Date: 15 Oct 2000 06:15:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20001015101509.15350.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #88 Reply-To: editor@telecom-digest.org Sender: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Errors-To: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Precedence: bulk X-UIDL: aa78991ae261e4ade76d22935d71f4fe Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Sunday, October 15 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 088 In this issue: Al Gore And The Internet Re: FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices Re: Star Plus voicemail help?? Re: FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices Re: FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices Re: FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Oct 2000 08:35:44 -0400 From: Outsider Subject: Al Gore And The Internet Al Gore And The Internet By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development. No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time. Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective. As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises. As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science. As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation. There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large. The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world. ... http://www.democrats.org http://Gore_In_Context.tripod.com http://www.consortiumnews.com http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm http://www.american-politics.com/040199Guest.html http://www.gwbush.com http://www.geocities.com/trebor_92627/Bush.htm http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3750/headlines.htm http://www.american-politics.com/20000316BushLoser.html ... - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 2000 12:18:59 -0400 From: Alan Boritz Subject: Re: FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices "Joey Lindstrom" wrote: >FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices > > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- New federal rules approved Thursday would help >millions of apartment dwellers and small businesses in the United >States share in >the fruits of new competition between local telephone companies, >promised by a >recent law opening up the market for such services. > >The Federal Communications Commission adopted rules that would bar >phone >companies from getting exclusive rights to serve office buildings with >multiple >businesses. The agency said it would weigh whether to expand those >rules to >residential apartment buildings and whether to prohibit telecom >companies from >getting exclusive marketing agreements or bonuses from landlords. > > >Fu >story: > >http://www.techtv.com/internettonight/musiconline/story/0,4602,2161246,0 >0.html "Joey Lindstrom" wrote: >FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices > > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- New federal rules approved Thursday would help >millions of apartment dwellers and small businesses in the United ... >Fu >story: > >http://www.techtv.com/internettonight/musiconline/story/0,4602,2161246,0 >0.html Can we have a moratorium on these phony blind links that give us nothing but a facefull of advertisements and megabytes of nonsense that have nothing to do telecommunications? At the FCC's web site, where the issue has been detailed, the story is dramatically different than the description in this post. All the FCC has proposed are unenforceable restrictions on telecom carriers, and further discovery of what the building owner issues are. A restriction against a telecom carrier entering into an exclusive access agreement is meaningless to a consumer, if there is no other carrier with which the consumer can obtain service. Requiring an LEC to provide CLEC's access to existing conduits isn't going to mean much if they're full or needed for future expansion. The building owners still have total control over which telecom services enter the building, who is permitted in his risers, and who is allowed roof space, which is as it should be. I've negotiated ROW agreements and license fees, and the legal basis is solid. The petitioners who brought this issue to the FCC are the industry losers who can't finesse it, buy it, or engineer it. It's a sad fact of life that in the many existing private multi-tenant buildings in the US, any company who installs new service has to comply with building, electrical, and often asbestos control regulations. That means that if a foundation has to be penetrated, the carrier must engineer it with a licensed professional engineer and seal it. If a fire-rated wall must be penetrated, the carrier must fire-stop it. If asbestos must be investigated or abated, the carrier must have it done. NONE of this is the building owner's responsibility. The commenters, with perhaps few exceptions, are notoriously poor performers in these areas. The ROW fee helps pay for the building owner's effort to monitor construction and help prevent the carriers from damaging his property. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 2000 12:27:56 -0400 From: "Joey Lindstrom" Subject: Re: Star Plus voicemail help?? On 14 Oct 2000 06:15:11 -0400, David Clayton wrote: >"Paul Migliorelli \(+1-303-543-2311\)" contributed >the following: > >Do a search for a Windows program called "Goldwave" which can do the >conversions from the .wav format to the Dialogic .vox format >..... >>system uses files with the extension ".vox". Aah allas, I have never >>***heard of .vox files. I seem to remember old voice files caalled >>".voc" files. (grin). >> GoldWave can be found at: http://www.goldwave.com It, along with its companion program "Multiquence", are fully-featured enough to do some serious professional work (which I use them for), but are also simple enough for novices to figure out. Registration is $49 each or both for $89 (Canadian dollars) last time I checked (I'm just a happy customer, I don't work for Chris), but both products have shareware modes that are FULLY FUNCTIONAL - the only "cripple" is that after you use it for a certain number of operations, a nag screen begins popping up frequently. Shutting the program down and restarting it will reset the "certain number of operations" and eliminate the nags (until you hit the limit again of course). If you're a hockey fan, you can hear some of the work I've created using these programs at: http://www.tommyalbelin.com (then click on "Question Of The Week", then select any of the questions) You can also (shudder!) hear what my voice sounds like... ;-) / From the desk of Joey Lindstrom / / Yesterday I found out what doughnuts are for. You put them on / doughbolts. They hold dough airplanes together. For kids, they make / erector sets out of play-dough. / --Steven Wright - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 2000 21:27:03 -0400 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices In article , Alan Boritz wrote: > "Joey Lindstrom" wrote: > > >FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices > > > > > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- New federal rules approved Thursday would help > >millions of apartment dwellers and small businesses in the United > ... > >Full story: > > > >http://www.techtv.com/ ... > > Can we have a moratorium on these phony blind links that give us > nothing but a facefull of advertisements and megabytes of nonsense > that have nothing to do telecommunications? Can we have a moratorium on idiotic comments like yours? As has already been discussed, the link above was an INADVERTENT paste of the wrong link. Joey (surprise, surprise) has more than one interest in life, and he accidentally pasted a link for one subject into an article about another. > At the FCC's web site, where the issue has been detailed, the story > is dramatically different than the description in this post. All the > FCC has proposed are unenforceable restrictions on telecom carriers, > and further discovery of what the building owner issues are. A > restriction against a telecom carrier entering into an exclusive > access agreement is meaningless to a consumer, if there is no other > carrier with which the consumer can obtain service. Requiring an LEC > to provide CLEC's access to existing conduits isn't going to mean > much if they're full or needed for future expansion. A restriction against a telecom carrier entering into an exclusive access agreement is plenty meaningful to a consumer, if there are several other carriers with which the consumer can obtain service, as is quite often the case. > The building owners still have total control over which telecom > services enter the building, who is permitted in his risers, and who > is allowed roof space, which is as it should be. AS IT SHOULD BE?? No, that's absurd. The owner of my apartment building should not have the right to restrict my choice of telecommunications companies to provide my local service. That's absolutely unreasonable and flat-out unjustifiable. I, the tenant, should have sole control over which telecom services enter my premises. The right to make such determinations should be exclusively in the hands of the USER of the property, not the OWNER. The owner's rights are limited to reasonable restrictions to protect the integrity of the building and prevent disruptions in service to other tenants. > I've negotiated ROW agreements and license fees, and the legal basis > is solid. The petitioners who brought this issue to the FCC are the > industry losers who can't finesse it, buy it, or engineer it. It's a > sad fact of life that in the many existing private multi-tenant > buildings in the US, any company who installs new service has to > comply with building, electrical, and often asbestos control > regulations. That means that if a foundation has to be penetrated, > the carrier must engineer it with a licensed professional engineer > and seal it. If a fire-rated wall must be penetrated, the carrier > must fire-stop it. If asbestos must be investigated or abated, the > carrier must have it done. NONE of this is the building owner's > responsibility. The commenters, with perhaps few exceptions, are > notoriously poor performers in these areas. The ROW fee helps pay for > the building owner's effort to monitor construction and help prevent > the carriers from damaging his property. Neither is it the building owner's responsibility (nor right) to decide on behalf of the tenants who shall provide telecommunications services. I'm buying the service, I'm paying the bills, *I* have the right to choose the provider. Period. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 2000 04:04:11 -0400 From: "Brian F. G. Bidulock" Subject: Re: FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices Linc, I agree with you (particularly because I am living in a complex which restricts my choice). However, in the final analysis, doesn't the consumer have a choice? ...to move somewhere else where service is more to their liking... - --Brian Linc Madison wrote: > > In article , Alan Boritz > wrote: > > > "Joey Lindstrom" wrote: > > > > >FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices > > > > > > > > >WASHINGTON (AP) -- New federal rules approved Thursday would help > > >millions of apartment dwellers and small businesses in the United > > ... > > >Full story: > > > > > >http://www.techtv.com/ ... > > > > Can we have a moratorium on these phony blind links that give us > > nothing but a facefull of advertisements and megabytes of nonsense > > that have nothing to do telecommunications? > > Can we have a moratorium on idiotic comments like yours? As has already > been discussed, the link above was an INADVERTENT paste of the wrong > link. Joey (surprise, surprise) has more than one interest in life, and > he accidentally pasted a link for one subject into an article about > another. > > > At the FCC's web site, where the issue has been detailed, the story > > is dramatically different than the description in this post. All the > > FCC has proposed are unenforceable restrictions on telecom carriers, > > and further discovery of what the building owner issues are. A > > restriction against a telecom carrier entering into an exclusive > > access agreement is meaningless to a consumer, if there is no other > > carrier with which the consumer can obtain service. Requiring an LEC > > to provide CLEC's access to existing conduits isn't going to mean > > much if they're full or needed for future expansion. > > A restriction against a telecom carrier entering into an exclusive > access agreement is plenty meaningful to a consumer, if there are > several other carriers with which the consumer can obtain service, as > is quite often the case. > > > The building owners still have total control over which telecom > > services enter the building, who is permitted in his risers, and who > > is allowed roof space, which is as it should be. > > AS IT SHOULD BE?? No, that's absurd. The owner of my apartment building > should not have the right to restrict my choice of telecommunications > companies to provide my local service. That's absolutely unreasonable > and flat-out unjustifiable. > > I, the tenant, should have sole control over which telecom services > enter my premises. > > The right to make such determinations should be exclusively in the > hands of the USER of the property, not the OWNER. The owner's rights > are limited to reasonable restrictions to protect the integrity of the > building and prevent disruptions in service to other tenants. > > > I've negotiated ROW agreements and license fees, and the legal basis > > is solid. The petitioners who brought this issue to the FCC are the > > industry losers who can't finesse it, buy it, or engineer it. It's a > > sad fact of life that in the many existing private multi-tenant > > buildings in the US, any company who installs new service has to > > comply with building, electrical, and often asbestos control > > regulations. That means that if a foundation has to be penetrated, > > the carrier must engineer it with a licensed professional engineer > > and seal it. If a fire-rated wall must be penetrated, the carrier > > must fire-stop it. If asbestos must be investigated or abated, the > > carrier must have it done. NONE of this is the building owner's > > responsibility. The commenters, with perhaps few exceptions, are > > notoriously poor performers in these areas. The ROW fee helps pay for > > the building owner's effort to monitor construction and help prevent > > the carriers from damaging his property. > > Neither is it the building owner's responsibility (nor right) to decide > on behalf of the tenants who shall provide telecommunications services. > > I'm buying the service, I'm paying the bills, *I* have the right to > choose the provider. Period. > -- > The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail > messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 2000 05:54:43 -0400 From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: FCC adopts rules to open phone competition in apartments, offices In article <39E961D4.CEF087C5@dallas.net>, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote: > Linc, > > I agree with you (particularly because I am living in a complex > which restricts my choice). > > However, in the final analysis, doesn't the consumer have a choice? > > ...to move somewhere else where service is more to their liking... Sure. The consumer also has a choice ... to move to a country with more sensible laws. The consumer also has the choice to forgo all telecommunications services entirely and rely entirely on carrier pigeons. That doesn't make the current situation acceptable. The status quo allows telecomms competition to be used to the advantage of the landlord at the expense of the consumer of the actual services. Telecomms competition should be structured to benefit the consumer. - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #88 *******************************