NOTE: Due to mailing error, issue 152 got sent to archives before
issue 151. Issue 151 follows 152 in this collection.
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 12 23:02:02 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA26014; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 23:02:02 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 23:02:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706130302.XAA26014@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #152
TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Jun 97 23:02:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 152
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Dates Set in 816/660 Split (John Cropper)
Small CLEC/ISP Legal Group (Marty Tennant)
Costa Rica Info Required (Raymond Mereniuk)
55 Octet Stress Test Pattern (Andrew Morley)
Extending 900 mhz Portable Range (Bob Williams)
Modem Connection for Motorola TeleTAC 250 (Bob Williams)
Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node (Netnut)
Re: ESS Computer Architecture? (Dee Wadhwani)
Re: Digital Pads (Jason Lindquist)
Re: Digital Pads (Steve Bunning)
Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (via the Editor)
Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Payton Chung)
Re: Of Course, If You Buy the Non-AOL Users Mailing List (shane@ibm.net)
Re: Domain Name Sold For $150,000 (Bob Keller)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Cropper <jcropper@lincs.net>
Subject: Dates Set in 816/660 Split
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 13:35:52 -0400
Organization: Transport Logic Internet Services
COMMISSION APPROVES TECHNICAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON PERMISSIVE
DIALING PERIOD FOR NEW AREA CODE
Jefferson City (June 4, 1997)---The permissive dialing period for the
new 660 area code in western Missouri will begin on October 12, 1997,
under a decision reached today by the Missouri Public Service
Commission. The Commission accepted a technical committee's
recommendation regarding the permissive dialing period as well as when
mandatory dialing would begin for the new area code. Under this
decision, mandatory dialing will begin on April 19, 1998.
During the permissive dialing period, a customer can begin using the
new area code. In addition, calls placed to the new area code using
the old 816 area code would still be completed during the permissive
dialing period. When mandatory dialing begins, the caller must use
the new area code for that call to be completed.
BACKGROUND: On April 9, 1997, the Missouri Public Service Commission
determined a geographic split would be used to alleviate the
exhaustion of available telephone numbers in the 816 area code. The
Commission determined theKansas City metropolitan area, Kansas City
Metropolitan Calling Area (MCA) exchanges, as well as the St. Joseph
exchange and those exchanges which have Extended Area Service (EAS) to
the St. Joseph exchange will retain the 816 area code.
Exchanges currently in the 816 area code but outside the area named
above (such as Warrensburg, Kirksville, Marshall, Maryville,
Boonville, Trenton, Moberly and Sedalia) will receive the new 660 area
code number.
According to the technical committee, affected local exchange
telephone companies will be providing customers with public
notification and educational materials regarding the introduction of
the new area code in western Missouri.
John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.76.LINCS
LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS
P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net
Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 http://www.lincs.net/
The latest compiled area code information is available from us!
NPAs, NXXs, Dates, all at http://www.lincs.net/areacode/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:57:31 -0700
From: marty tennant <marty@sccoast.net>
Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net
Organization: low tech designs, inc.(tm)
Subject: Small CLEC/ISP Legal Group
As a small entity well aware of the legal roadblocks to entry still
entrenched in our telecommunications law, I am interested in
communicating with other small entities that have experienced trouble
in the following areas:
1. Intentional blockage of negotiations with Incumbent
LECs under Section 251 and 252 of the
Telecommunications Act.
2. Difficulties in obtaining arbitration or other
proceedings before State Public Service Commissions.
3. Legal problems related to the need to represent
onself without benefit of legal counsel (pro se).
I anticipate that small new entrants under the 1996 Act and Internet
Service Providers trying to obtain unbundled network elements for use
with XDSL technologies may find themselves experiencing the problems
outlined above.
I am willing to share my experiences and provide consultation on
methods of avoiding problems in this area. I have also accumulated a
good amount of legal documents that could assist others in
representing themselves before various legal bodies.
At the same time, I am seeking attorneys that have successfully
prosecuted incumbent LECs failing to negotiate in good faith under the
terms of the 1996 Act. For some reason, I doubt anyone has done this
yet.
Please contact me via the or personally if you are interested in
cooperating in this manner.
marty tennant, president, low tech designs, inc.(tm), "Bringing
Technology Down to Earth"(sm),
1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 voice,
(803) 527-7783 fax
------------------------------
From: Raymond Mereniuk <raymond@wcs.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 11:49:50 +0000
Subject: Costa Rica Info Required
By September we must have an Internet POP3 running in Costa Rica. We
have been attempting to determine the name of the Telco in Costa Rica
and have come up with no solid information, or at least not in
English. We would also be interested in the name of a good ISP in
Costa Rica. Can anyone help us on this one?
Raymond@wcs.net
------------------------------
From: Andrew Morley <andym@trend.demon.co.uk>
Subject: 55 Octet Stress Test Pattern
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 15:52:05 GMT
Organization: Trend Communications Ltd.
Reply-To: andym@trendcomms.com
Ages ago (more than one year!) I wrote:
> Does anyone know where the 55 Octet BERT pattern is defined.
> Presumably it is in some ANSI or (possibly?) Bellcore document, but
> which? I'm sure I can remember reading such a doument but I can't
> remember what it was called. Can anyone help?
Well, I had one correspondent who sent me the pattern, which is what I
wanted. So I was happy. But now I need to know the reference. Does
anyone know where the pattern is actually defined? Is it an ANSI,
Bellcore or ITU document?
Thanks in advance,
Andrew
ps A copy of your response by email would be helpful just in case I
miss it on this incredibly busy newsgroup/digest!
Andrew Morley, Design & Development, Trend Communications Ltd, High Wycombe
email: andrew.morley@trendcomms.com Phone +44 1628-524977 Bucks, UK.
------------------------------
From: Bob Williams <bob@infinet.com>
Subject: Extending 900 mhz Portable Range
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:58:58 -0400
Organization: RLW Consulting
Reply-To: bob@infinet.com
I have six acres (a friend calls it a "runway"), 1300'x200'. My house
is in the middle, and I'd like to be able to use a portable 900 mhz
phone anywhere on the lot. The ones I've tried so far only go about
300' in either direction. I took a look at the antenna on the base
unit, and it's about 5-1/2" long. As a former amateur radio operator,
I figured that at 902.3 to 927.75 MHz (centering on 915 MHz), a full
wave antenna would be about 32.8 cm, half-wave - 16.4 cm or 6.5". If
I could put the antenna in the attic, I'd have line-of-sight to it
from just about anywhere on the lot. The questions are:
Has anyone tried this?
Is it legal/illegal?
What sort of baluns would I need to impedance match the antenna
to the coax/base station?
Is it worth trying?
Bob Williams - RLW Consulting - <bob@infinet.com>
------------------------------
From: Bob Williams <bob@infinet.com>
Subject: Modem Connection For Motorola Tel-Tac 250
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 11:59:00 GMT
Anyone out there using a Motorola TeleTAC 250 *AND* a standard modem
(with an RJ11 plug)? What sort of interface cable do I need to use
the modem with the cellphone (my modem supposedly supports MNP10)?
Any help on this is appreciated. Please reply via email to save on
bandwidth.
Bob Williams - RLW Consulting - bob@infinet.com
Nuthin's certain, that's for sure!
------------------------------
From: netnut@freeandsingle.com (Netnut)
Subject: Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 23:55:14 GMT
Organization: CampusMCI
Reply-To: netnut@freeandsingle.com
mmccune@loxinfo.co.th (Mike McCune) wrote:
> I live in Thailand. Every single day for at least the last week,
> during the heart of the business day in Thailand, one of the MCI
> routers fails and locks me and all of Asia out of a portion of the
> Internet. It happens at night in the USA, when "no one will notice
> the failure".
Right.
Having used internetMCI for the last couple of years I can say we have
never had any major performance problems. Your note is a little
vague. Are you having this problem reaching one particular host or is
this getting anywhere on the Internet? Based on what you provided
above it looks like you are trying to reach a certain site and having
problems. Just out of curiousity have you contacted that site to see
if maybe there are having server problems?
------------------------------
From: pros@cybersoftsystems.com (Dee Wadhwani)
Subject: Re: ESS Computer Architecture?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 20:19:27 GMT
Organization: PROS & Cybersoft Systems
Reply-To: pros@cybersoftsystems.com
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) wrote:
> 1) What does the basic instruction set of an ESS look like? (This
> would be equivalent to the Assembler language for the machine -- the
> most basic programmable instructions.) I would assume they have the
> usual LOAD, STORE, ADD computer instructions, but do they have
> specialized instructions for call handling? That is, somehow the
> switch has to be programmed to send out ringing current to the called
> party, and a ringing signal to the calling party. Is this instruction
> set unique to an ESS, or is it similar to other computers?
> 2) When they program an ESS, do they use the basic assembler language,
> or do they have higher level languages to make it easier? If so, what
> are the higher level languages like?
It is based on UNIX RTR and is low level. It is proprietary and
information can be obtained from www.lucent.com. If you want more info
just email me.
Dee Wadhwani
Chief Technology Officer BSEE CNE
Cybersoft
www.cybersoftsystems.com " Hi you all"
Nashville info : www.nashvillenet.com
------------------------------
From: jlindqui@uiuc.edu (Jason Lindquist)
Subject: Re: Digital Pads
Date: 10 Jun 1997 15:07:57 GMT
Organization: Big Ass Hams, Inc.
An infinite number of monkeys masquerading as Robert Holloman,
Jr. <holloman@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Someone mentioned to me a while back that a 3dB pad, which cuts the
> signal level in half, is usually done by shifting the bits in the PCM
> codes by one position, losing the LSB. I would guess (big guess!) x2
> tests for pads during startup by sending as series of 11111111's and
> checking what comes out the other end. (Since the other end is
> analog, it can't be 100% sure of exactly what comes out.)
If the other end is analog, there's your problem. x2 requires
a digital line at the provider's end of the connection. Otherwise
you're limited to 33.6k
JL
=================================NOTE========================================
Senders of unsolicited commercial/propaganda e-mail subject to fees.
Details at http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/jlindqui
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:49:42 -0400
From: Steve Bunning <acecomm.com!sbunning@acec.com>
Subject: Re: Digital Pads
> I'm hoping someone might be able to explain in more detail how pads work
> and maybe speculate on how 56K modems might deal with them.
All phone companies have "Loss Plans" that specify if and how much
loss to add to phone connection. Why add loss to phone call? As the
distance/delay on a call increases, the effect of echo becomes more
noticeable and the opportunity for a sustained oscillation increases
("singing" in telco speak). Lowering the signal level of a call
reduces the echo and the problem. The device used to attenuate the
signal level is a pad. Pads can be digital or analog.
Digital pads are similar to analog pads except they modify bits
instead of the electrical signal level. A digitally encoded voice
signal can take on one of 256 possible values (standard mu law coding
used for calls in the U.S.). Pads perform a table lookup and replace
the actual value with a calculated one to provide the selected level
of attenuation. Digital pads can add quantization noise as the
calculated value might not exactly match one of the 256 choices.
I'm not sure what the 56K modems can do other than plan for the pads.
I suspect an ISP could get a 0 dB connection (no padding) to their
modems, but if the calling party is served from a different switch,
then there could still be a pad from the calling party side of the
connection.
* Steve Bunning | ACE*COMM | 301 721-3023 (voice) *
* Product Manager | 704 Quince Orchard Road | 301 721-3001 (fax) *
* TEL*COMM Division| Gaithersburg, MD USA 20878 | sbunning@acecomm.com *
* NASDAQ:ACEC | "CDRs in Real-Time" | WWW= www.acecomm.com *
------------------------------
From: via the Editor <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Date: 10 Jun 97 13:10:00 EDT
Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers?
Hi Pat,
Glad to see you are back. Could you please post this ... but
leave my name address out, or just summarize this message. My company
has a news feed for comp.dcom.telecom, but doesn't allow postings to
get back out. Also, like a lot of companies that frown on seeing the
name of the company in the address, even if I do put a disclaimer in
the post.
> First, drop out the emotional response - "ugly". it's a large tower.
> They all pretty much look the same. Most people quit noticing 'em
> about six months after construction is finished.
Some people do care about the towers all the time. Try flying a
plane. More and more towers going up are getting in the way, or
changing approaches into airports. It's getting to be a real mess in
the air.
The people it hurts the most are the private pilots that don't fly a a
big plane, but have to contend with more and more towers sticking up
from the ground.
John
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Normally I prefer *NOT* to run
anonymous messages. I made this one exception. PAT]
------------------------------
From: pchung@unity.ncsu.edu (Payton Chung)
Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers?
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 05:08:42 GMT
Organization: The Happy Zoo
craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride) wrote:
> There are several solutions to this. In Queensland, we have some
> towers being built to look like palm trees...
> Also, there are many tall structures already in which they can be
> hidden...
The local PCS1900 service (BellSouth) rolled out their service last
year, several years after the AMPS (Cellular One, 360) services
started. BellSouth has certainly been forced to be more creative with
its antennae, placing them on water towers, in church towers, on
electrical poles, and, yes, in faux pine trees. The fake pines don't
really look like pines (a bit on the tall side; the foliage isn't full
enough), but they don't stick out as much. My understanding is that
the antennae are stuck on the "trunk", hidden by the "needles." Cell
towers in general have become so ubiquitous that many people don't
really notice them anymore.
(Payton Chung opines himself * http://develop.mainquad.com/web/paytonc)
| "The solution to our transportation problem isn't just concrete." |
| - Senator John Chafee, R-R.I., on proposed transport legislation |
| America deserves transportation choices! http://www.istea.org |
------------------------------
From: shane@ibm.net
Subject: Re: Of Course, If You Buy the Non-AOL Users Mailing List
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:18:48 GMT
One method to combat spam that IBM Internet has just implemented is to
restrict usage of all outgoing SMTP gateways to their dialup network.
As a result, you can't use the incoming gateways to send to anyone but
IBMNET users, and you can't even do a successful "MAIL FROM:" on the
outgoing gateways unless you're on IBMNET's dialup network.
One more thing that IBMNET didn't do, but other large providers do, is
to look up the return address of each email message to ensure that
they exist in DNS. It's not as hard or as big a job as it sounds,
actually.
These are only two of the very simplest things that sysadmins can do, and
the latter is very doable with Sendmail 8.
It seems to me if people did these simple things, much of the spam
that uses unauthorized SMTP gateways and invalid return addresses
could be restricted to valid user accounts on the dialup network
(easily found) and to the folks who didn't bother implementing these
features (small ISP's that get pounded by spammers who find them as a
last resort). People whose valid hostnames are used as return
addresses have an easy way to prosecute -- all SPAM has contact
information on it, you know.
I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but Earthlink has been
fighting spammers, but a very high percentage of spam that I receive
is actually sent through Earthlink's SMTP gateways. It's too easy to
restrict this kind of activity that I wonder if Earthlink is really
that serious about combatting this serious problem!!!
Of course, this leaves AGIS and Cyberpromo, which you just filter out
at the incoming gateway (preferrably wrapping out their outgoing
machines) or, as a last resort, the email server or even the user's
email program.
An ISP is a private entity and, by that rule, may deny access to
whomever it wants, just like you have the right to prosecute
trespassers who try to get into your property.
(If you send me mail, make sure "Re:" appears in the "Subject" line.
Otherwise, your mail will be deleted before I read it.)
shane@ibm.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:30:48 -0400
From: Bob Keller <rjk@telcomlaw.com>
Subject: Re: Domain Name Sold For $150,000
gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) wrote, in TELECOM Digest Volume 17,
Issue 149:
> The story notes that many domain name sale prices are secret because
> the transactions end up in disputes and are settled,
Which is why some domain names have also be "sold" for a negative
dollar figure, i.e., the transferor pays money to the transferee, in
addition to transferring the name, in settlement of a claim of
infringing the transferee's trademark by use of the domain name.
Bob Keller (KY3R) <rjk@telcomlaw.com> www.his.com/~rjk
4200 WISCONSIN AVE NW #106-233 WASHINGTON DC 20016-2143
Telephone 888/301.320.5355 Facsimile 888/301.229.6875
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #152
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 12 23:21:09 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id WAA22212; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:06:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 22:06:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706130206.WAA22212@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #151
TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Jun 97 22:06:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 151
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: "New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages" (Rob Slade)
Re: Why I Like Murkowski Not Smith (John R. Levine)
Re: Why I Like Murkowski Not Smith (Fred Farzanegan)
Re: Toll-Free ANI Readback Number (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo)
Re: Toll-Free ANI Readback Number (Sky Walker)
Re: Digital Pads (Steve Hayes)
Re: Digital Pads (Chris Wright)
Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node (DBriggs)
Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node (Someone)
Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node (John Milburn)
Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Roy Smith)
Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Clifford Donley)
Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers? (Colin Seymour)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:20:00 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages"
BKNRW3YP.RVW 970301
"New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages", Andrew Busey/Larry
Colker/Hank Weghorst, 1995, 1-56205-449-X, U$29.99/C$39.99/UK#27.99
%A Andrew Busey
%A Larry Colker
%A Hank Weghorst
%C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290
%D 1995
%G 1-56205-449-X
%I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP)
%O U$29.99/C$39.99/UK#27.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com
%P 672
%T "New Riders' Official World Wide Web Yellow Pages"
Out of the millions of Web sites out there, this lists four thousand.
(The majority of them are at universities, and simply listed.) Some
are useful, some are important, some are the home pages of small
companies.
Intriguingly, I couldn't find any search engines listed.
Entries are divided into a couple of dozen categories (art, business,
cities, etc.), but not further subdivided.
A few introductory pages provide next to no help on using the Web.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNRW3YP.RVW 970301
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jun 1997 19:40:25 -0000
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: Why I Like Murkowski Not Smith
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
> If you pass a law that makes spamming illegal in the US (like junk fax)
> then I doubt very much that will offer any protection to spam recipients
> in the rest of the world. To whom could I complain when I open my mailbox
> one day and find it stuffed with UCE?
> Conversely however, if you force spammers to identify spam with a tag it
> would make it that much easier for me to filter it out.
If the Smith bill isn't enforcable against people sending spam from
the US to the UK, then a labelling rule certainly wouldn't be
enforcable either.
The goal of the Smith bill is to make spam risky and expensive enough
that the low-lifes who have been engaging in it will give up and do
something else. It's true, a truly dedicated spammer might try to
send spam only to non-US addresses, but as we all know you cannot tell
from an address where the recipient physically is. If either bill
passes, a lot of us will see about getting forwarding addresses in as
many domains as possible so we can collect our $500 from spammers who
guess wrong.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
------------------------------
From: Fred Farzanegan <fredf@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: Why I Like Murkowski Not Smith
Date: 12 Jun 1997 19:55:57 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
In article <telecom17.150.1@telecom-digest.org>,
Joe.J.Harrison@bra0130.wins.icl.co.uk (Joe Harrison) writes:
> Here in Bracknell, UK, I get the same junk e-mail from savetrees.com (and
> others) that you do. Over ninety percent of my junk e-mail originates in
> the United States. I guess it's the same in other countries.
> If you pass a law that makes spamming illegal in the US (like junk fax)
> then I doubt very much that will offer any protection to spam recipients
> in the rest of the world. To whom could I complain when I open my mailbox
> one day and find it stuffed with UCE?
> Conversely however, if you force spammers to identify spam with a tag it
> would make it that much easier for me to filter it out.
I assume you wrote your article in jest, because, as your note, this is
U.S. law. I doubt that the highly-ethical folks at savetrees and
cyberpromo would blink and continue to send the same old spam to .uk
and other foreign addresses.
The intent of the _Smith_ bill is to PUNISH those who perform computer
trespass by substantial fines. The threat of monetary fines for each
piece of junkmail will do much more than the pleasantry of attaching
an 'advertising' tag to each piece of rubbish they send out. I imagine
the Smith bill will put the majority of UCE spammers out of business,
while the Murkowski bill merely legitimizes it. And finally, since
you were obviously joking in your original post, you should put a
smiley after your message.
Regards,
Frederick Farzanegan
(who reads email in the U.S. with a .ca domain- what about me!)
------------------------------
From: bjote@cs.tu-berlin.de (Tor-Einar Jarnbjo)
Subject: Re: Toll-Free ANI Readback Number
Date: 11 Jun 1997 20:31:01 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Gordon S. Hlavenka (gordon@crashelex.com) wrote:
> I received an email today from someone selling "Breakthrough" products.
> While I didn't order anything from them today, I did discover that they
> offer a free ANI readback service -- how very kind of them.
> When you dial (888) 212-8846 you will hear a message telling you that
> you have reached a "bulletproof" order line which will only accept two
> calls from your number. Then they read back your number.
I just tried to call this number from Germany today to see what the
ANI-system does to calls from outside the US, and the number which was
read back to me was (203) 782-9327 which apparently is not in use. Is
it common practice to send 'non-used' numbers as ANI if the real
number is unknown, or is this number just an outgoing number of some
phone-company which took care of my call?
Tor-Einar Jarnbjo, bjote@cs.tu-berlin.de
Fetschowzeile 11
13437 Berlin, Germany
------------------------------
From: Luke@Taiwan.Net (Sky Walker)
Subject: Re: Toll-Free ANI Readback Number
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:22:24 GMT
Organization: KAIWAN Internet
Reply-To: Luke@Taiwan.Net
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 09:42:21 -0500, Gordon S. Hlavenka
<gordon@crashelex.com> wrote:
---nip nip---
Same as this SPAM number 888-590-5070.
> When you dial (888) 212-8846 you will hear a message telling you that
> you have reached a "bulletproof" order line which will only accept two
> calls from your number. Then they read back your number.
View my full color picture on Los Angeles Times at http://www.taiwan.net
Finger Luke@Taiwan.Net to get my PGP public key.
E-Mail me at Luke@Taiwan.Net
Call me at (714) 260-8888 9:00 - 17:30 M-F PSDT time.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:52:18 -0400
From: Steve Hayes <SteveHayes@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Digital Pads
> Anyone know much about digital pads?
Many years ago now I worked for a while on a PBX that had digital pads
in it. Here's a low-level description of what goes on:
As you probably already know, in digital telephone systems the analog
voi ce signal is filtered and then sampled 8000 times per second. Each
voltage sample is converted to a digital code consisting of a sign bit
and seven magnitude bits. One of two different nonlinear coding
schemes is used to determine the magnitude bits. In North America, the
"Mu 255 law" scheme is used while the "A law" scheme is used in
Europe. Nonlinear coding is used so that very small signals can be
coded accurately; this is at the expense of less accurate coding of
high level signals. In other words, the voltage difference between
magnitude codes 1 and 2 is much less than that between 126 and 127.
Many telephone systems (including that PBX) have facilities to vary
the analog gain of connections depending on whether they are local or
long distance. This helps to compensate for losses in analog trunks as
well as reducing the level of echo on long distance connections. These
adjustment s could be made by switching resistors in and out of the
analog portion of the connection but it is easier and more flexible to
use digital pads ("pad" is another term for attenuator).
In the PBX I worked on, the pad was in the form of a ROM containing
several (I think 4) lookup tables. The seven magnitude bits were
applied to the R OM address lines along with two additional bits to
select the gain. The data output was the new 7 magnitude bits after
the gain adjustment was made. T he same ROM was time shared to provide
gain adjustment on a large number of connections at the same time.
The key point is that the detailed rule applied to give the
attenuation i s a function of the lookup tables programmed into the
ROM. These tables are calculated by taking each of the 128 possible
magnitudes in turn, converting it to a voltage level according to the
Mu 255 or A law, multiplying that by the required gain (e.g. 0.708 for
-3 dB, 0.501 for -6 dB) and converting the new level back to the
closest code in the corresponding Mu 255 or A law scheme. This data
could be calculated using a simple program written in BASIC or
something like that. The same method can be used to make tables to
convert between Mu 255 and A laws. This all works fine when it comes
to voice calls, though there is a slight worsening of noise due to the
additional roundoff errors (roughly equivalent to an additional stage
of A/D and D/A conversion).
However, when it comes to X2 modems, the situation must be
chaotic. There is no guarantee that the lookup tables in every digital
pad are going to be identical. Small differences in the programs used
to generate them (e.g. in rounding off) or in the selection of gains
provided (e.g. -2 dB vs. -3 dB vs. whatever) could cause differences
in the tables which won't affect voice but will complicate X2
coding. Additionally, there may be cases where two input magnitude
codes are translated to the same output code by the pad (so they
cannot both be used in the X2 coding scheme). Then there might be more
than one pad in the connection ... I'm glad I'm not involved in
trying to get X2 modems to work!
Other switches may implement the digital pads in software rather than
in ROMs but I'll bet they either use some sort of lookup tables or
possibly implement the same function on the fly using a DSP.
Steve Hayes
Swansea, UK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 10:23:25 +0100
From: Chris Wright <ki11@cityscape.co.uk>
Reply-To: ki11@cityscape.co.uk
Subject: Re: Digital Pads
Organization: Rolt Manufacturing Ltd
In article <telecom17.149.6@telecom-digest.org>, Robert Holloman
<?.?@mindspring.com> writes
> Someone mentioned to me a while back that a 3dB pad, which cuts the
> signal level in half, is usually done by shifting the bits in the PCM
> codes by one position, losing the LSB.
Something wrong here. Digitisation is done according to a non-linear
law (mu-Law/A-Law in North America/rest of world - I'm not sure
offhand which is which).
This uses small steps around the no-signal level, getting larger
further away. This is supposed to give good resolution on quiet
signals, whilst still allowing loud signals, and still keep only 8
bits, or whatever.
If you do a binary divide by two, then you'll not produce a 3dB
reduction, the actual reduction will depend on what level the original
signal was.
Chris Wright
Rolt Manufacturing Ltd
ki11@cityscape.co.uk
------------------------------
From: dbriggs@banet.com (DBriggs)
Subject: Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 15:33:12 GMT
Organization: CampusMCI
mmccune@loxinfo.co.th (Mike McCune) wrote:
> I live in Thailand. Every single day for at least the last week,
> during the heart of the business day in Thailand, one of the MCI
> routers fails and locks me and all of Asia out of a portion of the
> Internet. It happens at night in the USA, when "no one will notice
> the failure". Right.
> Here is the traceroute report showing the problem:
> loxinfo >date
> Sat Jun 7 08:56:20 GMT+7 1997
> loxinfo >traceroute infothai.com
> traceroute to infothai.com (192.41.24.88), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 lt-chmai1 (203.146.0.66) 2.106 ms 2.613 ms 2.704 ms
> 2 bkk-chmai.tnet.co.th (203.146.1.205) 505.108 ms 555.772 ms 625.776
> ms
> 3 lir8 (208.147.1.200) 570.340 ms 504.664 ms 530.860 ms
> 4 mix-serial4-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.189.216.177) 786.701 ms
> 794.987 ms 863.576 ms
> 5 core1-fddi-0.SanFrancisco.mci.net (204.70.2.161) 773.824 ms
> 776.394 ms 770.023 ms
> 6 bordercore1-loopback.Denver.mci.net (166.48.92.1) 791.230 ms *
> 851.570 ms
> 7 * * *
> 8 * * *
> 9 * * *
> 10 * * *
> The seventh hop is hard failure.
Here is the rest of your path:
7 166.48.93.254 electric-light.Denver.mci.net 274
8 207.0.56.17 F0-0.slkcib02.eli.net 274
9 204.212.249.1 slc-0-f0-0.elix.net 274
10 192.41.24.88 ** infothai.com ** 329
It jumps off the MCI Pop in Denver to a firm called Electric Ligtwave,
who is using *Sprint*, not MCI for their Internet service. This was
determined when doing a trace route to the 204.212.249.1 (elix.net
address noted above:
3 204.70.193.93 border6-serial3-6.Houston.mci.net 165
4 204.70.191.65 core2-fddi-1.Houston.mci.net 219
5 204.70.1.170 core3-hssi-5.Memphis.mci.net 220
6 204.70.4.21 core3.Bloomington.mci.net 275
7 206.157.77.42 somerouter.sprintlink.net 274
8 144.228.41.2 sl-stk-1-P2/0/0-155M.sprintlink.net 439
9 144.228.10.90 sl-che-1-H2/0-T3.sprintlink.net 330
10 144.224.10.6 sl-che-6-F0/0.sprintlink.net 275
11 144.224.16.6 sl-eli-2-H0-T3.sprintlink.net 275
12 207.0.56.17 F0-0.slkcib02.eli.net 164
13 204.212.249.1 ** 204.212.249.1 ** 274
So the problem you may be encountering may actually be with *Sprint*
and not MCI.
------------------------------
From: someone@somewhere.com (Someone)
Subject: Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 03:23:00 GMT
Organization: CampusMCI
Reply-To: someone@somewhere.com
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:43:23 GMT, mmccune@loxinfo.co.th (Mike McCune)
wrote:
> Here is the traceroute report showing the problem:
I noticed the site you are trying to end up on is: infothai.com That
site is using a firm called Digital Daze (digitaldaze.com) for
Internet access. Do you happen to know who the ISP for Digital Daze
is? It could be a problem there and not necessarily with MCI.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 19:03:31 +0900
From: John Milburn <jem@xpat.com>
Subject: Re: Repeated Failure in MCI Backbone Node
> I live in Thailand. Every single day for at least the last week,
> during the heart of the business day in Thailand, one of the MCI
> routers fails and locks me and all of Asia out of a portion of the
> Internet. It happens at night in the USA, when "no one will notice
> the failure". Right.
This type of problem is not in any way affecting "all of Asia". My
primary US connection (I'm in Korea) is via MCI, and I've seen nothing
like this type of behaviour. I know that it has not been happening to
the Japanese and Australian connections, also. As much as I detest
some of the business practices of MCI and InternetMCI, I cannot fault
the quality of their international Internet service.
> Here is the traceroute report showing the problem:
[traceroute deleted]
> The seventh hop is hard failure. Every day abround 8-9 AM local time
> this failure occurs. MCI has known about it. The best they could do
> was promise to fix it next Monday (I heard through the grapevine,
> anyway).
You don't mention how widespread the loss of connectivity is, from your
perspective. Is it just a few sites, or many sites? Are they all from
a single (non-MCI) provider? If just a few, it could be something as
simple as route flapping.
> When I wrote MCI on their Web site, their reply said they would
> address in the problem in 4-7 working days. That is pathetic response
> for an Internet backbone company.
And it is not the way MCI typically responds, *to its customers*. I'm
guessing from what you have written, and from the traceroute, that you
are not the technical contact for the company which actually buys the
service from MCI. If you were, you would know the 24 hour contact
information for MCI's NOC, and how to get such problems resolved, by
phone, fax, or email.
If I've misunderstood, and you are indeed the technical contact, my
apologies, and sympathies.
In any case, an Asian carrier which has only one link or AS path to/from
the US, as is the case for this particular provider in Thailand, is
asking for this type of trouble. If MCI is a fault, there is probably
some clause for financial relief in the link contract.
> One who is tired of poor performance ...
Always understandable, that.
John Milburn
Seoul, Korea
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:44:29 -0400
From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers?
Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing
wenewkir@collins.rockwell.com wrote:
> there also are problems of who's responsible for what if two competing
> companies share the same structure.
Telcos and power utilities (and, more recently, cable companies) have
been sharing street poles for decades, and they seem to work it out
just fine. OK, maybe they aren't competing companies, but competing
TV and radio stations also seem to manage to work out having antennas
colocated on the same tower.
Roy Smith <roy@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An interesting thing about having
several broadcast antennas on the roof of the same building (for
example the Hancock Building in Chicago or Sears Tower) is that when
any one of them has to do antenna maintainence, all of them need to
sign off the air. Not often, but now and again during the late night/
early morning hours I will hear an announcement on some Chicago area
FM station that they are going to be off the air for a period of
several minutes through a few hours for maintainence work. Invariably
everyone else with an antenna in the same location goes off also.
I wonder how that would apply if two or more cellular carriers were
located on the same tower and either of them had some major repair to
accomplish? PAT]
------------------------------
From: Clifford Donley <REMOVETHESEcdonley@southeast.net>
Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:00:57 -0400
Organization: DexPsi
Bill Newkirk wrote:
> John R. Levine wrote:
>> sit on a large ugly tower on top of a hill, and siting them is very
> First, drop out the emotional response - "ugly". it's a large tower.
> They all pretty much look the same. Most people quit noticing 'em
> about six months after construction is finished.
>> large cell tower in a farmer's field. A lot of us don't see any
>> reason they can't colocate with Cell One's tower across the lake.)
I would go along with ugly if the ones he is seeing are similar to the
ones that are being built along I-75 between Tampa and Ft Myers. In
fact, I would call some of these particular ones, super ugly. And, in
my eyes, the ones that really looked gross a year ago haven't become
less gross through the passage of time.
Cliff
Please remove the spam-reducing-caps from my address:
REMOVETHESEcdonley@southeast.net
^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: netking@dircon.co.uk (Colin Seymour)
Subject: Re: Where to Put 100,000 Cell Phone Towers?
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 21:47:29 GMT
In article <telecom17.149.3@telecom-digest.org>, Curtis Wheeler
<cwheeler@ccnet.com> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote:
>> In article <telecom17.138.4@telecom-digest.org>, The Old Bear
>> <oldbear@arctos.com> wrote:
>>> More than 300 communities already have revolted, imposing moratoria
>>> on cell tower construction, and the movement is growing.
One of the UK service providers recently put up a cellular network
tower disguised as a tree -- with fake plastic branches and leaves
around the antennas.
The Japanese used to disguise satellite dishes as chimneys.
Colin Seymour
1Mb/s 2.45 GHz spread spectrum radio modems & digital video:
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~netking/spread.htm
The Tram Pages:
http://www.he.net/~netking/trams.html
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #151
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Jun 14 00:00:03 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id AAA16357; Sat, 14 Jun 1997 00:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 00:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706140400.AAA16357@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #153
TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Jun 97 00:00:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 153
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: ESS Computer Architecture? (Al Varney)
Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage (H. Schulzrinne)
New Security Bug in All Netscape Browsers (Eric Florack)
There's no General Right to Privacy - Get Over It, (Netly via M. Solomon)
Another Spammer With an 800 Number (Thomas A. Horsley)
800 Spammers (Steven Lichter)
Re: Spam Class Action Lawsuit (Lisa Hancock)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: ESS Computer Architecture?
Date: 13 Jun 1997 19:39:27 GMT
Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL
Reply-To: varney@lucent.com
In article <telecom17.146.3@telecom-digest.org>,
Lisa Hancock <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> I'm a business application computer programmer (COBOL, BASIC, etc.)
> and I always wondered what it was like to program Electronic Switching
> Systems. I've seen articles describing the logical organization of
> different ESS components, but nothing describing the programming
> language itself that they use. Could anyone answer the following
> questions?
For some older ESS systems, look at:
Bell System Technical Journal (BSTJ), July-Aug 1965, Vol. XLIV, No. 6,
"A Survey of Bell System Progress in Electronic Switching",
by W. H. C. Higgins - shows some sample No. 1 ESS instructions/coding.
BSTJ, Oct. 1969, entire issue, "No. 2 ESS", describes the assembler,
loader, simulator and debugging tools, as well as some examples of
the instruction set.
BSTJ, Feb. 1977, entire issue "The 1A Processor", describes the processor
used in both 1A ESS and 4ESS switches (now running the 1B processor,
but with similar instruction set), although only two examples of the
actual instruction set are presented.
only brief
Newer systems (5ESS-2000 switch) are programmed (mostly) in C and C++.
> 1) What does the basic instruction set of an ESS look like? (This
> would be equivalent to the Assembler language for the machine -- the
> most basic programmable instructions.) I would assume they have the
> usual LOAD, STORE, ADD computer instructions, but do they have
> specialized instructions for call handling? That is, somehow the
> switch has to be programmed to send out ringing current to the called
> party, and a ringing signal to the calling party. Is this instruction
> set unique to an ESS, or is it similar to other computers?
For No. 1 ESS, 1A ESS, No. 2 ESS, No. 3 ESS and 4ESS switches, the
instruction set is unique to the switching application. However, the
instructions are NOT call-related ("turn on ringing"), since the CPU
is just controlling a lot of interconnected peripheral equipment.
Instead, the instructions tend to to optimized to "bit manipulation"
and decision making -- which is mostly what call processing really is.
The manipulation of hardware (relays, network connections, looking for
off-hook) occurs through "peripheral orders", which send commands on
and read external busses. Except for reliability and bus width, you
could control any ESS with a sufficiently fast commercial CPU.
As an example of the "decision-optimized" instruction, both #1 and
1A ESS have an instruction used in scanning loops that will initiate a
new scan, compare the results of the previous scan to the last scan of
the same equipment and set hardware conditions based on that
comparison. When combined with a few test-and-transfer and counting
instructions, this allows scanning to run basically at the rate
supported by the external scanners. (Scanning is basically reading 16
bits representing the state of 16 current sensors specified by the
scan instruction. Each bit typically represents the on-hook/off-hook
state of a customer line, a trunk, a digit receiver, etc.)
Another example is the "Find Right-Most One" instruction in #1 and
1A ESS. This instruction (TZRFZ in #1 ESS, F:T in 1A ESS) will
transfer to the destination location if a particular register contains
all zeros. If there is a least one "1-bit" in the register, the bit
number of the right-most "1-bit" is written into another register. A
variant of the instruction will set the right-most "1-bit" to a zero.
This is efficient for maintaining bit-mapped structures defining
busy/idle resources and paths through the switching fabric. No. 2 ESS
has an equivalent "Right-Most Zero" instruction. This allowed easy
transformation of control bits to table indexes.
> 2) When they program an ESS, do they use the basic assembler language,
> or do they have higher level languages to make it easier? If so, what
> are the higher level languages like?
No. 1 ESS, No. 2 ESS and No. 3 ESS were all programmed in
assembler, using a customized version of the same macro assembler
called SWAP. This had a powerful integrated macro/string manipulation
capability (well beyond that provided by the C preprocessor). 1A ESS
and 4ESS use a combination of assembler, EPL (a structured language
integrated with SWAP) and EPLX (a PASCAL-like language).
> 3) I assume the basic call handling is programmed by the switch
> manufacturer. Settings for the application for the local exchange are
> placed in by the phone company -- I assume the phone company does NOT
> have to program the machine in native language. Is this correct?
TELCos have two means of affecting switch operation. The primary
means is by using commands to build "switch translations". These are
the software structures that define line ports, telephone dialing
patterns and trunk hunting rules, as well as indicators regarding the
features associated with lines, trunks, hunt groups, etc. Think of it
as filling in the blanks of lots of forms in Excel, where you can't
change the formulas.
A newer means is called Intelligent Network (IN or sometimes AIN),
which allows TELCo to invoke an external database query at various
points in call processing (end of dialing, dialing of certain digits,
call termination attempts). The database can then tell the switch how
to proceed, based on TELCo programming in the database.
> 4) Do the various kinds of switches (ie AT&T current models, older
> Western Electric models, Automatic Electric and DSS models) all use
> the same or similar machine architecture, or are each proprietary?
Each is proprietary.
Brief examples of ESS assembler (this is from memory, so some error is
likely to exist):
No. 1 ESS: 37-bit instruction word, plus parity and 6 Hamming check bits
WL 1024+7 # The instruction location word (1031) is loaded into the
# L register (a load-immediate) - X'407'
LOOP MK 6,X,PL # Use 6+contents of X reg as memory address, read it into
# the "buffer" register, then set K equal to the "buffer"
# logically-ORed with L (only bits 10, 2, 1 and 0 from
# the buffer are written into K)
HYM 10,XA,EL# Insert Y into the buffer using the mask in L, then write
# buffer to location 0+X, then increment X. Simultaneously
# shift (H) K 10 bits to the right. Only bit 10 and the
# low 3 bits of Y are inserted into the buffer. The other
# buffer bits remain from the previous read.
TKAZ LOOP # Transfer to LOOP if K is zero. (i.e., until a 1-bit is
# read from bit 10 of 6+X)
1A ESS: 24/48-bit instructions, 2-bit overlapped parity per 24-bit word
LW L,1024+7 # Load a word (=1024+7) into the L register
LOOP L K,6(X),PL # Load K with contents of address 6+X
H:S 10:0(XA),EL # Same as No. 1 ESS (S=Store)
IF:T K=AZ:LOOP # Same as No. 1 ESS
Actually, native 1A ESS coders would probably eliminate the H:S shift
replacing it with a Store (S) and then use:
IF:T K(10)=LZ:LOOP
testing bit 10 of K for a "logical zero" condition.
No. 2 ESS: 10- and 22-bit instructions (used No. 1 ESS 44-bit storage,
but treated it as two 22-bit words that could contain two
10-bit instructions or 1 22-bit instruction. This looks very
much like vertical micro-code.)
AAXLR # AA reg to L reg
LRXGR # L reg to General reg
GT 14 # Test if G > 14
FIL LOOP # (Load bits 5-9 of the address of LOOP into transfer reg)
TCNS LOOP # Transfer if test was "not-set" (non-zero)
# Conditional transfers could only specify the low 5 bits
# of the destination label. # The FIL is needed if the
# address of LOOP differed from the address of the TCNS
# other than in the low 5 bits.
Al Varney
------------------------------
From: Henning Schulzrinne <schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 20:56:57 -0400
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Computer Science
Assume you want to build a national ISP. How many POPs would you need
to cover a given percentage of the population via local phone calls? I
imagine that this information is not freely available, but one should
be able to guess from the number of dial-in numbers for large, national
ISPs:
MCI has 304 numbers in the US;
IBM claims about 485 in the US and 45 in Canada.
Any guesses/estimates/... for others (AOL, Compuserve, etc.)?
Thanks,
Henning Schulzrinne email: schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu
Dept. of Computer Science phone: +1 212 939-7042
Columbia University fax: +1 212 666-0140
New York, NY 10027 URL: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:36:29 PDT
From: Eric Florack <Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com>
Subject: New Security Bug in All Netscape Browsers
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A serious new flaw that affects all versions of
Netscape Communications Corp.'s popular Navigator Internet browser
software -- including the final test version of its Communicator Suite
released Wednesday -- has been uncovered by a Danish software firm,
CNNfn has learned.
The bug was reported by Cabocomm, a software company located about 100
miles west of Copenhagen, Denmark. The bug makes it possible for
Web-site operators to read anything stored on the hard drive of a PC
logged on to the Web site.
After the firm reported the bug to CNN Financial News, CNNfn and PC
Magazine tested the bug by creating and storing a document on a PC's
hard drive in New York. Seconds later, the Danish company read it.
As further proof, CNNfn and PC Magazine created another document which
the Danish company was also able to read.
Larry Seltzer, technical director of PC Labs, was among those who helped
verify the bug report. He said it would take a somewhat savvy computer
user to exploit the bug.
"They have to be seeking information from your system and they also have
to know the file name. It's not that hard for somebody who's looking to
make trouble, but they do have to be looking for it," Seltzer said.
"It's serious in that it's in the [actual] browser ... whereas previous
bugs generally required the user to have downloaded an additional
product," Jim Wise, UNIX administrator for CNNfn, said.
CNNfn's test showed that Internet security firewalls offer no protection
from the bug.
Mike Homer, vice president of marketing for Netscape, said the company
takes this and all bug reports seriously.
The Danish company says the reward of $1,000 and a T-shirt is
"insultingly low" considering the extent to which the bug report is
likely to worry Netscape users.
Cabocomm said it would accept "reasonable compensation" for the
technical information -- or they can send a Netscape representative to
Cabocomm and get it for free.
CNNfn, PC Magazine and the Danish company will not release technical
details on the bug until Netscape has prepared a bug fix.
The reason CNNfn is not reporting the specifics of the bug is to avoid
anyone exploiting it.
Until the bug is fixed, confidential letters, business spreadsheets --
everything on your PC -- can potentially be pilfered.
The Danish company says it won't exploit the bug, but has no idea if
someone else has found the same bug and is compromising a system's
integrity.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 23:53:03 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: There's no General Right to Privacy - Get Over It, from Netly
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 18:58:28 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: FC: There's no general right to privacy --
get over it, from Netly
**************
http://pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,1050,00.html
The Netly News
June 12, 1997
Privacy? What Privacy?
by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
I have a confession to make: Unlike many of my civil libertarian
colleagues, I believe you have no general right to privacy
online. Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but
you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that
information if you let it leave your computer. That's your
responsibility.
So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting
through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week
on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights"
for the Net -- and to be perhaps the first federal agency to regulate
it. The commissioners are being spurred on by consumer groups that
want the government to bar firms from collecting information about
your online wanderings. Businesses say that such a rule would stifle
Internet advertising and commerce and have recently released a flurry
of self-regulatory proposals.
[...]
Which is one reason why I think there is no general right to
privacy -- at least as the consumer groups and privacy advocates
describe it. Rotenberg likes to say "Privacy is not an absolute right,
but a fundamental right." But in truth, privacy is not a right but a
preference: Some people want more of it than others.
Of course there's an essential right to privacy from the
government. (Beware government databases: Nazis used census data in
Germany and Holland to track down and eliminate undesirables.) You
also have a right to privacy from Peeping Toms.
But -- no matter how much big-government fetishists want this to
be true -- you don't own information about yourself. After all,
journalists are able to investigate someone's private life and publish
an article -- even if it contains embarrassing personal details. This
is a good thing: Any restrictions would weaken the First
Amendment. Then there's gossip, which is a time-honored way of trading
in others' personal information. "The reindeer-herding Lapps, for whom
theft of livestock is easy and common, gossip about who has stolen
which animal and where they are," sociologist Sally Engle Merry
writes.
[...]
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send
"subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu.
More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/
------------------------------
From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley)
Subject: Another Spammer With an 800 Number
Date: 13 Jun 1997 19:33:22 -0400
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
I usually ignore one spam, but when I start getting multiple copies I
get a little peeved, so for for those of you who are anxious to call
and inquire about the fine products advertised by spammers, while
keeping in mind that intentional harrasment is a crime, here is
another wonderful spam I pass along for you.
Reply-To: GODBLESS@imall.it.earthlink.net
Received: from imall.it.earthlink.net ([204.250.46.19])
by mtigwc01.worldnet.att.net (post.office MTA v2.0 0613 )
with ESMTP id AAA18072 for <thidwick@worldnet.att.net>;
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 23:54:03 +0000
Received: from imall.it.earthlink.net ([206.156.104.52])
by imall.it.earthlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA11263;
Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:57:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.voodoocom by voodoo (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id GAA03205 for <voodoo4u@4u.com>; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 17:46:11 -0600 (EST)
Message-ID: <777777mkt0777@voodoo4u.com>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <voodoo4u@planet.com>
X-PMFLAGS: 128 0
X-UIDL: 77707770777622830277809784529777
From: Papa_George@imall.it.earthlink.net
To: voodoo4u@4u.com
Subject: *** VOODOO SPELLS by Papa George ***
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 97 22:46:11 +0000
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The lengthy message from this person
has been deleted. Basically it appears he claims to be a Witch Doctor
with the ability to practice Voodoo and cast spells on your enemies.
Perhaps if you ask nicely he will cast a spell on Scamford or practice
some sort of Voodoo Black Magic on spammers -- himself excluded
of course. If you wish to correspond with him or his sysadmin the
address is noted above, however he invites telephone calls as
noted below in the last paragraph of his message. PAT]
----------------
Call 1-800-958-6636. The best time is between 12 noon to 10 PM Central
Time - daily. God Bless! Papa George
------------------------------
From: stevenl@pe.net (Steven Lichter)
Subject: 800 Spammers
Date: 12 Jun 1997 22:54:15 -0700
Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT AN AD FOR THE TRASH LISTED!!!!
In an effort to help you learn about new products on the Internet
that include 800/888 numbers so you don't have to pay for the call
or waste postage.
The following numbers will allow you to find out about all kinds of
junk that these fools have to sell or scam you:
800-365-1999
800-966-5797
software in place that blocks most of the major Spam factory
sites, but I have on address that is open to any fool that wants
to spam it and if they include an 800 number or Fax number so
that they can be reached I'll post it.
*****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS*****
NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5,
Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent
to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the
amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
I ALSO DON'T BUY FROM BULK E-MAILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours,
Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Remember, harassment on the phone is
illegal, and for best results, place those calls from a payphone at
the bus station or on some street corner. If you walk away and leave
the phone off hook, forgetting to hang up, then I suppose it will
just disconnect on its own eventually, or maybe not. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock)
Subject: Re: Spam Class Action Lawsuit
Date: 13 Jun 1997 03:06:56 GMT
Organization: Net Access BBS
I'm now getting my share of SPAM email, plus some of my Usenet groups
are filled with fairly sexually offensive sales pitches I have to wade
through.
But in order to stop SPAM, I think we need to better understand where
it's coming from and what legal and technical responses are
appropriate, without unfairly burdening the ISPs or 'net users.
Some questions about SPAM ...
> You might be glad to hear that an ISP down in Texas has not only
> received a temporary restraining order against Cyber Promotions, but
> that they are also preparing to file a class action suit against Cyber
Is Cyper/Sanford Wallace the only principle generator of spam on the
Internet? Does he send out both email and Usenet? If he isn't the
only one, then the others have to be identified.
I wonder if some SPAMS are actually malicious vandalism, where the
name and address of someone you want to harrass is placed as the
"advertiser".
BTW, whatever was the result of that massive emailing not too long
ago advertising sex, that supposedly "originated" in Queens, NYC? Did
they ever find out what that really was about, where it came from?
> It's a pretty good story that explains how a forged e-mail address on
In order to "hook up" to the Internet (that is, to become an Internet
Service Provider with an assigned official location address), does one
have to agree to any sort of rules or conventions? Aren't there some
rules to protect the integrity of the network so some idiot doesn't
accidently (or intentionally) shoot out megabytes worth of garbage?
Anyway, I wonder if such rules, if any, need to be upgraded, with as
a minimum, stuff sent out is properly identified as to origin. (I am
not familiar with the mechanics of the Internet.)
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, so Scamford is going to now rely on
> the sysadmin excuse of the ages: "I have no control over my users and
> what they do ..." Since it has served sysadmins well over the years as
> a way to let users wreck the net, maybe it will work for him also.
I have mixed feelings about this. Online service falls between
being a common carrier like the phone company and being merely a
conduit for messaging, and a publisher or bookstore which is selling
content.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect an online service provider
censor every message posted on their system for taste and lawfulness.
What's utterly offensive to me may be desirable entertainment to you.
But I do think ISPs should keep an eye on their system, and if they
do receive a complaint about content, they have a responsibility to
check it out and take action if necessary. If they learn a subscriber
is using their system as a base point to transit kiddie-porn, stolen
credit card numbers, or other clearly illegal items, then they have a
responsibility to cancel that user because the user is violating the
law.
Because of the harassing nature and expense of SPAM, I would throw
it in the same category as objectionable material.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #153
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jun 15 12:55:28 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id MAA05760; Sun, 15 Jun 1997 12:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 12:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706151655.MAA05760@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #154
TELECOM Digest Sun, 15 Jun 97 12:55:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 154
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Country Codes History (updated 6 June 1997) (David Leibold)
54th UCLA Engineering and Management Program (Bill Goodin)
626 Area Code in Effect (Tad Cook)
Active X Control For Dialogic Boards (Chris Dupuy)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:58:38 EDT
From: David Leibold <aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Country Codes History (updated 6 June 1997)
Country Codes History
6 June 1997
David Leibold (aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca)
This is an attempt to trace the development of ITU's (formerly CCITT's)
country codes assignments. Information was gleaned from vintage
ITU/CCITT "Books" (i.e. the Recommendations which are the international
telecommunications standards), and whatever else was available.
There will be numerous details to be filled in (dates of changes,
introductions, circumstances etc). Additional, corrected or updated
information to this end would be welcome.
Document History...
10 December 1995 - inaugural edition
6 June 1996 - updates courtesy Geoff Capp, Ray Chow, Mark Cuccia,
Gary Novosielski, Dik Winter
- a few more details as they were found
6 June 1997 - corrections from Geoffrey Dyer
- changes due to ex-USSR and Czech/Slovak developments
with data adapted from an ex-USSR profile (those
details courtesy Toby Nixon, ITU, Stentor (Canada),
CRTC (Canada), Telecom Digest (including information
collected for the country code listings).
- Marc Zirnheld - detail on new Monaco country code.
---------
Format...
---------
This file is ordered first by time (when country codes were established,
changed, deleted, etc) then within each particular time by country code.
The initial list of 1964 is shown; only the changes are listed therafter.
-------
1 9 6 0
-------
The 1960 CCITT Red Book featured a list of country codes for Europe
that was the precursor for the international telephone country code
assignments. Whether this was ever available for subscriber use is
unknown; this could have been intended for operator dialing rather
than customer dialing.
That list went as follows (* represents a code that remains in use in
today's country code plan):
00 to 19 - special codes - special routings, semi-automatic services,
direct routes between countries, situations where digits
of a destination number are not analysed, etc.
20 - Poland
21 - Algeria (Fr.) [* today is 213]
22 - Belgium
23 - Austria
24 - (unassigned)
25 - Finland
26 - Arabia
27 - Cyprus
28 - Bulgaria
29 - Gibraltar
30 - Greece *
31 - Egypt (U.A. Rep.)
32 - (unassigned)
33 - France *
34 - Israel
35 - Hungary
36 - Turkey
37 - Lebanon
38 - Norway
39 - Italy *
40 - Libya
41 - Jordan
42 - Portugal
43 - Malta
44 - Great Britain *
45 - (unassigned)
46 - Sweden *
47 - Rumania
48 - Morocco
49 - Germany * [presumably West Germany at that time]
50 - Spain
51 - (unassigned)
52 - Ireland
53 - (unassigned)
54 - Syria (U.A. Rep.)
55 - Netherlands
56 - (unassigned)
57 - Czechoslovakia
58 - (unassigned)
59 - Albania
60 - Luxembourg
61 - Denmark
62 - Tunisia
63 - Yugoslavia
64 - Iceland
65 - (unassigned)
66 - Switzerland
67 - (unassigned)
68, 69 - USSR
70 to 79 - European Republics / USSR
80 to 89 - spare codes
90 to 99 - intercontinental traffic
Note from Dik Winter regarding 60-Luxembourg:
"At least this country code has been used in the Netherlands (but at
the same time the country code used for Belgium was 32). That must
have been in the early sixties indeed. I do not have parts of a phone
book showing it, I have only parts of Amsterdam phone books and when
direct dialling from Amsterdam to Luxembourg was allowed much later
the country code was changed to 352 as it is now, but I have noted it
down from another Dutch phone book (presumably that of the province of
Zeeland)."
-------
1 9 6 4
-------
The 1964 CCITT Blue Book listed the initial country codes list for
international dialing, arranging the codes according to their world
zones. These corresponded to the initial digit of the one- to three-digit
country codes; Europe got two zones (3 & 4) due to a high number of
countries requiring two-digit country codes. The initial listing was
referred to as Recommendation E.29.
