FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
node 1:1/1.
Copyright 1987 by the International FidoNet Association. All
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067.
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
Guest Editorial by Don Kulha ............................. 1
Policy4 proposal enclosed ................................ 2
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 3
FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ........................ 3
Fido v12 (tm) Echo Conference ............................ 16
FIDO-FAM and OPUS - Answers to common questions & probl .. 17
Security Available For Mail Now .......................... 19
REDCON An EchoMail Idea who's time has come .............. 21
Repair Nightmare ......................................... 23
Vietnam Veterans' Valhalla ............................... 26
3. COLUMNS .................................................. 28
Random Mutterings ........................................ 28
Origin: Angevin Empire ................................... 31
4. FOR SALE ................................................. 33
ALR 386/2 Special Offer To Fidonet Sysops ................ 33
5. NOTICES .................................................. 34
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 34
Latest Software Versions ................................. 34
IFNA Order Form .......................................... 35
IFNA Membership Application .............................. 36
FidoNews 4-36 Page 1 21 Sep 1987
This week's guest editorial is by Don Kulha, 1:125/7
On Friday eve at the Net conference in VA, as the after dinner
presentations were winding down, Tom Jennings asked if he could
say something. The following is a transcript of what he had to
say:
"I'd like to say something here.
"It's not going to be very pleasant and it comes at a real
bad time because, I mean, I feel really bad. We're all here
and I like everyone here. The purpose of this is supposed to
be telecommunicating. I just feel a serious conflict of
interest on the board of directors. You figure out, of they
on the stand, what the issues are. There's talk of changing
standards, changes just assumed to be put in during the next
few months; sort of...what committee do we have here? I do
not want to be on the board of directors, I intentionally
said I do not want to be on the board. I have severe conflict
of interest and there are other authors who should not be on
the board what-so-ever.
"There's no pleasant way to say it and, uh, there it is. You
can view this from my point of view [that] there's a rather
severe interest in anarchy here. This was an implemented
archist scheme of sorts. It's run by the members of the net
and we now have a top-down structure. So....for what it's
worth, my two cents..."
(17 seconds of silence -- Ken closes the meeting)
Hearing Tom's emotion filled speech I started thinking about the
net, our directions and the dissention within our ranks. We have
a great bunch of folks working with IFNA and the various
committees. Some of them, and various people in our network, have
concerns about where we are going. My own thought is that
something important to remember is that our association is a
dynamic entity; it changes in relationship to the desires of it's
active participants.
Active participants are the key words there. Before heading back
to VA I heard a lot of folks saying the wouldn't go because they
didn't like some of the things they percieved to be happening.
Some other seemed to feel that since they were running Opus there
was little reason to go -- with which I do most strongly
disagree. The conference was not about Fido or any other single
thing; it was about communicating and networking. I think of
anarchy in our context as not necessarily meaning the absence of
order, but that the largest possible number of interest be
represented in and help shape our net. Diversity is healthy and
it's the yeast we need to keep the net vital, growing and
FidoNews 4-36 Page 2 21 Sep 1987
evolving. We really need a lot more of you participating in
helping shape our directions
IFNA will not be tommorrow what it is today; everything evolves.
Membership in IFNA isn't a vote in support for whatever is
happening at this particular point in time, I think it's an
expression of your interest in promoting communication. The
dollars requested just help cover real costs, are well accounted
for and (I personally think) act as a bullshit filter, keeping
those less than serious from mucking up the works. Everything
about IFNA is mutable and will change with the passage of time,
and with your participation. Please do.
This issue of FidoNews is packaged with a special supplement, the
complete proposed Policy4 document that was submitted to the
Board of Directors at FidoCon IV. Your comments and suggestions
are welcome.
***************************************************************
This document is an exact copy of the FCC Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking issued on July 17, 1987. The document is provided
as a service to the online community by ISSUE DYNAMICS INC., of
Washington, DC. IDI is a public policy consulting firm,
specializing in telecommunications policy issues, public affairs
counseling and issues management. It sponsors the IDI Board
703-734-1796, SYSOP is Sam Simon. The IDI Board features public
policy discussions, and information about telecommunications
policy issues from Washington, DC. For more information on how
to participate before the FCC in this matter call the IDI board,
it can be reached over PC Pursuit.
***************************************************************
Before The
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
CC Docket No. 87-215
In the Matter of
Amendments of Part 69
of the Commission's Rules
Relating to Enhanced Service
Providers
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Adopted: June 10, 1987: Released: July 17, 1987
By The Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In 1983 we adopted a comprehensive "access charge" plan
for the recovery by local exchange carriers (LECs) of the costs
associated with the organization and termination of interstate
calls.1 At that time, we concluded that the immediate applica-
FidoNews 4-36 Page 4 21 Sep 1987
tion of this plan to certain providers of interstate services
might unduly burden their operations and cause disruptions in
provision of service to the public. Therefore, we granted
temporary exemptions from payment of access charges to certain
classes of exchange access users, including enhanced service
providers. Three years later, in the Second Report and Order in
CC Docket No. 86-1, in which we eliminated the exemption for
resale carriers, we announced our intention to reexamine the
exemption granted to enhanced service providers after our
consideration of certain related issues in the Computer III
proceeding.2 We recently completed that consideration.3 We
issue this Notice of Proposed Rule Making to consider whether
interstate access charges should be assessed on enhanced service
providers. We tentatively conclude that it is now appropriate
that enhanced service providers, like providers of interstate
basic services, be assessed access charges for their use of local
exchange facilities, and we propose amendments to our rules to
accomplish that end.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In the access charge proceeding, the first of our four
primary goals was the "elimination of unreasonable discrimination
and undue preferences among rates for interstate services."4
Specifically, our objective has been to distribute the costs of
exchange access in a fair and reasonable manner among all users
of exchange access service, irrespective of their designation as
carriers, non-carrier service providers, or private customers.5
We noted in 1983 that although many entities used exchange access
service, some were paying local business rates.6 We endeavored
to establish a more equitable sharing of costs, and initially
intended to impose interstate access charges on enhanced service
providers for their use of local exchange facilities to originate
and terminate their interstate offerings.7 Interstate enhanced
services often use common lines and local exchange switches in
the same manner as MTS and some MTS equivalent services. To the
extent that this is the case, we concluded that equity and
efficiency require that those enhanced service providers pay the
same charges for exchange access.
