TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Apr 94 13:56:00 CDT    Volume 14 : Issue 190

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Demise of Newsgroups Feared (Dan Reifsnyder)
    Re: Looking For Information on BNC, Inc. (Jay Hennigan)
    Re: Customer <-> Local Phone Company Contact Point (Gregory P. Monti)
    Re: Basic ISDN Question (Bob Larribeau)
    Re: Telecommuting Policies and Procedures (Peter M. Weiss)
    Re: Help Reading AT&T and NYNEX Toll Tapes (Paul S. Sawyer)
    Re: 16 Mbps Modem for Real? (cjl@mitre.org)
    Re: Questions on Fractional T-1 Service (John Zambito)
    Re: Question About Digital Telephony and Delayed Dial Tone (Dave Held)
    Re: Question About Digital Telephony and Delayed Dial Tone (David D-Weber)
    Re: Occupied Territories Telecom (Josh Backon)
    Re: How Can FAX Use T1 But Keep POTS Number? (Dean Banfield)
    Re: NANP and Switches (Linc Madison)

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 GEnie.
It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available at no charge 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: 708-329-0571
                        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.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ryfe@interaccess.com (Dan Reifsnyder)
Subject: Demise of Newsgroups Feared
Date: 28 Apr 1994 17:28:49 GMT
Organization: InterAccess, Chicagoland's Full Service Internet Provider


Remember the bozo who cross-posted a message about an upcoming lottery
for green cards to every single newgroup on the net?  According to a
Clarinet Newsbytes article, he recieved over 35,000 responses, most of
which were flames and mail bombs comprising over 73GB(!) of data.  As
you can imagine, his service provider, Internet Direct, was more than
a little peeved, as this caused over a dozen system crashes and
brought their machine to it's knees; they ended up revoking his
account, citing storage costs.  This bozo then has the balls to show
up at Internet Direct's office with four lawyers threatening to sue
for $250,000, claiming that not being able to get to their e-mail
would cost them at least that much.  The thing that kills me is the
bozo's attitude about the entire situation.  His name is Laurence
Canter, and he claims that:
 
1) Most of the responses that he got were for more information, and
he'll gladly do the same thing again once he clears the resulting
order backlog.
 
2) The revocation of his account is of no concern to him since he has
accounts with a number of other Internet service providers.
 
3) If a newsgroup isn't moderated, they have to expect and accept
crossposts.
 
In an interview with Newsbytes, he concludes by saying that he has
every intention of advertising other products and services through
Usenet groups.  He adds that "Although what we're doing may upset
them, there's no doubt that will change.  Other people will advertise
on the Usenet in the same manner, because it makes sense financially."
 
My personal belief is that Mr. Canter is taking advantage of and
abusing the system, but that's just one man's opinion... and while I
am *NOT* advocating doing anything nasty to Laurence Canter (of Canter
& Siegel, (602) 661-3911), I think it would be an interesting analogy
to his service provider's problem if his phone was inundated with more
data than *it* could handle... *NOT* that I'm recommending that anyone
in the 602 area code program caller-id blocking and (602) 661-3911
into their autodialers before they go to work in the morning.  I'm
also *NOT* suggesting that people outside of the 602 area code program
(602) 661-3911 into a speed-dial button on their phone so that they
can call, let the phone start to ring and then hang up before it's
answered.
 
My biggest concern is that if Mr. Canter carries out his intent of
advertising products and services through newsgroups, it could lead to
others feeling justified in doing the same thing ... and will end up
destroying the best example of consensual anarchy that I've ever been
privileged to participate in.


Dan Reifsnyder /ryfe@interaccess.com


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have said it before, I will say it
again.  Moderated forums is where things are at. Some months ago I
made a comment which has apparently been widely spread on the net, at
least judging from the places I have seen it reappear: Usenet is a
dung heap. It is getting worse every day. Years ago, the 'make money
fast' messages appeared only rarely; perhaps one every year or so. Now
they appear almost daily in one or more newsgroups. Massive crossposting
of the kind you mention is very commonplace now.  Advertisements
appear regularly. You will see more and more of them.  The world has
discovered the Internet in general, and Usenet in particular.
Lotteries, chain letters, make money fast, send postcards to sickly
children, Jesus Saves, AIDS is God's punishment for gays ...  Gene
Spafford's 'Sunday afternoon in the park' analogy is still a good one,
but the park has turned into an inner city park in Chicago; gangs of
maruders making the park miserable for everyone else. And its not that
they intend to disrupt or ruin everyone else's day; its generally that
they *just don't know any better*. Why, some of them think they are
just as entitled to sit here and do their thing as anyone else ...  :)