That initial country code list was as follows (country codes not listed
were spare at the time):
World Zone 1 (North America - country code 1 - note some of the
nations that were to be included, but were since assigned World Zone 5
country codes):
Bahamas, Bermuda, British Honduras, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
French Antilles, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands
Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, USA, US Virgin Islands.
World Zone 2 (Africa):
20 - United Arab Republic
21 - Maghreb (integrated numbering plan): Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia
220 - Gambia
221 - Senegal
222 - Mauritania
223 - Mali
224 - Guinea
225 - Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire)
226 - Upper Volta
227 - Niger
228 - Togolese Republic
229 - Dahomey
231 - Liberia
232 - Sierra Leone
233 - Ghana
234 - Nigeria
235 - Chad
236 - Central African Republic
237 - Cameroon
238 - Cape Verde Island
239 - St Thomas & Prince
241 - Gabon
242 - Congo (Brazzaville)
243 - Congo (Leopoldville)
244 - Angola
245 - Portuguese Guinea
249 - Sudan
250 - Rwanda
251 - Ethiopia
252 - Somalia
253 - French Somaliland
254 - Kenya
255 - Tanzania
256 - Uganda
257 - Burundi
258 - Mozambique
260 - Northern Rhodesia
261 - Malagasy Republic
262 - Reunion
263 - Southern Rhodesia
264 - Territory of SW Africa
265 - Malawi
266 - Basutoland
267 - Bechuanaland
268 - Swaziland
269 - Comores
27 - South Africa
World Zone 3 & 4 (Europe):
30 - Greece
31 - Netherlands
32 - Belgium
33 - France
34 - Spain
350 - Gibraltar
351 - Portugal
352 - Luxembourg
353 - Ireland
354 - Iceland
356 - Malta
357 - Cyprus
36 - Turkey
37 - [Note: not assigned until 1966]
38 - Yugoslavia
39 - Italy
401 - Finland
402 - Hungary
403 - Bulgaria
404 - Romania
405 - Albania
41 - Switzerland
42 - Czechoslovakia
43 - Austria
44 - Great Britain
45 - Denmark
46 - Sweden
47 - Norway
48 - Poland
49 - Germany (West)
World Zone 5 (South America):
(50, 51, 52 - unassigned in 1964)
53 - Cuba
54 - Argentina
55 - Brazil
56 - Chile
57 - Colombia
58 - Venezuela
591 - Bolivia
592 - British Guiana
593 - Ecuador
594 - French Guiana
595 - Paraguay
596 - Peru
597 - Surinam (Netherlands)
598 - Uruguay
Zone 6 (Oceania, Australia, etc):
60 - Malaysia
61 - Australia
62 - Indonesia
63 - Philippines
64 - New Zealand
65 - (unassigned in 1964 - Singapore was part of Malaysia)
66 - Thailand
672 - Portuguese Timor
675 - Papua New Guinea
676 - Tonga
677 - British Solomon Isles
678 - New Hebrides
679 - Fiji
682 - Guam
683 - Western Samoa
684 - American Samoa
685 - Cook Islands
687 - New Caledonia
688 - Niue
689 - French Polynesia
69 - (unassigned in 1964)
World Zone 7 - USSR (only country code 7)
World Zone 8 - Eastern Asia
80 - (unassigned in 1964)
81 - Japan
82 - Korea
83 - (unassigned in 1964)
84 - Vietnam
852 - Hong Kong
853 - Macao
855 - Cambodia
856 - Laos
86 - China
87 - (unassigned in 1964)
88 - (unassigned in 1964)
89 - (unassigned in 1964)
World Zone 9 (Western Asia, Middle East):
90 - (unassigned in 1964)
91 - India
92 - Pakistan
93 - Afghanistan
94 - Ceylon
95 - Burma
961 - Lebanon
962 - Jordan
963 - Syria
964 - Iraq
965 - Kuwait
966 - Saudi Arabia
967 - Yemen
969 - Aden
972 - Israel
975 - Hadramut
977 - Nepal
98 - Iran
-------
1 9 6 8
-------
Changes in the 1968 CCITT White Book... the list was then titled
Recommendation E.161 / Q.11. Changes listed in order of country code:
1 - Antigua (territory added)
- Barbados (territory added)
- British Virgin Islands (territory added)
- Cayman Islands (territory added)
- Dominica (territory added)
- Grenada (territory added)
- Montserrat (territory added)
- St Kitts (territory added)
- St Lucia (territory added)
- St Pierre & Miquelon (territory added)
- St Vincent (territory added)
x Guatemala (CHANGED to country code 500)
x Mexico (CHANGED to country code 52)
x Netherlands Antilles (CHANGED to country code 599)
240 - Equitorial Guinea (NEW)
243 - Congo (Dem. Rep. of the) (Name change)
259 - Zanzibar (NEW)
260 - Zambia (Name Change)
263 - Rhodesia (Name Change)
266 - Lesotho (Name Change)
267 - Botswana (Name Change)
269 - Comoro Islands (Name Change)
355 - Albania (NEW - changed from 405)
358 - Finland (NEW - changed from 401)
359 - Bulgaria (NEW - changed from 403)
36 x Turkey (CHANGED to 90)
36 - Hungary (NEW - changed from 402)
37 - East Germany (added - announced in ITU Notification #980 of
10 March 1966)
40 - Romania (NEW - changed from 404)
500 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 1)
52 - Mexico (NEW - changed from 1)
599 - Netherlands Antilles (NEW - changed from 1)
65 - Singapore (NEW - became independent of Malaysia 60 code)
681 - Wallis and Futuna (NEW)
686 - Gilbert & Ellice Islands (NEW)
90 - Turkey (NEW - changed from 36)
968 - Sultanate of Muscat & Oman (NEW)
969 - Southern Yemen (Name Change)
971 - Trucial States (NEW)
973 - Bahrain (NEW)
974 - Qatar (NEW)
976 - Mongolia (NEW)
[Notes: ITU Notifications 992, 995 and 998 of 1967 announced the new
country codes 968 (Muscat & Oman), 971 (Trucial States), 974 (Qatar);
ITU Notification #984 of 10 July 1966 announced 973 (Bahrain). No
official reasons were found for the many country changes between
1964 and 1968 information.]
-------
1 9 7 2
-------
Changes in the 1972 Green Book for E.161/Q.11:
World Zone 1:
1 x British Honduras (CHANGED to 501)
x Costa Rica (CHANGED to 506)
x El Salvador (CHANGED to 503)
x Honduras (CHANGED to 504)
x Nicaragua (CHANGED to 505)
x Panama (CHANGED to 507)
21 x "Maghreb" integrated numbering plan divided into separate country
code assignments that follows ...
210 - Morocco
211 - Morocco
212 - Morocco [only this country code used today for Morocco]
213 - Algeria [only this country code used today for Algeria]
214 - Algeria
215 - Algeria
216 - Tunisia [only this country code used today for Tunisia]
217 - Tunisia
218 - Libya [only this country code used today for Libya]
219 - Libya
243 - Zaire (Name Change)
253 - Afars Alssas (Fr. Terr) (Name Change)
500 x (CHANGED to 502)
501 - British Honduras (NEW - was in 1)
502 - Guatemala (NEW - changed from 500)
503 - El Salvador (NEW - was in 1)
504 - Honduras (NEW - was in 1)
505 - Nicaragua (NEW - was in 1)
506 - Costa Rica (NEW - was in 1)
507 - Panama (NEW - was in 1)
51 - Peru (NEW - changed from 596)
596 x Peru (CHANGED to 51)
671 - Guam (NEW - changed from 682)
682 x Guam (CHANGED to 671)
-------
1 9 7 6
-------
>From 1976 Orange Book:
248 - Seychelles (NEW)
509 - Haiti (NEW)
590 - Guadeloupe (NEW)
596 - Martinique (NEW - originally assigned to Peru)
673 - Brunei (NEW)
674 - Nauru (NEW)
87x - (NEW - reserved for mobile/maritime assignments)
880 - Bangladesh (NEW)
978 - Dubai (UAE) (NEW)
979 - Abu Dhabi (UAE) (NEW)
-------
1 9 8 0
-------
>From Yellow Book 1980:
253 - Djibouti (Name Change)
672 x (Portugues Timor DELETED - presumably merged into +62)
682 - Cook Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guam)
683 x Western Samoa (CHANGED to 685)
683 - Niue (NEW - changed from 688)
685 x Cook Islands (CHANGED to 682)
685 - Western Samoa (NEW - changed from 683)
686 - Gilbert Is. (Ellice withdrew from the single British colony of
Gilbert & Ellice in 1975 - see also +688)
688 x Niue (CHANGED to 683)
688 - Tuvalu (NEW - Ellice Is. withdrew from Gilbert & Ellice in 1975,
then became independent Tuvalu 1 Oct 1978 - see also +686)
960 - Maldives (NEW)
978 x (Dubai DELETED - presumably merged into +971)
979 x (Abu Dhabi DELETED - presumably merged into +971)
[Notes: Few reasons were found for shuffling the 6xx series country
codes. Regarding deletions of 978 (Dubai) and 979 (Abu Dhabi), these
probably became part of 971 (UAE, originally listed as "Trucial
States").
Note from Dik Winter regarding Dubai and Abu Dhabi:
"I have information from a British phone book of 1982, at that time
the UK still used 978 and 979 for Dubai and Abu Dhabi. And given the
area codes at that time (according to that information) integration
would have been impossible. Integration within 971 came later together
with area code changes."]
-------
1 9 8 4
-------
>From 1984 book:
1 x St Pierre & Miquelon (CHANGED to 508)
246 - Diego Garcia (NEW)
298 - Faroe Islands (Denmark) (NEW)
299 - Greenland (Denmark) (NEW)
500 - Falkland Islands (NEW - originally assigned to Guatemala)
508 - St Pierre and Miquelon (NEW - was in 1)
670 - Marianna Islands, including Saipan (NEW)
672 - Australian Territories (NEW - originally assigned to Portuguese Timor)
680 - Palau (NEW)
690 - Tokelau (NEW)
691 - Federated States of Micronesia (NEW)
692 - Marshall Islands (NEW)
850 - North Korea (NEW - South Korea retains 82)
-------------------
A f t e r 1 9 8 4
-------------------
The following country codes were added, changed, had country names
changes, or were otherwise noteworthy since 1984. Dates were included
if they were available.
Currently, country codes are presently assigned under Recommendation
E.164 (formerly E.163, in turn E.161/Q.11, in turn E.29).
Note that some changes listed here took effect before the 1984
lists. This may be due to various factors such as UN recognition of
nations, official country name changes, the process of updating the
Recommendation, or perhaps overlooking a change listed in a CCITT book
prior to 1984.
226 - Burkina Faso (Name Change on 4 Aug 1984)
229 - Benin (Name Change from Dahomey upon 1975 independence from France)
230 - Mauritius (NEW - year of introduction unknown - this has appeared
in the late 1970s)
239 - Sao Tome & Principe (Name Change or use of domestic language form)
245 - Guinea-Bissau (Name Change as of 1974 independence)
247 - Ascension (NEW - year of introduction unknown - ca. 1984-87)
259 - Zanzibar (although assigned in 1968, routing via Tanzania
country code 255 had been in effect for many years, and may
still be in effect)
261 - Madagascar (Name Change from Malagasy Rep.)
263 - Zimbabwe (Name Change from Rhodesia as of 18 Apr 1980)
264 - Namibia (Name Change from Territory of SW Africa as of 21 Mar 1990)
269 - Comoros & Mayotte (Name Change - Geoff Capp noted that Mayotte is
part of the Comoro island group. Mayotte alone chose to remain
French when the other islands chose independence 1974-75. Mayotte was
the first of the islands to become direct-dialable, and took +269.
For Canada, at least, the other Comoros were assigned a 0XX Mark code
until they became diallable in the late 1980s/early 1990s.)
290 - St Helena (NEW - year of introduction unknown - late 1980s)
291 - Eritrea (NEW - seceded from Ethiopia in 1993)
295 - San Marino (NEW then CHANGED - was assigned, but became 378)
296 - Trinidad/Tobago (apparently assigned then removed)
297 - Aruba (NEW - became autonomous of Netherlands Antilles as of
1 Jan 1986 - dates of country code assignment and implementation
are unknown)
37 - East Germany (DELETED - with German reunification, numbers are
under country code 49 now as of mid-1991)
370 - Lithuania (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993)
371 - Latvia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993)
372 - Estonia (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993)
373 - Moldova (NEW - split from 7 announced Jan. 1993)
374 - Armenia (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 1 May 1995;
this was split from country code 7)
375 - Belarus (NEW - announced Jan. 1995, in effect 16 Apr 1995;
this was split from country code 7)
376 - Andorra (Principality of) (NEW - in effect Dec. 1994; formerly
reached via France (33))
377 - Monaco (Principality of) (NEW - in effect by 21 June 1996;
formerly reached via France (33))
378 - San Marino (NEW - split from Italy 39; formerly assigned 295)
379 - Vatican City (NEW - implementation dates/details unknown;
formerly reached via Italy (39))
38 - Yugoslavia (DELETED - 1 Oct 1993, due to Yugoslav break-up)
380 - Ukraine (NEW - announced Jan. 1995; in effect 16 Apr 1995;
this was split from country code 7)
381 - Serbia and Montenegro (former Yugoslav areas) (NEW - formed
from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in effect 1 Oct. 1993)
385 - Croatia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in
effect 1 Oct. 1993)
386 - Slovenia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in
effect 1 Oct. 1993)
387 - Bosnia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in
effect 1 Oct. 1993)
389 - Macedonia (NEW - split from old Yugoslav country code 38 - in
effect 1 Oct. 1993)
41 - Liechtenstein (probably always was part of Switzerland system
(country code 41). Liechtenstein posts and ports were handled
by Austria until 1921.)
42 - (Czech & Slovak Republics now separate - country code remains for now)
501 - Belize (Name Change - was British Honduras until ca. 1972)
592 - Guyana (Name Change - was British Guiana until 1966 independence)
678 - Vanuatu (Name Change - was New Hebrides until 30 July 1980 indep.)
686 - Kiribati (Name Change - was Gilbert Is. until 1979; not listed
as such in ITU list until 1984 book)
800 - International "freephone" services (NEW - as of 1995; service
is becoming active internationally as of 1997)
870 - Inmarsat "SNAC" service (NEW - as of 1995; no word on when this
service will become active)
871 - Inmarsat Atlantic East (NEW - originally assigned to all of Atlantic)
872 - Inmarsat Pacific (NEW)
873 - Inmarsat Indian (NEW)
874 - Inmarsat Atlantic West (NEW - formed from split of 871 Atlantic)
878 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW)
879 - Reserved for national mobile purposes (NEW)
886 - Taiwan (Mainland China has reserved +86-6 for access to Taiwan;
however Taiwan given +886 for access, while +86 routes to mainland)
94 - Sri Lanka (Name Change - was Ceylon until 22 May 1972)
95 - (Current regime refers to itself as Myanmar; some nations
only recognise it as Burma.)
967 - Yemen Arab Republic (Name Change?)
968 - Oman (Name Change - shortened from Muscat & Oman as of July 1970)
969 - Yemen Democratic Republic (DELETED? With Yemen unification, 967
would be the single country code; this territory was formerly
called Aden. The Aden capital was found to have country code
967 ca. 1991)
971 - United Arab Emirates (Name Change - Trucial States merged
2 Dec 1971 to become U.A.E.)
975 - Bhutan (NEW - was assigned to Hadramut which joined South Yemen)
994 - Azerbaijan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7))
995 - Georgia (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7))
996 - Kyrgyz Republic (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7))
Note from Ray Chow regarding 975-Bhutan (formerly Hadramut):
"Hadramut (or Qu'aiti State in Hadhramaut as printed on its stamps)
was a state which later joined Aden to form South Yemen (the "People's
Democratic Republic of Yemen"). Bhutan is a small country between
India and Tibet (east of Nepal and Sikkim). Evidently it got country
code 975 some time after Hadramut became part of South Yemen."
Note from Ray Chow regarding former USSR territories (7, 3xx, 9xx):
"It's interesting that of the three Caucasus republics that split from
code 7, only Armenia got a "European" (3xx) code. Georgia and Azerbaijan
are also in Europe (at least according to my maps), but telephonically
are in Asia. For that matter, I see from your list that Turkey, a small
part of which is in Europe, started with a European code and ended up
with an Asian one."
Bob Goudreau's response to above:
"Actually, according to the geography texts and maps I've seen (e.g.,
the recent _National_Geographic_ map of Europe), the usual definition
of the boundary between Europe and Asia in the Caucasus is the
ridge-line of the northernmost range of mountains. Thus, almost
all of this area is geographically part of Asia. Georgia and
Azerbaijan have small bits that lie in Europe (as, surprisingly,
does Kazakstan (note new post-Soviet spelling)), but Armenia lies
entirely in Asia. It is thus ironic that it is the only one of the
three that received a European country code."
------
1996-7
------
388 - European Telephony Numbering Space (expected to be officially
assigned, if not already - in use by January 1999)
42 x Czechoslovakia (DELETED - 28 February 1997; split to 420, 421
reflecting the now-separate Czech and Slovak Republics)
420 - Czech Republic (NEW - split from 42 on 28 February 1997)
421 - Slovak Republic (NEW - split from 42 on 28 February 1997)
878 - Universal Personal Telecommunications (NEW - replaces code
that was reserved for national mobile purposes)
881 - Global Mobile Satellite System (NEW - uncertain which specific
GMSS project this refers to - Iridium?)
888 - reported unavailable for assignment - reason not widely
known although it is speculated that this reflects recent
use of 888 for toll-free services in North America
992 - Tajikistan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7).
Assigned 1996-7?)
993 - Turkmenistan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7),
generally in service by 3 Jan 1997).
998 - Uzbekistan (NEW - split from former USSR (country code 7),
Assigned 1996?)
-------------------------------------
F u t u r e D e v e l o p m e n t s
-------------------------------------
There were reports in the fall of 1995 that country code +388 was
sought by European interests for European-wide services. The ITU Study
Group 2 had approved this assignment during a meeting in San Francisco
in January 1996 (according to OFTEL Numbering Bulletin (UK)). As of
1997, European sources indicate that the European Telephony Numbering
Space (+388) is planned to be in service by January 1999.
Hong Kong will join China in 1997. When, or if, Hong Kong's telephone
network will adopt China's country code of 86 is unknown at this time.
Kazakstan is the only ex-USSR republic that does not have a known
separate country code assignment at this writing. Russia will likely
retain country code 7.
[end of document]
------------------------------
From: Bill Goodin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: 54th UCLA Engineering and Management Program
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 15:58:51 -0700
September 14-19, 1997, on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles.
For more than 40 years, UCLA Extension's Engineering and Management
Program has provided "how to" answers to the challenges that technical
managers face daily.
The program is designed for experienced first-level technical
supervisors, mid-level technical managers, technical professionals
with high advancement potential, and non-technical managers in
technology-based organizations.
A special benefit is the opportunity for participants to personalize
their own curriculum by selecting four courses, each one meeting two
hours per day. Participants may choose from 24 course offerings to
address these and other important management questions:
o How can I develop products and services that will have a market?
o How can I use technology as one of the drivers of organizational
change?
o How can I influence persons who do not report directly to me or to
my boss?
o How can I create a culture that nourishes creativity, customer
service, risk taking, and accountability?
o How can I successfully communicate in-house with peers, subordinates,
and superiors, and with global customers and suppliers?
o How can I carry out my managerial role in the face of major change
in the organization?
o How can I prepare myself for emerging trends and an uncertain
future?
o How can I better use or change aspects of my style of leadership to
get desired results?
o How can I identify and eliminate costly, nonvalue-added activities?
Instructors are drawn from the UCLA faculty, other universities, and
the business community. All combine research and theory with practice
and application.
The program advisory committee, which includes technical managers
from Hewlett Packard, Trillium Digital Systems, TRW, Sandia National
Laboratories, Beckman Instruments, Amgen, Telegenics, Rockwell,
Davidson & Associates, and ARCO, actively participates in the
selection and evaluation of the courses.
The program fee of $2,095 includes all texts and materials for courses
in which the participant is enrolled, five continental breakfasts,
five luncheons, social events, parking at UCLA, and use of University
facilities and equipment.
For additional information and a complete program booklet, please
contact Beverly Croswhite at:
Phone: (310) 825-3858
Fax: (310) 206-2815
e-mail: bcroswhi@unex.ucla.edu
WWW: http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses
------------------------------
Subject: 626 Area Code in Effect
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 20:11:56 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Area code for parts of San Gabriel Valley, Glendale changes to 626
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The San Gabriel Valley got a new area code on
Saturday as the result of a skyrocketing demand for 818 phone numbers.
The new 626 code includes the cities of South Pasadena, Alhambra,
Monterey Park, El Monte, La Puente, Covina, Glendora, Azusa, Monrovia,
Sierra Madre, Mount Waterman and most of Pasadena.
A very small section of Glendale also was affected.
Customers in the San Gabriel Valley who have other area codes, such as
213, 909 or 562, will not be affected.
While tens of thousands of residents must learn the new prefix, they
won't see a change in the price of their calls.
"Call distance determines call price," said California Code
Administrator Doug Hescox. "What is a local call now will remain a
local call regardless of the area code change."
The 818 code will continue to be used by most people in Glendale,
Burbank, La Canada Flintridge, La Crescenta and the San Fernando
Valley.
Hescox, who coordinates area code planning statewide for the
telecommunications industry, said the affected neighborhood in
Glendale is connected to a telephone wire center, a kind of electronic
relay station, that will serve the greater San Gabriel Valley.
"I think it's a pain," said Jana Hubanks, who does bookkeeping out of
her family's Glendale home for her stepfather, a physician. "You have
the same area code for so long, and they change it."
"How do you fight it? It's just a fact of life," said Dennis Dunstan,
who just had a new home and business line installed at his home.
The 626 area code was proposed two years ago as the demand for new
telephone numbers skyrocketed with the proliferation of home computers
and faxes.
In 1947, when area codes were first introduced, California had three area
codes. By the end of 1998, the state will have a total of 23.
Residents will have an eight-month period to get acquainted with the new
626 area code. During this period, people calling from outside the
area can dial either the old 818 or new 626 code.
Customers in the 818 or 626 area codes also can use seven-digit dialing
during those eight months to reach customers between the two areas.
------------------------------
From: Chris Dupuy <cdupuy@altamaha.net>
Subject: Active X Control For Dialogic Boards
Date: 15 Jun 1997 01:01:50 GMT
Organization: America.Net, Inc. Business Internet Solutions(TM)
I am currently developing an Active X Dialogic Control. Of course
most of the Functions that the Dialogic Boards Support will be
included in the Active X. It is totaly Multi-Threaded, Non-Blocking
Control (Asyncronous).
You can use the control in Both Sync and ASync modes, and have the
results reported to your application in one of two ways.
If you are interested in helping test this control, and provide
suggestions, please contact me at chris@scwi.com.
The control supports up to 120 channels (when used with the dialogic 60
port boards). All that ACTIVELY participate will get a free unlimited
development license, with no royalties.
Currently the control is in the VERY EARLY stages, it only supports
dialing, recording wavs or vox's, going on or off hook, playing
messages, and getting digits.
Chris Dupuy
chris@scwi.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #154
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 17 09:24:50 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA21776; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 09:24:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706171324.JAA21776@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #155
TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Jun 97 09:24:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 155
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Atlanta Metro Calling History -- and Gripes (Stanley Cline)
Unloaded Switched Line For Modem? (Alan Sterger)
Telephone Congestion Due to Internet (Jared Gottlieb)
Summons Conference Calling (SCC) Service (scc@bellsouth.net)
Book Review: "Children and the Internet" by Kehoe/Mixon (Rob Slade)
Book Review: "PC Magazine Guide to Connectivity" (Rob Slade)
Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Call Coverage (F. Goldstein)
Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Call Coverage (Peter Morgan)
Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Call Coverage (Bob Savery)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Atlanta Metro Calling History -- and Gripes
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 03:39:11 GMT
Organization: C3 Communications, Atlanta
Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com
As many of you may know, the metro Atlanta, GA area local calling area
is the largest flat-rate, untimed local calling area in the world --
spanning [now] at least seven LECs and CLECs, at least ten wireless
carriers, and all or parts of four [now -- soon to be FIVE] NPAs.
Even the Georgia Public Service Commission boasts about it!
The path to such massive calling has bene somewhat rocky -- and
calling areas added a year or two ago still remains that way.
THE HISTORY:
* 1989 -- The "original" Atlanta metro local calling area wasn't all
that big -- it only covered about ten whole counties and portions of
several others (mainly because of COs straddling county lines.)
* 1992 -- NPA 404 needed relief; NPA 706 was assigned. At first, the
plan for 706 was to put everyone outside the "original" local
calling area in 706 -- but there was mass unrest from the masses in
border areas such as Cartersville and Gainesville, and the 404 area
was increased to about a dozen more counties (including the rest of
the ones already partly in 404.) Areas far from Atlanta, such as
Dalton, Columbus, Augusta, the Chattanooga suburbs in Georgia, etc.
got 706.
The local calling area grew substantially -- it became all of NPA
404, as well as two small portions of Alabama [Fruithurst and
Ranburne] served out of Georgia COs.
* 1995 -- NPA 404 needed relief again, and NPA 770 was assigned to
areas outside the Perimeter (Interstate 285), with a couple of
exceptions. Again, all of NPA 404/770 was a single local area.
A Pike County legislator passed a bill moving Concord and Zebulon,
which were in NPA 706, into 770 -- but still staying outside of the
metro calling area. Two areas in NPA 706 -- Braselton [which Kim
Basinger bought, then sold] and Gay -- moved into the local calling
area.
* 1996 -- Jasper in Pickens County (NPA 706) was added to the local
calling area.
* 1997 -- The half of Big Canoe resort in Pickens County, the eastern
fourth of Gordon County [mainly Fairmount] (all in NPA 706) and
Concord and Zebulon (already in 770) became local.
Relief is needed for NPA 770 -- the Georgia PSC is deciding what to
do. An overlay (of BOTH 404 and 770!) seems the likely solution.
So now, the local calling area for metro Atlanta is:
* NPA 404 -- all
* NPA 770 -- all
* NPA 706 -- Braselton, Big Canoe [Pickens half], Fairmount/Ranger,
Gay, Jasper
* NPA 205 -- Fruithurst and Ranburne
There are a few areas on the edges of the Atlanta area [such as
Adairsville, Gainesville, etc.] that can call additional areas *not*
local to the entire area. [For example, Adairsville and Kingston can
call Rome as local, but no one else in the metro area can.]
For the most part, the areas of local calling established in or before
1992 are not a problem -- they are all listed in the local phone books
and are reachable from 95% of payphones, PBXs, etc. And people aren't
afraid to call them for fear of toll charges (976 notwithstanding.)
THE GRIPES:
The areas established as "local" last year and this year (Jasper,
Fairmount/Ranger, Big Canoe, and "Conc-Zeb" -- but Jasper in
particular) remain a massive MESS. Specifically:
* BellSouth and independent LECs refuse to provide "free" directories
for, or "free" directory assistance calls in, the new areas. I have
called BellSouth on several occasions requesting phone books for
Jasper and Fairmount, which are LOCAL calls to me, and am told there
*WILL BE A CHARGE* (~$12-15 EACH) for them! (This is in contrast to
Tennessee and Louisiana where phone books for any local/EAS or even
Area+/optional-local areas are FREE FOR THE ASKING.
The LECs in all four "new" local areas refuse to provide free phone
books to their non-customers. BS distributed NEW phone books in
late April to most of metro Atlanta -- and JASPER WAS NOT INCLUDED,
even though it has been local for OVER A YEAR!
BellSouth *DOES* list numbers for other Alltel-served local areas
(including Winder, Canton, and Monroe) in the metro phone books.
(I didn't expect the Fairmount, Big Canoe, or Conc-Zeb areas to be
in the new phone books, as they were added to the local calling area
so recently.)
There are no more free directory assistance calls in GA, either, so
I can't get numbers for Jasper or the other new local areas AT ALL
without either paying, or having to go to the public library to see
old, microfiched copies of the areas' phone books. (I CAN still go
to a payphone and call DA for free, but who knows how long that will
last?)
* 75-90% of COCOTs in the metro area do NOT allow local calling
between the "1995" metro area, and the new areas.
For example, tonight IN JASPER I visited six payphones -- TWO
(one Alltel/LEC and one CCI) allowed "local-rate" calls to Atlanta
-- four others wanted either more money ($1 for 3-4 minutes) or
would not complete the calls at all [didn't recognize 10-digit
dialing and/or new-format NPAs.] Hell, one didn't allow 10-digit,
1+ or 0+ dialing (even 800) at all, and a surly store clerk got
p*ssed off at me for making an issue of it!
In the core Atlanta area [including Marietta, Roswell, Conyers,
etc.] I've visited innumerable payphones, and the vast majority
(at least 75%) overcharge for or do not allow calls to the
newly-added areas. Most phones *DO* allow "local-rate" calls to
Concord and Zebulon in NPA *770*, but **DO NOT** allow Jasper or
Fairmount (both in NPA *706*) as local! Some phones want calls
to Jasper/Fairmount dialed as 1+, which DOES NOT WORK HERE!
The main, if not EXCLUSIVE, reason for the COCOT problems is the
different NPA! (Same crap exists with 800/888)
* Businesses in the 706 areas still are paying for RCF/FX to areas in
NPA 404 (or 770) to avoid confusing consumers (who may be afraid
that 706 = toll, which IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE.) The worst example (BY
FAR) is Jasper Jeep [one of the largest Jeep dealerships in the US]
that advertises two numbers most of the time:
"Atlanta 404-525-xxxx, Jasper 706-692-xxxx"
Never mind that **JASPER IS LOCAL TO ATLANTA AS 706-692!**
Would they do this if they were in Decatur, Marietta, or even Nelson
[just down the road, in NPA 770?] I doubt it.
* Some PBX owners don't recognize "anything in NPA 706" as local. The
PBX where I work (MindSpring) DOES recognize all the 706 prefixes
local to Atlanta as local -- but many others don't.
Anyway -- the solution for most of the woes (confusion, PBXs,
payphones) seems to be to move the local areas still in NPA 706 OUT of
706, and into whatever new NPA the area gets. (770 is *NOT* an
option, simply because most if not all of the local 706 NXXs already
exist in 770.)
Leaving them in 706 almost certainly *WILL* mean their being treated
as second-class calling areas for some time to come.
I attended the Georgia PSC area code "public meeting" in Marietta last
week, and voiced this opinion. Commission Chairman Stan Wise said
that they were still considering what to do about the 706-local mess,
but didn't give specifics. (I hope the NPA plan approved by the PSC
-- to deal with 770 -- also deals with 706-local. That means OVERLAY
of 404/770 with a new NPA, and the 706-local areas being realigned
into the new NPA [or 770 if at all possible.])
(Chairman Wise expressed concern about losing regulatory control of
COCOTs to the FCC and Telecom Act, too.)
Further, I'm cranking out phone-in and written complaints by the
boatload (as I always have) to the PSC and to COCOT owners, informing
them of "bad" payphones, where "bad" = "706-local broken." And I have
most of the problem COCOT owners listed on my web page, as well as a
list of 706-local NXXs, for mass consumption.
Payphones = http://www.mindspring.com/~scline/payphone/shame.html
Local NXXs = http://www.mindspring.com/~scline/payphone/atlnxx.html
This still doesn't address the phone-book/listing issue -- I have yet
to complain to the PSC at all about it. Threatening BellSouth and
Alltel with "PSC" [to get them to send free phone books] hasn't helped
yet -- the PSC itself will probably have to intervene. I do NOT
expect to HAVE to pay for listings for LOCAL areas, simply because of
telcos' incompetence.
Oh well...
Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS!
CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** (wk) scline(at)mindspring.net
(hm) roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/
**NO SPAM!** http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ and http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
From: sterger@primenet.com (Alan Sterger)
Subject: Unloaded Switched Line For Modem?
Date: 14 Jun 1997 21:53:01 -0700
Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet
I'm wondering if I can get an unloaded switched circuit from GTE in
California to use with my Courier v.everthing?
I'm 3.8 wire line miles from my CO. The response is rolling off the
high end negating the highest capable symbol rate.
In a data comm book I have it says, "It is possible to order a circuit
without loading coils from the telephone company for short-distance
direct connections or local loops; they are known as 43401 circuits
(AT&T Specification 43401)."
Is this what I want? Will GTE provision it? How much will it cost?
Alan
------------------------------
From: jared@netspace.net.au (Jared Gottlieb)
Subject: Telephone Congestion Due to Internet
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1997 20:18:57 +1000
Organization: Netspace Online Systems
The 7 June {New Scientist} has a variant of the congestion theme in the
Antipodes column:
"The internet is always a source of interesting snippets about a range
of subjects --i ncluding the Internet itself. I read a report by Brian
Harmer last month about the popularity of the Internet in Taumarunui,
a quiet little town south of Auckland. Apparently it is impossible to
make long-distance calls to or from that town between about 3 p.m. and
midnight most days as people hook up to their Internet Service
Providers via 0800 numbers. Telecom in New Zealand is mildly
embarrassed and says the number of lines into the town will be
increased in August."
------------------------------
From: scc@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:57:40 EDT
Subject: Summons Conference Calling (SCC) Service
Are you or your company's executives frequent CONFERENCE CALLING
users? If so, then why not try the premiere provider of full-service
teleconferencing available today ... SUMMONS CONFERENCE CALLING
... ABSOLUTELY FREE.
Conference calling is very important because you can bring together a
large group of people (up to 500 users) in as little as 5 minutes and
help reduce the skyrocketing cost of travel in today's world.
It is great for sales meetings, board meetings, investor relations, etc...
Our client list includes:
* Major cellular and PCS providers
* Fortune 500's
* Major Financial advisors
* MLM's and Network marketing companies
* Major law firms
* Numerous sales oriented companies
SUMMONS offers a state-of-the-art service that is second to none. In
addition we offer:
* Low flat rate pricing (.21 to .38 per minute per person)
* Rates up to 30% below AT&T, MCI, and Sprint
* No per call setup fees
* Private 800 #'s for custom greetings
* Full service features (i.e..operators, Q&A, recordings, etc...)
* Affinity programs for your group or association (earn discounts
or commission for your group)
* Full digital bridging quality
* No contracts or minimums
* No hassles
Our service is that simple. To qualify for the $ 100 FREE TRIAL CALL
simply call 1-800-306-2287 to setup your company account in only a few
minutes. Even if you don't have a need at this time, call today to
guarantee your $ 100 FREE TRIAL CREDIT or to learn more about us
simply visit our WEB SITE at:
http://www.summons.com
Thanks for your time,
Jim White
Sales Manager
P.S.*** Agent Inquiries Welcome ***
If you have any questions or concerns you can write or call us at:
Summons Conference Calling
PO Box 942145
Atlanta, GA 31141
770-496-5767 (office)
scc@bellsouth.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although the above is a commercial
sales pitch I received unsolicited in the mail (i.e. spam) I thought
it was sort of interesting. If anyone wants to investigate this
service and write it up here, let me know. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 03:38:55 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Children and the Internet" by Kehoe/Mixon
BKCHLINT.RVW 961216
"Children and the Internet", Brendan Kehoe/Victoria Mixon, 1997, 0-13-244674-X,
U$24.95/C$34.95
%A Brendan Kehoe brendan@zen.org
%A Victoria Mixon
%C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
%D 1997
%G 0-13-244674-X
%I Prentice Hall
%O U$24.95/C$34.95 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com
%P 215
%T "Children and the Internet"
Writing an Internet guide directed at use for children is more
difficult than it seems. Children's interests are open-ended, so
there is little to define topics to include and those to leave out.
Most such books include a hodge- podge of sites, contacts, and points
of trivia that usually leaves the reader cold. Following the
minimalist style of Kehoe's "Zen and the Art of the Internet"
(cf. BKZENINT.RVW) this book, paradoxically, provides more with less.
Sticking to (kid) business, the book covers the basics, safety,
getting connected, resources, the net in education, and case studies
in four California schools. The material is practical and realistic,
with reviews of Internet filtering software concentrating on how a
particular program functions, and options for parental control. Case
studies in the schools point out not only the fun of new resources,
but the problems of plagiarism and so forth.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCHLINT.RVW 961216
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 08:30:00 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "PC Magazine Guide to Connectivity"
BKPCMGDC.RVW 961216
"PC Magazine Guide to Connectivity", Frank J. Derfler Jr., 1995, 1-56276-274-5,
U$34.95/C$48.95/UK#32.49
%A Frank J. Derfler Jr.
%C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290
%D 1995
%G 1-56276-274-5
%I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP)
%O U$34.95/C$48.95/UK#32.49 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 info@mcp.com
%P 471
%T "PC Magazine Guide to Connectivity (3e)"
While not flashy, and not overtly technical, this book *is* a very
serviceable guide to communication for desktop computers. It covers
the components, concepts, and concerns at a level that is right for
the department manager or not-quite novice user.
The book may appear dauntingly thick, and not quite as lavishly
illustrated as its other Ziff-Davis kin, but it's probably easier to
than it looks at first glance. The intent is to educate, and the
reading level and tone are suitable to the task. You will not be able
to set up your own network after reading this book, but you will be
able to start designing what you want, and either talk intelligently
to consultants, or direct your studies.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKPCMGDC.RVW 961216
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage
Date: 16 Jun 1997 15:58:19 GMT
Organization: BBN Corp.
In article <telecom17.153.2@telecom-digest.org>, schulzrinne@cs.
columbia.edu says ...
> Assume you want to build a national ISP. How many POPs would you need
> to cover a given percentage of the population via local phone calls? I
> imagine that this information is not freely available, but one should
> be able to guess from the number of dial-in numbers for large, national
> ISPs:
> MCI has 304 numbers in the US;
> IBM claims about 485 in the US and 45 in Canada.
> Any guesses/estimates/... for others (AOL, Compuserve, etc.)?
I have done this for clients ... of course the actual numbers are
QUITE proprietary!
What I can say in public: There a law of diminishing returns. There
are dozens of local numbers with, say, a million or more people in the
local area. There are, at the other extreme, thousands of rural
exchange areas with only hundreds or low-thousands of people in their
local calling area. Picking out the best mix is then hindered by
which COs are any good; an ISP should do almost ANYTHING to avoid an
analog switch!
Figuring out the size of a calling area, in people, is not trivial.
Just finding out what's a local call is tough enough (noting that CCMI
has a costly database product and many libraries collect phone books).
These often don't map to anything that a census lists, either.
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at"bbn.com
BBN Corp., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850
Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission.
------------------------------
From: Peter Morgan <nagrom@pobox.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Minimum Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 09:50:50 +0100
In message <telecom17.153.2@telecom-digest.org> Henning Schulzrinne
<schulzrinne@cs.columbia.edu> writes:
> Assume you want to build a national ISP. How many POPs would you need
> to cover a given percentage of the population via local phone calls? I
> imagine that this information is not freely available, but one should
> be able to guess from the number of dial-in numbers for large, national
> ISPs:
> MCI has 304 numbers in the US;
> IBM claims about 485 in the US and 45 in Canada.
In the UK, the initial set of ISPs had this sort of problem too (made
as more important by the fact every call _is_ charged, there are none
of your "included" local calls), and some companies went to the
trouble of setting up many PoPs (Demon, Easynet, Pipex, to name a
few).
Then BT (and following their lead, Mercury and Energis) offered a
service they call "Populator" (or similar) which are for data
connections only and offer national access (where the caller still
pays for a "local" rate call) and either a flat fee per quarter per
line (on a sliding scale depending on how many hundred lines) or with
a large fee and then a pay as you go fee in addition (again, a sliding
scale as the minutes/month increase).
I guess some companies in N America could consider offering this on a
State- wide basis (or by some other suitable geographic area) but I'm
not sure how the charges would match up. The advantage for the ISP
is that they have central modem banks, rather than perhaps having some
concentrators dotted around, but in the UK the telcos get funds from
both caller and ISP while in your situation, you may pay your ISP a
bit more for this "free" access.
Peter
------------------------------
From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery)
Subject: Re: Minimun Number of Sites For Maximum Local Calling Coverage
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 17:42:00 GMT
Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666
One good source of such information is the BoardWatch Directory of
InterNet Service providers. They have listings (that include the info
your looking for) that cover all the National backbone operators, the
national ISP's and "over 17,500 InterNet Provider listings".
They've recently expanded and started covering ISP's in other countries.
DISCLAIMER: I don't work for Boardwatch ... just a happy reader of their
Magazine.
See Ya!!
Bob Savery
bob.savery@hawgwild.com
Sysop - HawgWild! BBS
HawgWild! BBS = (402) 597-2666 - Modem
hawgwild.com - telnet
www.hawgwild.com - World Wide Wait
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #155
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jun 18 09:06:16 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA15533; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:06:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706181306.JAA15533@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #156
TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Jun 97 09:06:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 156
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Printed Directories and Local/EAS/Optional Calling Plans (Mark J. Cuccia)
Some Questions and Comments Regarding Mexico (Mark J. Cuccia)
New Edition of {Telecommunications Directory} Being Prepared (Nigel Allen)
Historical Anecdote, was Re: Telephone Congestion to Internet (D. Burstein)
Book Review: "The Internet Phone Connection" by Kirk (Rob Slade)
Does Anyone Know About UP (Internet Access via Mobile)? (Rudy Torres)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 10:41:25 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Printed Directories and Local/EAS/Optional Calling Plans
In "Atlanta Metro Calling History", Stanley Cline wrote:
> As many of you may know, the metro Atlanta, GA area local calling area
> is the largest flat-rate, untimed local calling area in the world --
> spanning [now] at least seven LECs and CLECs, at least ten wireless
> carriers, and all or parts of four [now -- soon to be FIVE] NPAs.
> Even the Georgia Public Service Commission boasts about it!
>
> The path to such massive calling has bene somewhat rocky -- and
> calling areas added a year or two ago still remains that way.
<snip>
> THE GRIPES:
> The areas established as "local" last year and this year (Jasper,
> Fairmount/Ranger, Big Canoe, and "Conc-Zeb" -- but Jasper in
> particular) remain a massive MESS. Specifically:
> * BellSouth and independent LECs refuse to provide "free" directories
> for, or "free" directory assistance calls in, the new areas. I have
> called BellSouth on several occasions requesting phone books for
> Jasper and Fairmount, which are LOCAL calls to me, and am told there
> *WILL BE A CHARGE* (~$12-15 EACH) for them! (This is in contrast to
> Tennessee and Louisiana where phone books for any local/EAS or even
> Area+/optional-local areas are FREE FOR THE ASKING.
Stan, an *excellent* submission as usual, pointing out problems and
inconsistancies in today's confused telco industry and regulatory
environment!
A minor point of correction here regarding BellSouth in Louisiana ...
I have BellSouth's "Area-Plus" plan which 'flat-rates' the entire
optional LOS bands outside of the 'traditional' local/EAS dialing area.
Depending on the location of your wirecenter (and ratecenter), you have
a 'first' outer-ring which is 'capped' at $15.00 per month of calls, and
a 'second' outer-ring which is UN-capped. The clock keeps ticking up
charges on calls to that second outer-ring, but the per-minute rates are
*HIGHLY* discounted. Of course, the LOS/Area-Plus optional
charging/dialing plans are only for calls within your LATA.
In Louisiana, if one is an LOS or Area-Plus subscriber, they can get
*FREE* BellSouth printed directories, but *ONLY* those published by
BellSouth. Some of these directories might include some communities
served by independent telcos, but the directories are published by Bell.
By simply calling the local (Louisiana) BellSouth Business Office, I
have been able to get (for free) all of the BellSouth printed
directories which cover my LOS/Area-Plus plan. But I was told that I had
to call up BellSouth Directory Sales (a toll-free 800/888 number in
either Birmingham or Atlanta) if I wished to *PURCHASE* the printed
directories published by the independent telcos, even for communities in
my optional billing/dialing plan. There are only two independent telcos
in my LATA, and both serve communities which are LOS/Area-Plus to my
"Seabrook" wirecenter and New Orleans ratecenter. The price for these
directories was something between $20.00 and $30.00! (ouch).
However, I called up the business office of each independent telco, and
was asked for my mailing address and how many copies of their
directories I wanted. Of course, I only needed one copy each. They both
told me that there was NO charge for their directories! Each independent
telco told me the months that their directories were revised/printed, so
that I could call them again for their most recent edition! And each
independent telco seemed *QUITE* proud of the local artwork designs on
the cover of their directories.
The independent telcos are the Reserve Telephone Company (ratecenters /
wirecenters of Reserve LA and Garyville LA), and the Lafourche Telephone
Company aka LATELCO - which serves the lower/southern half of Lafourche
Parish (county) and the rate/wire-centers of Grand Isle LA (actually in
Jefferson Parish/county), Leeville LA, Galliano LA, Golden Meadow LA,
Cut-Off LA, and LaRose LA.
BTW, LaTelCo in LaRose LA provides its own 411 directory and '0' TOPS
operators, separate from BellSouth, altho' LaTelCo's territory is in the
New Orleans LATA. Reserve Telco is only a 'local exchange' provider with
no operator services (neither local/toll assistance nor
information/directory) of their own.
Some of the history of the printed New Orleans area directories ...
For decades, Bell (Southern Bell until 1968, South Central Bell from
1968 through 1995, and now BellSouth since 1995) has printed a metro New
Orleans directory listing all exchanges/wirecenters in the New Orleans
ratecenter (which covers communities of virtually all of Orleans Parish,
most all of Jefferson Parish, Chalmette/Arabi/etc. in St.Bernard Parish,
and Belle Chase in extreme north Plaquemines Parish), the wirecenter(s)
in the Kenner LA ratecenter in Jefferson Parish - which is 'EAS' with
New Orleans, and the old "Community Dial Office" rate/wirecenters of
Lake Catherine LA (extreme eastern Orleans Parish),
St.Bernard/Delacroix/Ysclowsky LA (lower St.Bernard Parish), Jesuit-Bend
LA (north Plaquemines Parish), Lafitte LA (in Jefferson Parish) which
are all EAS with New Orleans.
In addition, Bell has *also* published two 'community' or 'regional'
directories for communities of the West Bank area of New Orleans Metro
(whether in Plaquemines Parish, Orleans Parish or Jefferson Parish), and
the Kenner/River-Parishes directory (which includes the rate/wirecenter
of Kenner/Harahan which is EAS with New Orleans, and the
rate/wirecenters serving communities further up the river which are EAS
with Kenner/Harahan, but not with the New Orleans ratecenter).
(Of course, these days, LOS/Area-Plus expands the heavily discounted or
flat-rate dialing area even larger).
At some point in the 1980's (I can't really remember when), South
Central Bell didn't seem to like printing large directories for the
entire metro area. And at the same time South Central Bell was trying to
push (optional) *MEASURED* rate LOCAL exchange service with NO monthly
maximum 'cap'. That type of local billing has since been discontinued
and 'replaced' with the much more "customer-friendly" LOS plans. I think
BellSouth would like to forget about the optional measured rate fiasco
of the 1980's! :)
So, the New Orleans metro directory became revamped as the 'community'
West Bank directory (which has existed for years), the (new)
Orleans/St.Bernard Parish directory, the East Bank Jefferson directory,
and the (existing) Kenner/Harahan and River Parishes directory. By
'default', you would get the 'neighberhood' directory only, unless you
requested other/all directories of the entire local/EAS dialing/billing
ratecenter area. These directories were free for the asking.
However, someone (I assume some lawyer) found an obscure item in the
Louisiana PSC tariffs which stated that an entire ratecenter /
'exchange' / local-EAS billing/dialing area must be printed in a single
book! (I wonder how such a tariff item could apply to such large local
billing/dialing and geographic metro area as Atlanta, or simply large
geographic metro areas even if they don't have large 'flat-rate'
billing/dialing!?)
So, until the next directory printing cycle, South Central Bell issued a
(temporary) 'generic looking' white-cover with black-text ONLY (and NO
pictures/etc. on this cover, except for the 'Bell' logo, SCBell name,
etc.) "Greater New Orleans Residential White Pages". This covered the
'traditional' ratecenter and EAS local dialing of all of the 'regional'
areas, but there were no "call-guide" instruction pages in the front.
There weren't any business listings in this 'generic black & white
cover' book, as those listings had already been separated from
residential, and the entire metro area's alphabetical business listings
were being included in all (temporarily) separate 'regional'
directories.
Presently, there has been a debate over the size of the print in the New
Orleans area directory. BellSouth would send out for free, at individual
requests, a plastic magnifying strip (which also doubled as a small
ruler), and it had the BellSouth logo and slogan on it. There was also a
survey as to how people felt about the print size, and the results are
that the next printed book will go back to a larger print size.
Regarding PBX/COCOTs and local dialing, I've had similar problems. On
some (but not all) of these "CPE" devices, everytime a LOCAL/EAS prefix
is added to the New Orleans / Kenner ratecenter, it could take *YEARS*
before that prefix is programmed in as "local". :(
I have made similar complaints, and I always tell them *FCC* and *PSC*.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
It certainly *IS* a 'running battle'. New NPA's, dialing procedures
(let's not forget that existing 10-XXX+ CIC's which for some years have
been permissively dialable as 101-0XXX+ become mandatory as 101-0XXX+ in
Jan.1998), new CIC's (101-5XXX+, 101-6XXX+, and future 101-XXXX+), new
country codes, new c/o NXX prefixes, etc. ALL need to be recognized in
PBX's, Cellular systems, COCOT-chips (including BellSouth's 'new'
Teltrust A/O/Slimed COCOTs), telco wirecenter switches, LD carrier
switches and operator service systems, etc. And no matter how much
Bellcore's NANPA/TRA, the industry forums (ATIS/INC/NIIF/OBF/etc., CSCN,
etc.), the FCC/CRTC and state/provincial regulatory, and even the telcos
and carriers 'in the know', as well as the media and consumer advocacy
groups (although the latter frequently tend get things wrong) try to
inform other/all members of the industry of new codes and dialing
procedures, there will always be something to 'slip thru the cracks',
although much of the 'sleaze' out there (COCOTs A/O/Slime, etc) either
don't care about serving the public, or they are DELIBERATELY trying to
rip-off the end-user! :(
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:06:01 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Some Questions and Comments Regarding Mexico
Does anyone have access to a (relatively) recent directory of any
(large) city in Mexico (most likely Mexico City)?
I'm trying to compile the list of (Telmex) Mexico's service and access
codes. I do know some of them and they are indicated below:
91+ Station-sent-paid inTRA-Mexico Toll
92+ "special billing" inTRA-Mexico Toll
93 ??
94 ??
95+ Station-sent-paid Toll to US/Canada (does this include AK/HI?)
96+ "special billing" Toll to US/Canada ( " " " " ?)
97 ??
98+ Station-sent-paid International Toll
99+ "special billing" International Toll
Station-sent-paid is like the NANP 1+ or NANP-to-int'l 011+
"special billing" is like the NANP 0+ or NANP-to-int'l 01+
for collect, third-party-billing, calling-card, all forms of person,
etc.
98/99+ pair for International Toll includes dialing from Mexico to the
NANP-Caribbean, as +1-809-, +1-441-, +1-242-, +1-246, +1-649, +1-664,
+1-868, etc., but does are Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands dialed
as 98/99+1-787/340- or as 95/96+787/340-? (or with 98/99+1-809- or
95/96+809-, if the directory used for reference is pre-split-up-of-809).
Is Alaska/Hawaii dialed from Mexico as 95/96+907/808- (US/Canada) or as
98/99+1-907/808- (International) ??
The "service" codes that I know of are:
01 Repair
02 ??
03 Time-of-Day
04 Directory Assistance
05 ??
06 non-emergency inquiries
07 ??
08 Emergency
09 ??
00 ??
I don't know offhand if the Assistance Operator is 09 or 00.
I would assume that the Business Office is 02, 05, or 07.
I *GUESS* that one or two of these 0X (02, 05, 07) codes could be used
for a local weather report or some other Telmex-provided recorded
information line.
AFAIK, Mexico City's seven-digit local numbers do NOT (presently) begin
with '1', but they can NOT begin '9' nor '0', as seen above. Some other
towns in Mexico CAN have local dialed numbers beginning with '1'.
The City Code for Mexico City is the single-digit '5', but some other
towns surrounding Mexico City have three-digit city codes of the format
'59X' followed by a five-digit local number. This fits in properly with
the '9X+' access code scheme:
Mexico City- +52-5-NXX-XXXX, the 'N' can NOT be '9' (nor 1/0)
surrounding- +52-59X-N-XXXX, and I assume that the 'N' can NOT be '9'
(nor 1/0)
Thanks in advance for any info to add to this!
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 18:12:24 EDT
Subject: New Edition of {Telecommunications Directory} Being Prepared
From: ndallen@interlog.com (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Allen Telecom Policy Consultants, Toronto, Canada
Telecommunications-related companies (as well as individual telecom
consultants and telecom-related government agencies and associations)
may find it useful to be listed in the {Telecommunications Directory}
published by Gale Research so that journalists, researchers and potential
customers could get in touch with you more easily. There is no charge to
be listed. Here is a description of the directory:
A Detroit publishing company, Gale Research, is preparing a new edition
of its {Telecommunications Directory}, which it describes as "an
international descriptive guide to telecommunications companies, services,
systems, and related organizations in the field." The editors would like
to include a comprehensive listing of companies in the telecommunications
industry. There is no charge to be listed in the directory. All that you
have to do is to complete a questionnaire.
If you would like your company to be listed in the directory,
you can obtain a questionnaire that you can complete at
http://www.interlog.com/~ndallen/tdq.html
If this is inconvenient, I would be happy to send you the
questionnaire by e-mail.
Alternatively, you could contact:
Telecommunications Directory
Gale Research
645 Griswold Street, Suite 835
Detroit, MI 48226-4094
U.S.A.
telephone (313) 961-2242, ext. 1206 or 6516
fax (313) 961-6815
Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ndallen@interlog.com
http://www.interlog.com/~ndallen/telecom.html
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein)
Subject: Historical Anecdote, was Re: Telephone Congestion to Internet
Date: 17 Jun 1997 21:17:33 -0400
Organization: mostly unorganized
In <telecom17.155.3@telecom-digest.org> jared@netspace.net.au (Jared
Gottlieb) writes:
> The 7 June {New Scientist} has a variant of the congestion theme
[snip]
> I read a report by Brian
> Harmer last month about the popularity of the Internet in Taumarunui,
> a quiet little town south of Auckland. Apparently it is impossible to
> make long-distance calls to or from that town between about 3 p.m. and
> midnight most days as people hook up to their Internet Service
> Providers via 0800 numbers. Telecom in New Zealand is mildly
> embarrassed and says the number of lines into the town will be
> increased in August."
