From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Tue Aug 22 23:47:16 1995 by 1995 23:47:16 -0400 telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:58:07 -0500 1995 20:58:04 -0500 To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Aug 95 20:58:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 355 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Canada Calling Cards (Chris Gettings) Re: Door-to-Door Ethernet (Jon Mellott) Re: Some Questions on HR1555 (James E. Bellaire) Re: Bell Atlantic: A Scandal Ready to Blow Up in its Face (Erez Levav) Re: Bell Atlantic: A Scandal Ready to Blow Up in its Face (Thomas Lapp) Re: AT&T Business Practices (Mike King) Re: AT&T Business Practices (Bhaktha Keshavachar) 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@eecs.nwu.edu * 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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************ * * 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, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Unitel and Bell Canada are in competition. As a result, AT&T will > *not* 'validate' (check on and accept) Bell Canada calling cards! MCI > and Sprint will accept Bell Canada calling cards. This suprises me. I have an AGT Calling Card which *is* accepted by AT&T. I used it extensively this past week in Missouri, Colorado and Montana. AGT is the provincial phone company for Alberta, a member of Stentor, the Canadian phone cartel. Bell Canada is also a Stentor company. Bell Canada provides service in Ontario and Quebec. BC Tel is the Stentor in British Columbia, Manitoba Tel in Manitoba etc. MCI is allied with Stentor as a whole, not Bell Canada individually so if they were blocking Bell Canada cards it would seem that they would also block AGT and other Stentor cards. Are you sure AT&T blocks Bell Canada cards or were you just told this by someone at Bell? Stentor thrives on this kind of "dis-information" and other dirty tricks to try to keep their monopoly grip on Canada. Stentor is determined to thwart true competition despite laws providing for it and the regulators are frustrated and powerless against Stentor's financial muscle. Stentor has armies of lawyers and lobbyists to dilatory tactics and obfuscate the truth when responding to CRTC queries. Potential competitors are destroyed by Stentor's predatory pricing and unfair competition; and Stentor is too stupid, closed minded and anachronistic to realize that all the Bell Companies and AT&T have benefited from competition in the United States. Sales and profits are up and markets are expanding for the Bells in the States. Who suffers in Canada? Canadian individuals and businesses who can ill afford it considering the state of their economy. Chris Gettings N5589D BE-35H email: gettings@tcel.com http://canam.dgsys.com/cg/planes.html ------------------------------ In article , Dan Cromer writes: > NIMLI (sp? - I've heard it said, not actually seen it written) is > offered in Gainesville, Florida, by Southern Bell/BellSouth. I think > that stands for something like "Native IP Mode LAN Interface", and is > a fiber(?) connection to the premise equipment, which then can either > be ethernet or token ring and offer full LAN speed connections. I > didn't pay too close attention to the specifics, since the original > pricing was ~$1200/month, though I think that price has perhaps been > cut in half to about $600/month over the last year or two, especially > since local Cox Cable was seriously discussing using set-top boxes to > do a similar thing with reserved 6mHz channels on the TV cable. The municipal utility company (Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU)) that currently handles (reasonably competently) electric, water, and gas is also beginning to participate in the telecom market. GRU is currently leasing access to its fiber network for implementation of MAN service. The most notable use of this network has been by Shands Hospital which is affiliated with the University. Due to physical plant constraints a lot of outpatient facilities have been distributed around Gainesville with the facilities linked via a MAN allowing the remote sites to have the same sort of bandwidth available within the primary facility. I recall a quote attributed to a city commissioner who said something to the effect that GRU would be providing local phone service throughout Gainesville. I find this idea to be a little unsettling: I doubt that the electric company (which has little or no experience in telecom) is going to be able to compete with the big boys. > [...] I wanted ISDN for my home and due to a "hairpin turn" > environment, whatever that is, I was offered a special assembly of > $130/month, not the $52/month in the tariff. Interesting. Gainesville seems to have one of the cheaper ISDN rates that I've seen: last year I was quoted $34/month for a residential BRI within 15,000 