TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Dec 93 00:43:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 817

Inside This Issue:                        Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    NYNEX/BAMS Codes, More (Douglas Scott Reuben)
    Bravo, Bravo +, etc. Pager Options and Programming? (Mike Gordon)
    Radio Shack 900 Mhz Cordless Phone (Greg Abbott)
    Big Switch Interfaces? (Christopher Nielsen)
    Acoustic Coupler For PCMCIA Modem Wanted (Phydeaux)
    Problems With 911 (Ed Mitchell)
    Some Surveyers Want Exemption From Autodialer Tariffs (David Leibold)
    Mind Games: A New Love Story (Dror Lubin via Mark Brader)
    Layoffs at NYNEX? (Reuters via Sid Shniad)
    Re: Union Losing Telco Jobs (David Appell)
    Re: Union Losing Telco Jobs (Eric Florack)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13-DEC-1993 14:50:37.92
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU>
Subject: NYNEX/BAMS Codes, More


I recently gave in and got service with NYNEX/NY. I've been holding
out because each time that I've had opportunity to call their customer
service in the past, they have responded so incompetantly that I
figured that their system/service could not be much better.

However, since the summer, NYNNEX/NY finally added Follow Me Roaming
(four years after every other major city got it), and more
significantly, Mobilreach, NYNEX Mobile's automatic call delivery
network which runs from Maine to Virginia. This includes SIDs: 00022
(NYC Metro), 00484 (Star Cell/southern Maine), 00028 (Boston
Metro/RI), 00088 (CT), 00404 (Orange County, NY), 00486 (Poughkeepsie
Area), 00078 (Albany), 00???  (forgot the SID for Pittsfield, MA),
00008 (Southern Jersey, Eastern PA, Delaware), 00018 (Baltimore and
DC). 

I think there may be more past Albany, in other NYNEX properties, I'm
not sure. (Note that SID 01516, near Kingston, NY, halfway between
Poughkeepsie and Albany is NOT on the system, nor do they have FMR.
It's some hick system which is only operated by NYNEX, and is an
annoying hole in their NY <-> Albany coverage.) I think that NYNEX
recently purchased the southern VT and NH properties from US Cellular,
so maybe those will be added to the Mobilreach network as well. With
such an extensive system, and with no daily surcharge for incoming
calls, I decided it was time to try to them. (The "A" side still does
not have a similar auto call delivery network which is as extensive,
lacking any connectivity between New England or NY and DC/Baltimore,
and nothing past Boston, so you lose Maine as well. There is a link
between DC/Baltimore and Philly/DE on the A side, but it doesn't go as
far northward or westward as does the B side. Vanguard and SWBell on
the "A" side are supposed to get on the NACN "soon", but that still
means that immediately north of NY (north of I-84) there is no means
for auto-call delivery on the "A" side for the forseeable future.)

Anyhow, the system works quite well -- I am autonomously registered as
I enter a new system, and calls are routed there automatically. The
"please hold on" message is annoying -- I'd prefer that the phone just
rang. The system needs to place the call over an IXC, so the NYC
system has to grab a line and dial out to the visited system, which
takes time, and hence the "hold on" message. (Note that but for the
DOJ's requirements, this would probably be unecessary :( ).

In most of the systems, my call-forwarding features work. I can
activate *71/2 and *73 to clear in all of BAMS, all of NYNEX (NY, MA,
and RI), and Star Cell of Maine. They will not work in CT, simply
because SNET refuses to allow them for some reason. I'll be calling
them about that on Monday, and would encourage others who roam to CT
to call SNET at 800-922-5469 and bypass the front-end customer
service(?) automatons and directly ask to speak to the VP of Network
Operations or something to find out why they don't allow call
forwarding features to be activated/deactivated in CT, when all the
other systems with the same AT&T switches allow it -- it's NOT a
technical reason. (BTW, SNET auto-call delivery also goes to Maine,
and your forwarding features from SNET will work all over New England,
but not NY. SNET customers who roam in NYNEX/NY State properties may
also want to inquire as to why SNET has chosen not to allow them to
use their forwarding features from NY, whereas in Mass and Maine it is
apparently OK.)