3. In the discussion of the application of access charges
to enhanced service providers in the First Reconsideration, we
said that we wanted to develop a rate structure under which all
exchange access users were charged on the same basis.8 In the
pre-access charge environment, facilities-based interstate
carriers other than AT&T (other common carriers or OCCs) were
paying carrier-type access charges in the form of ENFIA rates,
while WATS resellers, enhanced service providers, and shares were
paying much lower local business rates.9 Despite our resolve to
distribute the costs of exchange access among all users of access
service, we recognized that the immediate imposition of inter-
state access charges on all users of exchange access would have
some undesirable consequences. For example, we said that because
WATS resellers and enhanced service providers were currently
FidoNews 4-36 Page 5 21 Sep 1987
paying local business rates for their interstate access, the
immediate imposition of interstate access charges would have a
substantial and sudden impact on their costs, which could
undermine their ability to continue to provide service while they
were adjusting their operations in response to the new access
charge rules.10
4. Because of these concerns about rate shock, we exempted
certain exchange access users from the payment of certain
interstate access charges in the First Reconsideration.11 At
that time, we did not intend those exemptions to be permanent,12
and we have since eliminated several of them. For example, in CC
Docket No. 86-1, we considered the question of access charge
exemptions for resellers. In the First Report and Order in that
docket, we eliminated the exemptions from all access charges for
WATS resellers and from traffic-sensitive access charges for MTS
resellers, on the grounds that these exemptions were uneconomic
and inequitable and could no longer be supported by a rate shock
rationale.13 We said there that our goal was to promote
competition, not to protect competitors, and we regarded the
elimination of the exemptions as another step toward an
economically rational pricing scheme.14
5. In the 86-1 Second Report and Order, we eliminated the
exemption for private line resellers that offer non-MTS/WATS
services, which are, in general, data and telex carriers. In
that order, we said that data and telex carriers, like carriers
offering MTS/WATS-type services, use local exchange facilities to
originate and terminate interstate traffic and should pay the
same charges as those assessed on other interexchange carriers
for their use of the same facilities.15 We also noted that our
purpose in adopting the exemption for data and telex carriers in
the first place had been to grant transitional rather than
permanent relief.16 Finally, we said that our decisions to apply
access charges to these resellers, as well as to resellers of MTS
and WATS, represented another step toward our objective of
distributing the costs of exchange access service in a fair and
reasonable manner.17
III. THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE ACCESS
CHARGE TREATMENT OF ENHANCED SERVICE
PROVIDERS
6. When we modified our access charge plan in the First
Reconsideration, we granted enhanced service providers an
exemption from the payment of such charges because we were
concerned about rate shock. We feared that if we imposed full
interstate access charges on enhanced service providers, which
were then paying local business rates for their interstate
access, they would face large increases in their operating costs
and might no longer be viable.18 Therefore, instead of
immediately applying access charges to enhanced service
providers, we decided to fashion a transition plan to avoid the
severe rate impact of assessing such charges at the outset.19 As
FidoNews 4-36 Page 6 21 Sep 1987
a result, enhanced service providers currently pay local business
rates and subscriber line charges for their switched access
connections to local exchange company central offices.20
7. We are concerned that the charges currently paid by
enhanced service providers do not contribute sufficiently to the
costs of the exchange access facilities they use in offering
their services to the public. As we have frequently emphasized
in our various access charge orders, our ultimate objective is to
establish a set of rules that provide for recovery of the costs
of exchange access used in interstate service in a fair,
reasonable, and efficient manner from all users of access
service, regardless of their designation as carriers, enhanced
service providers, or private customers.21 Enhanced service
providers, like facilities-based interexchange carriers and
resellers, use the local network to provide interstate services.
To the extent that they are exempt from access charges, the other
users of exchange access pay a disproportionate share of the
costs of the local exchange that access charges are designed to
cover.
8. As we stated in the Notice initiating the CC Docket
No. 86-1 proceeding, "concerns with 'rate shock' cannot sustain
an uneconomic pricing structure in perpetuity."22 Accordingly,
in previous orders in that docket, we have concluded that such
concerns no longer justify providing WATS resellers or resellers
of other services with exemptions from access charges.
Similarly, we tentatively conclude today that a rate shock
rationale no longer justifies an access charge exemption for
enhanced service providers. Enhanced service providers have had
ample notice of our ultimate intent to apply interstate access
charges to their operations and ample opportunity to adjust their
planning accordingly.23 We discussed our intent to impose access
charges on enhanced service providers almost four years ago in
the First Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 78-72.24 The access
charge plan itself has now been in place for almost three years.
Moreover, in the Second Report and Order in CC Docket No. 86-1,
we stated that after the resolution of certain issues with regard
to enhanced service providers in Computer III, we would consider
initiating a further Rule Making to consider the application of
access charges to enhanced service providers. Furthermore, we
propose that the application of access charges to enhanced
service providers become effective on January 1, 1988. This
should provide additional time for enhanced service providers to
incorporate this change into their business planning. In sum,
concerns over rate shock may justify a temporary, but not a
permanent, exemption, and it now appears to us that the temporary
period during which an access charge exemption was appropriate
has lapsed.
9. In addition, the financial impact on enhanced service
providers from the imposition of interstate access charges will
be substantially smaller than it would have been at the time of
the implementation of the access charge plan and will decrease in
the immediate future. As the end user contribution to common
line costs through subscriber line charges increases, the
FidoNews 4-36 Page 7 21 Sep 1987
contribution from carriers and enhanced service providers through
carrier common line (CCL) charges decreases. In May of 1984, the
CCL charge for both originating and terminating traffic was 5.24
cents per minute of use.25 Currently, the terminating charge is
4.33 cents per minute of use, and the originating charge is .69
cents per minute. This decline in CCL charges represents a
sizeable drop in the costs of interstate access charges, and will
mitigate the impact of the imposition of those charges on
enhanced service providers. With additional increases in
subscriber line charges scheduled for December 1988 and April
1989, the CCL charge for both originating and terminating traffic
should decrease even further.26 We are aware that, under our
rules, many enhanced service providers would be assessed
terminating CCL charges.27
10. Parties are free to comment upon our tentative conclu-
sions about rate shock. Such comments should be accompanied by
detailed data supporting the arguments advanced therein.
Commenters addressing the rate shock issue should provide
information on network configurations used by enhanced service
providers and possible reconfigurations, as well as data on
industry rates, revenues, and growth rates going back at least
five years (which would include a period prior to the adoption of
our access charge plan). For example, we request comment on the
types of interstate transmission and exchange access facilities
that enhanced service providers are currently using, and on the
types of enhanced service providers that would be affected by the
elimination of the exemption from interstate access charges.
Parties should also discuss ways in which affected enhanced
service providers might reconfigure their networks in response to
rule changes of the kind proposed. In addition, we request
comment on the rates that enhanced service providers have charged
customers, as well as on industry revenues during that period.
If possible, commenters should provide data on the demand for
services and the revenues in the entire enhanced service provider
sector (including, but not limited to, the value added networks
and data base services), and on the possible effect of the
proposed rule changes on demand and revenues. Finally,
commenters should provide information on the growth rates of the
various segments of the enhanced services industry, and the way
in which those growth rates might be affected by the proposed
rule changes. To the extent that a commenter proposes that
application of access charges to enhanced service providers be
implemented on a date later than January 1, 1988, such proposal
should present specific arguments justifying the continuation of
the current special treatment of enhanced service providers for
the extended period.28
11. In addition, we request comment on issues involving
implementation of the proposal to assess interstate access
charges on enhanced service providers. We invite parties to
comment on the method of determining interstate and intrastate
usage of enhanced services for access charge billing. Parties
that address the measurement issue are requested to comment on
the possibility of using the Entry/Exit Surrogate (EES) method
FidoNews 4-36 Page 8 21 Sep 1987
currently used to estimate jurisdictional usage for Feature Group
A and Feature Group B services.29 Finally, parties are of course
free to identify any other implementation problems they think the
Commission should address prior to applying access charges to
enhanced service providers and to suggest possible approaches to
resolving these problems.
IV. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
12. The proposal contained herein has been analyzed with
respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and found to
contain no new or modified form, information collection and/or
recordkeeping, labeling, disclosure, or record retention
requirements, and will not increase or decrease burden hours
imposed on the public.30
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
13. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201-05, 218,
and 403, and 5 U.S.C. 553, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the
proposed adoption of new or modified rules.31
14. All interested persons MAY FILE comments on the issues
and proposals discussed herein not later than August 24, 1987 and
replies may be filed not later than September 14, 1987. In
accordance with the provisions of Section 1.419 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.419 an original and five copies
of all statements, briefs, comments, or replies shall be filed
with the Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.
