From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Oct 4 15:25:44 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id i94JPih11298; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:25:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:25:44 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200410041925.i94JPih11298@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #467 TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:26:00 EDT Volume 23 : Issue 467 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #451, October 4, 2004 (Angus TeleManagement) 1+ Toll Alerting (was Re: Vonage Upgrades Local Unlimited (Jack Decker) More on "Social Activists" and Public Utilities (Lisa Hancock) Fire Dept Radio System Fails Again (Lisa Hancock) More Problems With E-Rate Slush Fund (NYTimes article) (Danny Burstein) County Disregards President's Initiatives For Safe Communication (Porth) Oklahoma State University Simplified Admission Requirements (Chas Gray) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 13:45:15 -0400 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #451, October 4, 2004 ************************************************************ TELECOM UPDATE ************************************************************ published weekly by Angus TeleManagement Group http://www.angustel.ca Number 451: October 4, 2004 Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by generous financial support from: ** ALLSTREAM: www.allstream.com ** AVAYA: www.avaya.ca/en/ ** BELL CANADA: www.bell.ca ** CISCO SYSTEMS CANADA: www.cisco.com/ca/ ** ERICSSON: www.ericsson.ca ** MITEL NETWORKS: www.mitel.com/ ** SPRINT CANADA: www.sprint.ca ** UTC CANADA: www.canada.utc.org/ ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** CRTC Stays New Telemarketing Rules ** Call-Net Reorganizes, Cuts Execs ** Nortel Cuts Include 950 Canadian Jobs ** Rogers Files Details of Microcell Offer ** CRTC Imposes Contract on Shaw, Cybersurf ** 1,000 Union Members Take Bell Retirement Package ** Bell to Close Toronto Operator Services ** Two-Thirds of Companies Have Broadband ** Girish Pathak Leaves Telus ** 10-Digit Dialing Plans Set For 514, 519 ** B.C. Cableco Expands VoIP Service ** Directory Scammers Jailed and Fined ** RIM Sales Jump 147% ** Yak Doubles Annual Revenues ** MTS Buys Back 18.6 Million Shares ** Inside the VoIP Debate ============================================================ SPECIAL OFFER FOR TELECOM UPDATE READERS: Save $100 when you register for Telemanagement Live!, Canada's premier conference on business telecom and networking, Toronto, October 20-21. Space is limited: Register now at www.telemanagementlive.com/ ============================================================ CRTC STAYS NEW TELEMARKETING RULES: CRTC Telecom Decision 2004-63 stays most aspects of the new telemarketing rules ordered in Telecom Decision 2004-35, until the Commission deals with the Canadian Marketing Association's review and vary application. (See Telecom Update #445) ** This means that the previous telemarketing rules remain in effect. The CRTC says that some telemarketers may not understand those rules, and points out that they apply to business-to-business calls and to calls to existing customers. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/dt2004-63.htm CALL-NET REORGANIZES, CUTS EXECS: Call-Net has consolidated its corporate, operations, marketing, and provisioning functions, and has eliminated the positions of chief operating officer, chief legal counsel and business unit presidents. COO Duncan McEwan has been named EVP and Chief Strategy Officer. ** Senior VP and Chief Legal Counsel George Malysheff and Business Solutions President Greg McCamus will leave Call- Net by year-end. NORTEL CUTS INCLUDE 950 CANADIAN JOBS: Nortel Networks says its 3,250 worldwide "workforce reductions" will include 950 Canadian employees, and 750 of the cuts will be in Ottawa. Two-thirds of those being laid off will be notified by December 31, and the rest by June 30, 2005. ** In the executive suite, Greg Mumford has resigned as Nortel's Chief Technology Officer, replaced by former optical networks head Brian McFadden, and Clent Richardson has been named Chief Marketing Officer. ROGERS FILES DETAILS OF MICROCELL OFFER: Rogers Wireless filed details of its offer to buy Microcell shares on Thursday. Shareholders have until November 5 to accept the offer, and Rogers hopes to close the deal by December 31. CRTC IMPOSES CONTRACT ON SHAW, CYBERSURF: Following many months of unsuccessful negotiation, CRTC Telecom Order 2004-331 requires Shaw Communications and Cybersurf to sign a CRTC-written agreement to govern Cybersurf's resale of Shaw's high-speed Internet service. The contract will remain in effect until the companies agree to amend or replace it. (See Telecom Update #414, 419, 423, 427) www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Orders/2004/o2004-331.htm 1,000 UNION MEMBERS TAKE BELL RETIREMENT PACKAGE: The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union says that about 1,000 of its members have accepted Bell Canada's latest early retirement package, offered to employees who are over 60 or who have been at BCE for 30 or more years. BELL TO CLOSE TORONTO OPERATOR SERVICES: The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union says that Bell Canada plans to close its Toronto Operator Services facility next June, putting 35 women out of work. The union complains that the decision was made "unilaterally and with no consultation with CEP." TWO-THIRDS OF COMPANIES HAVE BROADBAND: A new Statistics Canada study says that 66% of Canadian companies had broadband Internet access in 2003, up from 48% in 2001. The broadband users accounted for 97% of online sales in Canada. GIRISH PATHAK LEAVES TELUS: Telus's Chief Customer Strategist, Dr. Girish Pathak, has resigned "in pursuit of his own interests." As Chief Technology Officer, Pathak led the development of Telus's IP-based Next Generation Network. 