demanding than the "proxy agent" system which, as I mentioned, could just as well be fixed with a single monolithic agent. The real nut to crack, it seems, is what you do when you want more than one agent at a single transport address. But this is only a problem if you can't just sit down and write that one agent yourself. As long as you are developing the agent, you're just developing an agent. A truly "extensible" agent would allow for much more, such as my example above. The biggest problem I've heard of is when two such sub-agents both support the same MIBs and, more specifically, want to separately support separate rows within a table within a MIB. Unfortunately, I don't believe anyone has really implemented very many systems of this nature (not just my example, but _any_ dynamic extensibility). The majority of "extensible agent" methodologies are used for simply customized agents, often referred to as "proxy" agents. Most if not all of these implementations could be completely constructed with a monolithic agent, and gain no real advantage from "extensibility" except as a simple method of development. It's a lot easier to build an agent in EMANATE or EventIX than to get the cmu code and program it yourself in C or whatever. (I particularly like Bridgeway's "graphic mib builder", which allows the definition of the agent's mib through a GUI, rather than writing ASN.1 directly.) The only real example of dynamically extensible agent design I've ever seen anyone to admit to, though, was a mention by a Bay Networks engineer that they use EMANATE for their hub agents. This may be a true dynamic extensible agent, as new RMON probe/Network Management Module hardware (DCMs or DMEs in Bayspeak) can be added to their 5000 hub chassis as a snap-in board. Unfortunately, it may also explain why this system is plagued by real-life implementation problems; issues which often make anything but the most basic hub port traffic monitoring unusable. Now having insulted the president of a fellow integrator for being technically vapid, and no less than Bay Networks for their management implementations, let me try to resubmit Dru's question. I'm sure that Center Technology has done some impressive, and even interesting, development (and I recognize the points you made and examples you sited as important and useful). And I still believe that, with all it's faults, Optivity from Bay Networks is the most powerful element manager on the market, and provides unparalleled functionality for hub-based management. But is anyone really creating (or even planning to create) dynamically extensible agents which solve real-world problems? I believe one of the reasons I may not have been able to find out about any is the fact that they are essentially proprietary implementations, and no one really wants to give any details away about their own tricks. On the other hand, maybe the only ones who are dealing with these issues at all are the agentx group themselves, in which case they are wasting a lot of cycles trying to build something that isn't really feasible. All I've seen on the list so far is "thought experiments" concerning sub-agent support of the ifTable, which doesn't seem like a very pressing concern, as routers seem to get along pretty well with a single monolithic agent. To put it bluntly; do any of the sub-agents which use current proprietary systems act in a dynamic manner? I am taking the liberty of cross-posting this a little to try to generate some discussion. I'm considering even sending this to the agentx group via email, as it may help their effort in designing real-world solutions (is there really a real-world problem?). Follow-ups set to comp.protocols.snmp. I hope I haven't gone on too long, or stepped on too many toes. I'm just a curious consultant, myself, and anxiously wondering if I've made my point clear. The difference between statically and dynamically extensible agents seems to be an obvious one, but I'm not sure if everyone who talks about extensible agents (people who have used EMANATE and the agentx working group, to be specific) are talking about the same thing. Am I missing something? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #49 *****************************