One neat feature about forwarding on an AT&T Autoplex is that it is
similar to forwarding on a landline -- if you receive a call while you
have immediate forwarding (*72) set on, your cellular phone will ring
once to let you know that a call was forwarded. This will work in
NYNEX/NY (home system), and throughout BAMS as well. It won't work in
NYNEX/Boston or Star Cell/Maine.  Also, since calls are not being
delivered to you in a visited market when you have forwarding on, it
rings once IMMEDIATELY, which goes to show you how fast call delivery
CAN be if it were not for these IXCs (MCI et. al.)  screaming to the
DOJ about "all that lost revenue from inter-lata, non-waiver cellular
traffic".

Call-Waiting also has a very nice implementation on the Autpoplex - if
you are on a call, and a second comes in, you get the standard two
call-waiting beeps, and then about 20 seconds later, a third one. The
calling party hears a speacial ring (a ring with a beep attached to
the end) to let him or her know that the cellular customer is on a
call. If the calling party hangs up before the cellular customer
answers, the cellular customer gets a stutter dial tone to indicate
that the caller has terminated the call. Call-waiting for NYNEX/NYC
customers works in all of BAMS, I think all of the NY properties, but
not in SNET or the rest of New England. (Its seems as if NY and BAMS
are in one "regime" and New England is in another -- is this in any
way correct?)

Voice-mail works nicely too -- if you are in your home system and have
received a message while you were away from the phone, when you place
or receive a call, you will hear an initial stutter dial tone to
idicate that a message has been deposited in voicemail. This won't
work when you roam in SNET or the rest of New England; it may work in
BAMS and other NYNEX sites, but I haven't tried yet.

Since the DOJ prohibits messages from going back to voicemail from a
visited market unless it goes through an IXC (which most switches
can't seem to handle, I dunno why), if you are roaming and get a call,
and don't answer it, it will NOT go to voicemail. (The "A" side is
similar). I'm not sure how advanced IS-41 Rev (whatever revision will
handle this) is, but it's not here yet, and the US cellular industry
is wasting a good deal of time and effort to deal with a problem which
wouldn't even exist were it not for, in my mind, unecessarily onerous
DOJ requirements for cellular voice (+ messaging?) inter-lata
trafficking. (Hey, anyone have the address for Al Gore's Efficiency in
Government or Competitiveness Committee or whatever it is called? ;) )

In any event, if you need to force your calls back to voicemail (or
designated No Answer Transfer location) while you are roaming, hit
*780. This turns call delivery of and forces calls to stay in your
home system. Hitting *78 will turn call delivery on an have calls come
to the visited market. (Similar to the *35/*350 codes on the "A" side
NACN, or the *28/*29 codes for some Motorolas or ex-Motorola systems
like GTE/SF.)

I noticed that these codes were not working from any BAMS properties,
although BAMS does indeed uses these for roamers from other PA B
systems. (They use *18/*19 -- the FMR codes -- for auto call delivery
for their customers -- foolishly I think. Its too confusing to know if
you are using FMR or auto call delivery, although GTE FMR may be
pushing for this. Don't be fooled, FMR is NO substitute to auto call
delivery!). I called NYNEX/NY, and their inept customer service first
had no idea what *78 was, and then told me it didn't work outside of
NYC (????!!?!), and then one totally self-assured rep told me "It
won't work south of NYC due to DOJ regulations" (really?! Which
ones?!), and finally I called the corporate headquarters (914-365-7200) 
and got them to check it out for me.

Seems it IS supposed to work, but BAMS never put *78/*780 in their
translation table for NYNEX roamers! It is supposed to be set up in
Philly (00008) this weekend, and DC/Baltimore (00018) early next week.
What I want to know if why after six + months of auto call delivery
and four + months of having the *78 feature that NO ONE at NYNEX even
noticed this?! Don't they actually send people -- even just ONCE -- to
the markets where these services are offered to try things out to see
if they work? What sort of quality assurance do they have, anyhow?

In general, a very nice network (once the *78/*780 codes are set up in
BAMS),if you can stand the awful NYNEX customer service reps. Unfortun- 
ately, it is more the rule than the exception that although technically 
impressive, most inter-system call delivery regimes are not very well
supported, by both lower-level technicians and customer service, which
tends to discourage their use.


Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu   //  dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet

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

From: mwgordon@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Mike Gordon)
Subject: Bravo, Bravo +, etc. Pager Options and Programming
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 01:19:11 GMT


   Four years ago, I was on a Bravo, now I see that the paging companies
are pushing a variety of numeric pagers, including the Bravo + (or
2?), Bravo Express, the Freespirit (rounded looking moto pager) and
those CHEAP NEC models.  I'd like to stay with a Motorola, (I hear
nothing but problems about the NEC) but which one?
 
   I like the time-stamp feature of the Bravo + and Express, and
vibration mode is a must, as I'm often in noisy environments.  What
other features do these newer units have, and how useful are they?
What options can the user set, and what ones can be set by the dealer?
Since I'm sure most dealers don't want to go through the trouble of
programming options, I'm sure they won't tell me about all of them.

   Also, has anyone figured out how to program a Bravo through the 3
contacts near the battery?  (Without having to pay the paging company
big $ to do it?) A buddy of mine wants to change the his beep sound
(no, not his CAP code), and can't justify the $25 his paging company
wants just to plug it in and hit a few keys on their computer.  He has
a PC, and can make a cable / interface if it isn't too overly
complicated.  Gee, could it just be a three wire serial connection?

   On a more serious note, last time I was on a pager, my call-in
number used to be occupied by a "dealer". (And I don't mean a used car
dealer.)  As I worked third shift and often slept during the day, (and
will be again, oh joy of joys) I didn't enjoy the calls at noon from
his old customers.  Does anyone have any little hints on how to avoid
this?  Please don't suggest having my boss call me at home during my
sleeping hours, because that would mean I'd have to plug my phone in
and get woke up by tele-marketers.  (At least they don't call pagers!)

   By the way, the rep from the paging company could only suggest
turning off the pager while I slept.  Kind of defeats the purpose of
having a pager when you're on call around the clock, and missing a
call means losing a shift.

Thanks in advance for any help,


Mike Gordon  N9LOI  mwgordon@nyx.cs.du.edu 
 
------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 20:22:58 CST
From: Greg Abbott <gabbott@uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: gabbott@uiuc.edu
Subject: Radio Shack 900 Mhz Cordless


> [Moderator's Note: The Radio Shack 900 mhz phone seems to be a very
> good quality instrument. If anyone has tried it out or purchased one,
> I would appreciate a review of it here.   PAT]

Pat:

I had the chance to play with one at a nearby Radio Shack about two
weeks ago.  After being asked if I would like to try out their new
cordless I picked the unit up and placed a call.  I then, much to the
manager's dismay, walked out of the store with the handset and walked
down the sidewalk.  This Radio Shack is located in a strip mall
constructed of steel and concrete.  I had no problems with the unit
all the way down to the grocery store (about 400' away through all the
concrete and steel).  I was amazed.  I was also able to place calls
all the way out into the parking lot (well over 2,000 feet).  In
short, I found the unit very well built and certainly capable of
living up to all of the statements made about it in the catalog.  I
gave a good report to the manager who was very pleased.  BTW, the
manager is a friend of mine, so don't think I make it a practice to
pick up property and walk out of the store with it!


The comments expressed here are my opinion.  They in no way reflect an
opinion or endorsement by/of my employer.

GREG ABBOTT        INTERNET: GABBOTT@UIUC.EDU
                 COMPUSERVE: 76046,3107
                      VOICE: 217/333-4348
METCAD                  FAX:   217/384-7003
1905 E. MAIN ST.      PAGER: 800/222-6651
URBANA, IL  61801     PIN # 9541

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

From: zchris@eskimo.com (Christopher Nielsen)
Subject: Big Switch Interfaces?
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 21:05:53 GMT


We are looking for a way to interface a PC based voicemail type system
to many types of switches out there. It seems difficult because each
switch has different programming, different T1 specs, etc, etc I'm
sure you've all heard it before ...

It would be great if there some black box that could be used to
interface to 'switch X', and on the other end have a standardized T1
interface that would allow transfers, accepting calls, and perhaps
some other basic functionallity.

Does anyone out there know of the likelyhood of such a black box?

Failing that, does anyone know of (or is) a consultant that is very
good at interfacing to many of the switches out there?

Thanks for any help!