Which reminds me of a problem I ran into while attending a fairly well
known private college on the West side of Harlem in NYC in the late 1970s.
This is back in the days of one telco (*), and long distance calls went
from the local New York Telephone office to an AT&T Long Lines center.
I lived off campus at the time and hence had a 'regular', rather than
a campus/centrex-CO (**) phone. I discovered that it was almost
_impossible_ to make a long distance call from my CO to friends of
mine in New Haven and California from roughly 23:00 to 23:30. If I
tried, I'd get either reorders (rapid busies) or, occassionaly,
intercepts.
I spoke to some telco folk about this and managed, after the usual
problems, to get to the good guys - i.e. the ones who grew up eating
copper wire for breakfast, etc. After a bit of investigation they
figured out why this was happening, and also why the regular and
standard reports hadn't picked up on it.
Since this was a university neighborhood, there was a significant
population of younger folk who were calling long distance to reach
friends and family. And since rates were lower at 23:00, that's when
they made their calls.
The major businesses in the area (the university, a couple of
hospitals, and certain Government groups we never spoke about) which
made daytime calls had their own circuits, hence the general public
lines were heavily skewed to a 23:00 peak.
Since the daytime circuits were adequate and, apparently, the diagnostics
looked for average blocking based on a standard scattering of call time
distribution, they hadn't realized just how bad that half hour was.
Fortunately once this was noticed, they were able to increase capacity
in fairly short order.
* Execunet (MCI) was just starting to be availbale to the public, and
Southern Pacific Comunications had a very limited service area.
** This university was one of very few places with a Centrex-CU, which
meant the switch was on the customer premises. That's where I got my
first look at what _large_ banks of batteries look like.
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 05:39:00 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Phone Connection" by Kirk
BKINPHCN.RVW 961217
"The Internet Phone Connection", Cheryl Kirk, 1997, 0-07-882269-6,
U$29.99/C$42.95
%A Cheryl Kirk netphones@aol.com ckirk@alaska.net
%C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6
%D 1997
%G 0-07-882269-6
%I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne
%O U$29.99/C$42.95 +1-800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca
%P 276
%T "The Internet Phone Connection"
Nope, this isn't about dialup Internet, it's about Internet dialup.
If you want to get involved with Internet telephony but don't know
where to start, this is the book for you. Kirk covers every aspect of
the technology, from base system, to specialized hardware, through
hone programs, via standards, and in related software and
applications. Everything is dealt with practically and in sufficient
depth. All sections are not only clearly explained, but also a
pleasure to read.
The book covers the technology on a conceptual as well as hands-on
level. The author looks at the social side in addition to the bits
and bytes. Reviews of the various products (and many are covered)
give specifications, description, and personal opinions.
Actually, I hope nobody buys this book until I get my system running ...
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINPHCN.RVW 961217
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
From: Rudy Torres <Rudy.Torres2@gd2.swissptt.ch>
Subject: Does Anyone Know About UP (Internet Access via Mobile - product)?
Date: 18 Jun 1997 11:46:00 GMT
Organization: Swiss Telecom
Hello out there,
I'm interested in gathering additional information on a product
offered by a company called UP (Unwired Planet, Redwood Shores USA)
that allows access to the Internet (E-mail and Web browsing using HDML
- Handheld Device Markup Language) via Mobile equipment (GSM, DCS1800,
PCS1800, CDMA, TDMA, etc.).
I've seen their web site for typical sales and marketing information
on the product offering (UP.Browser, UP.Mail, UP.Pager, and UP.Link).
But I'd like to get additional non-biased comments and/or opinions
about this product from Mobile providers that have implemented it
(especially GSM networks).
Is there any web sites with market assessments (open to the public) on
these products (or mobile services using these products) on the WWW?
Does anyone have any comments and/or remarks concerning these products
and/or mobile services using these products?
You can reply to me by either posting a reply to this NG posting or via
e-mail at my address.
I would appreciate the information but please do not send SPAM on telecom
products, I am not interested.
Thanks in advance!
Rudy Torres
Swiss Telecom PTT
Mobilcom - MC23
Ostermundigen, Switzerland
Rudy.Torres2@swisstelecom*-*NoSpam*-*.com
(Please remove the *-*NoSpam*-* to send e-mail).
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #156
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 19 09:27:36 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA06629; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 09:27:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706191327.JAA06629@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #157
TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Jun 97 09:27:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 157
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Mike King)
Thanks to Subscribers (Robert Allender)
Buy-Out Discount 800 Number Inventory?! (Judith Oppenheimer)
First Post-FCC 800 Order "Enforcement" Issued (Judith Oppenheimer)
Disaster Recovery Question (Tom Clifton)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: The AOL List: Faces of Evil
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:31:11 PDT
----- Forwarded Message -----
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 17:36:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Cassel <destiny@wco.com>
Reply-To: David Cassel <destiny@wco.com>
Subject: The AOL List: Faces of Evil
F a c e s o f E v i l
~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~
Authorities entered AOL's Dulles, Virginia headquarters May 30. They
located an AOL lawyer named Andrew Lewis Singer--and arrested him.
"He seemed normal," one of his former co-workers told the AOL List.
But three days earlier, Singer had left the building and driven to a
nearby pond, where he paid an unexpected visit to a teenaged boy he'd
met on America Online. The lawyer had created the screen name
DCBOY83, and corresponded with the teenager via e-mail, investigators
told the {Washington Post}.
The AOL List confirmed the investigation with the Louden County
Sheriffs Department. Press Information Officer Ed Pifer says that
around 5 p.m. on May 27, AOL's lawyer had met his on-line acquaintance
in Ashburn Farm -- then asked about an 11-year-old fishing across the
lake. He went over to that boy, initiated a conversation -- and then
committed a felony offense which included putting his hands down the
boy's pants.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-06/06/093L-060697-idx.html
Singer apparently returned to work at AOL the next day. He continued
working for the company until he was arrested in his office that
Friday.
The next week authorities told the {Washington Post} they'd begun
searching the lawyer's computer records at America Online
headquarters, as well as the lawyer's apartment -- and AOL's
spokespeople confirmed that he had been employed at America Online for
nearly a year.
Yet since the story broke in the Post, it's remained virtually
unreported. The disturbing issue may spook the press -- even though it
corresponds with a long series of AOL-only incidents involving child
pornography. The {Cincinnati Enquirer} obtained FBI records in 1995
showing that more than 3,000 members were suspected violators of
federal child pornography laws (at a time when AOL had just 3 million
subscribers.) "Thousands of subscribers to America Online have been
viewing the illegal pictures and downloading them..." the paper
reported -- citing the FBI reports.
ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/cinn1
Even worse, child pornography was being downloaded directly from AOL's
file libraries. Faulty screening allowed users to upload illegal
images directly into the shareware libraries -- and FBI records showed
that "during one 25-minute span when an illegal photograph was made
available ... about 400 people nationwide downloaded the picture to
their computers." Weeks later, the Associated Press determined that
the FBI "has too few agents to handle the thousands of search warrants
that authorities contemplated executing during a one-day crackdown."
Instead, by September the FBI raided over 120 homes in over 60% of the
nation's federal districts -- culminating a two-year undercover probe
into America Online child pornography trading.
(http://www.cnn.com/US/9509/cyber_porn)
But in fact, the problem started in 1991. "One subscriber ... posed
as a 13-year-old homosexual boy last month and received pictures of
what appear to be youngsters involved in sexual acts," Newsweek
reported. (12/23/91) The problem has become wide-spread enough for
AOL to ban the character strings "boy" in all AOL chat room names.
But even though a filter now prevents any chat room from being created
if its name contains the word boy,
(http://pathfinder.com/@@BafpJAQAGSEf7Szw/Netly/daily/960918.html) it
appears to have had little impact. In November -- and as recently as
March, " 'Teen Pix' was still a chat room name..." one observer
reports. And so was " 'Under 15,' with x's in between the letters..."
That observer is Brian Smith -- a Florida attorney. In January he
filed a lawsuit against America Online on behalf of a woman whose
11-year-old son appeared in commercial child pornography. The suit
contends that the videotapes were sold in AOL's chat rooms -- and that
AOL staffers witnessed the transactions, but allowed them to continue.
(http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,563,00.html) "In
essence, AOL has created a home shopping network for pedophiles and
child pornographers," the lawsuit
notes. (http://www.wco.com/~destiny/flasuit.htm)
When Smith publicly announced his suit, the AOL List contacted Barry
Crimmins -- a children's rights activist who'd investigated AOL's
child pornography traders for six months in 1995, forwarding the
information to the FBI's investigators. Asked if he'd ever seen AOL
Guides witnessing the trading of child pornography without
intervening, Crimmins responded "All the time." How responsive was
AOL? "The most they ever did was close the room. Sometimes hours
after I had complained to TOS about it."
(http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0036.html)
Friday, Smith's suit goes to a crucial hearing on a motion filed by
AOL. Reached in West Palm Beach, he offered this observation. "It
certainly doesn't look good when AOL's defending a child pornography
suit to have one of their own employees, in-house, doing one of the
very things they're accused of aiding."
Indeed. When questioned by the {Washington Post}, an AOL spokesperson
"would not say whether Singer's status as an AOL employee gave him
access to information about subscribers, such as lists of children who
use AOL chat rooms meant only for young people." AOL flatly denied
subscriber information was accessed after an AOL technical services
employee pleaded guilty to grand theft in 1996. A multi-state
investigation followed the purchase of over $30,000 in computer
equipment using stolen credit information -- and investigations led to
the arrest and conviction of the AOL employee who signed for the
equipment. (The {Florida Times-Union} also reported that he then
implicated two fellow AOL employees.
http://www.wco.com/~destiny/ccaol2.htm)
But oddly, AOL's come under fire for doing something similar at the
corporate level. "AOL snoops into its subscribers' incomes and
details of their children," another news story announced this week --
citing a watchdog report that AOL is "selling the information
aggressively through a broker to third parties ..."
http://www.techweb.com:80/investor/newsroom/tinews/june/0609aol.html
Privacy Times contends that AOL is selling advertisers address lists
which "include lists of 248,000 children between the ages of 0-5,
354,000 children between the ages of 6-11 and 1,084,000 between the
ages of 12-17." And the price is high. "These lists sell for $110
per thousand."
But AOL also determines their members' income using data obtained from
other services, Privacy Times reports -- a policy which Elizabeth
Zitrin, deputy leader for AOL's ACLU Live forum, considered "scary".
AOL's spokespeople refused to provide Privacy Times with figures on
their profitability, but in a 1994 Community Update, Steve Case
acknowledged AOL's motives. ("Why are we doing this? Primarily
because it will be a source of additional revenue for us...") Privacy
Times' Evan Hendricks notes that as a direct result of the policy,
"AOL members increasingly are targeted by junk mailers."
A group of hackers struck back. "Behind those computer monitors the
staff is laughing at you," one told the AOL List -- so they installed
a tell-all hacker web page...on AOL's PrimeHost service! "Making it
on PrimeHost was an idea we had from the beginning," they told the AOL
List, "to try and show how pitiful AOL's dedication to security is."
AOL didn't discover the page for two months (until a rival hacker
tipped them off). But the same day AOL shut the page, the hackers
sneaked a change-of-address page into its previous location! (
http://www.wco.com/~destiny/lithnode.htm ) "Just another great example
of poor AOL security," the page's author commented the next day.
Safely ensconced in their new location, they proceeded to display
sensitive in-house information, including the phone number for Tatiana
Gau, AOL's Vice President of Integrity Assurance -- along with a
picture. (http://www.lithiumnode.com/aol/tatiana.html)
But AOL continues their pose of responsibility. The same day the
{Washington Post} reported the sexual assault charges filed against
AOL's lawyer, Steve Case announced that AOL would host a conference
about children's safety. Conceding that the omnipresence of the
on-line life means "we need to take our civic responsibilities even
more seriously," Case opines that children's safety is "one of the
first issues that requires urgent attention," adding that "the reality
is that we are confronting these issues every day..."
(http://www.wco.com/~destiny/case-jux.htm)
In fact, AOL's confronting other issues as well. An AOL web page
recruiting for the Ku Klux Klan went off-line this morning -- but it
was accompanied by thousands of other pages. "Members.aol.com is
unavailable," read an in-house system status report, stating that the
problem started at 1 a.m. Thursday morning. "Estimated time of
repair: 2:45 p.m." (http://www.wco.com/~destiny/sys-stat.htm) When
the pages came on-line, the Klan page returned as well. AOL's
commitment to civic responsibility rang hollow to an African-American
who'd received taunting e-mail from the page's author the night
before. It's message? "A victory for the Klan is a victory for all
of America."
THE LAST LAUGH
AOL users pursuing minors looks like a wide-spread problem -- and
they'll apparently go to great lengths, one user reports. A teenager
who investigated AOL's "Teen Chat" chat area told the AOL List that
"Within 20 minutes, someone offered me free tickets from New York City
to Florida..."
David Cassel
More Information - http://www.wco.com/~destiny/frontend.htm
http://www.wco.com/~destiny/time.htm
~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~
Please forward with subscription information and headers. To subscribe
to this list, type your correct e-mail address in the form at the bottom
of the page at www.aolsucks.org -- or send e-mail to MAJORDOMO@CLOUD9.NET
containing the phrase SUBSCRIBE AOL-LIST in the the message body.
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to MAJORDOMO@CLOUD9.NET
containing the phrase UNSUBSCRIBE AOL-LIST.
~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~
---------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Parents, what further reports do you
need to come to a decision to **keep your children away** from AOL?
For that matter, why does *anyone* subscribe to that service given
the terrible reputation it has received in the past year or two? PAT]
------------------------------
From: allender@asiaonline.net (Robert Allender)
Subject: Thanks to Subscribers
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 10:21:57 -0400
Patrick:
In April you published my request for your subscribers to test the new
numbering system which was about to be imposed on international
audiotex services in Hong Kong. Kind subscribers from all around the
world tried the new 14-digit number for the Hong Kong stockmarket
quotes hotline we operate and found, as we feared, that it was largely
inaccessible.
We took the results from these calls the the Telecommunications
Authority here in Hong Kong and, to make a long story short, they have
agreed to postpone the numbering change for one year, then to look at
it again.
I would like to thank you, TELECOM Digest, and all your subscribers for
this result. Without you, it would never have happened.
Robert Allender
RAS Marketing tel: +852 2834-4902
Suite 2, 19 Hennessy Road fax: +852 2834-2983
Hong Kong real-time stock quotes +852 1729 0990
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now of course the issue is will Hong
Kong even remain similar to what we have known after June 30 with
the change in government. I've an uneasy feeling about it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
Subject: Buy-Out Discount 800 Number Inventory?!
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:06:19 -0400
Organization: ICB Toll Free - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting
Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net
I queried this company on behalf of a client, who wants to know how a
company can provide ISP service with flat-rate unlimited dial-in 800.
The response:
OneSource buys closeout (reminant 800 numbers) at extreme discount
from a wholesale brokerage. That is why our number changes. The
numbers run out.
As soon as OneSource has the software developed to update itself to
the next stack of numbers before the old ones run out, it will become
seemless. Until then, we will have to deal with updateing our dial up
to the new numbers periodically.
I hope that clears it up.
Sincerely,
Thomas Prendergast
---------------
OneSource is an MLM which offers the following contact info for billing
disputes:
OneSource Communications, Inc.
9400 MacArthur Blvd.
Suite 124-707
Irving, TX 75063
Phone: (972) 556-0317
Fax: (972) 556-9631
Phone is answered by answering machine.
Those facts aside, for the sake of being thorough:
To my mind the numbers don't play out - even at .03 per minute, or $1.80
per hour, that's only 11 hours online per subscriber per month, assuming
OneSource would choose to eat that, and has no other operations costs.
Does anyone have any comments/experience re OneSource?
Does anyone have any feedback generically re remnant 800 number stock?
For example, what happens with pre-paid calling cards that don't get
sold? Would this be what he is referring to, and if so, would it fit
the scenario as he describes it?
TIA -
Judith Oppenheimer
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com
800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/icbinfo2.html
800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/expert2.html
1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714
------------------------------
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
Subject: First Post-FCC 800 Order "Enforcement" Issued
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 16:43:08 -0400
Organization: ICB Toll Free - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting
Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net
On June 13, 1997 the FCC issued its first related official
pronouncement since adoption of the Toll Free Service Access Codes,
Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 95-155. The document,
addressing a dispute between AT&T and ITT Sheraton, and TWC
Communications, is of substantial importance to the telecom and
marketing industries.
We will be posting on-going documentation regarding this matter on ICB
TOLL FREE NEWS; in the interim, anyone who'd like can contact me
directly at joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com for an email copy.
Regards,
Judith Oppenheimer
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com
800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/icbinfo2.html
800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/expert2.html
1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:24:14 -0500
Subject: Disaster Recovery Question
From: t_clifton@juno.com (tom clifton)
A few weeks ago I had a customer call me after their HVAC service man
cut a chiller line in the PBX room and several hundered gallong of
glycol-water solution soaked the room. THe PBX was toasted - smoked
power supplies, memory boards, CPU, hard drive etc, and was replaced
with a standby system the next day. However, the 66 block frame also
got soaked.
I did what I could to clean it by vacuuming with a wet/dry vacuum
tjhen flooded each block with a trichlorotrifluroethane "residueless"
contact cleaner then blew each one dry with a tetrafluroethane
"duster" and repeated an hour later.
Does anybody have any better advice on cleaning up after such a mess,
or on the long term effects on the reliability of 66 blocks that have
suffered such abuse?
My suggestion to the customer is to replace the frame. The bulk of riser
cable to other floors is perhaps managable, but there is a LOT of 4 pair
on that floor that will be too short to re-terminate, and Insurance aside
it will very disruptive to rerun the cables and splicing (as far as I'm
concerned) 4 pair is pointless.
One other note of interest. THe customer had a rigorous program of
backups - maintaining them off site etc. However, it seems that the
floppy disk drive on the PBX was out of alignment (8 years old) and only
a portion of the configuration volume was readable on other two other
PBX's. Word of wisdom - if you have off site backups, make sure that
your restoration machine can read them.
Tom
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #157
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 20 23:08:18 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA12698; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:08:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:08:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706210308.XAA12698@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #158
TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Jun 97 23:08:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 158
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Mexico Numbering/Dialing - NEW Info (Mark J. Cuccia)
Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Bill)
612 Relief Proceedings (Bryan Bethea)
Frustration: Call Forwarding a Centrex Line (Hillary Gorman)
Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Joseph Singer)
Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Fred Farzanegan)
Face of Evil *157 (Eric Florack)
Telemarketing - Is it Wrong? (Kevin R. Ray)
MCI Local Service in Chicago Area (TELECOM Digest Editor)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:47:00 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Mexico Numbering/Dialing - NEW Info
I was a bit premature in my earlier posting regarding Mexico.
In this posting, there will be some additional information on Mexico
Dialing Codes *PRE* 1997 and ALSO some information on Mexico Dialing
Codes beginning in 1997.
Some of the reasons I may have been a bit premature in my earlier post:
On Tuesday afternoon, I did have a chance to stop by the Main branch of
the New Orleans Public Library 'downtown', twenty minutes before that
branch closed.
The 1995 edition of the Mexico City directory was available, as was the
old 1985 edition! I also remember that the 1975 edition was still there
a few years ago, but it must have been tossed out when the 1995 edition
was received.
BTW, I had a chance to (briefly) scan through the directories of some
major Canadian cities, a handful of towns in Hawaii and Alaska, and the
San Juan PR directory. All of these directories were from the early
1990's.
The NOPL Main Branch *USED* to have directories of Bahamas, Bermuda,
the US Virgin Islands, and the British Virgin Islands. But those had
become somewhat dated and were most likely tossed out. And while I
didn't have time to scan through the directories of London, Paris,
Rome, etc. it did seem to be editions from the early 1990's. However,
*OLD* directories from foreign countries (which were still on the
shelf in 1993) had been tossed. I missed not seeing the 1967 (yes,
SIXTY-seven) Manilla (Philippines) directory which *WAS* at the Public
Library in 1993. :(
While I don't speak Spanish, I was able to figure out what the 1995
Mexico City directory indicated:
[MY notation of '??' means that the code wasn't shown in the
directory. Either the code is 'vacant' (not used), or it is used as
some form of internal test-type code: ANAC, Ring-Back, Test-Board,
etc.]
'00' Service Codes:
01 - Directory Assistance - National
02 - Operator Assistance - Local and National/Toll
03 - Time-of-Day
04 - Directory Assistance - Local
05 - Repair Service (dialed code translates to a local number)
06 - Emergencies (Fire, Ambulance, etc.)
07 - Government Department/Service Inquiries
08 - Emergencies (Police)
09 - Operator Assistance - International/Overseas
00 - ??
The translated local number for Repair Service in Mexico City was also
indicated next to '05', as:
(+52-5)-518-8320
'9X+' Access Codes:
(special-billing indicates
"Operator-Assisted" card, collect, 3rd-pty, person, etc)
InTRA-Mexico Toll-
91+ABCD-xxxx (station)
92+ABCD-xxxx (special-billing)
93 - ??
94 - ??
Calling to the US (including Alaska & Hawaii), Canada-
95+NXX-NXX-xxxx (station)
96+NXX-NXX-xxxx (special-billing)
97 - ??
International & Overseas (including *ALL* of the NANP-Caribbean)-
98+country-code+national-number (station)
99+country-code+national-number (special-billing)
Mexican National Cellular Access
90+ABCD-xxxx
Dialing to the NANP-Caribbean (including PR/USVI) was indicated as:
98/99+1809+nxx-xxxx
Obviously, a 1996 directory would indicate:
98/99+1441-nxx-xxxx Bermuda
98/99+1787-nxx-xxxx Puerto Rico
98/99+1268-nxx-xxxx Antigua
etc.
It appears that the NANP-Caribbean is dialed as "Intl/Ovs" rather than
"Bordering-Country Toll" due to billing/rating.
i.e., NANP-Caribbean from Mexico is probably billed as 'fixed-rate-per-
minute' for each country, rather than variable-rate based on distance
(V & H co-ordinates plus a possible "other-line rate-step")
Mexican National Toll-Free Numbers are of the form (and dialed) as:
91+800-x-xxxx
Telmex' Business Office in Mexico City is:
(+52-5)-222-1212 (main switchboard)
(+52-5)-222+XXXX (extension of specific department or person)
Some additional notes:
Mexico's National Numbering is eight digits total.
The City-Code + Central-Office-Code part is four digits total.
(+52)-ABCD-xxxx
The 'A' position digit is NEVER a '0' (zero), but can be any other
possible digit from '1' thru '9'.
Numbering/Dialing is parsed as follows:
(+52)-ABC-D-xxxx
The 'A' position is NEVER '0'
The 'D' position can NOT be '0' nor '9'
The 'B' and 'C' positions can be any possible digit
If the 'A' position is '5', the 'B' position is '9' (see below)
(+52)-AB-CD-xxxx
The 'A' position is NEVER '0'
The 'C' position can NOT be '0' nor '9'
The 'B' and 'D' positions can be any possible digit
(There are presently NO situations of the 'A' position being '5'
in this parsing)
(+52)-5-BCD-xxxx Mexico City and immediete environs
The 'B' position can NOT be '0' nor '9';
It *USED* to be that the 'B' position could NOT be a '1', but more
recently, Mexico City (cellular) numbers *CAN* begin with a '1'.
(+52)-59C-D-xxxx smaller towns surrounding Mexico City metro
The 'D' position can NOT be '0' nor '9'
The 'C' position can be any possible digit
Monterrey has the single digit '8' for its city code, followed by a
seven-digit local number. The first digit of the c/o code in the
seven-digit local number *CAN* be a '1'. However, I haven't yet been
able to determine how towns surrounding Monterrey have their
city-code+c/o-code parsed, nor which specific digits are restricted
from which positions in the 8BCD city-code+c/o-code.
The digit-possibilities for each 'A'/'B'/'C'/'D' position were much
more limited years ago (in the 1970's and earlier 1980's).
Mexico does have plans to expand their national numbering plan, by
adding TWO more digits to the national number, within the city-code-
plus-central-office-code portion. Thus the total city+c/o-code will
expand to a total of SIX-digits, the full national number will expand
to a total of TEN-digits, and the worldwide number for Mexico wil
expand to a total of TWELVE-digits.
However, I don't have anything further regarding the specifics on which
digits will be added where, nor how the new numbering will correspond
to geographic locations within Mexico, except that the city+c/o-code
parsing will CONTINUE to be variable, depending on the population, or
density of telephone numbers in a particular area.
NOW ... after my earlier posting, I received email from someone who
works in the North American telecom industry (but who wishes not to
be named), regarding changes in the Mexican Dialing plan, as he has
done some consulting work on the new Mexican Numbering/Dialing Plan.
And I also received email with some info, from a reader of
TELECOM Digest who lives in Mexico City.
THANK YOU (!Gracias!) to all who have sent me email with additional
information on the new Mexican Numbering/Dialing Plan!
It appears that Telmex has begun to expand the '0X' Service Codes to
a longer '0XX' format.
AND, I also discovered that Telmex now has a webpage, although it is
only available in Spanish:
http://www.telmex.com.mx (which is identical to) http://www.telmex.net
Telmex' webpages do indicate *SOME* of the (new) dialing procedures in
Mexico. In addtion Mexico is beginning to introduce Equal-Access and
Presubscription to a Primary toll-carrier. Some of the dialing
instructions, to dial (on a per-call basis) a toll call via a carrier
other than the chosen/presubbed primary, is shown on Telmex' website.
Equal-Access and Primary toll-carrier Presubscription seems to have
begun in the larger cities in Mexico only this year (1997).
The following is a compilation of information from various sources:
"CIC" indicates the three-digit "Carrier Identification Code"
'cc' indicates the ITU-assigned country code
'nn' indicates the full national number in the dialed country
special = card, collect, 3d-pty, person, etc.
00-0+"CIC"+090 Intl/Ovs. Operator of dialed "CIC"
00-0+"CIC"+09+cc+nn Intl/Ovs. Calls via dialed "CIC" (special)
00-0+"CIC"+cc+nn Intl/Ovs. Calls via dialed "CIC" (station)
00+cc+nn Intl/Ovs. Calls via Presubbed Carrier (station)
(in non-Equal-Access areas, via Telmex' LADA, dialed as:
95+NXX-NXX-XXXX for NANP (US/Alaska/Hawaii/Canada)
98+cc+nn for ALL of NANP-Caribbean and all other cc's)
"Caller-Pays" to NANP Toll-Free 800/888 use the 'replace' codes,
880/881
01-0+"CIC"+020 Mexican Toll Operator of dialed "CIC"
01-0+"CIC"+02+nn Mexican Toll Calls via dialed "CIC" (special)
01-0+"CIC"+nn Mexican Toll Calls via dialed "CIC" (station)
01+nn Mexican Toll Calls via Presubbed Carrier (station)
(in non-Equal-Access areas, via Telmex' LADA, dialed as 91+nn)
020 Mexican Toll Operator of Presubbed Carrier (the code WAS 02)
(in non-Equal-Access areas, Telmex' LADA is the operator)
02+nn Mexican Toll Calls via Presubbed Carrier (special)
(in non-Equal-Access areas, via Telmex' LADA, dialed as 92+nn)
030 Time of Day (the code WAS 03)
031 Wake-Up Service
040 Local Directory Assistance (the code WAS 04)
050 Repair Service (the code WAS 05)
055 National Directory Assistance (the code WAS 01)
060 Emergencies (the code WAS 06 for Fire, 08 for Police)
070 Government Deptartment/Services Inquiries (the code WAS 07)
080 [I have had conflicting information on the use of this code...
one use is for business office - 'new customers',
the other use is for 'paid' call for routine police reports]
090 Intl/Ovs. Operator of presubbed carrier (the code WAS 09)
(in non-Equal-Access areas, Telmex' LADA is the operator)
09+cc+nn Intl/Ovs. Calls via presubbed carrier (special)
(in non-Equal-Access areas, via Telmex' LADA, dialed as:
96+NXX-NXX-XXXX for NANP (US/Alaska/Hawaii/Canada)
99+cc+nn for ALL of NANP-Caribbean and all other cc's)
For per-call dialed "CICs", I have been able to find out the following:
100 Miditel
111 Avantel (a joint venture with MCI)
123 Telmex' LADA
200 Bestel
234 Investcom
288 Alestra (a joint-venture with 'guess-who' ... AT&T)
333 Iusatel (I do NOT know if this is a joint-venture with Sprint)
555 Telinor
777 Marcatel
Calls to Mexican Cellular phones NOW seem to be dialable just like
dialing to any Mexican geographic/POTS local or toll numbers.
Mexican Toll-Free numbers are dialed/numbered as:
91/01+800+five-or-seven-digits.
There doesn't seem to be any restriction on the possibilities of
digits for each position of the five/seven-digit portion of the
Toll-Free number. I don't know if the five-digit numbers are
going to expand to seven-digits when the rest of Mexico's POTS/
geographic numbers expand. Nor do I know if there are any 'key'
digits in 'key' positions to determine whether or not a Mexican
Toll-Free number is 800+five-digits or 800+seven-digits.
I have sent an email to Telmex, requesting formal or printed
documentation of the new Numbering/Dialing Plan for Mexico. I did
request an English language edition, but I will settle for Spanish
if that is the only language edition available at this time.
When I have further information, I'll post it!
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:25:26 -0700
From: Bill <grendel6@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: grendel6@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
I know this subject has come up in these pages (?) before, but I can't
remember the resolution, and I couldn't find it in DejaNews.
Here in the Philadelphia area, there are several new wireless carriers.
Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the B-side cellular carrier) is promoting its
partially-digitalized (but otherwise conventional cellular) system as
*new* and *improved*; we also have Sprint Spectrum (**not** S/S-APC),
Nextel and, coming soon, Omnipoint.
Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether
the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just
juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects
of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge.
Omnipoint isn't here yet, but (I believe) they will be true PCS. True
or false?
What the blazes is NexTel? They have great billboards, but does anyone
know what their pricing looks like ?
Bill
P.S. I use Comcast/Metrophone (the A-side cellular carrier), which is
perfectly acceptable, but which has a number of annoying "features"
(like self-provided directory assistance); I think I may be able to get
a better deal from one of the PCS carriers (I pay $16.00/month, plus
$.36 peak/$.16 off and $.12 per call, generally using about 200 minutes
a month; LD is free on weekends, but 99% of my calls are during peak
periods).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:39:59 -0500
From: Bryan Bethea <nineonine@geocities.com>
Reply-To: nineonine@geocities.com
Subject: 612 Relief Proceedings
The 612 NPA Relief Industry Team recently held its second meeting to
consider relief alternatives for the rapidly exhausting 612 NPA. The
Team has prepared a draft report to the Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission. While the Team was unable to reach a concensus on a relief
method, they did develop two plans that are presented in the report.
One option splits the current code using the Mississippi River (roughly)
as its boundary. Some COs operate on both sides of the river and would
be kept in on code or the other. Minneapolis and communities to the
west of the river would retain the 612 code while Saint Paul and
communities to the east of the river would receive the new code. This
option has the support of AT&T, MCI, and Sprint. 10 digit dialing for
local calls between the area codes would become necessary.
The other option is an all service overlay. All local calls would be
dialed as 10 digits. USWest, GTE, Frontier, Lakedale Telephone and
other LECs prefer the overlay option.
Another option was considered but not included in the report. Referred
to as the "Doughnut Split", this option would have kept Minneapolis,
Saint Paul, and their immediate suburbs in 612 while forcing the outer
ring of communities into a new code.
It seems as though most of communities in the Twin Cities area have EAS
to Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Why bother with a split if 10 digit
dialing will be required under either option chosen? It will be
interesting to see what the MPUC decides. The report asks for a
decision by October 1997 to avoid exhaust of 612 in the first quarter of
1998.
Bryan Bethea
Walnut Hill, Florida
HOME TOUCH 1 COMMUNICATIONS
Telephone 850-327-6228 334-368-8600
Fax 850-505-0205 334-368-1778
------------------------------
From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman)
Subject: Frustration: Call Forwarding a Centrex Line
Date: 19 Jun 1997 15:08:17 GMT
Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous
Ok. I'm frustrated. Maybe someone here Knows Something (tm) and can help
out, maybe not, but I need to vent, regardless.
Here's the situation. I'm in the MFS/Worldcom building here in
Philadelphia. I wanted a telephone line to go along with all of our
T1s and T3s. The only way to do this, apparently, was for Bell
Atlantic to bring a line to the demarc, and for MFS/Worldcom (which
can't yet deliver local dialtone here) to run it up 22 stories and
install a jack here, and resell it to us as an MFS/Worldcom line.
This is, according to MFS folks, a "standard" Bell Atlantic Centrex line,
but the checks go to MFS instead of Bell Frantic (which is fine with me,
really.)
Note that this line requires a prepended 9 to dial out to the world.
Now, the Bell Atlantic instructions published in the phone book on how
to forward calls from a regular line didn't work, so I called our MFS
rep who said she had to check with Bell and get back to me. She got
back to me and said that I should call someone else. I called the
person, who told me she works for Worldcom, and she instructed me to:
pick up the phone;
dial *206;
wait for a double beep;
dial the number calls should forward to.
When I tried this, I got a fast busy after dialing *.
I then tried dialing 9 * 206, but again got a fast busy after dialing
*. I was then instructed to try this:
pick up phone;
dial 506;
etc ...
After dialing the 50, I got "the number you have called can not be
completed as dialed..." so I tried 9 506, which got me dead silence.
"Are you SURE it's not giving you a double beep after that?" she asked
me. Yes, I was sure, as I had done it five times. So, the Worldcom
woman had no idea what to do and says she will call me back. However,
I've been trying to get this working since 8 am YESTERDAY and really
MUST have it working by 4 PM today. Any bright ideas out there??
Note that both Bell and MFS are in agreement that this particular
Centrex line DOES have call forwarding enabled. They just don't seem
to know how to make it work. Note also that MFS asked *me* if I was
calling out through "my" PBX. I informed them that we asked for a
regular old voice line, and this was what they gave me, and that if it
was behind *their* PBX, they are the ones who should know about it ...
hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com
If you need help, contact <support@netaxs.com>
"So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?"
Net Access...we got the clues, we got the funk, we got the bandwidth!
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Call forwarding is usually done with
something like *72 or 72# or 1172. May I presume you tried the obvious
like 9-1172 (since you said the * went straight to reorder) or 9-72#,
or possibly 9-72 (wait for time out and beep tones)? Also, what about
other users on the centrex? How do *they* call forward (both to an
inside extension or outside number)? Please note that some centrexes
are wired to allow forwarding only to another extension and not off-
premises. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:17:00 -0700
From: Joseph Singer <dov@oz.net>
Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil
While I am quite upset with AOL's record especially in this case, Pat
comments:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Parents, what further reports do you
> need to come to a decision to **keep your children away** from AOL?
> For that matter, why does *anyone* subscribe to that service given
> the terrible reputation it has received in the past year or two? PAT]
I am no fan of AOL, but the truth is that for many parts of the
country AOL is the only local POP that is available to people. I
think also that a reason that a lot of the "unwashed" subscribe to AOL
is that it doesn't require a great deal of computer savvy to negotiate
your way around while it takes a little more knowledge to log on with
a regular net account. That's at least my take on it.
Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA mailto:dov@oz.net
http://www.oz.net/~dov http://wwp.mirabilis.com/460262 [ICQ pgr]
PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 FAX +1 206 325 5862
------------------------------
From: Fred Farzanegan <fredf@nortel.ca>
Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil
Date: 20 Jun 1997 15:13:33 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
I hate being an apologist for AOL, but in general, I'm a happy
subscriber of many years. I'm sure the article references valid data --
but in a system where there are _thousands_ of chatrooms and millions
of members, there are going to be sickos hanging out. Big brother can
only do so much.
Some good things in AOL's favor: You can't use it as a spam-factory.
Spam comes your favorite neighborhood ISPs around the country, but not
AOL. It's also a bargain. For $19.95 unlimited you get the
traditional services of an ISP (email, ftp, browsing), plus a HUGE
database of content of AOL-only magazines, references, files. Throw
in 10MB of free web space per account, and there's nothing that comes
close.
Some bad things? Being a bargain and giving away free online time is
going to attract lots of users. Within those users are going to be
some bad- and _very_ bad apples.
I personally don't use the chatrooms (full of kids and bad language),
and don't trust anyone giving away free software (virus, anyone?), so
I'm not aware of the pervasiveness of smut. But, I've seen binary
images which could offend Larry Flynn in our 'self-regulated' USENET.
This facet of internet life is that people will do lots of bad things
when they can hide their identity.
The article was obviously meant to generate the type of knee-jerk
response that our Moderator showed. Actually, after reading it, I
thought it a credit that AOL _allowed_ a site criticizing it to be
hosted by AOL (and I'd venture it was only shutdown when the site quit
paying the bill or refused to remove information that was libelous).
As far as censorship- the article mentioned both the KKK and ACLU had
a presence. There's an uneasy relation- ship between the two, but if
the organization is not _illegal_ refusing to allow it to participate
would be greeted with cries of first-amendment protection (which AOL
has been burned in the past by trying to stifle unpopular views).
AOL has a reputation for moronic users -- but in the large sense, AOL
has done more for the internet revolution than anything else. They've
made the information highway available for the unwashed masses. Those
of us from the old school are offended by users with limited typing
and reasoning skills, but hopefully, our pain is more than compensated
by the education of the net-proles.
I'm an AOL user (farzanegan@aol.com) -- not exactly proud of it,
but one of the millions of others who aren't CAPS (or morally)
deficient. Please adjust your sodium intake when reading articles
such as the aforementioned.
Regards,
Frederick Farzanegan
(Every disclaimer you may have ever heard applies.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 06:51:41 PDT
From: Eric Florack <Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com>
Subject: Face of Evil *157
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Parents, what further reports do you
> need to come to a decision to **keep your children away** from AOL?
> For that matter, why does *anyone* subscribe to that service given
> the terrible reputation it has received in the past year or two? PAT]
But what on earth makes you think that the problem is limited to AOL?
Granted that in terms of service, AOL has been among the worst, but it
seems rather clear to me that was only half the issues covered in the
post you're responding to. Unspoken in all of the collection of
articles you're responding to is the total impotence (pardon) of the
government to deal with the issue, given the constraints of current
law.
Point of my response: I wonder how many people are looking at that
collection of articles, and wondering if the CDA is really such a bad
idea, after all.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It does not matter what people think
about CDA. It only matters what the ACLU and the librarians think about
it. Those two will apply sufficient pressure to keep it off the books.
One obnoxious and bullying ACLU lawyer is enough to keep millions of
Americans from getting what they want, so don't fret about all the
bad publicity going on right now. I never said the problem was limited
to AOL, but if you want a good well-rounded example of what is wrong
with the Internet today, you can certainly find several at AOL.
I have often wondered what the feds must have on Steve Case; maybe it
has to do with taxes, or possibly some other felonious behavior. I
mean, he certainly sucks up to them, letting them run all their sting
operations there. The article noted there are times that some of the
chat rooms become outragous yet the Guides and TOS people do nothing
about it. I suspect they (TOS/Guides) have been instructed to let it
continue; possibly federal agents are in there busy posing as teenage
boys and girls, trying to seduce the older guys so they can then go
out and arrest them. Probably the TOS/Guides are told to keep their
hands off some of the rooms thus created so as to not put the kibosh
on some FBI agent in the process of mailing out GIFs of a naked boy
to some other user.
I am reminded of this federal judge in Chicago for many years who
always cheated on his own federal taxes. The IRS knew it, and they
loved it because they had him under their control. Whenever a tax
evader case came up, guess which judge always got the case on his
docket? <grin> ... guess who always won the case ... the IRS of
course. Finally one day the judge had a case which was really sort
of in a gray area. It leaned in favor of the defendant, a man accused
of making liberal interpretation of the tax laws to his benefit. The
judge was about to rule in his favor when a very high honco with the
regional IRS office came in, stood in the back of the courtroom, and
literally glared at the judge. Suddenly the judge blurted out, "I
am being blackmailed and pressured by the IRS ..."; the IRS guy gave
him a very dirty look and stormed out.
I have to wonder if the feds and Steve Case have some sort of 'mutual
understanding' about things ... and as long as he continues to extend
his hospitality and resources to them, they leave him alone. Just a
theory, you understand. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Kevin R. Ray <kevin@chicago.org>
Subject: Telemarketing - Is it Wrong?
Date: 20 Jun 1997 02:34:00 GMT
Organization: The Windy City
I'm sitting at the office at 5:05pm today with the few remaining
employees getting ready to leave. The ENTIRE switch board lights
up almost instantly. The last time that happened someone had died.
Once we all realized that it was some telemarketing firm trying to
sell something (each of us about five calls into the madness of
scrambling to grab all the lines with reception gone for the day) we
all got VERY angry. I had enough numbers though that I could dial each
one ONCE and have some fun with them (they sent CID info).
I found out that if you dialed at <just> the right time you wouldn't
get a busy signal. You'd be connected to their computer dialer trying
to dial the next number. Only catch is that *I* was supervising the
line (it couldn't hang up on me :).
I initially "blew" a busy signal (a trick I learned a long time ago
working with modems) to scratch off a couple of numbers. I left the
phone off the hook to go have a smoke. When I came back it was
working hard trying to dial and dial and dial.
Then I started to have fun. I got all my computer sounds out and set
up my computer to play what I wanted and when. A baby crying in the
background (SCREAMING actually). A cat screaming (I just stepped on my
cat trying to get to the phone!). "<dial tone> 911 -- beep, Beep,
BEEP, the number you have reached, '911' has been disconnected. No
further information is available about '911'. Please make a note of it".
The best part is I only called them once ... they called me over 50
times. Who would the judge believe? <evil grin>
So the next time you get a telemarketing call take a look at the
caller ID box or try *69 (in this area *69 now reads the number back
to you for future reference :). Use your imagination ...
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried this one time also. I got
the number the predictive dialer was using to make outgoing calls
and called in, leaving it hung there for half an hour or so. PAT
------------------------------
From: TELECOM Digest Editor <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:50:00 EDT
MCI is now offering local service throughout the Chicago area. The
terms of service for residential customers is $18 per month which
gets you 100 calls of unlimited duratation within the northern Illinois
LATA. Unfortunatly this includes local area calls which Ameritech
was giving for three cents on an untimed basis. Addtional calls
after the first one hundred are ten cents each. Their rates for any
additional features (call waiting, three way calling, caller ID,
forwarding, etc) are however more expensive than Ameritech. For
example caller ID is $8.50 per month; Ameritech gets $6.50.
If you have existing service with Ameritech, MCI will 'migrate' you
to their service at no charge. If you want a new line brought in
the fee is $56.00 to bring it to your demarc. If you want to keep
your existing phone numbers you can do so. You are not tied into
MCI long distance service, nor is there any discount or special price
for local service subscribers. You can pick any long distance carrier
you want. They said most orders take seven to ten working days to
complete.
PAT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #158
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 20 23:35:03 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA14017; Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706210335.XAA14017@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #159
TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Jun 97 23:35:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 159
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Chris Ziomkowski)
Book Review: "The Cyberethics Reader" by Willard (Rob Slade)
Canadian Telemarketing Fraud (Tad Cook)
FCC Lashes Out at AT&T-SBC Merger (Tad Cook)
How do I Drive Inside Wiring From an ISDN TA Analog Port? (Jim Wygralak)
Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? (David Martin)
Wireless Seminar (Jerry Kaufman)
Telecom Policy Newsletter Available (Monty Solomon)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ziomkowski <czim@bigbear.com>
Subject: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:33:03 -0700
Organization: Summit Computing
Just got back from Billing World '97 in Washington D.C. Pretty much
the overriding theme of the conference was what to do about CLECs.
However, I came back from the conference with more questions than when
I went. No one there seemed to have any substantative answers to any
questions, and as I'm trying to write a new billing package targeted
at the CLEC market, it would be very helpful if anyone could answer a
few questions for me.
First, what is the current interpretation of the Act of '96 regarding
becoming a facilities based CLEC without CAP? In other words, does it
actually require the ILEC to unbundle their local loop and give access
to the copper, or is the only way for a CLEC to obtain the copper by
reselling the ILEC's switch? If a CLEC is allowed access to the
copper, does that mean that the CLEC can steal all the high profit
origination fees from long distance while leaving the ILEC to absorb
the cost of the local loop, which in many cases are sold at or below
cost?
Second, the Act seemed to allow for a CLEC (or an ILEC for that
matter) to charge termination fees to its peer for local calls
terminating on its equipment from the other's service. If that's the
case, and if I'm a facilities based CLEC, what prevents me from simply
purchasing a large number of residential lines from the ILEC and
making 24hr. calls into my own network, all the time collecting fees
from the ILEC. If this is the case, does it mean an end to unmetered
local calling?
Local number portability (YIKES!) was also a hot topic at the
conference. As we all know, LNP is supposed to be a reality within a
rate center by Q4 1997 in the five major metropolitan areas. (Does
anyone actually have a good definition of what a rate center is? There
seems to be alot of confusion.) The remaining areas are supposed to
ramp up LNP service so that it will be universal by the end of 1998,
and cellular carriers are exempted until 1999. This raises all kinds
of interesting billing problems and abuses. For example, if I'm an
ILEC and a CLEC steals my customer, I will have to port the
number. But, the Act allows me to bill for all dips to my databases,
so I can charge someone every time they dip my database to find the
Location Routing Number (LRN) associated with it. Basically, as a CLEC
I'll get hit with a fee everytime someone calls my customer. As an
ILEC, what prevents me from setting up a number which just constantly
dials the CLECs ported customer, each time hitting my database for the
LRN, and each time generating a fee to me?
From everything I've seen, this Act has effectively ended flat rate
local service once the CLECs get into full swing, barring cooperation
between the ILEC and the various CLECs ... and we all know how likely
that will be. (Everyone remember taking game theory in college?)
Unless some legislation comes along detailing these considerations a
little more, my billing system just got a lot more complicated,
because of all the various fees. Is this an accurate assessment?
On a more technical note, if I'm a non facilities based CLEC simply
reselling the ILEC's local loop, what format is the ILEC going to send
AMA record data in? Can anyone point me to a Bellcore technical
document which might explain this? (I've looked ... I've failed.)
Also on a technical note, has anyone actually dealt with interfacing
to the RBOC's OSS layer for electronic requests? I know that it's only
being used by NYNEX and PacBell at the moment, and even that in only
limited form. (In fact, I was only able to find two systems at the
conference that even pretended to deal with the OSS complexities.)
Everyone else still requires a fax. Is there any sort of a standard
that's being borne out by the other regional LECs which I could use to
start coding up an interface? I'm not big enough to negotiate with
each of the RBOC's individually. Can anyone give me some guidance as
to how and where to find what the various ILECs are implementing?
BTW, I'm looking for a consultant to help me out with some of the more
esoteric aspects of this industry. So if you've dealt with CLEC issues
before and can give me some guidance, drop me a line.
Thanks. I hope this will spawn some interesting discussions.
Chris Ziomkowski
Software Consultant
czim@bigbear.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:02:14 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "The Cyberethics Reader" by Willard
BKCYETRD.RVW 961217
"The Cyberethics Reader", Nancy E. Willard, 1997, 0-07-070318-3, C$17.95
%A Nancy E. Willard
%C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6
%D 1997
%G 0-07-070318-3
%I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne
%O C$17.95 905-430-5000 905-430-5134 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca
%P 101
%T "The Cyberethics Reader"
This is *not* a good reader on cybernetic ethics. It isn't a
collection of essays, to begin with, it's light on discussion and
scenarios, and there are no real in-depth examinations of ethical
issues in computer mediated communications.
What it *is*, is a very, very good primer on netiquette. The list of
chapter titles alone makes a handy set of behaviour guidelines (and
the author encourages you to copy and post it as such). The
discussion is light for a debate on morality, but is just right as
advice to make your activities on the net more pleasant for you and
those around you.
In addition, Willard has produced a document with enough breadth of
scope for the real net world. It makes a kind of "everything I need
to know I learned in email" compendium. (If that sounds trite, it is
only because it is so true.)
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCYETRD.RVW 961217
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
Subject: Canadian Telemarketing Fraud
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:02:35 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Canadian Telemarketing Scam Victimizes Elderly U.S. Women
BY CLAIRE BOOTH, BOCA RATON NEWS, FLA.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jun. 19--On July 11, a Canadian prize-awarding team, complete with
everything but Ed McMahon, is supposed to show up on Jerie Crider's
doorstep and hand her a check for $500,000.
But since Crider didn't send the company $31,000 to cover "taxes" on
the prize, Ontario police don't expect anyone to be ringing her
doorbell.
Crider, an 83-year-old Pompano Beach resident, received a phone call
on Monday from someone telling her she had won half a million
dollars. To claim her sudden windfall, all Crider had to do was send
the prize company, Dime Corporation, a check for $31,000, the caller
told Crider.
"I told them I'd have to talk to my financial advisor," Crider said.
After Jennifer Lowndes, vice president of investments at Smith Barney
in Boca Raton, heard from her client, she got curious and called the
Montreal phone number that the Dime Corporation had left with Crider.
The woman Lowndes spoke to told her that taxes on the money Crider won
would equal $110,000.
"Fine, subtract that from the total and wire it in," Lowndes told the
woman.
By sending $31,000, Crider could save 65 percent on the taxes, the
woman said.
That didn't make much sense to Lowndes. With prizes such as what
Crider was supposed to have won, the taxes are taken out of the money
itself, never paid beforehand, she said.
Dime Corporation, a new company, has had five complaints lodged
against it, including Crider's, since the end of May, said Det. Staff
Sgt. Barry Elliott, the coordinator of Project Phone Busters, a
Canadian law enforcement task force that is investigating
telemarketing fraud.
According to Elliott: One complaint came from Homestead. Others
originated in Washington, D.C., and San Diego. The one instance where
Dime allegedly scammed someone occurred in Kewadin, Mich. A woman lost
$2,331. All of the complainants were elderly females.
"They'll take money from anybody, but they're looking for the golden
senior who they can take for everything," Elliott said, adding that
many of the companies switch phone numbers, addresses and corporation
names frequently making it difficult to track them.
Dime Corporation did not return phone calls Wednesday.
Montreal and Toronto became centers for telemarketing fraud in the
late 1970s and early 1980s, Elliott said. The task force works in
cooperation with the U.S. Justice Department and other American
agencies to try and stop phone scams.
So far this year, there have been 47 attempted telemarketing scams
reported in Florida. That's nine more attempts than were reported for
all of last year. There have been 14 actual frauds in Florida this
year, compared with 19 for last year, according to Project Phone
Busters.
The majority of scams concern prizes, with pitches for loans and
vacations falling far behind, according to Project Phone Busters.
"It's clean, it's easy, it's hard to trace," said Kim Overman, public
relations director for the Palm Beach County Better Business
Bureau. "The Canadian thing is turning up a lot more in recent
months."
It won't be found again in South Florida if people stay aware and
don't send money to anyone without checking first.
"The only thing that would have happened on July 11 was they would
have taken their cruise around the world on my client's dime," Lowndes
said.
Tips for avoiding a phone scam
Never give out your credit card or bank account number over the phone
to someone who promises money in exchange.
Legitimate sweepstakes and prize contests do not require a purchase or
a payment for anything. Do not respond to any offer asking you to pay
duties, taxes or processing fees.
Call Project Phone Busters task force toll free at (888) 495-8501 with
any questions or to report a scam.
(c) 1997, Boca Raton News, Fla. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Business News.
------------------------------
Subject: FCC Lashes Out at AT&T-SBC Merger
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:12:49 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
FCC lashes out at expected AT&T-SBC merger
BY JEANNINE AVERSA
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top telecommunications regulator put
AT&T Corp. and SBC Communications Inc. on notice today that he would
block any union between the telephone giants to prevent what would be
the largest merger in U.S. history.
"My belief is that a combination of AT&T and a regional Bell operating
company is unthinkable," Federal Communications Commission Reed Hundt,
a former antitrust litigator, said in a speech at the Brookings
Institution.
AT&T is the nation's largest long-distance company. SBC is now the
nation's biggest local Bell telephone company.
Hundt's remarks followed a recent comment by AT&T Chairman Robert
Allen that a hypothetical $50 billion merger between AT&T and SBC is
"not unthinkable."
So large a merger ultimately would have go to the Justice Department
for a determination whether it potentially violates antitrust
laws. The FCC also would have to approve the transaction on the ground
that AT&T, SBC and eventually the merged company serve the public.
Competition would be thwarted by the two teaming up because they are
likely competitors in both the local and long-distance markets, Hundt
said. "It's difficult to imagine that any other firm will be a more
effective broad-based local entrant than AT&T," the largest
long-distance company, Hundt said.
Reacting to Hundt's speech, his strongest remarks yet against mammoth
mergers, AT&T said competition would be protected before completion of
a merger agreement. "If a partnership ... can be structured to
increase competition ..., then it ought to be considered," Mark
Rosenblum, an AT&T vice president, said.
SBC would not comment.
A 1996 telecommunications law lets local, long-distance and cable
companies enter into each others' businesses. The goal was to increase
competition, which in theory would expand choices and lower prices.
Thus far, the act has created an unprecedented wave of telephone and
media mergers.
Opponents such as Hundt, who plans to leave the FCC once a successor
is confirmed, fear that AT&T joining with SBC or any other local Bell
telephone company would violate the spirit of the 1996 law. It also
would violate the purpose of a now-defunct consent decree that broke
up the Bell System in 1984 into AT&T and seven local phone company
offspring dubbed the Baby Bells.
While Hundt specifically struck out against the hypothetical AT&T-SBC
merger, which is still being negotiated, he did not address a $23
billion merger proposal now before the FCC: Bell Atlantic and Nynex.
"Nothing in this speech should be read as any kind of communication on
the topic of that merger," Hundt said.
FCC approval is the last regulatory hurdle for Bell Atlantic and Nynex
to overcome. The union would create the largest local phone company in
the country, serving local phone customers from Maine to Virginia.
The Justice Department cleared the deal, infuriating consumer groups,
which contend it will stifle local phone competition and possibly
raise rates.
Consumer advocate Gene Kimmelman, co-director of the Consumer Union's
Washington office, believes Hundt's comment should also raise a
warning flag before Bell Atlantic and Nynex.
"The logic he has established applies equally to mergers of Bell
companies," Kimmelman said.
------------------------------
From: darus@wwa.com (Jim J. Wygralak)
Subject: How do I Drive Inside Wiring From an ISDN TA Analog Port
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 00:32:53 CDT
I have a dilemma.
I am about to move into a new apartment and I am planning to have a
single ISDN line as my only phone service. I purchased a Motorola
Bitsurfr Pro EZ ISDN modem. It has two analog ports for connecting
POTS equipment, but the manual states quite specifically that it can
NOT drive inside wiring.
