TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 Mar 95 14:02:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 140 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NYNEX Special Contracts Proprietary Treatment (Joe Scotti) Call Waiting Purgatory (Robohn Scott) NYNEX: Idiocy in Pricing (Chris Labatt-Simon) Need Help Getting AT&T 1050 Phone Fixed (David Sheafer) Satellite Information Request (Eduardo Kaftanski) Callback System Hardware and Software Wanted (Bernardo Lam) More Places You Cannot Place 500 Calls From (John Shelton) 500 NPA Expansion? (Jeff Spidle) Book Review: "The Internet Navigator" by Gilster (2nd Ed.) (Rob Slade) Caller ID Question (gttm@cais3.cais.com) Taxing Your Telco Service (Michael Johnson) Precision Delay Line Application (Wade Viland) Anything Cheaper Than LCI? (Andrew Lewis Tepper) Information Wanted About Comstar (Steve Sanders) Information Wanted About Geotek Communications Inc. (David Brown) Debit Cards for LD Calling (Glenn Foote) Information Wanted About Analog Interface Parameters (Eli Cohen) 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. * ************************************************************************ * Additionally, 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 17:14:29 -0500 From: joes@auditel.com (Joe Scotti) Subject: NYNEX Special Contracts Proprietary Treatment Dear Fellow Telecom Professional: We are seeking assistance on a very major issue in NH. To be successful in our motion we need unified support from the business community. Some background: We are a telecom company located in Hampstead, NH interest the deregulation of telecommunications in NH. After spending 20 years with AT&T and NYNEX, I started AUDITEL two years ago with the intent on being the customer advocate. Our motion, is requesting that the PUC lift this restriction and allow full public access to these special contracts. It is our belief that price and industry discrimation has developed of the last year or so and that is why NYNEX has found this obscure law of privacy! We need public support for this motion to succeed. NYNEX cannot continue these practices. I have included a copy of the motion and an example of a letter of support to be sent to the PUC. Thanks for your support!! ----------------------------- March 3, 1995 Dr. Sarah P. Voll Executive Director and Secretary State of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission 8 Old Suncook Road Concord, NH 03301 Re: Motion to remove Proprietary Treatment for Special Contracts filed by NYNEX Dear Dr. Voll: Enclosed is an original and eight copies of AUDITEL's motion for the removal of proprietary treatment of all special contracts filed and to be filed by NYNEX. Please note that AUDITEL has requested Staff's and Office of the Consumer Advocate's concurrence. Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and its enclosures by signing or stamping and dating the receipt copy hereof and returning it to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Joseph J. Scotti President Enclosure --------------------- STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AUDITEL / NYNEX Proprietary Treatment MOTION FOR THE REMOVAL OF PROPRIETARY TREATMENT OF ALL PREVIOUSLY FILED SPECIAL CONTRACTS AND ANY FUTURE CONTRACTS TO BE FILED Pursuant to PUC 203.04, AUDITEL Inc. hereby moves that all Special Contracts filed, including DR 95-010, DR 94-276, DR 94-058, DR 93-028, DR 93-054, DR 92-105 and any future contracts to be filed are made available for full public viewing under the New Hampshire Right-To-Know Law, RSA 91A and RSA 378:19. As grounds for its motion, AUDITEL states as follows: 1. NYNEX has requested Proprietary Treatment and claims that the above dockets contain customer specific information and competitively sensitive data and that this falls within the scope of "confidential, commercial and financial information" exempt from public disclosure pursuant to RSA 91-A:5(IV). It is our belief, the information contained in the above dockets contain general information pertaining to the customer locations and line sizes. This information is available to any vendor upon the completion of a "letter of agency" which is signed by the customer. 2. It is our belief, based on working knowledge of the special contract process and a review of the recent contract with MEDNET Services that there is no specific client financial information disclosed in the above dockets. 3. It is our belief that customers who enter into these special contracts are not aware that NYNEX is requesting Proprietary Treatment. There is no authorization or awareness of the customer regarding this. 4. NYNEX is claiming that these dockets contain competitively sensitive data. To the contrary, Centrex and ISDN services are only available from NYNEX in New Hampshire. There are no competitors currently offering these services. 5. In accordance with RSA 378:18, we have received written intention by NYNEX to pursue a special contract for Centrex and other network services for the Public (K-12) Schools in New Hampshire. We are requesting that all special contracts be made available for public viewing, in accordance with RSA 378:19 to avoid price and industry segment discrimination. 