Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA12091; Wed, 7 May 1997 01:04:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 01:04:13 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705070504.BAA12091@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #112 TELECOM Digest Wed, 7 May 97 01:03:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 112 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 847 Reported to Need Relief 4Q97 (David W. Tamkin) Motorola May Take Legal Action Over Health Claims (Monty Solomon) ISDNworld Conference (Bob Larribeau) Book Review: "How the Internet Works" by Eddings (Rob Slade) Street Corner Web Browser Spotted in the Netherlands (Paul Houle) False 911 Calls (rweingar@newnorth.net) Re: Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC, Users (B. Allen) Employment Opportunity: Burlington MA Telecommunications (Jack Bryar) Re: BellSouth, Payphones and AOSlime (Stanley Cline) 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: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * 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: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) 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 archives@telecom-digest.org 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dattier@wwa.com (David W. Tamkin) Subject: 847 Reported to Need Relief 4Q97 Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 13:43:36 CDT The Friday, May 2, Chicago _Sun-Times_ (nothing appeared about it in the Chicago _Tribune_) carried a front-page story that area code 847 is in bad shape and needs relief this coming fall. Two suggestions were a split roughly along the Des Plaines River (except that the south end of the split line would go west of the city of Des Plaines) and an overlay. The article stated that the split proposal did not say which side should keep 847. As we expect, the effect of an overlay was very poorly presented in the article. The poll question of the day was "Would you rather have an area code split or dial eleven digits for all calls?" and the article said that with an overlay all local calls would have to be "dialed as [not "like" but "as"] long-distance calls, but at a local charge." Except for the 312/773 line through Chicago, which has two area codes to itself, area code boundaries in Illinois do not divide municipali- ties. There is no way to split 847 without forcing many thousands of phone number changes where municipal borders vary from CO and exchange boundaries, though I should expect that the proposed split would not create any single area needing number changes as large as the 23,000 lines in southern Schaumburg that had to get new numbers when 847 was created early last year. At least the article did not blame beepers and faxes for the number crunch: it blamed the reservation of an entire prefix for each local service provider in each exchange. The Citizens Utility Board -- an organization that argues before the Illinois Commerce Commission and lobbies the state legislature against utility rate increases -- supports neither; they maintain that only about 29% of the actual telephone numbers in 847's existing prefixes are in use, and they want competing local providers to be assigned numbers in blocks of 1000 instead of in entire prefixes. That would get 847 out of jeopardy. Full number portability is supposed to be in place soon, and that will allow assigning numbers to providers in blocks of one. Blocks of 1000 would then be an adequate stopgap until portability (can't we call it something else?) is in full swing. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The _Chicago Tribune_ reported on this in the Tuesday paper. As you pointed out, the culprits named for the mess are the various competitors and their blocks of ten thousand numbers each. The Tribune article said most likely the 'east side' of 847 -- namely here in Skokie, Evanston and up the lakeshore -- would be getting the new code, while communities to the west and northwest would likely be the ones to keep 847. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 00:05:58 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Motorola May Take Legal Action Over Health Claims Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 19.12 Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 07:14:23 -0400 From: "Mich Kabay [NCSA]" Subject: Motorola may take legal action over health claims In Australia, there's been quite a fuss over claims that cellular phones cause all manner of disease. Motorola responds: Phone giant may take legal action over health claims Australian Associated Press 29 Apr 1997 SYDNEY, April 29 AAP - In the wake of growing fears over mobile phone safety, industry giant Motorola has hinted it may take legal action over claims linking its products to brain cell damage, cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. The company's managing director Ron Nissan said today he had written to fledgling protection device manufacturer Microshield, seeking that it retract the claims made in its sales brochures. Key points made in the article: * Microshield announced its protective cell-phone shield in the third week of April. * "The device consists of a woven polyester and nickel casing, a PVC phone screen ingrained with ultra fine protective mesh and an adjustable polyester-coated aerial guard." * Device is described as blocking 90% of harmful emissions from the phones. * Advertising pamphlet claims that cell phones have been shown to cause "permanent brain cell damage, cancer