Listen kids, some of us are old enough we remember in the late 1960's
when Citizens Band Radio was going to be the place where all could
express themselves freely and the rest of us would listen respect-
fully to the ideas of the others, etc. By sometime in the late 1970's
CB radio had gone to hell, and the newest thing was computer bulletin
boards. Then came the linking of the boards in networks and of course
Usenet. Everything I heard about the glories of CB back in 1970 I
heard about Usenet back in 1983-85. 'The people' discovered CB when
Johnny Cash popularized it in a song, and that ended CB for all
intents and purposes. And now the latest rage is 'how do I get an
account on the Internet?'  ... everyone wants one. At least once a
day I get asked that by someone here in Skokie. System administrators
face a major challenge from now through the year 2000 as they try to
deal with the flood of new users coming aboard; many of whom -- shall
I say in a polite way -- don't give an iota about the standards of
the past. You'll see soon enough; the moderated groups will survive 
and thrive, the unmoderated groups will get more trashy than ever. 
The traffic will get so heavy that more and more of the unmoderated
groups will get dropped by sites which can no longer deal with a full
'news' feed .. that is, if they still refer to it as 'news'.  PAT]
  
------------------------------

From: jay@coyote.rain.org (Jay Hennigan)
Subject: Re: Looking For Information on BNC, Inc.
Date: 27 Apr 1994 17:00:06 -0700
Organization: Regional Access Information Network (RAIN)


In article <telecom14.185.1@eecs.nwu.edu> jrcrum@bb1t.monsanto.com writes:

> I'm trying to find some information on a company called Business
> Network Communications, Inc. (BNC).  They are supposedly a long-distance 
> wholesaler, reselling AT&T services.  A friend of mine is considering
> investing in this company, and asked me to post this to see if anyone
> may be familiar with them.  If anyone has any direct experience with
> this company (or one like it), we would appreciate any information.

As I recall, this is an aggregator/reseller using a pyramid-style sales 
system a la Amway.  His "investment" is likely going to include convincing 
his friends (you) to "invest" in it, too.

> I also have another question.  This company claims that due to some
> FCC rulings, AT&T is required to make discount packages like the ones
> they give large companies available to resellers.  The resellers can
> then make money selling AT&T long-distance service to other companies
> or individuals.  Is this for real?

Sort of.  Depending on the arrangements with AT&T, they may or may not
have the same access to the network as regular AT&T subscribers.  With
some of these companies there is a "software-defined network", meaning
that although the calls use AT&T facilities, if the reseller only
"bought" 1000 "lines", and 1001 of its customers attempt to call at
the same time, the last guy gets a "circuits busy".  Billing may be
done by a third party, and credit for wrong numbers and the like will
probably not be what you're accustomed to.  There are dozens of these
small resellers, and to a large extent you get what you pay for.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Speaking of Amway, did you know there is
now 'amway.com'?   Yep, they're on the net.  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 07:16:21 EDT
From: Gregory P. Monti <gmonti@cap.gwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Customer <-> Local Phone Company Contact Point


On Wed 27 Apr 1994, Jonathan <jdl@wam.umd.edu> wrote:

> I would like to suggest that after local telephone service competition
> is under way, somebody should create a special point of contact
> between all customers and all local telephone companies.  This entity
> would represent customers...

> Third, it would handle reports of trouble on calls, localize them to
> one company's network, and then refer it to that company...

> Fifth, it would set business, ethical and technical standards for
> the industry.

The Editor wrote:

> Wouldn't this be redundant since we already have both the Federal
> Communications Commission and a state agency in every state at
> present?  In addition there are already many consumer organizations...

I think Jonathan <jdl@wam.umd.edu> meant that the FCC, other
regulators and consumer groups usually only get involved after the sin
of "slamming" has been committed.  His fear is that local telephone
service, once numbers become portable between local carriers, would be
subject to slamming (unauthorized change of a customer's vendor).  His
proposed agency would be the "slamming prevention agency", not the
"slamming complaint handling agency."

Also, with many telecom companies, local or not, handling a service,
who would coordinate repair calls among providers?  If a circuit or a
call passes through six companies on its way across the country, which
one do you call when repairs are needed?  On the other hand, many
people's data circuits pass through Rolm (CPE), NYNEX (local svc),
then MCI (interexchange svc), then Illinois Bell (local svc), then
Northern Telecom (CPE).  With the usual finger-pointing, those five
companies seem to be able to handle a repair call.

I guess he wants to avoid the finger-pointing.  That would require a
lot of first-hand knowledge of the customer's current problem, which
an outside agency would be unlikely to have.


