Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA06595; Sat, 22 May 1999 22:37:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 22:37:09 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905230237.WAA06595@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #93 TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 May 99 22:37:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 93 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan (Monty Solomon) Australian Number Portability (David Clayton) Smartjack and CSU (Kevin Lundy) Re: Strange Problem (Bill Levant) Re: Strange Problem [too?] (R R M Tweek) Re: Airtouch in NYC? (Jason A. Lindquist) Re: New Billing Charge: Local Number Portability (John S. Maddaus) Re: Facilities-Based Local Exchange Competition (Tony Pelliccio) Re: 10-10- Dial-Around Company List? (Barry Margolin) Re: Career in Telecommunications (Casey Mak) The Web Page You Have Reached is BACK! (Jennifer Martino) Seeking Telephone Answering Software and Hardware (jgy2001@email.com) Re: NPA-NXX & Cities (Mike Fox) Re: Bell Atlantic Holders Approve $80.9 Billion Purchase GTE (B. Margolin) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 15:58:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: World's First Video Cell Phone Debuts in Japan http://www.computerworld.com/home/news.nsf/all/9905204videocell (Online News, 05/20/99 11:50 AM) By Michael Drexler TOKYO -- The world got its first glimpse at what could be the future of mobile telephony this week when Japanese component vendor Kyocera Corp. unveiled the first cellular phone able to transmit a caller's picture and voice simultaneously. The 165-g (5.8-oz.) VisualPhone uses 32K-bit/sec. analog technology to transmit two color images per second through a camera mounted on the top of the handset. The recipient can view the caller via a 2-inch active-matrix LCD. A Kyocera spokesman said that the VisualPhone will retail for around 40,000 yen ($322) and that the company expects to sell 50,000 units in the first year following its release. The phone will ship in Japan from the end of July, Kyocera said. The device is currently being shown at Business Show '99 Tokyo, which began here Tuesday and will end tomorrow. The Kyocera phone is a primitive example of what in coming years could be a flood of phones that handle multiple data types, including voice and video. Both handset makers and mobile service providers are preparing for the debut in coming years of third-generation (3G) mobile phones, which will be able to receive high-capacity wideband services and high data-rate transmissions. One of the contenders for the 3G cellular crown is Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (W-CDMA) technology, which is being championed by the mobile unit of Japanese telecom carrier Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. (NTT). Though standards bodies won't decide on a 3G standard until November, W-CDMA received a boost in March when two cellular giants, L.M. Ericsson Telephone Co. in Sweden and Qualcomm Inc. in the U.S., decided to harmonize their efforts in pursuing the next generation of mobile technology. Japanese vendor NEC Corp. has developed a number of component technologies for video phones, but a spokesman said today the company will hold off on a product of its own until W-CDMA debuts. "The market has not really developed yet for video phones, and NEC won't produce a handset until 2001 when NTT launches W-CDMA," said Yasuhito Jochi, a spokesman for NEC. Jochi explained that current cellular technology data speeds are too slow to warrant consumers embracing video phones, perhaps the main reason why major telecom vendors have yet to jump on the video phone bandwagon. Kyocera's video cell phone uses a mini-cellular technology found only in Japan, called personal handyphone (PHS). The transmission technology sends data at 32K bit/sec., making for jerky video images. W-CDMA, on the other hand, will be able to send 380K bit/sec., or more than 10 frames per second, creating smoother video, according to NEC's Jochi. To use the video capabilities of Kyocera's VisualPhone, the caller must look into the camera by holding the handset in front of his or her face. The phone is equipped with an extra speaker to make the voice of the person to whom the caller is talking loud enough to be heard from a maximum of 40 cm (about 16 inches) away, the company said. The phone measures 5.4 cm by 14 cm by 2.9 cm (2.1 x 5.5 x 1.1 inches) and is powered for approximately 60 minutes by a lithium ion battery. Other vendors have been dabbling in video phones, but Kyocera's VisualPhone is the most comprehensive product to date. The initial reaction to Kyocera's video cell phone from some attendees at the Business Show in Tokyo this week was negative. Critics said that the device was too big, too heavy, and not stylish enough to have much impact on the fickle Japanese cellular market, according to Toshiaki Iba, a senior analyst at Tokyo-Mitsubishi Securities Co. "Kyocera's phone is a kind of beta version," said Iba. "Still, it is a first." PHS carrier DDI Pocket will market the phones in Japan. Kyocera doesn't currently have plans to market the phones overseas, according to a Kyocera spokesman. (Rob Guth in Tokyo contributed to this story.) ------------------------------ From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton) Subject: Australian Number Portability Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 10:04:26 GMT Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Westel