6. AUDITEL requests that the Commission, Staff, and OCA uphold the New Hampshire Right-To-Know law, specifically RSA 91-A:4 which states that "minutes and records of such bodies or agencies are available for public inspection" and RSA 378:19 which states that "special contracts be made public in such manner as the commission shall require, and shall constitute a part of the published schedules of the public utility making the same". WHEREFORE, AUDITEL respectfully requests that the Commission allows full public view of all special contracts previously filed and all future filings by NYNEX and grant such other relief as is just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, AUDITEL Inc. _______________________________ Joseph J. Scotti - President AUDITEL Inc. 213 Stage Road P.O. Box 336 Hampstead, NH 03841 (603) 329-5000 Dated: March 3, 1995 ------------------------- March xx, 1995 Dr. Sarah P. Voll Executive Director and Secretary State of New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission 8 Old Suncook Road Concord, NH 03301 Re: Motion to remove Proprietary Treatment for Special Contracts filed by NYNEX Dear Dr. Voll: I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen and businessperson. I would like to extend my support for the motion submitted by AUDITEL Inc. which provides full public disclosure of all "Special Contracts" filed by NYNEX. I firmly believe this freedom of information is of the utmost importance to the businesses and citizens of N.H. to assure a level playing field and prohibit any possible industry or pricing discrimination. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at ...................................... Sincerely, AUDITEL Inc. Joe Scotti joes@auditel.com 603-329-5000 x22 "Fiber Keeps You Moving!" ------------------------------ From: Robohn Scott Subject: Call Waiting Purgatory Date: Thu, 09 Mar 95 09:25:00 PST I had an interesting experience with call waiting last night. During a conversation with Mike, he received another call and put me on "wait" (I guess it's not really on "hold" since it's call _waiting_). Mike's fairly gregarious and eventually forgot about me, but I was patient and caught a short piece on Dustin Hoffman being interviewed by Bob Costas while I waited. After at least five minutes, I received a call from James, which I took and put Mike's call on wait. Well, James received another call within 30 seconds of our call, so we just said we'd talk later, but he actually put me on wait also. So I was in deadlock: Mike and James both had me on wait. "I'm connected, but I can't hang up." I stayed that way for probably another 10 minutes, switching back and forth between both waiting calls. I tried several times to go on-hook for an extended period of time (approximately 15 seconds), but each time my phone responded with a single ring. I suppose this was to remind me that I had a call waiting. Thanks alot. Eventually, James finished his other call and found me still there. We talked for a bit and then terminated that call. Then I was free to hang up on Mike, who I was sure had some emergency at this point, but he did call back when he was done with his obviously more important call. Any similar experiences? Is there a way to remedy this without getting three-way calling? Bell Atlantic is my local service provider. BTW, no names were changed because these guys are definitely _not_ innocent. Scott F. Robohn robohns@bah.com ------------------------------ From: labatt@disaster.com (Chris Labatt-Simon) Subject: NYNEX: Idiocy in pricing Date: 9 Mar 1995 06:35:06 GMT Organization: D&D Consulting OK Gang. Can anyone tell me the rationale in the following? Two "FlexPath" T1s composed of 48 DIDs total cost ~$3500/month (FlexPath is based on mileage and the location is ~2 miles from the closest switch). 48 standard individual business lines will cost about $1,200/month. Now, I'd like to know (sarcastically speaking of course) which is more difficult to install and maintain?? 2 Ts or 48 individual jacks/lines? I can't wait until the LD carries get into the local loop market. Can anyone out there explain NYNEX's rationale in this? Chris Labatt-Simon Internet: labatt@disaster.com Design & Disaster Recovery Consulting CIS: 73542,2601 Albany, New York PHONE: (518) 495-5474 FAX: (518) 432-1829 Subscribe to the Lotus Notes Mailing List (LNOTES-L) - mail for info.. For info on D&D, mail to info@disaster.com or http://www.disaster.com INTERNET/UNIX/NETWARE/LAN/WAN SPECIALISTS AND MORE ALL UNDER ONE ROOF ------------------------------ From: David Sheafer Subject: Need Help Getting AT&T 1050 Phone Fixed Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 12:33:06 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Hi, I have an AT&T 1050 Business system, which basically compries of one AT&T 1050 phone and 3 AT&T 1020 phones. My problem is that the 1020 phones are slaves to the 1050 phone which is the master, and thus will not work w/out the 1050. My problem is the 1050 no longer works, from what I can tell by taking it apart is that the problem is a fuse that is hardwired. AT&T will replace the phone for a $90.00 repair fee and send me a reconditioned one, (the 90.00 is flat fee). Does anyone know how the hardwired fuse could be replaced by myself. I hate to pay 90.00 for something that only requires a a part that is going to cost a few dollars. Thanks for any help. david dsheafer@delphi.