cell growth acceleration and possible promotion of asthma conditions following exposure to microwave radiation at cellular phone frequencies". * Also claims that cell phones may cause Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. * Executive Director of the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), Peter Russell, has written to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to demand removal of this brochure. * ACCC will test Microshield claims using independent investigators. * Australian researchers announced yesterday that lab mice show higher incidence of lymphoma after exposure to cell phone radiation. M.E. Kabay, PhD, CISSP (Kirkland, QC), Director of Education National Computer Security Association (Carlisle, PA) http://www.ncsa.com ------------------------------ From: Bob Larribeau Subject: ISDNworld Conference Date: 6 May 1997 16:23:33 GMT Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333 The California ISDN Users' Group Spring ISDNworld conference will be held June 19 & 20 in San Diego. The conference will include tutorials, discussions of emerging technologies, and applications. There will also be an exhibition with 50 ISDN product and service companies participating. We will be hosting the North American ISDN Users' Forum on June 16 to 18 at the same location. The ISDNworld conference costs $295 if you register by May 23, $345 after. There is no charge to attend the exhibits. Take a look at http://www.isdnworld.com for complete information. Send your postal address to info@ciug.org if you would like a brochure mailed to you. Bob Larriibeau California ISDN Users' Group ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 10:59:54 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "How the Internet Works" by Eddings BKHINWRK.RVW 961216 "How the Internet Works", Joshua Eddings, 1994, 1-56276-192-7, U$24.95/C$34.95/UK#22.99 %A Joshua Eddings 72203.1434@compuserve.com %C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290 %D 1994 %G 1-56276-192-7 %I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP) %O U$24.95/C$34.95/UK#22.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com %P 218 %T "How the Internet Works" Most people will read the title of the book in terms of the overall and conceptual function of the net. In that sense the book works very well. The basic applications of the Internet are presented clearly and in a manner that aids in understanding. I am impressed Just in case, though, there may be those who think that the book shows you how to make the net work for you: how to use it. Sorry, the level of detail is not sufficient for that, nor is it intended to be. Most of the book, however, is quite accurate: surprisingly so given the "picture book" format. Almost the only quibble I have is with the first explanation of gopher, which presents a more potent type of agency than is actually the case. A fairly minor point in a whole book. (Even the section on viruses isn't bad.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHINWRK.RVW 961216 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Paul Houle Subject: Street Corner Web Browser Spotted in the Netherlands Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 09:26:27 -0400 Organization: Cornell University We went to the Netherlands a few weeks ago and found a street corner web browser in the middle of a bank of pay phones. It runs MSIE 3.0 and supports Java and Microsoft's limited version of Javascript but has Active X turned off. It costs about 6 US cents per minute to use and makes printouts for about 25 cents US. You pay for it with either a prepaid phone card you get from the post office or a 'chip card' which is some kind of smart card. I was quite impressed. For more information and photographs of the machine, go to URL http://www.msc.cornell.edu/~houle/sc/ ------------------------------ From: raw Subject: False 911 Calls Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 08:37:36 -0500 Organization: rtc Our 911 center is reporting "False 911 Calls". I've heard of cordless phones dialing 911 when their battery is discharged. Has anyone discovered any other unexpected / unexplained causes for these events, other than the obvious - (bad cable pair / trouble). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What about malicious people dialing 911 just to stir up a little action? Here in Skokie some fool was going through the train station several times per week late in the evening, dialing 911 then walking away and leaving the phone off hook or sometimes just hanging up and walking away. Of course every time this happened a police car would have to go there. I do not know if they ever caught him or not; the calls apparently stopped. In Chicago for many years prior to 911 when there was no convenient or easy way to trace false alarms, the Fire Department was plagued with false alarms -- sometimes a couple hundred per day. In many instances it was not so much a false alarm as it was a confused person giving the wrong address for a legitimate fire. We have many streets in Chicago with both a *north side* and *south side* of the city designation such as *North* Kedzie Avenue and *South* Kedzie Avenue; or *North* Cicero Avenue and *South* Cicero Avenue. So what was the Fire Department supposed to do when calls were received from someone who shouted hysterically into the phone, 'there is a fire at 1234 Kedzie Avenue' then hung up the phone to rush off to safety before the dispatcher could question the person 'is that 1234 North or 1234 South on