Is there a device available that I could plug into an analog port on
the TA, that would look like a single phone to the TA, which could
then drive extension lines in the other rooms?
I considered trying to build something myself. I have a degree in
electronics but I'm afraid that I might only know enough about
telephony to be dangerous.
------------------------------
From: David Martin <dmartin@iastate.edu>
Subject: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data?
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:27:28 -0500
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA 50011
Reply-To: dmartin@iastate.edu
What is a realistic average equivalent baud rate for voice
communications & how does it translate into real digital transmission
costs? Here's my naive analysis. Please correct me.
My personal experience is that 28.8 kbs is sufficient for voice
communications. 32 kbs is surely conservative.
I just checked my dialup connection to the internet: I've been on for
2 hours and 26 minutes & my total traffic has been 8000 Kbits - this
is an average load of just about 1 Kbit/sec (mostly I just background
check email and foreground read www.washingtonpost.com.)
Doesn't this imply that my existing telco wiring plant is cabable
right now of supporting something like 32 endpoints like me ON MY
WIRE? That is, if each data end point on the average uses only 1/32
of the bandpass needed for voice, the 32 endpoints could be
multiplexed onto a single wire. (I know the hardware isn't in place to
do this, but it should be possible & not rocket science.)
Doesn't a T1 have 24ea. 64 kbs channels? Since each T1 channel can
carry 2 continuous 32kbs data streams, it follows that the real
capacity of a T1 channel is something like 64 simultaneous data
users/channel or about 1536 simultaneous users per T1 ($1K/T1-mo. =>
$0.67/user-mo)
Ok, I know the above is very sloppy and there are lots of statistical
concerns, but is it safe to say that a single T1 channel(eg. 64 kbs at
the telco) can really handle 6-10 real simultaneous data users?
This is an important point regarding the development of the
infrastructure needed to support a large fraction of users who are
"off hook" but actually quiet most of the time. Where are the REAL
bottlenecks?
This simplistic analysis indicates that substantial savings would
result from bringing packet switching into the home. That is,
re-engineering the local switchs to respond to packet arrivals, rather
than off-hook states could achieve a large savings.
Is this true? If everybody were packet switched at home, could the
existing wiring plant support the current voice traffic and the
anticipated increment in data traffic at little or no cost increase?
What does a more detailed analysis conclude?
------------------------------
From: Jerry Kaufman <JerryKaufman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Wireless Seminar
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 12:51:51 -0700
Organization: Alexander Resources
Reply-To: JerryKaufman@worldnet.att.net
SEMINAR ANNOUNCEMENT
Alexander Resources presents:
Wireless Business Telephone Systems Seminar
A new, comprehensive, two day educational seminar for
telecommunications professionals who need to understand the
applications, benefits and limitations of:
ON-PREMISES/UNLICENSED PCS
WIRELESS PBXs/CENTREX
IN-BUILDING CELLULAR SYSTEMS
The seminar covers all aspects of these new systems and services:
Private domain, dual domain, and multi domain service areas; Dual mode
and mutli mode operation; Host controlled and Network controlled call
routing; Part 15 Subpart C, Part 15 Subpart D, PCS and Cellular
spectrum; Adjunct and Integrated implementations; and Single
cell/single user, single cell/mutli-user and mutli cell/multi-user
radio architectures.
The seminar is continuously updated to provide you with the latest
information on:
New products, technologies, spectrum regulations, standards, user
benefits and applications, market forecasts and trends.
1997 Seminar Schedule and Venues
Dates: September 15 & 16, 1997
Location: Washington, DC
Hotel: Sheraton Crystal City - Arlington
Dates: October 20 & 21, 1997
Location: Dallas, TX
Hotel: Dallas Medallion
Dates: December 1 & 2, 1997
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Hotel: Phoenix Inn
To receive a detailed brochure including cost of the seminar, contact
Alexander Resources at:
Phone: 972-818-8225
Fax: 972-818-6366
E-mail: JerryKaufman@worldnet.att.net
Postal mail: Alexander Resources, 5705 Deseret Trail, Dallas, TX 75252,
USA
When requesting the brochure please provide your name, your company
name, address, phone and fax number.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:19:51 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: Telecom Policy Newsletter Available
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 23:16:49 -0700
From: Susan Evoy <sevoy@Sunnyside.COM>
Subject: Telecom Policy Newsletter Available
Telecommunications Policy Roundtable:
Cutting Across Turfs to Change Public Policy
CPSR's Spring 1997 newsletter
Guest editor: Andy Oram
Computer scientists have been saying for years that computers and
computer networks would merge with telephones and television, the
other major media of our age. Now computer/telephone technology and
multimedia have raised their heads, not only as a dazzling set of
products that benefit end users, but as a complex regulatory and
policy arena. Over the past four years, CPSR members have taken on a
new field of technology (telecommunications) and mastered its
principles enough to have an impact on public thought. This issue of
the newsletter offer updates on major debates such as universal
service and the effect of mergers on service and competition. We also
look at the alliances CPSR has made with organizations and policy-
makers to see that the public interest is heard during the battles
between multibillion-dollar industries.
Jeff Johnson and Chris Mays:
CPSR Joins California Policy Roundtable
Brennon M. Martin:
Competition, Interconnection, and Universal Service
Jerome Thorel:
Telecom Giants Battle For Online Content: Focus on France
W. Curtiss Priest: E. Markey, E-Rate, and E-Culture
Jeffrey Hops:
Turning the tide: The "Telecommunications Access Act"and the
future of non-commercial access
Peter Miller: Community technology flourishes in Seattle
Jeff Johnson: Report from ACM'97 conference
Press release: Philip Zimmermann, Creator of PGP, joins CPSR Board
Community Technology Centers' Network (CTCNet):
Conference announcement and call for associates
*****************************************************************
The newsletter was sent to CPSR members earlier this month.
To purchase a copy for $5.00, send your address and check, VISA, or
MasterCard to CPSR, PO Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94302.
> --
> Susan Evoy * Deputy Director
> http://www.cpsr.org/home.html
> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
> P.O. Box 717 * Palo Alto * CA * 94302
> Phone: (415) 322-3778 * Fax: (415) 322-4748 * Email: evoy@cpsr.org
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #159
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jun 22 13:31:02 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id MAA14167; Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:11:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:11:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706221611.MAA14167@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Bcc:
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #160
TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Jun 97 12:11:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 160
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
AT&T Can't Collect for Hacker's Calls (Tad Cook)
Re: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area (Marty Tennant)
Re: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area (Brian Elfert)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Henry Baker)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Michael Israeli)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Marty Bose)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Afshin Youssefyeh)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Jason Lindquist)
Telephone Triage Nursing Website (oldbear@arctos.com)
Re: Frustration: Call Forwarding a Centrex Line (Hillary Gorman)
Internet Telephony Report (John Stahl)
Telco 50 Pinout and Meisei Manual? (Warnica)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: AT&T Can't Collect for Hacker's Calls
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:55:41 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Judge Rules Philadelphia Law Firm Not Liable for Payment of Hackers'
Calls
BY JIM SMITH, PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jun. 20--For a change, David beat Goliath.
AT&T Corp. had sued in federal court to collect nearly $17,000 from a
small Philadelphia law firm -- even though the firm had been
victimized by "hackers."
The bill was for long-distance toll calls made overseas, mostly to the
Dominican Republic, over a nine-day period in August 1994.
AT&T demanded payment, knowing that "hackers" had illegally accessed
the firm's leased telephone system to make the overseas calls, and
despite the firm's prompt notice that a scam was in progress.
"It is the policy of AT&T to hold customers responsible for all such
calls because it is the customer, not AT&T, who controls the security
of ... the customer's telephone system," an AT&T employee told the
firm's founder, James C. Schwartzman.
Three arbitrators, attorneys Joseph Lombardo, Doris Dabrowski and
Pamela Esposito, heard several hours of testimony from Schwartzman and
other witnesses yesterday and then ruled in Schwartzman's favor.
"I'm still outraged by this," said Schwartzman, a former federal
prosecutor who has a three-lawyer firm that does both criminal and
civil litigation.
Schwartzman said he intended to research other AT&T collection cases
involving long-distance-toll fraud, with an eye towards filing a
class-action suit against AT&T on behalf of others who have been
billed for calls made by hackers.
Richard Blasi, an AT&T spokesman, had no comment on the arbitrators'
ruling, but insisted AT&T tries "to work with" customers caught up in
such a scam.
But testimony indicated that all AT&T will do is offer to settle a
disputed bill in exchange for what it costs AT&T to prosecute a debt-
collection case.
"They certainly never made any proposal that was a substantial discount
from the full amount," noted Schwartzman's partner, Gary Tilles.
Schwartzman isn't an AT&T customer, since his long-distance service --
then and now -- is provided by MCI, and his phone system is leased
from his landlord, Rawle & Henderson, another law firm.
Back in 1994, the day the hacker began using his lines, Schwartzman
reported it to MCI. At his request, MCI immediately blocked any
overseas calls originating from Schwartzman's phone. The hacker then
made long distance calls by accessing AT&T's system.
MCI later apologized and withdrew its bill for more than $3,000 in
unauthorized calls.
AT&T also was notified by Schwartzman the first day of the hacker's
calls, but said it had no capability then to put a block on overseas
service.
AT&T may appeal the arbitrators' award to U.S. District Court, but its
attorney, Frank Nofer, couldn't be reached for comment.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:51:26 -0700
From: Marty Tennant <marty@sccoast.net>
Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net
Organization: low tech designs, inc.(tm)
Subject: Re: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area
TELECOM Digest Editor <editor@telecom-digest.org> reported:
> MCI is now offering local service throughout the Chicago area. The
> terms of service for residential customers is $18 per month which
> gets you 100 calls of unlimited duratation within the northern Illinois
> LATA.
How does the $18 a month compare with the Ameritech residential
offering?
> Unfortunatly this includes local area calls which Ameritech
> was giving for three cents on an untimed basis. Addtional calls
> after the first one hundred are ten cents each. Their rates for any
> additional features (call waiting, three way calling, caller ID,
> forwarding, etc) are however more expensive than Ameritech. For
> example caller ID is $8.50 per month; Ameritech gets $6.50.
Why unfortunately? I am assuming there is a difference between local
calls and calls within the northern Illinois LATA? Or are they the
same?
marty tennant, president, low tech designs, inc.(tm), "Bringing
Technology Down to Earth"(sm),
1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 voice,
(803) 527-7783 fax
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech's monthly fee is a little
less, however Ameritech charges $10 per month to be on the 'call-pack'
plan, while MCI simply includes it as part of the monthly fee. The
'call-pack' plan from Ameritech offers a few different options as
well; MCI does not.
I said that 'unfortunatly local area calls were included' because
with Ameritech, calls within an eight mile area are considered local
and those always are untimed. It was only calls to distances greater
than eight miles, (what they term Band B, C or D calls) that are
timed. On Ameritech, calls within the local area are about four cents
each; talk as long as you want. Calls to B,C, and D points are charged
four to six cents for every two or three minutes. (I am speaking now
of residential customers; business customers are timed even on local
calls). The main advantage to a call-pack is that calls to those outer
areas are billed at ten cents each on an untimed basis (actually, ten
dollars for the first hundred calls). But call-pack does not distinquish
between 'local' and 'outer', meaning the local untimed calls you could
have had for four cents each now cost ten cents each. So whether or
not call-pack makes sense depends on where the majority of your calls
go. At home I have one line with call-pack and one line without call-
pack. I use the line without call-pack as my modem line since 99 percent
of my modem traffic is to the local dialup, where I can stay connected
for hours at a time at four cents per call. The other line which is
used mostly by others in the household to call friends in Chicago and
other suburbs has call-pack since most of the calls on that line are
*not* to Skokie and thus would wind up being timed if not for call-pack.
The 'unfortunate' part of MCI local service then, is that call-pack is
the only option. You pay ten cents for each and every call in the
northern Illinois area. Admittedly you can talk as long as you want,
however Ameritech gives the most local of those calls at four cents
rather than ten cents on the same untimed basis and for people who do
not use the phone a lot, you do not have to pre-purchase 100 calls per
month as is the case with MCI. If my modem calls of several hours in
duration were to a Chicago number which Ameritech was timing, then
the call-pack would be a very good deal, whether you got it from MCI
or from Ameritech.
MCI, as I understand it, has only one call-pack plan; eighteen dollars
per month which includes the local line. Ameritech offers some variety
on the call-pack, where you can purchase 100 calls/$10 with additional
calls at ten cents each; 200 calls per month at a reduced amount (I
seem to recall it is around $18 per month) or 300 calls per month (I
think this costs about $25), but that is *in addition to* the local
line charges per month. And as noted above, once you go with any of
the call-pack plans from Ameritech, your previously very local untimed
calls at four cents each get swept right into the plan at ten cents
each. The trade off is you had better make lots of outer area calls.
MCI just flat-rates all calls at ten cents with a minumum of one
hundred calls, but when you include whatever the monthly fee for
service would be otherwise, it is not a bad deal.
Like so many telco services, whether one chose to stay with Ameritech
or 'migrate' (their term) to MCI is an applications thing based on
your own usage. As I noted in the previous message, MCI is charging
more for the additional features like call-waiting, etc, but they
are giving the same 'discounts' on feature packages as Ameritech.
Another problem with MCI: they cannot hunt between lines. With my
Ameritech service, if my main line is busy, calls automatically hunt
to my second line. MCI says due to the 'nature of how they interact
with Ameritech central offices' they are unable to hunt between lines.
If your line is busy, tough. Callers need to dial your second number
direct unless you have call-waiting, which of course is a no-no where
modems are concerned. PAT]
------------------------------
From: belfert@citilink.com (Brian Elfert)
Subject: Re: MCI Local Service in Chicago Area
Date: 22 Jun 97 01:18:40 GMT
TELECOM Digest Editor <editor@telecom-digest.org> writes:
> If you have existing service with Ameritech, MCI will 'migrate' you
> to their service at no charge. If you want a new line brought in
> the fee is $56.00 to bring it to your demarc. If you want to keep
> your existing phone numbers you can do so. You are not tied into
> MCI long distance service, nor is there any discount or special price
> for local service subscribers. You can pick any long distance carrier
> you want. They said most orders take seven to ten working days to
> complete.
Hmm ... MCI just started service here in Minneapolis. (My first 48
lines with MCI will be turned up Monday.)
MCI is not charging any install fees here, and does not expect to until
1998 at earliest. They are only doing business service right now, as they
are not reselling US West, but they have their own switch. MCI requires a
minimum order of six lines right now.
Brian
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They told me if I want to 'migrate'
existing lines from Ameritech to MCI **and keep the same phone
number** I can do so at no conversion or installation fee. They
will make all the arrangements. If I want brand new service not
previously associated with Ameritech, they can do that also but
the installation fee of $56 applies. They'll use existing pairs
in either case. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 01:09:14 GMT
In article <telecom17.158.2@telecom-digest.org>, grendel6@ix.netcom.
com wrote:
> Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether
> the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just
> juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects
> of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge.
It depends upon your definition of "PCS". One definition of PCS is that
it utilizes 1.9 GHz, while another definition is that it uses digital +
a number of additional features like caller id, short messages, etc.
So far as I know, there are at least three bands:
Nextel is in its own part of the band with push2talk mobile radios
Analog cellular (A & B) is in its own 900 MHz band
"PCS" cellular is in the 1.9GHz band
There are at least four types of modulation:
analog FM (like A&B cellular)
"American" TDMA (includes Nextel's hacked up version) ("American" is my term)
GSM (also TDMA, but is usually considered different from American TDMA)
CDMA (Qualcomm, etc.)
There are a number of voice encoders:
analog (can be almost wireline sometimes)
8 khz GSM (so-called "half-rate") -- relatively poor quality
14 khz GSM (so-called "full-rate") -- better voice quality
14 khz GSM (so-called "enhanced full-rate") -- best voice quality
14 khz CDMA -- about equal to GSM enhanced full-rate quality
The confusion really reigns because Sprint is CDMA with the single
exception of Wash DC, which is GSM. I think that all of Sprint is 1.9
GHz.
I think that Sprint in DC uses 14khz full-rate GSM, while Pacbell in
Cal uses _enhanced_ full-rate (14khz) voice encoders. Thus, the voice
quality of pacbell phones should be a bit better than Sprint DC GSM
phones.
Most of the GSM services offer enhanced services, because this is
software that has long been working at 900MHz outside the US. The
CDMA services and the TDMA services will offer essentially similar
capabilities. Even the analog cellular people have gotten with the
program, and want to provide short messages, caller id, etc.
The major advantage for digital is better privacy, although unless you
get the best voice encoder systems, you give up a lot in voice
quality.
Oh, and by the way, you'll have a heck of a time finding out the above
information by consulting the various providers' web sites. They seem to
not want anyone to really know what is going on. The best place to learn
is to consult some of the trade rags.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually the best place to learn what
is going on is to read this Digest on a regular basis. <grin> PAT]
------------------------------
From: izzy@izzy.com (Michael Israeli)
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: 21 Jun 1997 12:26:55 GMT
Organization: Dip n Strip has moved - BOFH branch
In <telecom17.158.2@telecom-digest.org>, Bill <grendel6@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> I know this subject has come up in these pages (?) before, but I can't
> remember the resolution, and I couldn't find it in DejaNews.
> Here in the Philadelphia area, there are several new wireless carriers.
> Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the B-side cellular carrier) is promoting its
> partially-digitalized (but otherwise conventional cellular) system as
> *new* and *improved*; we also have Sprint Spectrum (**not** S/S-APC),
> Nextel and, coming soon, Omnipoint.
The Sprint service in Philadelphia is called Sprint PCS, not Sprint
Spectrum. Sprint Spectrum is only offered in Washington D.C. Sprint
PCS is a true PCS system utilitizing CDMA and operating at 1.9ghz.
> Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether
> the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just
> juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects
> of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge.
I don't believe that Sprint Spectrum in D.C. is classified as a PCS
system, but I'm not sure. Sprint Spectrum does use spread spectrum
technology, hence the name.
> P.S. I use Comcast/Metrophone (the A-side cellular carrier), which is
> perfectly acceptable, but which has a number of annoying "features"
> (like self-provided directory assistance); I think I may be able to get
> a better deal from one of the PCS carriers (I pay $16.00/month, plus
> $.36 peak/$.16 off and $.12 per call, generally using about 200 minutes
> a month; LD is free on weekends, but 99% of my calls are during peak
> periods).
I don't work for, or have any interest in Sprint PCS, other than the
fact that I use the service here in Philadelphia. It is really an
excellent deal, especially for people who use their phone a lot.
Sprint PCS charges $50/month for 500 minutes plus $.10/min over that
peak or off peak. Or, they also offer 1500 minutes for $75/month plus
$.05/min over that. Plus there are no land line or other charges
normally associated with cellular service. Oh, and don't forget,
first incoming minute is always free (plus caller ID, 3 way, call
waiting, voicemail, etc). For comparison purposes, Comcast (the
A-side cellular carrier) charges $90/month for 300 minutes plus
peak/off peak rates after that.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 05:37:43 -0700
From: Marty Bose <martyb@dnai.com>
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
> Here in the Philadelphia area, there are several new wireless carriers.
> Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the B-side cellular carrier) is promoting its
> partially-digitalized (but otherwise conventional cellular) system as
> *new* and *improved*; we also have Sprint Spectrum (**not** S/S-APC),
> Nextel and, coming soon, Omnipoint.
> Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether
> the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just
> juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects
> of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge.
(snip)
Sprint Spectrum, aka Sprint PCS, uses CDMA, which is a true PCS
technology. It does not use GSM, which is what Sprint Spectrum in DC
uses. You seem to have a bias towards GSM, from your comments about
"real" PCS; having done some work in both, I prefer CDMA, primarily
because of better vocoder technology.
PCS, in itself, does not specify what technology is used; that's why
so many carriers are muddying the waters by renaming their various
digital services as PCS.
Marty
------------------------------
From: Afshin David Youssefyeh <kashi@bcp.net>
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 00:54:30 -0700
Sprint is true PCS.
As for Nextel, they are a company out of Los Angeles. They have been
around for a couple of years, but only recently have they began going
after the mass public. So far, their service has been limited to
fleets (taxis and limos) the problem with their service is that their
phones are too big.
Also, I don't think that their system is on the PCS frequency (1300),
instead, they run on 800. However, their prices seem reasonable and
they don't charge for roaming. Also, they have this feature that
allows you to conference call with other Nextel users.
------------------------------
From: jlindqui@uiuc.edu (Jason Lindquist)
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: 21 Jun 1997 08:39:51 GMT
Organization: Big Ass Hams, Inc.
An infinite number of monkeys masquerading as Bill <grendel6@ix.netcom.
com> wrote:
> Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether
> the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just
> juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects
> of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge.
Sprint's PCS service should be just as "real" as it is everywhere
else. It's 1900 MHz CDMA.
There really isn't much difference between what you're calling "true
PCS" and "juiced-up cellular". Technically, the over-the-air
protocol's a bit different, but that's it.
> What the blazes is NexTel? They have great billboards, but does anyone
> know what their pricing looks like ?
After the first minute, Nextel (another 1900 MHz CDMA carrier) rounds
their airtime to the nearest second, instead of up to the next whole
minute, like tradtional cell carriers. They also have some sort of
partnerships going with local market entities, which I don't really
understand yet.
Jason A. Lindquist
linky@uiuc.edu <*>
Senders of unsolicited commercial/propaganda e-mail subject to fees.
Details at http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/jlindqui
------------------------------
From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear)
Subject: Telephone Triage Nursing Website
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 15:03:41 -0400
Pat:
I am forwarding this to TELECOM DIGEST from its original posting
because it may be of interest to those involved in call centers. We
tend to think of call centers as being commerce or product support
related. But here is a telephone "support" function which falls into
neither catagory. When these folks say "customer care" they really
mean customer care ...
--- Forwarded message follows ---
From: webster@katsden.com (Kathi Webster)
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.announce
Subject: HEALTH: Telephone Triage Nursing website
Date: 21 Jun 1997 11:48:59 -0400
Telephone Triage and Nurse Consultation Website
URL: < http://www.katsden.com/telenurse/index.html >
The Internet gathering place for nurses who work with patients
primarily through the telephone. Whether in an office, call center,
hospice, hospitals ... this is the place for nurses and health care
professionals to get the most up to date info. Conferences,
professional organizations, assessment tools, triage nursing
resources, call center information, employment opportunities, and live
chat area. Monthly ezine (TNT) featured at sister site. Also
provided: Health Administration resources for nurse managers, Medical
(physician) resources, Disease State Management (DSM), marketing and
demographics, and ergonimics issues.
Kathi Webster BSN RN
Editor, Telephone Nursing Telezine
webster@katsden.com
------------------------------
From: hillary@hillary.net (hillary gorman)
Subject: Re: Frustration: Call Forwarding a Centrex Line
Date: 22 Jun 1997 01:56:47 GMT
Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Call forwarding is usually done with
> something like *72 or 72# or 1172. May I presume you tried the obvious
> like 9-1172 (since you said the * went straight to reorder) or 9-72#,
> or possibly 9-72 (wait for time out and beep tones)? Also, what about
> other users on the centrex? How do *they* call forward (both to an
> inside extension or outside number)? Please note that some centrexes
> are wired to allow forwarding only to another extension and not off-
> premises. PAT]
Yes, we tried all of those. The other users on the centrex were using
*206 to call forward, which is why we'd been told to try that
first. Here's what happened: our MFS rep finally called Bell and
yelled at them to send a tech out. Bell insisted a tech couldn't do
anything, but since MFS agreed to pay for one, they agreed to send
one. An hour later, I got a phone call from a Bell tech, who told me
to try dialing 10 206 - which didn't work. THen he told me to try 10
207, also didn't work. He called me back about an hour after that and
said "I've got it! Dial 206, wait for the stutter tone, then dial 10 +
your number to forward calls to." THAT worked. Why on earth it took
them over 24 hrs to find out what we needed to do is beyond me, but I
suppose I should have known better than to expect competence from Bell
Frantic.
hillary "finally forwarding" gorman
hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com
If you need help, contact <support@netaxs.com>
"So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?"
Net Access...we got the clues, we got the funk, we got the bandwidth!
------------------------------
From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl)
Subject: Internet Telephony Report
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:59:40 +0000
A recent article from the Internet based INFORMATIONWEEK DAILY, an
email sent compilation of data and telephony related news, could
possibly be related to a similar bit of prognostication (remember the
forecast for future Internet Overload?) regarding the potential for
expansion of Internet Telephony. The report of a recent panel
discussion at the PC Expo in New York City relates that the consensus
of this august group was that internet based telephony is expected to
grow radically in the next 5 - 10 year period.
I wonder whether if this is another one of those guesses that will
fall short of expectations? If it does 'ring' true, wonder how the
LEC's, etc., will make their money, certainly not from local service
charges (ay least not at the current rates)?! Imagine what the cost of
local service will jump to with out the 'support' of LD services! Gee,
all the LD calls for a flat $19.95 (or what ever).
Here is the report:
> Good Morning! Today is June 18. And this is...
> ---------INFORMATIONWEEK DAILY------------
> The E-Mail News Service For IT Decision Makers
> from the editors of InformationWeek magazine
> * Now reaching 75,000 subscribers and growing *
> _____Internet Telephony: Much More Than A Hobby_____
> Internet telephony will gain a substantial chunk of the
> telecommunications service market within five to 10 years,
> technology executives predicted yesterday at a panel
> discussion at PC Expo in New York.
> The four panelists -- Allen Lutz, senior VP of Compaq
> Computer; Tom Evslin, VP of AT&T WorldNet Services; Frank
> Gill, executive VP of Intel; and Elon Ganor, CEO of Net
> telephony software provider VocalTech Inc. -- concurred that
> within the next 10 years, and as soon as five years, at least
> 50% of telephone traffic will go over IP networks rather than
> public switched networks.
> The attraction is simple to understand, they said, especially
> considering the high cost of international phone calls
> and the comparatively low price of Internet access fees. "It
> may not be free, but it sure is attractive," said Compaq's
> Lutz.
> The change to IP telephony will take a while, the panelists
> said, because public-switched networks are both effective and
> entrenched. "Circuit switching won't go away. The fiber
> doesn't rust and rot," said AT&T's Evslin. In addition,
> Internet call quality is inferior.
> The panelists conceded that the Internet telephony
> pricing model will not always be so favorable for end users
> as the vendors behind it attempt to turn a profit.
> "Eventually, market forces will determine how much people
> will pay [for IP telephony], and we'll see if we can make
> some money," Ganor said.
> -- Jeff Sweat
John Stahl
Aljon Enterprises
Telecommunications and Data System Consultants
"No job is too big or too small for us"
email: aljon@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
From: l3q90@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Warnica)
Subject: Telco 50 Pinout and Meisei Manual?
Date: 19 Jun 1997 00:56:39 GMT
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada
I'm looking for the pinout for the telco 50 pin connector (what line
goes to what wire colour / number)
Also I'm looking for a manual / info for a Reliant 16 (mfg 1986~) made
by Meisei electric Co. Ltd.
Thanks.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #160
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 23 08:40:26 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA06467; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:40:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 08:40:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706231240.IAA06467@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #161
TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Jun 97 08:40:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 161
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Bill Horne)
Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (Felix Tilley)
Re: How do I Drive Inside Wiring From an ISDN TA Analog Port (David Tweed)
Re: How Do I Drive Inside Wiring from an ISDN TA Analog Port (Tad Cook)
Where to Find Local Telephone Rates? (Jonathan Abramson)
FITCE Congress 1997 Registration (Dominic Pinto)
ACM SIGCOMM 97, in Sept 1997 in Cannes, France (Ernst Biersack)
Re: Atlanta Metro Calling History -- and Gripes (Ken Eikert)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Bill Horne)
Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective
Date: 21 Jun 1997 16:51:42 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
czim@bigbear.com wrote:
> [snip] I'm trying to write a new billing package targeted
> at the CLEC market, it would be very helpful if anyone could answer a
> few questions for me.
> First, what is the current interpretation of the Act of '96 regarding
> becoming a facilities based CLEC without CAP? In other words, does it
> actually require the ILEC to unbundle their local loop and give access
> to the copper, or is the only way for a CLEC to obtain the copper by
> reselling the ILEC's switch?
You can rent copper, dialtone, trunk connections, database services,
signalling services, and/or transport for any of the above, all a la
carte. Each is available separately.
> If a CLEC is allowed access to the copper, does that mean that the
> CLEC can steal all the high profit origination fees from long distance
> while leaving the ILEC to absorb the cost of the local loop, which in
> many cases are sold at or below cost?
No, because the ILEC will discount loops only by the amount of
"avoided costs", and the costs they're avoiding are the ones
associated with customer contact, which is very expensive. In other
words, YOU have to deal with the customers, send out bills, hire
people, etc.
Also, your question presupposes that you'll have your own switch: have
you priced a 5E or DMS-100 lately? The hardware and the expertise
needed to run it will put most small CLECs out of the running. In any
case, even if you have your own CO, you'll have to pay the ILEC to use
their access tandem on the way to the IEC, or make a deal with the IEC
to terminate trunks into your switch, in which case the ILEC will
probably be doing the transport anyway. You'll find your margins
eroding very quickly.
Of course, the major IECs will be offering their customers deep
discounts on long distance to entice them into switching dial tone
providers, so that they can "pay themselves" the access charge. Don't
expect them to offer you anything like that.
> Second, the Act seemed to allow for a CLEC (or an ILEC for that
> matter) to charge termination fees to its peer for local calls
> terminating on its equipment from the other's service. If that's the
> case, and if I'm a facilities based CLEC, what prevents me from simply
> purchasing a large number of residential lines from the ILEC and
> making 24hr. calls into my own network, all the time collecting fees
> from the ILEC. If this is the case, does it mean an end to unmetered
> local calling?
What prevents it are the laws against fraud. Notwithstanding the fact
that you probably don't look good in stripes ;-), the charge is PER
CALL, not per minute, and it's pretty tiny compared to the fixed costs
of getting into the business.
What many CLECs *ARE* doing, however, is eagerly seeking to serve ISPs,
paging services, and fax lines, since these are exclusively INCOMING
services. Since they get paid to terminate the call, the scale tips way
over in their favor if they have only terminating services hooked up.
Everybody is going to have to go back to the regulatory table on this
one; the question is when.
> Local number portability (YIKES!) was also a hot topic at the
> conference. As we all know, LNP is supposed to be a reality within a
> rate center by Q4 1997 in the five major metropolitan areas.
Let's back up for a second: the FCC ordered portability implemented by
Metropolitan Statistical Area, or MSA, and the MSA's don't correspond
to either state or LATA boundaries. They New York MSA is cutting from
10/1/97 to 3/31/98 (it was 12/31/97, but the FCC extended the
deadline). The other MSA's follow fairly quickly, e.g., Boston is
1/1/98 to 4/15/98 (again, it was extended), and Providence is 3Q98.
There are a lot of exceptions to the rules: check out the report and
order.
The initial implementation of LNP is "Service Provider" portability,
which means that you'll be able to keep your old phone number when you
change to a different LEC.
> (Does anyone actually have a good definition of what a rate center
> is? There seems to be a lot of confusion.)
Rate centers are billing areas, and are defined by both the FCC and
state governments. They may be served by one exchange or several, and
may or may not correspond to town/city/county/state boundaries.
Check the Local Exchange Routing Guidelines (LERG) issued by Bellcore.
> The remaining areas are supposed to ramp up LNP service so that it
> will be universal by the end of 1998, and cellular carriers are exempted
> until 1999. This raises all kinds of interesting billing problems and
> abuses. For example, if I'm an ILEC and a CLEC steals my customer, I
> will have to port the number. But, the Act allows me to bill for all
> dips to my databases, so I can charge someone every time they dip my
> database to find the Location Routing Number (LRN) associated with it.
For those just tuning in ;-), a Location Routing Number identifies the
SWITCH to which a ported number has moved, i.e., the LNP database will
contain a list of LRN's to show what CLEC office is the "recipient"
switch in a ported scenario.
> Basically, as a CLEC I'll get hit with a fee everytime someone calls my
> customer. As an ILEC, what prevents me from setting up a number which
> just constantly dials the CLECs ported customer, each time hitting my
> database for the LRN, and each time generating a fee to me?
Sleep deprivation is an ugly thing to watch: I think you're drinking
just a *little* too much coffee. Try decaf.
> From everything I've seen, this Act has effectively ended flat rate
> local service once the CLECs get into full swing, barring cooperation
> between the ILEC and the various CLECs ... and we all know how likely
> that will be. (Everyone remember taking game theory in college?)
> Unless some legislation comes along detailing these considerations a
> little more, my billing system just got a lot more complicated,
> because of all the various fees. Is this an accurate assessment?
Yes and no. Yes, your billing is getting more complicated, but, hey,
it's only software: just hire a few computer geeks and give them those
macs like that cute actor showed you on TV, and problem solved :-J.
No, it's not an accurate assessment. The CLECs and ILECs *ARE*
cooperating, and will continue to do so. Everybody gets paid to
complete calls, and nobody gets paid if they don't go through.
> On a more technical note, if I'm a non facilities based CLEC simply
> reselling the ILEC's local loop, what format is the ILEC going to send
> AMA record data in? Can anyone point me to a Bellcore technical
> document which might explain this? (I've looked ... I've failed.)
The Bellcore Acounting Format. See the CAFD.
> Also on a technical note, has anyone actually dealt with interfacing
> to the RBOC's OSS layer for electronic requests? I know that it's only
> being used by NYNEX and PacBell at the moment, and even that in only
> limited form. (In fact, I was only able to find two systems at the
> conference that even pretended to deal with the OSS complexities.)
> Everyone else still requires a fax. Is there any sort of a standard
> that's being borne out by the other regional LECs which I could use to
> start coding up an interface? I'm not big enough to negotiate with
> each of the RBOC's individually. Can anyone give me some guidance as
> to how and where to find what the various ILECs are implementing?
No, since the OSS systems aren't standardized. Tune in ten years from
now.
> BTW, I'm looking for a consultant to help me out with some of the more
> esoteric aspects of this industry. So if you've dealt with CLEC issues
> before and can give me some guidance, drop me a line.
Good luck.
Bill Horne
bhorne@lynx.neu.edu
------------------------------
From: ftilley@goodnet.cyberprom.com (Felix Tilley)
Subject: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service?
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:57:44 -0700
Organization: I Procmail Spammers to Hell
I have crossposted this from comp.risks. This article seems more
appropriate to comp.dcom.telecom. The original author is Thomas Brazil.
Note that From: line has been altered to foil email spammers. Felix
Tilley -- ftilley@goodnet.com
Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 15:55:36 -0500
From: braz@mnw.net (Thomas Brazil)
Subject: Computer fraud in subscribing to telephone service?
Several weeks ago, we started receiving automated calls. When my wife
picked up the line, there was just a slight hum for exactly ten
seconds, then the line would disconnect. Initially, my wife had
thought some "female" was trying to call me, and hung up. It was only
when I received the same calls that she believed me! After the first
two weeks of this, we received another, automated ten-second hangup
IMMEDIATELY followed by a call from South Central Bell inquiring as to
whether we wanted to "TouchStar" telephone service, which allows the
customer to find out (among other things) who had "called and hung up"
for a "low" monthly fee. I complained that I thought it was rather
coincidental that BellSouth would call right after another automated
hang up, but they professed their innocence. Today, I started
receiving them on BOTH of my lines at the same time. I called a
friend (another RISKS reader) to ask what steps I could take (I live
in AL, he lives in MD). To my surprise, he started getting the same
ten-second automated hangups three weeks ago, and they have not stopped!
What I feel is happening is that the phone companies have tapped into
a way to generate more money by causing people to dial the *69 number
for the 75-cent fee. When people get tired of paying the fee, they
subscribe to the service. I may just do that to see if the calls
stop. I have tried the better business bureau, but no humans exist to
speak to! The risk? Well, my marriage went south for the first two
weeks, and people are possibly getting duped while the phone companies
take the money and run.
------------------------------
From: dtweed@removethis.ma.ultranet.com (David Tweed)
Subject: Re: How do I Drive Inside Wiring From an ISDN TA Analog Port
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 97 17:21:04 GMT
In article <telecom17.159.5@telecom-digest.org>, darus@wwa.com (Jim
J. Wygralak) wrote:
> I am about to move into a new apartment and I am planning to have a
> single ISDN line as my only phone service. I purchased a Motorola
> Bitsurfr Pro EZ ISDN modem. It has two analog ports for connecting
> POTS equipment, but the manual states quite specifically that it can
> NOT drive inside wiring.
It's probably only the ringer load that's the issue. If you have only
phones with electronic ringers in the apartment, I wouldn't worry
about it. If you have older phones with mechanical ringers, disconnect
them (or all but one of them) and count on hearing the phone ring from
the other room(s).
Building a reliable "POTS repeater" would be a very nontrivial exercise,
even for an experienced telecom engineer (like me :-).
Dave Tweed
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How Do I Drive Inside Wiring from an ISDN TA Analog Port?
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:53:13 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
darus@wwa.com (Jim J. Wygralak] wrote:
> I am about to move into a new apartment and I am planning to have a
> single ISDN line as my only phone service. I purchased a Motorola
> Bitsurfr Pro EZ ISDN modem. It has two analog ports for connecting
> POTS equipment, but the manual states quite specifically that it can
> NOT drive inside wiring.
> Is there a device available that I could plug into an analog port on
> the TA, that would look like a single phone to the TA, which could
> then drive extension lines in the other rooms?
It was originally made to drive an off-premise extension from a key
system, but the Proctor 46222 Long Loop Adapter will do this. You can
plug it into any place that will drive a standard two-wire single line
phone, and it boosts the DC voltage and the ringing up to normal CO
line levels. In fact, I know of one installation where it was used
with the Motorola product mentioned here.
You can reach Proctor & Associates in Redmond, WA via email at
3991080@mcimail.com or solutions@proctorinc.com, or via telephone at
425-881-7000 or fax at 425-885-3282.
The output of the 46222 has a ringing voltage of 105 VAC at 20 Hz
under no load, and it drives at least 5 REN like a standard phone
line.
Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA
------------------------------
From: jra-tx@netcom.com (Jonathan Abramson)
Subject: Where to Find Local Telephone Rates?
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 19:25:01 GMT
Does anyone know where I can find a list of telephone rates for local
service for both business and residential for the whole country? I am
looking for the monthly charges for local service alone, not the rates
for local long distance. For business service, I would like to find
the rates for single phone lines, combo trunks, DID trunks, Centrex
lines, etc; whether flat, measured or message service is provided,
what the monthly allowance is, and how much additional local calls or
minutes cost.
I have already found two sources that help, but are not totally
adequate. The first is the FCC's Reference book of Rates, Price
Indices and Household Expenditures for Telephone Service. (March
1997) This source is great , but only covers a some cities.
I also have the Bell Operating Companies Exchange Service Telephone
Rates (December 31, 1995) put out by the National Association Of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners. This book covers the whole country
but doesn't cover PBX trunks, and is a little out of date.
Short of calling the local phone company in one city in every rate
band across the country (which I may have to do), does anyone have any
suggestions. The help is greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Jonathan jra-tx@netcom.com
------------------------------
From: Dominic Pinto <DOMINIC@btcentre.agw.bt.co.uk>
Subject: FITCE Congress 1997 Registration
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 15:14:00 +0100
Congress registration and hotel reservations details are available from:
Dominic Pinto
FITCE UK
Room A604
81 Newgate Street
London
EC1A 7AJ
Preferred e-mail: dominic.pinto@itu.ch
Ph: +44 (0)171 356-5112 Fax: +44 (0)171 356-6482 Mob: +44 (0)802 246761
------------------------------------
36th EUROPEAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS DAYS
THESSALONIKI, Greece, September 22th - 27th 1997
The Annual Congress and the European Telecommunications Days are the
premier international events organized by FITCE, the Federation of
Telecommunications Engineers of the European Community. FITCE was
founded in 1961 to aid the establishment of good relationships between
telecommunications engineers across European borders and to promote
and facilitate the exchange of professional experience and knowledge.
FITCE numbers some 5000 members across the European Union, and
includes telecoms and communications professionals from all the
varying converging industries - telecoms, IT, media, and broadcast.
The Hellenic Association of Telecommunications Engineers will be
hosting this year's annual congress in THESSALONIKI, GREECE, from
Monday 22th to Saturday 27th September 1997.
The Congress theme is:
-EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY AT THE DAWN
OF THE NEW MILLENNIUM-
Emerging technologies in telecommunications, and the liberalisation
and globalization of markets, are in turn becoming key factors for
investment opportunities and equally attractive revenue projections
even from the beginning of the 21st century. The expectation for a
dynamic presence and an ever increasing role in the new competitive
environment looms in the horizon of most telecommunications
enterprises, irrespective of their size,incumbent or minor.
The Congress will also include parallel sessions concerning evolution
of the telecommunications sector of the Eastern European Countries and
the countries of the former Soviet Union.
The host city is THESSALONIKI, the capital of MACEDONIA. Situated at
the cross-roads of three continents and two seas, Thessaloniki, is the
second largest city in Greece and one of the greatest financial and
commercial centers of Southeastern Europe.
Details are also on the Web at http://www.otenet.gr/FITCE97/
------------------------------
From: erbi@eurecom.fr (Ernst Biersack)
Subject: ACM SIGCOMM 97, in Sept 1997 in Cannes, France
Date: 22 Jun 1997 15:19:43 GMT
Organization: ACM
The annual ACM SIGCOMM 97 Conference on Applications, Technologies,
Architectures and Protocols for Computer Communication will take place
from September 14 to 18 in Cannes, France.
There are many good reasons why you should attend:
An outstanding technical program comprising
- Tutorials: Sunday September 14 and Monday September 15
- Conference: Tuesday September 16 to Thursday (morning) September 18
Keynote addresses by the two winners of Annual SIGCOMM Award.
A superb social program with:
- Wine and cheese tasting: Monday September 15, 18:00 to 21:00
- Pool session: Tuesday September 16, 19:00 to 22:00 around the Hotel
Majestic pool
Workshops right after the conference:
- Internet Simulations with the NS simulator: Thursday
(afternoon) September 18
- Reliable Multicast Meeting: Friday and Saturday September 19-20
Student travel Grants (application deadline July 1st !!)
Register now!! (Early registration rates until August 1st)
For more information and the registrations forms see:
http://www.inria.fr/rodeo/sigcomm97/
OR
http://www.acm.org/sigcomm/sigcomm97/
Ernst Biersack
(SIGCOMM 97 publicity chair)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 09:13:00 -0700
From: Ken Eikert <eikert@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Atlanta Metro Calling History -- and Gripes
Stanley Cline wrote:
> As many of you may know, the metro Atlanta, GA area local calling area
> is the largest flat-rate, untimed local calling area in the world --
> spanning [now] at least seven LECs and CLECs, at least ten wireless
> carriers, and all or parts of four [now -- soon to be FIVE] NPAs.
> Even the Georgia Public Service Commission boasts about it!
> The path to such massive calling has bene somewhat rocky -- and
> calling areas added a year or two ago still remains that way.
> THE HISTORY:
> [Stanley Cline's excellent history of metro Atlanta local
> calling area expansion (1989-1997) snipped.]
At the end of WW2, Atlanta's local calling area was roughly equal to
today's NPA 404. In 1950, Chamblee (included Dunwoody) and Clarkston
were added to the local calling area. In 1951, Smyrna (included
Powers Ferry) was added.
The year 1960 marked the biggest expansion in the size of Atlanta's
local calling area until 1995. Added in 1960: Austell, Douglasville,
Duluth, Fairburn, Fayetteville (included Peachtree City), Jonesboro
(included Riverdale), Lithonia (included Panola), Marietta, Norcross,
Roswell, Stockbridge, and Stone Mountain (included Tucker).
In 1961 Alpharetta, Conyers, Palmetto, and Powder Springs were added.
Added in 1962 were Acworth and Woodstock. In 1964 Buford, Dallas,
Hampton, Lawrenceville (included Lilburn and Snellville), Locust
Grove, and McDonough were added. Finally, in 1966, Loganville was
added, and Atlanta began bragging that it had the world's largest
toll-free local calling area.
No new exchanges (other than CO splits) were added to the metro
Atlanta local calling area between 1966 and 1995.
[Information above checked against Southern Bell directories;
corrections welcome.]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #161
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 23 09:09:56 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA08308; Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:09:56 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 09:09:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706231309.JAA08308@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #162
TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Jun 97 09:09:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 162
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Stanley Cline)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (John Stahl)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (grendel6@ix.netcom)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Tim Russell)
Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? (Tim Russell)
Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? (Al Varney)
Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Stanley Cline)
Re: Telco 50 Pinout and Meise (Bob Savery)
Effects of 206 Split (Babu Mengelepouti)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 05:10:52 GMT
Organization: An antonym for Chaos
Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:25:26 -0700, Bill <grendel6@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> I know this subject has come up in these pages (?) before, but I can't
> remember the resolution, and I couldn't find it in DejaNews.
PCS is more or less a buzzword meaning different things to different
people. In general, "PCS" is used to refer to one of two things:
digital wireless service, or services using the newly-auctioned 1900
MHz frequencies. Others seem to use the term to refer to GSM services
in the US (i.e., Powertel, BellSouth DCS, Omnipoint, etc.) or even
worse, to repriced/repackaged analog cellular service.
> Here in the Philadelphia area, there are several new wireless carriers.
> Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the B-side cellular carrier) is promoting its
> partially-digitalized (but otherwise conventional cellular) system as
> *new* and *improved*; we also have Sprint Spectrum (**not** S/S-APC),
> Nextel and, coming soon, Omnipoint.
Carrier Digital? 1900? GSM?
BANM digital yes no no
Sprint Spec yes yes no
Nextel yes no no
Omnipoint yes yes yes
Nextel really isn't truly "cellular" or "PCS" -- it's more or less a
"specialized mobile radio" service, aka "enhanced two-way." At least
here [Atlanta], Nextel seems to be shifting its market focus slightly,
from fleet/utility customers who want an "enhanced two-way" service,
to some high-volume general business customers.
> Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether
> the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just
> juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects
> of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge.
Sprint Spectrum (the cable-company-supported, non-APC version) is
using 1900 MHz frequencies, and is using CDMA digital technology. So
yes, SS can be construed to be "true" PCS -- unless you subscribe to
the "GSM" definition, which I don't.
> Omnipoint isn't here yet, but (I believe) they will be true PCS. True
> or false?
True using all "valid" definitions.
> What the blazes is NexTel? They have great billboards, but does anyone
> know what their pricing looks like ?
I'm not very familiar with their pricing. From what I understand,
they are priced a bit higher than standard cellular/PCS, but do
include either a large amount of or even unlimited "private" airtime
(i.e., "calls" or "two-way" to others in the same organization.) If
two-way features aren't important, it may be best to look at the
"consumer" PCS carriers (i.e., SS and Omnipoint there; here in
Atlanta, that would be Powertel and AT&T Wireless) -- they are apt to
be the cheapest for similar service.
> P.S. I use Comcast/Metrophone (the A-side cellular carrier), which is
> perfectly acceptable, but which has a number of annoying "features"
*I* don't think they are "acceptable" (neither are US Cellular,
CommNet, Louisiana Radiofone, or Atlanta AirTouch), but I will not get
into that here. I have done that enough times in the past.
> (like self-provided directory assistance); I think I may be able to get
> a better deal from one of the PCS carriers (I pay $16.00/month, plus
> $.36 peak/$.16 off and $.12 per call, generally using about 200 minutes
Probably you can. In areas where PCS is available, they are
undercutting traditional cellular carriers' pricing by 25-40%.
Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS!
CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** (wk) scline(at)mindspring.net
(hm) roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/
**NO SPAM!** http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ and http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl)
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 22:25:32 +0000
Probably the easiest way to tell, is find out the frequency of the
telephone handset (radio) you are given; if it is in the 800 - 900 mHz
range it is cellular, if it is in the 1900 MHz range it is PCS!
The PCS spectrum is in the 1900 MHz range and there are six potential
suppliers at any point in the US - the licenses were auctioned off in
six different 'blocks' - A through F. Most of the "big guys" like AT&T,
Sprint Spectrum, etc. have the A-block or B-block licenses, which have
very large service areas in each MTA. The C-block through F-block
areas, called BTA's, are much smaller by comparison.
If you are interested, go to the FCC Internet site (http://www.fcc.gov)
and 'nose' around the wireless section. There you can find a complete
list (in Excel spreadsheet format) of all the PSC auction "winners"
along with the listing of major cities for each block license, the
population base in each and even how much money each of the "winners"
bid for their license.
With the cellular spectrum, the FCC created two competitors in each
MSA, the b-side and the a-side, the wireline and the non-wireline
competitor. With PCS, the FCC 'created' up to six competitors for
every spot in the US. However, there is some concern whether, like
cellular where you can take your telephone (radio) anywhere in the US
and have it "work" (make a call for a price per minute), you will be
able to do the same with your PCS telephone (radio). There are several
operating "systems" in the PCS framework of operation and not all of
the suppliers are planning to use the same method of digital
communication. However, locally, in large metro-areas, there will be a
plethora of competitors and services available.
John Stahl
Aljon Enterprises
Telecommunications and Data System Consultants
email: aljon@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 21:52:02 -0700
From: Bill <grendel6@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: grendel6@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re : Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
In Issue 160, Izzy@Izzy.com commented:
> I don't believe that Sprint Spectrum in D.C. is classified as a PCS
> system, but I'm not sure. Sprint Spectrum does use spread spectrum
> technology, hence the name.
And, just to confuse us all a bit more, the URL's www.sprintpcs.com
and www.sprintspectrum.com map to the same page. If you wanna see the
Washington DC system's home page, it's www.sprintspectrum-apc.com.
APC is either Sprint's partner or licensee (I forget which) hence the
name, but how's that for an easy-to-remember address. Not.
Bill
------------------------------
From: russell@probe.net (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: 22 Jun 1997 18:30:30 GMT
Organization: Probe Technology Internet Services
Bill <grendel6@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Can someone out there (with more patience than I) PLEASE explain whether
> the Sprint Spectrum service here is "real" PCS (like in D.C.) or just
> juiced-up cellular? Since S/S isn't talking about the technical aspects
> of its service, I assume that they probably AREN'T cutting edge.
If this is the Sprint system with the Sony CDMA phones (the ones
with the popup earpiece that reveal "Digital by Qualcomm") then it's
the system I use here in Omaha.
I suppose it depends on your definition of PCS, but I would say
that the Sprint system qualifies. It runs in the 2.4 gHZ range, uses
extremely low power phones (I believe absolute maximum output on the
phones is 150 mW), and has many services with more coming.
However, I believe one of the things PCS is known for is many small
cellsites rather than fewer larger ones, and I don't believe that's
the case with Sprint - I believe the sites are cellular-style, though
I could be mistaken, since 150mW at 2.4 gHz doesn't go very far in
rain, and the system seems nearly impervious from rainfade.
Right now the system delivers Caller ID on incoming and outgoing
calls, which is a nice thing. They also have a voicemail service
which will be nice when all the bugs are worked out - they admit there
are minor problems occasionally, so don't offer voicemail yet unless
you specifically ask for it - instead, landline forwarding is free.
I'm told calls forwarded to landline phones with incur a small,
non-duration fee once per call once voicemail is working properly.
The first minute on incoming calls is free, which, coupled with Caller
ID makes me MUCH less hesitant to give out my number to people.
Also in the works is alpha paging and, I'm told, Internet access.
I read an article stating that Sony had licensed an HDML browser
(Handheld Device Markup Language) for use in the phones, and
Qualcomm/Sony already sells a serial cable that plugs into the base of
the phone.
Overall, I'd say the system definitely qualifies as "real" PCS.
The voice quality is amazing and the system works extremely well aside
from a couple of small dropout zones which Sprint assures me will be
fixed in July. Things are complicated because Omaha has put a
moratorium on new cellsite antenna installations.
Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell@probe.net
"The worst censorship is self-censorship, because fear has no limits."
-- Grady Ward
------------------------------
From: russell@probe.net (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data?
Date: 22 Jun 1997 18:47:53 GMT
Organization: Probe Technology Internet Services
David Martin <dmartin@iastate.edu> writes:
> I just checked my dialup connection to the internet: I've been on for
> 2 hours and 26 minutes and my total traffic has been 8000 Kbits - this
> is an average load of just about 1 Kbit/sec (mostly I just background
> check email and foreground read www.washingtonpost.com.)
> Doesn't this imply that my existing telco wiring plant is cabable
> right now of supporting something like 32 endpoints like me ON MY
> WIRE? That is, if each data end point on the average uses only 1/32
> of the bandpass needed for voice, the 32 endpoints could be
> multiplexed onto a single wire. (I know the hardware isn't in place to
> do this, but it should be possible & not rocket science.)
> Is this true? If everybody were packet switched at home, could the
> existing wiring plant support the current voice traffic and the
> anticipated increment in data traffic at little or no cost increase?
As an ISP, I see patterns like yours quite often on our dialup
ports. I'd definitely agree with the statement that most users would
like to do nothing more than be connected 24/7 and check email
continuously, and actually use full throughput not much more than one or
two hours a day.
I seriously wish that ISDN had become a pervasive technology.
Since it supports two 64 kbit channels, as well as a 19.2 kbit
signaling channel which can also be used for low-bandwidth
packet-based X.25 applications, it seems tailor-made for use in the
above scenario. Systems could simply contact us with small "Do I have
mail?" messages via the signaling channel, (or, in fact, we could
contact THEM!) and only bring up the full PPP connection and actually
take switch capacity when there's something to retrieve or when the
user wants to browse, download news, etc.
Of course, once people actually started using ISDN, US West
promptly made it metered and much too expensive for the average user
to afford, despite the fact that there are extremely low-priced access
solutions available now. It wouldn't matter anyway, since they're
normally incapable of getting a line installed in less than 2-3
months, and once it is installed it's normally configured wrong and it
takes weeks of shakedown to get everything working. Then it still
gets mysteriously "reconfigured" so that 2-channel calls won't work
once every few months.
I'd go so far as to say that, if ISDN were in place pervasively and
such software were in place, RBOCs wouldn't have any capacity problems
at all. This assumes, of course, that the current capacity problems
in areas like Seattle are, in fact, due to the Internet and not just
failures by US West and other RBOCs to properly keep up on
infrastructure. I'm not convinced that's the case.
Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell@probe.net
"The worst censorship is self-censorship, because fear has no limits."
-- Grady Ward
------------------------------
From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data?
Date: 23 Jun 1997 04:03:24 GMT
Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL
Reply-To: varney@lucent.com
In article <telecom17.159.6@telecom-digest.org>, David Martin
<dmartin@iastate.edu> wrote:
> What is a realistic average equivalent baud rate for voice
> communications and how does it translate into real digital transmission
> costs? Here's my naive analysis. Please correct me.