Greg Monti          Arlington, Virginia, USA        gmonti@cap.gwu.edu


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well the way we used to do it in the past,
until 1983 or so, was we called Repair Service and let it go at that.
Of course, that wasn't good enough ...  :(    PAT]

------------------------------

From: blarrib@netcom.com (Bob Larribeau)
Subject: Re: Basic ISDN Question
Organization: Consultant
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 14:16:39 GMT


In article <telecom14.186.9@eecs.nwu.edu> jonesm2@rpi.edu (Mike Jones)
writes:

> ISDN has recently become available here in this corner of NYNEX-land.
> The cost is a $10 surcharge onto normal business rates. We're
> interested in using the 64 Kbps data channel to connect to a local
> internet provider; I've checked with NYNEX and ISDN is available at
> both our and their CO's. My question is, how does this practically
> work? I have a moderate understanding of ISDN at a conceptual level,
> but no real feel for how you go about hooking things up.  Any
> information would be appreciated.

You need to find an Internet service provider that supports ISDN. They 
should be able to help you with the implementation.  PSI supports
ISDN, others are starting to.


Bob Larribeau   Consultant  San Francisco

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 08:11:33 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <PMW1@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Telecommuting Policies and Procedures
Organization: Penn State University


Don't forget the notebook archives of FLEXWORK stored on the
listserv@psuhmc.hmc.psu.edu.
 
Here is the script that I sent to the listserv followed by the INDEX
output.  Change the INDEX to PRINT to get the actual text:
 
/* --------------------- clip and save ---------------- */
//ListSrch JOB Echo=no
Database Search DD=Rules OUTLIM=3000 f=mail
//Rules DD *
S (pay or salary) and (policy or policies) in flexwork
index
/*
//  EOJ
/* --------------------- clip and save ---------------- */
 
> S (pay or salary) and (policy or policies) in flexwork
--> Database FLEXWORK, 5 hits.
 
> index
Item #   Date   Time  Recs   Subject
------   ----   ----  ----   -------
000057 93/05/26 07:04  447   teleco
000059 93/05/31 13:21  943   NEW SIRI SERVICES
000060 93/06/19 14:08   99   Tele-Community (fwd)
000065 93/10/15 16:15  592   INT'L ACADEMY OF BUSINESS DISCIPLINES CALL FOR
PAP+
000079 93/11/02 08:30  962   (Forwarded) article on telework

                 -------------------
 
 co-owner LDBASE-L, et -L
Pete-Weiss@psu.edu     "The 'NET' never naps"             +1 814 863 1843
31 Shields Bldg. -- Penn State Univ -- University Park, PA 16802-1202 USA

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 08:34:11 -0400
From: Paul S. Sawyer <paul@senex.unh.edu>
Subject: Re: Help Reading AT&T and NYNEX Toll Tapes
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services


In article <telecom14.176.11@eecs.nwu.edu> is written:

> We are taking our call accounting software inhouse, buying a package
> that allows us to get the SMDR call records into an SQL database. As
> such I need to reconcile it with the toll tapes from NYNEX and AT&T.

> Does anyone have the format of these 9 track tapes. Are they EBCDIC or
> ASCII?  Any info is greatly appreciated.

They are EBCDIC.  Both AT&T and NYNEX (at least ex-NET) have extensive
documentation available.

Good luck.


Paul S. Sawyer    - University of New Hampshire CIS -  Paul.Sawyer@UNH.Edu
Telecommunications and Network Services                VOX: +1 603 862 3262
50 College Road                                        FAX: +1 603 862 2030
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523

------------------------------

From: cjl@mitre.org
Subject: Re: 16 Mbps Modem for Real?
Date: 28 Apr 1994 13:23:36 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corporation


In article <telecom14.181.4@eecs.nwu.edu> maillet@DELPHI.COM writes:

> Technology (DCT)?  It claims it can move 16 Mbps of various kinds of
> data down a regular telephone line (yes, that's 16 MEGABITS per
> second.                       ^^^^

> "DCT technology lets telephone wire simultaneously carry four 1.5 Mbps
                                 ^^^^

> VCR quality video channels; two broadcast quality 3 Mbps video
> channels; two 1.5 Mbps two-way interactive videoconferencing channels;
> and ten other channels dedficated to a mix of videophone, fax, and
> program selection channels."