feet of the switch with no usage charges for local connections. Jon Mellott (jon@alpha.ee.ufl.edu) ------------------------------ In TD347 ng@mprgate.mpr.ca (Steve Ng) wrote: > I am a newcomer to the telecom regulations (and the US legislative > procedures), please excuse for my novice questions: > What is the difference between HR1555 "The Telecommunications Act of > 1995" and s652 "Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of > 1995"? The HR version was passed by the House of Representatives, the S version was passed by the Senate. These two bodies are seperate halves of our legislative branch. Once each decides independently what they want in a bill, sometimes each holding separate hearings, the two bills are sent to a conference committee made up of a few members of the House and a few members of the Senate. They decide what is the same in each bill and take the differences and try to decide which way to go. Once the conference committee decides how the unified bill will look it goes back to both the House and the Senate and must be passed by both in its final form. If passed it is sent on to the president, the leader of the Executive branch of our government, for him to sign into law. If President Clinton decides to veto the bill (he has threatened this) he sends it back for another possible vote in the House and Senate. If both the House and Senate each vote a 2/3rds majority in favor of the bill then they 'override' the veto and it becomes law. > When do you expect HR1555 and s652 be passed? will these become a law > (legislation) or a FCC regulation? (or what do we call them when they > are passed?) When the conference committee gets done with the bill it will be voted on again. I don't believe that they have even started looking at it yet. HR1555/S652 will become a law when it gets through the remaining steps. Reading through HR1555 shows that the law will require the FCC to set up regulations to enforce this law. If anyone does not agree that the FCC regulations are the same as the law they can go to court (the judicial system is the third branch of government). > Appearently, each State can introduce its own telecom regulations. I > have read some articles talking about the Public Service Commission > (from one of the State) has allowed a LEC to offer intraLATA services. > Is this correct? How is this related to HR1555 or s652? When HR1555 is > passed, what kind of impact will we see on LEC? allowing them to offer > interLATA services? (I guess the IXC can offer local access services if > HR1555 is passed, right?) The states have similar arrangements as the federal government. Each body as its own method of getting bills passed into laws requiring the PUC to write a conforming regulation. The federal government has authority over the state governments. The states cannot do anything that violates a federal law. Likewise the PUCs must form regulations within their state's law. If the federal law or conforming FCC regulation does not prohibit an activity and the state law does not prohibit the activity then the PUC can allow the activity. LEC intraLATA service was permitted (and is standard) since the breakup of the Bell system. Your LEC is the default carrier for all IntraLATA calls. Recently the IXCs have been asking people to use the 10xxx codes so that the IXC carrier carries the intraLATA calls. The LECs want to provide interLATA service. That is part of HR1555. The IXCs want to provide LEC service. Some PUCs have approved this based on certain loopholes in the federal law, FCC regulations, and their state laws. HR1555 will permit this kind of service, and force the old LECs to compete based on national rules instead of state rules. James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Twin Kings Communications - Sturgis, MI ------------------------------ In article , Paul Robinson writes: > No, the problem lies with what happens to orders which are received by > the company and are either being performed internally or are being > scheduled for processing by a technician, or are otherwise not > finished. Since the issue is over cost, the "back office" processing > which is handled, allegedly by a contractor's employees, is not only > being done badly, in some cases *it isn't even being done at all*! > Both a Federal Government Employee in that agency's telecom section, > and a C&P Telephone Installer, who each work in two different states, > have both independently told me that when orders come into the back > office processing center, the clerks there more-or-less enter them > into the system, and there's really either no- or not-much quality > control. And there's simply not enough people to handle all the > orders that come in to enter them all in the same day without running > overtime, which they are of course, not going to do. So the employees > have a method of handling the excess orders that they