Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA21073; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 01:49:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 01:49:18 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710040549.BAA21073@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #271 TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Oct 97 01:49:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 271 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 303 and Overlay of 720 (Donald M. Heiberg) Local Number Portability and Interconnecting Services (M. Castano-Gonzalez) California AT&T Outage (Tad Cook) Anti-Spam Spam? (Anthony Argyriou) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Linc Madison) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Michael R. Ward) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Dennis.-.MCI.Stockholder@zippo.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: * telecom-request@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 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: 303 and Overlay of 720 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:54:03 -0600 Colorado Public Utilities Commission http://www.puc.state.co.us/docket/97m329t/min925a.html Colorado Numbering Task Force Minutes September 25-26, 1997 Members Present Bruce Armstrong - Colorado PUC Mike Whaley - U S West Jack Ott - Numbering Plan Administrator Mike Sheridan - AT&T Mike Lachman - Pagenet Karen Mulberry - MCI Dennis McClure - TCG Joe Klein - ICG Dian Callaghan - OCC Jeff Swan - PTI Members Absent Cathy Handley - PCIA Tom Wilkinson - 9-1-1 (USWC) Non-Members Present Becky Quintana - Colorado PUC P.B. Schechter - OCC Pete Tanna - U S West Bruce Bennett - Lockheed Martin Steve Denman - Counsel for Numbering Administrator Letty Friesen - TCG Counsel Rhonda Marshall - AT&T John Andrews - PTI Tommy Thompson - U S West Barry Hjort - CTA This is the first meeting of the Colorado Numbering Task Force as required by Colorado Commission decision; therefore no minutes are to be approved. All persons present identified themselves and a sign-up sheet was passed around. Copies of the sign-up sheet were distributed to all present. The chair provided a general overview of the short-term and long-term objectives of the Task Force. According to the Commission order establishing the Task Force, its original purpose was twofold: to develop long term solutions for the efficient management of telephone numbers in the State of Colorado and to develop a timeline for accomplishing this objective. Because of the immediate desire of the Commission to conserve the current central office codes in the 303 area code, the Commission consolidated the Application of the Numbering Administrator to implement conservation measures with the Task Force docket and directed the first meeting of the Task Force to discuss procedures for implementing decisions of the Task Force. There was discussion regarding the forwarding of the recommendations of the Task Force to the Commission and the use of emergency rulemaking as a means to implement the desires of the Task Force. For cases where consensus cannot be reached, the use of majority and minority positions in either paper or oral form to the Commission for decision was discussed. No decision was reached as to the most appropriate way to handle non-consensus situations. Although the Commission does not have regulatory jurisdiction over the services and rates of certain central office code holders (e.g., wireless providers), the Commission has indicated that it believes it has jurisdiction over the telephone numbers and therefore will exert its jurisdiction over telephone numbers of all holders. The idea of emergency rulemaking did not seem to have much support by the group. Jack Ott reminded the group that the selection of a neutral third party administrator will happen shortly and there will be a transition from the current administrator to a new administrator. There was a discussion of the use of consensus as proposed by the Commission in its order. There were two differing views of consensus. The chair suggested the use of unanimity. It was suggested that the current industry use of consensus only requires that all parties be heard, a large majority of the parties agree and that not more than one party on a single industry segment disagrees with the result. No final decision was reached on how to deal specifically with non-consensus results. There was some discussion on the problems associated with E-911 services in a number pooling/rate center consolidation environment. (More discussion later). There was some general discussion of selecting a date certain for the turning up of the 720 area code for the purpose of establishing a specific customer education program. This would involve the requirement to establish a date for mandatory ten digit dialing. A comment was made regarding the pushing back the date for mandatory ten-digit dialing that it might negatively affect CLECs who are supposed to receive remaining 303 codes. The Commission order has told the Task Force to determine if the conservation measures can forestall the implementation of the 720 code. We are not running out of numbers; we are running out of central office codes. Is there any remedy to this situation? There was a discussion by Mike Lachman regarding the availability of 1+ local calling on a permissive basis. Although no question was called, this issue did not seem to have any negative response by the group. Some specific facts were raised regarding the 303 Area code. 43 rate centers today. LNP is to be implemented in the majority of the 303 area by June 30, 1998. 