20054 [sic], and all such filings will be available for public
inspection in the Docket Reference Room at the Commission's
Washington, D.C. office. In reaching its decision, the
Commission may consider information and ideas not contained in
filings, provided that such information is reduced to writing and
placed in the public file, and provided that the fact of the
Commission's reliance on any such information or ideas is noted
in the Order.
15. For purposes of this nonrestricted notice and comment
Rule Making proceeding, members of the public are advised that ex
parte contacts are permitted until the time a public notice is
issued stating that a substantial disposition of the matter is to
be considered in a forthcoming meeting or until a final order
disposing of the matter is adopted by the Commission, whichever
occurs earlier. In general, an ex parte presentation is any
written or oral communications (other than formal written
comments, pleadings, and oral arguments) between a person outside
the Commission and a Commissioner or a member of the Commission's
staff that addresses the merits of the proceeding.
16. Any person who submits a written ex parte presentation
must serve a copy of that presentation on the Commission's
Secretary for inclusion in the public file. Any person who makes
an oral ex parte presentation addressing matters not fully
FidoNews 4-36 Page 9 21 Sep 1987
covered in any previously-filed written comments for the
proceeding must prepare a written summary of that presentation,
and that written summary must be served on the Commission's
Secretary for inclusion into the public file, with a copy to the
Commission official receiving the oral presentation. Each ex
parte presentation described above must state on its face that
Secretary has been served, and must also state by docket number
the proceeding to which it relates. See generally, Section
1.1231 of the Commission's Rule, 47 C.F.R. 1.1231.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William J. Tricarico
Secretary
APPENDIX A
Part 69 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
Part 69 - ACCESS CHARGES
1. The authority citation for Part 69 continues to read as
follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 201, 202, 203, 205, 218, 403, and 410
of the Communications Act as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 201, 202,
203, 205, 218, 403, and 410.
47 CFR Part 69 is amended to read as follows:
2. Section 69.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (m) and
(gg), and adding a new paragraph (nn), to read as follows:
69.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(m) "End user" means any customer of an interstate or
foreign telecommunications service that is not a carrier or an
enhanced service provider except that a carrier other than a
telephone company or an enhanced service provider shall be deemed
to be an "end user" when such carrier or enhanced service
provider uses a telecommunications service for administrative
purposes and a person or entity that offers telecommunications
services exclusively as a reseller shall be deemed to be an "end
user" if all resale transmissions offered by such reseller
originate on the premises of such reseller;
* * * * *
(gg) "Access minutes" or "access minutes of use" is that
usage of exchange facilities in interstate or foreign service for
the purpose of calculating chargeable usage. On the originating
end of an interstate or foreign call, usage is to be measured
from the time the originating end user's call is delivered by the
FidoNews 4-36 Page 10 21 Sep 1987
telephone company and acknowledged as received by the
interexchange carrier or enhanced service provider's facilities
connected with the originating exchange. On the terminating end
of an interstate or foreign call, usage is to be measured from
the time the call is received by the end user in the terminating
exchange. Timing of usage at both the originating and
terminating end of an interstate of [sic] foreign call shall
terminate when the calling or called party disconnects, whichever
event is recognized first in the originating and terminating end
exchanges, as applicable.
* * * * *
(nn) "Enhanced service provider" means a person providing
"enhanced services" as defined in Section 64.702(a) of these
rules.
3. Section 69.5 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
69.5 Persons to be assessed.
* * * * *
(b) Carrier's carrier charges shall be computed and
assessed upon all interexchange carriers or enhanced service
providers that use local exchange switching facilities for the
provision of interstate or foreign telecommunications services or
enhanced services.
* * * * *
4. Section 69.105 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)
and (c) to read as follows:
69.105 Carrier common line.
(a) A charge that is expressed in dollars and cents
per access minute of use shall be assessed upon all interexchange
carriers or enhanced service providers that use local exchange
common line facilities for the provision of interstate or foreign
telecommunications services or enhanced services.
* * * * *
(c) Any interexchange carrier or enhanced service
provider providing interstate or foreign telecommunications
services or enhanced services shall receive a credit for Carrier
Common Line charges to the extent that it resells services for
which these charges have already been assessed (e.g., MTS or MTS-
type service of other common carriers).
5. Section 69.106 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) to
read as follows:
FidoNews 4-36 Page 11 21 Sep 1987
69.106 Line termination.
(a) A charge that is expressed in dollars and cents
per access minute shall be assessed upon all interexchange
carriers or enhanced service providers that use local exchange
switching facilities for the provision of interstate or foreign
telecommunications services or enhanced services.
* * * * *
6. Section 69.107 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
69.107 Local switching.
(a) Charges that are expressed in dollars and cents
per access minute of use shall be assessed upon all interexchange
carriers or enhanced service providers that use local exchange
switching facilities for the provision of interstate of foreign
telecommunications or enhanced services.
* * * * *
7. Section 69.108 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
69.108 Intercept.
(a) A charge that is expressed in dollars and cents
per access minute of use shall be assessed upon all interexchange
carriers or enhanced service providers that use local exchange
switching facilities for the provision of interstate or foreign
telecommunications or enhanced services.
* * * * *
read as follows:
69.111 Common transport.
(a) A charge that is expressed in dollar and cents per
access minute shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers
or enhanced service providers that use switching or transmission
facilities that are apportioned to the Common Transport element
for purposes of apportioning net investment.
* * * * *
9. Section 69.112 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)
and (c) to read as follows:
69.112 Dedicated transport.
* * * * *
FidoNews 4-36 Page 12 21 Sep 1987
(b) Appropriate subelements shall be established for
the use of interface arrangements. Charges for such subelements
shall be assessed and computed as follows: (1) Such charges
shall be assessed upon all interexchange carriers or enhanced
service providers for the interface arrangements they use to
provide interstate or foreign telecommunications or enhanced
ervices:
(c) A charge for the use of voice grade transmission
facilities shall be assessed upon interexchange carriers or
enhanced service providers that use such facilities to provide
interstate or foreign telecommunications or enhanced services.
Such charges shall be expressed in dollars and services. Such
charges shall be expressed in dollars and cents per unit of
capacity. Total units of capacity provided to an interexchange
carrier or enhanced service provider shall be measured by
ascertaining the number of conversations that could be
transmitted simultaneously without producing blocking in the
dedicated transport facilities. The capacity unit charge for
carriers that offer MTS shall be weighted by a distance factor
that reflects the airline distance between the entry switch and
the interexchange facility. The capacity unit charged for other
carriers or enhanced service providers shall be weighted by a
distance between the entry switch and the interexchange facility
or the airline distance between the entry switch and any
interexchange facility of carriers that offer MTS that is located
within 5 miles of such carrier or enhanced service provider's
interexchange facility.
FOOTNOTES
1. MTS and WATS Market Structure, Memorandum Opinion and Order,
97 FCC 2d 682 (1983) (hereinafter First Reconsideration).
2. WATS-Related and Other Amendments of Part 69 of the
Commission's Rules, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 86-1.
FCC 86-377, para. 15 (released August 26, 1986) (hereinafter 86-1
Second Report and Order).
3. We concluded in our Computer III proceeding that protocol
processing would continue to be treated as an enhanced service.
Amendment to Sections 64702 of the Commission's Rules and
Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry), Report and Order, CC Docket
No. 85-229, FCC 87-102 (released May 22, 1987) (hereinafter Phase
II Order). That decision had the effect of continuing to exempt
from access charges a major class of service providers -- the
VANs (value added network providers), which offer protocol
processing combined with packet-switched data services. See
Amendment of Sections 64702 of the Commission's Rules and
Regulations (Third Computer Inquiry), Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, CC Docket No. 85-229, FCC 86-253 (released
June 16, 1986), para. 46 n. 56.