> Ok, I know the above is very sloppy and there are lots of statistical
> concerns, but is it safe to say that a single T1 channel(eg. 64 kbs at
> the telco) can really handle 6-10 real simultaneous data users?
> This is an important point regarding the development of the
> infrastructure needed to support a large fraction of users who are
> "off hook" but actually quiet most of the time. Where are the REAL
> bottlenecks?
> This simplistic analysis indicates that substantial savings would
> result from bringing packet switching into the home. That is,
> re-engineering the local switchs to respond to packet arrivals, rather
> than off-hook states could achieve a large savings.
That's exactly what ISDN does with X.25 packet (D- and B-channel).
For example, we make multiplexers that take 30 9600 baud async serial
inputs and multiplex it over a single 64Kbps B-channel. Works just
fine. We have SUNs that basically have an ISDN B-channel as an
interface, with X.25 supporting multiple connections. Europe markets
X.25 to-the-home even without ISDN. Frame Relay is another example of
packet switching at the user level.
The biggest problem with expanding this service is that local
dial-up voice channels are untimed, unlimited-time channels, and it's
difficult to implement a packet service that is either usage-based or
priced flat-rate that is as cheap. There just aren't a lot of
economics working to provide a cheap untimed/unlimited efficient
digital subscriber service. ADSL might do it -- not because it will
be cheaper per month, but because it will be enought more bandwidth
that folks will pay MORE per month.
It's also difficult to fund re-engineering of the local switches when
the existing service is priced so low.
Al Varney - just my opinion
------------------------------
From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 05:10:55 GMT
Organization: An antonym for Chaos
Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 16:17:00 -0700, Joseph Singer <dov@oz.net> wrote:
> I am no fan of AOL, but the truth is that for many parts of the
> country AOL is the only local POP that is available to people. I
Where, now? With the explosive growth of ISPs?
There are only three areas I know of that did have "only" AOL dialups,
but that's changed:
* Rome/Calhoun, GA - now has several ISPs. Georgia PSC may move them
into Atlanta mass-local-calling area eventually since they are on
the edge of it.
* Slidell, LA - now (extra-cost) Area Plus to New Orleans, and has a
couple of ISPs of its own.
* Meridian, MS - now has at least five ISPs
In fact, smaller towns are less likely to have AOL dialups than local
or even regional ISPs. Take, for example, Arab and Sylacauga, Alabama
-- neither have AOL numbers but do have local numbers for MindSpring,
a (regional-now-national) ISP. Chattanooga had several ISPs and no
"AOLnet" AOL number for some time.
-SC (regular poster to alt.aol-sucks, and AOL basher, who is still
getting billed by them. "AOL is sucks" -collective voice of
a.a-s)
Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS!
CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** (wk) scline(at)mindspring.net
(hm) roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/
**NO SPAM!** http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ and http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery)
Subject: Re: Telco 50 Pinout and Meise
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 06:44:00 GMT
Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666
LL> I'm looking for the pinout for the telco 50 pin connector (what line
LL> goes to what wire colour / number)
1 White/Blue 26 Green/Black
2 Blue/White 27 Black/Brown
3 White/Orange 28 Brown/Black
4 Orange/White 29 Black/Slate
5 White/Green 30 Slate/Black
6 Green/White 31 Yellow/Blue
7 White/Brown 32 Blue/Yellow
8 Brown/White 33 Yellow/Orange I can't draw worth beans
9 White/Slate 34 Orange/Yellow but the pins go....
10 Slate/White 35 Yellow/Green 1 2
11 Red/Blue 36 Green/Yellow 3 4
12 Blue/Red 37 Yellow/Brown 5 6
13 Red/Orange 38 Brown/Yellow 7 8
14 Orange/Red 39 Yellow/Slate
15 Red/Green 40 Slate/Yellow and so forth.
16 Green/Red 41 Violet/Blue
17 Red/Brown 42 Blue/Violet
18 Brown/Red 43 Violet/Orange
19 Red/Slate 44 Orange/Violet
20 Slate/Red 45 Violet/Green
21 Black/Blue 46 Green/Violet
22 Blue/Black 47 Violet/Brown
23 Black/Orange 48 Brown/Violet
24 Orange/Black 49 Violet/Slate
25 Black/Green 50 Slate/Violet
LL> Also I'm looking for a manual / info for a Reliant 16 (mfg 1986~)
LL> made by Meisei Electric Co. Ltd.
This one I can't help with though. Sorry!
See Ya!!
Bob Savery
bob.savery@hawgwild.com
Sysop - HawgWild! BBS
HawgWild! BBS = (402) 597-2666 - Modem
hawgwild.com - telnet
www.hawgwild.com - World Wide Wait
->5008 - RIME
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:49:07 -0400
From: Babu Mengelepouti <"Babu Mengelepouti"@baker.cnw.com>
Reply-To: prophet@baker.cnw.com
Organization: US Secret Service
Subject: Effects of 206 Split
The 206 split into 206 (now serving only Seattle, Sea-Tac Airport, and
a couple of small suburbs around the airport), 253 (serving the
greater Tacoma area and the Kent Valley), and 425 (serving Everett and
the Eastside, including the headquarters of Nintendo USA, AT&T
Wireless Services and Microsoft) entered permissive dialling a few
weeks ago. I have discovered the following:
- Calls to these NPA's using the old (206) NPA still bill on IXC
statements as calls to 206. However, if they are dialled using the
new NPAs, they appear on statements as such.
- However, calls to my 888 number from these NPAs do *finally* reflect
the new NPA. For a couple of weeks after the permissive dialing
began, the ANI was *still* appearing on LDDS Worldcom and AT&T (the
ones I tested) as 206.
- Just like the greater Dallas area, the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission ruled against USWest and GTE who wanted to
*require* 1+ for all inter-NPA calls (which could result in a toll call
being placed without the customer's knowledge), but in ruling against
that possibility it was *required* that 1+ *NOT* be permitted for
"local" calls. So to call Seattle from Redmond one cannot dial
1-206-248-xxxx, one must dial 206-248-xxxx. Dialling 1+ for a local
call results in an intercept. 1+ is *required* for toll calls as
before. My feelings on the matter are that I am pleased that I will
always know whether or not I am placing a toll call, but some software
flat-out refuses to dial a number in a foreign NPA without prepending a
1. I have worked around this thus far by editing the phone number to
prepend the NPA onto the 7 digit number, and fooling the software into
thinking that it is dialling that number in my own NPA.
This split was less poorly implemented than most, but it was handled
poorly. Washington has seen the recent introduction of three new NPAs.
The bulk of the population in western Washington lies in the
Seattle/Tacoma/Everett corridor, and the rest of the western part is
largely small logging and farming towns (Olympia, the state capital with
50,000-some residents is the largest city in the 360 NPA). While
creating 360 was wise from the standpoint of minimising disruption of
more rural residents, at the same time Seattle, Tacoma and Everett
should have been split.
At this point, the splits are still sane; they are made along as clear
geographic lines as can be made in this hellhole of urban sprawl.
Future NPA adjustment should come in the form of overlays, however. And
I really wish that 1+ was *allowed* for local calls, although I will
never support it being *required*.
dialtone@vcn.bc.ca
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #162
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jun 24 09:26:54 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA28553; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706241326.JAA28553@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #163
TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Jun 97 09:26:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 163
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (Lee Winson)
Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (Jay R. Ashworth)
Tiny Center in Norway Guides Rescues All Over the World (Tad Cook)
Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Fred R. Goldstein)
Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Henry Baker)
Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (John P. Harris)
Re: Effects of 206 Split (Linc Madison)
Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data? (John R. Grout)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* subscriptions@telecom-digest.org *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!)
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service?
Date: 24 Jun 1997 01:08:26 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
> What I feel is happening is that the phone companies have tapped into
> a way to generate more money by causing people to dial the *69 number
> for the 75-cent fee.
I'm not sure if that's the case. First, in many areas, return-call
*69 will yield the caller's number, so you need only do it once.
Secondly, repeated calls as you describe is generally not allowed per
phone company tarrifs. You might be eligible to complain via
call-trace *57 where the phone company's harassment unit is notified.
If I were getting such calls and couldn't track them down via *69, I
would use *57 and expect the phone company to put a stop to them.
It is possible someone's fax machine or computer is programmed wrong.
Or, some vending machine or oil tank is vainly trying to get filled.
(These problems have resulted in the symptons described, though it is
strange that multiple numbers are affected.)
------------------------------
From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service?
Date: 24 Jun 1997 04:09:23 GMT
Organization: Ashworth & Associates
Felix Tilley (ftilley@goodnet.cyberprom.com) wrote:
> What I feel is happening is that the phone companies have tapped into
> a way to generate more money by causing people to dial the *69 number
> for the 75-cent fee. When people get tired of paying the fee, they
> subscribe to the service. I may just do that to see if the calls
> stop. I have tried the better business bureau, but no humans exist to
> speak to! The risk? Well, my marriage went south for the first two
> weeks, and people are possibly getting duped while the phone companies
> take the money and run.
It should be noted that this was in RISKS about 3 weeks ago, and has
aready been flogged to death there.
Interested readers are directed to http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/bin/risksindex
where Lindsay Marshall is kind enough to carry the (very interesting)
Risks Digest on the web.
Cheers,
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology
Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592
------------------------------
Subject: Tiny Center in Norway Guides Rescues All Over the World
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:20:07 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Tiny center in Norway guides rescues all over the world
BY DOUG MELLGREN
Associated Press Writer
SOLA, Norway (AP) -- Sitting at a bank of radios and phones, Ole Vaage
helps save hundreds of people on the other side of the planet -- on a
good day.
On a bad day, the last words of someone he loses echo in his mind for
hours.
"You can be talking to someone. Then the radio goes silent and you
realize their boat sank and they are dead," said Vaage, rescue leader
at the Rescue Coordination Center-Southern Norway.
He seldom sees the people he does save from his post in this small
town in southwestern Norway. Many are in waters thousands of miles
away.
The center monitors satellite radio signals worldwide. When it picks
up a distress call, it tries to contact ships in that area.
"We don't actually rescue people. We send messages to ships or people
in an area, and they do the job for us," Vaage said.
When a ship sends a distress call, it is picked up by a satellite and
bounced back to Earth. Since vast areas of the world's oceans have no
dedicated rescue center, the Sola center took up the job by default.
"The center that picks up the call first is the rescue leader," said
Vaage, a former navy officer.
For example, the Achille Lauro cruise ship, with 1,000 people aboard,
was in the Indian Ocean off Africa when it caught fire in November
1994.
The Norwegian center picked up the mayday call and directed ships to
the site, saving almost everyone aboard before the ocean swallowed the
crippled liner, which already was infamous for a hijacking by Arab
terrorists in 1985.
An American television network called the center seeking details on
the rescue. The callers apparently did not realize the ship was near
the equator, while the rescue center is only 550 miles from the Arctic
Circle.
"They asked when we expected the passengers to reach Norway," said Anders
Bang-Andersen, the center's press spokesman. "I said we hoped the
passengers might visit Norway someday, but that right now we were only
concerned with getting them to land in Africa."
Manned around the clock, the center averages 10 people saved a day. Last
year, the center's 13 permanent employees -- usually two to a shift --
directed about 250 rescues in distant waters. It handled an additional
3,500 in the waters close to home as well as on land in Norway.
The center was established by Norway's government in 1970. It was set up to
coordinate rescue units of the navy, coast guard, police, hospitals,
offshore oil industry and volunteer groups, rather than having each operate
on their own as in most rescue centers. In a disaster, reinforcements come
from all the agencies.
"You start with a blank sheet. You don't know what resources are there.
You have to remain calm. The first thing you have to do is try to control
the chaos," said Vaage.
For such a high-tech operation, the center looks old-fashioned.
Information beamed to earth by up-to-the-minute satellite technology
chatters out on old telex machines. Rescuers encourage ships to use
the telexes because it is often easier to understand a captain's
written English than his spoken English.
When handling a distress call from the other side of the world,
rescuers race to dig a paper map of the area from their files.
Perhaps the single most important piece of equipment is the most
old-fashioned: the rescuer's mind -- especially his ability to think
clearly under pressure. There is no time for doubt in these
circumstances.
A recent shift gave a hint at what the center's staff faces. Vaage,
with a telephone seeming grafted to his ear, coordinated searches for
a lost family in Norway's mountains and for a fisherman missing from a
small boat, and sent navigation warnings to ships off the U.S. East
Coast.
That, he said, was a quiet shift.
It's not a job you leave at work.
"After you go home, sometimes you just have to call in to see how it
went," said Vaage. The pay-back, he said, "is a lot of thank you
letters."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 10:55:54 -0400
From: Fred R. Goldstein <fgoldstein@bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective
Chris Ziomkowski <czim@bigbear.com> wrote,
> First, what is the current interpretation of the Act of '96 regarding
> becoming a facilities based CLEC without CAP? In other words, does it
> actually require the ILEC to unbundle their local loop and give access
> to the copper, or is the only way for a CLEC to obtain the copper by
> reselling the ILEC's switch? If a CLEC is allowed access to the
> copper, does that mean that the CLEC can steal all the high profit
> origination fees from long distance while leaving the ILEC to absorb
> the cost of the local loop, which in many cases are sold at or below
> cost?
The rollout of local telephone competition certainly opens up a lot of
questions. I've been boning up on it lately, as it has become another
area for my consulting practice. While some of the information is
subject to nondisclosure, an awful lot isn't, if you can find it. One
good place to start is the FCC's web page.
There are two different scenarios for a local "competitor". One, for
which the quotes are applicable, is Total Service Resale. This is
apparently what MCI is offering in the case of their residential
Callpack service in Chicago; it provides the quickest way to get into
the low end of the business, though it's hardly worth doing on a
long-term basis. With Resale, the "competitor" essentially becomes a
marketing and billing agent for the Incumbent telco (ILEC). They gain
access to the ordering computer, and get billing detail records for
"their" subscribers. But the lines are 100% pure ILEC. The rates are
basically the ILEC's too -- the reseller gets a discount (say, 11-20%,
though actual percentages vary within guidelines) on tariff rates.
The discount is based on how much ILEC marketing and billing expense
is transferred to the reseller; there is no notion of cost-based
pricing for the services themselves, since they're based on the
existing ILEC tariff.
Note that when "migrating" to a reseller, nothing but the paperwork
changes, so the phone number stays the same, the installation cost is
minimal (or zero), the dial tone sounds the same, etc.
The second scenario is facilities-based competition. In this case the
CLEC owns actual facilities which it uses to connect to its
subscribers. Again to use MCI as an example, they have a CO switch of
their own in Chicago which is used to provision services to their own
subscribers. Initially this is only economical for high-volume (T1 or
more) subscribers, hence the resale.
In the facilities-based scenario, it's possible to have the entire
service provisioned by the CLEC, or for the CLEC to provide some of
their own service and to purchase "unbundled network elements" (UNE)
from the ILEC. These elements include local loops, switching,
transport (interoffice bandwidth), operator services, 411, 911, etc.
Unbundled network elements are generally priced based on cost, not
CLEC tariff prices. So it's possible that the price of an ILEC
residence line (before discount, under tariff, and not necessarily
"compensatory") is less than the price of an unbundled local loop
alone!
In general, the cost studies (TELRIC) needed for UNE pricing are not
done yet, but the FCC has suggested some "proxy" numbers. Local loop
proxies range (on a per-state average, large-CLEC basis only) from
just under $9.83/mo (MA) to $25.36 (ND), with most big states in the
$11-16 range.
With facilities-based competition, the CLEC can be more creative with
service offerings, pricing, etc. By next year, major markets will
have number portability, so "migrating" ILEC subscribers can keep
their phone numbers; for now, each CLEC needs its own batch of prefix
codes, which explains a lot of area-code exhaust now going on.
> Second, the Act seemed to allow for a CLEC (or an ILEC for that
> matter) to charge termination fees to its peer for local calls
> terminating on its equipment from the other's service. If that's the
> case, and if I'm a facilities based CLEC, what prevents me from simply
> purchasing a large number of residential lines from the ILEC and
> making 24hr. calls into my own network, all the time collecting fees
> from the ILEC. If this is the case, does it mean an end to unmetered
> local calling?
That would be fraud, similar to the 900-service operators who called
themselves. Besides, that would consistute use of a residence line for a
business purpose :-).
It is true, however, that carriers must pay each other to terminate
calls. In most cases these "accounting rates" (the older term) for
local traffic are in the half-cent per minute range, but they're
bilaterally negotiated. "Bill and keep" (no charge for traffic
exchange) is allowed but uncommon.
> Local number portability (YIKES!) was also a hot topic at the
> conference. As we all know, LNP is supposed to be a reality within a
> rate center by Q4 1997 in the five major metropolitan areas. (Does
> anyone actually have a good definition of what a rate center is? There
> seems to be alot of confusion.)
Rate center rules do seem to vary a little bit state by state. In
general it refers to the point from which calls are billed -- any two
lines from the same rate center are treated the same when called from
elsewhere. Generally this translates to "exchange area or zone
therein". But it can be hard to pin down in some local places, which
is a bit off topic.
> From everything I've seen, this Act has effectively ended flat rate
> local service once the CLECs get into full swing, barring cooperation
> between the ILEC and the various CLECs ...
I don't see that at all. Flat rate service is based on the notion
that when you average all flat-rate subscribers together, they cost x
to serve, so you charge x plus margin. The average 1FR line generates
something like ten hours a month of usage. At half a penny a minute,
even if 100% of it went to the ILEC, the accounting-rate payment of
say $3 would not be a big pain, and the CLEC would collect on calls to
its subscribers too, so it would probably balance out near zero.
Fred R. Goldstein fgoldstein@bbn.com
BBN Corp. Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850
------------------------------
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 04:47:27 GMT
In article <telecom17.161.1@telecom-digest.org>, bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu
(Bill Horne) wrote:
> czim@bigbear.com wrote:
>> First, what is the current interpretation of the Act of '96 regarding
>> becoming a facilities based CLEC without CAP? In other words, does it
>> actually require the ILEC to unbundle their local loop and give access
>> to the copper, or is the only way for a CLEC to obtain the copper by
>> reselling the ILEC's switch?
> You can rent copper, dialtone, trunk connections, database services,
> signalling services, and/or transport for any of the above, all a la
> carte. Each is available separately.
Actually, while this may be the theory, it is not the practice. In
practice, "physical" collocation is almost non-existent, so it is
almost impossible to gain access to the physical wires. "Virtual"
collocation is required, and has been recently reaffirmed by the FCC
(see www.fcc.gov). Virtual collocation provides "logical" access, but
not physical access, so the ILEC still has you by the short and
curlies if you want higher data rates than POTS.
------------------------------
From: John P. Harris <johnhsa@iamerica.net>
Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 12:41:44 -0700
Writing a billing package for the current and future economic
environments of telcom carriers is a venture I don't envy. However,
from our CLEC and ILEC clients I know there is a huge demand for a
properly functioning system.
I'll try to answer some of your questions:
The Telcom Act of 1996 (TA96) requires certain incumbent LECs to
unbundle their networks, as well as to resell their facilities and
provide access to rights of way. Not all LECs must unbundle at this
time though. Rural LECs (some of which under the definition provided
in TA96 may not be "rural") are not required to provided unbundled
facilities unless the state PUC finds that it is in the public
interest.
In areas which are truly rural, it is likely that it would not be in
the public interest. In general, the RBOCs, GTE, Sprint/United are
the companies required to unbundle and resell at wholesale rates. A
CLEC may provide service entirely through resale or through any
combination of resale and facilities. We have seen and expect to see
that resale is the initial method of choice. This allows the CLEC to
build market share prior to constructing their own facilities. When
volume permits it is best for CLECs to have their own facilities since
overall cost might be lower and control would be higher. An initial
step many CLECs take is to place a switch in service at the best
possible location and purchase unbundled loops from the ILEC. Later,
as clusers of customers develop, the CLEC could consider constructing
outside plant facilities. A CLEC could construct cable and wire.
------------------------------
From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Effects of 206 Split
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 01:10:53 -0700
Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail!
In article <telecom17.162.9@telecom-digest.org>, prophet@baker.cnw.com
wrote:
> - Just like the greater Dallas area, the Washington Utilities and
> Transportation Commission ruled against USWest and GTE who wanted to
> *require* 1+ for all inter-NPA calls (which could result in a toll call
> being placed without the customer's knowledge),
I don't believe any proposal was ever made for the Dallas area to
require 1+ on local calls to nearby area codes. For several years,
the Dallas area has had *mandatory* 10-digit dialing (with 1+10D
prohibited) on FNPA local calls. Permitting 10D on local calls is
fine, but prohibiting 1+ on local calls is just plain stupid.
> but in ruling against
> that possibility it was *required* that 1+ *NOT* be permitted for
> "local" calls. So to call Seattle from Redmond one cannot dial
> 1-206-248-xxxx, one must dial 206-248-xxxx. Dialling 1+ for a local
> call results in an intercept. 1+ is *required* for toll calls as
> before. My feelings on the matter are that I am pleased that I will
> always know whether or not I am placing a toll call, but some software
> flat-out refuses to dial a number in a foreign NPA without prepending a
> 1. I have worked around this thus far by editing the phone number to
> prepend the NPA onto the 7 digit number, and fooling the software into
> thinking that it is dialling that number in my own NPA.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for forbidding 1+ on local calls. It
serves no legitimate purpose. It does not protect consumers from
unwanted toll charges or from confusion about what is or is not a toll
call. It only frustrates people who simply want the call to go
through, period.
As to your other comments about the handling of the 206/360 split,
followed fairly rapidly by the 206/253/425 split, the key point to
keep in mind is that at the time of the 206/360 split, it made sense
to put as few people, particularly in metropolitan business centers
with national or international trade at stake, into an area code that
was of the NNX format, since at that time many telephone switches
(especially private equipment) still assumed that all area codes had a
0 or 1 in the middle. Thus, you couldn't have put any part of the
Seattle/Tacoma/ Everett metro area into 360 at that time.
** Do not spam e-mail me! <http://www.best.com/~eureka/spamoff.html> **
Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com
>> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" <<
------------------------------
From: j-grout@ehsn5.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout)
Subject: Re: Baud Rates and Costs: Voice vs Data?
Date: 23 Jun 1997 21:23:55 -0500
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Reply-To: john.grout@reasoning.com
russell@probe.net (Tim Russell) writes:
> I seriously wish that ISDN had become a pervasive technology.
> Since it supports two 64 kbit channels, as well as a 19.2 kbit
> signaling channel which can also be used for low-bandwidth
> packet-based X.25 applications, it seems tailor-made for use in the
> above scenario. Systems could simply contact us with small "Do I have
> mail?" messages via the signaling channel, (or, in fact, we could
> contact THEM!) and only bring up the full PPP connection and actually
> take switch capacity when there's something to retrieve or when the
> user wants to browse, download news, etc.
If the ISDN line is dedicated to the ISP, it is very doable for the ISP to
call the user's router or vice-versa.
An example is the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's
"UIUCnet at Home", which provides both a ISDN line and a
university-owned router to faculty, staff, (wealthy) individual
students, or even a small group of students connected by a LAN (they
must provide the LAN).
Another example is Brainstorm (a Bay Area ISP), which provides service
to smaller corporate sites within range of its ISDN POPs using a
Centrex ISDN line which connects to the company's router (which, if
the company chooses, they can purchase directly from the ISP).
John R. Grout john.grout@reasoning.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #163
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 26 01:20:10 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id BAA11962; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 01:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706260520.BAA11962@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #164
TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jun 97 01:20:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 164
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Another Change of Address is Needed (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Oregon Electric Utilities Run Fiber to Customers (Tad Cook)
Cap'n Crunch Site Now Moved (John Draper)
Cut off and Wrong Number Calls (Babu Mengelepouti)
Book Review: "Using C-Kermit" by da Cruz/Gianone (Rob Slade)
Cyber Promotions Sues World Com (Lisa Hancock)
Book Review: "Internet Homework Helper" by McLain (Rob Slade)
"Out of Area" When Will it End? (Bruce James Robert Linley)
PLEASE NOTE CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DIGEST DUE TO LOSS OF DOMAIN NAME.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:24:08 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Another Change of Address is Needed
Someone said they would pay the needed fees to have a domain for this
newsgroup/digest. Then, someone else said that Internic provided free
service to non-profit groups using .org ...
I got a note from Internic a couple days ago saying the bill was not
paid. I attempted to (a) locate the person who said it would 'all be
taken care of' and (b) detirmine if non-profit things such as this could
in fact be serviced. The person who made the apparently bogus 'donation'
to the Digest is now non-locateable; his own email address not working.
I wrote back to Internic and said I would see to it the bill was paid
as promptly as possible if in fact there was no leniency given to such
as myself ... their response was to cut off service to telecom-digest.org
without further ado. It would have been quite gracious of them to at
least allow an orderly transition, and I suppose I could have put off
some other bills and paid them within a week or so, but that is apparently
not their way of doing business.
Anyway, telecom-digest.org is apparently dead; please go back to the
direct address which was and still is in service which is as follows:
ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (for editorial stuff)
telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu (subscriptions, etc)
tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Telecom Archives service)
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/ Archives Web Page
The above always have been in use; it is just that telecom-digest.org
pointed to them. I just wish Internic could have been slightly more
professional in handling it.
Issue 163 of the Digest went out Tuesday morning, however a great
many sites saw the 'telecom-digest.org' and somehow barfed on it,
claiming they did not relay mail, etc. It was retransmitted Wednesday
night to the mailing list; unfortunatly some of you will get it twice
however it had to be done since several hundred did not get it the
first time.
Sorry for the confusion.
Patrick Townson
------------------------------
Subject: Oregon Electric Utilities Run Fiber to Customers
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 17:36:42 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Two Oregon Electric Utilities to Install Fiber Optics
BY LANCE ROBERTSON, THE REGISTER-GUARD, EUGENE, ORE.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jun. 24--Two local electric utilities are about to show you the light.
Not as in light bulbs, which the Springfield Utility Board and Eugene
Water & Electric Board are good at juicing up with electrons.
No, these two utilities are embarking on separate plans that
eventually could hot-wire the entire Eugene-Springfield area with
fiber optic cables, which are used primarily to send and receive data,
pictures, faxes and telephone calls at nearly the speed of light.
SUB will start work this summer on a $1.5 million project to lay fiber
optic cables along most major streets, with the idea of eventually
spending up to $20 million to hook up every home and business in town.
"We intend to wire the entire city," said SUB board member Bill
Kittredge.
The Eugene utility is taking a less aggressive approach. It plans to
hire a private company to install fiber optic lines to its own
facilities and public agencies -- the city, University of Oregon,
public schools and the like --sometime next year, but EWEB
commissioners haven't decided yet how widespread a system they want.
Wiring up all of Eugene with fiber cables could cost as much as $100
million. EWEB commissioners will talk about the project at theirits
July meeting.
The utilities would recover their costs by charging access fees and
leasing space on their fiber optic systems to cable TV, phone,
Iinternet and other telecommunications companies that want to serve
homes and businesses.
The potential for both utilities and their customers is enormous.
Fiber optics are flexible, hair-thinsized strands of pure glass that
use light waves to transmit enormous amounts of data in just about any
form: e-mail messages, phone calls, Internet chatter, cable television
channels, video teleconferencing, World Wide Web pages and all kinds
of other images and data.
Because they use light waves, fiber optics can transmit all this stuff
at, well, nearly the speed of light. Just one fiber can send 2.4
million bits of information per second, compared to 33,800 bits in
today's standard modems used for connecting to the Internet and online
services.
Two of the hair-thin strands can send 24,000 phone calls at once. One
strand can transmit 240 television channels to your TV or
computer. And most fiber optic cables have 96 or more individual
strands, bundled into a cable the diameter of a nickel.
"It's astounding technology," said Larry McMullen, telecommunications
project manager for the Springfield Utility Board.
So why are two electric utilities venturing into what has typically been
the domain of television and phone companies?
Utility officials say the fiber optics can be used to automatically
read meters. In other words, no more meter readers. And in today's
deregulating energy markets, utilities need access to "real time"
information about power usage to better gauge how much electricity to
buy on the open market at any one time.
But the push into fiber optics fits in with SUB's and EWEB's traditional
role as a public agency, utility officials say.
They want all their customers to have high-speed access via fiber
optics, not just the big customers private telecommunications
companies are more likely to serve.
"Why is Interstate 5 publicly owned? It's because it provides a public
good," said Kittredge. "The public owns the freeway, private citizens
own and drive the cars.
"Fiber optics is the same: If you believe that this is the information
superhighway, then it should be publicly owned. Otherwise, you're back
to a monopoly," he said.
"Part of being a public utility is, we can provide a public good for
all the residences and businesses," added Bob Steward, EWEB's
telecommunications project manager.
The utilities' plans don't sit too well with private phone and
television companies, however. They say SUB and EWEB are horning in on
what's traditionally been their domain and area of expertise.
Besides, there are fiber optic cables already in place throughout both
cities, company officials say.
"Look, we have an excellent fiber optic network in Eugene. Why do they
need to put in another one?" said Jim Gottschalk, area manager for US
West, which provides local telephone service to most of Oregon and
other Western states.
"We've told them (the utilities), it doesn't make sense and it isn't a
good use of resources, people and time," Gottschalk added.
But Kittredge said SUB's plans will make cable television, telephone,
internet and other services more competitive, which is what the 1996
Telecommunications Act passed by Congress is supposed to be about.
Springfield voters also approved a change in its city charter in 1987
to allow SUB to enter the telecommunications business.
A number of Private companies will be able to lease space on SUB's
fiber optic system, offering competitive rates to homeowners and
businesses.
"This will provide customers with competitive rates on all kinds of
services," Kittredge said. "Right now, if you don't like US West,
where are you going to go (for local phone service)? This is what
competition is all about."
While SUB is pushing forward with installing the first fiber optic
cable in a matter of weeks, EWEB is going much slower.
The two utilities had been working together on a common project for
three years until they decided to go their separate ways earlier this
year, said EWEB spokesman Marty Douglass.
Kittredge said SUB "couldn't stand around and wait" for EWEB to decide
how fast and far it wanted to delve into fiber optics.
Douglass said there's also a question of whether EWEB has the authority
under the city charter, or Eugene's telecommunications ordinance, to take
on the fiber optics project.
EWEB probably will have to go to the Eugene City Council in late July
to ask it to transfer that authority over to the utility, Douglass
added.
The Eugene utility also will hire a private firm to install its first
"backbone" system, which will hook up EWEB substations, water
reservoirs, hydroelectric plants, schools, public agencies and
possibly some major businesses.
But beyond doing that, Douglass said it isn't clear how much support
there is among EWEB commissioners.
(c) 1997, The Register-Guard, Eugene, Ore. Distributed by
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News.
------------------------------
From: John Draper <crunch@host.net>
Subject: Cap'n Crunch Site Now Moved
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:12:41 -0700
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Reply-To: crunch@host.net
The Cap'n Crunch home page URL has been changed. The new URL is now
http://crunch.woz.org/crunch
I've made significant changes to the site, added a FAQ based on a lot
of people asking me many questions about blue boxing, legal stuff, and
hacking in general. The FAQ will be growing all the time, as I go
through all the requests for information that many people have sent.
"Email me" if you want to add more questions.
Our new server is now available to host web sites for anyone who wants
to use it for interesting projects. This is for Elite people only,
and you have to send me a proposal on what you plan to use it for.
I'm open for suggestions, and when you go up to the WebCrunchers web
site: http://crunch.woz.org
You'll get more details on that. Our server is a Mac Power PC,
running WebStar web server, connected through a T-1 link to the
backbone. I know that the Mac Webserver might be slower, but I had
security in mind when I picked it. Besides, I didn't pick it, Steve
Wozniak did... :-) So please don't flame me for using a Mac.
I know that Mac's are hated by hackers, but what the heck ... at least
we got our OWN server now.
I also removed all the blatant commercial hipe from the home page and
put it elsewhere. But what the heck ... I should disserve to make
SOME amount of money selling things like T-shirts and mix tapes.
We plan to use it for interesting projects, and I want to put up some
Audio files of Phone tones. For instance, the sound of a blue box
call going through, or some old sounds of tandom stacking. If there
are any of you old-timers out there that might have some interesting
audio clips of these sounds, please get in touch with me.
Our new Domain name registration will soon be activated, and at that
time our URL will be:
http://www.webcrunchers.com - Our Web hosting server
http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch - Official Cap'n Crunch home page
Regards,
Cap'n Crunch
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:58:27 -0700
From: Babu Mengelepouti <dialtone@vcn.bc.ca>
Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca
Organization: US Secret Service
Subject: Cut off and Wrong Number Calls
I have noticed an increasing unwillingness on the part of long
distance carriers (ESPECIALLY Sprint) to credit for bad connections,
wrong numbers, and cut-off calls. For instance, I reached a wrong
number from a US West payphone, and the operator refused to reconnect
me to the correct number. She instead instructed me to "call the 800
number on the payphone" (because US West operators will no longer
connect to their own coin refund/repair service), and after sitting on
hold for several minutes the woman who answered laughed and said she'd
never been asked for a refund for THAT reason before. Eventually,
after conferring with her supervisor, they decided to mail me a
refund. I thought that this was ridiculous; I would have been happy
to just have my call reconnected or even the 25 cents put as a credit
on my phone bill. Instead, US West mailed me a CHEQUE for 25 cents.
Even the postage was in excess of that amount ... I am pondering
whether to cash it or to frame it.
Today, I made a Sprint calling card call and was unexpectedly cut off.
Since Sprint charges a hefty 90 cent surcharge for each call, I use my
Sprint card with its 10 cent per minute rate only for calls that I
expect to be lengthy. Given that 90 cents is (relatively) a lot of
money, I asked that I be credited that amount so that I could
reconnect and not have to pay two surcharges. Reasonable, right? NO!
Sprint asked, "How do you know that it wasn't the phone you were
calling that hung up on you?" I said that I did not know, but because
it was due to circumstances beyond my control, I chose to blame
Sprint. The representative finally relented, after arguing with her a
good five minutes, and said she would give me a "one time credit" for
90 cents. Overall, I found her to be very rude, which really is not
all that unusual for Sprint, but was still uncalled for.
Even AT&T, the company that boasts "instant credit for wrong numbers
or bad connections," has begun to quiz me when requesting credit. Is
this a growing trend? Are phone companies gradually beginning to
charge for calls, regardless of whether or not the transmission
quality is acceptable? Sprint seems to be taking an especially hard
line and does not grant credits easily at all. This might be
temporarily good for the bottom line, but it is not good for building
customer loyalty.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problem as I see it has to do with
the multitude of carriers and local telcos now-days; and the fact that
the problem in your call could have been due to an error or glitch
anywhere along the line. In other words, maybe the long distance
carrier was at fault, but then maybe the local telco on either end was
at fault instead. Now years ago when everything for all intents and
purposes was one single company, it did not matter much who was at
fault. The only people it annoyed I suppose were the drones working
in the old Separations and Settlements Department at AT&T; the five
hundred or so employees who sat in a large room handing scraps of
paper around to each other all day in the form of debits and credits
between the operating companies, the independents and AT&T, each
adding their own indicia as the scraps were passed around, each making
their own bookkeeping/journal entries, etc.
It did not even matter *that much* when everything was still Something
Bell, for even though they squabbled among themselves and with the
newcomers Sprint and MCI, they still all honored their accounts with
each other. For many, many years after divestiture, MCI was AT&T's
largest customer and in reverse, AT&T was MCI's largest customer and
although they would sue each other and make accusations against each
other they still pretty much went by the traditional rules as far as
accounting and billing practices were concerned. Now though, lots and
lots of new players; lots and lots of private phone switches, private
payphones, companies which have no concept of traditional telephone
billing practices, and willing to cheat however they can on those they
do know about.
A bit of history tossed in here: I am reminded of what Myrtle Murphy
told me twenty years ago when she was still alive. She had been a
long distance operator for AT&T in the 1930-40's era when calls from
one coast to the other were passed from one operator to another oper-
ator. A typical long distance connection went like this back then:
User picks up phone, waits for operator who asks 'number please?'
User says 'long distance' ... operator says thank you and connects
him.
Another operator answers 'long distance' and user says, "I want to
call Los Angeles, CA the number Hollywood 2000". That happened to be
the number for the switchboard at Warner Brothers at one time.
Operator asks the user what number he was calling from for the billing
ticket. User might tell the truth or he might lie and give someone
else's number. Assuming the call originated in Chicago, operator would
plug into a jack on the board to obtain a circuit to St. Louis. When
the St. Louis operator answered, the Chicago operator would ask for
Kansas City. When the Kansas City operator answered, the Chicago
operator would ask for Denver. When the Denver operator answered, the
Chicago operator would ask for Las Vegas. When the Las Vegas operator
answered, the Chicago operator would ask for Los Angeles. When Los
Angeles answered, the Chicago operator would ask for Hollywood 2000.
Since the Hollywood exchange was not directly appearing on the board
of the operator in Los Angeles, the LA operator would say 'thank you'
and in the process reach up with a cord to the Hollywood circuits and
plug in. A couple seconds later after a slight 'click' was heard which
meant that central office operator had answered, the Los Angeles
'inward' operator would repeat, 'two thousand'. The other end would
simply make the connection without acknowledgement.
Now the switchboard operator at Hollywood 2000 answers and the user
on this end (remember him?) asks for some given extension or person.
The switchboard operator makes the connection. The parties converse
for ... ummm ... thirty seconds, and the line goes dead. Maybe the
switchboard operator at Hollywood 2000 pulled the connection down in
error; maybe it was the long distance operator in Kansas City. Maybe
it was the local operator in Chicago. The fact is, someone yanked the
wrong cord by accident.
User furiously starts clicking the hookswitch on his phone and the
local operator answers. "Operator! You disconnected me." Operator
replies, "No sir, I did not. You are still up here, but I will try to
reconnect you." She pulls her ringing key a few times to get the
Chicago long distance operator on the line, and upon her response
says, "Operator! You disconnected my party!" And long distance would
say, "No I did not ... party is still up here, but I will restablish
the connection". She in turn would yank the ringing key a few times
and admonish St. Louis, "Operator! You disconnected my party!" and
what do you suppose St. Louis would say? "Still up here, not my fault,
some other operator must have done it." They would get Kansas City
then Denver on the line, then Las Vegas, then Los Angeles with each
operator in turn denouncing the next one down the line: Operator! You
disconnected my party! The last person down the line at the local PBX
would get the blame because all the operators ahead of her insisted
they did not pull the cord by accident. Maybe she didn't either, but
there was no else after her to blame. Since the originating long
distance operator was the one who controlled the 'ticketing' and the
charges, etc, she would issue credit immediatly and then and start the
call over again.
Oh, they were very careful about billing for long distance calls
provided the customer did not defraud them by giving the wrong number
to start with. So careful in fact that Myrtle remarked on the way
calls were handled during a 'fire drill'. From time to time they had
fire drills to educate the operators on how to safely evacuate *and*
conclude their calls in progress at the same time. The alarm would
sound and the operators were instructed to 'clock out' any open
tickets (that is, consider the call finished for billing purposes)
but leave the call connected (the cords in place) and *then* leave
the room. That was so that any calls in progress which happened to
conclude while the operators were out of the room for the two minutes
or so of the fire drill would not be erroneously charged too much.
When they returned and 'cleaned up their board' (took down cords
for calls no longer in progress) they were then to adjust the
tickets for calls which were still in progress.
Myrtle was the first union steward for operators at Illinois Bell
back in the 1930's at a time when AT&T was largely non-union. The
other operators would laugh at her union efforts and say to her
"You will never organize Bell ... no one will ever organize Bell ..."
uh huh ... yeah sure. And the supervisors would tell the other
operators to 'stay away from Myrtle, do not associate with her
because she is a trouble-maker', due to her union organizing efforts.
But I digress, and must conclude answering your question. None
of the companies feel any kinship or comraderie with the others as
used to be the case. For most of them now, the customer is an
interuption to their work, rather than the purpose of it. They do
not understand that for every write off they do, some other telco
will do just as many, and that a satisfied customer is worth far
more than twenty-five cents, especially when the call could be
put through in most cases without the bother of mailing a refund.
They would rather insist there is nothing wrong with their equip-
ment and that it must be the other guys at fault. "No operator,
I did not disconnect party ... party is still up here ... must
have been the next operator down the line ..."
Last thought: Is there anyone here old enough to remember when losing
a nickle at a payphone usually meant the operator had reported 'no
answer' or 'the lye-un is busy' but then accidentally hit the
'collect' button on the switchboard rather than the 'return' button
and your money fell in the box rather than out the return slot. The
operator would apologize and if you intended to keep trying the number
until you got an answer all you had to do was tell the operator the
next time you tried your call, "I have five cents credit coming per
Operator <operator number>". PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 10:49:52 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Using C-Kermit" by da Cruz/Gianone
BKUSCKMT.RVW 970623
"Using C-Kermit", Frank da Cruz/Christine M. Gianone, 1997, 1-55558-164-1,
U$39.95
%A Frank da Cruz fdc@columbia.edu
%A Christine M. Gianone cmg@columbia.edu
%C 225 Wildwood Street, Woburn, MA 01801
%C or Kermit Distribution, 612 West 115th Street, New York, NY 10025
%D 1997
%G 1-55558-164-1
%I Digital Press / Butterworth-Heinemann / Columbia University
%O U$39.95 800-366-BOOK 212-854-3703 Fax: 617-933-6333 212-663-8202
%O kermit@columbia.edu http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/
%P 622
%T "Using C-Kermit", 2nd edition
Kermit is the most widely available communications software in the
world. Versions on some platforms, however, may lack features
available on others. Also, there may be a few computers to which
Kermit has not been ported. This is where C-Kermit comes in.
C-Kermit is the C language source code for a feature-rich version of
Kermit, very similar in function to the highly mature MS-DOS version
of Kermit. C-Kermit is the native version for most of the Kermit
versions on major platforms, and there is no longer any reason not to
have a Kermit for *your* machine.
This is the user level manual for C-Kermit. (General advice on
porting, configuration and compiling is included with the source,
available from the Kermit distribution centre at Columbia University.
Extensive documentation and back issues of the Kermit digests and
announcements are also available.)
Well thought out, well presented, well written, the book is an
excellent addition to the previous "Kermit: A File Transfer Protocol"
(BKKERMIT.RVW) and "Using MS-DOS Kermit" (BKUMSKMT.RVW). For those
who insist that computer documentation is, by nature, turgid, obtuse,
and boring, you haven't read anything by Frank da Cruz and Christine
Gianone. Technical writers take note: *this* is how you do it.
The structure and order of the book is logically organized for users,
new and old. Early chapters, and appendix two, provide an excellent
primer for serial communications of all kinds. (The "test number" for
you to call is an 800 number bulletin board, accessible from all over
the United States and Canada, courtesy of Digital.) The only minor
oddity in the arrangement is that scripting, possibly of most use to
non-programming users, comes after the chapters on macros and
programming. This is intended to give some basic programming concepts
prior to introducing scripts, since the book assumes no programming
background. It is, however, possible to write simple scripts without
much in the way of conditional structures, controls or variables, and
it would be a pity if non-programmers gave up too early to find this
out.
C-Kermit is, as far as possible, the standard for the Kermit interface
and functions. This, therefore, is the standard Kermit user guide.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1994, 1997 BKUSCKMT.RVW 970623
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock)
Subject: Cyber Pormotions Sues World Com
Date: 26 Jun 1997 00:49:00 GMT
Organization: Net Access BBS
The {Philadelphia Inquirer} reported on 6/25/97, page C3:
Sanford Wallace, owner of controversial bulk e-mailer Cyber Promotions
Inc. of Dresher [Penna.], said he had filed suit in Montgomery County
against WorldCom Inc., Jackson, Miss., for allegedly reneging on a
three year $150,000 contract to provide him with Internet access for
sending commercial e-mail, also known as "spam". WorldCom, parent
company of Internet service provider UUnet, declined comment through a
spokeswoman.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 15:28:27 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Internet Homework Helper" by McLain
BKINHOHE.RVW 961218
"Internet Homework Helper", Tim McLain, 1997, 0-13-259557-5, U$29.95/C$40.75
%A Tim McLain
%C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
%D 1997
%G 0-13-259557-5
%I Prentice Hall
%O U$29.95/C$40.75 +1-201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com
%P 376
%T "Internet Homework Helper"
(Sigh.)
To paraphrase Dave Barry, help with homework usually involves
information, mostly in the form of answers.
Yes, the net can give you resources to help with homework.
However, you have to learn how to use the net in order to get that
help.
This cutesy and rather oversized book *might* help. But somehow I
doubt that the simplistic contents will provide much of any value.
I think I'll teach my grandsons how to use the net myself.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINHOHE.RVW 961218
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html
Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER)
------------------------------
From: linley@netcom.com (Bruce James Robert Linley)
Subject: "Out of Area" When Will it End?
Organization: Megami no Belldandy-sama no deshi
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 04:24:39 GMT
Forgive a stupid question, but when will caller ID be fully
implemented in the US? I thought the FCC mandated full compliance by
now, yet I get tons of telemarketers who read as "out of area" on my
CID box. I think they're hiding behind outdated equipment deliberately
to avoid identifying themselves. So, when will the day come that
everyone either sends CID, deliberately chooses to anonymize
themselves, or must get off the telephone system?
Bruce James Robert Linley
linley@netcom.com
Programmer, Fortunet Inc.
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #164
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jun 26 09:10:08 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA28041; Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:10:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:10:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706261310.JAA28041@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #165
TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jun 97 09:10:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 165
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
New Telephone Search Engine (Walt Brubaker)
Crest KTS-E2-C 2-Line Phone: Seeking Info (G. Paul Ziemba)
"On Hold" (Jay R. Ashworth)
Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Bill Horne)
Looking For RJ-9 Gender Changer (Ben de Lisle)
Re: Where to Find Local Telephone Rates? (Daniel Meldazis)
Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (Hudson Leighton)
Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service? (puma@execpc.com)
Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (William Middelaer)
Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil (Nils Andersson)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Michael D. Sullivan)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Henry Baker)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Michael D. Sullivan)
Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS? (Nils Andersson)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 09:12:40 -0700
From: Walt Brubaker <fred@nirvana.net>
Reply-To: fred@nirvanal.net
Subject: New Telephone Search Engine
Hello Mr. Townson,
I have a telecom suggestion that may be of interest to your users.
"Fone Finder" is a fast telephone lookup engine, provided as a public
service. It looks up phone numbers in a database, and retrieves the
city, state, country, flag, and a link to the location. Searches by
city name, prefix, area code, and wildcards are available.
Over 78,000 cities internationally are in the database, with more
being added frequently as they are submitted from contributors. You
can reach Fone Finder at: www.primeris.com/fonefind/
-- Thanks,
Walt Brubaker
webmaster@primeris.com
------------------------------
From: paul@w6yx.stanford.edu (G. Paul Ziemba)
Subject: Crest KTS-E2-C 2-Line Phone: Seeking Info
Date: 25 Jun 1997 23:27:12 GMT
Organization: Stanford University
I'm trying to repair a Crest KTS-E2-C "princess"-style two-line
telephone, and I was hoping someone knew how to get schematics or
other service information. The phone was manufactured sometime before
1985.
The only problem I am having with it is that the line lamps blink fast
instead of remaining dark when a line is on-hook.
Amazingly, Crest Industries, Inc. (in Washington state) still has the
same telephone number that they had when the phone was made. However,
they were insistent that they would neither service the phone nor
provide any information whatsoever about it.
If anyone can provide info, I'd greatly appreciate it!
------------------------------
From: Jay R. Ashworth <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
Subject: "On Hold"
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:21:07 EDT
Were you aware the domain name has gone into limbo?
Cheers,
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology
Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I found out late Tuesday that Internic
had cancelled it out. The person who said I should get it and promised
to pay for it has vanished, and did not pay for it. Someone else said
that there was normally no charge for non-profit things using .org and
apparently that is incorrect also. When I got a note earlier this week
from the Internic people saying the thing was never paid for I got
back to them right away and said I would try to pay it as soon as I
could. Their response was to simply eliminate it. So I guess the best
thing to do is just go back to using ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu for
all correspondence. I wish they would have allowed at least a short
time for an orderly transition, but I guess they did not want to do
that. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Bill Horne <bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 09:47:25 EDT
Henry Baker (hbaker@netcom.netcom.com) wrote on Mon Jun 23, 1997:
> In article <telecom17.161.1@telecom-digest.org>, bhorne@lynx.dac.neu.edu
> (Bill Horne) wrote:
>> czim@bigbear.com wrote:
>>> [Does the] Act of '96 ... actually require the ILEC to unbundle
>>> their local loop and give access to the copper, or is the only way for a
>>> CLEC to obtain the copper by reselling the ILEC's switch?
>> You can rent copper, dialtone, trunk connections, database services,
>> signalling services, and/or transport for any of the above, all a la
>> carte. Each is available separately.
> Actually, while this may be the theory, it is not the practise. In
> practise, "physical" collocation is almost non-existent, so it is almost
> impossible to gain access to the physical wires. "Virtual" collocation
> is required, and has been recently reaffirmed by the FCC (see www.fcc.gov).
> Virtual collocation provides "logical" access, but not physical access,
> so the ILEC still has you by the short & curlies if you want higher data
> rates than POTS.
Physical colocation is available to anyone that wants to use it; I
don't see why an ILEC has anybody by the calls if a CLEC can put a
cage in wherever they want.
Are you saying that physical colo is too expensive? If so, this sounds
like the new CLEC mantra I've been hearing lately: "We want governmental
installation intervals, Fortune 500 service, and RBOC grade equipment,
all at residential rates, and if we don't get them RIGHT NOW we'll tell
our daddy in Washington!"
To which I would reply: "Welcome to the major leagues". The tariff says
you will be able to *talk* on the line: everything else comes extra.
Bill "Poking hornets is my hobby" Horne
bhorne@lynx.neu.edu
------------------------------
From: delisle@eskimo.com (Ben de Lisle)
Subject: Looking for RJ-9 Gender Changer
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 03:18:50 GMT
I have looked everywhere, I can not find one, I want one RJ-9 gender
changer. I find plenty of RJ-11/14 and even RJ-45 changers but no
RJ-9. RJ-9 is the connector that goes between the telephone and the
headset. The other connector that connects the wall to the phone is
abundant. But all I want to do is to make the curly cord longer. But
before you say "Why not go an buy a longer curly cord" is because it
will not work for my application. I need to connect two curly cords
together. The reason is that one end of the connection is a normal
RJ-9 while the other end is a proprietary connector to my head set. I
want to be able to go more than six feet away from my desk and stay on
the phone. I have a headset and a microphone (of course) that covers
both ears and the mouthpiece sticks around to my mouth. My phone is an
Aspect terminal. Radio Shack has no such connector. I went to a
couple specialty electronic supply stores and cabling suppliers but no
help.
(c)1997
NEVER SEND ME JUNK-E-MAIL. I may look for you some day.
http://www.eskimo.com/~delisle/warning.letter.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 21:11:49 -0500
From: Daniel Meldazis <danielm1@flash.net>
Reply-To: danielm1@flash.net
Subject: Re: Where to Find Local Telephone Rates?
> Does anyone know where I can find a list of telephone rates for local
> service for both business and residential for the whole country?
I don't know why you would want to find out about rates for the entire
country but good luck! One place you can try is the business office of
the RBOCs and CLECs. They have copies of their current tariffs on
file. One word of warning; these tariffs can and do change
weekly. One of my jobs for a CLEC was digesting competitor tariffs for
the regulatory department. That was almost a full-time job. We used a
service in Virgina (I forget the name offhand) that sent us weekly
updates of phone company tariffs on CD-ROM. Of course, this service
cost several of thousands of dollars to subscribe to. One other
suggestion is trying your public utility commission. But that will be
good only for the state you live in. The RBOCs and CLECs file
different tariffs for each state that they do business in and
sometimes rates differ. Once again, Good luck.
------------------------------
From: hudsonl@skypoint.comNO_SPAM (Hudson Leighton)
Subject: Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service?
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 11:15:47 -0500
Organization: Minnesota Railroad Research Project
braz@mnw.net (Thomas Brazil) wrote:
> Several weeks ago, we started receiving automated calls. When my wife
> picked up the line, there was just a slight hum for exactly ten
> seconds, then the line would disconnect. Initially, my wife had
> thought some "female" was trying to call me, and hung up. It was only
> when I received the same calls that she believed me! After the first
> two weeks of this, we received another, automated ten-second hangup
> IMMEDIATELY followed by a call from South Central Bell inquiring as to
> whether we wanted to "TouchStar" telephone service, which allows the
> customer to find out (among other things) who had "called and hung up"
> for a "low" monthly fee.
I had a similar experience; I changed some of the phoneline usage in
my office, and ended up with a old computer line now having a
telephone on it.
The phone started ringing off the wall, 24 hours a day; it was getting
called (polled?) by some computer.
I got out the USWEST DEX (R)(C) phonebook and looked up what to do
with crank calls, it said do *xx three times and then call
1-800-xxx-xxxx so I did. They said they would fix it, so I unpluged
the phone so I could get some sleep and forgot about it.
A week or so later I remembered and plugged the phone back in, guess what
it started ringing! I did the *XX and the called the 1-800 number again.
The person I talked to said that the records showed that a voice mail
message had been left with the owner of the phone line, but since this
was my second call, they would contine contact attempts untill they
talked to a "real person". So unplug the phone and back to work.
The next day I plugged the phone back in and NO RINGS they
got it stopped!
I guess they do do what they say they will.
http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl/
Remove NO_SPAM before replying
------------------------------
From: puma@execpc.com
Subject: Re: Computer Fraud in Subscribing to Telephone Service?
Date: 24 Jun 1997 22:53:35 GMT
In article <telecom17.163.1@telecom-digest.org>,
Lee Winson <lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> If I were getting such calls and couldn't track them down via *69, I
> would use *57 and expect the phone company to put a stop to them.
I think you will find the telco disinterested. They turn the numbers
over to the police, without giving them to you. The police are only
interested if there are threats to your life involved, they have
'better' things to do.
> It is possible someone's fax machine or computer is programmed wrong.
> Or, some vending machine or oil tank is vainly trying to get filled.
> (These problems have resulted in the symptons described, though it is
> strange that multiple numbers are affected.)
I think a lot of these calls are from predictive dialers used by mass
marketers. They place calls ahead of time, planning on having a
salesperson available for those calls that are answered. If one
isn't, they just disconnect. Also, they disconnect on long ring times
or answering machines, and can be fooled by answering with a long
phrase instead of just hello.
I've gotten calls both at home and at the office like these. In some
cases, like clockwork every 20 minutes. All from out of area,
according to caller_id.
puma@execpc.com
------------------------------
From: William Middelaer <wsm@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil
Reply-To: wsm@NOSPAM.ibm.net
Organization: Quantrax Corporation
Date: 24 Jun 97 21:56:40 GMT
Stanley Cline <roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com> wrote in article
<telecom17.162.7@telecom-digest.org>...
