Date: Sun Sep 5 00:45:05 1999 From: editor@telecom-digest.org Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #375 To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Sep 99 03:45:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 375
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Everything You Never Wanted to Know About ICANN (Jay Fenello) Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic (Mike Mansfield) Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic (Alan Boritz) Re: Named Telephone Exchanges (L. Winson) Ode to the Teletype? (Chris Johnston) Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? (Ed Ellers) How to Get a Helpful Person at GTE Mobilnet? (Kyler B. Laird)
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, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where itappears 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-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@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 second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.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 b a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * *************************************************************************
In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolte computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding inamounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 17:33:48 -0400 From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com> Subject: Everything You Never Wanted to Know About ICANN
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For this weekend's installment of news about ICANN, Vint Cerf, Esther Dyson and that whole hot team on the west coast which has big plans for your internet, I have printed Jay Fenello's report from a few months ago. Remember now, this is the group that while proclaiming 'the internet is for eeryone' steadfastly refuses to communicate with almost anyone, keeping their meetings secret, etc.
Jean Armour Polly coined the expression 'surf the net' and we believe she was referring to using a browser to look at many different web sites. But the expression has an all new meaning now.
Now we say, 'cerf the net' or sometimes, 'cerf the shopping mall' and we are referring to the take over of the web by venture capitalists and very large corp- orate interests who don't see things in quite the same way as the rest of us who have been around for awhile.
Well, I cannot go on with this thread forever; I have other things to talk about here, and so do you, the readers. But it just seemed to me that with so few of the netizens having even heard of Internet Society/ICANN, et al, let alone knowing what they are up to, some time-out from our regular programming here was in order.
So, if you begin to see some changes in things around here, you folks who claim 'they have every right to be here' can grouse about it among yourselves, but please don't blame me and wonder why no one ever told you ... because I *have* been telling you for at least a year now. After today's installment, we will have one more around the middle of next week, a sort of summary of things not yet covered. At that point, any of you who want to stay in denial about it are welcome to do so, there is nothing more I can do except to keep giving warnings now and then. PAT]
-----------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 01:57:06 -0400 To: list@ifwp.org From: Jay Fenello <Jay@iperdome.com> Subject: Everything You Never Wanted to Know About ICANN Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, com-priv@lists.psi.com, onenet-discuss@cpsr.org
Everything You Never Wanted to Know About ICANN Copyright (c) 1999 Jay Fenello -- All Rights Reserved
FDR once said "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." As we approach the conclusion of the ICANN formation process, these words have profound implications.
What follows is my interpretation of over two years of personal involvement in establishing a fair process to expand the name space, also known as Global Internet Governance. While many will discount these comments, or ridicule my positions, or marginalize their importance, I will simply stand on my record:
I first joined the debate in January, 1997. In attempting to launch Iperdome, I came under severe attack from the supporters of a plan called the gTLD-MoU. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was standing in the way of their aspirations for total control over the world-wide Internet.
While the debate raged on, it soon became apparent that the U.S. Government was the authority over this matter, and they were responsible for transitioning their stewardship over the Internet. Iperdome even called for the Government's intervention way back in April, 1997 (<http://www.iperdome.com/press/429prn.htm>
Over a period of months, I came to realize that the gTLD-MoU was not about the name space expansion -- it was about power and control over Internet resources. I said as much when I spoke as one of the invited speakers at the Domain Name Conference sponsored by the ITAA, CDT, and ISA (<http://www.itaa.org/dnsconf.htm>), an event that was covered widely in the press (<http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/080197domain.html>
Of course, the opposition ridiculed me, threatened me, and even disparaged the reporters who were providing balanced coverage of the debate.
To make a long story short, the U.S. Government did intervene on July 7th, 1997. That's when they issued a Request for Comments (for more information on the RFC, the Green Paper and/or the White Paper, please see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm)
On September 30th, 1997, Congress finally got involved. After a fiery hearing where Andy Sernovitz testified to the inappropriate power grab (http://www.iperdome.com/press/andy.txt), Rpresentative Pickering said:
"American taxpayers have helped build the Internet as well as many U.S. companies and private sector investors," said Representative Charles W. (Chip) Pickering, a Mississippi Republican. "To now go into a transition plan that moves that to another country offshore - whether it's Switzerland or any other country - I think would raise questions among American taxpayers, the American public."
"This is something that is uniquely American that we have built. And we need to maintain leadership," Pickering added. "To do otherwise would be a disgrace to the American taxpayers and investors who helped build this and who made this great opportunity possible."
As we headed towards the end of 1997, and while we were waiting for the U.S. Governments decisions with regards to their RFC, it appeared that the IAHC would get their way and the gTLD-MoU would be allowed to proceed.