10-DIGIT DIALING PLANS SET FOR 514, 519: CRTC Decisions 2004-61 and 2004-62 approve plans to introduce 10-digit local dialing in 514 (Montreal) and 519 (southwestern Ontario). In both areas the conversion will begin on June 17, 2006; use of ten digits will become mandatory in the week of October 28 in 514 and the week of October 14 in 519. ** The Commission has rejected a proposal for 10-digit dialing in 450 (Montreal region) pending a more general public proceeding on expanding 10-digit local dialing. www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/dt2004-61.htm www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2004/dt2004-62.htm B.C. CABLECO EXPANDS VoIP SERVICE: Sun Country Cablevision says it is now offering Galaxy Telecom's NetCall Voice over IP service to high-speed Internet customers throughout its entire operating area in central British Columbia. DIRECTORY SCAMMERS JAILED AND FINED: Two Toronto men who ran a directory scam have been sentenced to three years in federal penitentiary and fined $400,000 each. Two others received shorter sentences and smaller fines. ** In 2000, the four took in over $1 million by sending out mail pieces that looked like Yellow Pages invoices but were actually for "Yellow Business Pages.com" and "Yellow Business Directory.com." RIM SALES JUMP 147%: Research In Motion says that its second quarter sales were US$310.2 million, compared to $126 million a year ago. Net earnings for the three months ended August 31 were $70.6 million, up from $2.15 million. RIM added 317,000 subscribers in the quarter, reaching 1,657,000. YAK DOUBLES ANNUAL REVENUES: LD reseller and VoIP-provider Yak Communications reports sales of US$80.8 million in the year ended June 30, double the previous year. Net income was $5.6 million, compared to $3.5 million in 2003. MTS BUYS BACK 18.6 MILLION SHARES: Manitoba Telecom Services has taken up and paid for 18,604,645 common shares at $43 each, under its substantial issuer bid. (See Telecom Update #450) INSIDE THE VoIP DEBATE: In the new issue of Telemanagement, Lis Angus provides an exclusive report on the CRTC's hearing on regulation of Voice over IP -- who said what, and which arguments will most affect the Commission's final decisions. ** Also in this issue: How to control corporate wireless bills, and an interview with the chair of the Coalition for Competitive Telecommunications Pricing. Subscribers to Telemanagement Online can read the new issue on our website tomorrow. To receive Telemanagement every month -- including unlimited access to Telemanagement's extensive online content -- visit the Telemanagement website or phone 800-263-4415 ext 500. ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week at www.angustel.ca 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to: join-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to: leave-telecom_update@nova.sparklist.com Sending e-mail to these addresses will automatically add or remove the sender's e-mail address from the list. Leave subject line and message area blank. We do not give Telecom Update subscribers' e-mail addresses to any third party. For more information, see www.angustel.ca/update/privacy.html. =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE: All contents copyright 2004 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 500. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 00:34:36 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: 1+ toll alerting (was Re: Vonage Upgrades Local Unlimited Pat, please conceal my e-mail address. On 1 Oct 2004 20:23:54 -0700, dave@compata.com (Dave Close) wrote: > Jack Decker writes: >> "Over the past five months, we've noticed a trend in the industry >> away from calling certain minutes local and others long distance -- in >> an IP world distance is irrelevant, so we have changed our calling >> plans to reflect that," said Jeffrey A. Citron, Chairman and CEO of >> Vonage Holdings Corporation. You know, when Pat put "VoIP News" in the "From:" line of messages that originated on the VoIP News list, a few people complained because there was no real name given. So Pat started using my name on these items, probably to shut the complainers up, and now I find I'm being attributed with having written a Vonage press release (of course, nothing could be further from the truth)! Just because a particular piece of news or a press release appears on the VoIP news list does not mean that I necessarily endorse it or agree with it, just that I felt that some people might consider it newsworthy. > Are there any proponents of 1+ toll-alerting still on this list? Funny you should ask. Yes, there are. Me, for one. > If so, isn't it time to admit that it's time to end that vacuousness? Sure, when (and ONLY when) there is no such thing as additional per-minute charges on calls anywhere in the NANP that are outside of the caller's local calling area! In