>> I am no fan of AOL, but the truth is that for many parts of the
>> country AOL is the only local POP that is available to people. I
> There are only three areas I know of that did have "only" AOL dialups,
> but that's changed:
Ah, but Stanley, the key is that in lots of small towns, AOL is the
only nationwide ISP/E-Mailer available. As my address mentions, I use
IBM for my e-mail when travelling away from the DC area, but there are
still lots of towns where AOL has a local dialup and even big blue,
MCI, AT&T, Sprint, Mindspring and compuserve, among others, do not.
I hate AOL, their interface, its horrible speed, and those stupid
hoops they force their users to jump through to do the most basic of
tasks, but for lots of my fellow frequent travellers, they represent
the only game in town if you are a heavy user in lots of different
small towns.
So, I have a $4.95/month for three hours, $1.95 an hour after that
contract with IBM that serves my e-mail/batch net downloads on the
road, and use their dime a minute 800 service when I'm far outside of
the beltway (or, if I'm in a hotel like this crappy ramada in
Columbus, OH, which gets $0.50 for a local call that only takes 2.5
minutes.)
Will Middelaer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 00:45:26 -0400
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: The AOL List: Faces of Evil
In article <telecom17.158.6@telecom-digest.org>, Fred Farzanegan
<fredf@nortel.ca> writes:
> our pain is more than compensated by the education of the
> net-proles.
> I'm an AOL user (farzanegan@aol.com) -- not exactly proud of it,
> but one of the millions of others who aren't CAPS (or morally)
> deficient. Please adjust your sodium intake when reading articles
> such as the aforementioned.
As one of the net-proles getting an education (but not in typing and
reasoning skills), I would agree with the above analysis. There is one
more nice thing about AOL, it travels with you!!! There are free
dial-ins all over the US and Canada, and I can dial in from most other
countries at 10 cents (US) a minute, to an in-country number. It does
not take that many minutes to pull and push email and even newsgroups.
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
From: Michael D. Sullivan <mds@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 23:45:12 -0400
Organization: DIGEX, Inc.
Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan <mds@access.digex.net>
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 21:52:02 -0700, Bill wrote:
> In Issue 160, Izzy@Izzy.com commented:
>> I don't believe that Sprint Spectrum in D.C. is classified as a PCS
>> system, but I'm not sure. Sprint Spectrum does use spread spectrum
>> technology, hence the name.
> And, just to confuse us all a bit more, the URL's www.sprintpcs.com
> and www.sprintspectrum.com map to the same page. If you wanna see the
> Washington DC system's home page, it's www.sprintspectrum-apc.com.
> APC is either Sprint's partner or licensee (I forget which) hence the
> name, but how's that for an easy-to-remember address. Not.
APC is the licensee in DC; it's a partnership in which Sprint is a
major but not controlling investor, I recall. It offers service under
the Sprint Spectrum name. APC (the other investor in the APC
Partnership) got the license at a discount without auction because of
its "pioneer's preference." APC is PCS, i.e. 1.8 GHz, just as the
other Sprint Spectrum systems are. APC uses GSM technology, however,
not spread spectrum/CDMA, which is the technology Sprint Spectrum is
using elsewhere.
Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net,
avogadro@well.com
------------------------------
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 04:53:16 GMT
In article <telecom17.162.3@telecom-digest.org>, grendel6@ix.netcom.
com wrote:
> In Issue 160, Izzy@Izzy.com commented:
>> I don't believe that Sprint Spectrum in D.C. is classified as a PCS
>> system, but I'm not sure. Sprint Spectrum does use spread spectrum
>> technology, hence the name.
> And, just to confuse us all a bit more, the URL's www.sprintpcs.com
> and www.sprintspectrum.com map to the same page. If you wanna see the
> Washington DC system's home page, it's www.sprintspectrum-apc.com.
> APC is either Sprint's partner or licensee (I forget which) hence the
> name, but how's that for an easy-to-remember address. Not.
Once again, Sprint Spectrum in Washington, DC, uses GSM time-division
multiplexing rather than the Qualcomm CDMA modulation used in the rest
of the Sprint Spectrum system. DC people can find this out quickly
when they can "roam" to other GSM cities, but can't roam to other
Sprint Spectrum cities.
------------------------------
From: Michael D. Sullivan <mds@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 97 23:58:57 -0400
Organization: DIGEX, Inc.
Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan <mds@access.digex.net>
On 21 Jun 1997 08:39:51 GMT, Jason Lindquist wrote:
> Sprint's PCS service should be just as "real" as it is everywhere
> else. It's 1900 MHz CDMA.
Except in DC, where it's 1900 MHz GSM (still PCS).
>> What the blazes is NexTel? They have great billboards, but does anyone
>> know what their pricing looks like ?
> After the first minute, Nextel (another 1900 MHz CDMA carrier) rounds
> their airtime to the nearest second, instead of up to the next whole
> minute, like tradtional cell carriers. They also have some sort of
> partnerships going with local market entities, which I don't really
> understand yet.
Nextel is not a 1900 MHz carrier; it uses SMR (specialized mobile
radio) frequencies in the 800 MHz band, near cellular, using digital
technology (TDMA, I believe, and not CDMA). This is PCS only in the
most generic sense, as is 800 MHz cellular. BTW: AT&T Wireless calls
their 800 MHz TDMA cellular systems "Digital PCS."
Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net,
avogadro@well.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 14:00:42 -0400
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Which of the New "PCS" Carriers Really Uses PCS?
In article <telecom17.162.1@telecom-digest.org>, roamer1@RemoveThis.
pobox.com (Stanley Cline) writes:
> PCS is more or less a buzzword meaning different things to different
> people. In general, "PCS" is used to refer to one of two things:
> digital wireless service, or services using the newly-auctioned 1900
> MHz frequencies. Others seem to use the term to refer to GSM services
> in the US (i.e., Powertel, BellSouth DCS, Omnipoint, etc.) or even
> worse, to repriced/repackaged analog cellular service.
Indeed, this is so.
It is worth noting that GSM is a subset of digital, all GSM systems
are digital.
Also, all systems in North Americe on 1900 MHz are digital.
Neither of these statements is true in reverse.
The syllogism does not produce: All GSM systems in North America are
1900 MHz. The statement is nevertheless true AFAIK.
I believe the typical and fairly useful definition of PCS is any
digital service. From a customer's point of view, it is not critical
which frequency is used (except that AFAIK all digital systems on 800
MHz have an analog fallback, which massively increases your coverage.)
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #165
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 27 08:19:16 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA12333; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:19:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706271219.IAA12333@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #166
TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Jun 97 08:19:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 166
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
FCC Rejects SBC's Long-Distance Request (Tad Cook)
New Oklahoma Area Code (Wes Leatherock)
216 / 440 Split (Ohio) (Michael Fumich)
Book Review: "HTML: The Definitive Guide" by Musciano/Kennedy (Rob Slade)
Telcos Challenge Universal Service Fund (Tad Cook)
Pac Bell Customers Waiting Weeks for Lines (Tad Cook)
Help!!!!, X.25 Nightmare!! (Carlo Marcelo Arenas)
Public Network or Internet for your call? (Peter Capek)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: FCC Rejects SBC's Long-Distance Request
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 15:01:59 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
FCC rejects SBC's long-distance request
BY JEANNINE AVERSA
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal regulators today rejected SBC
Communications Inc.'s effort to be the first regional phone company to
offer long-distance service to some of its own customers.
The Federal Communications Commission rejected SBC's request to
provide long-distance in Oklahoma. The FCC said the company failed to
open its local market to competitors as required by a 1996 law.
San Antonio-based SBC Communications recently merged with Pacific
Telesis Group., the Bell company that provides local phone service to
California and Nevada. SBC, which had no immediate comment, has been
in talks with AT&T Corp. over a possible merger.
"The power to enter the long-distance market lies in the hands of the
Bell companies," said FCC Chairman Reed Hundt." If they have the will,
the law makes clear the way. In the present application, SBC has
plainly failed to meet the standards set forth" in the 1996 law, Hundt
said.
In a veiled comment to the AT&T talks, Hundt said: SBC's "combination
with its strongest potential competitor would frustrate the
pro-competitive purposes" of the law.
The FCC's action comes one day after the Justice Department rejected
another regional telephone company's request -- Ameritech Corp.'s --
to provide long-distance service in Michigan.
The Federal Communications Commission will ultimately decide the
Ameritech request. But the law requires the commission to give the
Justice Department's opinion substantial weight.
The FCC must act by Aug. 19.
Specifically, Chicago-based Ameritech has not satisfied a part of the
law that requires a company to open its local phone network to
competitors before it can offer long-distance service to its local
phone customers, the Justice Department said.
Congress gave local phone companies two ways to break into the
long-distance business in their own markets: either show that they
compete against other local phone companies for business and
residential customers; or show they have opened their networks to
would-be phone competitors.
SBC had asserted that it satisfied both tests. The FCC said it failed
both.
AT&T Corp. and MCI had asked the FCC to block the request.
SBC and other phone companies are providing long-distance service in
cities outside their local phone territories. But no company has been
cleared by the FCC to offer long-distance to their own states.
And, that's where the real fight is. The Bells see their biggest
opportunity to offer one-stop communications in these markets most
cheaply and efficiently. And it is also where the entry requirements
are the toughest and the potential the greatest for local phone
companies to have local customers subsidize investment in
long-distance -- something that is not allowed.
------------------------------
From: wes.leatherock@sandbox.telepath.com (Wes Leatherock)
Organization: The SANDBOX ** MultiLine TBBS (405)737-9540
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 16:16:19 CDT
Subject: New Oklahoma Area Code
All three television stations report that the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission has approved a split of the 405 NPA with
apparently the Oklahoma City metropolitan calling area keeping 405 and
the rest of the present 405 area getting the new area code.
One change the commission made was to allow Stillwater and
Perkins to remain in the 405 area.
A curious thing about the report was that the new area code
has not yet been selected, but it will be chosen some time in July.
The newspaper report (before the commission ruling today) said the
same thing.
This seems strange, since new NPAs are usually selected a
couple of years in advance, and this split is supposed to start on a
permissive basis by the end of this year.
I haven't been able to follow TELECOM Digest
(comp.dcom.telecom) in recent months, so if someone has some
information about this it would be appreciated by direct e-mail.
Wes Leatherock
wes.leatherock@sandbox.telepath.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:24:16 EDT
From: Michael Fumich <0005082894@mcimail.com>
Subject: 216 / 440 Split (Ohio)
The following NXX's will move from NPA 216 to new NPA 440, 16 August 1997.
Permissive dialing ends 4 April 1998.
203 242 280 331 417 474 572 647 774 858 899 954 993
204 243 282 333 422 498 576 667 775 862 918 960 994
205 244 284 338 423 508 577 669 776 866 925 962 997
206 245 285 349 427 512 582 679 777 871 926 964 998
209 246 286 350 428 516 584 685 779 876 930 965
223 247 288 352 435 519 585 693 786 878 933 967
224 248 293 353 437 525 593 698 808 884 934 968
230 254 294 354 439 526 594 703 816 885 935 969
232 255 298 355 442 537 599 708 826 886 937 974
233 256 307 356 446 542 603 715 834 887 942 975
234 257 309 357 449 543 604 716 835 888 943 979
235 259 322 358 457 546 605 717 838 891 944 984
236 269 323 359 458 547 632 729 839 892 946 985
237 272 324 365 460 548 635 734 842 893 947 986
238 275 326 366 461 563 636 735 843 895 949 988
239 277 327 414 466 564 639 748 845 897 951 989
240 279 329 415 473 567 646 756 846 898 953 992
NPA 216 will retain:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
City of Cleveland
West Suburbs: Lakewood
South Suburbs: Brookpark, Garfield Hghts, Seven Hills, Independence,
Valley View.
East Suburbs: Euclid, East Cleveland, South Euclid, Lyndhurst,
Cleveland Hghts, University Hghts, Shaker Hghts,
Beachwood, Pepper Pike, Orange.
(Parma, a 440 AND 216 south suburb, is STILL squawking :+)
Michael Fumich
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:30:37 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "HTML: The Definitive Guide" by Musciano/Kennedy
BKHTMLDG.RVW 970623
"HTML: The Definitive Guide", Chuck Musciano/Bill Kennedy, 1997, 1-56592-235-2,
U$32.95/C$46.95
%A Chuck Musciano cmusciano@aol.com
%A Bill Kennedy bkennedy@activmedia.com
%C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472
%D 1997
%G 1-56592-235-2
%I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
%O U$32.95/C$46.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com
%P 552
%S Nutshell Handbook
%T "HTML: The Definitive Guide", 2nd edition
If you are serious about designing documents and Web pages with HTML
(HyperText Markup Language) then you *must* have this book.
First of all, it *is* definitive. Many books, though much longer,
don't begin to match the depth of this current work. Musciano and
Kennedy cover the standard HTML up to 3.2, and, more importantly,
include the non-standard extensions of Netscape (up to 4.0) and
Internet Explorer. The basics, text, rules, multimedia, links, lists,
forms, tables, frames and more are all thoroughly covered, point by
point and attribute by attribute. There is even the SGML (Standard
Generalized Markup Language) DTD (Document Type Definition) for HTML
3.2. (This must be definitive: it's the definition of the language.)
Second, it *is* a guide, and a very good one. Lemay's "Web Publishing
With HTML" (cf. BKWPHTML.RVW) still holds an edge as the most
approachable beginner's introduction to Web page creation, but
Musciano and Kennedy can easily welcome the newcomer as well. The
structure is logical and the explanations are crystal clear.
In spite of all this, the book contains even more. Web design is not
given a separate section, but seamlessly permeates every section of
the book. Readers are constantly reminded that while extensions may
be fun, not everyone in the world has the same browser. Alternative
methods are suggested for non-standard effects and functions.
Shortcuts, suitable to only one browser or server, are recommended
against in order to ensure the utmost compatibility with all systems.
The authors apologize for the lack of coverage they give to CGI
(Common Gateway Interface) programming, but their illustration of the
basic functions is clearer than in almost any specialty text I've
reviewed to date.
All this, and readable, too. The content is straightforward and
lucid. While you might not read this book for laughs, it is not the
tome to choose to put yourself to sleep at night, either.
I can recommend this book, without reservation, to anyone who wants to
learn HTML programming and use. It is, still, the definitive guide.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996, 1997 BKHTMLDG.RVW 970623
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse
Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm
------------------------------
Subject: Telcos Challenge Universal Service Fund
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:48:06 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Phone Firms Challenge Federal Communications Commission's Internet
Order
BY DEBORAH SOLOMON, DETROIT FREE PRESS
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jun. 26--A federal attempt to link all schools, libraries and rural
health-care providers to the Internet has run into a roadblock and
could be derailed indefinitely.
Several telecommunications companies are challenging a Federal
Communications Commission order requiring local and long-distance
telephone companies to pay into a "universal service" fund. The $2.25
billion annual fund would be used to wire the nation's classrooms,
libraries and small-town clinics to the Internet.
SBC Communications Inc., a merger of Pacific Bell and Southwestern
Bell telephone companies, last week filed a lawsuit challenging the
order with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Tuesday, GTE
Corp., a local and long-distance phone company, filed a notice with
the court saying it also plans to appeal.
Other telephone companies, including Ameritech, are considering
whether to appeal the ruling, and U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., has
said he wants the order "tossed out."
The FCC established the universal service fund in May in an attempt to
implement the sweeping 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act, aimed at
opening the telecommunications industry to competition.
The FCC order cuts long-distance access charges, but raises the cost
of business phone lines and multiple home lines. Those increased costs
are to be funneled into the universal service fund and used to connect
poorer schools and libraries to the Internet.
President Bill Clinton has made equal-opportunity Internet access a
priority in his administration.
But critics say that instead of eliminating subsidies and determining
rates, the FCC is giving itself broad, unchecked powers.
"The FCC has put in a tax which is going to tax the ordinary
rate-payer for the wiring of schools and universities -- something
which it is not authorized by law to do," Dingell said. "This has a
rich probability of causing a significant rate increase to the
ordinary householder for ordinary telephone service."
Dingell, who has been consumed with budget issues for the past month,
has not taken any action yet, but has been considering how to squash
the order. However, it is unclear what can be done at the
congressional level.
Tom Barry, senior vice president of government affairs at SBC, said
that's one reason his company has asked the courts to intervene.
"The order is absolutely, totally inconsistent with the
Telecommunications Act and it's unconstitutional," Barry said. In its
appeal, SBC argues that the FCC should not be permitted to create and
oversee a multibillion-dollar fund.
"We are talking about a huge amount of money here," Barry said. "They
have no authority to oversee anything like this."
SBC and other companies also object to paying into the fund, saying it
will force them to pass higher rates on to consumers -- something that
is contrary to the intent of the telecommunications act.
"Clearly, people are going to be paying for this. We don't know where
this money is going to come from," Barry said.
Sara Snyder, a spokeswoman for Ameritech, said the company is going over
the order carefully and will decide shortly whether to join SBC's appeal.
If efforts to halt the order are successful, advocates of the universal
service fund say the results could be devastating.
Reports have shown a growing gap between poor children who don't have
access to the Internet and its wealth of information, and wealthier
children who use the Internet regularly. Without a subsidy to poorer
schools and libraries, advocates say, that gap is going to get larger.
As of last summer, only about 28 percent of the nation's libraries
offered Internet access, according to the American Library
Association. Most libraries, especially those in poorer, rural areas,
are struggling to keep up with technology, said Andrew Magpantay,
ALA's director of information technology policy.
"Libraries provide technology and the opportunity for people to learn
how to use it," Magpantay said. "This is important to make sure that
all Americans have the opportunity to take advantage of the
information revolution."
That won't happen if the FCC's order is halted, Magpantay said. The
money for universal service is supposed to be available Jan. 1,
1998. Magpantay said even a short delay would be a huge setback if it
kept technology out of libraries and schools for another few years.
"This has the potential for really challenging the core provisions of
the order," said Leslie Harris, a Washington-based policy consultant
to the Consortium for School Networking, a nonprofit educational
group. "It distracts the education and library communities from
getting these programs going and getting schools online."
------------------------------
Subject: Pac Bell Customers Waiting Weeks for Lines
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:51:01 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Some Pacific Bell Customers Waiting Weeks for Telephone Installation
BY RICK BURNHAM, THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE, RIVERSIDE, CALIF.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jun. 25--A shortage of Pacific Bell telephone installation personnel is
hampering communications in Riverside County and throughout California.
The California Public Utilties Commission has demanded an explanation
from Pacific Bell following customer complaints from San Francisco Bay
area customers of six-week waits to get a phone line.
Although Pacific Bell said it usually takes only five days to start
service, many San Francisco Bay area consumers say they are waiting
much longer.
The wait isn't as long in the Inland area cities that Pacific Bell
serves, or in other parts of the state. "I understand we'll put in a
normal (single) phone line in the usual few days," Pacific Bell
spokeswoman Linda Bonniksen said.
(Pacific Bell serves Riverside County customers in Riverside, Corona,
Norco, Jurupa, Woodcrest, Whitewater, a small part of Moreno Valley
and some unincorporated areas of the western county. It has no service
in San Bernardino County.)
But if you're trying to get a second or third line added, expect a
longer wait, she said.
The problem is unprecedented demand for additional phone lines.
"It's not a situation where there's not enough people (to install
lines)," Bonniksen said. "In some cases, there is no more plant in
neighborhoods. We've run out of lines. I wouldn't be surprised if you
see this problem in every type of community," she said.
Last year, Pacific Bell had its largest annual growth in company
history, hooking up an additional 650,000 telephone lines -- double
what it did in 1995.
"Demand has been skyrocketing for two, three, even four lines in a
home for the Internet, home-based businesses, or separate lines for
adults and another for children," Bonniksen said.
Pacific Bell saw demand begin to grow in late 1995, boosting its new
construction budget from $500 million to $600 million. This year, the
company will spend $800 million on new telephone lines for residential
neighborhoods, she said.
In the past year, the company also has hired about 2,500 employees,
many of them network design engineers and technicians, she said.
Still, the California Public Utilities Commission wants to know how
often the phone company meets its promises to initiate service.
In the Bay Area, David Grabel and his wife ordered two phone lines for
their new home in Redwood City six weeks before they moved. But the
Grabels didn't get their first phone line until three weeks after they
moved in. And that was after they waited at home hours for
technicians to show up.
"We have an infant, so having a phone when we took possession of the
house was important to us," he said. "When you have a little one
running around you really want a phone for emergencies."
Grabel said they finally gave up ever getting a second line for his
home office. "I'm laughing now but my wife is still fuming."
The PUC said it has noticed a marked increase in complaints in the
past few months. Customers usually complain to PUC commissioners only
after they have exhausted all other remedies, said Timothy Sullivan,
telecommunications adviser to PUC Commissioner Henry Duque.
"So we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg."
Sullivan met with Pacific Bell's general manager for Northern
California service operations on June 6 to talk about deteriorating
service.
The PUC staff is preparing a report for the commissioners.
"It's certainly an area we can't ignore," said Bill Schulte, director
of the PUC's consumer services division.
Spokesman Ho Blair said the company aims to serve Bay Area customers
within four days, but now takes an average of five working days to
install a new line.
"We realize it's been an imposition for some customers," he said. "We
are bringing in additional technicians and hope to eliminate the extra
delay."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
------------------------------
From: Carlo Marcelo Arenas <carenas@usa.net>
Subject: Help!!!!, X.25 Nightmare!!
Date: 26 Jun 1997 17:54:22 GMT
Organization: La Positiva Seguros y Reaseguros
Sorry,
I have to post this, but I can't find anywhere, how to get connected
from a X.25 port (DB25) female to a serial port (DB25 or BB9 male).
My HS NTU/NEU is a General Datacomm Enclosure Model DE-28
Sorry for your time, but I need it working for a financial network, and you
know, every minute, means money!!
Thanks in advance,
Carlo Marcelo Arenas
e-mail : carenas@usa.net; cararen@homemail.com
phone: +51 (1) 9719653
------------------------------
Date: 26 Jun 1997 14:38:14 EDT
From: capek@watson.ibm.com (Peter Capek)
Subject: Public Network or Internet For Your Call?
{The Financial Times}, quoted by EduPage, reports that a small company
in Singapore will introduce in October in Singapore a device which
attaches to a regular phone and allows a call to be directed to the
Internet by suffixing the dialed number with an octothorpe (#).
The device is called InnoTalk, and is expected eventually to be sold
in the U.S. for about $300 retail. The summary I saw said nothing
more. Presumably, the device makes a call to a local ISP, logs on,
and establishes the connection to a gateway at the remote end.
Nothing was said about how the operator of the remote gateway might be
paid, or about how one might direct a call to another Internet phone
user. (Dial an IP address? ;-) )
Peter Capek
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #166
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jun 27 09:24:26 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA15962; Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:24:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706271324.JAA15962@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #167
TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Jun 97 09:24:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 167
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Telecom Reports Article on FCC re SMS, 800 (Judith Oppenheimer)
Communications Overkill (Tad Cook)
South Korean Telephone Clubs (Tad Cook)
CDA Struck Down by Supreme Court (Netly News via Monty Solomon)
Inband ANI and Account Code Entry - G3V4 PBX (Bruce Griffis)
Re: There's no General Right to Privacy - Get Over It (Clive D.W. Feather)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
Subject: Telecom Reports Article on FCC re SMS, 800
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:44:33 -0400
Organization: ICB Toll Free - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting
Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net
Selection of Toll - Free Database Administrator Debated;
FCC Asked To Rewrite Rules on `Hoarding'
06/02/97
Telecommunications Reports
Copyright (c) 1997 Telecommunications Reports International,
Inc.
Although the telecom industry is preparing to create a third toll-free
service access code next year (TR, April 7), carriers, regulators, and
toll-free users still are fighting over how to distribute numbers in
the first two toll-free codes. The FCC's recent order in Common
Carrier docket 95-155 (TR, April 21) drew criticism last week from
parties seeking reconsideration of the agency's approach to "hoarding"
of toll-free numbers.
Meanwhile, in comments on a further notice of proposed rulemaking that
accompanied the April order, interexchange carriers and the Bell
companies debated the future of toll-free database administration.
That task currently belongs to the Bells' jointly owned Bell
Communications Research, Inc., subsidiary, which has been criticized
by other industry segments for its presumed lack of
neutrality. Bellcore is scheduled to be sold this year.
Filing jointly, the Bell operating companies and Bellcore argued that
the telecommunications Act of 1996's provisions regarding impartial
numbering administration don't require the replacement of Bellcore's
Database Services Management, Inc. (DSMI)subsidiary or the other
database subcontractors. They said that because "access to the SMS/800
system is provided under nondiscriminatory tariff, toll-free service
providers are able to obtain equal access to the database and reserve
toll-free numbers without fear of discrimination."
They added that replacing DSMI would be time-consuming, likely taking
longer than the pending sale of Bellcore (and DSMI) to Science
Applications International Corp. (TR, Nov. 25, 1996). They urged the
Commission to "reject any suggestion that it impose a mandatory
licensing requirement for SMS [Service Management System]/800 system
software that the Bell companies, through Bellcore, have expended tens
of million of dollars in developing."
AT&T Corp. said, "Any administrator that is affiliated or in a
contractual relationship with Bellcore or the [Bell companies] would
inevitably be exposed to unacceptable conflicts of interest.
Ultimately the 800 SMS database administrator should be selected
through competitive bidding." But in view of "the host of other
crucial number administration tasks facing the industry," no action
should be taken on the 800 SMS database administration issue "at this
time," it added.
For now, the FCC should just direct an industry committee, such as the
North American Numbering Council, to determine "the procedures that in
the long term will be used to select a follow-on administrator," AT&T
said.
Sprint Communications Co. L.P. said it doesn't object to DSMI's
continuing "to serve as the toll - free database administrator, at
least until a permanent administrator is chosen. However, in order to
ensure neutrality in the administration of the toll-free resource, the
current SMS Management Team (SMT), a group composed entirely of [Bell
company] representatives, should be replaced with a Board of Directors
with balanced industry representation." It saw no reason for the same
entity to administer the North American Numbering Plan, the local
number portability databases, and the toll-free database.
Meanwhile, Sprint was among several parties calling for
reconsideration of the FCC's "second report and order" in docket
95-155 that accompanied the further notice of proposed rulemaking on
database administration. In that order, the Commission had set certain
limits and requirements on carriers' requesting toll-free numbers from
the database.
"The Commission's requirement that a RespOrg [Responsible
Organization] have an identified subscriber before it reserves a
toll-free number is excessive and unnecessary," Sprint said. It
recommended that the FCC "instead adopt a requirement that a RespOrg
have an identified subscriber for a toll-free number by the
expiration of the 45-day reservation period associated with that
number." It asked the FCC to clarify the following:
(1) How it expects DSMI to comply with the directive to monitor
reserved numbers that are being "automatically recaptured" after 45
days (as opposed to being re-reserved for another subscriber),
(2) That re-reservations are allowed if a RespOrg has a different
customer for the same toll-free number, and
(3) What the prohibition on "retrieving" a number directly from
"disconnect" status entails, given that numbers move from disconnect
status to "spare" status, where they may be reserved but not
retrieved. Any "spare" number should be available to any RespOrg that
has a customer for that number, including the RespOrg that "put the
number in disconnect status," Sprint said.
`Hoarding' Rules Criticized
ICB, Inc., a consulting firm representing toll-free service users,
asked the FCC to reconsider its prohibition on the "private consensual
transfer or exchange of toll-free numbers between end users." Such
"brokering" will not accelerate depletion of the number supply, ICB
said. "If one were trafficking in numbers for profit, the incentive
would be to sell the numbers as quickly as possible."
It also asked the FCC to clarify its definition of "hoarding" ("the
acquisition by a toll-free subscriber from a RespOrg of more toll-
free numbers than the toll-free subscriber intends to use for the
provision of toll-free service").
ICB said some legitimate business practices require activities the
Commission has said would be indications that the subscriber is hoarding
numbers (e.g., routing multiple numbers to one subscriber, frequent
changing of numbers, and maintaining numbers with low calling volume).
For example, certain business plans by shared-use vendors and owners of
a "proprietary toll-free brand" may require "significant lead time" to
arrange financing and begin marketing, ICB said.
TLDP Communications, Inc., which markets toll-free and interactive
voice response services, objected to the creation of "a rebuttable
presumption of hoarding or brokering where multiple toll-free numbers
are routed to a single subscriber." It said service providers shouldn't
be allowed "to terminate service to customers on the basis of the
presumption without an affirmative finding by the Commission."
It asked the FCC to reconsider those conclusions or, at a minimum, (1)
to provide guidelines as to how it expects service providers to "enforce
the presumption," (2) to expand the exception granted to telemarketers
from the hoarding presumption to other "situations in which multiple
`800' numbers are legitimately routed to a single service subscriber,"
and (3) to determine that resellers, not the underlying facilities-based
carrier, must enforce the rules regarding hoarding.
Loren Stocker, Managing Partner of Vanity International, objected to
the FCC's decisions regarding hoarding and to the underlying concept
of toll-free numbers as a "public resource." She said, "Whenever a
number is part of a program, service, or enterprise, then the
subscription can no longer be assumed a public good or resource. The
simple fact is that the intellectual property `800-Flowers' was
created and overlaid upon a lifetime subscription; it was neither
issued by the carrier and/or RespOrg nor [was it] part of the
toll-free subscription."
She added that the Act "ensures that 800-Flowers has the right to
`retain their telecommunications numbers' with full and unfettered
`number portability.' What then supports the legal fiction that
assigned numbers are a `public resource?' In my view only unassigned
toll-free numbers are a public resource ... Consider the folly of
the [U.S. Postal Service] attempting foreclosure proceedings under the
theory that a specific mailing address is a `public resource' and must
be reclaimed."
"Finally, it should be abundantly clear that the proposed auction of
confusingly similar ` 888 ' vanity numbers will be immediately
enjoined and ultimately disallowed by the courts. The Commission has
one thing absolutely correct: Toll-free numbers have no inherent
value. Rather, it is the intellectual property overlaid by the 800
[-number] holders that is reportedly worth $700 million" in some
federal budget estimates (TR, Feb. 10, p. 3), she said.
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com
800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/icbinfo2.html
800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/expert2.html
1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714
------------------------------
Subject: Communications Overkill
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:53:18 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Communications overkill hits corporate efficiency
BY ROBERT WOODWARD
LONDON (Reuter) - Communications overkill, product of the 1990s world
of e-mail, voicemail, fax and the Internet, is beginning to impair
companies' efficiency and drive workers crazy, according to a report
released Monday.
The survey, conducted in the United States and released in London,
showed half of those questioned said they were interrupted by messages
six or more times an hour.
Far from replacing existing communications, new techonological tools
merely overlay them, creating a corporate world where many executives
and managers feel crushed by their communications traffic.
The survey commissioned by U.S. office products company Pitney Bowes
showed 71 percent of those questioned felt overwhelmed by the number
of messages they received. This glut negatively affects employee
morale, the quality of work and home life, and company productivity.
"This phenomenon is beginning to have a seismic affect on people's
professional and private lives," said Meredith Fischer, vice
president, communications, markting and future strategy at Pitney
Bowes. "Technology is not the problem, it's how we use and control
it."
The survey showed that managers on average receive and send 178
messages a day. The telephone is mostly to blame but 40 percent of the
message are in paper form, giving the lie to the idea that new
technologies would create a paperless environment.
A common response by managers was that on arriving at work you "check
your e-mail, voice mail, fax, (Lotus) notes database and then it's
time to go home." Some said they received up to 100 e-mail messages
overnight.
Such is the blizzard that many managers have to answer voice-mails and
e-mails from home. The ceaseless interruptions at work mean quality
thinking time also has to be left until the evenings or weekends.
Further inefficiencies arise when communications systems are not
compatible, meaning messages do not arrive. Chase-up messages and
telephone calls to ensure a message has been received increases the
inefficiency. More and more workers now send the same message by two
or three different media to make sure it gets through.
Many companies also do not bother to find out how their workers, and
suppliers and customers, prefer to receive messages, the survey
showed. Sixty-nine percent of large companies do not have a
communications policy.
"Using a number of ways to communicate is not bad in itself, but it
can add to the glut of materials to be managed and can be wasteful,"
Fischer said. "Employees are frustrated and hampered because they
don't have the information to make educated choices."
Workers, however, are fighting back. Some use their favorite form of
communication whether or not this fits into the corporate
culture. They turn off pagers and mobile phones, or let them run down,
so they can get some peace when they are out of the office.
Others open e-mails without reading them or just ignore those which are
sent for their information only rather than directed at them.
"Ultimately, we're getting to the point where people lie down in the
road and say, `No more,"' Fischer told a news conference.
This growing confusion and inefficiency is leading to the emergence of
"mission control" workers in companies, Fischer told a press
conference.
This person, often at the personal assistant/secretary level, knows
and bridges the deficiencies in a company's communications web. He or
she informs individuals when messages fail to hit their target and how
best to reach another worker in the company.
The survey was conducted by Gallup and San Jose State University among
972 executives, managers and administrative staff at Fortune 1000
companies.
------------------------------
Subject: South Korean Telephone Clubs
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:54:06 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
South Korea cracks down on thriving anonymous `telephone clubs'
BY SANG-HUN CHOE
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- In pink-lighted booths smaller than prison
cells, men sit waiting for phone calls.
Across town, with her two children finally in bed and her husband out
late, Mrs. Park, a 33-year-old housewife, gets "the day's only hours
to myself." She dials a toll-free number and reaches one of the men in
the booths -- a man she has never met before but finds "much easier to
confide in than my husband."
This is the world of "telephone clubs," South Korea's latest cultural
fad. In a deeply Confucian society that outwardly cherishes
traditional values of home and family, the clubs are thriving, and the
government is trying to put them out of business.
Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of South Korean men chat with
housewives and even teen-age girls -- to kill time or to hope for
dates or something more.
Both the government and the clubs' trade group say most conversations
deal with domestic matters, workplace problems and the like. But the
government contends, and the club owners agree, a growing number of
calls are sexually oriented.
The typical male-exclusive telephone club has 20 booths furnished with
leather chairs and TV sets with flickering videos of scantly clad
foreign models. Club owners take out ads saying: "Meet mysterious
dates!" "Get away from dry city life!" The ads also carry toll-free
numbers for women.
The men pay 10,000 won ($11) for each hour on the phone -- more than
11 times the regular phone charge.
"At first, I thought it was crazy -- talking with other men, even
husbands of other women, on the phone at night," said Mrs. Park, who
gave only her last name.
"But because of the very anonymity of this -- you neither know or see
the person you are talking to -- you can talk about a lot of things,"
she said. "I really finds this refreshing in my event-less life at
home.
"Of course, I will get into serious trouble if my husband finds out
about this," she said. "But I think Korean women must also be allowed
to talk with other men more freely. I talked with a man for three
hours last time."
After the first club appeared in October, 1,500 quickly sprang up.
The proliferation coincided with lurid TV documentaries about a small
but increasing number of Korean housewives and teen-age girls who have
turned to part-time prostitution. Some women told TV interviewers they
were looking for an escape from boredom or were earning money for
their kids' education.
Under pressure from the clubs' critics for months, the government
ruled the clubs illegal in May and promised to close them all
down. Korea Telecom, the government monopoly on domestic phone
service, threatened to cut lines for the clubs.
"We must by all means avoid treading the path of Japan," said Yoon
Jae-hong of the Ministry of Information and Communication.
In Japan, teen-agers use telephone clubs to meet older men and arrange
meetings that often lead to paid sex.
Police arrested 20 telephone club owners in May on charges of showing
pornography. They were also accused of hiring college girls and
housewives to carry on obscene conversations with male customers.
Club owners accused the government of using isolated incidents of
wrongdoing to justify a wholesale crackdown.
"We will take our case to the court," said Lee Jong-shik, head of an
association of 1,000 telephone clubs, who led a protest visit to the
ministry in early June. "What the government is doing threatens our
livelihood as well as violating people's right for private
conversation."
Lee said 20 percent of the clubs were closing down and others are
losing business because of police harassment.
"Korean people are living in a regimented society and family," Lee
said. "They have dictatorial bosses at workplaces and they have
dictatorial husbands at home. They need a new culture of freer
conversations."
In a recent visit to one of the dozen telephone clubs along Seoul's
bustling Chongno neighborhood, it was business as usual. Ten of the 15
booths were occupied by men clutching phone receivers.
"I cannot understand why the government is so interested in what we
talk about on the phone," said Kim Kyung-kyun, a 35-year-old customer.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 01:30:47 EDT
From: monty@roscom.COM (Monty Solomon)
Subject: CDA Struck Down by Supreme Court
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Following is a summary of several
press releases, etc received regarding the Supreme Court's decision
on CDA. PAT]
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: CDA STRUCK DOWN BY SUPREME COURT, from the Netly News
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1110,00.html
The Netly News
CDA STRUCK DOWN!
June 26, 1997, 11:30 am
by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision that firmly
establishes unbridled free speech in cyberspace, struck
down the Communications Decency Act. In a 40-page majority opinion
opinion handed down this morning, the Justices determined that the act
is unconstitutional. The court also resoundingly rejected the argument
that broadcast standards should apply to the Internet.
The Justices unanimously ruled that the so-called "display
provision" -- which would effectively render the Net "child safe" --
was patently unconstitutional. "The interest in encouraging freedom of
expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but
unproven benefit of censorship," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens. In a
7-to-2 decision, the court also struck down the other half of the CDA,
which banned "indecent transmission" to a minor. The minority
argued that such a limitation would not interfere "with the First
Amendment rights of adults." Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and William
Rehnquist were the lone dissenters on that point in a 13-page minority
opinion.
"This is the landmark decision that many of us anticipated," said
David Sobel, staff counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information
Center and co-counsel on the case. Phil Gutis of the American Civil
Liberties Union -- the lead plaintiff in Reno v. ACLU -- said the
decision left no wriggle room for CDA supporters: "It's going to be
very hard for Congress to go back and say the court left us this
opening. They didn't."
Yet CDA supporters promised to keep up the fight. Against the
backdrop of a dozen anti-porn activists, Cathy Cleaver, the director
of legal policy for the Family Research Council, proclaimed that,
"today we're going to see the floodgates of pornography open on the
internet. This is not a good time to be a child. We're not going to
give up the fight to protect children online."
In spite of such perceived dangers, the court apparently realized
the unique nature of the Internet and appreciated the fact that it is
a new and developing medium. "Neither before nor after the enactment
of the CDA have the vast democratic fora of the Internet been subject
to the type of government supervision and regulation that has attended
the broadcast industry. Moreover, the Internet is not as 'invasive' as
radio or television," the majority wrote. The CDA "threatens to torch
a large segment of the Internet community."
The chief congressional opponent of the CDA applauded the court's
recognition that the Internet is wholly unlike broadcast media.
"Giving full force to the first amendment online is a victory for the
first amendment, for american technology, and for democracy," said
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in a statement. "The CDA was misguided and
unworkable. It reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the
technology of the Internet."
White House statement on CDA decision
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
June 26, 1996
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the Communications Decency
Act addressing indecency are not constitutional. We will study its opinion
closely.
The administration remains firmly committed to the provisions -- both in
the CDA and elsewhere in the criminal code -- that prohibit the
transmission of obscenity over the Internet and via other media.
Similarly, we remain committed to vigorous enforcement of federal
prohibitions against transmission of child pornography over the Internet,
and another prohibition that makes criminal the use of the Internet by
pedophiles to entice children to engage in sexual activity.
The Internet is an incredibly powerful medium for freedom of speech and
freedom of expression that should be protected. It is the biggest change
in human communications since the printing press, and is being used to
educate our children, promote electronic commerce, provide valuable health
care information, and allow citizens to keep in touch with their
government. But there is material on the Internet that is clearly
inappropriate for children. As a parent, I understand the concerns that
parents have about their children accessing inappropriate material.
If we are to make the Internet a powerful resource for learning, we must
give parents and teachers the tools they need to make the Internet safe
for children.
Therefore, in the coming days, I will convene industry leaders and groups
representing teachers, parents and librarians. We can and must develop a
solution for the Internet that is as powerful for the computer as the
v-chip will be for the television, and that protects children in ways that
are consistent with America's free speech values. With the right
technology and rating systems - we can help ensure that our children don't
end up in the red light districts of cyberspace.
CDA decision online
Please see http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html
Family Research Council on CDA decision
CONTACT: Kristin Hansen, (202) 393-2100
COURT REAFFIRMS GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST IN PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM
PORN, BUT STRIKES CDA AS TOO BROAD
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Today's ruling means that pornographers can open
their doors to children on the Internet. But pornographers beware:
this will not be the last word on protecting children from your
corrupting influence," Family Research Council Legal Policy Director
Cathy Cleaver said Thursday. "While Reno v. ACLU said that the
specific provisions of the CDA are too broad, the Court also said that
more narrowly tailored provisions could be upheld."
Cleaver made her comments as the Supreme Court issued its ruling
striking down the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Cleaver
continued, "Parents still have no legal recourse to protect their
children from being sent a Penthouse centerfold. This is not good
news for the thousands of families who discover every day that their
children have accessed offensive and disgusting material on the
internet.
"At the same time, the Court has opened the door to new legislation
protection children. Americans should urge Congress to take another
look at the issue and draft a more narrowly defined statute.
"But now, the flood gates remain open to purveyors of smut. With no
legal liability for those who pursue children with graphic images and
language on the internet, we need to act fast and firmly to ensure
that our country does not give pornographers special rights."
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR INTERVIEWS, CONTACT THE FRC PRESS OFFICE.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Griffis <cccef.bgriffis@capital.ge.com>
Subject: Inband ANI and Account Code Entry - G3V4 PBX
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:07:37 -0400
Organization: Commercial Equipment Financing
I am running a G3V4 PBX. Documentation states that it supports ANI
delivery over ISDN PRI. Unfortunately my PBX does not have ISDN
software.
Is there a way to deliver In-Band ANI over a "straight" T1 using ESF
B8ZS signaling to a Lucent G3V4 PBX?
Is there a way to do account code entry on inbound calls on an AT&T
(Lucent) G3V4 PBX? I support a small help desk, and want to keep track
of calls by problem type through both the PBX (via CDR) and the
info system.
I know it is supported on outbound calls. Anything on inbound?
Regards,
Bruce Griffis
cccef.bgriffis@capital.ge.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:06:20 +0100
From: Clive D.W. Feather <clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk>
Reply-To: clive@demon.net
Subject: Re: There's no General Right to Privacy - Get Over It
Organization: Clive's laptop (part of Demon Internet Ltd.)
> Sure, you have the right to protect your personal data, but
> you shouldn't be able to stop someone else from passing along that
> information if you let it leave your computer. That's your
> responsibility.
> So you can imagine my dismay when I learned I'd be sitting
> through four full days of Federal Trade Commission hearings this week
> on Internet privacy. The commission's goal? To define "privacy rights"
> for the Net.
Those who are against the concept of information privacy might want to
look at the UK's Data Protection Act 1984, available on the web below
<http://www.hmso.gov.uk/>. This works well enough in the UK, and is
typical of European data protection legislation.
Clive D.W. Feather | Director of Software Development | Home email:
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | <clive@davros.org>
Fax: +44 181 371 1037 | <clive@demon.net> |
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #167
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jun 30 09:05:01 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA14291; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:05:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:05:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199706301305.JAA14291@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #168
TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Jun 97 09:05:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 168
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Bellcore NANPA Webpage Updates of 27-June-1997 (Mark J. Cuccia)
Mexico's "Vertical-Service" Codes? (Mark J. Cuccia)
Phone Relay Service For Deaf (CA PUC Press Release) (Anthony Argyriou)
Ohio Consumer Group Faults Ameritech Dispute Settlement (Tad Cook)
Book Review: "Building VRML Worlds" by Tittel/Scott/Wolfe (Rob Slade)
AT&T Rethinks Rate Cuts (Tad Cook)
Cyberpromo Routing Through My System! (Alan Boritz)
MegaCity's (Toronto's) New Area Code (Alnawaz Ladha)
916/530 Split Boundary Change (CA PUC Press Release) (Anthony Argyriou)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 17:45:23 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Bellcore NANPA Webpage Updates of 27-June-1997
Bellcore NANPA has updated their webpages, dated 27-June-1997:
(http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/newarea.html)
The test number for the California split (916->530) has been announced.
It will be 530-444-0530.
The dates and test numbers for Quebec's split (514->450) has been
announced, along with test numbers:
13-June-1998 Permissive
16-Jan.-1999 Mandatory
Two Test Numbers:
450-443-2836
450-443-2739
Since both test numbers are 450-443, I _doubt_ that they route to
different access tandems of Bell-Canada (and maybe Telebec). Maybe one
is English and the other is French. Or, a-la British Columbia's
604->250 split in 1996, one test number might 'supe' (i.e. bill/charge
you toll), while the other test number answers with 'on-hook'
supervision, where you aren't (supposed to be) charged/billed.
There are PL's (Planning Letters for $10.00 each) announed for the two
Massachusetts NPA splits, which NYNEX is stating to go permissive on
1-Sept-1997, and mandatory on 1-Dec-1997. That's just a little over
two months away for beginning of permissive dialing, with only a three
month permissive dialing period. However, as of Saturday afternoon,
Bellcore NANPA's website doesn't indicate the dates nor test numbers
for Massachusetts' two NPA splits.
Dial-it-yourself, and SAVE!
THE BELL SYSTEM:
AT&T / Long-Lines / Bell-Labs / Western-Electric (including Teletype
Corp.) / and your local operating Bell Telephone Company- including:
Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England Telephone (CT), Bell Canada
(PQ/ON, and subsidiary local telcos in the eastern Provinces and parts
of the Northern Territories; Northern-Electric/Bell-Northern-Research)
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 21:22:09 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Mexico's "Vertical-Service" Codes?
I was looking thru Telnor's website (http://www.telnor.com). Telnor is
the subsidiary of Telmex. They are the traditional 'incumbent' LEC
which provides service in the two northwestern states of Baja-Cal-N
and Sonora.
I hadn't seen these instructions or information on the (Sprint)-Telmex
site, nor anything regarding this on the websites of MCI-Avantel, nor
AT&T-Aventel, nor SWBell-Iusatel ... ONLY on Telnor's.
o Caller-ID/Display (Identificador de Llamada) --- but there are no
special _dialing_ instructions for Caller-ID/Display anyhow...
o 3-Way-Calling (Conferencia Tripartita)
In the middle of a stable call, FLASH, hear recall dialtone,
dial the next party, FLASH, hear recall dialtone and dial '3',
and a three-way conversation is established.
o Call-Waiting (Llamada en Espera)
During the middle of a call, if another party is trying to call,
the called party will hear the 'beep', and can choose to FLASH,
hear recall dialtone, dial '2', put their original party on hold,
thus answering the 'beeping' party. And they can go back and
forth between the two by FLASHING, hearing recall dialtone, and
then dialing '2'. To drop the party currently in conversation and
then go ONLY to the 'held' party, FLASH, hear recall dialtone,
then dial '1'.
o CANCEL Call-Waiting
Dial #43#, to reactivate dial #43*
o Call Forwarding (Linea Directa)
Dial #53* + the forwarded telephone number (up to 12-digits) + #
To cancel, dial #53#
o Call-Transfer (Transferencia de Llamadas)
I assume that this is for forwarding on busy/no-answer. I had
some translation trouble on figuring out the instructions on this
one. The webpage for this is service is:
http://www.telnor.com/transferencia.html
Dial *21*+ the forwarded telephone number + #
I wonder if these "Vertical Service" codes part of a Mexican Standard?
I know that Bellcore's NANPA assigns the *XX(X) (also dialable as
11-XX(X) from any phone, both rotary and tone-dial) for uses in the
NANP. However, it is up to each and every individual local telco to
provide particular services, and many don't necessarily follow the
Bellcore recommended standards. Particularly, various PBX/Centrex
systems, Cellular systems, private payphones (COCOTs), etc. Could
there be some form of S.C.T. or CoFeTel, or Telmex standards document
or list indicating the recommended * and # "Vertical Service Codes"
for use in Mexico?
It does appear that since Mexico's numbering/dialing plan uses initial
digits of '1' for POTS/geographic local c/o codes and city codes, and
'0' for service codes and access prefixes, and everything else '2'
thru '9' is for POTS/geographic purposes as a first dialed digit, that
there are no numerical dialpulse codes corresponding to initial # or *
in Mexico. One MUST be using a DTMF phone to utilize the vertical
services.
The "Princess" Telephone - it's Little, it's Lovely, it LIGHTS!
THE BELL SYSTEM:
AT&T / Long-Lines / Bell-Labs / Western-Electric (including Teletype
Corp.) / and your local operating Bell Telephone Company- including:
Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England Telephone (CT), Bell Canada
(PQ/ON, and subsidiary local telcos in the eastern Provinces and parts
of the Northern Territories; Northern-Electric/Bell-Northern-Research)
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:33:26 -0700
From: Anthony Argyriou <anthony@alphageo.com>
Subject: Phone Relay Service For Deaf (CA PUC Press Release)
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3298
NEWS RELEASE
CONTACT: Dianne Dienstein June 13, 1997 CPUC - 73
415-703-2423 (Res. T-16031)
CPUC ACTS TO IMPROVE PHONE RELAY SERVICE FOR THE DEAF
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has augmented the
1997 Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP) budget by
$2.9 million to stimulate competition in providing relay service, and
for the first time assure deaf and disabled phone customers choice of
providers. The California Relay Service uses intermediaries with
teletype devices to connect deaf and disabled phone customers with
hearing customers.
Commissioner Henry M. Duque convinced a majority of his fellow
Commissioners to augment the DDTP budget: "MCI is the company quickest
to charge others with abusing monopoly power. Here is a market where
it is the single service provider to a population with special needs,
and instead of using technology to serve those who rely on it most,
MCI appears to be abusing its customers and exploiting its market
power."
In 1996, MCI was selected as the primary provider of relay service
through a competitive bidding process. MCI's main relay service
center is in Riverbank, California. While other companies could have
entered this market under the same contract terms that MCI did, none
chose to do so. Soon after MCI began to provide relay service,
customers complained about operator typing, spelling and grammar,
users' inability to use various types of calling cards or their
carrier of choice, and incorrect billing. The number of complaints
about MCI's relay service soared to five times that of the previous
provider, Sprint.
Both the Trust which administers the DDTP, and Commissioner Duque, who
has been the Commission's liaison with the DDTP, met with MCI in an
effort to work together to eliminate the service problems. However,
over the past six months, and despite the Commission's direction to
correct problems, problems continued. The DDTP Trust concluded that
the only way to provide relief to relay customers was to attract other
phone companies into this market to compete with MCI and to give relay
users the same kind of choice among providers that other phone
customers enjoy, and spur MCI to improve service.
The Trust sought Commission augmentation of the DDTP budget so that
the reimbursement rate for relay service providers could be raised
from the current 70 cents/conversation minute to not more than 89
cents - the next lowest rate bid during the competitive bidding for
the contract MCI currently has.
On June 11, 1997, the day the Commission approved augmentation of the
DDTP budget, Sprint publicly announced its intention to provide relay
service no later than September of this year. The Commission hopes
other providers will also enter this market, and stated its intention
to work with them to facilitate this.
In an effort to assure better service, relay service providers must
report monthly to the CPUC on the number and types of complaints they
receive, and use customer surveys to assess service quality. Also,
providers who do not meet the contractual requirements will be subject
to daily liquidated damages of $2,000 plus 10% of the daily gross
incremental revenue from the 19 cent/conversation minute difference
between the current reimbursement rate and the new rate; liquidated
damages will increase for each consecutive day of violations.
Pursuant to legislation, there are three programs for the deaf, hearing
impaired, and disabled in California:
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDDs) distribution; the
California Relay Service; and Supplemental Telecommunications
Equipment for persons who are disabled. The programs are funded by a
consolidated budget which is set annually by the Commission.
------------------------------
Subject: Ohio Consumer Group Faults Ameritech Dispute Settlement
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:25:20 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Ohio Consumer Group Faults Ameritech Dispute Settlement
BY MELANIE PAYNE, AKRON BEACON JOURNAL, OHIO
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jun. 27--Robert S. Tongren, the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, says state
utility regulators moved too quickly in settling a dispute with
Ameritech over inaccurate service records.
The state consumer watchdog also is taking issue with new rules for
local telephone service released yesterday by the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio.
Commissioners approved a PUCO staff recommendation of a $300,000 fine
against Ameritech, Ohio's largest telephone company. They also decided
to cut regulated telephone revenues to Ameritech by up to $540,000 for
providing the commission with inaccurate service records.
But Tongren wasn't satisfied with the settlement.
"An unidentified number of Ameritech customers who have experienced
service problems have missed the opportunity for remedies because this
company has not acted responsibly in managing data," Tongren said of
the fines against Ameritech. "The commission has again overlooked the
severity of this company's actions."
The disputed records had to do with how well Ameritech complied with
service requirements between July 1995 and June 1996. The telephone
company earlier had been plagued with service problems that angered
customers and resulted in fines against the company.
Ameritech blamed a computer glitch for its inability to produce the
records.
The records became an issue when the statistics initially provided by
Ameritech did not agree with the extraordinary number of service
complaints the PUCO had received during the same period.
When Ameritech was asked to review the reports, it discovered that its
records were indeed faulty, but because the original records had been
discarded, it couldn't generate new and more accurate reports.
PUCO staff members recommended the fine and revenue reduction in lieu of
billing credits to individual customers because the company could not
provide individual customer records, PUCO spokesman Dick Kimmins said.
The new minimum telephone service standards, Kimmins said, focus on
providing individual customers with remedies.
The new telephone standards, Tongren said, "are an improvement" but
he said the original staff recommendations were stronger and "provided
more assurance that poor service would not be tolerated."
Kimmins agreed with the assessment that the recommended penalties were
more severe, but he said the approved penalties, as now structured,
are likely to be more effective.
For example, the staff recommended that if a customer's phone service
was out for more than 72 hours, the customer would receive a one-month
credit for service. Under the adopted rules, if the outage is 48 to 75
hours, the customer will receive credit for one-third of a one-month
basic service charge. For outages of 76 to 96 hours, the customer will
receive a two-thirds credit. And for an outage longer than 96 hours,
the customer will receive a full month's credit.
The graduated system, which takes effect Oct. 1, will be an incentive for
the local phone companies to repair the service quickly, Kimmins said.
If the customer gets a month's credit after a 48-hour outage, "Why not
wait 28 days to fix the phone?" Kimmins asked.
Other new standards, which take effect July 7, include:
A cap on phone company surcharges to the cost of a first-class stamp for
bill payments made through grocery stores or banks.