Christopher Nielsen

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

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 15:35:03 -0500
From: reb@ingres.com (Phydeaux)
Subject: Acoustic Coupler For PCMCIA Modem Wanted


I'm trying to find an acoustic coupler adapter for a PCMCIA modem
(Intel PCMCIA Faxmodem).  Any solution short of taking apart a
telephone jack each place I go help would be appreciated.


reb

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

From: Ed Mitchell <edmitch@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 13:40:24 PST
Subject: Problems With 911


In TELECOM Digest Volume 13 : Issue 811, Charles Hoequist pointed out
the dangers of errors in the telephone company address database when
that database is used for 911 dispatch operations.  911 dispatchers
have told me that they recommend persons who are concerned about this
to telephone 911 during off hours and ask that the dispatcher verify
the address shown on the screen.  What constitutes "off hours" varies
by location so you shouldt first look in the phone book and call the
emergency agency's regular business number and ask. I was told that a
more common problem than having a completely incorrect address is to
have corner lots (at the corner of two streets) reported as facing the
street other than that used for the postal address, eg. 4204 Arastradero 
when 4204 Suzanne was intended.

By the way, the dispatchers I spoke with said they usually attempt to
verbally confirm your address while on the phone.


Ed Mitchell
"These opinion are my own and do not reflect the views of Microsoft Corp."

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

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 23:52:43 -0500
From: David Leibold <djcl@io.org>
Subject: Some Surveyers Want Exemption From Autodialer Tariffs


[from Bell News, Bell Ontario, 13 Dec 93; content is Bell Canada's]

Market/survey researchers to be exempt from ADADs tariff

Bell has listened to the market/survey research industry and has
informed the CRTC that certain market/survey researchers should be
exempted from our original ADADs (Automatic Dialing and Announcing
Devices) tariff filing.

Of primary concern to markey/survey researchers was the proposed
restrictions related to the hours of calling and random or sequential
dialing.

Representatives of Bell and the market/survey research industry agreed
that placing strict limits on the hours during which they may call
people could potentially affect the quality and accuracy of their
research (e.g., certain types of people would not be available for
interviews during the proposed hours of calling).

The industry recognizes that calling people at unreasonable times
could hinder researchers' abilities to gain the co-operation of the
people they wish to interview. Although most interviews would be
conducted within the hours proposed, in some cases calls could be
placed outside of the proposed hours.

Under Bell's original proposed tariffs, this could have resulted in
the termination of the researcher's telephone service, should a
customer complain to Bell (as per the complaint procedure proposed in
the company's August 6, 1993 filing).

The ability to randomly select telephone numbers is integral to the
market/survey research industry. Industry representatives and Bell
reps agreed that prohibiting the use of random dialing would hinder
their ability to obtain research results that are representative of
the general population.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 01:29:00 -0500
From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Mind Games: A New Love Story


Moderator's Note: Forwarded to the Digest by Mark Brader from the
rec.puzzles group on Usenet where he found it.  Look it over and
think about it; I'll print the answer here in a day or two.   PAT]


  From: lubin@fy.chalmers.se (Dror Lubin)
  Subject: A New Love Story
  Reply-To: lubin@fy.chalmers.se
  Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
  Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1993 08:33:39 GMT

A New Love Story

Once upon a time, in a far away land, there was a beautiful girl, who
lived in a big big castle, just like in all the other stories that
begin like this. Alas, the girl had a wicked mother who kept her
locked.  Where? In a red cell. The cell had a combination lock with
three knobs.  On one was written "red" on the other was written
"cell", and on the third, the biggest, was written "nlrrecs". Our poor
girl couldn't find out how on earth could she open this lock. As she
couldn't get out, she decided to make her living in. She was a great
cook, so she opened a road restaurant in her cell, or more properly: A
cell-diner. She put outside a big sign saying: "NIIDSACAL CELL DINER"
(niidsacal means "friendly" in her language). Of course, with such a
name, not many people stopped there, and even if they did, they
couldn't get in because of the lock, so business was rather slow.

One day, a young prince heard about this girl. Nowadays, most princes
are in the racing business, and so was he. Instead of a white horse,
he had a big racing car. People often asked him if he had a white
horse, and he would always say: "NO!, I have a racing car". Then they
would ask him what does his car look like, and he would say: "Nice ...
All RED!!". The registration plate was "ICDIINPNNS". He chose this
plate because these were the initials of his name and title: "Isidor
Charles Darwinski the 2nd, Noble Prince of Norway, Nashville and
Seattle".

