Date: 16 Oct 2000 06:15:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20001016101512.7429.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com> From: owner-telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org (Telecom Digest) To: telecom-digest@telecom-digest.org Subject: Telecom Digest V2000 #89 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: 1ede84a29ebd4b738103939d96f5dd5f Status: RO X-Status: Telecom Digest Monday, October 16 2000 Volume 2000 : Number 089 In this issue: Re: Telecom Digest V2000 #88 Re: Telecom Digest V2000 #88 cmsg cancel <4.3.2.7.2.20001015134326.00af16e8@pop.prodigy.net> Re: Al Gore And The Internet Re: Al Gore and the Internet Re: Telecom Digest V2000 #88 sorry for the double post Continued AT&T CDPD Problems north of NYC BAMS/GTE Verizon Merge CDPD Services ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Oct 2000 10:19:54 -0400 From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber) Subject: Re: Telecom Digest V2000 #88 - --- You wrote: 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 - --- end of quote --- Dear Sirs, Your letter in support of Al Gore and his contributions to the Internet made very interesting reading. Clearly you both appreciate his efforts in promoting use of the Internet. The "timely" offering of your perspective on his statement about having "invented" the Internet is not only timely but also very suspicious, however. It would have been no less "timely" a month ago, six months ago or a year ago. The fact that you issued your perspective only days after Mr. Gore suffered a downslide in the polls after his poor showing during the second presidential-candidate debate piques my curiosity and my skepticism. You are correct that Mr. Gore did not actually claim to have invented the Internet. Your own quote of his comment, however, reads, "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Whether Mr. Gore wants to be known as the "inventor" or as the "creator" of the Internet, it is obvious that he gilded the lily in this case and hoped to garner credit for much more than he actually accomplished. Many of us who read his words were left with the impression that he would have us believe that except for Al Gore, there would be no Internet. It was not until he was called upon to justify his words that he made any attempt to clarify that remark. Mr. Gore did not create the Internet. He did not invent the Internet. He probably did support and advocate the perpetuation of the Internet but so did many others including yourselves. I, for one, am not willing to give him credit for the Internet's existence any more than I am willing to praise him for the discovery of the Love Canal disaster or congratulate him for the publishing of 'Love Story.' Curiously enough, while you gentlemen write to defend Mr. Gore's remarks about the Internet, the author of 'Love Story' felt obliged to hold a press conference denying Mr. Gore's suggestion that he and his wife somehow sparked the writing of that story. Congratulations and many thanks for the tremendous work you did in the real creation of the Internet. Thank you for providing us with your recollection of the evolution of the Internet. Please try to understand, though, that it is not Mr. Gore's ambiguous statement about its invention that bothers many of us but rather the pattern of such ambiguities that we are concerned about. Regards, Charles Wilber Hanover, New Hampshire - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 2000 13:44:51 -0400 From: Paul Hrisko Subject: Re: Telecom Digest V2000 #88 I do believe I will need one. Pick me up one and I'll give you the cash. BTW, how did the bid for the edison cylinders turn out? Did we win? At 06:15 AM 15-10-00 -0400, you wrote: >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 >******************************* - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:02:59 EDT From: Paul Hrisko Subject: cmsg cancel <4.3.2.7.2.20001015134326.00af16e8@pop.prodigy.net> Spam that leaked through robot moderator ------------------------------ Date: 15 Oct 2000 22:31:54 -0400 From: "John Repici" Subject: Re: Al Gore And The Internet Hello, Internet development was conceived, started, and funded in the late 60's by the U.S. military as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Most people who work in this field hold names like Kahn, Postel, et. al in very high esteem and credit them not only with inventing the internet, but also with changing the world for the better. But you are already aware of that. As you've pointed out, it was a collaborative effort. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part, that you failed to mention it was also perhaps the most meticulously chronicled collaboration ever undertaken. The papers which concisely document the where, when, what, how, and WHO of this effort are called RFCs and IENs. They can be found at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html Among other places. Here you and anyone else who cares to (sorry), can search them up, down, left, right, near, and far, without ever finding the name "Gore". Solving the problems of the Internet Protocols was certainly a riddle for the men working on them, though they had them working pretty well long before Gore actually took office (he ran for congress for the first time in 1976, seven years after the project was started, six years after the Internet Protocol was first proffered in RFC 54). Here's a riddle for our high-tech / high-touch age: If a particular philosophy requires you to lie in order to promote it, is that philosophy worth lying for? Thanks for allowing another side to be read. :-) -John P.S.: If you're lurking, and are as weary of this stuff as me, my personal suggestion is you vote for Ralph Nader. He's not a DNC lackey, so if he lies or does something wrong in the oval office the press will actually tell you about it. That alone makes him look good. The fact that he actually offers sound, sane SOLUTIONS to problems we face in the next generation is icing on the cake. -John Outsider wrote in message news:39E85278.7BFD2AFF@yahoo.com... > 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 ...