There's a big potential difference between a telephone line and a
telephone wire pair.  A telephone line may be multiplexed over various
carrier systems that limit the carried bandwidth to approximately 4
KHz.  There is no way that one can transmit (lossless) data at 16 Mbps
over such a line or channel.  On the other hand, the wire pair that
normally runs between a subscriber and the central office can support
much high bandwidths, depending on its length and condition (for
example, proposals exist for putting 155 Mbps on short -- 100 m --
wire pairs within a building).

------------------------------

From: jvz@pt.com (John Zambito)
Subject: Re: Questions on Fractional T-1 Service
Organization: Performance Technologies, Incorporated
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 11:33:31 GMT


In article <telecom14.180.2@eecs.nwu.edu> Barton.Bruce@camb.com writes:

> In article <telecom14.178.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, mike_foltz@sgate.com writes:

>> Is there a difference in how the fractional T-1 is delivered to a user
>> whether it is inter or intra-LATA?  As and example if I want a 128Kbps
>> fractional T-1 is it a Tail Circuit from the C.O. where my DSU/CSU is
>> slaved to a 128Kpbs reference from the C.O.  or is it a T-1 from the
>> C.O.  with 2 DS0 channels being used in a DACS?  Or am I totally
>> messed up?  What is the proper way a fractional T-1 gets delivered to
>> a user via inter and intra-LATA?

> Actually quite possibly YES there IS a difference, and watch out!
> Ignore the clocking or whatever you are worrying about, that is not
> the issue.  Here in NYNEX land, they do have 2 fractional T1
> offerings. T 1/2 and T 1/3 (not what they call them but what they
> are). They give you 12 or 8 DS0s.
 
> They could care less about keeping the individual DS0s in sync! Each
> could take a different path through the DACS network and be delayed a
> different number of 1/8000 of a second. Makes not a twit of difference
> if those are individual voice channels.

> If you plan to run FT1 data at Nx56/64, that can kill you, and even if
> it works day one, there is NO guarantee that it will continue to do
> so.

We just purchased a fractional T1 service from Rochester Telephone.
It's used to connect the file servers at two buildings which are
serviced by two different COs. We were told that we will be getting all
24 DS0s but they only guarentee the first six that we actually bought.
Six channels at 64000 bits per second each gives us 384K. The way the
istaller kept telling me we would get 24 DS0s made me question exactly
what he meant. After making sure that these 6 channels must be
provided in the same frame that they left in, he realized that we must
need the "Super 8" option of the Newbridge mux which our span passes
through. We tested the whole span and it does not maintain sync for
all 24 DS0s but it does (and will) maintain sync with the first 6
timeslots. We have an Ethernet router at each end to connect the two
Ethernets together. We connect to the CO from this building using a
set of HDSL cards which are connected through 16,750 feet with no
repeaters with a 6dB of noise margin.  We actually only buy the
connection from CO to CO. So far it's working like a champ.


John Zambito, Performance Technologies Incorporated jvz@pt.com
315 Science Parkway, Rochester, New York 14620    uupsi!ptsys1!jvz

------------------------------

From: daveheld@delphi.com
Subject: Re: Question About Digital Telephony and Delayed Dial Tone
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 94 12:44:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)


Kris <sanctum!kris@uunet.UU.NET> writes:
 
> With the advent of digital telephony, 1.5 megabit and higher lines
> running to each house, and even higher bandwidth on the poles, how
> much less is the potential for a delayed dialtone situation ...
 
The wider bandwidth available does not reduce the change of blockage
(dial tone delay).  It may increase it.
 
That is because the bandwidth is not available all the time for
everyone simultaneously.  Instead, it is "concentrated" at various
places in the network.  With good traffic engineering, you'll never
know that others are using bandwidth when you're not.  But in a
"crunch" situation, a wideband network like this has a greater number
of points where concentration occurs, and any one of these can become
overloaded.
 
Let's put it like this.  In a direct wired network, there are two
wires that go from your phone to the switch.  Those wires are yours;
no one else can use them.  The switch may get too busy to handle your
call, but at least you can be sure that your call request got all the
way up to the switch.  But in a distributed bandwidth network, you
don't have a unique wire; you share access to a digital highway with
your neighbors.  If that highway is full at any given time, your
attempt to place a call won't get beyond your own block.
 
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 94 09:11:17 CST
From: weberdd@clover.macc.wisc.edu
Reply-To: David Devereaux-Weber <weberdd@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Question About Digital Telephony and Delayed Dial Tone 


kris%sanctum%paladin@uunet.uu.net asked about the potential to reduce
delay of dialtone in events such as storms.

Delayed dialtone occurs when more people attempt to dial calls than
the switching equipment is designed to handle; it is not a function of
the bandwidth from the switch to the customer.  During the design of a
telephone system, the designer chooses to equip the system for a
particular level of simultaneous calling.  Designers of new or alternative 
telephone systems will still need to make such decisions -- balancing 
system cost against peak handling capacity.