Well, as ICDII heard the sad story of the girl in the red cell, he
jumped into his car, and raced towards the evil castle. He was so
furious, he did not see the huge oil truck coming towards him on the
wrong side of the road.  Boy, was that an ill-end-race!! ICDII became
even more ill when he got the bill: $5,172,790.20, you see, it was he
who drove on the wrong side, and without insurance too! After that,
ICDII wouldn't hear anymore of no princesses, so our little girl is
still locked away in her red cell, waiting for *YOU* to call her.

Do you know her phone number??

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

[Moderator's Note: Figure out the right phone number and send it to
me **with an explanation for how you figured it out**.  I'll print
the answer in a day or two after a few replies have arrived.  PAT]

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

From: shniad@sfu.ca
Subject: Layoffs at NYNEX?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 10:43:28 PST


MASSIVE JOB CUTS COMING AT NYNEX?

Boston -- NYNEX Corp. has declined comment on a report that it will
cut 22,000 jobs over the next three years as part of a plan announced
earlier to cut costs 30%.

  The {Boston Herald} said an internal NYNEX memo showed the telephone
company plans to slash 28% of its 80,000-strong workforce by 1996
through layoffs, attrition and retirement.

  These would include some 7,100 jobs at it New England Telephone
subsidiary, the report said.  The memo called for 2,551 job cuts in
1994, it added.

  The company, which also owns New York Telephone, has already cut one
sixth of its workforce in recent years to compete with rivals that are
merging telephone, cable television and computers.

  "I can't confirm the numbers of workforce layoffs," said NYNEX
spokesman Pete Goodale.  He noted that the Herald report was "based on
a single document and out of context."

  In September, NYNEX announced it would eliminate 1,200 jobs by June
and several thousand more in the next few years.  Goodale said NYNEX's
plans to trim operations had already been made plain.  "But there are
a variety of ways of achieving this.  How it plays in terms of
workforce reductions is not yet determined."

  NYNEX shares closed up 1/8 on the New York Stock Exchange after the
news was released.


  -- Reuter


Sid Shniad

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

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 93 12:03 EST
From: David Appell <0005946880@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Union Losing Telco Jobs


In Telecom Digest V13 #803 Eric_N._Florack.cru-mc@xerox.com wrote:

> Regardsless of any other factor, companies whose primary goal is to
> make money for it`s investors, will always and invariably move to
> operate at a lower cost and a higher profit margin.

   Perhaps this is one of the things they're upset about: the unspoken
assumption that *investor's* rights take precedence over *worker's*
rights.  Investment capital is only one of the requirements for a
successful business -- labor capital is important, too.  Yet, in the
money-crazed, business-first environment of the 90s, those who have
money to invest in a company are invariably treated better than those
who merely give their blood, sweat and tears to it.  There are real
people underneath all those layoff numbers, whose belts are
undoubtably tightened much farther than your average stock holder,
institutional or individual.  Both groups are necessary for a
successful business, and a little perspective, even in this day and
age, can't hurt.


David Appell    594-6880@mcimail.com


[Moderator's Note: That's why I like running Sid's commentaries and
reports from time to time; they lend a little balance, a view of the
other side of the coin. But Eric Florack has another rebuttal, so his
article next will close this issue and this thread.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 09:55:09 PST
From: Eric_N._Florack.cru-mc@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Union Losing Telco Jobs


Eric originally responded:

>> What the article fails to point out is that the unions themselves are
>> responsible for pricing themselves and the workers they claim to
>> represent, out of the market.

Sid replied:

> Eric doesn't adduce any evidence to substantiate this claim.  In fact,
> real, inflation-adjusted wages -- in the unionized telephone industry
> and other sectors -- have been declining for more than ten years. But
> let's not let facts get in the way of a good diatribe.  Let's just use
> this baseless comment as the launch pad for further baseless
> accusations.

Declining in relationship to what, Sid, themselves? Non-union wages?
Either one is a strong suggestion of just how out of line union wages
have been ... and does /nothing/ to dispute my statment. In fact, it
backs it. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good pro-union
diatribe.  Let's just use this baseless comment as the launch pad for
further baseless pro-union spout.

Asks Sid,

> What evidence is there that regulation kills jobs?