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you have tested the fuse and found that indeed that is the problem, why not just get in the phone, pull it out and replace it? Hardwired or not, that's not such a big deal. If you feel it might be kind of messy then consider this other possible way of dealing with it: Is this fuse for the power supply? Do you know its rating? If so, jump the fuse inside -- that is, just solder a wire around it, bypassing it completely, and install a similar fuse in a little fuse holder in that wire instead. Leave it easier to get to in the event it blows again. And remember, a fuse that blows repeatedly is trying to tell you something. DO NOT just jump the fuse out of the line entirely. You say the fuse is 'hardwired' ... is it similar to a zenner diode? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ekaftan@sci.cl (Eduardo Kaftanski) Subject: Satellite Information Request Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 17:04:17 CDT I am looking for information about satellite footprints and reception power. Pointers to books, gopher or WWW servers or such would be really appreciated. What I need to do is to listen to an audio channel from a Satellite for PageSat's newsfeed. úÿ [Begin dreaming part] I would also like to contact some ISP that would help me get a direct satellite link with him for IP access, if at all possible. [End dreaming part] Many thanks for any answer. Eduardo Kaftanski ekaftan@sci.cl ------------------------------ From: blam@panix.com (Bernardo Lam) Subject: Callback System Hardware and Software? Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 15:06:29 EDT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Hi, Does anyone know where I can find information about the equipment and software required for setting up a callback system? Thanks in advance, Bernardo Lam ------------------------------ From: John Shelton Subject: More Places You Cannot Place 500 Calls From Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 6:41:41 PDT I'm still holding out hope that AT&T will get its 500 service (True Connections) in high gear soon. But in the lat 24 hours, I've received two disappointments: * Bell Atlantic called back to say they had made a corporate-wide decision to DISALLOW 1+500 calling from Bell Atlantic cell phones. When I had originally called, they thought it was just a programming problem, and they said they would look into it. * AT&T will not place calls *to* a 500 number using the Place-a-Call feature of one's own 500 number. For example, if I dial 0+500-xxx-xxxx, and enter my own PIN, I have the option of placing a call. If I dial 1+500-yyy-yyyy, I get a message saying "You cannot use your personal number service to call the number you entered" AT&T customer service had two explanations. The first was that the number I was calling was not in service (not true.) The second explanation was that they didn't allow calling 500 numbers. Ahem. =John= [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are no idiots. What sort of fools do you take them for? You think they are going to allow *you* to run up *their* phone bill in an uncontrolled way with 500 calls forwarded all over the universe and you paying only 15/25 cents per minute? They figure its okay for hotel switchboards to have to eat it now and then, but not Ma Bell herself! Of course I guess you could say they must know who you are and have recourse to you since you entered a PIN (unlike a hotel switchboard where the guests come, and the guests go, and if you don't get the money before they check out you never will get it), but I guess they figure its more of a problem with billing than they want to bother with. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Mar 95 11:02:31 EST From: jspidle@VNET.IBM.COM Subject: 500 NPA Expansion? What is going to happen after the 500 NPA is exhausted? I have heard rumour of there being a 522, 533 type of relief. Is this true? Thanks, jeff spidle ss7 architect and technician advantis jspidle@vnet.ibm.com (708)240-3808 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh dear, are we to that point already? This is going to get crazier and crazier until we reach the point no one knows quite for sure where they are calling or who they reached. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 Mar 1995 13:28:40 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Navigator" by Gilster (2nd Ed.) BKINTNAV.RVW 950206 "The Internet Navigator", Gilster, 1994, 0-471-05260-4, U$24.95 %A Paul Gilster gilster@interpath.net %C 22 Worchester Road, Rexdale, Ontario M9W 9Z9 %D 1994 %G 0-471-05260-4 %I John Wiley & Sons, Inc. %O U$24.95 800-263-1590 800-263-1590 212-850-6630 Fax: 212-850-6799 %P 624 %T "The Internet Navigator" There are, of course, a great many Internet guides. Even if you include only the longer guides, with resource information and suggested destinations, I have no less than thirteen on the shelf. "The Internet Navigator", however, is not on my shelf. It is on my desk, constantly. By and large, this is an Internet guide like other Internet guides. A bit of an introduction and some history, then coverage of the major applications (email, ftp, telnet) and