4. See, e.g. First Reconsideration, supra note 1, at para. 3.
FidoNews 4-36 Page 13 21 Sep 1987
5. Id. at para. 77.
6. Id. at para. 79.
7. Id. at para. 76.
8. Id. at para. 77.
9. Id. at para. 83.
10. Id. at paras. 83-85.
11. See 47 C.F.R. 69.5 (1985).
12. First Reconsideration, supra note 1, at para. 83.
13. WATS-Related and Other Amendments of Part 69 of the
Commission's Rules, Report and Order, CC Docket 86-1, FCC 86-115,
paras. 26-27 (released March 21, 1986) (hereinafter First Report
and Order). To the extent enhanced service providers resell MTS
or MTS-equivalent services in offering their services, we propose
that they be treated like MTS resellers -- that is, that they be
assessed the traffic-sensitive access elements, but not the
carrier common line charge. See infra Appendix section
69.105(c).
14. Id. at para. 26. The amendment of the rule deleting the
exemption for WATS resellers became effective June 1, 1986. We
also provided a short transition period for WATS resellers. The
rule changes applied as of June 1, 1986, to all traffic on resold
WATS lines put in service after the order was adopted. For
traffic carried on resold WATS lines already in service as of the
adoption date of the order, we required resellers to pay all
traffic-sensitive access charges, effective June 1, 1986, but
deferred their payment of carrier common line charges until
January 1, 1987.
15. Second Report and Order, supra note 2, at para. 11. The
amendment of the rule deleting the exemption for non-MTS/WATS
resellers became effective January 1, 1987.
16. Id. at para. 11.
17. Id. at para. 14.
18. First Reconsideration, supra note l, at para. 83.
19. Id.
20. See 47 C.F.R. 69.5(a). Because enhanced service
providers are not carriers, they are treated as end users for the
purposes of Part 69. See 47 C.F.R. 69.2(m). To the extent
that they purchase special access, enhanced service providers
also pay special access surcharges. 47 C.F.R. 69.5(c).
21. See First Reconsideration, supra note 1, at para. 77.
FidoNews 4-36 Page 14 21 Sep 1987
22. WATS-Related and Other Amendments of Part 69 of the
Commission's Rules, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, CC Docket No.
86-1, FCC 86-1, para. 11 n. 27 (released January 6, 1986).
(hereinafter Notice).
23. See. e.g. First Reconsideration, supra note 1, at para 76.
24. Id. "Our intent was to apply these carrier's carrier
charges to interexchange carriers and to all resellers and
enhanced service providers...."
25. MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 67 of the
Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board.
Recommended Decision and Order, CC Docket Nos. 78-72 and 80-286,
FCC 87J.1, para 43 (released March 31, 1987) (hereinafter
Recommended Decision and Order).
26. MTS and WATS Market Structure, Amendment of Part 67 of the
Commission's Rules and Establishment of a Joint Board, Report and
Order, CC Docket Nos. 78-72 and 80-286. FCC 87-133 (released
May 19, 1987). On July 1, the subscriber line charge cap
increased from $2.00 to $2.60; the charge is scheduled to
increase in December 1988 to $3.20; and in April 1989 to $3.50
per month. In addition to the direct reduction in CCL charges
from the implementation of SLC's the associated stimulation of
usage of the network will further reduce such charges. Enhanced
service providers would of course also pay traffic sensitive
charges. Although these charges vary by jurisdiction, the
average nationwide traffic sensitive rate is currently 3.12 cents
per access minute of use. See Tier I Tariff Review Plan (from
October 3, 1986 tariffs).
27. Many enhanced services are provided pursuant to a network
configuration in which a call originates over an "open" end and
terminates over a "closed" end. Our rules provide that
terminating CCL charges apply on the "open" end where a call has
only such end. CCL charges are not assessed on "closed" ends of
calls. See First Report and Order, supra note 13, paras. 50-53:
see also 47 C.F.R. 69.207.
28. We note that the application of full access charges to WATS
resellers was accomplished pursuant to a modest phase-in. See
First Report and Order, supra note 13, at para. 2. In that
instance, however, we concluded that a phase-in was warranted
because of another significant change in our access charge plan,
that is, inclusion of WATS closed end lines in the special access
category, that was made concurrently with our decision to remove
the resellers' exemption. Similar circumstances do not appear to
exist in the instant situation.
29. This Commission has generally provided for the use of this
surrogate pending a decision by the Federal/State Joint Board in
CC Docket No. 85-124. See Determination of Interstate and
Intrastate Usage of Feature Group A and Feature Group B Access
Service, Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule Making, CC Docket
FidoNews 4-36 Page 15 21 Sep 1987
No. 85-124 (released December 9, 1986). That Joint Board is
considering a permanent resolution for the proper allocation of
costs and revenues between the state and federal jurisdictions
for FGA and FGB.
30. We hereby certify that the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 60-612(1982), is not applicable to this proceeding. We
have previously determined that the formal provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to proceedings to
adopt or revise access charge rules because local exchange
carriers, the parties directly subject to the access charge
rules, do not fall within the Act's definition of a small entity.
Id. sec. 601. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC,
773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Notice at para. 33, n. 54; and MTS
and WATS Market Structure, Third Report and Order, 93 FCC 2d 241,
paras. 358-62 (1983). While we have not applied the formal
procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act in this proceeding,
we have considered and will consider the effects of the rule
changes on enhanced service providers, some of which are small
businesses, just as we considered the effects of rule changes on
resellers in CC Docket No. 86-1. We will also consider the
impact of rule changes upon small telephone companies. See WATS
Related and Other Amendments of Part 69, Memorandum Opinion and
Order, para. 29, CC Docket No. 86-1 (released January 15, 1987).
In accordance with the provisions of section 605 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, a copy of this certification will be
sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration at the time of publication of this NPRM in the
Federal Register.
31. If we adopt the rules proposed in Amendment of Part 69 of
the Commission's Rules and Regulations, Access Charges, To
Conform It With Part 36, Jurisdictional Separations Procedures,
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, CC Docket No. 87-113 (released
May 1, 1987), we would, of course, revise the rules proposed in
this notice to ensure consistency.
An echomail conference has been established for sysops running
Fido v12. The conference is intended to provide support and an
exchange of ideas amongst the users of the software (sysops) and
the developers. Tom Jennings has agreed to participate, and
messages will be echoed to the beta testers as well.
143/8 will coordinate the echo. I am looking for a number of
nodes in PC Pursuit cities to establish direct links for the echo
in order to optimize distribution. If you would be willing to act
as a direct link in the distribution of this echo, please contact
me at 143/8.
I have been told the Region 1 BUG nodes (1:1/98, 1:1/99) will no
longer support prior versions of Fido. With the advent of this
echo, support for v12 should be more than adequate. Anyone who
wants more technical support than this should probably purchase
the software directly from Fido Software at the commercial price.
In addition to providing a forum for technical discussions
relating to v12, the echo will serve as a method of announcing
utilities, upgrades, and so on. Anyone intending to write
software in support of Fido v12 would be most welcome as a
participant. I do think it necessary to limit access to sysops,
though. I for one don't want my casual caller to read anything
which might give him/her any creative ideas!
Well, that's it. A netmail message to 143/8, and a little
patience, is about all it will take to link in. By the way, the
scan name of the conference is FIDO (used with TJ's permission, I
hope).