Carter. Johnson. Most recently, Clinton, and the reaction of industry
to her agendae. The biggest example is the biggest regulator in the
world; the former Soviet Empire.  Just to name a few examples. Note
that each of these was a friend of big labor.  Then place in contrast,
the deregulation attitude /after/ each of these administrations, and
the well-documented spurt in job growth, after dereg, in each and
every case. (See? I`ve even given you something to watch for, in the
future. Remember, you heard it here first, gang! :->)

Can you deny, for example, the number of newly created jobs that came
along when the federal government allowed competition, by removing the
regulation that established the monopoly of AT&T?

> But if these are confiscatory, as you imply, how is it
> that companies like MCI are finding ways to invest in overseas
> expansion, takeovers, etc.?

I don`t suppose it`s occurred to you that such investment goes to the
places it`s most likely to earn a good ROI. Obviously, they don`t
consider the best investment to be in the CWA controlled telecom
market that we have here in the US.

> But if these are confiscatory, as you imply, how is it that
> companies like MCI are finding ways to invest in overseas expansion,
> takeovers, etc.?

You are attempting to have it both ways.  You complain that they`re
making too much money on vid services, and then you wonder where it
comes from, as if they were making it all from their `cash cow`.
Which is it?

> However, when the normal workings of said Free Market generate
> staggering loss of jobs -- for example, a recent {Wall Street Journal}
> article reported that the Fortune 500 employed 16.2 million people in
> 1990, versus 11.8 million in 1993 -- then this is treated as just a
> natural unfolding of the workings of the world.

What`s your solution, then? Back to the Xbar system, or before, so
that all the operators will have their jobs back? Should we go even
farther ... back to cord boards? What you`re dealing with is not free
market forces alone, but the free market reacting to technology.
You`d best understand, with the rest of us, that making money for the
owners (nee:investors) is the number one goal of any company. Jobs are
nothing more than a secondary function of business, albeit a happy
one, and telcos are certainly no exception.

And by the way, your F-500 comment is quite typical of someone
attempting to prove a point with only half the statistics. There are
lies, damn lies, and statistics, it is said. What your comment /does
not/ indicate is how many jobs were created /outside/ of the F-500 ...
which, in fact is where most jobs in this country are created, and a
higher percentage of non-union jobs, at that.  Being at work, I don`t
have the figures to hand, but look it up. You will find that the
number of jobs created by companies other than the 500 far outstripped
the numbers of jobs lost by the 500 in the same period.

A smaller number of people working under the F-500 umbrella, therefore,
is an indication that free markets are working for the benefit of all,
not that the system is failing.

In short, tell the whole story.  On the other hand, let's not let
facts get in the way of a good pro-union diatribe.  Let's just use
this comment as the launch pad for further baseless pro-union spout.

My regards to Pat, who says:

> [Moderator's Note: Part of -- maybe the majority of -- the 'rabid
> responses seen here come from the Dungheap Net (Usenet).

I`m not on Usenet, so far as I know, FYI.

> As you know Sid, I sent you a separate note a few minutes ago noting
> that most of the readers here like to see two, or three or four sides
> to every story.

I certainly don`t object to such material being placed in here. Not
only is that your call, Pat, but I happen to agree with you, in it. I
simply reserve the right to respond to things when they come through
 ... one you apparently support, having echoed it out in the Digest.

As to Sid`s comment about his post being taken as off subject; no, I
don`t think it is.This is an issue that affects, on a first level, the
future of the telecommunications industry ... the other implications
for other industry and government policy towards labor not
withstanding. In fact, I would suggest it`s those parallels to the
rest of industry that make this an important topic.

All this having been said, allow me to place a little perspective on
all of this; my company (see my address) has just recently announced a
ten thousand or so employee cutback, on a world-wide basis.


/E

Everyone`s entitled to my opinion, but Xerox doesn`t pay me for it....


[Moderator's Note: And I bet you hope you are not one of the 'ten
thousand or so' they choose to eliminate. Hey Sid, better get some
union membership sign-up cards over to Xerox right away!  :)   And
Eric, I never claimed YOU were part of Usenet, although I guess my
message came out sounding that way. Anyway, Usenet is now doing their
own thing with telecom news in an unmoderated forum, as I'm sure will
become obvious before long, even to the untrained eye!  :)    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #817
******************************
