Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA15651; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:01:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:01:31 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711080301.WAA15651@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #305 TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Nov 97 22:01:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 305 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Local MCI Service Difficulty Switching LD Provider (Jim Lawson) "Local Long Distance" Slammers (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule (Lisa Hancock) Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule (Adam Gaffin) How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Roy Smith) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Ed Ellers) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (B. Wilson) Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California (Lee Winson) Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California (Adam H. Kerman) Employment Opportunity: Systems Engineer Needed (dje@dmc22.com) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: WECO 500 Schematic (Lee Winson) Re: 900 Number Help (Michelle Durbin) Re: 900 Number Help (Eli Mantel) Re: Risks is Alive and Well (Pete Weiss) 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: jcl@earthling.net (Jim Lawson) Subject: Local MCI Service Difficulty Switching LD Provider Date: 7 Nov 1997 14:13:16 GMT Organization: Home I currently have MCI as my local phone service provider (no price difference from GTE, I just wanted off GTE). This past September I recieved an offer from AT&T for $100 if I switched to their LD service. I rang them and asked to be switched. A couple of weeks later I rang the 700-555-4141 and learned that I had not been switched. I called MCI and they said the number sometimes lagged and their computers said I was switched. I waited a week longer and there was no change. After calling AT&T and confirming my account was active and the request had been made to MCI to switch me I called MCI and told them to do so. Assuming they could handle that I left it alone till I got a postcard from AT&T stating they were having difficulty assuming my LD service. So I called them up and together we sat on hold with MCI for about an hour and finally spoke to a MCI rep. That rep stated that at first they had attempted to switch my local service to AT&T and since that wasn't a option where I live had switched me back to them. I then asked AT&T to put another service switch request into MCI and the MCI rep said it would take maybe five days. Two weeks pass and I'm still hearing the 700 number say MCI and AT&T has not recieved any of my toll calls. I call MCI and they say I was switched, I call AT&T and they say they aren't seeing any calls yet. I'm now waiting for a MCI supervisor to call me back. I'm now tempted to switch back to GTE who could at least handle switching of my LD carrier. I'm also concerned that any internaional and toll calls made during this period are not being carried at MCI's international rate since their computer thinks I'm not with them. :-( Jim Lawson jcl@earthling.net http://www.concentric.net/~jcl666 mst3k#3801 Kilgore Trout: "The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest." ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: "Local Long Distance" Slammers Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:20:59 -0600 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Today I got a call from an Ameritech representative. Apparently, there's a federally mandated surcharge on my phone bill which I could eliminate if I make a "minor change" to my "Local Long Distance" billing arrangements. We conversed for about five minutes, with me becoming more suspicious all along. Was this going to change my Long Distance carrier? No, just the way my local long distance was billed. What about my inbound 800 service? That would still be billed seperately by my LD carrier, however my "local long distance" would now appear right on my Ameritech bill, and this federally-mandated surcharge would be reduced or eliminated. The flags really started to wave when I discovered that she didn't know about my second line, and needed my full name and street address "for verification" (although she was typing furiously in the background). The jig was up when she announced that she was now going to transfer me to a "verification operator" to complete the billing change. Sure enough, the verification operator started reading off what my new rates were going to be (25 cents per minute for most calls) and when I asked if I was about to change my LD carrier she said yes. So of course, I said I was NOT going to authorize any such change, then hung up and immediately called Ameritech to make sure both of my lines are PIC'ed to the correct carrier and locked down. An AltaVista search for "Local Long Distance" (the name of the company I was about to switch to) turned up: Daniel Coleman President Coleman Enterprises, Inc. dba Local Long Distance 28 West Fifth Street Suite 480 St. Paul, MN 55102 As a LD reseller in Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Nebraska. The Rhode Island PUC is kind enough to divulge full contact info on this company at: http://www.ripuc.org/rec00001/r0000219.htm Point is, I've been reading c.d.t for over five years. I'm no genius, but I'd put myself in the 90th percentile WRT telecom literacy, and these goofs almost got me. I shudder to think what the average telecom consumer would suffer at their hands. The IL Atty. General's office said they were not interested unless I was actually switched, which (so far) has not happened. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Some of us still think it's important. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This reminds me of the joker here in Chicago who opened a business several years ago called 'Telephone Company Repair Service' ... that was the legal name of his company. He then had telemarketers phone everyone they could find telling them about his repair service and how they could pay a 'small premium' each month, billed separately from their phone bill of course, to have unlimited repairs made to their phones and lines as needed. He even stumbled upon a loophole which was that Ameritech did not have (nor any other Bell Company) a copyright on the 'walking fingers' emblem and he used that on his bills which he sent out monthly. The Illinois Attorney General's office finally closed him down but they were only able to do it when one of the telemarketers slipped up when asked, 'Are you part of Illinois Bell?' and said yes ... to an IBT employee called at home. If not for that little accident by his telemarketers he had stayed *barely* within the law. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule Date: 6 Nov 1997 01:06:17 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS > [AT&T] will replace its domestic basic schedule's day, evening and > night/weekend time periods with peak, off-peak and weekend time periods > and will eliminate all mileage bands. Calls will be priced at a single > rate during each time period, regardless of distance. I wonder how well this will be publicized. For some people, their phone bills will jump significantly: * Many people wait until 5pm for Evening rate to kick in. They will have to wait until 7pm with this change. * Many people wait until 11pm for the Night-Wkd rate to kick in. They will have to wait for the weekend to get the maximum discount. On the other hand, many people call Sunday night thinking weekend rate is still in effect. They'll save money now. I suspect increased use of automated computer dialing is partly responsible for this. When the old rate schedule was established about 20-25 years ago, most data transmissions were set up by a person, and there was nowhere near the volume of them. Personal facsimile was off in the future. Now many people have automated fax and computers programmed to transmit overnight. I still think rates should have some mileage basis. Living near several LATA boundaries, a five mile call for me goes over AT&T, and I pay far more for that than an equivalent local call. My local Bell company remains NOT allowed to carry such calls, even though now AT&T can carry regional toll calls in competition to it. I also wonder how this change will affect Calling Card and Credit Card calls from coin and non-coin phones. The "surcharges" put on such calls makes rate calculation really confusing. Frankly, I believe they're doing that intentionally, a confused consumer will end up paying more. ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:15:41 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com From Network World Fusion today: "AT&T is raising prices on all of its key data and voice services today. The move is likely to boost costs even for AT&T users on term contracts, most of whom do not have protection against price hikes because of the telecom industry's unique tariffing system." Increases range from 3.9% to 10% depending on service. You can get the complete story at: http: //www.nwfusion.com/news/1105att.html If you're not already an NWFusion user, you'll have to register first (it's free, at least). A dialog box'll pop up, hit Cancel to get to our registration page (unfortunately, when done, you'll be put onto our home page instead of the above - we recently move to a new server and still have some work to do). Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:07:00 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing No, I'm not talking about cable TV. I'm talking about the old cable message system. Our letterhead says "Cable Address: NYUMEDIC". What exactly is one supposed to do with that piece of information if they wanted to send me a message by cable? Can I just walk into a PTT in Mongolia and tell the clerk "I want to send this to Roy Smith, at NYUMEDIC", and he'll do something magic? Who runs this? Is it some separate physical network? Does it still actually exist in any useful way, or is the address on our letterhead just an anachronism left over from long ago, since gone the way of the telegram? Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In brief, a 'cable address' was simply a short form or abbreviated form of a longer telex/TWX number much like 'Enterprise' was a short form of a business telephone number. Unlike 'Enterprise', cable addresses did not automatically signify the message could be sent collect however. It was up to each subscriber with a cable address to make that decision. You rarely see cable addresses any longer for the simple reason you rarely see telex/TWX/telegram messages any longer. Consider them if you will as simply an alias address used for business purposes to make the recipient easier to remember/correspond with. Lots and lots of business places had cable addresses when telegraphy was a common method of communication. Strictly speaking, 'telegrams' were domestic, intra-USA only messages through the Western Union monopoly. 'Cablegrams' were messages to or from the United States going overseas to other countries, however the term 'cable address' was used in both services. Cable addresses were maintained by whatever international organization coordinated telegraph services. Offhand I remember a few from long ago: BEACON HILL was an organization in Massachusetts; SYMPHONY was the Chicago Symphony Orchestra; FBI was the Federal Bureau of Investigation; HOUSEREPS, WHITEHOUSE, and CAPITOLHILL should be obvious. Then there was FINEART for radio station WFMT in Chicago. When I worked in the phone room at the University of Chicago, the telex machine located there was UNIVCHGO. All could be reached with a numerical address as well. Yes, you should be able to go to any PTT and send a cablegram to a cable address in lieu of the corresponding numerical address if indeed the location still is using a telex machine. For that matter if Western Union still accepts telegrams via their 800 number in St. Louis (no longer billable to your phone and no longer deliverable by a young boy on a bicycle who rides up to your house with a piece of paper in one hand while his other palm is outstretched waiting for a monetary gift or tip) you can send telegrams to cable addresses as well. The response from the message-taker would probably be very similar to that of an AT&T operator asked to establish a connection with a toll-station; i.e. a bit of head scratching and denial at first, but it can be done. Are you sure you are not using some *very old* stationary? Do you still have telex service there at your school? Honestly I am not sure cable addresses still exist, even if some modicum of telex/TWX service is still around. If they do, that's how they work. WUTCO used to charge their hardwired customers (those with telegraph equipment on their premises) about one or two dollars per month to maintain the 'address' in their database. It could also be flagged to indicate whether or not 'automatic reverse charge' (collect) telegrams were acceptable or not. I hope that answers your question. Oh, before I forget: guess which entity had the cable address TITANIC nearly a century ago? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:19:26 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Al Varney wrote: "It would seem a property right in numbers similar to a TV station broadcast frequency license might be a reasonable claim." FWIW, broadcasters do *not* have a property right in the normal sense in their licenses; when a station is sold the seller has to apply to the FCC to transfer the license to the buyer, and the Commission can deny that transfer if it sees a problem with the buyer. The FCC, of course, can also revoke a license at any time under its regulations, which must comply with the Communications Act. Among other things, the FCC usually doesn't allow a broadcast license to be sold separately from the real and other property of the station in question, so someone who has just obtained a license can't just turn around and sell it; s/he has to actually put the station on the air, somehow, and then sell the operating station. (One Louisville FM station licensee got around that a few years ago by renting a spare transmitter from Clear Channel Communications, which operated two stations here and has more now. Clear Channel downlinked a satellite-fed country music service, put it on the new licensee's frequency with its spare transmitter, and signed the new call letters as required. This went on for several months, during which the licensee found a buyer and made a deal to sell the station; this complied with the letter of the FCC rules since the station was in operation, but no physical assets were sold -- the guy didn't own any to sell!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:50:13 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant In article , Judith Oppenheimer writes: > This opinion will not necessarily be binding on the FCC. The case does > not turn on an interpretation of any federal communications law or FCC > rule or policy. But, even though it is not absolutely binding on the > FCC, it is nonetheless a very useful precedent. It can't hurt, and it > may help advance the cause of toll-free users. Nowhere in all this verbiage was it said which appellate court this was or a cite to a published or slip opinion given, which makes it almost impossible to assess the potential significance of this opinion, nor is anything said as to whether Worldcom asserted lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was exclusively within that of the FCC and how that issue was disposed of (if it was raised) or whether the FCC may have "participated" by way of an amicus brief and how the issues raised in its brief (if there were one) were disposed of. In general terms, decisions aren't binding on anyone not a party to the litigation; and a Federal appellate court decision has precedential value only within the appellate jurisdiction (i.e., a Second Circuit decision is only precedent within the Second Circuit, for example). Although another Circuit Court of Appeals or a District Court within another circuit might find it persuasive, it's free to reach a contrary decision; and it's only decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court which establish precedent binding on all of the circuits and trial courts within them. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California Date: 5 Nov 1997 04:42:25 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Mark, thanks for the interesting report. Some questions I'd like to share with the newsgroup ... 1) I'm curious as to if the AT&T operators would know how to connect you if you did NOT give them the operator dialing code -- just said "Drakesbad Number 2 in Susanville California". Normally, that's all you would know. [When I've used Enterprise numbers in recent years, the typical AT&T operator has no idea what I'm talking about and refuses to do anything until I provide a proper number. One even cut me off. I have to ask them to get a supervisor to explain how to look it up. (Several AT&T operators referred me back to the local Bell operator, who then referred me back to AT&T.) One time the AT&T operator placed the call as collect, but asked the called party if they'd accept it -- on an Enterprise call, that's supposed to be a given.] 2) When AT&T first began giving discounts for dialed direct calls (1970s?) there were a few places that still didn't have DDD service. For those places, or for when a customer had trouble making the call, AT&T always charged the dialed-direct rate even if the operator placed the call. I don't know what today's rate plans are, but by that tradition you should be billed the dialed direct rate. Also, I thought on operator-handled rates that the operator surcharge is only on the first minute and that subsequent minutes are the same as dialed direct. Further, aren't there now two classes of operator handled -- one sort of an "self-serve" type-dial 0+ and enter your calling card, and the other a "full serve"? Regardless of how they bill you, it might be interesting to call them and ask for an explanation when you get the bill. I'll bet their customer service people won't have a clue on it! ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California Date: 5 Nov 1997 00:14:50 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote about tol-stations. Mark, that was a terrific article, as always. BTW, when I call the AT&T operator, I just flash after I hear the two-tone bong; I never dial 0#. Does this work universally? ------------------------------ From: dje@dmc22.com Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:03:00 CST Subject: Employment Opportunity: Systems Engineer Needed I am looking to hire a Systems Engineer to provide Pre-Sales technical support, perform product technical presentations and demonstrations for networking software installed on Unix, Novell and Windows NT platforms. The requirements include: Knowlege of one or more of the previously mentioned platforms, strong communication skills, and the ability to get people excited about new technologies. We're one of the largest software companies in the world. Candidate can report to any one of three offices in New Jersey (southern, central and northern). Compensation 50,000 - $90,000, outstanding benefits (including company paid medical and dental). Company that has been consistantly rated one of the best companies to work for in North America. If you know someone that would be interested I can be contacted at: Dave Eide Voice: (609) 584-9000 ext 273 Fax (609) 584-9575 Email dje@dmc22.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 7 Nov 1997 16:42:07 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT, Al Varney wrote: > In article , Linc Madison > wrote: >> Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing >> 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing >> from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed >> that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". > You'll find this at: > > The answer is: June 30, 1998 Well, as I noted in a post that PAT apparently ditched because I cross-posted it to .tech, my latest Nortel News says that the end of permissive is 31 Dec 97. Alas, the post didn't make it into .tech either, for some reason, so here it is again. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that it did not make it into the .tech group either implies perhaps it never got to either place; that perhaps it got lost leaving your machine for some reason. There are times I will cross-post here from .tech; no hard rule about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: WECO 500 Schematic Date: 6 Nov 1997 00:22:15 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per the question about wiring older telephone sets ... A book has been published for telephone collectors explaining wiring: "Old Time Telephones! Technology restoration and repair" by Ralph O. Meyer, published by TAB Books (div of McGraw Hill), (c) 1996. Tab Books--Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17294-0850 It is schematics and explanations for a large variety of older telephone instruments and components. [I would suggest not mixing components from a 500 set with a 300 set because of incompatibility in the internal set network and handsets.] ------------------------------ From: Michelle Durbin Subject: Re: 900 Number Help Date: 7 Nov 1997 16:09:47 GMT Organization: West Coast Online's News Server - Not responsible for content I had over $200 in calls on my phone bill for some 900 number calls, and I didn't have 900/976 call blocking at the time. But once I assured the AT&T rep that the calls were made without my permission/ knowledge, they agreed to remove the charges. They told me that by law they have to do this the first time that you request them to do so. The next time you will be charged regardless. It was at that point that I requested that all 900 or 976 number be blocked. However, even this will not protect you fully. Weeks later a charge of about $30 appeared for a long distance number (212-something). I asked the phone co if there was any way to block these non-900/976 calls, and they say there was no way they could block them. Yet I was charged much more than the regular long distance rate for that area code - The call lasted less than 10 minutes. The phone co told me to call the company that billed me. I did and they were totally uncooperative. I demanded that they remove the charges, but the best I could get was for him to offer a 50% discount. A discount?!?!? Like a fool I refused the discount, thinking I would be able to get the charges taken off. But I didn't get around to doing research into what my rights are in this case, and I ended up paying for the call. Does anyone know about how to block calls, or get charges removed for calls which are not 900/976 numbers, but bill at a higher rate than standard long distance rates? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ask your local telco and/or your long distance carrier (if one of the big three) to add you to the 'billed number screening' database. All the reputable carriers dip this same common database before allowing certain kinds of billing to your number to occur. Once listed there, 'collect' calls to your number will be denied by the carrier originating the call; they will not even bother to ask your permission, but instead advise their (originating call) customer that 'the number you are calling does not allow collect calls'. Likewise, third- party pay calls will be rejected at the source with similar advice given to the caller. Taking that step will eliminate most hassles with unauthorized charges. The reason it will not work in all cases is because not all of the long distance carriers and/or information provider billing services such as Integratel, Pilgrim Telephone and a few others use the database. Integratel does have its own similar database but you need to call them direct to be included on theirs. I do not know what Pilgrim does; and it might not hurt to list your number(s) also with IDS (?) and with Opticom, out of Carmel, IN. Both are big COCOT/AOS services. But if you get listed by the big three along with Integratel and your local carrier, you'll have covered about 95 percent of the territory. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: 900 Number Help Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:45:33 PST Steven Gaunt wrote: > I called BellSouth and they essentially said too bad! I needed to > call the carrier of that call. So I finally got through to ATT's > 900 complaint line and the end result with them was tough. I had > to pay the charge. In our moderator's zeal to assert the righteousness of your position, he failed to mention that on top of everything else, your local phone service cannot be terminated for failure to pay such unregulated charges. I believe the proper protocol is to notify the local phone company that you dispute the charge. As an unregulated charge, it will be removed immediately and the information provider will be so notified. If you assert to the local phone company that you refuse to pay for 900/976 charges under any circumstances, they may be obliged to block such calls. (Of course, you can say "Thank you very much. That's what I already asked for.") The information provider has the right to pursue legal remedies through other channels, such as small claims court. There is the potential for reporting your non-payment to a credit bureau, but I believe there are special rules that apply to reporting non-payment of 900/976 calls. Since it seems that AT&T is acting as the agent of the information provider, they might choose to cut off your long distance service. Since there seem to be plenty of other companies who would appreciate your business, that shouldn't be much of a problem. Eli Mantel aka the Cagey Consumer ------------------------------ From: Pete-Weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Re: Risks is Alive and Well Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 10:12:45 -0500 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems When in doubt, check the WEB site: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks /Pete Weiss at Penn State ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #305 ******************************