secures intelligent deal By Helen Meredith The telecommunications community has made a surprise move aimed at ending uncertainty over the introduction of number portability, with prime industry body, the Australian Telecommunications Users' Group (ATUG), yesterday announcing it had entered into a commercial agreement that would deliver portability across the entire market. ATUG members said both users and new carriers were fed up with the tactics of the incumbent carriers and the slow pace of decision making in government agencies in delivering this key element of a competitive marketplace. The ATUG has entered into a commercial agreement with the Perth-based Westel Group, to build an independent advanced intelligent network (IN) and database that can be accessed by any of the service providers to enable them to offer their customers number portability. The managing director of ATUG, Mr Allan Horsley, said the decision to work with Westel was borne out of intense frustration at the delays in delivering number portability during the past 18 months or so. "This is a commercially driven proposal to offer number portability. It will comply with all codes related to key issues such as security, and will offer the underlying data that enables all carriers to participate in an industry-wide number portability," Mr Horsley said. Westel chairman, Mr Lindsay Fischer, said: "We have been working on a complex number portability solution for more than two years. This has resulted in our licensing relevant software from US company Reprotech." Reprotech is a shareholder in Westel subsidiary, Concentrix, which will be the entity charged with delivering IN services and number portability. The CEO of the yet-to-be-named unit, Mr Graham Bickley, said: "The intelligent network services will be available to all those service providers who do not have them, enabling them to offer portability." He said the service would span geographic location, service providers, mobile service and non-geographic numbers such as those with the prefixes 1800, 13 and 1300. The announcement caused significant activity in Westel stock yesterday, although analysts said the real impact would come as the implications of the agreement were better understood. Industry watchers say the move would be unlikely to please Telstra, which has used a call-forwarding arrangement with C&W Optus to deliver portability, but is now in dispute with them over the arrangement. Telstra group manager, industry regulation, Mr Peter Darling, said the carrier would be seeking clarification of yesterday's move, adding: "We believe that the existing industry self-regulation code is effective in proceeding towards number portability." One.Tel spokesperson, Ms Sandy Slessor, welcomed the move, saying: "When we open the doors to our national GSM network in early 2000, we want to be able to offer our customers number portability. At present consumers are being held to ransom because their business is tied to a number, tied to a carrier. That is not competition." Westel said the new system would provide access to all the customer databases of the carriers and would involve co-location of equipment in their switches. "We will do all the switching and `click the ticket'," Westel CEO, Mr Peter Farrah, said. System trials would be completed by the end of the year and rollout carried out progressively from early 2000 on. Professor Reg Coutts, director of the Centre for Telecommunications Information Networking (CTIN), said: "Industry groups have been looking to accelerate this process. But the incumbents are in no hurry to move." David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dilbert's words of wisdom #18: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. ------------------------------ From: Kevin Lundy Subject: Smartjack and CSU Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 22:22:38 GMT Organization: @Home Network Is there any recommended maximum distance from the smartjack to the CSU? I have a new T1 voice service that is giving me hell. It's an intermittent problem - slips, dropped calles, static, etc. Every time we have a problem, the techs can loop up the smart jack and stress test error free. They loop the CSU, and they see errors. So we replace the CSU, and problem is still there. This much is repeatable. Which to me indicates a problem of some sort with the cable between the CSU and smartjack. A grounding problem, a distance problem, a flakey termination, etc. But then the techs come on site and put a test pack on the cable at my CSU and it tests fine. Any thoughts of wisdom out there? Thanks! ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 18:32:47 EDT Subject: Re: Strange Problem > I recently switched to a new internet connection number which > Ameritech described to me as being a 5 cent untimed call within zero > miles of my house. The funny business began when Sprint began picking > up this local call, attempting to charge me local long distance! I'm > outraged by the telco rep who says that these are legitimate charges > and that I must have this computer set up wrong. Would someone > explain what is going on and how to go about resolving this issue? This happened to me about a month ago, but it was Hell Atlantic, not Ameriwreck that did it. Almost certainly, the problem is with Ameritech, not Sprint, because the call should never GET to Sprint. Once Sprint gets it, though, the only thing they know how to do is route it (and charge for it as local toll). Almost certainly, your ISP