Kedzie?' Since the addresses are a few miles apart, the dispatcher had to send out two squads; one to each side of town. Naturally one came back having done nothing. Most false alarms were recorded on the books as 'mistaken citizen trying to be helpful' unless specific malicious intent could be proven. The installation of 911 cut back greatly on that sort of incident once people were aware that they could be easily traced back to their phone and address. But still, payphones are used for these 'games' quite frequently. Another difficulty with calls to 911 from a pay phone where the caller hangs up is that so many payphones cannot receive incoming calls, consequently the dispatcher is unable to ring back the line in the hopes someone will answer and give even a brief description of the problem requiring police help. If there are going to be any future revisions in the 911 software I would like to see one which allows the 911 dispatcher to hold the line and ring back manually on it, the same way a telephone operator can hold up a line. For instance, a one way outgoing payphone never stopped the operator from ringing back to collect more money; she just never released the line to start with. I think 911 should be able to seize the line when a call comes in and not have to rely on dialing back to the caller for more details, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bradley Ward Allen Subject: Re: Long-Distance Access Charges Draw Scrutiny From FCC, Users Date: 06 May 1997 22:47:27 -0400 Reply-To: ulmo@armory.com > Access fees [to reach long distance companies] are a virtual "gravy > train" for local phone companies, [...] > But drastic changes could "blow up basic telephone service for > everyone," said Roy Neel, president of the U.S. Telephone > Association. [...] Hmm. I don't get this: In NYC, local NYNEX service (which often costs more than long distance bills) would get more expensive. Ok. Then MFS Intelenet, Teleport, Avis Rent-A-Car, AT&T Wireless, Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile, Omnipoint, and NextWave's resellers will be more competitive in the local phone market. More competition. Quicker progression in the charging chess game, leading to lower prices. Where does the consumer lose? Is this another case of protecting the old grandma who doesn't need cellular service? > He points out that access charges have dropped ever since the break-up > of AT&T in 1984, but that the average residential user hasn't always > benefited. Business users and high-volume residential customers have > saved, [...] Can someone compare their 1983 NYC bill to mine? I am a high-volume residential customer and my monthly local bill (without long distance and ISDN charges) is about $140 per month. Add in ISDN used for POTS-type service, and suddenly the cost is more like $180/month. Wish those charges went towards my cellular ($140/mo), ISP ($140/mo) and long distance ($60/mo -- most of which is local toll-free) bills as well (i.e., make them less). I don't even have cable (how can I afford it?) Honestly, I believe that the services I use cost a lot of money, but I feel $200/month to be a lot of money and it is probably sufficient for fiber to the home *and* an unlimited-use cell phone. I feel it is all an issue of costing, products, and integration, so this discussion I feel is entirely appropriate. (Saw a Hylan fiber splicing truck on 6th Ave today. Bet it would be cheaper if there was more fiber to maintain.) > The es[s]oteric nature of the dispute hasn't kept the local and > long-distance companies from boiling it down to simplistic arguments > that are being pushed in advertising and public relations campaigns > on the airwaves, in print media and over the Internet. I think my arguments are midway between simplistic and essoteric and am sure my economics on the issue make me look like a kindergartener. So what can I say? They don't teach this stuff in elementary school where it belongs! So I never learned it. > [...] Neel, of the local phone company trade group, angrily calls > MCI's arguments "a bare-faced lie." Neel said the access charges > help make up the difference in higher-cost areas as well as > residential service. The true cost of providing residential local > service is about $35 a month, [...] God do I wish! I'd be estatic to pay DOUBLE (so they make 100%)!!!!! > twice the average phone bill, Neel said. Oh God. I'm that unaverage? Well, my attitude is charge them for what they're using. If they don't need to pay $50 per month for phone service, then they don't need it, and can use a payphone or get a cellular phone at $25 per month for those emergency calls (likely to go down soon; or free for the 911 calls). > And without access fees companies would have to charge more, a lot > more in rural areas, for service. That's what it costs to live in rural areas. So live in the city where there are subways which are much better for the natural environment. The welfare for light suburbs and rural areas is unnecessary. Are you saying my $0.80 apple will go up to $0.90 because of this? Fine, I'll pay $0.10 more for my apple. > But others estimate the true cost of phone service to be much less. I'm not trying to steal telecommunications. But cutting it to one third of what I pay now would help my life and my productivity in this world immensely. > While it may be expensive to provide service in rural areas, it costs > about $15 to $20 a month in areas such as Nassau County and $5 a month > in central business districts, estimates David Gabel, associate > professor of economics at Queens College. In addition, local phone > companies making such estimates don't take out of the local bill the > costs of providing long-distance calls. More competiton in the > marketplace should also drive down costs for local service and access > fees, Gabel said. "Where do you see high customer access fees? > ... When you have monopolies," he said. Some who have studied the > issue propose a more radical solution of eliminating any access fees > as well as any subsidy to local phone service. That will drive > long-distance rates down by 25 percent to 30 percent, said Robert > Crandall, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Wait, so this means that the higher density urban areas where people move to have higher cost efficiencies for services in exchange for paying a premium rent, in the arena of telecommunications are actually paying greater amounts because of the higher perceived income in the area and the money-grubbing tendencies of monoplistic telecommunications entities, and thus subsidising a two-pronged rural and suburban contingent and a large profit-making business. Fights of monopolies finally aside (that's what this is majorly about after all), I protest the fact that *anybody* thinks I ought to subsidize the horrible lifestyles of non-urban folk. > "Virtually every economist agrees that we've made a mess of telephone > charges," Crandall said. The extra five-cents-a-minute in access > charges that consumers pay is clearly suppressing the demand for > long-distance calls, Crandall argues. He argues that regulators > should stop distorting the market and get out of the way particularly > because phone companies are facing new competitors and moving away > from monopoly systems. He points to lower prices that came to the > airline and trucking industry with deregulation, suggesting that it > could be duplicated in the telephone industry. And not jeporadize safety. I'd rather regulate airlines and not phone companies, honestly. (Maybe there's a connection: cheaper long distance calling rates means less traveling to have to be done (and better for the environment).) I actually agree with this paragraph significantly, but maintain that some regulation should exist in terms of some requirements such as banning false advertisement, requiring them to accept customers who pay the charges, listing all charges before being charged in reasonable amount of time for customer to react in a pratical way, and some solid antimonopoly measures (perhaps actually *banning* the largest companies from taking more than X-percent of the market, say 30% (including rural areas -- radios can go a long way today (and could for a while)), and disallowing them to band together with the "other" companies), etc. Wish I ran NYNEX. With my peculiar backround, I'd actually push for laws banning more than 30% ... [market share per area] Yeah, actually, one of the only market-size cost-setting type laws (rather than fairness laws such as true advertising, notification of costs, allowing people to buy services, etc.) I think is appropriate, for *all* telecommunications (Cable, Fiber, Radio) is a market-share-percentage law. We are solidly after the age where we need to have monopolies ANYWHERE. Yes, I know, that means there have to be 4 (count them, 4) radio antennas to BoHumTum, SomeState, so their 5 telecommunications-purchasing residents can be broken up accordingly among various companies (with two on one and one each on three). The competition between the companies will be fierce enough for that 2nd subscriber on their line and those borderline purchasers that they will try to make their service more worthwhile. Meanwhile, they won't mind servicing BoHumTum since they are, indeed, charging what it costs to provide service. The other 15 people who yacked all day long on the phone who can't afford it anymore can move to the city. Yes, that's precisely how I feel about it. (Is 4 companies enough? An exemption where there are fewer than 4 customers can be made, where each customer must choose a different company. Area would be defined as ... oh god, an acre? Or a square mile? How does that sound? It needs to be small enough that 4 companies' equipment would be close enough to customers in that area that there is incentive to compete.) See? I'm an awesome regulator. There must be forces in motion I don't understand ... else it would be regulated like I'd want it ... [umm, I'm pretending stupid.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 16:20:44 -0400 From: Jack Bryar Subject: Employment Opportunity: Burlington MA Telecommunications Individual, Inc. Editorial Department Telecommunications, Datacommunications Editorial Positions Evening, half time positions. Telecommunications position: Requires knowledge/of familiarity with * The telecommunications regulatory environment * Common (uncommon) telecom terms Datacommunications position: Requires knowledge of / familiarity with * Datacommunications protocols * Networking hardware * The major players in the datacommunications market Members of the editorial review staff work out of our Burlington, Massachusetts office. Responsibilities include final story selection and story editing of our topic library each evening. An optimal position for free-lance technology writers, technical research professionals, or independent consultants specializing in communications technology. See us at http://www.newspage.com call Jack Bryar at 800-766-4224 for more information or send resumes to: jbryar@individual.com subject: JOB-OFFER J.V. "Jack" Bryar Editorial Manager for Datacommunications and Multimedia Individual, Inc. Voice: 1-800-766-4224 x 642 International: 1-617-313-5642 email:jbryar@individual.com http://www.newspage.com http://www.individual.com If at first you don't succeed... skydiving is not for you. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: BellSouth, Payphones and AOSlime Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 15:03:27 GMT Organization: An antonym for Chaos Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com On Thu, 01 May 1997 17:40:09 -0500, Pat wrote: > a COCOT outside their place of business. They asked my advice on how > it should be programmed, and actually took my advice. I think it provides > pretty decent service, and it seems to be getting a lot more business Given the fact that *you*, the editor of TELECOM Digest, gave the advice, I'm not surprised at all. :) > for the first minute and fifty cents per minute after that. Area 809 > and its various split-offs are all blocked -- calls not allowed. NPA 787 -- Puerto Rico -- *should* be allowed, and charged at US domestic rates. Too many COCOT owners block 787 thinking 787 = 809 or 664 or some other scam NPA, when that's not the case! (The same should hold for 340 USVI, and 671 Guam when calls become rated as intraNANP rather than international.) > Calls to 800/888 are allowed at no charge, although the owner will be > compensated eventually at whatever rate is decided. The phone is In my experience, 888 is *BY FAR* the single biggest blemish against COCOT owners. As I note in my COCOT Web-Wall of Shame (on my web site at http://www.mindspring.com/~scline/payphone/shame.html) there are NUMEROUS COCOT *sleaze* in the Atlanta area [and other places] that either block NPA 888 altogether, or worse -- CHARGE "TOLL" RATES FOR 888 NUMBERS! I have complained REPEATEDLY to some of these COCOT sleaze with either no or rather belligerent responses, and have finally started referring the sleaze to the FCC and state regulators. One convenience store chain/COCOT owner went as far as to block an *800* number which is a backup to an *888* calling card access number. When I called that company, the "phone person" was fairly rude and said they were waiting on the *FCC* to provide rate tables! Of course, the FCC doesn't distribute rate tables to COCOT owners [the phone manufacturers, such as Intellicall and Elcotel, usually do], and why is NPA 888 not in the phones' chips OVER A YEAR AFTER THE NPA TOOK EFFECT? I think Judith would have something to say about THAT! > billing methods include 1-800-CALL-ATT, 1-800-AMERITECH (for > calling card calls) and 1-800-COLLECT via MCI. "You may if you The hidden number everyone forgets: 1-800-210-CARD for LEC calling card calls, via Sprint. > Finally -- and this to me is sort of a class act -- the COCOT > speed dial positions (*0 through *9) are programmed with 'public > service' numbers all operating free or for 25 cents each. For > example one speed dial position dials the RTA/CTA Transit Inform- > ation service 'to recieve public transit schedule information > for this location'; another speed dial position connects to the > local taxicab service; a third connects to a time-of-day/weather > message and another one to 'report problems with this phone.' That's a lot better than some of the COCOT sleaze (Roth) in New Orleans that offer horoscopes from their phones. :) > I can't help but think that much of the bum rap COCOTS have received > in the past has been due to the ignorance of their owners in setting > them up properly. In this case, the company which put it in told the Absolutely! Many COCOT operators [and even independent LECs] aren't very familiar with the NANP or telephony issues in general, and are probably clueless; others are deliberately trying to fleece the public by blocking 888, overcharging for 0+ intraLATA, etc. A few COCOT owners have been in trouble with the FCC and/or state regulators REPEATEDLY -- in a few cases over a period of FIVE OR MORE YEARS! That shows a rogue attitude -- and a request for disconnection. :) > what he wanted on the phone, so he asked me. I think if more COCOT > owners would genuinely make an effort to *compete* with the local > telco payphones, they would be amazed at the results. On his behalf I agree. The *ethical* COCOT owners (rare, but there are a few around) are certain to do better than the typical COCOT owners (who either need a big clue or are scum.) In fact, *I*'ve thought of getting in the COCOT business on and off for several years, if for no other reason than to put other, sleazy operators to shame. > to any-555-1212 for seventy-five cents. I think the guy who owns > the shop where it is located is going to see some nice $$$ from it, > in a legitimate way. PAT] I agree there too. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** scline(at)mindspring.com mailto:roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/ From/Reply-To may be changed -- NO SPAM! http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will mention to him about 787 and the others you named. I doubt they can be part of the three minutes for one dollar however; the default carrier is AT&T and those area codes you named cost more than that. Probably they could be in the Canada rates of two dollars for the first minute. I have thought about getting into COCOTS myself, if anyone in the business is looking for a good sales rep in this area. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #112 ******************************