
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 <telecom15.347.3@eecs.nwu.edu>, Dan Cromer 
<cromerdh@sbac.edu> 
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 <telecom15.343.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, Paul Robinson <paul@TDR.COM>
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
******************************

                                              