buys local telephone service from a CLEC, not from Ameritech; the Bells seem to have trouble figuring how to route calls to the other guys. The Ameritech switch that serves your home has an error in its "translations" for the first three (or if you're dialing 10 digits, the first six) digits of the ISP's number, causing a local call to be routed as local-toll. If you can talk to someone in "translations" (which the business office probably won't let you do) it's a ten-second fix. Call the business office, ask for a supervisor, and keep going up the chain until you get someone who understands that IT DOESN'T MATTER (AND THE SWITCH CAN'T TELL) WHETHER YOU OR YOUR COMPUTER DIALS, A LOCAL CALL IS A LOCAL CALL IS A LOCAL CALL. PERIOD. Once I got to that person, it took about 24 hours for them to call me back and tell me it was fixed. And it was, too. Ameritech should reverse the erroneous toll charges (which are their fault anyway). I couldn't get Bell Atlantic to do that, because Worldcom (my IXC) doesn't bill through Bell; BA instead gave me a credit, making it all come out the same in the end. Note : If you have permissive 10-digit dialing, make sure Ameritech checks BOTH the 7-digit and 10-digit translations; in my case, the problem only occurred with 10-digit dialing ! Hope this helps. Bill ------------------------------ From: tweek@netcom.com (R R M Tweek) Subject: Re: Strange Problem [too?] Organization: http://www.io.com/~tweek/cocowhine/index.html Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 14:36:46 GMT Re: "Local "Long Distance"" > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This very same thing, identical, came > up here a couple weeks ago, when our correspondent was able to event- > ually prove that the 'competing' telco in his community had gotten the > tables mixed up in their switch. Perhaps you guys could exchange notes > and find someone at Ameritech who is able to get it corrected with > Sprint. PAT Perhaps someone in the SFBAY PacBell service area can tell me if I'm crazy or not, but I may have experienced something similar last night. The PacBell service area I am in runs along the coast from Santa Cruz, north to the Oregon border (or nearly ... definately encompasing the two areas involved with my experienced problem.) I have PacBell service for my dial tone, the original service which was in place at the time of the divestiture. About a month ago, fed up with AT&T's desire to bill for not using them, I dropped any and all long distance PIC on my lines. Last night, I had a need to call someone on a cellphone in the 408 area code. I got the "a long distance company is required for this call" intercept. I was calling from (925) to (408). From the same (925) number, I was able to complete a call to a (408) landline, but to the (408) cellphone number I received the intercept. The entire (408) area is within the same service area (unlike the further south (831) which is split between two service areas). The person on the cellphone was IN San Jose, and not roaming in some other service area. Am I missing something here, that in order to call through to a cell provider one needs to go via long distance lines, or might the routing tables here be messed up as well? Michael Maxfield tweek@netcom.com BTW, dialing the cellphone via 1010811, I did get a busy signal, which is understandable because the instant I hung up the person with the cellphone rang my line. tweek@netcom.com tweek@io.com | See the web site which Doctor Laura is DoD #MCMLX tweek@ccnet.com | bitching so much about. Go Ask Alice. sigtst@tweekco.ness.com | http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu ------------------------------ From: jlindqui@enterprise.uiuc.edu (Jason A. Lindquist) Subject: Re: Airtouch in NYC? Date: 22 May 1999 02:47:11 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign James Gifford writes: > Then I discovered > in NYC that the phone wouldn't work (I got a Hell Atlantic operator). > I was told by Airtouch that they don't provide service in NYC because of > the massive level of cloning-- even their digital plans don't work there > because they don't have digital service, so the fallback to analog > enables the cloners to work. Bell Atlantic certainly does have CDMA digital service in New York. There's no technical reason why an Airtouch digital phone would not work there. Well, either that, or they like throwing away money on all the BAM-labeled handsets I see rolling out of Qualcomm's factory, bound for Broadway ... Jason Lindquist <*> "Mostly though, I think it gave us hope, linky@see.figure1.net That there can always be a new beginning. KB9LCL Even for people like us." -- Gen. Susan Ivanova, B5, "Sleeping In Light" ------------------------------ From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: New Billing Charge: Local Number Portability Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 14:27:56 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net rfc1394a@aol.com (Paul Robinson) wrote: > oldbear@arctos.com (Will Roberts) writes black@csulb.NOSMAP.edu > (Matthew Black) writes: >>> GTE California has started billing this residential customer $0.38 for >>> local number portability. I never requested any such service and am >>> curious if this is some new universal fee. >> Local Number Portability (LNP) is the FCC-mandated ability to keep >> your same telephone number even if you switch Local Exchange >> Carriers. The idea is that no one would leave the incumbent RBOC if >> they had to change to a new phone