56 % of numbers have been assigned in the 303 code but only 77 codes remain available. The Administrator estimates that only approximately 20 codes will remain by January 1. U S WEST is reclaiming some unused central office codes; but September, 1998 projected exhaust includes this reclamation. The numbering administrator has declared a jeopardy situation in the 303 code. February 1, 1998 is the date for the beginning of permissive 10-digit dialing in the 303 area. The Task Force reviewed the Commission's order for a list of suggested conservation methods. The list includes recapturing unused NXX codes, thousand block integrity, code sharing, rate center consolidation and, generically, number pooling. Each item was discussed individually as to its merits. Regarding the recapture of unused NXX codes, Jack Ott informed the group that he has already taken steps to perform this task and that the forecasted exhaust date of September, 1998 includes the recapture of all unused NXX codes. Thousand block integrity is the process whereby central office code holders would be required to manage the numbers in the block of 10,000 numbers assigned for each central office code such that each successive block of one thousand numbers (e.g., 1000-1999) prior to opening up the next thousand block of numbers. Regarding thousand block integrity, several parties conclude that any effort on thousand block integrity will not have any effect on the exhaust of the 303 code. The rationale is that any utilization of spare thousand blocks will require the implementation of number pooling. Also, there is a problem with assignment of numbers to certain PBXs wherein certain thousand blocks might not work (0XXX, 8XXX, 9XXX) and the assignment of "vanity" numbers. Since number pooling is predicted to take a long time to implement, or at least until after the implementation of LNP in second quarter of 1998. This issue was not resolved by the group. Code sharing is the current practice of sharing an NXX code in two different switches. U S West utilizes this technology in instances where an analog switch is serving an area wherein digital features are required. U S West places a digital switching unit that is remoting off of a digital host in another wire center. A block of numbers (possibly a thousand block) in the analog switch is dedicated to the digital remote switch. U S West is concerned that this technology uses significant amounts of memory in the SCPs and it is not effectively deployable on a ubiquitous basis. This functionality requires seven digit routing where it is deployed. There was a large amount of discussion regarding the possibility of rate center consolidation within the 303 area. Jack Ott had proposed a specific rate center consolidation proposal in his application to the Commission. If rate center consolidation could be accomplished, gains could be made in the provision of central office codes to new facilities based providers. There is also the possibility of reclaiming codes from existing providers if those providers have not activated those codes, but we do not have data at the current time to determine this. Concerns about rate center consolidation centered on requirements for modifications of local calling areas and E911 problems. Regarding local calling area modifications, it is apparent that collapsing rate centers would affect the local calling areas of many areas. For example, Longmont can only call Boulder and Lafayette in the Denver local calling area. If the Denver local calling area were collapsed into one rate center as proposed by Mr. Ott, any LEC receiving a new NXX code theoretically could serve all customers in the Denver local calling area with the one NXX. The question then arises that the new NXX code serves areas accessible and inaccessible to the existing Longmont local calling area. Since there are numerous local calling areas that overlap like this, this is a problem that would need to be addressed prior to performing a rate center consolidation. It was also pointed out that any change in local calling areas will require a formal rate filing by all ILECs involved and public hearings to follow. This will undoubtedly be a request for an increase in the local rates for Colorado basic telephone service customers. This will require customer notifications and will likely take several months to complete. No decision was reached on an exact time period for such a change. Regarding E911, the issue is