Using FIDO-FAM Ver 3 with OPUS Ver 1 by Dennis Glaeser
Problem: When attempting to run FIDO-FAM under the Outside
#1 function of OPUS the program terminates with:
Run-time error 10, PC=xxxx
Program aborted
Solution: Create FAMOPT and FAMOVL environment strings. The
FAMOVL string must be the path which contains the
FIDO-FAM.00? files. The FAMOPT string should contain
any command line options desired. The FAMOPT string
can contain junk, in case no default options are
desired, but the string must contain something (or DOS
will remove the name from the environment).
Reason: The 'local' environment handed to FIDO-FAM is not
terminated properly. FIDO-FAM is looking for its
environment names until it finds them, or it reaches
the end of the environment. Outside the 'legitimate'
environment the data is trash, and the program fails
trying to build an illegally long environment name.
This solution simply assures that FIDO-FAM will stop
looking within the real environment area.
Problem: FILES.BBS contains ANSI control sequences in some
#2 comment lines, but does not display properly. There
are stange 'Missing' files that appear in the FIDO-FAM
display.
Solution: On each (comment) line which begins with an ESC char,
put a space before the ESC char.
Reason: FIDO-FAM is treating the ESC sequence as a file name.
Recall that a comment line is one that begins with:
1) a space 2) a dash, or 3) the '@ 'char
Anything else (including the ESC char) means the line
represents a file name.
Note: Future versions of FIDO-FAM will recognize the ESC
char as a comment line. This solution is a near term
work-around.
If the FILES.BBS contains an ANSI clear screen command
(ESC [2J) the header and footer displays in FIDO-FAM
are lost. It would make FIDO-FAM unacceptably slow
(especially remote) to constantly repaint those lines.
Therefore it is highly recommended to not use the ANSI
clear screen command in a FILES.BBS
Problem: FILES.BBS contains ANSI control sequences, and lines
#3 are truncated after processing by FIDO-FAM.
FidoNews 4-36 Page 18 21 Sep 1987
Solution: None. The only way to get what you expect is to reduce
the length of the line (either remove the ANSI
sequences or reduce the length of the displayed chars).
Reason: FIDO-FAM doesn't do ANSI (yet). The length of a line
is truncated to assure that lines do not wrap around
when being displayed by the BBS program. Unfortunately
the 'non displayed' chars are counted just the same as
displayed ones.
Note: Future versions of FIDO-FAM will not truncate any
lines which contain an ESC character. The user will be
responsible to see that the display does not wrap.
Problem: FILES.BBS contains ANSI control sequences, and editing
#4 lines with ANSI commands (with the Edit command)
creates unpredictable results.
Solution: None. Don't use FIDO-FAM Ver 3 to edit lines which
contain ANSI sequences.
Reason: FIDO-FAM doesn't do ANSI (yet).
Note: It is unclear yet to what extent FIDO-FAM will support
editing of lines containing ANSI commands. Any
comments and/or suggestions from users are welcomed.
With the rash of SCOTT TISSUE type messages and the purloining of
mail packets going on it seems that it might be wise to start
protecting both EchoMail and mail packets by protecting them with
passwords.
SEAdog 4.1 as well as Confmail and Opus all allow some type of
password protection. But that is also the problem as the
selection of passwords can become a critical and often
interesting problem.
For example, one Sysop in our Net uses his name for mail pickup
password protection. Another Sysop I know uses his type of car as
a password. Great idea, but any decent hacker could crack those
passwords in minutes.
Many studies have show that the only truly safe password is one
selected or generated if you will by truly random methods. As the
size of the password gets bigger a RANDOM password provides
greater security.
So, how do I select a RANDOM password? Well you could just poke
some keys blindfolded, and it might be random, however there is a
much better method.
With the help of a program called GENERATE.EXE you may create
truly random passwords based on the latest Bureau of Standards
specifications for secure password generation.
GENERATE.EXE does not access any BBS files, and generates truly
random passwords based on a combination of variables, some input
by you, and some read directly from the system itself.
In a recent test run over a 72 hour period the program DID NOT
create any duplicate passwords. Over 10 million passwords were
generated during this test. The test was run on an IBM PS/80
under OS/2. The program also runs on true IBM PC's, XT's, AT's
and 100% compatibles and provides comparable results, with less
speed!
Once you have generated the passwords you wish to use, the next
step would be to read the documentation for the mail, archive,
and toss/scan utilities to see how to implement password
protection. Then contact the Sysops you send/receive mail from on
a regular basis, and decide how you wish to implement password
protection.
While password protection IS NOT the ultimate answer, it will
make it harder for the hackers and SCOTT TISSUE types to do
anything to disrupt the mail flow.
If a caller uploads or mails you a packet he should not have, and
it has not been encrypted with the proper password, it will not
FidoNews 4-36 Page 20 21 Sep 1987
be processed by the system. If someone calls in and tries to
purloin your mail packets and you have them set for pick-up
protection by password, he will not be able to get them.
Eventually he will give up although I grant you it might take a
while.
GENERATE.EXE in combination with SEAdog 4.1 and Confmail, is a
very effective combination to provide security for your system
when all three are used properly.
This program is released to the Sysops for use on their systems
providing NO attempt is made to reverse compile or otherwise view
or modify the program. It is FREEWARE and NO contributions are
expected for the software. Support will be given directly from
107/246. If you have any questions or problems contact us with
those questions and/or problems.
The source code for GENERATE.EXE will NOT be released to anyone
for any purpose. Furthermore, this program IS NOT available to
Sysops outside of the UNITED STATES. A version for export
(GENROUT.ARC) is now available to anyone who needs one outside of
the United States.
You may request/download GENROUT.ARC from 107/246 directly. This
is the EXPORT version and is slightly less secure than the full
version. Netmail messages to 107/246 for the full version
available ONLY to systems within the United States.
In my humble opinion, any program of this nature which does not
have these restrictions IS NOT worth the time it takes to
download. Just like SUPERKEY from Borland, there are certain
restrictions that must be made if you desire to use the full
Bureau of Standards requirements.
This program has been in development for over 6 months and we
welcome your comments on its use to you.
SEAdog is a trademark of System Enhancement Associates.
Confmail is a trademark of Spark Software.
Superkey is a trademark of Borland.
OS/2 is a trademark of Microsoft.
PS/80 is a trademark of IBM.
Net 151 in region 18 has been a busy place from the very
start. Getting the most from our HUBS means changing the ROUTE
files all the time.
At a meeting last summer of the NC SYSOP's we let the
conversation drift towards the management of net mail and
echomail. After dismissing the possibility of using the space
shuttle as a bounce point for out new lazer communicator, we
talked about a data concentrator that would service the net.
The problem was to service the nodes that couldn't get to PC
PURSUIT lines and still provide service to those who could.
What has come of this initial idea is REDCON. A Turbo-AT with
30 meg. HD, 1 meg. RAM, floppy drive and a TeleBit Trailblazer
9600 baud modem. It is situated in Raleigh, NC (919), a PC
PURSUIT city. It is devoted to ECHOMAIL, with the exception of
some net 151 traffic and the latest node*.* and fnews*.arc. We
plan to have all ECHOMAIL, from ALL the ECHO's, on the system
bundled and ready at all times. This means one place to call to
get it all.
But this still doesn't help the non PC PURSUIT sysops. So a
second data concentrator was added. GEDCON.