Not to say we didn't keep trying. I wrote a detailed summary about the implications of the decisions that the U.S. Government was about to make (<http://www.iperdome.com/press/index3.htm>), and Gordon Cook of "The Cook Report" (<http://www.cookreport.com/>) opened a dialog with Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's Technology Czar.
Then, just as the U.S. Government was about to announce their decision, Ira jumped into the fray and put all decisions on hold until he had a chance to review all of the efforts that had preceded him.
Of course, the MoU supporters cried foul. In fact, many of the followers of Jon Postel (who was the de facto and spiritual leader of the Internet), and many European Governments and Corporations protested vigorously.
Not to be deterred, and in a most deliberate way, Ira did just as he promised. He contacted everyone who had ever been involved in the process. He then proceeded to draft the Green Paper, a document that would have provided a fair and immediate expansion to the name space.
Upon its release, however, the same MoU supporters mounted a vigorous campaign to protest the Green Paper. It was also around this time that Jon Postel re-directed over half of the world's root servers to *his* machine!
While we will probably never know for certain, this combination of events likely forced the U.S. Government to abandon the Green Paper, and started the resulting White Paper process.
It was also around this time that I and others started to discuss the implications of Global Internet Governance. Of course, we were ridiculed and discredited once again.
When the White Paper was finally announced, it was considered a workable document by almost everyone. Unfortunately, the games and takeover attempts were hardly over, as I reported in my testimony to Congress on June 10th (http://www.Iperdome.com/press/congress.htm).
In fact, even before the White Paper was formally announced, Jon Postel had formed a private group of advisors to help the IANA transition to the new Internet Governance body.
After the White Paper was announced, the Internet community quickly responded by organizing the "International Forum on the White Paper" (http://www.ifwp.org).
Even this process was fraught with gaming and takeover attempts. First, MoU supporters refused to participate. Then, as more and more large organizations jumped on board, the MoU supporters decided to participate to "torpedo" the effort and argue for *un*fair processes ;-) process. (Fortunately, that didn't work.)
But even with all of the progress made by the IFWP, even with all of the consensus that was generated through all of the meetings, Jon Postel continued to ignore the consensus, and with the help of Joe Simms and others, drafted multiple iterations of their own proposals for Internet governance.
This came to a head shortly after the Singapore IFWP meeting. Many wanted to finish the IFWP process by having a final meeting where a draft proposal for Internet governance could be completed. That's when Mike Roberts (current ICANN president) lead the effort to destroy the IFWP. He was successful.
On September 30th, 1998, the U.S. Government issued a cryptic announcement regarding ICANN's intention to submit an application to assume the role of New Co as described in the White Paper (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/dns93098.htm).
While there was still a tremendous amount of opposition to ICANN, the Internet community took comfort that the release indicated that competing proposals would also be accepted. Since Ira had always said that the U.S. Government would not choose between competing proposals, many felt that the remaining concerns would be addressed in the ICANN proposal.
The problems with ICANN were summarized in my written testimony to Congress on October 6th, 1999 (http://www.Iperdome.com/press/congress3.txt). I described the problems with ICANN as follows:
- The draft was finalized behind closed doors.
- The draft does not include many of the consensus points from the IFWP process.
- The interim board suggested by the draft was presented without any open nomination process or iscussion. [When a Congressman directly asked Joe Simms how the board was selected, he waffled and said he wasn't sure. Later, at the first open ICANN Board meeting, at least one of the Board member revealed that it was Joe Simms who first approached them!!!]
- It fails to meet Ira Magaziner's mandate of accountability, as the ICANN board is only accountable to itself.
- It fails to meet the terms as stated by Becky Burr, specifically the desire for sound and transparent processes, protection against capture, and fair, open and pro-competitive processes.
When it became clear that neither Jon Postel, Joe Simms, nor any other ICANN supporter would seriously entertain changing any of the unacceptable provisions of their draft by-laws, several people and organizations stepped forward with competing plans.
What followed was a series of discussions between the various draft submitters, and the Commerce Department. Ira even went so far as to issue a letter (http://www.iperdome.com/press/ira.txt) to the ICANN drafters highlighting deficiencies, and suggesting that they needed to work towards consensus with the BWG and the ORSC.
After almost a month of conference calls with Ira, Commerce, ORSC, BWG, and the new ICANN Board, no consensus ever emerged. Instead, Commerce agreed to bless ICANN with continuing oversight as outlined in a new MoU between them. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann-memorandum.htm)
[As an aside, it was during this period that Jon Postel passed away, and Ira Magaziner resigned from his role as Technology Czar.]