other words, when toll charges completely disappear and we are all paying a flat rate for unlimited minutes of talk anywhere in the areas that are part of country code "1" (whatever that may consist of at the time), then I will be more than happy to see toll alerting go away. And not ONE SINGLE SECOND before. Let me give you just one example of how the lack of toll alerting leaves people in doubt about what the local calling situation is. Here in Michigan, there was a law passed over four years ago (in the summer of 2000) that in effect stated that any call made to an adjacent calling area was to be billed and considered as a local call. However, the law was placed in a section of the Michigan Telecommunications Act that only applies to companies with over 250,000 lines in the state (i.e., Ameritech, now SBC, and Verizon). Other, smaller companies were considered exempt UNLESS they raised their rates for basic phone service (or failed to comply with a couple other provisions of the act), and how the Michigan Public Service Commission handled the situation with the small companies is another whole can of rotting worms I won't address right now, except to say that I've lost a LOT of respect for the M.P.S.C. over the last four years. Anyway, the law was given "immediate effect" (remember, this was in the summer of 2000) and both SBC and Verizon had their intraLATA adjacent exchange calling implemented by November of 2001 (in fact, if I recall correctly, SBC's first cutovers were on a very ill-fated day -- September 11, 2001!). Verizon followed up by having their interLATA adjacent exchange routes (that is, routes that crossed LATA boundaries) completed by late summer of 2002. However, SBC initially claimed that federal law prohibited them from carrying local calls across LATA boundaries, except in the case of routes that had existed prior to the AT&T breakup. When I and others pointed out to the M.P.S.C. that SBC had in fact successfully petitioned the Federal Communications Commission for waivers to do that very thing in other states (including Ohio), the M.P.S.C. ordered SBC to apply for a waiver. SBC's first waiver request contained several errors and omissions, and when I pointed those out nothing was done to attempt to correct them for many months. So the FCC, which moves at glacial speed anyway, first issued a waiver for the routes SBC initially requested, then had to issue another order adding the routes that had been omitted the first time around. For anyone interested, the two FCC orders are here (in PDF format): http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1033A1.pdf Given how long this has dragged on, it almost appears that only at some point after the second FCC order was issued (on April 16 of this year) did SBC begin to think seriously about actually implementing any of these routes. Anyway, earlier this summer, SBC told an M.P.S.C. staff person that the interLATA adjacent exchange routes should be implemented by September 1. Well, September 1 came and went, and no implementation! Now you're probably starting to wonder what all this has to do with toll alerting. Well, up until sometime around November of 2001 -- which is to say, up until sometime around the time that the intraLATA adjacent exchange routes were implemented -- Michigan was strictly a toll-alerting state, and it still is IF you are served by any ILEC other than SBC. If a call is toll it cannot be placed by dialing just seven or ten digits; you MUST dial eleven digits. However, a local call could always be placed by dialing seven digits (if in your same area code and no overlay exists) or ten digits (if to another area code or there is an area code overlay in effect). Where SBC screwed up the system in 2001 was by suddenly requiring that ALL calls placed to another area code MUST be dialed using a full eleven digits. So, if you're an SBC Michigan customer and your call is to another area code, you must dial a full eleven digits, no matter whether the call is local or toll. If someone asks you to call a number in another area code and they claim it's a local call, there's no way to tell for sure from the manner in which you dial the call. Flash forward to last month. SBC, where apparently its left hand doesn't know what its right hand is doing, starts to update the "Find Your Local Calling Area" part of its web site, at http://localcalling.sbc.com/ , to include some of the new intraLATA adjacent exchange routes, even though at least some of these have not actually been implemented yet. I was told late last week that implementation would actually occur by October 6, however, late last night someone in the Portland, Michigan exchange reported that the implementation may have occurred there. And how did they know that? I quote from the message that this person posted to the MI-Telecom mailing list: [Begin quote:] I was able to determine this, because my long distance service is set up to require entry of an "accounting code" (pin number) whenever a call is routed to my long-distance carrier. I just made test calls from Portland (which is in the 517 area code) to Ionia and Lake Odessa in the 616 area code and to Fowler-Pewamo, Muir, and Westphalia in the 989 area code. These calls are now being completed without my being prompted to enter my pin number, which indicates to me that they are no longer being routed to my long-distance carrier! As was feared, they are requiring that a "1" be