[G]reensboro,NC [E]chomail [D]ata [CON]centrator
It is a Turbo-AT with 30 meg. HD, 1 meg RAM, floppy drive and
a TeleBit Trailblazer 9600 baud modem. It is connected to a
national out WATS. It will send ECHOMAIL to those who do not have
access to PC PURSUIT. Again one call does it all.
To those who wish to use either of these data concentrators
send netmail to Ben Mann at 151/0 or Amnon Nissan at 151/100. The
REDCON and GEDCON systems are setup as PRE-REGISTERED only, so
please contact us BEFORE calling.
GEDCON is on a out going WATS line so you can't call into it.
You MUST contact Amnon Nissan or Ben Mann to be registered BEFORE
the system will call you.
So there you have it. Two data concentrators. One handling
ECHOMAIL traffic to PC PURSUIT users. The other calling nodes
that do not have access to PC PURSUIT.
To other ECHOMAIL BACKBONE(tm) sysops. Please contact us so we
may better coordinate our efforts to provide ECHOMAIL services to
the nodes of an even stronger FidoNet.
A list of the ECHOMAIL handled by REDCON/GEDCON is in a file
REDCON.ARC which may be requested from 151/0 or 151/100.
FidoNews 4-36 Page 22 21 Sep 1987
Now let's see... A ten jewel lazer ... Amnon got any spare 10
meter dishes ?????
Dot Falcon, Co-Sysop of The Falcon's Rock, 109/648
REPAIR NIGHTMARE
This is the story of how our attempts to get the manufacturers of
our computer to perform repairs. ("We" refers to me and my
husband and co-sysop, George Falcon.)
Our computer, an IBM XT clone with two speeds, had some rather
subtle problems that we suspected were hardware problems.
Several of our more knowledgeable friends suggested we might be
having a problem with the DMA controller. Also, our hard disk
was making a screeching noise. We purchased this computer in May
of 1986 from PC-Expanders in Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia (about
half a mile from the Radisson Mark Hotel in Alexandria where the
IFNA conference was held), and have been running it 24 hours a
day ever since. The computer is no longer under warranty, but we
decided PC-Expanders would still be the best choice to repair it,
since they manufactured it.
Trip 1: We brought the computer back to PC-Expanders. (Bailey's
Crossroads is about forty-five minutes from our apartment, so
each trip consumed an hour and a half in travel time, not to
mention the time, usually an hour or more, spent waiting for the
repairs.) PC-Expanders spent several hours, without success,
attempting to duplicate the problems we'd been having. Then they
called and asked us to come in and help demonstrate the problems
to them so that they could diagnose them.
Trip 2: We spent about and hour and a half demonstrating the
problems to them. They had not recognized the screeching noise
from the hard disk, and thought we were hearing the fan. We
pointed out the noise, and they said it meant the hard disk was
about to fail, and we would need a new one. As for the other
problems, they suggested perhaps replacing the motherboard would
help. They said the various chips (including those that involve
the DMA controller) could not be purchased separately, so the
entire motherboard would have to be replaced. We agreed to try
this. It then took another three weeks for their shipment of
motherboards to clear customs in Baltimore, and for them to
install our new motherboard.
Trip 3: We picked up our computer with the new motherboard. When
we got home, we discovered that our modem wasn't working.
Trip 4: We took the computer back and explained that our modem
wasn't working. They said it was probably a defective modem, and
since we hadn't bought it from them, they wouldn't touch it. We
didn't believe that our modem had failed by coincidence while in
their shop, and said we thought it had something to do with the
installation of the new motherboard. They investigated, and told
us that the I/O board they originally sold us had later proved to
have problems with internal modems. Again, we were skeptical,
since we had been running our bulletin board with that modem and
that I/O board for two solid months with no problem, but we
FidoNews 4-36 Page 24 21 Sep 1987
agreed to a new I/O board. They insisted that such coincidences
were possible, and gave us a discount on the originally quoted
price. (Total cost at this point: over $300).
Trip 5: We picked up our computer with the new I/O board in it.
The modem was working again, but now the keyboard was acting
funny. Every so often, hitting the shift key would hang the
computer, or else it would force CAPS LOCK or NUM LOCK on, or
reverse PgUp and PgDn.
Trip 6: PC-Expanders said it sounded like our keyboard might be
bad. We were appalled that all our hardware seemed to be failing
at once -- motherboard, I/O board, hard disk, and keyboard. They
lent us one of their keyboards to take home, just to prove that
the problem was really our keyboard. We were convinced that our
keyboard had no problems, that the problem was somehow caused by
the new hardware they had installed, but we went along with them.
We had exactly the same problems with their keyboard as with our
own.
Trip 7: We returned PC-Expanders' keyboard and told them it had
acted the same. PC-Expanders said perhaps it was a software
problem, in which case they weren't responsible. We said no, it
wasn't a software problem, because we had never had this problem
until they installed the new hardware. They said perhaps there
was a defect in the new motherboard, and they replaced it with
another new motherboard of the same type. We went home and found
that (a) we still had the same keyboard problems, (b) our modem
had stopped working, and (c) the power and turbo mode indicator
lights on the front of the computer no longer worked. We still
weren't really sure that our original subtle problems had cleared
up, since the new problems that were introduced had kept us from
using any software long enough to find out.
At this point, after seven trips to Bailey's Crossroads, each
trip introducing more problems than it solved, we were fed up.
We weren't willing to give PC-Expanders any more chances to
attempt repairs. Instead, we demanded that they remove all of
their new hardware, reinstall all of our old hardware (which we
had retained) and give us a full refund, including labor costs.
Then things began to get ugly. The service manager refused to
refund the labor costs, saying, "So in other words, in regard to
all the work we put into your computer, you're just telling us,
'Tough luck.'" I said that we didn't feel we had gotten any
service at all, and so in other words, when it came to getting
our computer fixed properly, he was telling us "Tough luck." He
finally agreed to our demands on the condition that we would sign
a release stating that PC-Expanders was no longer responsible for
the condition of our computer. We agreed.
Trip 8: The exchange was made. The service manager told us we
could not get a refund on the spot, but a check would be mailed
to us in 7-10 days. We got a statement to that effect in
writing. In exchange for that written statement, we signed the
release.
FidoNews 4-36 Page 25 21 Sep 1987
While there, we asked them to fix the indicator lights on the
front of our computer. They fixed one, but were unable to fix
the other and refused to investigate it. Both the service
manager and the technician who did all the work on the computer
said, "You told us that light never worked." We had said nothing
of the kind, since the light had always worked.
After we took the computer home, the hard disk (which had been
removed and reinstalled) no longer screeched. The modem and
keyboard worked just fine, as they had before PC-Expanders.
However, we did up with another NEW problem, however -- our
printer didn't work. It was hooked up to the only serial port on
the computer, but it was now LPT2 instead of LPT1. We were
forced to take the computer to another repairperson, and he found
that they had forgotten to return one of our ports and the ribbon
cable that connected it to the graphics board inside the
computer. It cost us $60 to repair that.
We had received the written statement on August 21. On September
1 we received the refund check for the full amount.
So, our bulletin board was down nearly eight weeks, and we're out
$60, just to get our computer back to nearly the condition it was
in before PC-Expanders got their hands on it (the turbo indicator
light is still broken). We still have not had an accurate diag-
nosis of the subtle problems we had before, and we are now
waiting to see if those problems manifest themselves again.
Conclusion: Although PC-Expanders has been in business for
several years, and has a good reputation among a lot of people,
and although they have some of the best prices around, would you
want to go through this?
VIETNAM VETERANS' VALHALLA, Inc.