can't get done > by the end of their shift. > ** They throw them in the wastebasket without even processing them! ** > That means that the order has been entered, the customer has probably > either been billed for the service or expects it to be changed, but > the order was never even done by the back-office clerks! > And *this* explains why sometimes I place an order for service and > don't get it done. It also explains why I've had orders that are done > incorrectly unless they were complicated; a simple order, the > back-office clerk just throws in the system any-old way, but a > complicated order probably requires that the clerk look up the coding > to process it. BA horror stories? Should we start a contest? Not that I dispute the above, but I have a fresh-from-the-press story that indicates that all is not well at the "front-office" either: Last week I ordered another line. I was told that since I do my own on-premises-wire maintainnence, I do *NOT* have to be there for the installation. When I came back from my client site the day installation was supposed to happen there was a note and phone message telling me that they could not install the line since I was not there. Hmm, interesting -- but expected. So, I called and was promised an early installation (the next morning between 8 - 10). When 10am passed without a show from our friend at BA, I called. I had to wait about 20 minutes to get through. Then I was informed that they do not have my new number as an install-item. Ok, so "we" trace the order by my current number. Found. Now I'm told that the person assigned is delayed at another job. Now I start to get annoyed. First, they promised to be within the time frame. Second, if they have a problem -- they can call, after all they are the *PHONE* co. I inform the lady on the other end that I'm waiting just for the installer, and that since I am paid by the hour I expect them to come ASAP. She promises me that the person will stop what he is doing and come to my place NOW. I wait. I wait. it is 11:15, no one is here. I call again -- using a different number to try and cut the on-hold time. That worked. I speak to another person (that still can't find the record of my new number ...) and when she finaly finds it I'm told that there was *NO ONE* assigned to the install, and it will not be done before 5pm. Now I'm angry -- real angry! I ask to talk to a supervisor. The super is all apologies, yes they screwed-up, yes there is a problem, what can they do to make me happy? Of course, I say come install the line *NOW*. Well, since it is after 11:30, and the union rules dictate a 12 - 1 lunch break, she can not promise me anything will be done until sometime after 1pm. By now I wasted 3 1/2 hours, so I figure I cut the losses, and try for the next day. She promisses me (1) my install will be the first one done the next day (right after 8am) (2) she will call to make sure it was done right. Next day: 8:50 - no one here. I call. As I'm being transferred, a knock on the doorr. It took an hour to get here? I can drive from center city Phila to Princeton NJ or past Wilmingtom DE in that time span. But, at least some one is here. The installer does what they usually do, and comes back after 30 minutes with the big news: he can not get a tone to any of the three free pairs I have. It seems the five pair I have goes somewhere, but not far enough (note that I have two pairs working fine). So this is a job for the cable crew. He tells me there was a cable-person around the corner, and he told him about the problem and it will be handled soon. I insist on a phone number where I can check on the status of the installation. As soon as he leaves I call. What number? We can't find it ... oh, that works order, no -- we do not have a cable crew assigned. The next available crew just started a job and we don't know when they will be over. Time now: 10:30 or so. I'm pissed. I tell them that this is not acceptable, and I demand someone to come *now*. OK, they say -- we will tell them to stop and come to your place. Good. I wait. I wait some more. An hour later -- no one here (do I sound like a broken record???). I call -- by the time I reach the supervisor, a knock on the door. The cable guy is here. Great!? Not quite. He tests the wires and informs me that they seem to be 180 and 100 feet long. That distance goes nowhere close to the junction box where they are supposed to terminate. So, for the next two 1/2 hours he tries to figure out where the cables goes. He can't. The microfiche says one thing, reality is not quite the same. By 1:30 he gives up. There is one possibility he can't check (cuz the people are not there) so he will ask the next crew to try that location. At this point I'm ready to kill. It is pretty clear that I'm not willing to just sit there and wait, and we agrees to a temp solution: he will extend the three pairs and leave the ends "exposed" outside, so the other team can test and look, etc. They will mark the "live" pair when it is done. Today is the day after -- needless to say, the supervisor did NOT call back. Also there was no sign that anyone was testing the pairs last night when I came back ... So, after this long saga, and almost a week after the order, there is no line and not even an idea when one will be there. I do have a question: does anyone know if there is a legal basis for me to bill the BA for the wasted time (the first day -- when they acknowledge that someone did lie to me and messed-up big time)? Thanks for listening, Erez Levav Fox Chase Cancer Center E_Levav@fccc.edu 7701 Burholme Avenue (215) 728-3160 Philadelphia, PA 19111 ATT: 0-700-2xpress 0-700-2101010 (FAX) ------------------------------ > ** They throw them in the wastebasket without even processing them! ** > That means that the order has been entered, the customer has probably > either been billed for the service or expects it to be changed, but > the order was never even done by the back-office clerks! On the other hand, this can result in benefits to the customer, so it isn't always the customer that loses. Example: When I switched LD ·_ carriers, the new one put in the order to switch from 222 to 333 on my line. The order was put in, and the business office duly noted the change, charged me the switching charge (which I'd already received a check from 333 to cover). But the switch program was never changed. So, 222 closed my account, 333 created one for me, and I continued to use 1+ LD dialing. The result: 222 kept getting charged for the calls, 333 had a zero balance, and I never saw the charges for calls made during that time, since I no longer had an account with 222. So, I won, 222 lost, and if there is a scam, I would think that 222 would want to expose it to keep from getting billed for closed accounts. I actually didn't consider it a scam: more like technical doesn't communicate very well with billing and so there are lots of discrepencies. It happens with any large company. In the end, a call to repair to explain the situation got everything corrected, since the tech could go in and look at the billing office record, see that a change SHOULD have been made, then go in and change the switch on the spot to match. tom internet: thomas@menno.com ------------------------------ In TELECOM Digest, V15 #342, keshavac@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu (Bhaktha Keshavachar) wrote: > Last week a AT&T long distance rep called me at home and offered > me a deal (aka a sweet package) so that I switch to them. The deal [...] > Now this week I call them and they reply saying that they haven't > heard of such a deal! I thought it was rather funny. A rep called me one night and I wanted time to think about the package and compare what I'd pay (and the "rewards") against what I currently pay (and the rewards I get) using Sprint. I asked for a number to call back once I'd decided, and the rep gave me a number, but cautioned that the people at the inbound call center do not have the authority to offer the same deals as the reps at the outbound call center. Makes sense. My guess is the reps who originate the calls have a bigger list of enticements than the inbound call center. After all, if someone calls AT&T, then they must already be somewhat interested -- they're less likely to make a compulsive decision. Mike King * mk@tfs.com * Oakland, CA, USA * +1 510.645.3152 ------------------------------ In TELECOM Digest, V15 #342, keshavac@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu (Bhaktha Keshavachar) wrote: > A rep called me one night and I wanted time to think about the package > and compare what I'd pay (and the "rewards") against what I currently > pay (and the rewards I get) using Sprint. I asked for a number to call > back once I'd decided, and the rep gave me a number, but cautioned that > the people at the inbound call center do not have the authority to > offer the same deals as the reps at the outbound call center. Hmm... interesting. > Makes sense. My guess is the reps who originate the calls have a > bigger list of enticements than the inbound call center. After all, if > someone calls AT&T, then they must already be somewhat > interested -- they're less likely to make a compulsive decision. True. But there should be a way to handle cases like what happened to me. Maybe the rep who offered me the deal could have made a entry in their data bases against my phone number, so that when I called back whoever received the call would know that. I was under the impression that AT&T service was better than the others (well ... I was a AT&T customer back in Arizona before moving to NorthWest) but now I would think twice before switching to AT&T (with or withour $100 !) Bhaktha ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #355 ******************************