that any consolidation of rate centers needs to consider the problems that arise in the current E911 system. The problem is when a 911 call gets to the 911 PSAP without appropriate Automatic Number Identification (ANI) information to identify the customer for lookup in the Automatic Location Identification (ALI) database. Since the Denver calling area has multiple jurisdictions (i.e., counties), 911 calls must be able to route to the appropriate default PSAP in these ANI failure situations. The group decided that it would be advantageous to get input from the 911 community on the specifics of 911 problems. Dian Callaghan offered to try to get an appropriate person to our meeting on Friday (9/26). On Friday, the group continued the discussion on the possibilities of rate center consolidation as basically the only short term solution to number conservation in the 303 area that has not already been accomplished or planned. It was noted that both Minnesota and Arizona ad accomplished rate center consolidations. The 602 area code in Arizona e Commission offices. Action items (see below) we discussed. We developed a preliminary timeline for estimating dates: February 1, 1998 - Permissive dialing begins (Commission order) June 1, 1998 - Earliest date for beginning of mandatory ten-digit dialing June 30, 1998 - Date for implementation of LNP in Denver MSA July 1, 1998 - Date for opening of 720 code (Assuming 9/1/98 303 exhaust date) September 1, 1998 - Tentative date for 303 exhaust (from Number Administrator). This date might be affected in either direction depending upon other factors (e.g., rate center consolidation, changes in estimated growth rates) The Task Force adjourned to the Commission's weekly meeting to hear the discussion on the number administrator's utilization report. Action Items: 1. Jack Ott will provide a complete list of all NXX code holders in the 303 area and which NXXs they hold. Bruce Armstrong already has data from an information request provided by U S WEST. However, if there are any updates, Jack needs to provide that to Bruce. 2. Bruce will make a data request to U S West (and all other companies providing toll services) to provide a complete analysis of toll revenues (including messages and minutes) within the 303 area. This should be provided in as disaggregate a manner as possible to be able to test all scenarios for potential effects to ILECs for rate center consolidation. (Data was requested by Commission Staff on 9/30/97.) 3. Bruce will issue a data request to all NXX code holders to request specific utilization data from all code holders. This data should be the same data that was used to assemble the data for the September 15 utilization report to the Commission by the Number Administrator. The Commission in its regular weekly meeting expressed its interest in receiving this data from all code holders in an expeditious manner. (Bruce/Becky sent requests to all code holders via FAX on 9/30/97 allowing for five business days turnaround.) 4. A meeting with the Denver area 911 experts (members of the 911 Task Force) will meet on October 14 at 1 p.m. at the Commission. The purpose of the meeting is to understand the issues surrounding the 911 system, LNP and rate center consolidation and to attempt resolution of problems. 5. Jack Ott will review the code application records for the 303 area and check for outstanding Part 4 forms. 6. Jack Ott will provide a description of the Part 4 process at the next meeting of the Task Force. 7.Jack Ott will draw up details of an audit process for consideration by the Task Force at the next meeting. This audit process will be used to track the utilization of numbers by any code holders. 8.The next meeting of the Task Force will be on October 22-23, 1997. 9.The tentative agenda for the next meeting includes discussion of the previous action items as well as selection of a date for the beginning of mandatory ten digit dialing. Respectfully submitted, Bruce Armstrong Chair of the Task Force October 2, 1997 ------------------------------ From: Mario A. Castano-Gonzalez Subject: Local Number Portability and Interconnecting Network Services Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 10:18:10 -0500 Hello ... We at CINTEL (Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones de Colombia) are analyzing the problem of implementing the national-wide interconnection of the intelligent network services provided by the several local telcos (with special interest in how to provide local number portability LNP). Here in Colombia we have in this moment more than 30 local service providers and one long distance provider, but many more are entering the local and long distance markets. Thus why we are interested in knowing how these problems are being faced in USA, and the products the IN providers are currently offering. Regards, Mario A. Castano-Gonzalez Chief Planning Officer Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones - CINTEL Av 9 118-85 Bogota Colombia Tels: +57 1 620 8307 Fax: +57 1 214 4121 Email: m.a.castano@ieee.org