dialed before the area-code and phone number, however. [End quote.] Now, please note where this leaves everyone else in this exchange, and those in every other SBC Michigan exchange that is adjacent to a LATA boundary (at least those who have not made similar accounting code arrangements with their local telephone company). There is no reliable way for them to tell whether their calls to adjacent interLATA exchanges are being routed as local or toll. Sure, they could check SBC's web site, but that's been giving some incorrect information for at least a few weeks now, and the site itself carries this disclaimer: "This local calling area information is subject to change without notice. SBC makes no representation as to the ongoing accuracy of this information." Now, I realize that some who read this will say, "So what?" There are people who, for whatever reason, will just call whomever they wish, talk as long as they want, and not worry about the bill. And some of those people seem to think that having a convenient dialing pattern for themselves is far more important than giving others the ability to control costs and to know in advance whether a given call will be local or toll. I really don't know how to respond to such people; perhaps in another lifetime they'll come back as a poor person and will thereby gain an understanding of why some people feel that they need to know in advance what calls to a particular number are going to cost. Otherwise, it's like trying to explain to Paris Hilton why some people feel the need to shop at Wal-Mart, or a dollar store. If you don't get it now, you'll probably never get it. What I wonder is whether any SBC Michigan customer relied on incorrect information on SBC's "Find Your Local Calling Area" page, and placed calls that were local according to the site but were actually toll, and if that did happen, whether SBC will issue refunds should any customers complain. Remember, though, that the calls would have been routed to the customer's selected interLATA long distance company, which in many cases would be someone other than SBC. Somehow I doubt that SBC is going to willingly issue refunds or credits in such cases (if any such cases actually exist), but I might be wrong. So, even though the Michigan Public Service Commission no longer seems to think that toll alerting is all that important, I still think it's a very important protection for phone customers who cannot yet afford to subscribe to an unlimited calling plan. And also, it's games like this by SBC (there's NO good reason I can see for them to have changed the dialing pattern, since Verizon still allows local calls to go through across area codes when dialed using ten digits only) and by other incumbent wireline companies that make me wish that a lot more people would migrate to VoIP or cell phone service. If our Public Service Commissions no longer see consumer protection as a big part of their role, then it seems that only if enough customers "vote with their feet" will the incumbents perhaps get the message to start treating customers fairly. By the way, just to make it clear, I have nothing against PERMISSIVE eleven digit dialing (that is, allowing a call to be dialed using a full eleven digits whether local or toll). What I object to is companies that disallow seven or ten digit dialing on some or all local calls, so that a customer cannot in effect say (from the way they dial) that, "I want to place this call, but only if it's a local call." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here in southeast Kansas -- the 620 area code -- the same SBC, which calls all the shots on landlines at least, demands eleven digits for any exchange not in your own community. Of course, they also charge toll for all those calls as well, regard- less of how little the toll has become. So while calling someone here in Independence, 331-xxxx is sufficient (or 330 or 332 if it is a cell phone or City of Independence government centrex) to call our friends and relatives in Coffeyville we must do 1-620-251-xxxx and we must do 1-620-289-xxxx if an 'Independence rural' number. Now, with my Cingular Wireless cell phone I can just do seven digits anywhere in 620 (which is now-days anywhere in southern Kansas except Wichita). I just remember if the place I am calling is not 620/330-331-332 to use my cell phone after the hundred minutes per month Prairie Stream gives for free each month are used up. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: More on "Social Activists" and Public Utilities Date: 4 Oct 2004 09:48:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I say thank god for 'social > activists' (as you called them) who look out for the rights of the > rest of us. PAT] I touched on this issue in my other post today (see earlier issue on Monday), but there is more that needs to be said. As mentioned, my experiences with social activists left a very unpleasant impression with me. In short, they are incompetent, have hidden agendas, and do more harm than good for the people. Another problem is that many social issues have their roots in basic accounting, but everyone thinks accounting is boring and no one wants to spend time on that. To expand: There of course are greedy business people out to milk as much money as possible from their company, customers, and suppliers. Society has set up various govt regulatory commissions to control that sort of thing. I do not