[cut] - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2000 03:53:11 -0400 From: Ki Suk Hahn Subject: Re: Al Gore and the Internet > 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. While I understand that Mr. Gore has been misquoted as saying he "invented the internet", I'm not sure I understand what it means to take the initiative in creating something. You either created something or you didn't. Yes, Mr. Gore is probably more internet-savvy than most people in Washington, but it's his penchant for stretching the truth that people are ridiculing when they misquote him. Ki Suk Hahn __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2000 03:53:09 -0400 From: Ki Suk Hahn Subject: Re: Telecom Digest V2000 #88 > 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. While I understand that Mr. Gore has been misquoted as saying he "invented the internet", I'm not sure I understand what it means to take the initiative in creating something. You either created something or you didn't. Yes, Mr. Gore is probably more internet-savvy than most people in Washington, but it's his penchant for stretching the truth that people are ridiculing when they misquote him. Ki Suk Hahn __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2000 03:55:37 -0400 From: Ki Suk Hahn Subject: sorry for the double post Sorry for the double post. I wanted to change the subject and hit Esc, but the email had gone through. KSH __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2000 05:01:54 -0400 From: "Doug Reuben / www.interpage.net" Subject: Continued AT&T CDPD Problems north of NYC As per my earlier post, AT&TWS seems to be initiating CDPD service in their newly acquired market(s) north of the NYC Metro Market, in Poughkeepsie and Kingston (roughly SIDs 00503 and 01513, maybe 01515 as well) Although the system is still branded as Cell One to local customers, AT&T acquired it about 7 or so months ago from US Cellular and/or some of the other minority ownerts (their web site -- not that anyone can easily find it -- has some weird branding, like "Robertson Cellular" or some no-name like that). In any event, under AT&T's ownership, the CDPD service, when completed, will create a large CDPD network surrounding NYC from the Alletown/Bethlehem/Scranton ex-Vanguard system in PA, to the Orange/Ducthess (Poughkeepsie) system in the Hudson Valley, to the Litchfield County CDPD system in CT (needs a lot of work, but there is some coverage). (Nothing to the south of NYC; AT&T customers need to roam on Bell Atlantic there and they block parts of it to minimize roaming; they may want to acquire the ComCast markets already and get a decent cellular and CDPD footprint south of NYC all the way to Maryland...) Anyhow ... as they continue to build out what will presumably at some point be the Poughkeepsie/Kingston CDPD market, the new signals from this market interfere with the extant signals along the NYC Metro system border (roughly along I-84/NY-52). Areas which USED to pick up the AT&T NYC Metro CDPD signal are now instead picking up the stronger Poughkeepsie system. This would be all fine and good BUT AT&T is not letting their OWN customers use this system (we get "Registration Denied" or the "No Response from Network" which seems to be how AT&T nicely rejects you from markets where they don't want you to roam (like BAMS in northern NJ, even in areas like Newton, NJ where AT&T doesn't have ANY coverage [they don't own Sussex County] but BAMS has strong coverage so you're basically stuck since they don't want you roaming in North Jersey even they AT&T doesn't cover and CAN'T currently cover as much as Bell Atlantic.)). So in effect, areas where the coverage worked great is now completely dysfunctional, and we can not use our AT&T IPs from areas where we used to be able to use them just fine. Indeed, areas which AT&T documents on their Web site as having coverage are now covered by the Poughkeepsie system, and thus unusable. As AT&T seems to be adding more and more CDPD enabled towers in the Poughkeepsie market, it is concomitantly effectively blocking access to their NYC Metro CDPD network, thus preventing customers from utilizing their wireless IP service (including Pockenet customers driving along I-84) in areas where it was previously available. Just in the past week, I noticed that areas of the Taconic Parkway and Carmel, NY, which used to have exceedingly good coverage from the AT&T NYC Metro Market (generally channels 670 to 696) are now getting the Poughkeepsie system (generally channels 40 to 74), and have now as well become unusable. In past attempts to inquire from AT&T Advanced Network Services (800) 552-3373 as to what is going on, we are given the runaround, with answers ranging from "There is no coverage there" to "We don't own that market" (both of which are incorrect and presented to us in such a flippant manner it is obvious the rep has no idea what areas we are even talking about). AT&T has so far failed to provide any answer as to when they will resolve this issue, and no explanation of what they can/will do to ensure that areas which *according to their published materials* should have working coverage will continue to do so until/if they allow access to the Poughkeepsie system. If anyone else has noticed this as well, and suffered difficulties logging in from areas where the Poughkeepsie signal blocks out the NYC Metro signal, please write to me at dsr1@interpage.net so I can get some more samplings of where problems exist in our attempt to determine the scope of this problem and thus be able to make demands upon AT&T for credits for service difficulties in areas where they indicate and their past performance provided *working* CDPD service. (This post and updated SID list are also available at www.wirelessnotes.org) Thanks! - -Doug Doug Reuben / Interpage(TM) Network Services Inc. / www.interpage.net - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ Date: 16 Oct 2000 05:17:57 -0400 From: "Doug Reuben / www.interpage.net" Subject: BAMS/GTE Verizon Merge CDPD Services I was recently looking over the *Verizon* Web Site (not the BAMS one and certainly not the utterly un-informative GTE one) under the Wireless Data section. They now indicate (and a lot sooner than I expected!) that ALL Verizon CDPD markets will count towards the unlimited CDPD plans. The relevant text is as follows: - ---- All of these services include a connection to the Internet, so there's no separate ISP account needed, and unlimited usage anywhere in Verizon Wireless's extensive data footprint, all for a fixed monthly rate. (see http://www.verizonwireless.com/mobile_ip/index.html ) - ---- Thus, BAMS customers can now use their wireless IP's in the ex-GTE/SF, Honolulu, Bakersfield (nothing LA, Airtouch never had CDPD :( ), Texas, OH and other markets which were previously billed as roaming. I haven't tried it out yet to see if it actually works, if they do indeed allow you to roam, and if the bills are correct, but would love to hear from other people with BA IPs who roam to ex-GTE markets as to if it works and how their bills come out. A very positive step...! - -Doug (This post and updated SID list are also available at www.wirelessnotes.org) Regards, Doug Doug Reuben / Interpage(TM) Network Services Inc. / www.interpage.net - -- The Telecom Digest is currently robomoderated. Please mail messages to editor@telecom-digest.org. ------------------------------ End of Telecom Digest V2000 #89 *******************************