David Devereaux-Weber, P.E.             weberdd@macc.wisc.edu (Internet)
The University of Wisconsin - Madison   (608)262-3584 (voice) 
Division of Information Technology      (608)262-4679 (FAX)
Network Engineering  1210 W Dayton St.  B263   Madison, WI 53706

------------------------------

From: BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il
Subject: Re: Occupied Territories Telecom
Date: 28 Apr 94 15:53:04 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem


In article <telecom14.178.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, mnc@css.itd.umich.edu (Miguel 
Cruz) writes:

> Does anyone know who will be providing telecom services in the
> occupied territories following an agreement with Israel for
> self-governance (or something like it; I don't want to get into the
> political questions)?  My understanding was that projects were
> underway (on paper, anyway) to provide infrastructure independent of
> Israel's.

> Anyway, if anyone does have such information (preferably an email
> address of someone at the organization involved) please send it to me.
> I'm roughing it through Asia at the moment so I can't really read news
> (but oh, the stories I could tell about trying to place international
> calls), so direct email would be appreciated. Thanks.

Your's truly :-)

I am involved (through the United Nations UNDP) in setting up Internet
connectivity in both Jordan and the West Bank through a private satellite 
link to our teleport in the United States.


Josh    backon@VMS.HUJI.AC.IL

------------------------------

From: idddsb@iddss1.iddis.com (Dean Banfield)
Subject: Re: How Can FAX Use T1 But Keep POTS Number?
Date: 28 Apr 1994 22:31:29 GMT
Organization: IDD Information Services


In article <telecom14.174.3@eecs.nwu.edu> Barton.Bruce@camb.com writes:

> An extremely well publicized FAX number that is on a POTS phone line
> now is in an office that has a T1 to an IXC.

> If the current phone line were to be fed through the PBX (a Mitel
> SX200D running G1005) to always ring that extension, everything would
> be ok with one exception. Outgoing LD calls would go on the T1.
> Outgoing local calls could easily be routed to the FAX's own line
> thereby busying it.

> But when a LD call is going out, the FAX phone number would simply
> ring and ring which WILL prompt callers to call the main number and
> complain about the machine apparently being broken or out of paper. -
> NOT acceptable.

Working with the local telco is pointless in this case.  In the back
end of your PBX hook up the old telco line and your T1.  On the front
end of the PBX configure a POTS extension to support the FAX machine.

In PBX programming configure all dial-out to take the proper path, T1
for LD, local line for local calls.  For inbound calls, the default
station to ring is the POTS extension for the FAX. Sounds like your
already this far in the configuration.

The trick is how to configure the POTS extension when it is busy.
Your PBX (I'm not familiar with the Mitel *at all*) should have a way
to create an internal rollover of stations.  E.G. call station 1, if
it is busy, have call route to station 2 ... depending on the
sophistication of your setup when station 1 (FAX machine) is busy you
could:

a) forward to a voice mail message - "Sorry, the FAX is currently in use"
b) forward to a second fax machine
c) forward to a 'dead' extension (in our PBX an extension with no
   handset would produce a busy signal)
d) outdial to the local FAX number which is definitionally busy due
   to the incoming call.

Any help?  Let me know what you come up with.


Dean Banfield  IDD/Information Svcs
               90 Grove St
               Ridgefield CT 06877

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 02:48:15 -0700
From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: NANP and Switches
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)


In article <telecom14.182.5@eecs.nwu.edu> is written:

> We currently have a Northern Telecom Meridian Option 61 (software
> relase 17) with 44 DID trunks, a T1 for long distance, and about 1300
> active phones.  We have been told by Ameritech that, in order for us
> to be able to comply with the implementation of the new North American
> Numbering Plan (NANP) on January 1, 1995, we must upgrade our switch
> with an additional memory card, another ROM board and software release
> 19.  My questions are (1) is this really necessary and (2) can we wait
> until the middle of 1995 before doing this and still provide access
> via NANP?  Any help out there would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

I don't know about the hardware/software requirements for your
specific switch, but whatever changes your switch requires to work
with the "new-style" area codes *CANNOT* wait until mid-1995.  They
*MUST* be up and running and fully functional absolutely no later than
1/15/95, when the first two "new" area codes go into service.
Otherwise, Murphy's Law guarantees that someone will try to call
Alabama.


Linc Madison   *   Oakland, California   *   LincMad@Netcom.com

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V14 #190
******************************


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