143/27 (Opus)
408-293-7894
300/1200/2400 Bauds
by Todd Looney - Sysop
I know a lot of you have called the Vietnam Veterans'
Valhalla in San Jose, and a few of you carry the International
Vietnam Veterans' EchoConference on your own systems. For that,
Nancy and I both want to thank you.
The sysops of this bulletin board are both Vietnam Combat
Veterans; I fought during the war as a Medical Field Surgeon in
the service of my country, and spent more than my fair share of
time in a VC/NVA prison camp across the border in Laos, and Nancy
my wife, who is a veteran of a different sort, having fought HER
war years after I had returned to the United States, battling the
problems I brought back from that little country tucked thousands
of miles away in Southeast Asia.
We have, for the most part, conquered all of the problems of
that traumatic past through years of hard work! But many of the
men and women who returned from that war continue to carry it's
memories and nightmares with them today. For some, every day is
a bitter struggle to survive, trying to find some way to either
escape the horrible memories, or to come to terms with themselves
so they and their families can begin to live a normal life!!
Nancy and I feel it is our responsibility as caring and
empathetic individuals to share as much of ourselves as possible
with those Vietnam Combat Veterans of both kinds; the ex-military
soldier-at-arms, and their wives, friends and lovers. We do this
with the hope that somehow the knowledge and understanding we
gained from the years encompassing our own struggle might be of
some help to those who are still fighting their war!!!
If you haven't called our system in a while you're in for
quite a surprise. We've added a dozen veteran-related message
areas and plan to add a few more as soon as we can make the right
resource contacts.
You might have noticed the "Inc." tacked onto the end of our
name at the header of this article, well that's another thing
that's happened to us. We are in the process of getting a non-
profit organization from the Internal Revenue Service (probably
the only thing they've ever given to ANYbody!), and are working
out the details of an application for funding which we will use
to try to get working capital so that we can get a lot MORE done.
Currently we are helping vets get their discharges upgraded,
get the medals they were awarded but never got, the pensions they
didn't know they had coming, and, well...anything in general that
the veterans who call us for help need. We work very closely
with veterans' crisis centers across the country, and if you
haven't noticed the Fido Newsletter lately, we have finally
syndicated the International Vietnam Veterans' EchoConference
FidoNews 4-36 Page 27 21 Sep 1987
into 50 BBS systems spanning the entire continent. That may not
mean much to the coordinators of the larger national and
international echo's, but it sure means a lot to us! At least
once a month we help a veteran get over a major crisis in his or
her life, and those two words, thank you, make all the bitter
struggles with the Veterans' Administration and all those other
government bureaucrats more than worth it!
Soon we'll be able to afford to purchase equipment we can
use to set Vet Centers up with so their psychologists and
counselors can participate on-line instead of through personal
meetings. Soon we'll be able to have money to provide emergency
financial assistance for needy veterans and their families.
Soon, soon....... I do that a lot, I know. Money doesn't grow on
trees and "Rome wasn't built in a day", and all that. Well,
things are happening...slowly but steadily on.
We have plenty of room for voting members of board at the
Valhalla. All you have to do to be qualified is CARE. It won't
cost you any money (can't promise I won't ask once in a while,
but there's no obligation). You may have to attend a meeting
once in a while, but then that's how you can help us figure out
how to battle the problems we have to deal with. Not all of them
require money, in fact most of the problems require nothing more
than simple brain and will power. And the more brains and wills
we can put together the easier it will be to get done what needs
to be done.
There are several special interest groups you might find
yourselves leaning toward if you decide to join our team;
POW/MIA, Agent Orange, Buddy Search, Employment, Vet Centers, Bui
Doi (Amerasian children), the Small Business Association, Veteran
Resources, Veterans Administration liaison, Veterans Organization
liaison ...... and on and on. As you can see there's a lot to
do!
Well, I guess I've rambled enough. Nancy and I hope to hear
from you all, even if it's just to browse around the Vietnam
Veterans' Valhalla!
See ya there!
Respectfully,
Todd C. Looney
President, Vietnam Veterans' Valhalla, Inc.
Adding Control To Your Batch Files
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Owing to the amount of travelling my job requires, the batch
file that runs my system is fairly involved, and entails several
layers and categories of automated processing to handle things
when the system is unattended (or I am being lazy). Many of
these automated processes are such that I would like to be able
to turn them on and off at will depending on the situation (or my
mood). On the other hand, I don't want to spend half my time
editing the batch file either. The solution I have come up with
is one that works well here, which some of you might also find
interesting or useful. The general approach is a simple on.
First, I have a dedicated directory (for example:
C:\OPUS\AUTOCTL\) which holds various "switches". A switch is
simply a filename of the form:
<switch_name>.<switch_state>
where:
<switch_name> is the name of the process being
controlled
<switch_state> is either "ON" or "OFF"
Usually I have the file contain a brief text which explains what
the switch does in order to refresh my memory at a later time in
case the switch name is not obvious.
In my batch file, each conditional block of lines (that is, a
block of lines which is controlled by a switch file) looks like
this:
if not exist c:\opus\autoctl\<switch_name>.ON goto <label>
.
.
.
:<label>
In this way, a number of the processes which can be routinely
handled in my batch file can be enabled or disabled as the
situation warrants, without touching the batch file itself (by
renaming the <switch_name>.ON file to a <switch_name>.OFF file).
Activities such as automatically updating the nodelist as
nodediffs are received, compiling the weekly newsletter and
FidoNews 4-36 Page 29 21 Sep 1987
shipping it out, updating the BW area megalist and shipping it
out, pruning message areas, renumbering message areas, generating
logfile reports, and so on, are all controlled in this manner via
switches. When I go away out of town, I will typically turn off
those activities which are more likely to encounter problems when
running unattended due to a variety of reasons, and turn on those
activities which I usually like to do manually but which have to
be done automatically if I am not here. In addition, to
facilitate changing switch states I have two batch files
(TURNON.BAT and TURNOFF.BAT) in a pathed directory to allow me to
simply say something like:
TURNON NEWSCAN
These batch files look like this:
TurnOn.Bat
----------
echo off
cd c:\opus\autoctl
c:
if not exist %1.off goto bad1
rename %1.off %1.on >nul
echo %1: Switch enabled
goto end
:bad1
if not exist %1.on goto bad2
echo %1: Switch is already on
goto end
:bad2
echo %1: Switch does not exist!
dir
:end
cd \opus
TurnOff.Bat
-----------
echo off
cd c:\opus\autoctl
c:
if not exist %1.on goto bad1
rename %1.on %1.off >nul
echo %1: Switch disabled
goto end
:bad1
if not exist %1.off goto bad2
echo %1: Switch is already off
goto end
:bad2
echo %1: Switch does not exist!
FidoNews 4-36 Page 30 21 Sep 1987
dir
:end
cd \opus
If I want to know what the current status of the auto switches
is, I need merely do a directory of the auto control subdirectory
and the naming convention makes it immediately clear what's on
and what is not. There probably are more sophisticated ways to
do this type of thing but I have found this method of conditional
control to be quite useful and hope that it might be of benefit
to someone.
Back in the good old days, I was on two really good BBS's.
One is still around, but it is the other that illustrates my
point. That now-gone one was "The Baudville City Limits",
(before the company "Baudville") and was run by a 16-year-old
hacker kid in Silicon Valley on an Apple II+ with two floppy
drives. It was always running out of message space, was slow as
the devil and only had -- yes -- 300 baud.