http://www.colciencias.gov.co/cintel/ CINTEL (Centro de Investigacion de las Telecomunicaciones, Telecommunications Research Center, established 1993) is a private, non-profit organization with 43 shareholders that represent the most important companies related with the telecommunications business in Colombia, including 23 local and long distance telephone service providers, universities, telecomms equipment providers and governmental institutions. We provide R&D, standardization, certification, consulting and training services to the whole telecommunications sector in our country. Our objective is to collaborate in the technological development of the telecommunications companies and services in Colombia. ------------------------------ Subject: California AT&T Outage Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:36:26 PDT From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Temporary telephone service outage in Chico-Redding area CHIC0, Calif. (AP) -- Long-distance telephone service in the northern Sacramento Valley was interrupted for several hours Friday, and the cause of it was not immediately known. An AT&T spokesman said the outage began shortly after 6:30 a.m. in the Redding-Chico area and lasted until about 10:15 a.m. "There was an impact on calls in and out of the 916 area code," said Dave Johnson, a spokesman at AT&T's network headquarters in Bedminister, N.J. Toll calls within some areas of the 916 zone also were affected. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:29:43 -0700 From: Anthony Argyriou Subject: Anti-Spam Spam? Pat - I've received several copies of a very interesting spam: > Subject: Win95 CancelBot Lets ANYONE Delete Spam WORLDWIDE! > Reply-To: dougb@adram.com > A Windows 95 Cancel-bot? Finally *WE* can control the Usenet, and > spammers once and for all ... With this incredible creation SPAM WILL BE > HISTORY BY THANKSGIVING! > I read about it in a newsgroup, got it and it works like a champ! > Using this incredible well designed CancelBot, we can kill all the > Spam on UseNet, and in our favorite newsgroups, protect our domain > names, email addresses, etc., from being forged and misused by > spammers. > All you have to do is scan the UseNet, using key-word searches, and > the program will run in automatic mode issuing cancels even while > you're asleep. This is the beginning of the END of spam forever - > thanks to CrisLewis, Inc, and their developers. Anyone know anything about this? What is their benefit? Anthony Argyriou [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chris Lewis (at least I think there is an 'H' in his name) has long been a spam fighter, going back to what seems now to be an eternity ago when everyone's favorite villian was King Spam I (what was his name?) down in Albuquerque, NM. Ah yes, Jeff Slaton. Probably King Spam II is much worse; far more of a tyrant than Slaton ever dreamed of being. Chris Lewis used to issue cancels by the boat load in those days which generally were well-recieved by Usenet denizens. It happened now and then -- at least in my opinion -- that he got over-enthusiastic at times, and the scripts he used some- times had the effect of making even legitimate discussion of Slaton and his tactics difficult to carry on without those messages also getting cancelled. I remember several messages about Slaton which I had passed along to the Digest (and comp.dcom.telecom) getting can- celled for no apparent reason until Lewis told me his 'criteria' and I was able to avoid those certain strings, etc in future messages. Chris Lewis certainly is honest and dedicated to his cause, which seems to be the total eradication of spam during our lifetime (do you remember when they used to say that about cancer research?). I would have no hesitation in ordering and using his software. Now whether or not he had to spam in order to make his product known is another story ... you see, it is spam when you do it and I don't like the product or 'service' being offered; on the other hand it is an 'important net-wide broadcast announcement' when I do it and think everyone needs to know about it. That is, I guess, one unfortunate side affect of spam: to combat it requires splashing the cure all over the net in the same way the chain letters and other worthless crap gets splashed everywhere. In his case, I think I can tolerate it; if he and others making a concerted effort to take back the net are successful, we will owe them a big debt of gratitude. One problem I see with his solution though is that key words/phrases, even those vocabularies developed by highly sophisticated scripts written by experienced programmer/developers are bound to miss some spam which is probably not as bad as the fact that it will take down some valid messages at the same time. Having everyone and his brother running the cancelbot indiscriminatly -- and you know some people will try to 'improve' on the script -- is going to cause some havoc. I would much rather see a restricted distribution of the software to a few of the guys who really know what they are doing but if