believe such commissions have been as aggressive at curbing abuses as they could be and this has a left a void. Unfortunately, too many populist legislators and social activists do not help, indeed even hurt, the situation. It's easy to call some industrialist "greedy" and "decadent" as he/she lives a super luxury lifestyle. That in itself is not illegal nor helps the issue. In Pennsylvania, the zeal for electric power competition resulted in welcoming Enron to the state, even forcing random power customers against their will to be switched to them. The activists said this would be a "good thing". The truth is that many activists had a dislike for the existing power company because it built nuclear power plants; deep down inside they wanted to hurt the company, not help consumers. Obviously they never checked out Enron before welcoming it into the state. We know what happened to Enron. The activists failed or refused to understand that many companies were satisfied with the existing power company and felt no need or desire to change; the activists thought they knew better than the consumers. Some years ago I was involved in transit issues. The city's transit agency sought a fare increase and the social activists fought against it. As a daily transit rider and supporter naturally I didn't want to pay more. But, I had been behind the scenes and studied the finances of the agency and concluded a fare increaes was necessary to maintain quality of service. The activists I dealt with had no interest in the facts. They called the transit agency -- a public non-profit organiza- tion --"greedy" and out to enrich itself, which was obviously nonsense. They claimed the agency could be "more efficient" but they offered no substantiation. The claimed it "would hurt the people", but they ignored what worse service would do to the people who had to stand on a corner and wait longer for an overcrowded bus. To this day activists hammer at transit agencies but in the end don't help things for the daily rider. If the social activists wanted to truly help the people, they would've done the necessary homework to understand the agency, it's problems, and the political environment that funded the agency. But that kind of homework isn't much fun, it means sitting in a library going through lots of financial reports, walking through dirty shops, etc. Looking at this issue from a national perspective: A few years ago First Lady Clinton took up the issue of Health Care. I had hoped she'd do a serious accounting study to understand just where the heck all our health care dollars are going. But we never learned that, only that many people can't afford health insurance at all and that was the problem to be solved. I thought the First Lady handled that badly. To this day I still don't know where our health care dollars go, I don't think anyone does. It's real easy to make cheap unsubstantiated accusations "the greedy drug companies", "the greedy doctors", "the greedy hospitals", "the greedy lawyers", but no one seems to know for sure -- no one wants to do the boring legwork and study. The health care issue remains unresolved to this day. It appears that prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada, but no one knows _truly_ why they are cheaper. Are the drug companies really greedy and overcharging us? Or, is the research (including all the dead-ends that don't result in a product), lawsuits, and mandated FDA testing truly adding steeply to the cost of drugs? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You use the phrase 'populist politicians' as though it were a bad thing. I always thought politicians -- indeed all government employees -- were supposed to be public servants; that the government (whatever form it takes, from transit systems to utilities to workers in the courthouse or city hall) were supposed to reflect the will of the people; not assume the task of telling us what is best for us. Far, far too often, so-called 'public servants' are really the public masters. Government employees should understand they are to be our agents; to do our bidding; not the other way around. Why do you suppose more people do not bother going to vote at elections? Because it really does not matter *who* the president is or *who* the governor or the mayor is; all that matters for many people is how long they have to wait for a bus to show up in the morning with no seats available or how long they have to wait in a government office to get served (a long time) or if the bus driver or other person who eventually serves them has any empathy at all for them (rarely). The people who really matter to us in life don't get elected, they just show up in office and do their own thing, so why bother to vote most of the time? PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Fire Dept Radio System Fails Again Date: 4 Oct 2004 09:54:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com KYW newsradio reported that city officials discovered bad circuit cards that caused intermittent failures of the public safety radio system. It was the fourth breakdown of the year. Officials are concerned. See: http://www.kyw1060.com/news_story_detail.cfm?newsitemid=40833 ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: More Problems With E-rate Slush Fund (NYTimes article) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:52:51 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC "Public libraries