Volume 4, Number 36 21 September 1987 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings Contributing Editor: Dave Lovell Interview Editor: Al Arango 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 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= 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. -Don Kulha ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-36 Page 3 21 Sep 1987 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Jim Cannell 128/13 FCC NOTICE TO RAISE YOUR RATES *************************************************************** 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-36 Page 16 21 Sep 1987 John Hamilton, 143/8 Fido v12 (tm) Echo Conference 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). [Fido and FidoNet (tm) Tom Jennings] ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-36 Page 17 21 Sep 1987 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-36 Page 19 21 Sep 1987 107/246 Gene Coppola Security Available For Mail Now 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-36 Page 21 21 Sep 1987 Ben Mann / Amnon Nissan OPUS 151/1000 [R]aleigh,NC [E]chomail [D]ata [CON]centrator 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 ????? ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-36 Page 23 21 Sep 1987 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? ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-36 Page 26 21 Sep 1987 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-36 Page 28 21 Sep 1987 ================================================================= COLUMNS ================================================================= Patrick McDonald SEAdog/Opus 1:109/657 Random Mutterings ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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: . where: is the name of the process being controlled 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\.ON goto