the more esoteric ones (gopher, WAIS, World Wide Web). Right from the front cover, though, Gilster avoids the "whole Internet" bias of so many guides and aligns himself with the dial-up user. There is, in fact, a whole chapter devoted to the use of email to access Internet resources; particularly useful to those on commercial online services, business "mail only" connections or Fidonet. There is, perhaps, no one specific that sets this among the top four books that an Internet user must have. It is more a matter of tone and completeness. Gilster is friendly without being sarcastic; mature without being dictatorial; explanatory without being verbose; and comprehensive without being in any way boring. It is, of course, very much easier to point out the flaws. Although Gilster explains "why UNIX," there is a heavy emphasis on the specific commands of mail, trn, elm and other UNIX specific programs. (In the chapter on email access to resources, Gilster has improved the earlier emphasis on CompuServe.) In spite of minor shortcomings, however, this book has a very comfortable feel to it. The material is clear and well-written, with little attempt at the sarcasm or barbed wit of some other beginner materials. One positive factor may be the grouping of functional items together, so that archie, for example, is covered in the chapter on ftp. There is only one icon; a very helpful little ship which points out Internet accessible resources for the item under discussion. The bibliography is, perhaps, more exhaustive than useful. Overall, I highly recommend this either for the beginner to the Internet, or as a very helpful reference for the seasoned Internaut. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1995 BKINTNAV.RVW 950206. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver roberts@decus.ca Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/ User .fidonet.org Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ From: gttm@cais3.cais.com (USCG TELECOMMS) Subject: Caller ID Question Date: 8 Mar 1995 15:17:01 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470 In Caller ID the privacy indicator can be overridden on 911, 800, and 900 calls. We understand that 911 is ANI-based and 800/900 is SS7-based. Is it technically feasible to override the privacy indicator to calls placed to a public agency's emergency seven-digit or ten-digit emergency number (non-911, non-800, non-900)? If not, what would be required to make this feasible? Please reply to gttm@cais.com. Telephone: (202) 267-2860 U.S. Coast Guard (G-TTM) Fax: (202) 267-4106 Washington DC 20593 Internet: CGComms/g-t07@cgsmtp.comdt.uscg.mil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Nope, not possible. Not at least without a massive lost of trust by the public in what telephone privacy is available. That is the purpose of 911: Emergency calls are to be placed to that number. *Non-emergency* calls are NOT to go to 911. 911 is to be used for dire emergencies requiring immediate intervention by the police/fire/medical people. If your call is a bonafide emergency then I can't imagine you would not want want your identity and whereabouts knowm. Your car was stolen yesterday or you want to report an offense you saw a couple hours ago? Those are not emergencies. They should go to your administrative seven digit number. But here is a secret for you: Equip all those phones wth Caller-ID and display units. *Never* admit to (or tell anyone) having it. 99 percent of the population is not sophisticated enough to block their ID anyway and you will wind up getting most all numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mwjohns@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Johnson) Subject: Taxing Your Telco Service Date: 7 Mar 1995 23:10:19 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet Ask your long distance provider or your cellular company or pcn or pcs to itemize and explain for you how they are taxing your calls. I think you will find it all very interesting. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Indeed you will. Even local telco service has tax piled on top of tax ... federal, state, local, others. And if you are a bureaucrat at heart, and love mountains of paper and regulations, then get a job in the tax accounting department at any large telco, or maybe even at AT&T. For example, Ameritech alone has to deal with several *hundred* taxing agencies; each with their own tax rates; each with their own ideas of what should be (most everything) and should not be (very little of anything) taxed. We had a fiasco here here a few years ago involving tax on pay telephone calls. The city of Chicago wanted a certain tax on payphone calls; the suburbs wanted a different tax on their pay- phones. Both taxes amounted to a couple cents per call. Since you cannot put pennies in the payphone, (then) Illinois Bell got a ruling that the tax could be calculated by taking the total amount of payphone calls in a year, figuring the tax on the total, and prorating it among all customers in their monthly phone bills. Even after getting that ruling, they got sued in a class action and lost. So all the residence subscribers got a refund of a few cents on their bill and all the payphones had to be raised to 30 cents per call. The