Given the MoU, and given the assurances by Becky Burr and Esther Dyson, most of the Internet community was willing to give ICANN the benefit of the doubt, and support the ICANN process.
But we have been lead astray ...
Over the course of the last couple of months, we have come to realize that ICANN has ignored it's own bylaws, ignored it's MoU with Commerce, and ignored the terms and goals of the White Paper. And when we have complained to Commerce, we have been ignored as well.
In effect, ICANN has pursued an agenda completely synchronous with the gTLD-MoU which proceeded it. And while it continues to give the appearance that it is working towards the day when it is an open and transparent body, managed by and for the Internet community in a bottom-up way, their recent policy decisions are diametrically opposed to these ideals.
If and when this utopian ICANN nirvana arrives, all of the major policy decisions will have already been made, and the process rules will have already been defined. It will take years and years to correct.
And that assumes that the resulting organization can even function. Some are now suggesting that ICANN is deliberately creating a structure that will be unable to make even simple decisions, let alone reverse their current agenda.
It is for these reasons that I hearby declare that ICANN has been captured, and the U.S. Government is obliged to intervene once again. If not Commerce, then Congress. And if not Congress, then this should be escalated to the presidential elections. After all, this travesty is occurring on Al Gore's watch.
In closing, as this summary reveals, ICANN has historically shown nothing but contempt for the valuable contributions from ORSC, BWG and the rest of the Internet community. I refuse to waste my time further.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
Copyright (c) 1999 Jay Fenello -- All Rights Reserved
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And I am inclined to not waste much more of my time either, Jay. If netizens do not wake up soon and take steps to put ICANN out of business once and for all, recognizing the fraud that it and Internet ('the internet is for everyone') Society have been passing for the past couple years, then they can have the net they deserve as a result.
It is not just merely a matter of 'they have every right to be here no matter how much it may gall the old timers' as one writer said to me. Those boys mean business -- big business, and they are using people like Vint Cerf, Esther Dyson and others as their mouthpiece to get their way with the US Government where Internet is concerned.
And I would like to conclude for now by pointing out that neither MCI-Worldcom or Cisco are very happy about the combined eight-hundred something thousand dollars Vint Cerf twisted their arm to get with his stories about how the internet would collapse any day now without the money he needed for his work ... money that was mostly all tossed away by handing it to a high-priced lawyer who still has accomplished nothing for anyone. As Vint would say,
if no money, there won't be e-commerce, and without e-commerce, there won't be e-anything ...
That's what I call 'cerfing the net' ....
But don't let me interuppt your daily dose of telecom news, my goodness no! In a year or two, or whenever MCI-Worldcom, Sprint or AT&T decide to take over this column, you'll have plenty of time to meditate and reconsider your beliefs on who has the right to be where. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Mike Mansfield <mansfield001@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 05:32:31 GMT
Lisa Hancock wrote:
>> Selective Calling Service used to give you 20 hours a month of calls >> This service was instituted to correct pricing injustices...
> I checked the Trenton NJ directory and found no mention of this > service.
> Could you describe what specific town this was offered and what > mileage band it covered? Was there a particular service territory > this was suited for? When did it first come out?
I have used this service has for the 15 years it has existed. Bell Atlantic stated to me that it has offered it since 1968. If you need more information you can call any Bell Atlantic - New Jersey business office to get all the details. In fact, Bell Atlantic must have had such a volume of complaints that they instituted a special "prompt" on their PBX specifically for this price increase.
By the way you seem to be very knowledgeable and very thorough. Do you work for Bell Atlantic -- New Jersey?
> For calls for 1-10 miles, the tolls vary by time-of-day, but are > pretty reasonable, about the same as message unit charges in the > Philadelphia area.
They were pretty reasonable here too, in Monmouth County, until this increase occured. What is outrageous is not the increase itself, but the amount of it, namely TENFOLD the old price. You will not be able to convince anyone that this is a "competitive" act. It smacks more of a VORACIOUS monopoly that found a loophole to gouge its customers.
>> Shouldn't the Board of Public Utilities in New Jersey be involved in >> this and put a limit to such predatory tactics?
> In the past, the state PUC would definitely be involved. > ... the company may charge whatever it wants. That's > what competition is all about.
Only a monopoly can charge "whatever it wants". Hmm, where did you see the competition? Bell Atlantic owns the wire coming into my house and will not share it with anyone else. And, for many years, it has been milking the long distance companies with "access charges", ostensibly to "maintain inexpensive local service".
What a mockery...
>> If you are a voter in New Jersey you can do something to prevent >> such outrageous acts of irresponsible corporations.