A requirement that companies provide each new customer a detailed list of
services and monthly charges.
A prohibition against combining written authorization to switch local or
long-distance service with a "sweepstakes" or prize drawing.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:57:53 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Building VRML Worlds" by Tittel/Scott/Wolfe/Sanders
BKBVRMLW.RVW 961218
"Building VRML Worlds", Ed Tittel/Charlie Scott/Paul Wolfe/Claire Sanders,
1997, 0-07-882233-5, U$39.95/C$57.95
%A Ed Tittel etittel@lanw.com 76376.606@compuserve.com
%A Charlie Scott charlie@outer.net
%A Paul Wolfe info@outer.net
%A Claire Sanders
%C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6
%D 1997
%G 0-07-882233-5
%I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne
%O U$39.95/C$57.95 +1-800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca
%P 381
%T "Building VRML Worlds"
This odd and interesting book distinguishes itself from others on the
VRML (Virtual Reality Model Language) shelf by talking about
everything *except* how to code VRML. OK, yes, there is a brief
overview of VRML itself, but most of the book is concerned with how to
use VRML (and how *not* to), authoring tools, resources, and so forth.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKBVRMLW.RVW 961218
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
Subject: AT&T Rethinks Rate Cuts
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 08:51:47 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
AT&T may restrict who gets phone-rate cut
BY JEANNINE AVERSA
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Because the savings from a rejuggling of phone fees
could fall short of government projections, AT&T now says it may not
share them with regular, nondiscount long-distance customers.
In much ballyhooed announcement in May, AT&T Corp. promised to cut its
phone rates as long as the Federal Communications Commission reduced
by $1.7 billion the fees that long-distance companies pay to local
carriers to begin and end calls.
In a filing to the FCC on Monday, AT&T calculated that reduced fees,
ordered by the government in May, come to $1.5 billion. AT&T said its
calculation was based on an analysis of local phone companies FCC
filings outlining their proposed access charge reductions. The
reductions are supposed to take effect on July 1.
'AT&T pledged a substantial reduction to its basic consumer
long-distance rate schedule on the condition that net access
reductions equaled or exceeded that $1.7 billion amount," AT&T said in
the FCC filing. 'If the reductions proposed in the (local phone)
filing were allowed to take effect, unfortunately, that condition may
not be satisfied."
AT&T promised the FCC in writing to pass along the biggest portion of
the expected savings to customers who are not on discounted calling
plans. That's the majority of AT&T's 80 million residential
customers. Historically, those basic customers haven't benefited from
access fee reductions, and, as a result, haven't enjoyed rate cuts.
BellSouth Corp. and the local telephone industry accused AT&T of
reneging on its promise to pass on the savings to all of its customers
-- not just the biggest ones.
'It comes as absolutely no surprise that AT&T is already backsliding on
its `commitment' to the FCC," said David Markey, BellSouth's vice
president of government affairs.
AT&T spokesman Jim McGann disagreed, saying the company's promise has
always been conditioned on the government's cutting access fees by
$1.7 billion. 'We are hopeful that the commission will find additional
reductions," McGann said.
If it doesn't, AT&T will pass on to long-distance customers whatever
savings that do result from access fee reductions. But AT&T won't
promise that the bulk of the savings will end up in the pockets of
basic customers, McGann said.
------------------------------
From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Cyberpromo Routing Through My System!
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 15:07:19 -0400
This wouldn't be real "telecom" news if it weren't that the Cyberpromo
traffic was coming from Compuserve! Seems that my postmaster account,
on my uucp system, snared a few that didn't get away, and they show
that Compuserve delivered them. At least one has an "answerme.com"
email address in the body of the message. The originator also has a
Compuserve address, and one bounce from here was bounced back by
Compuserve because his maibox was full. The real insult is that I pay
for connect time for that system, and was looking in to why it was
higher than it should have been.
Wasn't part of the Compuserve vs. Cyberpromo settlement that there was
to be no junk email without the recipient's explicit permission? I
wonder how this Cyberpromo junk mail passing through Compuserve to
other systems fits in with the plan?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 13:01:13 -0400
From: Alnawaz Ladha <lada3343@admin.humberc.on.ca>
Organization: Humber
Subject: MegaCity's (Toronto's) New Area Code
Bell Canada is set to announce the new overlay area code for
Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York, York, East York, and Old-Toronto.
just in time for the formation of "new" Toronto which will be a
combination of the six cities.
Instead of an overlay why not consider three new area codes to divide
Toronto into four boroughs:
East Toronto - Scarborough (new area code)
West Toronto - Etobicoke (new area code)
North Toronto - North York (new area code)
South Toronto - Old-Toronto (keep 416 area code)
with the Cities of York, and East York being divided among The
Boroughs of North Toronto, and South Toronto.
A split as such would be a perfect solution for Toronto, dividing it
among it's new four boroughs.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 09:32:26 -0700
From: Anthony Argyriou <anthony@alphageo.com>
Subject: 916/530 Split Boundary Change (CA PUC Press Release)
California Public Utilities Commission
107 S. Broadway, Rm. 5109, Los Angeles CA 90012
NEWS RELEASE
CONTACT: Kyle DeVine June 11, 1997 CPUC - 542a
213-897-4225 C96-03-039 and C96-03-040
CPUC CHANGES 916/530 AREA CODE BOUNDARY
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today ordered
changes to the 916/530 area code split, scheduled for November 1. The
Lincoln, Newcastle, and Pleasant Grove exchanges in southern Placer
County, and the El Dorado Hills in the Folsom exchange in western El
Dorado County will now be included in the 916 area code - a previous
decision had placed them in the new 530 code.
Consumers who have the following telephone number prefixes are in
these areas: 464, 645 - Lincoln; 663 - Newcastle; 655 - Pleasant
Grove; 933 and 939 - El Dorado Hills.
The California Code Administrator, which monitors telephone number
growth and recommends when new area codes need to be implemented,
petitioned the CPUC to change the code boundary, which the Commission
set last August. Phone calling patterns showed consumers in the
southern Placer and western El Dorado Counties place most of their
calls to the Sacramento area. Therefore, keeping them in the same area
code with Sacramento would be the least disruptive to them because
they could continue to dial 7-digits on most calls, rather than
11-digits for calls between codes. The CPUC also received several
hundred letters from consumers supporting the request.
Consumers in the new 530 area code should plan to change
advertisements, business cards, and advise their friends and
associates of the change. All consumers who may be dialing to or from
the new 530 area code should find out if they need to reprogram their
telecommunications equipment such as speed dialers, faxes, modems, and
phone systems.
To give consumers a chance to get used to the 530 new code, callers
will have six months, after the area code changes on November 1, to
reach numbers in the new 530 code without having to dial the new code.
Today's decision adds these exchanges to the area it previously set
last August as the 916 area. That area included the portion of
Sacramento County that is currently in the 916 area, Loomis, Rocklin,
and Roseville in southern Placer County, and the City of West
Sacramento in Yolo County.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #168
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 1 08:50:07 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA28824; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:50:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 08:50:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199707011250.IAA28824@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #169
TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Jul 97 08:49:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 169
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Ameritech Cable Competition Ups the Ante in Detroit (Tad Cook)
Albany, GA Long Distance Service (jnorton@alltel.net)
Mitnick Gets 22 Months (Tad Cook)
Netly Interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats Staffer (Monty Solomon)
Book Review: "The Traveler's Guide to the Information Highway" (Rob Slade)
AT&T Still Offering 10c/min 24hrs/day (John L. Shelton III)
Additional Info on Mexico's "Vertical Services" (Mark J. Cuccia)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Ameritech Cable Competition Ups the Ante in Detroit
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:22:32 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Facing Ameritech Competition, Cable Deals Bloom in Metro Detroit
BY DEBORAH SOLOMON, DETROIT FREE PRESS
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 1--Faced with aggressive new competition from Ameritech,
established cable TV operators in metro Detroit are adding channels,
upgrading their networks and offering new -- and in some cases, free
-- services.
Companies such as TCI, Comcast and MediaOne had a monopoly in their
markets before new operators such as Ameritech's Americast entered the
Detroit market two years ago following federal legislation that
relaxed industry rules.
TCI, Comcast and MediaOne, formerly Continental Cable, have responded
by offering free premium channels, such as HBO, to customers who sign
a year-long contract. Some are reducing or freezing rates; others have
added new channels.
Ameritech New Media, the parent company of Americast, wants to break
those monopolies. It has franchise agreements in 20 Detroit area
suburbs and is negotiating in others.
"We're giving people a choice," Geoff Potter, an Ameritech New Media
spokesman, said Monday.
The company also is giving people an incentive to sign up -- money.
Ameritech New Media offers AmeriChecks -- three $10 checks -- that can be
applied toward any Ameritech service, including a home phone bill, paging
or cellular service. Customers can get as many as 12 AmeriChecks -- or $120
-- if they stick with the service.
That's made it harder for incumbent providers to keep their customers.
"It's a challenge," said Diane Dietz, vice president of corporate
affairs for Comcast. "Now our customers have someone to compare us
to."
One city that's seen the benefits of competition is Plymouth, which
has had Americast since the end of 1996.
Before Ameritech's entry, Plymouth customers got their cable from
MediaOne, which offered 45 channels. Today, MediaOne offers 78
channels, which is comparable to Americast's 80 to 90 channels.
"Competition is always a better motivator than anything else," said Steve
Walters, Plymouth city manager. Since Americast entered the market, service
complaints for MediaOne have declined, he said.
"MediaOne now advertises a two-hour window in which they'll be there," he
said. "Believe me, that was not what happened before."
The company is also offering a choice for customers who sign up for a
year: $5 off each month or free HBO.
Other companies, such as Comcast and TCI, are rolling out cable modems
-- devices that let people access the Internet hundreds of times
faster than telephone modems. Ameritech does not offer that service.
In May, Continental Cable said it would become MediaOne and began a
$5-billion network upgrade.
A few weeks later, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said his company
would invest $1 billion in Comcast Corp. to improve its cable
system. Other companies are rushing products to market, such as cable
modems and devices that provide better pictures.
The fear of competition is fueling initiatives across the country,
where incumbent cable providers are scrambling to retain customers who
are being wooed by other companies.
With money from Gates, for example, Comcast is to install a
fiber-optic cable system nationwide with two-way data transmission.
"Comcast is eager to get the network upgraded because they view
Internet access as a high-revenue, high-margin product," said
Anna-Maria Kovacs, an analyst with Philadelphia-based Janney
Montgomery Scott Inc.
Kovacs said cable companies that want to survive have to diversify
their product and find other ways to make money.
Comcast is investing so much to upgrade its system because it wants to
develop new, revenue-generating products, such as interactive
televisions and high-speed Internet devices.
But some companies have other obstacles to overcome, Kovacs said. The
risk for incumbent companies is greater if they haven't treated people
well.
"If you have a really good phone company going against a cable company
that hasn't been doing its share, the telephone company will take its
share of customers," she said.
Detroit area cable providers say they aren't too worried. They point
to community outreach programs they've funded and money they've given
to schools as a symbol of their loyalty.
"We're continuing to do the kind of outreach we've done in the past,
such as free cable for the classrooms," said Bill Black, a spokesman
for MediaOne.
"These things have been going on for a long time; it's part of our
corporate culture."
But in a competitive market, what worked in the past may no longer be
enough.
"There's not a lot of precedent here," said Leslie Brogan, a
spokesperson for TCI. "It definitely makes for interesting times."
------------------------------
From: jnorton@alltel.net
Subject: Albany, GA Long Distance Service
Date: 1 Jul 1997 02:38:11 GMT
Organization: ALLTEL
Hi all,
I have been noticing the changes in the last few years in regard to
SS7 being used on toll as well as local calls. This reminded me of
something I observed in the early 1980's in Albany, Georgia. I'm not
sure what kind of toll switch Bell used in Albany, but, they seemed to
have interfaced it with their local ESS switch using some form of the
CCISS signaling. This resulted in dramatically improved speed of call
processing into and out of Albany as far as toll calls were concerned.
Albany seems to be 1 of just a few other cities that were using CCISS
to connect the local switch with the LD network. This process seems
to have been reversed some time after divestiture, and toll calls into
and out of Albany were slowed down again. I seem to remember noticing
at least 1 other city in the U.S. that may have been configured this
way, but, I can't remember for the life of me which one it was.
I was intrigued to see Bell making progress in this area, and was
somewhat disappointed when they changed things back to the older
method of signaling. Was this because of divestiture or were there
other reasons why this project seemed to have been prematurely ended?
Were there any other cities that this project was tried in? When I
made calls to Atlanta the calls seemed to go from the 4A switch in
Macon (where I lived then) to the 4ESS in Atlanta via CCISS then to
the local switch via MF. When I made calls to Albany, calls went from
the 4A (or any other CCISS-equipped switch) all the way to the local
switch via CCISS. Don't think Albany had a 4ESS in the early 80's.
Seems like Atlanta would have been the more logical location what with
its more advanced switch (I believe Atlanta had a 4ESS). Any thoughts
on this?
Joseph (Joe) Norton <jnorton@alltel.net>
Dalton, Georgia, U.S.A.--The Carpet Capital of the World!
Noah saved animals from the flood by arcing them!
------------------------------
Subject: Mitnick Gets 22 Months
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 19:02:53 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
(When Mitnick was on the lam in 1994 in Seattle, he was living in
a basement apartment ONE BLOCK from my house! Tad Cook tad@ssc.com)
Electronic outlaw gets 22 months
for hacking, parole violations
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Electronic outlaw Kevin Mitnick was sentenced
Friday to nearly two years in prison for parole violations and using
stolen cellular phone numbers to dial into computer databases.
U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer sentenced Mitnick to 14 months
for parole violations and eight months for his guilty plea to
possession of cloned cellular phone numbers.
After serving the prison sentence, Mitnick will placed on supervised
probation. During that time, Mitnick is forbidden from possessing any
computer equipment, software or cellular phones and from having a job
in which he has access to computers, unless he gets prior approval
from his probation officer.
"I think these conditions are appropriate given his prior hacking
activities and cellular phone fraud activities," said Assistant U.S.
Attorney Chris Painter.
But defense attorney Donald Randolph said he was considering filing an
appeal to the conditions because they were too broad for someone
living "in this computer-driven world."
The judge declined his request to define the word "computer," Randolph
said.
"The letters of those conditions would require Mr. Mitnick to live an
Amish-like existence until his supervision is over ... I have no doubt
that the court only intended to restrict Mr. Mitnick in his computer
hacking activities."
Mitnick has been in jail since his February 1995 arrest in Raleigh,
N.C., following an investigation and cross-country manhunt, with a trap
sprung by Tsutomo Shimomura, an expert in computer security.
Mitnick pleaded guilty last year to using 15 stolen cellular phone
numbers to dial into computer databases in North Carolina.
Mitnick consented to moving the case to his home state of California.
He is awaiting trial on 25 counts of computer and wire fraud,
possessing unlawful access devices, damaging computers and
intercepting electronic messages in an unrelated case.
Mitnick has pleaded innocent to those charges. If convicted, he could
face an additional five to ten years in prison, Painter said.
He is accused of damaging computers and stealing millions of dollars
in software from high-tech companies, damaging University of Southern
California computers and using stolen computer passwords.
The indictment follows an investigation by a national task force of
FBI, NASA and federal prosecutor high-tech experts. The affected
companies are Novell, Motorola, Nokia, Fujitsu and NEC.
A trial date hasn't been set.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:08:20 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: Netly Interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats Staffer
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:41:38 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Netly interviews Donna Rice-Hughes and Sen. Coats staffer
[The day before the CDA decision came down, I interviewed David Crane
from Sen. "CDA II Real Soon Now" Coats' office and Noah interviewed
Donna Rice-Hughes. Recall Coats was the chief GOP sponsor of the
original CDA. Here are excerpts. --Declan]
***********
http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/rice.html
Interview with Donna Rice-Hughes, Enough is Enough
The Netly News
June 26, 1997
[...]
Q: WHY DO YOU SAY THERE IS SO MUCH MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE CDA IN
THE INTERNET COMMUNITY?
I think there's been a lot of misinformation about what this is all
about and what the CDA would do if it is upheld. I think there have
been some scare tactics, quite frankly, and that's why you have people
concerned about speech. This is an area that the public hasn't had to
understand the nuances of until now.
You have a lot of people who have been using the Internet for years
for the contructive purposes for which it was designed. Now it's
becoming more commercial and you have pedophiles, pornographers and
people who are just posting their private collections of pornography
and polluting it, exploiting that technology. A few bad apples are
spoiling it for everyone else. If it wasn't for that then we wouldn't
be having this problem.
Long before any of this it would have been great if the Internet
community had said, "Hey, don't pollute this technology," and had
imposed their own controls. But that didn't happen and it isn't
happening.
***********
http://www.pathfinder.com/news/netdecency/crane.html
An Interview With David Crane, Legislative Assistant
to CDA Cosponsor Dan Coats
The Netly News
June 26, 1997
[...]
Q: WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY? CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE CDA?
I don't think so. One of the frustrations we experienced has been the
tremendous amount of debate that has centered around the indecency
standard -- and the portrayal of those who oppose it as a broadcast
standard. The very federal statute we amended was a dial-a-porn
statute. It was telephony, which is inherently an interactive method
of communication.
Despite representations to the contrary, there was a tremendous
dialogue with representatives of the computer industry. We tried to
strike the best balance we could.
Q: YOU TOLD ME EARLIER THAT INTERNET USERS DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
CDA REALLY IS ALL ABOUT.
What Congress said was you're only held responsible for "knowing"
violations. At that point you become responsible to solve that
problem. You can't be held liable for unknowing violations. That's a
distinction that's been lost in the politicking over this issue. And
that's unfortunate.
This is new technology and evolving technology. That's why Congress
was careful not to codify a specific method of preventing access for
children. What's effective today may not be effective tomorrow. We
tried very much to have the CDA be flexible and be a living statute,
one that would provide for advanced technologies and more restrictive
technologies over time.
Q:CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES?
A good example is PICS [a framework for Internet rating systems]. Look
at the PC Week editorial.
Q:THE ONE YOUR BOSS WAVED AROUND THE SENATE FLOOR?
The industry has waved around PICS and said that's a solution. But
what's the incentive -- for someone who's providing pornography on the
Internet -- to subscribe to PICS? You're asking him to limit his
potential marketplace in a voluntary way. That doesn't work. The need
for the CDA is you want to say: Yes, apply technology, but you must
restrict access to pornographic materials for children. If you don't
do it, you'll be subject to prosecution.
Q: WHAT WILL YOU DO IF THE SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN THE CDA?
If the Supreme Court strikes down the CDA, we'll acknowledge that the
current composition of the court is saying we don't have it right [to
pass such a law] and we'll go back and operate on the precedent that
was established and try again.
The final verson of the CDA -- the compromise that was struck in the
conference committee -- was passed overwhelmingly. There's precedent
to this: the dial-a-porn law. It took several attempts before it was
upheld by the Supreme Court.
I think that everyone involved -- from the ACLU to a lot of the
reporters on the Internet -- has misrepresented the CDA in many
respects. Saying that it is a ban on indecency, that adults wouldn't
be able to communicate with each other. That's patently wrong.
Q: YOU SOUND LIKE YOU FEEL OUTGUNNED.
The newspapers have a vested interest. Every major newspaper
editorialized against the law during drafting and afterward.
You're not going to be a darling of the media. The media likes to
portray this as a free speech issue. This is part of the process.
Q: SO NOW THE PRO-CDA FORCES ARE THE UNDERDOGS?
One of the virtues of the Internet is the free flow of
information. But only part of the information is being put out and
that's unfortunate.
This representation by opponents of the CDA that considerations of the
unique nature of the Internet were not taken into account or that
members and staff didn't understand the Internet or that somehow
Congress didn't like the Internet or saw great danger beyond this
issue -- all that is simply not true.
There was consultation with the computer industry at every step of the
way. We wanted to create a living law -- a flexible law -- that could
grow as technologies evolved.
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is the same position I have held
for quite some time; that opponents -- for whatever reason -- of CDA
used a variety of scare tactics and patently false information to
present their case. I was especially dismayed by the tactics of the
American Civil Liberties Union in the early stages of litigation and
the -- if you will pardon me -- the out and out lies they told the
court, knowing the judge was in no position to dispute it either way.
It is too bad so many netizens accepted the arguments without any
question at face value, thinking that placing any controls at all on
the net somehow their own speech was threatened. Nonsense! PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 12:05:35 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "The Traveler's Guide to the Information Highway"
BKTGTTIH.RVW 961218
"The Traveler's Guide to the Information Highway", Dylan Tweney, 1994,
1-56276-206-0, U$24.95/C$34.95/UK#22.99
%A Dylan Tweney 72241.443@compuserve.com
%C 201 W. 103rd Street, Indianapolis, IN 46290
%D 1994
%G 1-56276-206-0
%I MacMillan Computer Publishing (MCP)
%O U$24.95/C$34.95/UK#22.99 800-858-7674 317-581-3743 http://www.mcp.com
%P 139
%T "The Traveler's Guide to the Information Highway"
This is a quick, brief and limited guide to the major commercial
online services. If you are a novice computer user with no experience
with modems, there is not enough information here to get you started,
although there is a precise view of the services if you are going that
route. If you are an online veteran the "roadmaps" might point out
areas on your own service that you haven't tried.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKTGTTIH.RVW 961218
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse
Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:09:27 -0400
From: jlshelton@mindspring.com (John L. Shelton III)
Subject: AT&T Still Offering 10c/min 24hrs/day
About seven months ago, I signed up for the "secret" deal that got me
a residential rate of 10c/min all day long. It was a six month
promotion, then was scheduled to go to 15c/min (standard OneRate
plan.)
Right on schedule, the rate did rise, and I had forgotten to mark
it in my calendar, so I paid a month of higher rates.
I called AT&T and they offered me another six months of 10c/min,
with 60 free minutes for the first two months. At the end of this
trial, the rate stays 10c/min, but they add a $4.95 monthly fee.
Since we use about 1000 minutes a month, the additional half-cent
a minute isn't too bad.
AT&T is offering better deals (in terms of free minutes) to customers
who switch from other carriers. Last time, they provided confirmation
in writing of the rate plan, and say that they will send it this time
as well. Also, since I was already on their billing, the new rate is
retroactive to 9-Jun. Wow.
Directory assistance is now up to 95c/call. I haven't checked their
calling card rates lately; we use one of the 17.5c/min cards instead.
=John=
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:10:49 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Additional Info on Mexico's "Vertical Services"
I had someone help me in translating the Spanish from the Mexican
webpages regarding Mexico's "Vertical Service" codes. I also found
that Telmex' website _does_ have info on their vertical services, as
does its subsidiary in the two northern states of Baja-Cal-N and
Sonora.
Telmex' address for such "Productos y Servicios, Telefonia Digital"
is: http://www.telmex.com.mx/ser_dig.htm
Telnor's address for such "Servicios de Tecnologia Digital" is:
http://www.telnor.com/std.html
Click away from these pages for specifics on each service.
o Voicemail (both Telmex and Telnor call this "Buzon de Voz"):
However, there are no dialing instructions shown on how to retrieve
voicemail or set up a mailbox.
o Caller-ID (both Telmex and Telnor call this "Identificador de
Llamada):
There aren't any specific dialing instructions on privacy or number
supression, if such even is allowed in Mexico. It is indicated that
international calls from outside won't have their number displayed on a
Caller-ID box. It also appears that on calls from payphones or cellulars
won't have their number displayed, but rather just the description that
the call is from such an originating phone.
o Call-Waiting (both Telmex and Telnor call this "Llamada en Espera):
During the middle of a call, if you hear a 'beep' and choose to answer
that 'beep', you would FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '2'. The
original party is put on hold, and the 'beeping' party is thus
answered. You can go back-and-forth, by FLASH, hear recall-dialtone,
and dial '2'. Privacy _is_ maintained between each of the parties. To
_drop_ the current party you are talking with and go to _only_ the
party that is holding, FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '1'. I
don't know about what happens if the 'controlling' party hangs-up at
any time while one party is on hold. Also, if you don't answer the
intial 'beep' tone within 30-seconds, that 'beeping' party will then
hear BUSY signal instead of ringing. To Cancel Call-Waiting, dial
#43# (both Telmex & Telnor); To reactivate Call-Waiting, dial *43#
(Telmex), dial #43* (Telnor) [I wonder if 'reactivate' (previously
cancelled) CW is _really_ *43*, as it would follow with activation
codes further down, as *-XX-*]
o 3-Way Calling
(Telmex calls this "Trez-a-la-Vez; Telnor calls this "Conferencia
Tripartita):
To add an additional party during a stable call, FLASH, hear
recall-dialtone, dial that party. When they answer, FLASH, hear
recall-dialtone, and dial '3' to 'bridge' everyone togather. If that
additional (second-leg) party hasn't anwered (or if the line is busy),
OR during a 3-way connection if you want to _drop_ the second-leg
party and continue _only_ with the first-leg party, FLASH, hear
recall-dialtone, and dial '1'. During a 3-way connection, to _drop_
the first party and continue _only_ with the second-leg party, FLASH,
hear recall-dialtone, and dial '2'. When the 'controlling' party hangs
up, _everyone_ is disconnected.
o Incoming 3-Way (must have both 3-Way _and_ Call-Waiting):
To 'bridge-in' a 'beeping' call or a 'held' call from a call-waiting
situation, FLASH, hear recall-dialtone, and dial '3'.
o Call-Forwarding
(Telmex calls this "Sigueme" -- 'follow-me'; Telnor calls this
"Transferencia de Llamada"):
To forward incoming calls to another number, dial *21* + the
forwarding number + '#'. To turn-off forwarding, dial #21#. There is
mention about hearing tones or confirming announcements, but I haven't
translated this yet. I assume that it is similar to NANP standards in
this way.
o Speed-Calling (Telnor calls this "Linea Directa"):
only ONE pre-programmed called telephone number can be reached with
Speed-Calling. The one number can be pre-programmed by dialing *53* +
the number you wish as your speed-calling called party (up to twelve
digits) + '#'. To turn-off the speed-calling, dial #53#. I don't know if
yo first need to first 'turn-off' the number if you wish to change the
speed-calling entry, or if you can 'over-write' the existing entry with
a new entry. You utilize this "Speed-Calling-One" by simply lifting the
hanset, and letting dialtone time-out after six-seconds. There is no
'digit-pound' entry. Some LECs here in the US/Canada do have a similar
'direct/express' service to ONE pre-determined telephone number, in
addition to Speed-Calling-8/30.
And, as mentioned in the earlier email, I don't think that the '#' and
'*' have any corresponding numerical dialpulse code. The instructions
from Telmex and Telnor indicate that these services are available only
on Digital office (Telnor's page indicates 5ESS), and that the phone you
have must be tone-dial compatible.
I did get some email from someone who read the post who indicated that
many of these vertical-service code formats are very similar to what a
US-based cellular company did for their vertical services, of course,
that with the cellular, you did use the "SEND" button.
------------------
Long-Distance-- the next best thing to being there!
THE BELL SYSTEM:
AT&T / Long-Lines / Bell-Labs / Western-Electric (including Teletype
Corp.) / and your local operating Bell Telephone Company- including:
Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England Telephone (CT), Bell Canada
(PQ/ON, and subsidiary local telcos in the eastern Provinces and parts
of the Northern Territories; Northern-Electric/Bell-Northern-Research)
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #169
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jul 1 09:17:19 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA00916; Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199707011317.JAA00916@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #170
TELECOM Digest Tue, 1 Jul 97 09:17:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 170
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
LEC Competition Comes to New Jersey (Tad Cook)
California Telephone Competition Off to Slow Start (Tad Cook)
Inband ANI and Account CO (Bob Savery)
Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective (Bradley Ward Allen)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: LEC Competition Comes to New Jersey
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:16:19 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
New Jersey Telephone Customers Now Can
Shop Around for the Best Local Rates
BY RAYMOND FAZZI, ASBURY PARK PRESS, N.J.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
June 30--After years of hearing about how telephone deregulation is
going to lead to competition and lower prices, Bob Grunder finally saw
a tangible sign that the predictions were coming true.
Earlier this month, the Manasquan resident got a letter from Bell
Atlantic-New Jersey explaining that he and other telephone customers
in the state now had the right to shop for a company to service their
local toll calls.
Using a list of 25 companies printed on the back of the letter,
Grunder went right to work, calling each company to find the best
deal.
What he found, however, was one of the down sides to deregulation.
"The experience was one of utter confusion," Grunder said last
week. "I went through some of the mental gymnastics of calling these
people, and I'll tell you, it's mind boggling."
After only six calls, Grunder knew he had a challenge ahead of him.
Several companies weren't able to supply him with rates, he said. When
rates were supplied, they were often confusing. And that was when he
could get a person on the phone.
"In a lot of cases, you get that synthesized voice, which is nothing
but aggravating," he said. "It's nothing but a nightmare."
For the first time since 1984, when the AT&T breakup intensified
competition in the long-distance industry, New Jersey's telephone
customers have choices in an area of telephone service that was a
monopoly.
Local toll calls -- the medium-distance calls that are not quite
long-distance calls -- were thrown open to competition on May 5.
The move is part of a nationwide wave of telephone deregulation that
many have promised will lead to lower prices and better services.
But based on what competition has done to the New Jersey local
toll-call market since May 5, one thing seems evident: Lower prices
and better services will not come on a silver platter.
Customers who are looking to save money, in fact, will have to do a
significant amount of work.
By Bell Atlantic-New Jersey's count, about 25 telephone companies now
sell local toll-call services in the state. At least another 90
companies are buying these services and reselling them to businesses
and residents.
Comparing the rates of these companies is not like comparing the price
of butter at two competing supermarkets.
Some companies are offering a single flat rate for all toll calls,
some are offering different flat rates based on the time of day or the
day of the week a toll call is made, and some are offering flat rates
that are only valid if a customer also buys the company's
long-distance services.
For New Jersey telephone customers, cost comparisons are difficult.
That's because Bell Atlantic-New Jersey's basic toll-call rates
consist of a set of 48 different per-minute charges based on the
mileage of a call and the time of day and day of the week the call is
made.
That makes it nearly impossible for a person to make a comparison
between what they have been spending on toll calls and what they would
spend on one of the newer rates being offered.
Experts say customers should try to figure out their calling patterns
-- essentially picking out numbers they call most often -- and use
those to try to determine which rates are best.
Although competition has led to the introduction of a flat rate --
most companies are offering a rate of roughly 8 cents per minute -- in
many cases the Bell Atlantic rate customers have been paying all along
is still the cheapest, depending on when and where a call is placed.
For example, a 15-minute weekday telephone call from Freehold to New
Brunswick, placed during the business day, would cost $1.20 under
AT&T's plan, but $1.15 under Bell Atlantic's basic rate. If the call
were made in the evening, the gap would be wider: AT&T's rate comes in
$1.20 and the basic rate at 92 cents.
In other cases, particularly when the call is made to a more distant
location, the AT&T's rate is often the cheapest.
One analyst said that while businesses will probably take the time to
sort through the confusing array of rate offerings and make cost
comparisons, residential customers probably will not.
Residential customers have demonstrated in the long-distance market
that what they want is a simple one-rate plan.
"Let's face it, that's what (residential customers are) looking for --
that every call that isn't a free local call is going to cost you
exactly the same," said Linda Smith, senior manager at the Eastern
Management Group, a telecommunications consulting firm in
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township.
"It's like a postage stamp. It takes you across the street, it takes
you across the country."
But even variations in the flat-rate plans can make it difficult to
make accurate cost comparisons.
AT&T, for example, is offering an 8-cent per minute rate on its
toll-call plan, but it will bill customers in one-minute increments.
The rate applies regardless of whether a customer gets his or her
long-distance service from AT&T.
MCI Communications also offers an 8-cent per minute rate, but to get
that rate you must also subscribe to MCI's long-distance service,
which stipulates that customers must spend a minimum of $5 a month on
all calls. But MCI also promises to bill customers in six-second
increments after the first minute.
The comparisons can get even more difficult when companies start
throwing in discounts that are triggered after monthly bills reach a
certain ceiling.
GTE Long Distance, for example, is offering regional toll-call rates
of 10 cents or 13 cents -- depending on where in the state the call is
placed -- on calls made between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., and 15 or 17 cents
on calls made between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
But the company's package -- which is also contingent upon a customer
getting his or her long-distance service from the company -- offers
discounts that could potentially drive those rates down.
If GTE customers spend $10 or more on toll calls in a month, they get
a 10-percent discount on their bills. If a customer spends $25 or
more, the discount is 25-percent. GTE said the discounts can result in
rates as low as 7.5 cents per minute on regional toll calls.
Even AT&T puts a little discount-related twist on its plan.
If an AT&T toll-call customer also gets their long-distance service
from the company, the customer's toll-call spending will be combined
with long-distance spending as part of the company's True Reach
savings plan, company spokesman Ritch Blasi said. Under this plan,
customers get a 25-percent discount on their long-distance bill when
monthly spending is $25 or more.
Most of the companies vying for a piece of the state's toll-call
market are small companies that specialize in providing service to
high-volume business customers.
These companies generally do not market their services to residential
customers. But most said they will sell their services to residential
customers if asked.
Most of these smaller companies require their residential customers to
buy long-distance services from them, too. Some require deposits and
minimum monthly spending. Others offer discounts if customers buy into
one- or multi-year service contracts.
Eastern Telephone Systems of Fort Washington, Pa., is a 15-year-old
company that primarily sells its services to businesses. But, through
"word-of-mouth" referrals, the company will sell its services to
residential customers who call the company, said Cheryl Wiley Twining,
a sales manager at the company.
The company offers a rate of 8 cents a minute on all toll calls and
bills customers in six-second increments, she said.
If a customer subscribes to toll-call services, the company prefers
that they also sign onto the company's long-distance services as well,
she said.
Some companies said the recent mailing by Bell Atlantic has resulted
in more calls from residents than ever before.
"It's just unbelievable how much shopping they're doing," said Tony
Barrett, president of Universal Telephone & Tel. LLC in Kinnelon.
"We've been getting 200 to 300 calls a day."
The company's toll-call rate is 8.5 cents per minute for residential
customers, with billing done in six-second increments after the first
18 minutes. The company also asks customers to subscribe to both
toll-call and long-distance services.
Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, meanwhile, has come up with several rate
packages of its own to meet the competition.
Using a combination of flat rates and discounts, Bell Atlantic's plans
are not easily comparable to the plans of its competitors.
One plan, using Bell Atlantic's traditional rate schedule, provides
customers with a 20-percent discount on toll-call spending of $20 or
more per month.
Another plan, called SoundMinutes, has a rate of 12 cents per minute
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays, and 10 cents from 5 p.m. to 8
a.m. on weekdays, and all day on weekends.
SoundDialing, a promotional plan that is valid until Oct. 20, provides
customers with unlimited toll-calling for a flat monthly rate. The
monthly rate is set based on a customer's toll-call billing history,
Bell Atlantic-New Jersey spokesman Timothy Ireland said. The rates can
range between $10 to $27.50 per month, and can go higher for people
who rack up large toll-calling bills.
Recently, the company also introduced a plan called SoundDeal. Under
this plan, a telephone customer would pay $44.95 for local service,
unlimited toll-calling and two optional services, such as Call
Waiting, Caller ID or Call Forwarding.
The following is a list of regional toll carriers doing business in
New Jersey, followed by their business- and residential-customer
service numbers, respectively:
-- Business Telecommunications Inc.
800-849-2111 800-849-2111
-- MCI Communications
800-444-4444 800-444-3333
-- TotalTel USA Communication Inc.
800-864-4000 800-864-4000
-- Bell Atlantic Inc.
800-684-3407 800-684-5068
-- Capital Telecommunication Inc.
800-673-2401 800-673-2401
-- Vartec Telecom
800-583-6767 800-583-6767
-- Sprint Communications
800-877-1991 800-793-1159
-- Chadwick Telephone
888-765-0100 888-765-0100
-- Cooperative Communications Inc.
800-833-2700 800-833-2700
-- Universal Telephone & Tel. LLC
800-889-4007 800-889-4007
Eastern Telephone Systems
800-327-8835 800-327-8835
-- AT&T Corp.
800-222-0400 800-222-0300
-- Frontier Communication Service Inc.
800-783-2020 800-783-2020
-- Touch 1 Communications
800-201-0640 800-286-8241
-- Wiltel/Worldcom
800-821-2001 800-821-2001
-- GTE Long Distance
800-343-2092 800-343-2092
-- Visa International Communications Inc.
800-722-9090 800-722-9090
-- American Long Lines Inc.
800-569-8280 800-569-8280
-- Opticom Inc.
800-788-4562 800-788-4562
-- XTEL Communications
800-438-9835 800-438-9835
-- LCI International
800-860-1020 800-524-4685
-- Eastern Telecom International
800-364-4852 800-364-4852
-- EXCEL Communications Inc.
800-209-8133 800-875-9235
-- Worldcom
800-737-8423 800-275-0200
------------------------------
Subject: California Telephone Competition Off to Slow Start
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:22:08 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
California Local Telephone Competition Off to Slow Start
BY HOWARD BRYANT, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, CALIF.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jun. 30--It wasn't supposed to be like this.
Nearly 18 months have passed since the signing of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Pacific Bell was supposed to be
offering long-distance service. AT&T was supposed to be offering local
phone service. TCI Cable was supposed to be doing both.
None of this has happened in any significant measure, especially in
the local telephone market.
In fact, true competition is so far off for residential phone users
that many telecommunications analysts believe it won't happen for
decades, if at all. Others go so far as to question whether the whole
bold scheme of competition was an idea hatched out of naivete, that it
isn't even possible for the local telephone market to function in
anything other than a monopoly environment.
Analysts and consumers alike are beginning to realize that not only is
the local telephone market the hardest, most complicated market to
transform, but that recent developments -- for example, speculation
that AT&T would merge with the new SBC/Pacific Telesis -- threaten to
rebuild powerful components of the original Bell monopoly. (Merger
talks between AT&T and SBC were reported halted Friday over the issue
of how and when SBC would open its local market to competition in
order to satisfy regulator.)
How did things get this way so quickly?
In the local telephone market, two fundamental conflicts exist that
serve to inhibit competition.
The dominant phone company, in California's case Pacific Bell, is
supposed to be both the facilitator to new companies entering the
local phone market, while simultaneously competing with them.
Pac Bell owns the local phone network -- 10 million lines connecting
nearly all of California's homes. GTE Corp. is in the same boat as Pac
Bell. GTE has a smaller service area in the state, but also has been
operating in a monopoly environment for more than six decades.
Pac Bell and GTE agreed to open up their monopoly, which meant
granting access to their phone lines, their services and the rest of
the state's telephone infrastructure, which the two companies have
built over the past 62 years.
In return, regional phone companies such as Pac Bell can enter the
lucrative long-distance phone market, but only after their current
local markets have competition.
So far, GTE has lost less than one percent of its local telephone
business to competitors since the Telecomm Act was passed in February
1996. Pac Bell, meanwhile, has lost about the same. Such small
numbers hardly speak to competition.
Reluctant to share ...
Because both former monopolies must still compete in this new world,
neither company wants to give away too much to the new entrants into
the market.
The result has been incessant battles over how much Pac Bell will
charge competitors to use the phone network, whether or not Pac Bell
and GTE are purposely slow to switch customers from it to a competitor
such as AT&T or MCI, and who is truly at fault for such a failed
vision. All of which is occurring at a time when Pac Bell is suffering
from a major decline in service due to an underestimation of demand.
In addition, local phone competition will not happen quickly because
big companies -- MCI and AT&T, for example -- say they can't make
enough money selling local service to residents.
"There has to be a financial incentive to get into the game. You do it
because you believe you can make money," said Betsy Bernard, former
CEO of Pacific Bell Communications, the division that oversees its
long-distance initiatives. "Economics will drive what companies do."
No clear advantage ...
Competitors who use Pac Bell's lines and infrastructure to offer
service cannot, by and large, set lower prices on monthly flat rates
and other services, such as call waiting, and still make a profit. And
selling the same services at about the same price as Pac Bell doesn't
give the consumer much of a choice, or the business much of an
incentive to get into the game.
This combined dilemma has thwarted competition thus far.
Tom Long, telecommunications analyst for TURN, a San Francisco
consumer advocacy group, sees an inherent conflict of interest -- Pac
Bell controlling the very phone arena in which it is supposed to be
competing.
"The monopoly is expected to treat competitors fairly at the same time
it has a great deal at stake," Long said. "Because competitors are
taking away business, it's not surprising that the incumbent is doing
everything it can to make it difficult for its competitors. Anyone who
didn't realize this wasn't paying attention. Regulators must realize
they have to get tough on the incumbent."
Blair Levin, chief of staff for the Federal Communications Commission,
agreed that opening the local market to competition is the thorniest
issue the FCC faces, but disagreed that it can't be done.
"Clearly the local market is the toughest," he said. "Clearly there is
a conflict of interest. But there have been other antitrust cases
where the solution was to unpack components of the local monopoly.
"But it's not fair to say Congress missed the boat. What I think is: Not
only do you need the right set of rules, but the right enforcement."
Dishes no comparison ...
As evidence that the competitive vision of FCC chairman Reed Hundt can
work, Levin cited the 1992 Cable Act, which stated that the dominant
cable companies could not refuse to sell programming to competitive
industries, even though it owned the programming. He pointed to the
now-flourishing satellite television industry as a result.
But satellite companies are not dependent on a cable company's network
to function, while competing local phone-service providers are totally
reliant on the existing local phone company to offer service.
The solution, say telecommunications analysts, is for competitors to
begin building their own local telephone networks.
But this seems far-fetched, as competitors begin to realize that it
took Pac Bell the better part of a century to build today's network in
a monopoly environment. To build a competing network of similar size
and scope would not only take decades, but also tens of billions of
dollars. It's a chance no one is willing to take.
"Think of what a competitor would have to do to go against Pac Bell,"
said Long of TURN. "It would cost billions to replicate Pac Bell's
network, without any guarantee of a return."
SBC's cable debacle ...
The same problem occurred as Pac Bell tried to enter the cable
television market to compete with Tele-Communications Inc., the
nation's biggest cable company. After a $16 million investment, Pac
Bell parent SBC decided earlier this month that spending that kind of
money to replicate TCI's network was not "financially viable" and
pulled the plug on a video project in San Jose.
The alternative for any company that hopes to compete with Pac Bell is
to cut a deal, or "interconnect agreement," to lease or "re-sell"
service using Pac Bell's lines, which thus far hasn't proven to be a
money-maker.
Consider:
-- AT&T, the nation's biggest long-distance carrier, thumped its chest
triumphantly last year when it entered the local market in
Sacramento. Less than a year later, AT&T has quit on marketing local
service statewide.
-- MCI, the nation's No. 2 long-distance carrier, first offered
service to 25,000 customers and has since cut back like AT&T. Sprint,
the third-biggest long-distance company, recently entered the local
market, offering two plans that curiously don't offer much more than
what Pacific Bell already offers.
-- Meanwhile, the cable television giants, Time Warner and TCI, both
have agreements with Pac Bell to offer local telephone service to the
Bay Area, but neither has even announced plans to enter the market.
All of which presents something of an irony, since local competition
in the business market is thriving. There, state and federal
regulators take a more hands-off approach.
Businesses do not have the option of choosing a flat, state-regulated
monthly fee for local calling as in the residential market. Instead,
they pay for all calls by the minute. Therefore, competition for
business service is much more pure: Whichever company has the
combination of the lowest rates and good service is in a good position
to succeed.
But more importantly, many competitors in the business market own much
of their own local phone network, or "loops." That allows them to set
their own prices and deliver their own services, without being at the
mercy of the existing local phone company.
No profit in home service ...
The reason is geography. Because downtown areas are relatively
compact, building a small-scale phone network is not a major problem,
while the more dispersed residential market requires a huge investment
to build a network.
The residential market is very different. Prices for home phone
service are capped by the California Public Utilities Commission and
Federal Communications Commission for Pacific Bell. Competing phone
companies usually charge about the same basic rate of $11.25 per
month, thus making it harder for any one company to make money. Pac
Bell can make money on the residential side selling "premium
services," such as call waiting, call forwarding and Caller ID, while
competing companies -- because they do not own their own telephone
lines and the infrastructure necessary to offer such services --
cannot.
What remains is an economic lose-lose scenario: Competitors are in
business to break even at best, and that isn't enough of a reason to
spend millions to enter the market.
Some think it can work ...
But not everyone in the industry thinks competition can't work. It
can, says Lee Selwyn, president of ETI Inc., a Boston research group,
if companies such as Pacific Bell didn't make every part of the resale
process -- switching customers, connecting to its network, etc. -- so
difficult.
"Building facilities isn't the only answer, but you won't have real
competition until competitors can access the network that the monopoly
controls," he said. "The phone companies are absolutely dragging their
feet in opening the market and letting competitors use the network."
Selwyn, who has testified before the California PUC on a number of
issues, says that the logistics of resale is what is keeping it from
working, instead of the notion that only building a network will lead
to competition.
For example, in an era of high-speed communications, Pac Bell and its
competitors communicate by fax machine, which leaves the door open for
the possibility of numerous errors. For instance, if
AT&T signs a customer on one date, but Pac Bell disconnects that
customer from its network before AT&T's service is to begin, a
consumer can go days or even weeks without a telephone.
Competitors say Pac Bell is purposely stalling.
MCI says it had to tell its potential customers that they had to wait
30 days or more before they could switch from Pac Bell.
"They want to make sure that not too many people can sign up with
competitors," he said. "MCI had to quote 30 days for service," Jim
Lewis, MCI's vice president for local competition. "How many customers
would sign up with your company if they had to wait a month to get a
phone? That's anti-competitive." AT&T filed a complaint with the PUC
citing similar difficulties.
Pac Bell denies it is at fault for the shortcomings of competition. If
anything, says Pac Bell's Regulatory Vice President Lee Bauman, Pac
Bell has great incentive to move quickly to open its market. The
faster that happens, the faster Pac Bell can jump into long distance.
"It astounds me that competitors say we're dragging our feet," Bauman
said. "We have a vested interest that competition works. For us, there
is much at stake."
Another view, such as that of San Francisco-based Consumer Action, is
that Pac Bell doesn't own the local network at all. Says Ken
McEldowney, executive director: "The people own the network. It was
built through ratepayer money. Pac Bell may have built it physically,
but they had a monopoly and got the money from all California phone
customers."
While the finger-pointing and accusations lead to lengthy court
battles, at the bottom of the pile are California phone customers, who
are almost exactly where they were two years ago: mad at their phone
company with little choice but to sit there and take it.
------------------------------
From: bob.savery@hawgwild.com (Bob Savery)
Subject: Inband ANI and Account CO
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 06:39:00 GMT
Organization: HAWG WILD! BBS (402) 597-2666
> I am running a G3V4 PBX. Documentation states that it supports ANI
> delivery over ISDN PRI. Unfortunately my PBX does not have ISDN
> software.
Actually, you do. ISDN support has been part of the Definity since
G3v1 and I beleive is in the G2 series (but don't quote me!) G1's I
don't know about as I havn't seen one. My G3i grew up from a System 75
R1v2 and we installed our G3r after unplugging a Dimension.
> Is there a way to deliver In-Band ANI over a "straight" T1 using ESF
> B8ZS signaling to a Lucent G3V4 PBX?
ISDN PRI trunks are presented to the switch using standard DS1
hardware. We're currently using 3150 CSU/DSU's tied to TN464 circuit
packs. They're running ESF B8ZS. Ther are some programming
differences in your trunk group set-up, but I can't recall off-hand
what they are.
Here in US West-land, ISDN PRI is the only way to receive ANI. Their
standard DSS trunks do not support it.
I'd first check with your telco to see how it's available from
them. And also the price difference. If we didn't support a Suicide
HotLine, I'd lose my ISDN trunks as they are a bit more pricey (about
$300/mo per 24 channel trunk) .
Then contact Lucient's Definity HelpLine. (1-800-328-7757... I
think. I have the number at work on speed dial! <G>) They should be
able to assist you with setting up the trunking. Or if you have a good
relation with your Lucient Project Manager, take him/her to lunch and
pick their brain! <G>
Another good source for AT&T ... er ... Lucient hardware and support
is Progressive Technologies. Their pricing is very competitive to
Lucient's direct sales. 1-800-477-1099 ask for Al Dressely.
> Is there a way to do account code entry on inbound calls on an AT&T
> (Lucent) G3V4 PBX? I support a small help desk, and want to keep
> track of calls by problem type through both the PBX (via CDR) and
> the info system.
Do you have ACD and vectoring?? You could set your inbound number up
as a VDN, point that to a vector that asks the caller what the nature
of their problem is. Then, depending on what the problem is, route it
to an appropriate ACD split. Set up a split for each call type. Then
use (if you have it) BCMS to track the number of calls to each
split. Since your a small desk, each phone would be set up in all the
splits. The added advantage of this is you also get preformance data
on your operators. That comes in handy when it comes time to ask the
boss for more people!
> I know it is supported on outbound calls. Anything on inbound?
There is a solution for all your problems, but if you don't already
have the hardware/software on hand, budget problems might slow you
down a bit. The ISDN hardware (through Progressive) runs about $3000
per CSU/DS1 pack combo. ACD, Vectoring and BCMS (I think it's a
package deal) was quoted to me for one of my G3i's at about $16K
(through Lucient). That included the software, the Announcement pack
and a Call Classifier pack.
Hope this helps! If you need more info, just yell!!
See Ya!!
Bob Savery
bob.savery@hawgwild.com
Sysop - HawgWild! BBS
HawgWild! BBS = (402) 597-2666 - Modem
hawgwild.com - telnet
www.hawgwild.com - World Wide Wait
->5008 - RIME
------------------------------
From: ulmo@panix.com (Bradley Ward Allen)
Subject: Re: Billing Issues From a CLEC's Perspective
Date: 30 Jun 1997 18:43:42 -0400
Organization: panix
Hi, I am learning by reading, and thought others would benefit from
some of my comments.
Good gueses:
CLEC=Competitive Local Exchange Carrier
(sometimes ANY local exchange carrier, sometimes any except ILEC,
e.g., AT&T, BANM, MFSI, Teleport, Real Soon Now (or is it RCN), AVIS)
ILEC=Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
(e.g., Pacific Bell, NYNEX, Cincinatti, GTE)
LNP=Local Number Portability
In article <telecom17.159.1@telecom-digest.org>, Chris Ziomkowski
<czim@bigbear.com> wrote:
> Local number portability (YIKES!) was also a hot topic at the
> conference. As we all know, LNP is supposed to be a reality within a
> rate center by Q4 1997 in the five major metropolitan areas. (Does
> anyone actually have a good definition of what a rate center is? There
> seems to be alot of confusion.) The remaining areas are supposed to
> ramp up LNP service so that it will be universal by the end of 1998,
> and cellular carriers are exempted until 1999. This raises all kinds
> of interesting billing problems and abuses. For example, if I'm an
> ILEC and a CLEC steals my customer, I will have to port the
> number. But, the Act allows me to bill for all dips to my databases,
> so I can charge someone every time they dip my database to find the
> Location Routing Number (LRN) associated with it. Basically, as a CLEC
> I'll get hit with a fee everytime someone calls my customer. As an
> ILEC, what prevents me from setting up a number which just constantly
> dials the CLECs ported customer, each time hitting my database for the
> LRN, and each time generating a fee to me?
Two things:
1. Why cellular exempted until 1999? I have switched cellular #s more
often than anything! I *want* my cellular to have portability,
and soon!
2. Is it anticompetitive to allow the ILEC to be the exclusive holder
of LRN databases on its numbers? Technologically, it is trivial
to have updates go instantly before taking effect to other
databases that are competitive. Presumably, when the LRN is
accessed is whenever *any* call is being terminated *anywhere*, so
using the LRN becomes just an alternative to passing the entire
call handling through the other carrier. Am I understanding this
right? I suppose it is not anticompetitive if I decide "I'm going
to get my number and service through MFSI, and then after half
a month switch to NYNEX and make NYNEX pay all these LRN fees to MFSI
whenever anybody calls me." Is this valid? Who assigns what
ranges the respective LRNs cover? This cannot be any of the
competitive parties involved unless it's upon some sort of mutual
beneficial consent (?). I guess the current scheme encourages
CLECs to have people who get called a lot (ISPs?) so that they
can collect BOTH LRN and termination fees, even still collecting
LRN when the called customers switch to another carrier.
LNP won't be truly portable unless the portability is a reasonable
rate.
> Unless some legislation comes along detailing these considerations a
> little more, my billing system just got a lot more complicated,
> because of all the various fees. Is this an accurate assessment?
Making your product just that much more attractive, if you can do it
well. Wouldn't you *rather* the legislators make it really
complicated so that you stay in business? Not that that's good for
anybody else.
Oh, BTW, will you be able to handle "hand back call and transfer to
new destination"? Across carrier boundaries?
But wait. A billing system ought to be able to bill for anything.
Furthermore, a lot of us people are getting sick and tired of our
cousins, friends, friends' cousins, etc. coming in and dialing
970-BIG1 when we need to be able to dial 1-900-MICROSOFT if necessary
(that's an example, I actually never patronize Microsoft but the
example still holds; in actuality, *I* want to dial 970-BIG1 but not
as often as my friends' cousin does) without our permission.
Besides an all-around access number for using the telephone for
ANYTHING, there is another solution: knowing the charge before
infliction, and running the account balance off of that instant
consent and deduction. I.e., my phone would say "do you approve $1.99
for the first minute?" and if I don't hit the "$1.99" button, I
wouldn't owe a $1.99 (and the system would knock me off before the
intermediaries get charged). For *this* type of billing system to
work right, boy do you need to get your ass in gear. Do you realize
what customers are going to be asking for from CLECs? Are you ready
for it? There's going to be prepaid customers saying "I'm not paying
for the call you list on such-and-such a time because I never gave my
unique one-use public key cryptographically signed secret consent code
for it. Prove that I did." and the billing system will have to deal
with the entire transaction from both parties' point of view!
You will handle special cases like me having MFSI line, and I call
911, how does it get billed. I have MFSI line, and I call 970-BIG1,
and MFSI made agreement with 212-970-BIG1's carrier to carry the call,
you bill it, also consider above. It gets better: things like
970-BIG1 that charge arbitrary amounts according to what the caller
requests, also consider above. 700#s, 800#s that charge, 900#s ...
fun fun joy joy! CLECs that complete calls within their entire system
that just happen to have a different country code (BT?) -- are these
considered local calls, billing wise? Mulaw, Slaw ... LNP law? CPUs
are crunching, after all.
In the more competitive market more interesting billing systems will
be needed that only I can forsee, and since no one ever listens to me,
that means you have got to be really flexible for changes that you
cannot forsee.
But you knew all this already.
Gosh, you've got a great job.