call actually costs 25 cents, with (get this!) one penny going to the refund that was given to subscribers; two pennies going to the government to make up for taxes not collected by the formula earlier established; one penny going to pay for the current taxes, and one penny for administrative costs. Everyone screamed about how Illinois Bell was committing robbery by 'raising the cost of a payphone call' to 30 cents, but IBT had no choice in the matter at all. Now as those pennies accumulate (the amount of the refund they gave everyone has been paid off and most of the old tax bill) they are reducing the payphone charge to 25 cents again on a suburb by suburb basis. I think Chicagoans still pay 30 cents for a payphone call while we here in Skokie pay 25 cents. Yesiree, telco tax accounting ... its a wonderful place to work and a wonderful thing to try and figure out. By all means, ask for a breakdown; you will be amazed. At least here, they don't pay fractions of a penny to one agency and fractions of a penny to another; there is a central thing called the Cook County Collector (another bureaucratic maze) and they get all the pennies; they divide them up among the agencies, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wade Viland Subject: Precision Delay Line Application Date: 8 Mar 1995 04:25:29 GMT Organization: Internet Connections, Inc. (507) 625-7320 I would appreciate responce regaurding possible appliations for a passive delay line chip I am currently developing. The device is designed in a 1210 format (3.2mmx2.5mm) utalizing a combination of microstrip and coplanar technologies. The characteristic impedence is 50 ohms with time delays from 0-200ps in 20ps steps. Insertion loss to 1.3Ghz is less than 0.5dB. I stopped here because of equiptment limitations, it appears it would perform to much higher frequencies. Any ideas as to how this device might be used in either an analog or digital envirnoment would be greatly appreciated. It seems that such a device might provide a solution to MCM timming. Or perhaps a low power RF application in the SHF band. Thanks for reading. Wade tft2@ic.mankato.mn.us ------------------------------ From: Andrew Lewis Tepper Subject: Anything Cheaper Than LCI? Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 23:40:02 -0500 Organization: Administrative Computing & Info Services, Carnegie Mellon Right now I'm using LCI for LD service. I've heard of two services that may be cheaper, but each had a catch of some kind. Recently LCI increased their rates in a sort of sneaky way and I'm looking to switch: Before: Day: 17c/min, 6 second increments Night/Weekend: 13c/min, 6 second increments Now: Day: 17c/min, 6 second increments, 18 second minimum Night/Weekend: 13c/min, 6 second increments, 18 second minimum I'm not sure what category evening calls fall into. Is there a company that does strictly 6 second increments (most important), with lower day rates (2nd most important), and lower Night rates (least important) ? Also, I'm looking for an 800-number provider that is cheaper than Sprint, but will let me keep my current number. Andy ------------------------------ From: sanders@tellabs.com (Steve Sanders) Subject: Info Wanted About Comstar Organization: Tellabs, Lisle,IL Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 13:50:55 GMT I'm trying to get some information for my brother who is currently teaching English in Moscow. He has a job possibility with a British- Russian joint telecom company called Comstar. He'd like to get more info on the company, so I'm trying to help him out. If you know something about "Comstar", could ya drop me a line? Thanks, steve sanders@tellabs.com ------------------------------ From: davidb@qpsx.oz.au (David Brown) Subject: Information Wanted on Geotek Communications Inc Organization: QPSX Communications Ltd Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 07:17:07 GMT Hi, anyone from Geotek on the net? Or anyone else have contacts for Geotek, in Montvale, NJ or Philadelphia? (prefer email/fax details) Geotek are supposed to be offering local area frequency hopping voice/data radio comms, not quite telecom but sort of related I guess. Thanks, David Brown, QPSX Communications Ltd 33 Richardson St, (Private Bag No. 24), West Perth 6005, Western AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 9 262 2218 Fax: +61 9 324 1642 Email: davidb@qpsx.oz.au ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: Debit Cards for LD Calling Date: 9 Mar 1995 02:39:46 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus Freenet I am looking for companies who provide Debit "Pre Paid" Long Distance Calling cards. If you know of any, please send names and telephone numbers by E-Mail. Thanks, Glenn L Foote glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Mar 95 11:02:01 IST From: elic@lannet.com (Eli Cohen) Subject: Information Wanted on Analog Interface Parameters I'm looking for information in the form of articals research papers etc. on the topic: Analog Interface Parameters. The parameters I'm looking for (such as Line Impedance, Dial Tone, Cadences, etc.) should be categorized be country of origin. Thanks for your help. Eli Cohen elic@lannet.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #140 ******************************