> Again, it depends on the circumstances if this is "outrageous" or > "irresponsible". My local convenience store charges two to things > times the price of the supermarket for certain items. Is that > "irresponsible" or just plain old business?
When was the last time that your local convenience store raised its prices TENFOLD? This is a very poor analogy. A more appropriate analogy would be if your local POWER company raised the price of the kilowatt-hour TENFOLD. Do you really believe that anyone would accept this?
> And it may not be under the power of the PUC. With phone company > deregulation comes competition. I preferred the old system to prevent
That's EXACTLY where New Jersey voters can make the difference. They CAN put this under the power of the PUC, once they realize that Bell Atlantic is milking them shamelessly.
Incidentally, has anyone noticed the latest "SIMPLIFICATION" of toll tariffs sent out with the September phone bill of Bell Atlantic? In some cases simplification = 200% increase. Another instance of their shameless hypocrisy and disinformation.
> Again you need to be more specific. Was it AT&T offering local > service at all, or just this specific service class? What exactly > "requisite information" did AT&T need that Bell didn't provide?
I will try to talk to AT&T lawyers to find out more details.
------------------------------
From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Filing Complaint/Lawsuit Against Bell-Atlantic Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 19:13:49 -0400 Organization: Dyslexics UNTIE
In article <telecom19.364.3@telecom-digest.org>, Joseph Wineburgh <jwineburgh@chubb.com> wrote:
> You might want to look at one of their other 'local toll' packages > instead. The last timeI checked they had one for maybe $50/month for > unlimited calling within the LATA (973, 908, 201, 732). I don't > remember what the plan was called, but this might suit your needs and > give you added benefits as well depending on your calling patterns ...
Three times someone recommended I check out this "unlimited calling plan," and three times a Bell Atlantic customer service rep told me there was no such thing. The situation with calling plans is much worse up here in Mahwah, than in Morris County, since there are very few areas to which I can make a local untimed call. There were no national ISP's that were a local call until this past year. Most of the ISP's group their POP's around Hackensack and Paterson, which are toll calls from here.
Calls to Morris county from here have always been expensive toll calls. I couldn't get ISDN service because part of the current deal is that I would have lost all of my regional toll plans, and my monthly bill would probably double. Now it looks like my onthly service may double, anyway.
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (L. Winson) Subject: Re: Named Telephone Exchanges Date: 5 Sep 1999 04:35:16 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
> course you should realize that to be really "true" to an office > officially an exchange name would only be used on those exchanges that > were in use up til the introduction of ANC (all number calling) which
I'm more liberal. For instance, in Jenkintown PA, 885 came out as a number, but I still callconsider that as TUrner, like the others.
A lot of places got, and continue to get, additional exchanges that follow the original pattern. Whenever practical, I hope the phone companies continue to do that. For reasons I don't understand, Bell Atlantic in the Philadelphia area seems to go out of its way NOT to do that. For example, in aforementioned Jenkintown, instead of adding more 88x's, they started with 57x.
> sixties except for some holdover cities such as Philadelphia which was > using 2L-5N numbering well into the late 70's or maybe even the early > 80's.
Philadelphia converted in 1980, I believe it was the last to do so. To this day, a few businesses in Philadelphia still label their trucks with 2L-5N, and plenty of store signs remain. But memories are fading, and virtually everyone now is on ANC.
Funny how the public can deal with names. I'm told some sections, especially the nicer neighborhood (ie Chestnut Hill, which happened to be served by CHestnut 2,7,8) was quite upset t the change.
The transit authority tried renaming its rail lines by color-codes, though it didn't push it. One route that served several colleges became the "Green Lines". The college students readilly picked up that name, but native residents strongly resisted. (We had some nasty debates over this on Usenet.) Today, though colors are coordinated on maps and signage, the traditional names remain the official ones (Broad Street Subway, Market Frankford Subway Elevated, and Subway Surface lines). [As an occassional visitor to Chicago, I wish they kept the old L route names. If I want to go to Howard, I take a "Howard train", easy enough.]
> the phone number 312-RAvenswood-8-7425 which of course also spells
Can anyone honestly say they prefer "728" over the smooth flowing peaceful sound of "Ravenswood"? Ravenswood: I think of a quiet forest, with a little brook, birds singing, air pure and clean. Now 728. I 'ate' lunch. Big deal.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By the way, Chicago no longer has 'Howard trains' or 'Ravenswood trains' or 'Evanston trains'. Now they have Red, Blue, Green, Purple, Brown, Orange and Yellow trains. It is up to you to figure out where the train is going. The Chicago Transit Atrocity would also prefer that you purchase a monthly travel pass directly from one of the vending machines or else at their office instead of handing over your dollar bills and coins to those thieving collectors they have working in the subway. In fact in the subway itself now you *have* to use the veding machines; they do not allow any of the former collection agents -- who still sit in the same cages but now do nothing, because the union won't allow Transit Atrocity to fire them -- to handle money at all. In return for their years of thievery, CTA gave them all promotions and now they are known as 'customer service assistants' and they sit in the little cages and basically do nothing all day. It is rare anyone bothers to ask them any questions or ask for assistance.