and schools around the nation have suddenly stopped receiving any new grants from a federal program that is wrestling with new rules on how it spends $2.25 billion each year to provide high-speed Internet and telephone service. "The moratorium at what is known as the E-Rate program began two months ago, with no notice, and may last for months, causing significant hardships at schools and libraries, say state officials and executives at the company that runs the program [ snip ] "The tighter spending rules also forced the Universal Service Administrative Company, the nonprofit group that runs the program under the commission's oversight, to hastily liquidate more than $3 billion in investments last week..." [ snip. And, for good measure: ] "And the changes are expected to lead to higher charges imposed on telephone companies - and passed on to consumers -- later this year or early next year. The increase may be necessary, senior officials at the universal service company said, because of a cash squeeze created by the tighter spending rules and an F.C.C. decision over the last nine months to reduce the phone companies' contributions to the E-rate program. [ snippety snip, rest at: ] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/business/media/04fcc.html (free subscription) Comment: aside from Big Issues about the entire concept here, I find it fascinating and shocking, SHOCKING, that a supposed "pay as you go" taxpayer and ratepayer supported pass-through program has (or had prior to last week) substantally "more than $3 billion in investments". In other words, they've ALREADY taken billions more out of tax/ratepayer pockets than called for. At least as I see it. And ... could someone explain to me how "tighter spending rules" means there will be higher costs? ------------------------------ From: nilesjonco@aol.com (Lyle Porth) Subject: County Disregards President's Initiatives for Safe Communications Date: 4 Oct 2004 07:01:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com June 3, 2004 David P. Bobzien County Attorney County of Fairfax 12000 Government Center Parkway Fairfax, Virginia 22035-0013 Subject: 800 MHz Mobile, Portable and Control Station Radio Equipment for Public Service Radio System Solicitation County Attorney Bobzien: EF Johnson is becoming exhausted with our continual unanswered plea for responsible and legal intervention in the above referenced matter. There have been countless points of concern distributed among county contract officers, legal officers and public safety officials that have been blatantly ignored. Furthermore, it appears your staff makes judgments in haste and fails to read what is written and what is submitted, as matter of public record. One instance of the egregious actions is that the EF Johnson Company, along with four independent businesses, all notified your contracting officer that a particular radio communication device was no longer in production. For five months this has been the call. However, your staff once again is requesting this radio and using this radio as the product of choice and the product of comparison in what is a very critical county communications project. This is irresponsible and without precedent. The line item sum on this disposable item reigns in at over 8 million dollars of tax payer money. E. F. Johnson once again calls for an immediate review of all matters regarding the solicitation. Furthermore, serious antics are transpiring between other bidders and companies that are currently holding county contracts. These acts are intolerable, unethical and at a minimum are worthy of a legal review. Please find time to call me on Friday June 4th. Very truly yours, E F JOHNSON www.efjohnson.com ------------------------------ Subject: Oklahoma State University Simplified Admission Requirements From: Charles G Gray Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 10:38:20 -0500 Pat, we would appreciate it if you would post the following update on the MSTM Program. In an effort to simplify the admission requirements, Oklahoma State University has made the following revisions in requirements for candidates for the Master of Science in Telecommunications Management (MSTM) Program. The requirement for GRE or GMAT examination is waived for part-time student applicants who meet the following criteria: - Two or more years experience in telecommunications - Have a technically-oriented undergraduate degree with a 3.2 (out of 4.0) or higher GPA. Details may be obtained at: http://www.mstm.okstate.edu/prospective_stu/admission_requirements.htm. See also the MSTM sponsorship note toward the end of each issue of the Digest. The purpose of these changes is to attract more working professionals into the MSTM program. The MSTM degree program requires 35 credit hours, all of which may be obtained via distance learning. All class materials are posted to the respective class web sites, and lectures are delivered via streaming video, DVD or VCR tape. Currently, students are enrolled from Virginia to California, and recent students have completed internships (the "Practicum" requirement) in Germany, Guatemala, and Botswana -- as well as in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Regards, Charles G. Gray Senior Lecturer, Telecommunications Oklahoma State University - Tulsa (918)594-8433 ------------------------------ 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #467 ******************************