number. I'd guess that this charge >> is a result of GTE attempting to recover the cost of providing LNP. I'd >> be curious if this is an across-the-board charge on all customers or >> something related to your having taken your phone number to a >> different local telco. It is across the board. In NH (which originally was NOT going to be a LNP area ) I had called the local PUC to inquire whether or not we would be forced to subsidize Bell Atlantic's roll out of LNP in the Boston Metro Area. Needless to say, the PUC and BA have had their ups and downs in the state and NH had set a precedent by suing PSNH relating to Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant overcharges to customers (in fact they opened up the electric market, we are or were served by Canadian, San Fran electric companies). However, even the PUC admitted that we would likely see an across the board increase. At one point a PUC type asked me why the state should prevent such a charge simply because I chose not to use a feature available to me? Talk about clueless. I reminded him that we are still one area code for the state, no CLEC competition to date, and wasn't the normal attitude to pay only for services received? No answer. However, since that conversation, I have seen the announcement that NH will receive the benefits of LNP so something has changed. Perhaps enough people who didn't want the service chose to make enough waves that BA promised to implement it (they didn't say when) just to help recover costs for other areas and avoid a problem. Promises come cheap. In any case, it's hollow as far as I'm concerned. I have serious doubts that the DMS-10 in my town and old old New England Tel/Nynex infrastructure in NH will support LNP. BA says they have no plans to upgrade equipment. I doubt very seriously that many of the COs are SS7 networked. When I worked for GTE, I was amazed to learn that over 50% of our COs were not SS7 capable and there were no immediate plans to roll out newer equipment even in markets where LNP was mandated (and there were some that overlapped in Ameritech territory that could not support LNP). With the two merging, we fit GTE's rural mode perfectly and don't expect anything to change, except for customer service going from second to last to last place. I too will give BA the boot once a credible CLEC with their own equipment starts to play. No 56K capability, limited CID, tired of hearing that features are not available in my area (a bedroom community to NH's largest city). BAH! John S. Maddaus Merlin Communication Systems jmaddaus@usa.net ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo1@nospam.home.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Facilities-Based Local Exchange Competition Organization: Providence Network Partners Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 22:05:09 GMT In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > My point all along with both local and long distance competition has > been that the competitors should have been required to make the same > capital outlay on outside plant which AT&T had to make. They should > have been required to devote the same amount of resources to research > as AT&T put into Bell Laboratories. If I had been the judge, I would > have instructed the competitors to build their network, solicit > subscribers, etc and that the only thing I would do is order the Bell > System to treat the newcomers at 'arms length'; to provide a supply > of telephone numbers in a fair way. And when the new competitor was > ready to interconnect, I would order Bell to open its front door and > hand a bunch of wires out saying, 'here are your pairs ...'. If the > competitors were so afraid of Bell being unfair, as the judge I > would have ordered that Bell only had the right to make one demand, > that being that competitor met technical standards, numbering plan > requirements, things like that. The problem with making them meet certain technical standards is that Western Electric was at the time, the largest manufacturer of switching gear. Sort of like the hold Microsoft has on the desktop/laptop arena. The sad part of all this is now we're trying to standardize all the interconnections, making it possible for any company to make a piece of telecom gear that's compatible with every other piece of gear. It'd be a perfect world were this truly the case but we're moving towards it faster and faster. > Do you realize that in the fifteen plus years since divestiture that > have passed, had any of the competitors seriously begun construction > of their own network, outside plant, etc they could have had it done > by now? *Then* we would see honest competition, and if, after all > that effort the competitors could sell it for less, let it happen. PAT] There is one company that comes immediately to mind when you say this. Brooks Fiber installed a switch in downtown Providence, Rhode Island. Then they strung a humungous fiber loop around most of the city. At my office I'm two blocks from the loop so they had to draw in a Bell Atlantic fiber to connect back to their switch. They pay Bell Atlantic for those facilities but they also have their own outside plant vis a vie the fiber. Then there's Cox Communications. Granted, they're pretty much the monopoly cable company here in Rhode Island but they've got infrastructure in place to offer cable, digital cable, internet access and in a month or two phone service with power provided by THEIR system. == Tony Pelliccio, KD1S formerly KD1NR == Trustee WE1RD ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: 10-10- Dial-Around Company List? Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 20:43:49 GMT In article , John R. Levine wrote: > In article was written: >> Is there a list of 10-10- numbers in use and the companies that "own" >> them on the net? > This page has the definitive list: > > http://www.nanpa.com/number_resource_info/carrier_id_codes.html > It has about 1,860 defined numbers along with the owning carrier, > contact person, and the contact's phone number. Keep in mind that > many IXCs don't want dial-around customers, and either reject call > attempts from non-customers or charge a price intended to make you not > want to come back. What I've been wondering is if anyone has compiled pricing details for the 10-10 codes, so that consumers can compare them easily to find the ones that best match their calling patterns. Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 00:14:10 EST From: Casey.Mak@wirechf.xg.com (Casey Mak) Subject: Re: Career in Telecommunications Organization: Chapter 91 - Telephone Pioneers of America Hi Kendall, I work at the a telco in Canada and what the editor has suggested is certainly a good start. If you can get a job at the repair service bureau, or as a service representative in the Business Office, you will certainly learn a lot about a telco's operations. The University of Colorado has an excellent telcom technology program. I understand that it's the only university in North America that offers a Masters degree in telecommunications. You might want to look at the programs offered by the U of Colora do (in Denver, I believe?) since you live there. People have told me that telco networking people don't know a whole lot about internetworking WANS and LANS. Generally, telcos, being carriers, know about WANS, but have limited knowledge of LANS -- computer people are generally more knowle2dgeable on LANS. So if I were to take courses, internetworking LANS and WANS might be a good place to start. Certainly working at a telco and taking courses would allow you to gain some working experience that has practical relevance to the theory you learn in school. You can also ask if the colleges in Colorado have any hands-on courses. Kendall, I hope this helps. Best of luck. Casey ------------------------------ From: Jennifer Martino Subject: The Web Page You Have Reached is BACK! Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 23:34:55 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises The Web Page You Have Reached http://www.cotse.com/twpyhr/ Over 150 telephone sounds/recordings! The Church of the Swimming Elephant http://www.cotse.com pheer the swimming elephant ------------------------------ From: 777jy Subject: Seeking Telephone Answering software and hardware Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 09:50:31 -0700 Organization: No Spam Please Reply-To: 777jy Dear Friends, I am seeking to design and build a telephone answering systems. Hardware: Can you recommend any PC telephone answering cards? How does telephone cards integrated with sound card to play greetings and record incoming messages and recognize DTMF key in reply from caller? Software: Can you recommend how to write our own Microsoft Windows based telephone answering software with caller ID and DTMF key in reply from callers? Thank you very much for your suggestion. John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 16:56:00 -0400 From: Mike Fox Organization: not organized! Subject: Re: NPA-NXX & Cities I have DeLorme's Street Altas Six, which is a mapping program that costs about $50, and among its many features is the database you are looking for. Mike Clay Koontz wrote: > Hi, > I am a small business in telecommunications and I need information on > the Area Code and prefixes ... NPA - NXX data with Rate Centers (Cities). > Can you supply this data? If not were can I get it? All I need is > N. Carolina's data. "We're not against ideas. We're against people spreading them." (General Augusto Pinochet of Chile) ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic Holders Approve $80.9 Billion Purchase of GTE Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 21:18:54 GMT In article , Monty Solomon wrote: > http://www.businesstoday.com/topstories/bell05191999.htm > Bloomberg > Wednesday, May 19, 1999 > Atlanta -- Bell Atlantic Corp. shareholders approved the No. 1 U.S. > local phone company's acquisition of GTE Corp. for $80.9 billion, > leaving one major approval needed to create the largest U.S. phone >company. To set the record straight, this is considered to be a merger of equals, not an acquisition. Bell Atlantic isn't much bigger than GTE: BEL has about 140,000 employees, GTE 114,000; BEL's market capitalization is about $85 billion, GTE's about $62 billion. The board of directors of the new company will have an equal number of directors designated by the two original companies. The only sense in which it might be considered an acquisition by BEL is that shares of GTE stock will be converted to 1.22 shares of Bell Atlantic stock; presumably it was considered easier to pick one company's stock to retain, rather than creating a brand new entity and converting both company's stock to it. I believe the conversion rate was based on the ratio of the two company's stock prices when the merger was announced, with no premium or discount (the ratio of their closing prices today is 1.213). Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #93 *****************************