Why was it my favorite? One reason was because the sysop came
across very mature over modem, particularly compared to some of
the kiddie boards I had frequented at that time. But mainly it
was because it was *BAUDVILLE* -- it was your average film-
western town, set in Modem Territory. The sysop was Mayor Mike.
The main message area was the Gossipers Cafe. There was a saloon
(joke area). E-mail was at "The Post Office." The statistics
function was "The Sheriff's Office," and the Yell function was
the "Mayor's Office." There was a lottery and a general store.
In short, it was FUN to be there -- you were playing "western".
Even if you didn't read Louis L'Amour or watch John Wayne -- as I
never have -- it was still fun to imagine oneself there.
It was the individuality of Baudville that got to me. It was
"Let's Pretend" with modems. I admit it might not seem very
dignified, but in a significant way it was this FUN part of
modeming that got me into it in the first place (at least in a
continuing way). It was enjoyable.
Things changed. Baudville went down a long, long time ago,
and the telephone number has been reassigned. I haven't seen a
BBS like it since.
What happened to that individuality? I don't know. I found
other BBS's -- a politics board called "DataTech 4: Cro's Nest
II" (the one referred to above) and a board run by a Cro's user
called "TECHNet" -- but while DT4 came close, nothing ever had
that feeling of fun, escapism, and individuality.
And now, we have ECHOMAIL, of course. Now I'm absolutely the
last one to complain about echomail. I love it that I can send
messages to Europe and Australia and everywhere in between at
someone else's expense. But ECHOMAIL breeds by its very
definition, sameness. And it is this sameness that makes
modeming less *FUN*.
Modeming turns into a routine, not a hobby. You call, you log
on, you read the new messages, you check for new files, you log
off. It takes no time, and eventually just becomes dull.
This began long before Echomail, of course. The best example
of the whole phenomenon is PC Board BBS software. The sysop
can't change it even if he wants to! Everything looks the same --
FidoNews 4-36 Page 32 21 Sep 1987
the sysop can only be 'SYSOP', all the menus are the same, all
the commands are the same, all the news files are the same, all
the dates are the same, every PC Board in the country has a
"Sysops" conference, and even the conferences look the same as
the main message area, and there can only be 9 of those -- and
sysops are cautioned against more than three! It's just plain
*boring*! If PC Board had ECHOMAIL there'd only be one big PC
Board!
And Fido (v11, anyway) isn't much better. Opus is good, and
TBBS is great if you have the money (which most people don't).
But the bigger problem remains -- getting sysops to be
individual.
A while back, there was a message on one of the echos: "What
should I call my BBS?" I don't have an actual copy of my reply,
but here's the gist of it: be original. Project yourself. Do
you have a hobby (besides computers)? Call it that. Do you have
a particular reason for the board? Call it that. Do you have
something you really care about? Call it that. I've never yet
seen a board named after a person. Call it that. Whatever you
do, don't put in "PC"; don't call it anything ending in "Board"
or "Fido" or "Opus"; don't make the name of the name of any
computer be the focus ("The Atari Palace," maybe, if you have the
'trim' in the board be about palaces and not Ataris; "PC Land,"
no). Be original, and remember your BBS is a projection of you,
and of your users.
And don't, don't stop at the name! Create a world in your BBS!
If your BBS has a western name, do *EVERYTHING* western! If it's
called "The Kingdom of XT", then do everything feudal!
Improvise! Imagine! Create!
But there is the final question: getting it to happen. I
guess I'd rather have a boring sysop than none at all. But I
think many sysops get into the sysoping game for other reasons
than wanting to invent a place of their own -- perhaps they want
easier access for themselves, or they want to be *the boss*, or -
- well who knows. But I hope some of the boring sysops out there
find this note and listen to it, and even if they didn't have the
users really in mind when they started sysoping, they will now.
-------
I have two sets of apologies to make: first, to the BBSs out
there in Matrixland who already are as imaginative and creative
as Baudville and whom I did not recognize; and another to my
local sysops who do the best they can. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
The last thing is that last May I tried to be a sysop for a
short while, and failed; I quit for many reasons, but the last
paragraph is in no small way directed at myself.
=================================================================
FOR SALE
=================================================================
John Hamilton IFNA 143/8
The special ALR 386/2 offer has been extremely successful. The
offer now has the following terms: 1) California residents: one
per sysop, need not be used for the bbs; 2) Non-California:
unlimited quantity, need not be a sysop. Use the product numbers
below to receive the discount. Prices listed are check, or money
order. Inquire for VISA/MC.
Order from : EXECUTIVE COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES
1190 Coleman Avenue
San Jose, CA 95110
Phone: (408) 727-3000 Paul Darbo
Product Cash
Number Description Price
--------- --------------------------------- -----------
FIDO100 Advanced Logic Research 386/2 $1675
Base unit w/ 1Mb 32bit ram
(expandable to 2MB on board)
PHOENIX bios (32 BIT)
16Mhz 80386 (20Mhz optional)
Support for both 80287, 80387
1.2Mb floppy, serial, parallel, clock
101-key 'board
Slots: 2-8 bit, 4-16 bit,2-ALR 32 bit
1 year parts/labor with dealer
FIDO101 ALR 32 bit ram expansion card w/1MB $625
(expandable to 4MB)
FIDO102 1MB ram upgrade (chips) for above $300
FIDO103 WD 1:1 interleave HD controller $225
(this is a super fast controller!)
Additional items may be negotiated with the dealer. Describe on
a seperate page if mailing order in. Terms: Check, money order.
Call for VISA/MC orders. California residents add sales tax.
Add $30 shipping / insurance to total.
7 Dec 1987
Start of the Digital Equipment Users Society meeting in
Anaheim, CA. Contact Mark Buda at 1:132/777 for details.
14 Nov 1987
The First New England Sysop Conference, to be held at the
Lederle Graduate Research Center, 16 Floor University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. Contact Mort Sternheim at 1:321/109
for details.
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
The IFNA publications can be obtained by downloading from Fido
1/10 or other FidoNet compatible systems, or by purchasing them
directly from IFNA. We ask that all our IFNA Committee Chairmen
provide us with the latest versions of each publication, but we
can make no written guarantees.
System Enhancement Associates SEAdog $60.00 _____
ONLY 1 copy SEAdog per IFNA Member.
Fido Software's Fido/FidoNet $65.00 _____
ONLY 1 copy Fido/FidoNet per IFNA Member.
As of November 1, 1987 price will increase to
$100. Orders including checks for $65 will be
returned after October 31, 1987.
SUBTOTAL _____
Missouri Residents add 5.725 % Sales tax _____
International orders include $5.00 for
surface shipping or $15.00 for air shipping _____
TOTAL _____
SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER TO:
IFNA
P.O. Box 41143
St. Louis, Missouri 63141 USA
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
pays an annual specified membership fee. IFNA serves the
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
increase worldwide communications. **
Name _________________________________ Date ________
Address ______________________________
City & State _________________________
Country_______________________________
Phone (Voice) ________________________
Net/Node Number ______________________
Board Name____________________________
Phone (Data) _________________________
Baud Rate Supported___________________
Board Restrictions____________________
Special Interests_____________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
Is there some area where you would be
willing to help out in FidoNet?_______
______________________________________
______________________________________
Send your membership form and a check or money order for $25 to:
International FidoNet Association
P. O. Box 41143
St Louis, Missouri 63141
USA
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
insure the future of FidoNet.
** Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
membership in January 1987. The first elected Board of
Directors was filled in August 1987. The IFNA Echomail
Conference has been established on FidoNet to assist the
Board. We welcome your input on this Conference.