the intent is to sell the software and make a little money from the miserable condition of the newsgroups these days, then obviously a restricted distribution is not in the best interest of the guy(s) who put it together. ... in other words, they sent out spam. Are we going around in circles here? If you are asking my opinion, I'd say take a chance on his product, and try to ignore the inconsistencies here. But now you see, the guys who say, "I will never buy anything which is presented to me as a UCE or lunchmeat" are in a bind. Do they make an exception to their own rule in this case? I guess there are exceptions to all rules, including the rule that there are exceptions to all rules. Let's call it an important net-wide broadcast announcement. If anyone contacts Chris and gets a copy, please check it out and let us all know if it does the job. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 12:14:34 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , Chris Moffett wrote: > [summary: WorldCom (WCOM) has announced a bid to buy MCI (MCIC), which > has been in the process of acquisition by British Telecom (BTY). Also, > WorldCom has been acquiring MFS Communications, CompuServe, and Brooks > Fiber Properties (BFPT).] > Full story at www.cnnfn.com > > This is a clip from the CNNfn web page and I was looking for comments > on this offer from other readers. Do you think this will be allowed > (FCC or Justice Dept.)? Will this make WorldCom an unbeatable force > in the telecom world? First of all, it is important to note that there are two angles on this deal that will require review. First is the basic long-distance business, in which this would be the merger of the #4 and #2 players. Second is the Internet business; one analysis I saw suggested that the combined company would control over 60% of the backbone in the U.S., and a majority worldwide. All the same, the combined long-distance holdings of WorldCom and MCI would still be smaller than AT&T, and 60+% of the Internet is probably not sufficient to trigger antitrust intervention, at least not without other factors coming into play. However, there is concern in the Internet community because some of the upper management of WorldCom have been outspoken critics of flat-rate pricing for individual Internet access. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Michael R. Ward Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 15:02:16 -0500 Organization: University of Illinois The antitrust folks at DOJ will do a first cut by calculating market shares and HHI and the change in HHI that the merger implies (HHI 10,000 times sum of squared market shares). Bigger HHIs come from more concentrated industies which are, presumably, less compatitve. Mergers in industries with HHI < 1000 or in which HHI changes by < 50 get approved. Likewise, mergers in industries with HHI < 1800 AND change in HHI < 100 get approved. If the merger does not pass these tests, it will usually get a more thorough review. The long distance currently has an HHI in the 2200 to 2500 range depending on what how you define market share. This merger would yield a change in HHI of between 200 and 350. Therefore, we should expect the DOJ to conduct a more thorough investigation. However, after similar reviews, both the FTC and the DOJ have been approving mergers in which the HHI was around 3000 or the change in HHI is around 400. If I had to bet, I would expect the DOJ to eventually approve the merger. Michael R. Ward (217) 244-5667 Dept. of Ag. and Consumer Econ. ward1@uiuc.edu University of Illinois http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/ward1 ------------------------------ From: Dennis.-.MCI.Stockholder@zippo.com Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: 3 Oct 1997 13:09:10 -0700 Organization: None In article , Chris says: > Do you think this will be allowed by > (FCC or Justice Dept.)? Will this make WorldCom an unbeatable force > in the telecom world? > Any thoughts would be appreciated. As a stockholder and former MCI employee, I would be very surprised if this ever takes place. The current borad of MCI has a very cozy relationship with BT. They will all be keeping their jobs, they will receive tremendous stock options, etc, if the merger with BT goes through. Why do you think they caved in and agreed to sell out the stockholders by accepting an undervalued offer for MCI from BT? They were not looking out for the stockholder's interests, they were seeking to increase their own personal wealth at our expense. I do not believe the stockholders would have approved the revised BT/MCI merger. That is why WorldCom has made this move. However, the stockholders of both BT and MCI have approved the original merger. My guess is that MCI and BT will merge under the orignal, approved terms to thwart the Worldcom bid. Dennis PS: Any MCI stockholder that would vote to merge with MCI under the revised plan needs to have their head examined. It stinks if you are a stockholder. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #271 ******************************