The neighborhood called 'Ravenswood' used to indeed be a very bucolic, country setting, a hundred years ago when it was not part of the city but was a suburban, rural area. A guy by the name of Doctor Raven owned a great deal of the land there, and the woods which belonged to Raven, ie, Raven's Woods eventually was incorporated into the city. During the Great Train Robbery which went on for a number of years at the Transit Atrocity's money counting room and with the collection agents renamed customer service assistants, CTA's finances got so bad they basically scrapped the Ravenswood line entirely in order to have money and equipment to run the main line, which you refer to as Howard.
Yeah I like RAvenswood better than 728 myself come to think of it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Chris Johnston <chris@netus.com> Subject: Ode to the Teletype? Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 22:38:47 -0700 Organization: Netus Internetworking
Has anyone an "Ode to the Teleytype"?
I have a fully functional (ASR-33) that I restored sitting here in my office to remind me of my roots. I added one small feature -- an RS-232 to current loop converter that allows me to connect it to an OLD PC (one that supports 110baud).
Quite a conversation piece.
I am still looking for old units in Southern California to pick up for spare parts for my "hobby" of restoring them for friends. I am STILL looking for an old BRP (we called 'em burpees) the then really fast tape punch units.
If anyone has spares or old gear laying around that they want to dump, I will part with a few bucks to take them off of your hands (don't send them to the junk heap just yet).
Thanks!
Chris Johnston - 714-939-3950
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not know if St. Louis is too far away or not, but you really need to speak with Herb Stein, since he has several he wants to get rid of. Let me introduce you: Chris, meet Herb! Herb, meet Chris! PAT]
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <ed_ellers@msn.com> Subject: Tracing Hang Up Calls From "Out of Area"? Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 01:4914 -0400
Someone describing themselves as "Hung up on in Hanover" wrote:
"I'm getting about one hang up a day now and the RBOC says that there is no way that they can trace the calls to find out who is making them. Is this true? I'm sure the telemarketer's are using a outbound wats line or ISDN or T1/3 or something and not sending CID info on purpose."
Callers don't send CID info -- the originating central office does that. My suspicion is that these boiler rooms have T1s *direct to their IXC* for their WATS lines, making caller ID or ANI difficult since the leased lines wouldn't have phone numbers associated with them. (If they had local CO lines they'd have phone numbers for each line even if the lines were provided over ISDN or T1 facilities.) Even so, the telco can tell that those calls are coming from a particular IXC and ought to be able to get the IXC's help in tracing the call back to the IXC's WATS customer.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 23:03:51 EST From: Kyler B. Laird <laird@ecn.purdue.edu> Subject: How to Get a Helpful Person at GTE Mobilnet?
After several (7?) years with a GTE cellular phone, I finally bought three new digital StarTACs recently. I decided to stick with GTE and use their America Choice plan in order to switch to primarily using the cell phones instead of our wired phones.
This hasn't worked well, though, because the signal is awful both at work (Purdue) and home (not far from campus). I've tried calling *111 a few times. Sometimes I get someone extremely helpful. Today that happened. He told me that I had something about authentication mis-set on my accounts and he said he'd fix it. Cool.
After talking with him, I thought I'd try the phone again. I called it (at home) from our landline. No ring. It wasn't until I put up the antenna that it rang.
I called again to see if there was anything that could be done to improve the signal. It's not like we're out in the boonies here.
The woman I got on the second call was different. She old me that my phone was not guaranteed to work if it's in my pocket with the antenna in. She said that I'd need to get a belt holster for it. (I have one.) After several iterations she verified (verbally) that by putting it in the holster (instead of a couple inches away in a cotton pocket or out on my desk), the signal would be good enough to make it work even with the antenna down.
Aaargh! Where do they get these idiots?! (Had she been nice about not knowing anything about RF principles I wouldn't have minded, but she was rude and condescending.)
Anyway ... is there a way to get better coverage in an area? I convinced a bunch of people at work to get GTE StarTACs and now they're all annoyed because they rarely work in our building.
Thanks,
kyler
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V19 #375 ******************************