> On a more technical note, if I'm a non facilities based CLEC simply
> reselling the ILEC's local loop, what format is the ILEC going to send
> AMA record data in? Can anyone point me to a Bellcore technical
> document which might explain this? (I've looked ... I've failed.)
How about a CLEC reselling to a CLEC, or a CLEC reslling to a ILEC ...
How long and in what instances does the legal distinction between ILEC
and CLEC last?
> Everyone else still requires a fax.
Oh geez. They're dinosaurs.
Hmm, OSS=Operational Systems Status. No, doesn't sound right. Humph.
> [...] Is there any sort of a standard that's being borne out by the
> other regional LECs which I could use to start coding up an
> interface? I'm not big enough to negotiate with each of the RBOC's
> individually. [...]
I have to point out right now where small is driving a need that big
doesn't have right here (included text immediately above).
> Thanks. I hope this will spawn some interesting discussions.
Well, from my perspective they're sort of ignorant consumer
discussions. I don't wish to be the only perspective!
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #170
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Jul 2 09:08:04 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA19095; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 09:08:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 09:08:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199707021308.JAA19095@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #171
TELECOM Digest Wed, 2 Jul 97 09:08:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 171
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Special Area Code Historical Question (Mark J. Cuccia)
Before COPUC, Views Divided on Area Code 303 (Donald M. Heiberg)
NANP Caribbean Directory Assistance (Mark J. Cuccia)
Phone Users to Now Get a Choice (Joseph Singer)
How to Download Data From DEFINITY PBX? (John Ruckstuhl)
A Very Old Fashioned Answering Service (Tad Cook)
Trouble Looks Good Leaving Here!! (Marty Tennant)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 21:50:13 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Special Area Code Historical Question
I have mentioned in previous postings that back in the 1970's, AT&T
seems to have reserved SAC (Special Area Code) 310 for something, but
WHAT?
In the 'master' numerical list of *ALL* NPA's and SAC's, in 1979, in the
Traffic Routing Guide, *all* SAC's were listed, including:
800 - Inward WATS (toll-free)
900 - Mass Calling ('choke' area code, PRE-"Dial-IT" Pay-per-call)
510 - TWX 4-row (US)
610 - TWX 4-row (Canada)
710 - TWX 4-row (US, northeast, TWX-Switching-Plan)
810 - TWX 4-row (US, midwest/southeast, TWX-Switching-Plan)
910 - TWX 4-row (US, west, TWX-Switching-Plan)
AND...
310 - TWX, Western-Union, RESERVED
After (US) TWX was "stripped" from the AT&T/Bell-System DDD network in
the early 1980's, WUTCO continued to use the same N10-NNX-xxxx numbering
that the Bell System did for US TWX, although by the later 1980's, while
the same N10's (510, 710, 810, 910) continued to be used for (US) TWX,
the so-called central-office-code portion could be *ANY* _"XXX"_ code,
not just NNX. Any one-thousand possible "XXX" could be used, there was
*no* longer any geographic/routing relationships, not even amongs the
former SAC-NPA's 510/710/810/910, except that they were for US WUTCO
TWX, while 610 indicated Canada TWX, and the north-country's TWX was
still part of the Telephone DDD Network.
WUTCO also was indicating 310 as an *access* code for reaching *TELEX*
numbers in the US, not of WUTCO's Telex(I) service (which was reached by
calling up "Infomaster"), but the US-based telex networks of the IRC
(International Record Carriers), such as ITT Telex, WUI/MCI Telex,
RCA/GE Telex, TRT Telex, FTCC Telex, Graphnet Telex, etc. The TWX
customer dialed 310, plus the full (and variable length) telex number of
the non-WUTCO but US-based IRC customer.
But this had *nothing* to do with the telephone network. And by 1991,
Bellcore had assigned *telephone* NPA 310 for the split of 213 in the
Los Angeles metro area.
Also, in some 'official' Bell System NPA maps of the US/Canada from the
early 1970's, at the bottom of the map was a 'recapitulation' chart
showing the totals of all NPA's in the US, Canada, Mexico
(pseudo-access), Caribbean, plus all SAC's. But they didn't really
indicate what the SAC's were.
There were *always* eight (8) SAC's indicated. The *TOTAL* total of
*both* SAC's plus NPA's was 131, pre-1973; and 132, post-1973. The
increase was due to the 1973 split of Virginia's (up-to-1973, ONLY) NPA
703 into 804.
One of my friends retired from Bellcore, but who started at Bell Labs in
the 1950's told me that 310 was reserved for "something special, MAYBE
for TWX, back in the 1960's". He doesn't think that 310 ever really
became used for any popular service, but it was reserved for something,
and included in the total counts of NPA's and SAC's.
He always compares this mysterious SAC 310 with "Picturephone" service,
which was *highly* touted by the Bell System in the 1960's and 70's, and
the Numbering/Dialing people at AT&T-HQ even planned for the '#' button
as an intial touchtone in a digit-string to indicate a video call, but
"Picturephone" service never really became viable or popular. The
current Bellcore dialing standard of "Facility Codes" of the form #XX+
to indicate various bandwidths is an extension of the #+ for
Picturephone. However, nothing has ever really come from "Facility
Codes" #XX, but "Vertical Service Codes" *XX(X) which can also be dialed
rotary or tone 11-XX(X) are quite popular.
NOW ... I was recently looking through the chronology/history book
"Events in Telephone History", and came across with these two entries:
01-Apr-1968
DataPhone-50, a new high-speed *switched* message service is available
between Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington DC, with
transmission of data and facsimile at speeds up to 50,000
bits-per-second, with *voice* co-ordination.
17-Nov-1969
AT&T's DataPhone-50 *switched* high-speed data and facsimile service is
now *fully-automatic* and can be operated by *direct-dialing*, instead
of going through the *operator*. Trial service is available between <the
four major cities listed above>.
In Bell-Labs' book series "History of Engineering & Science in the Bell
System", in the volume "Switching Technology, 1925-75", author Amos E.
Joel mentions in the chapter "Service & Feature Era" (right before he
discusses the automation of TWX service) that #5XB offices were being
enhanced to provide DataPhone-50 in 1967.
Until 1976, there really weren't any regular customers of DataPhone-50,
excpet for the Telephone Company itself, which used the service
(overnight, every night) to route billing-ticket messages between RAO's
(Revenue Accounting Office) and AT&T-Long-Lines' Kansas City MO CMDS
(Centralized Message Data/Distribution System). BTW, the CMDS in Kansas
City MO _still_ exists in 1997 for LEC's and *some* IXC's (AT&T, of
course) to route billing-ticket messages between their RAO's. For the
actual 'public' data service, DataPhone Switched Digital Service also
had its own tariffs and billing procedures, with its own RAO-code 521.
"Slower" speed DataPhone (modems) have used the regular DDD/POTS network
and numbering, dialed-up over a phone line. DataPhone-50 *initially*
needed to be switched through an operator. Of course, there had to be
special "class-of-service" indications for a DataPhone-50 call, special
switching considerations (Amos Joel's book mentions Frequency Shift
Senders/Receivers in the #5XB offices at 200 digits/second), enhanced
transmission and/or compression, etc. So maybe a SAC was needed for
identification of such calls, similar to the other N10 TWX SAC's?
There is an article in {Bell Laboratories Record} on wideband data, in
vol.49 (1971), by H. Kahl, starting on p.244, "Evolution of Wideband
Data Services". This was in the September 1971 issue.
Also, an *entire* issue of the {Bell System Technical Journal} was
devoted to Digital Data Service, in vol.54 (1975), starting on p.811,
there are *several* articles by different authors. In vol.54, this is
(double-month) issue #5, May/June 1975.
Neither of these articles mention anything about DataPhone-50 Service
using a specially reserved SAC NPA 310. But could it have been
*possible* that SAC 310 was reserved in the late 1960's for 'future'
public switched DataPhone-50 service, but the service hadn't really
become all that popular until many years later, and instead was later
being routed over a dedicated 'private' network which didn't need a
"DDD" style SAC?
-------------
Dial-it-yourself, and SAVE!
THE BELL SYSTEM:
AT&T / Long-Lines / Bell-Labs / Western-Electric (including Teletype
Corp.) / and your local operating Bell Telephone Company- including:
Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England Telephone (CT), Bell Canada
(PQ/ON, and subsidiary local telcos in the eastern Provinces and parts
of the Northern Territories; Northern-Electric/Bell-Northern-Research)
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
From: Donald M. Heiberg <dheiberg@ecentral.com>
Subject: Before COPUC, Views Divided on Area Code 303
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 09:41:53 -0600
From the {Denver Post}
http://www.denverpost.com/news/news588.htm
Views divided on area code
By Jim Carrier
Denver Post Business Writer
July 1 - Call us old-fashioned, but people on the Front Range want their
telephone area code to be somewhere on a map.
When they dial a business, they want to know where the call's going --
geographically.
That's the message delivered to the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission by pollsters and the PUC's own research staff Monday as the
commission considered the inevitable addition of a new area code
within the existing Denver 303 area code.
If change is necessary, the public tends to want one or two new area
codes, leaving central Denver as 303, even if it means learning new
numbers or changing a business' stationery, said Paul Talmey of
TalmeyDrake Research & Strategy.
The tendency to think of area codes as embracing a distinct geographic
area flies in the face of new telephony, where 10-digit numbers will
become necessary, say industry experts.
US West's number administrator, Jack Ott, has proposed a plan to
require 10-digit numbers beginning Feb. 1 and creating a new area code
right over 303, allowing residences and businesses to keep their
current numbers but requiring everyone to use 10 digits even when they
dial across the street.
When 303 numbers are used up late next year, new orders will carry the
new area code -- a number still under wraps. It is possible that a
second line in a private home could have a different area code than
the first line.
"Get over it," Michael Rabb, owner of U.S. Voice Corp., a small
voice-mail business, told the commissioners during public
comment. "It's not an area code anymore." He urged the PUC to adapt
the "overlay" plan because it has the "least pain for all."
Computers, voice mails, modems, speed dialing, PBX systems all will
have to be reprogrammed to accommodate the new area codes. But at
least with an overlay, the change will occur one time and be cheaper
in the long run, he said.
US West's new competitors prefer geographic area codes because an
overlay "increases customer confusion and inconvenience and
significantly slants the currently evolving competitive telecomm-
unications environment in favor of (US West)," said Edward Phelan,
speaking for Sprint. Customers might consider an overlay telephone
number as "foreign" and refuse to dial it because it doesn't appear to
be "local," he said.
Because US West owns 450 of the 792 telephone number prefixes within
the 303 area code, and because 303 is nationally known, US West would
have a competitive edge as free-market telephones become a reality,
according to the state Office of Consumer Counsel, which also supports
a geographic-based code. Under overlay, US West would have 4.5 million
numbers available, vs. 800,000 to 1 million for its competitors.
According to the Consumer Counsel, a geographic split is less
disruptive to consumers and will provide "area code relief" for more
than seven years before another area code will be necessary. An
overlay would require another area code in less than five years,
probably a third overlay number.
Businesses in the village of Elizabeth, southeast of Denver, told the
commissioner that they prefer an overlay.
"We are already geographically distanced. Adding an area code will
create a greater psychological disadvantage," said Dorothy Stone,
representing the Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce.
The city and county of Denver favors an overlay, chiefly because new
geographic area codes would slice off corners of the city and isolate
Denver International Airport with a new area code. In those corners,
confusion would reign when people call a fire station in a different
area code. They would soon resort to calling 911 for routine calls.
The Aurora City Council urges a geographic split, if change is
necessary, but Aurora is not convinced that a new number is necessary,
said Jim Morava, assistant city attorney. The real problem is the
industry's failure to share prefixes in a highly charged, competitive
market, he said. "We ask you to reject all the proposal until the
industry shows a good faith cooperative effort," he said.
Testimony before the PUC continues Tuesday.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 17:45:59 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: NANP Caribbean Directory Assistance
As many of us know, calling 555-1212 for some of the new
NANP-Caribbean NPA's might route directly to the particular island
country's (inward) directory assistance operator. However, from the US
(and some parts of Canada), dialing 809-555-1212 routes to an AT&T
operator (in some situations regardless of who the primary inTER-LATA
toll carrier is), most likely in Jacksonville FL, which has the
automated voice "AT&T, What island, please?"
It might be possible that _any_ AT&T OSPS operator can answer on
809-KL.5-1212, but many years back, there was a specific cordboard in
Jacksonville to handle these calls, even though any 'traditional' NANP
carrier's local/toll assistance operator could enter Kp+809+0XX=131+St,
the 0XX routing code identifying the specific NANP-Caribbean country.
However, on _some_ of the new NANP-Caribbean NPA's (at least presently
for 876 Jamaica and 868 Trinidad, and probably others), dialing the new
NPA followed by KLondike-5-1212 reaches "AT&T, What island, please?"
instead of the (inward) information operator on that dialed NPA island.
I found out today from AT&T that _some_ Caribbean directory operators
(on the particular island) might not be able to determine that the
call came in from _outside_ of the island. Most C&W (and C&W
affiliate) locations are using Nortel TOPS for their operator
positions. Today, TOPS can be used for inward and local/toll
assistance as well as for directory assistance, all at the same
position, during the same job-shift! And Directory Assistance on TOPS
can now provide "auto-call-completion" (which has been discussed here
before), as well as live-operator assistaed call completion even
though the call came in as a directory inquiry call.
So, for those island countries where there have been problems with the
directory assistance operators (reached for a flat 95-cents from the
US) are completing calls within the island (for no added/accounted
cost to the caller) after the directory request, AT&T has directed
calls to 555-1212 for those particular NPAs to the "AT&T, what island,
please?" intercept operator, who will 'monitor' the call and
'release-forward' if the Caribbean combined directory/assistance
operator begins to assist in completing a call.
Hopefully, C&W will be able to determine incoming calls to directory
from outside of each island nation, and will have the TOPS system flag
such calls so as to not allow call-completion. That way, after the
Dominican Republic becomes the _only_ island under 809 (after St.
Vincent becomes mandatory with its 784 NPA), 809-555-1212 could route
_directly_ to GTE's Codetel Information operators in Santo Domingo DR,
and there won't be any more need for an AT&T Caribbean Directory
Intercept Operator/Center.
--------------
A.T.&.T, Your <A>nywhere, any<T>ime, any<T>hing Network
THE BELL SYSTEM:
AT&T / Long-Lines / Bell-Labs / Western-Electric (including Teletype
Corp.) / and your local operating Bell Telephone Company- including:
Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England Telephone (CT), Bell Canada
(PQ/ON, and subsidiary local telcos in the eastern Provinces and parts
of the Northern Territories; Northern-Electric/Bell-Northern-Research)
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 22:16:58 -0700
From: Joseph Singer <dov@oz.net>
Subject: Phone Users to Now Get a Choice
From {Seattle Post-Intelligencer} Thursday June 26, 1997
By Warren Wilson P-I Reporter
AT&T, US West to vie on home costs, services
State regulators approved a deal yesterday that will give Washington
residents their first real choice of which company provides their home
telephone service.
It will also be residential customers' first taste of competition on
prices, features and quality of local service.
AT&T Corp., under its state-approved agreement with US West, plans to
start offering residential service in August, said Glenn Blackmon,
assistant telecommunications director for the state Utilities and
Transportation Commission.
US West customers then will be able to order local service from either
company. Whether prices come down is a question that will be answered
-- for the first time -- in the marketplace, not just by regulators
and the courts, as in the past.
The commission yesterday approved a so-called "interconnection"
agreement that sets the terms under which AT&T will provide local
service by using the equipment of US West.
Interconnection agreements are one of the methods included in a
federal law passed last year to promote competition in the telephone
business.
Some companies already use their own equipment to serve business
customers in high-density urban areas. But equipment costs are so
high they can't afford to install lines and switches to service
spread-out residential markets.
Congress, in passing the Telecommunications Reform Act, recognized
that to jump-start residential competition it had to let newcomers use
the equipment already in place, and interconnection agreements are the
method it set up.
"Nobody expects the new company to build a complete network before it
starts to provide service," Blackmon said. "Everybody recognizes that
initially you'll have to use the incumbent's network."
In trade for allowing newcomers to compete for local business,
regional companies, such as US West will be allowed to offer
long-distance service.
Customers will be able to choose each service from a different
provider, or as the big companies hope, simplify their bills by
ordering everything from one. The unified bill would look much like
the one they got years ago before the courts broke up AT&T, but with
the key difference that they could shop and switch providers anytime
they wished.
US West And AT&T have been wrangling over the terms of their
interconnection agreement for nearly a year. Many differences were
ironed out in negotiations and arbitration since then, but a key point
-- how much AT&T must pay US West to use its equipment -- is still in
dispute.
The State commission set interim prices yesterday and scheduled
hearings for the next month that will lead to a long-term decision.
US West believes the interim prices are so low they will give AT&T an
unfair advantage, but is counting on the later proceedings to correct
the problem.
Congress and regulators "got the cart before the horse" by issuing an
economic model that sets prices too low for US West to recover its
costs, said Mark Reynolds, the Denver-based company's director of
regulatory affairs for Washington.
The unrealistic prices "absolutely are unrealistic and will give AT&T
an unfair advantage unless they're corrected, he said.
"Commissioners, both federal and state, are going to have to wrestle with
that," Reynolds said.
AT&T representatives could not be reached for comment yesterday evening.
The agreement adopted yesterday is the firs of several now nearing
completion that mark the start of a new ear in local telephone
competition.
If AT&T carries out its plan to enter the residential market in
August, "it will be the first to do so with any real wide
availability," Blackmon said.
"Sprint and MCI are following closely behind," however he said Sprint
has finished its agreement with US West, but was waiting to see what
AT&T's agreement said about prices so it could include them in its
own. MCI's should be completed in a few weeks.
GTE Corp., Washington's second largest local phone company with about
one-third as many customers as US West in the state, expects to finish
its agreement with AT&T by the end of July, spokeswoman Melissa Barran
said yesterday.
Bringing competition to the telephone industry has been a long
contentious process, one whose outcome is still far from certain.
Reynolds said almost every one of the 14 states US West serves are
holding hearings on the so-called "generic" costs of opening local
service to newcomers.
Consumer prices are just one of the issues. If costs are set too low,
US West has said, the companies won't be able to invest enough on
telephone networks to meet steadily rising demand. Among other
factors, the surging popularity of the Internet has boosted telephone
use with calls that can last for hours.
If the new local-service competitors aren't forced to pay realistic
prices, Reynolds said US West sill turn to ratepayers to make up the
shortfall or forgo needed investments in the network itself.
Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA mailto:dov@oz.net
http://www.oz.net/~dov http://wwp.mirabilis.com/460262 [ICQ pgr]
PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 FAX +1 206 325 5862
------------------------------
From: ruck@netcom.com (John Ruckstuhl)
Subject: How to Download Data From DEFINITY PBX?
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 1997 12:13:49 GMT
I'd like to create reports (like telephone directory) from DEFINITY
switch's database. I want to download data from the switch and
manipulate it elsewhere.
Lucent rep, our maintainer, says can't be done without purchasing
Terranova sw. But -- isn't the switch a 3bsomething, UNIX, ... with a
serial port (where?), and can UUCP be configured?
The switch seems to be
61x/System 75 1.1
switch console is a 513 terminal -- I suppose one could attach a printer
(an Oki-something compatible?), print, and OCR, if one was insane.
Thank you for any comments,
John Ruckstuhl ruck@netcom.com
------------------------------
Subject: A Very Old Fashioned Answering Service
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 22:12:30 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Vermont couple answers the call of
duty -- on a bank of rotary phones
BY ANNE WALLACE ALLEN
Associated Press Writer
BRANDON, Vt. (AP) -- There are 3,500 people in Brandon, but sometimes
it seems like Bob and Joan Thomas are the only ones who answer the
phone.
On a wall of their bedroom, at the foot of their bed, 28 phones ring
day and night. There are calls for local lawyers, undertakers,
plumbers, veterinarians and doctors, for the police, rescue and fire
departments. There are calls from people who just plain want to call.
"The old-timers still call us for the time or the weather," Bob says.
For 35 years, the Thomases have run an answering service from their
home. Nothing high-tech -- most of the phones are black rotary models
("We don't have to dial out, so it doesn't matter," Bob says).
This is not a business for those with jangly nerves. The phones ring
and ring and ring, and the Thomases are constantly running to answer.
"It can take me six trips to the kitchen to get something done," Joan
says, cheerfully.
With so many black phones so close together, it's hard to tell which
one is shrilling. "You just put your hand on it to see which one is
vibrating," Bob says.
When the workday starts, staff at local offices call to tell the
Thomases they'll answer their own phones for the next few
hours. During those downtimes, they turn off the ringers on those
extensions. At the end of the day, the staff call to say they're
leaving, and the Thomases turn the ringers back on.
They take messages, direct callers to the proper place, and try to be
helpful, calling their customers at home if necessary.
The Thomases have mastered the art of answering two phones at once and
sounding tranquil as they ask each to wait so they can grab a third.
"Thanks for waiting a moment, sir," Bob Thomas says courteously to a
caller as he cradles one phone on his shoulder and reaches for
another.
Rescue, fire, and police calls take priority; then they get the
ringing phones that belong to the undertakers, rendering plant, oil
company and others that are their customers.
One phone is connected to the elevator in a nearby residence for the
elderly. When it rings, it means someone has gotten stuck. Bob Thomas
goes over with keys to let them out.
When Joan Thomas answers calls for the local realtors, she chats with
the customers about what kind of place they're looking for.
"I ask them, `Do you want to be on the lake, across the street from
the lake..."' she says. "I enjoy working with people."
The Thomases started the answering service as a way for Joan to stay
home with their son and daughter. When Bob, now 66, retired from
working as a contractor a few years ago, he joined his wife in the
business.
"We've had two dogs. They both lived to be 15 years old, and neither
one was ever left alone," Bob says.
Now the Thomases appear to know by instinct when to leap up for which
phone. From a tidy glassed-in porch next to the bedroom, they can sip
drinks and watch the hummingbirds at the feeders outside without
flinching as the phones erupt. As Bob shows a visitor a family photo,
Joan runs into the other room to answer a doctor's phone. When Joan is
occupied with two callers, Bob calmly reaches a third on its second
ring.
And when the phones ring in the middle of the night -- as they do
about six out of seven nights -- Bob answers them. He's acquired the
ability to go straight back to sleep.
Joan and Bob take one day off a week; they hire people to fill
in. They have taken a few five-day vacations and cruises away from the
phones.
But when they're home, the phones are in charge. There are intercoms
all over the house and in the back yard so the Thomases can hear the
phones or the rescue squad radio; they installed a generator in 1989
to keep the machines running if the power goes out.
The Thomases have considered getting help from modern equipment, but
it's too expensive. "The telephone company tried for years to tell us
to put in a switchboard," Bob says.
Besides, they plan to retire from the phone-answering business
altogether in a few years. In 1998, 911 emergency service is expected
to come to Brandon, and many of the police, fire and rescue calls will
be routed to stations somewhere else.
But if callers want weather, time, or road conditions, they might be
out of luck.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A service like this existed in the
Fisher Building in downtown Chicago for many years. The woman who
ran it had about 75-100 black wall phones without dials mounted on a
wall, however in her case each had a 'beehive lamp' mounted right
above the phone so she could tell which one was ringing. The bells
were set to ring very softly. Each phone had a very short receiver
cord and there were numerous places to set down a receiver while
going to answer another phone, etc. All she handled -- I think --
were the tenants in the Fisher Building, a large 20-story very old-
fashioned office building downtown. Whenever a new customer started
with her all the phone company had to do was go to the basement at
the main phone box and run a jumper from the customer's phone line
to one of the phones in her office which was not in use presently.
Then the phone man would tell Wanda -- that was her name -- which
of the eight-dozen or so phones he had put the customer on. She
had that service for more than twenty years; I guess she went out
of business when she got to be very very old sometime in the
early 1980's. She too could easily hold a phone to each ear and
talk to both callers at one time with a third receiver off hook
into which she leaned forward and spoke into the receiver telling
them to hold on a minute while she finished one of the other two
calls. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 08:40:47 GMT
From: marty tennant <marty@sccoast.net>
Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net
Organization: low tech designs, inc.(tm)
Subject: Trouble Looks Good Leaving Here!!
In "Cut off and Wrong Number Calls" TELECOM Digest Editor noted:
> They would rather insist there is nothing wrong with their equip-
> ment and that it must be the other guys at fault. "No operator,
> I did not disconnect party ... party is still up here ... must
> have been the next operator down the line ..."
This made me remember my days at Southern Bell Marketing when I was
responsible for data communications sales to banking customers just
starting to set up ATM machines and networks.
When we had serious troubles on a data circuit, I would often have to
intervene and speak to technicians at multiple points along the
circuit path.
I'll never forget one of them looking at the circuit with his test
equipment and saying - "Not my problem, trouble looks good leaving
here"!!
marty tennant, president, low tech designs, inc.(tm), "Bringing
Technology Down to Earth"(sm),
1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 voice,
(803) 527-7783 fax
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #171
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 6 13:59:30 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id NAA09556; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 13:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 13:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199707061759.NAA09556@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #172
TELECOM Digest Sun, 6 Jul 97 13:59:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 172
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
History of Direct Distance Dialing, AKA Subscriber Trunk Dial (J. McHarry)
US/European PCMCIA Card (Bob Baxter)
Sprint PCS Conflict With SWBT CallNotes (John Bartley)
Book Review: "The Illustrated Network Book" by Naugle (Rob Slade)
US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up" (Tad Cook)
Area Code Splits: Long Term Solution? (jfmezei)
Record Toll Usage in Hong Kong (Tad Cook)
Denver New Area Code Will be 720; Selected, Reserved in 1990! (Don Heiberg)
DMS 10 Centrex and Dees Mediator ACD (Scott Montague)
DeVry Institute Information Wanted (Steven Loeffler)
"The Jack is on Fire!" (Joe Greco)
The Extra Touch-Tone Buttons (Ed Ellers)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 15:15:31 -0400
From: John McHarry <nospam.mcharry@erols.com>
Reply-To: nospam.mcharry@erols.com
Subject: History of Direct Distance Dialing, AKA Subscriber Trunk Dialing
There was an excellent article on this subject in the Digest a few
years ago, but I cannot find it in the archives. It went over the
original development in Europe and the later re-invention in North
America. If you or any of the regulars still have a copy, I, and
probably a lot of others would enjoy a repost. Thanks.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The best people to speak with on this
topic would be Mark Cuccia and David Leibold. Both make regular
contributions on area code/dialing history. Carl Moore also for many
years prepared area code history articles for the Archives. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 23:04:24 -0400
From: Bob Baxter <bobbles@panix.com>
Subject: US/European PCMCIA Card
A friend of mine will be going to Europe for several months, and hopes
to send articles via a notebook computer to the Net to assorted
companies from which he is freelancing. He is looking for a PCMCIA
card (modem) which will work with public phone systems in the
following countries: USA, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, France, Italy and
Germany Any replies would be appreciated.
Bob Baxter (bobbles@panix.com)
------------------------------
From: john@wpa.com (John Bartley)
Subject: Sprint PCS Conflict With SWBT CallNotes
Date: 5 Jul 1997 23:49:40 GMT
Organization: -=MO.NET=- MVP-Net, Inc's Missouri Operations
I live in the St. Louis area which recently got turned on for Sprint
PCS service. I got my phone today and have been experimenting with
various features. Can anyone help me understand why the following
problem is happening when I attempt to use the call-forwarding feature
from PCS?
My normal home telephone line has SWBT CallNotes voicemail system. This
has the busy/no answer feature that allows incoming calls to go to
voicemail. Sprint doesn't have voicemail activated yet in the
St. Louis area, so I tried to forward my PCS phone to my home phone,
assuming that the forwarded calls would end up being routed to my
CallNotes voicemail.
Ha! The call rings at my home the designated number of rings after
being forwarded from Sprint, but when it transfers to CallNotes it is
transferred to the number I call to pick up messages instead of going
to my mailbox. This obviously won't work out too well, since the
person who is calling would have no idea how they got to the messages
they're receiving.
I verified that "normal" no answer calls do work as they "almost"
always do - i.e., the caller receives my personal greeting instead of
being prompted to enter a mailbox number.
Is this a little one-upsmanship on the part of SWBT in defeating what
I'm trying to do? I pay the bill for having my calls forward to
voicemail, so why should SWBT care where they come from or how they
got there? It seems like a technical paradox, but I want to have some
informed opinion from the technical wizards before I call to complain!
:-) By the way, should I complain to Sprint, SWBT or both?
Thanks for any answers.
John Bartley
john@wpa.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is pointless to complain to Sprint;
after all, they never promised any sort of voicemail service, nor can
they be expected to make their system compatible with SWBT. What you
are attempting to do is beyond the scope of the service provided by
Sprint at this time. What I think is happening though is as follows:
When calls are transferred to voicemail as a result of busy/no answer
transfer, the phone number of the line being thus forwarded is sent
along to voicemail (or telco operated/maintained voice mail at least).
Normally the central office serving your landline (the one being
transferred) phone says to whoever gave it the call, "this is number
such and such, take it to voicemail, tell voicemail what number is
calling and leave the call there." Now when a call reaches voicemail,
if the called number is known to voicemail, instead of just the
generic greeting your callers are experiencing, voicemail goes right
to the specific greeting and starts at that point. That is why people
who call directly to your number get your specific greeting, because
voicemail knows who they are looking for, i.e. your landline number.
If voicemail does NOT know who the caller is looking for, the best it
can do is enter at the generic all purpose greeting which requires
the caller to enter the called party's number, etc.
It would appear that perhaps SWBT does indeed tell the central office
which originally presented it your call (and is now being asked to
take it back and send it to voicemail) to send it to the message
service, but it is failing to say something about 'give the calling
number to voicemail so voicemail will know where to enter the loop ...'
I cannot remember for sure the circumstances under which I replicated
this a few years ago but it was something like this:
Voicemail for the Chicago/Rogers Park central office was reached at
312-508-xxxx. Dialing that number from a phone subscribed to voicemail
got you your very own greeting rather than the generic one, because
caller-id was sent to voicemail which quickly scanned its own files
and found you to be a subscriber. But ... call the voicemail number
using a pay phone or a non-subscriber line and it went to the generic
greeting when you dialed the very same 312-508-xxxx number. The
reason was it had no idea (based on the caller-id it was given being
a pay phone number) who was calling or what they wanted. When it saw
your number it knew what was wanted, etc. So, one day I think I used
my own voicemail subscribed line and dialed *67 then 312-508-xxxx.
Doing this caused the central office to deny my number to voicemail
and bingo; I went in to the generic greeting instead of my own.
Translated to your situation I think what is occurring is your home
central office is not telling the calling central office correctly
what to do. It is saying 'take back this call and dial <voicemail
number> and hand it over there' but either it is failing to say
anything about passing along the number the caller is requesting (so
voicemail knows where to enter the loop) or else maybe Sprint is
indeed making the call to voicemail but not passing along the number
it was *trying to reach* instead giving the caller's number which
would mean nothing to voicemail at that point.
On the other hand maybe you should complain to Sprint; I just do not
know. If it was a case of your own landline central office passing the
call along, I am sure it would handle it like any other, by getting
the message through to voicemail 'we are looking for xxx-xxxx'. I
suppose Sprint is sending nothing once voicemail connects, or perhaps
is sending the *calling number* rather than the true *called number*
and voicemail gets a signal that someone wants to talk to it about
something but it has no idea who or why. The best voicemail can do
at that point is just say 'hello' with a generic greeting, the same
as any number it does not recognize as a subscriber.
The voicemail Illinois Bell was using for quite awhile (maybe still,
I do not subscribe now) had three 'entry points':
1) Caller dials your number; your CO passes it along telling
voicemail 'we are looking for xxx-xxxx' and the entry point
was the personal greeting of xxx-xxxx.
2) Subscriber dials voicemail from any subscribing telephone and
CO says to voicemail, 'here must be some subscriber dialing
you direct; let us presume it is subscriber xxx-xxxx since that
is the number being used to place the call to you.'
Voicemail figures you do not want to listen to your own greeting
(and anyway it may be some subscriber using another subscriber's
phone line) so it goes to a greeting which says,
"Enter your password now, or for another mailbox press the star
key and the new mailbox number". Now the person who owns the phone
being the one calling just enters his password and goes right in.
Another subscriber would tell voicemail who he was and continue
in that direction.
3) Voicemail gets a call that relates to no one it knows about. For
example CO tells voicemail that a payphone is calling. Now comes
the quandry: it could be a subscriber but we have no idea which
one or it could be someone calling a wrong number since anyone
who is not a subscriber should not be dialing this number anyway;
after all if the unknown caller had dialed a subscriber and gotten
put here by the CO then the CO would have told us who was really
wanted. The best voicemail can go is just tell the unknown caller
to punch in what he wants, etc and go from there.
*Somebody* -- either your CO or most likely Sprint -- is not telling
voicemail ahead of time the identity of the subscriber. I doubt you
have any valid complaint with Sprint on this issue since they never
said you could do it in the way you wanted.
In the old days of manual answering services, two flavors were avail-
able: the subscriber who paid extra could have an extension of his
line bridged to the answering service. This enabled the answering
service to know who was wanted and to use the appropriate answer
phrase when picking up the line. Subscribers who wanted less expensive
service used the answering service's all-purpose number. The best
the service could do in return was answer the line saying, 'may I
help you?' Or when calls were very heavy and had to be auto-held
for an operator, the services had a generic recording which said,
'one moment please, I'll be with you as soon as possible' with no
reference to any company name, etc.
I would ask Sprint -- and be *very* diplomatic about it, because they
don't owe you anything on this -- if they are passing the *called*
number to voicemail. Also ask SWBT how they are dealing with calls
being transferred to voicemail which do not originate in their own
facilities. I would not recommend calling 611 or customer service.
Any other suggestions from readers? PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 10:44:17 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "The Illustrated Network Book" by Naugle
BKILNTBK.RVW 961219
"The Illustrated Network Book", Matthew G. Naugle, 1994, 0-442-01826-6
%A Matthew G. Naugle mnaugle@delphi.com 73534.1163@compuserve.com
%C 115 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10003
%D 1994
%G 0-442-01826-6
%I International Thomson Computer Press/Van Nostrand Reinhold VNR
%O 800-842-3636 212-254-3232 fax: 212-254-9499 http://www.vnr.com/vnr.html
%P 528
%T "The Illustrated Network Book"
I must, before I begin, admit to a certain bias in favour of this
book. It's a reviewer's dream, since you can flip through it and see
the orderly progression from basic networking concepts, through the
OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) model, via the physical layers, to
network protocols, and routing.
However, I would think that my appreciation for the book would be
echoed by any number of technical professionals. Basically, this book
is a networking course. The overheads/illustrations are on the left
side pages. If that is enough information, you can flip on to the
next point/page. If any further explanation is needed, it is on the
facing right hand page. This format allows both detailed information
and a quickly accessible reminder tool.
Informative, handy, and readable, too.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKILNTBK.RVW 961219
Please note the Peterson story - http://www.freivald.org/~padgett/trial.htm
Genesis 4:9/Proverbs 24: 11,12 - your choice
------------------------------
Subject: US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up"
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 06:47:11 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
U S West settles suit for $8 million
DENVER (AP) -- The cellular telephone arm of U S West has agreed to
pay $8 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over its billing
practices.
Under the settlement, almost 900,000 former and current customers in
12 states, including Colorado, will be eligible for credits or cash
payments.
The lawsuit, settled Thursday, claimed U S West's NewVector Group
didn't properly disclose its practice of calculating phone charges by
rounding up to full minutes of use.
The company misrepresented its billing during a period from July 1,
1994 to May 1, 1996, the suit alleged.
U S West has not admitted any wrongdoing, but the company agreed to
settle rather than continue in a lawsuit with its customers, a
spokeswoman said.
It marks the first time a cellular telephone company has agreed to a
cash settlement on the "rounding up" issue, said Steve Berman, the
attorney who brought the lawsuit.
Rebates will be determined by the level of cell-phone usage and range
from $3 to $26, said Lisa Bowersock, spokeswoman for AirTouch, the
company formerly known as U S West Cellular.
------------------------------
From: jfmezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca[nospam]>
Subject: Area Code Splits: Long Term Solution?
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 01:22:56 -0500
Organization: VTL
Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca[nospam]
Since the change to allow area codes to span the 0-1 limitation of
their middle digit, it seems that area code splits to accomodate an
increasing number of telephone numbers are becoming ever too frequent.
At the time, it was said that this change would allow North America to
deal with growth for a reasonably long time.
Now, it seems that Toronto which has relatively recently endured a
split, is again thinking of a new split/overlay. It seems that new
area codes are being introduced as quickly as new hanburgers in fast
food chains.
Question: is the current rate of area code additions within the
projected expectations back when the 0-1 digits limitation was removed?
IS the growth rate going to stabilise, go down or further increase in
the foreseable future?
Assuming that the growth projections at the time the 0-1 limitation
was removed are now completely way off, would it have been better **
IN HINDSIGHT ** to have gone to 8 digit telephone numbers right away?
The removal of the 0-1 seems recent enough. If the added growth,
originally expected to occur in the next 20 years is instead going to
happen in 8 years, won't we be forced to add a digit to telephone
numbers anyway making all those area code splits unnecessary surgery
had we gone to 8 digit numbers right from the start? 5 years perhaps?
------------------------------
Subject: Record Toll Usage in Hong Kong
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 14:16:04 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Hong Kong talks its way into the history books
HONG KONG, July 4 (Reuter) - Hong Kongers didn't just stand still as
history was made this week -- they made or received almost 16 million
telephone calls over the five days of holiday marking the British
colony's reversion to China.
While the world watched the pomp and pageantry of the handover
ceremonies, millions of local people were clearly picking up the phone
to talk to family and friends abroad.
Hongkong Telecom said on Friday that 7,799,440 outbound calls were
made from Hong Kong in the five days ending on July 2, and it logged
8,069,591 inbound calls.
The inbound and outbound calls lasted a mindboggling total of
39,038,549 minutes.
Hong Kong Telecom, which charges by the minute, did not say how much
the calls cost, but presumably a large proportion of Hong Kong's 6.4
million residents will be dreading the arrival of their toll bills at
the end of the month.
------------------------------
From: Donald M. Heiberg <dheiberg@ecentral.com>
Subject: Denver New Area Code Will be 720; Selected, Reserved in 1990!
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 11:04:10 -0600
From the {Denver Post} July 2, 1997
http://www.denverpost.com/news/news593.htm
New area code will be 720
By Ricky Young
Denver Post Transportation Writer
July 2 - The Denver area's new area code for next year has been set
aside, and it's 720, telephone company officials confirmed Tuesday.
Well, actually, one official confirmed it.
He's Jack Ott, the US West numbering plan administrator, a pipe-smoking
guy from Lakewood who's pleased to have set aside one of a dwindling
set of three-digit codes left in the country that sounds like an area
code.
"It's an easily remembered number," he said. "It ends in 0." But he
wants to make sure of one thing - that no one orders new business
cards yet.
The number won't be final until the Public Utilities Commission decides
next month who in the metro area would get the new code.
The 303 area code is running out of numbers, and a new one will be
needed by mid-1998.
The new number will be carved out of the existing 303 area, not
affecting the southern Colorado 719 area code or the northern and
western 970.
The decision about who in 303 will get the new code has brought a
battalion of lawyers to the PUC for two days to talk about its effect on
phone companies and customers.
But the decision about what the number would be was made quietly by Ott
in 1990. At that time, he decided Colorado might need another area code.
He consulted with officials at Bellcore in New Jersey, the numbers
keeper for the phone industry.
They told him what numbers were available. He eliminated numbers that
were already in use as Colorado prefixes - the first three numbers of a
seven-letter number.
The area code has to be different from, say, Golden's 278 prefix because
phones would be confused by a number like (278) 278-5555.
From the handful of available area codes that were not Colorado
prefixes, Ott picked 720. That number has been reserved ever since.
"Which one seems to be the easiest for customers to adjust to, that's
as different as possible from 303," he said. "You wouldn't have 313."
The 720 code sounds more like the traditional area codes that started
in 1947 - all of which had a zero or a one.
The new area code will be assigned one of three ways:
. Existing 303 customers will keep 303, and new customers will get the
new one.
. Central Denver will keep 303, and surrounding areas that are now 303
will get 720.
. Central Denver will keep 303, and surrounding areas will get two new
codes, one for the east and one for the west.
The second new code does not sound like a traditional code, Ott said,
which is why it will only be used if the area is assigned two new codes.
Ott said he selected that number around 1992, when pickings were
slimmer.
"The second one is not as easy to remember," Ott said.
Ott would not identify the area codes directly. But he did describe the
process of elimination by which area codes are allowed.
The Post followed that process, and it left seven possibilities: 951,
952, 953, 957, 974, 983 and 720. Ott confirmed that both area codes
reserved for the Denver area are on that list.
And he confirmed that 720 was the choice for the first new area code.
"I told you one of them ended in 0," he said. "And I told you they're
both on that list. So you've got it." He also confirmed that the
second area code is elsewhere on the list.
Although there's a great deal of public input about where new area codes
will go - will they split up cities, will neighbors have to dial 10
digits to call neighbors - there's rarely any public say in what the
code will be.
The code is typically announced only when the decision to roll out a
code is final.
"Customers count on them then," Ott said. "If something changes, they
get upset." So he emphasized that the numbers could change. South
Dakota, for instance, recently gave up a reserved area code to Georgia.
But Ott did say both the Denver area codes have been set aside since
the early 1990s with no requests by other states to use them instead.
Nationally, the numbers are handled by Bellcore, a New Jersey company
that inherited the task from the old AT&T monopoly.
Spokesman Ken Branson said the company simply gives local phone
companies the list of available codes and lets the company pick.
"We are unsentimental about area codes," Branson said. "They are
buckets. And in that bucket is 7.92 million phone numbers you can use.
to express our apathy for which three numbers it is.''
------------------------------
From: Scott Montague <montague@iname.scrapthis.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 15:14:24 -0500
Subject: DMS 10 Centrex and Dees Mediator ACD
I am in the process of setting up a call centre, and we are using
the Dees Mediator ACD over a DMS 10 centrex.
Here's our problem.
To notify the Dees box that an agent is at a station, we dial into a
Login/Logout DN. Upon recieving the call, it looks at the CLID, and
determines which station to login or logout. It sends a request to
generate 1 DTMF # for login and 2 DTMF #s for logout. It then hangs
up using ClearCallReq.
Sounds good. BUT ... the DMS 10 waits up to 2.5-3 seconds before it
allows DTMF generation or further commands (perhaps until answer
supervised?). By that time, the Dees box has sent the DTMF requests,
and the Clear Call request. Is this a limitation of the DMS 10? What
would be the setting (timer, etc) one can change on the switch to
allow immediate processing of commands once a connection is made?
As it stands now, the agents don't hear the beeps, they are logged in
and out, but the call isn't cleared properly and counts as an
abandoned call. Dees has designed their box to be used on a DMS 100,
and they may be able to design a software solution, but I'd like to
just fix the switch.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Scott
montague@iname.scrapthis.com
------------------------------
From: Steven Loeffler <loeffler@conc.tds.net>
Subject: DeVry Institute Information Wanted
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 10:42:54 -0400
Organization: Tune Tek Services
I am going to be making a big career change soon at 38 years old by
going into the telecommunications industry. I 've decided to go to
DeVry Institute and take the TCOM Management course. Has anyone been
trained at one of their schools and what do you think of them? It's
very expensive and I want to make sure that I get the best for my
money. Any help, comments or advice would be appreciated.
Steve Loeffler
Knoxville, TN.
loeffler@conc.tds.net
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: DeVry began here in Chicago I believe.
They have a large well-equipped facility here at this time and have
been highly regarded for many years, at least in the Chicago business
community. They have a job/career placement service for their grad-
uates. Your decision is a very personal one, but I do not think you
would make a mistake by training under them. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Joe Greco <jgreco@solaria.sol.net>
Subject: "The jack is on fire!"
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 97 16:28:12 CDT
Today's notable quotable is ... "The jack is on fire! I think I should
cut the wires."
Some background, and then a question or three, if any of you telecom
gurus could take a minute to satisfy my curiousity.
Exec-PC, a regional ISP here in Wisconsin, has a booth at Summerfest,
the world's largest music festival, held on Milwaukee's lakefront.
The booth is on the outside of a building, outdoors, with a canopy
overhead, and a bunch of computers and a T1 back to the office. They
allow people to cruise the Web and do fun stuff. There's also a few
Web cameras (see http://www.execpc.com -> Start).
Ameritech brought in the T1 "just in time", at about 5:30PM the day
before the show. The setup crew (myself included) had already left,
and we came back at 6:00AM the first day, to set up. Ameritech had
left the smartjack lying on the ground, connected to one of the
building's outside RJ11 jacks (one of those AT&T modular jobs in a
weatherproof enclosure).
It sort of worked, although there were repeated problems with the link
back to New Berlin, and Ameritech had been called repeatedly to fix
outages. I thought it was strange to put the smartjack outside and do
it that way, since it would have been just as easy to put the
smartjack inside the building's wiring closet. They could easily have
done so. Everything was terminated on 66's, and they had simply
crossconnected the outside jack to the incoming T1.
It was down, again, this morning. We went down to see what was wrong.
Once again, there were no lights on the smartjack. I went to pull the
RJ11, and found that it was stuck. Wiggling it a bit to try to
release it, I saw arcing and sparks. Needless to say, we called
Ameritech. They promised to dispatch someone. Time passes. We
decide to at least pull the plug, which appears to be stuck. I
forcibly pull the plug with pliers (it wasn't particularly hard). The
plug is melted and burnt on the end. More time passes. Then Jim
utters the words that you should never hear: "Hey, the jack is on
fire, I think I should cut the wires."
An hour later, still down, no one in sight. I get irritated and we
decide to fix it ourselves. We put the smartjack in the closet, screw
it to the wall and ground it (it hadn't been grounded), and punch the
telco side of it down to the incoming line's 66 block. We then punch
down a tail with an RJ45 on it to the outside jack's 66 block, replace
the outside jack, and make an RJ11->RJ45 cable to go from the jack to
the CSU/DSU. Bing, green lights all over. Not even very hard to do.
"The jack is on fire." That's a definite gotta-remember.
I am not too much into telecom stuff, and this is a bit beyond my
scope. I mainly work with things like Ethernet, and occasionally POTS
or ISDN. My T1 experience is limited to the customer side of a
smartjack. My questions for the audience:
1) I've never seen a smartjack that wasn't wired permanently (and
directly) into a 66-block on the telco side, and I'm wondering why
someone might have chosen not to do this. The only reason I can
think of is to place the smartjack on the customer's rented space.
I can think of no good technical reason to do it.
2) I know that on the telco side of a T1 smartjack, there's voltage
to drive line amps and the smartjack. What is this voltage? Is it
AC or DC? Clearly, bad contact can generate lots of heat and arcing
if the voltage is high enough, and surely this must be what happened.
3) What voltage might there be on the customer side of a T1 smartjack?
Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
In all fairness to Ameritech, it's possible that the RJ11 did get wet,
since it's been raining a lot. Still, this just seems like there was
something very wrong, and it seems to me that the really bad idea was
to run the smartjack outside via an RJ11 jack.
I'd like to hear someone else's thoughts.
Thank you, and have a fantastic Fourth of July weekend!
Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net
Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/342-4847
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <kd4awq@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: The Extra Touch-Tone Buttons
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 1997 03:29:39 -0400
Mark J. Cuccia (mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu) wrote:
> He always compares this mysterious SAC 310 with "Picturephone"
> service, which was *highly* touted by the Bell System in the 1960's
> and 70's, and the Numbering/Dialing people at AT&T-HQ even planned for
> the '#' button as an initial touch-tone in a digit-string to indicate
> a video call, but "Picturephone" service never really became viable or
> popular. The current Bellcore dialing standard of "Facility Codes" of
> the form #XX+ to indicate various bandwidths is an extension of the #+
> for Picturephone.'
That reminded me that the original "Mod I" Picturephone set had the #
key labeled "V," and didn't have the * key at all. At around the same
time Western Electric was also making a few otherwise-normal
Touch-Tone phones that had the * key but not the #, for use in the
Custom Calling market test on the Succasunna, N.J. 1ESS. Normal
Touch-Tone phones at the time had only the numeric keys (and
four-digit model numbers starting with 1, such as 1500), and 12-button
phones (model numbers starting with 2) were supposedly available under
a different tariff for end-to-end signaling applications. It wasn't
until the late 1960s that AT&T gave up and made the 12-button pad
standard.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #172
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Jul 6 23:18:31 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA05185; Sun, 6 Jul 1997 23:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 23:18:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199707070318.XAA05185@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #173
TELECOM Digest Sun, 6 Jul 97 23:18:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 173
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Hormel Takes Action Against Spammer (oldbear@arctos.com)
Hormel Objects to Use of Name "Spam" (Tad Cook)
Spamford Blows Off Hormel (Ed Ellers)
New Home For @internet (Thom Stark)
Reform the International Phone System (Al-Karim Murji)
Alabama PSC Targets Slammer (Tad Cook)
Telephone Workers March Against Privatization (Tad Cook)
Book Review: "Web Developer's Guide to JavaScript and VBScript" (Rob Slade)
1960s Bell System Brochure (Mark J. Cuccia)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 17:08:30 -0400
From: The Old Bear <oldbear@arctos.com>
Subject: Hormel Takes Action Against Spammer
The ultimate irony ...
ON THE INTERNET, NO ONE KNOWS THAT SPAM COMES IN CANS
To Internet users, "spamming" means wholesale distribution of
junk e-mail, but to the Hormel Foods Corporation, Spam is a
scrumptious and nutritious pressed meat that they sell in a can.
So Hormel has demanded that junk e-mail distributor Cyber
Promotions Inc. stop using the name Spam and also stop using a
picture of a can of Span on its Internet site. "We want them
to recognize that Spam has been a widely known Hormel Foods
trademark for 60 years and they are not authorized to use that
trademark for their commercial use."
[as summarized from 'USA Today' (July 3, 1997) by Edupage]
------------------------------
Subject: Hormel Objects to Use of Name "Spam"
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 00:00:37 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Hormel Foods Warns Junk E-mailer to Drop Use of `Spam' Trademark
BY REID KANALEY, THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
PHILADELPHIA--Jul. 3--They kept a lid on their feelings for the last few
years, but the people who can Spam are finally opening up.
They hate ... "spam." At least, they hate to see their beloved product
associated with junk e-mail.
Hormel Foods Corp. has put the Internet's self-proclaimed Spam King,
Philadelphian Sanford "Spamford" Wallace, on notice: It considers his
adoption of the famous luncheon meat's name in connection with Cyber
Promotions Inc., his junk e-mail business, an unauthorized use of the Spam
trademark.
In the online world, the term "spam" is a common and disparaging
reference to unsolicited mass e-mailings that promote everything from
fad diets to get-rich-quick schemes and porn sites on the World Wide
Web.
Wallace said he decided to use "spam" in his name after his most
enraged critics began doing it to him. "I thought it would be catchy,"
he said yesterday. Three months ago, he registered the e-mail domain
names "spamford.net" and "spamford.com." He is often pictured with
cans of Spam.
"The irony here is that we're actually promoting the name Spam. Hormel
is probably getting a benefit from it," contended Wallace.
Hormel thinks otherwise. Wallace is blurring the distinctiveness of
the trademark, company lawyers told him in a stern letter last week:
"Nor does Hormel Foods wish to be affiliated with your company, your
bulk e-mail business, or the usage you have made of Hormel Foods'
trademark, which we view as tarnishing its image." The letter demands
that Wallace drop "spam."
The official response, a letter Wednesday from Wallace's attorney
Ralph Jacobs, was just as emphatic: "If all your client wants is for
Mr. Wallace to agree not to pose next to a can of Spam ... we can
probably work something out. If your client objects to the use of the
word `spam' to refer to my client's business, it's far too late to
change the vocabulary of 25 million Internet users."
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <kd4awq@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Spamford Blows Off Hormel
Date: 6 Jul 1997 01:46:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
This is a press release that Cyber Promotions issued on Wednesday
after Hormel demanded that the term "spam" no longer be used to
describe unsolicited messages.
--------------------------------
SPAM I'm Not
Cyber Promotions says "NO" to Cease & Desist from Spam distributor, Hormel
Foods.
For Immediate Release:
Philadelphia 7-2-97 --- Cyber Promotions, Inc., the country's best
known Internet mass e-mail firm, announced today that it had rebuffed
threats by Hormel Foods Corporation over the use of the word SPAM in
connection with unsolicited Internet e-mail. Cyber Promotions
received a cease and desist letter from lawyers for Hormel,
distributors of the Spam meat product, complaining that Cyber had
disparaged Hormel's trademark.
Cyber Promotions rejection of Hormel came in a letter from Cyber's
counsel, Ralph A. Jacobs, Esq., of the law firm of Hoyle, Morris &
Kerr in Philadelphia. In the letter, Jacobs reminded Hormel that
there was no likely confusion because in cyberspace, spam refers to an
e-mail practice, not to a food product, and he quoted a recent {Wall
Street Journal} article in which Hormel's general counsel acknowledged
as much. Mr. Jacob's letter also reminded Hormel's lawyers that a
federal court in New York had rejected Hormel's trademark infringement
case against Jim Henson over a Muppet named Spa'am.
Sanford Wallace, a.k.a. SPAMford, president of Cyber Promotions,
commented: "We had no thought of Hormel when we registered
www.spamford.com. On the Net, when people say spam they think of us,
not a processed meat product. Try searching for spam on the Internet
and you'll find that's true. Our business is e-mail, not canned meat.
It's far too late to change the vocabulary of 25 million Internet
users."
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: None the less I hope Hormel sues him
vigorously and forces him to discontinue *his* use of the term to
describe his practices. Anyone who wishes to sue Spamford and cause
him to have obscene legal bills is my friend. Anyone who wants to
cause him as much grief as possible should be saluted, and that most
definitly includes the various hackers who are trying hard to put him
out of business. Perhaps Hormel should start a web page which has
various recipies involving their meat product and then proceed with
their suit against him. Does anyone know what his current 800 number
is? Netters who want to contact him by phone are asking. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 04:35:02 -0700
From: Thom Stark <thom@starkrealities.com>
Subject: New Home for @internet
It's been a while since my last @internet notification mailing, so
let me begin by thanking all of you who me sent comments, suggestions
and/or (especially) encouragment about "The New Domain Name Game"
(you may remember the title of the mailing was "The definitive story
on New Domains").
Some of you were even kind enough to forward my announcement to other
interested parties, to mailing lists and even to Usenet. I'm humbly
grateful for your efforts on my behalf.
Jack Rickard, Editor Rotundus of Boardwatch Magazine, liked what he
read well enough to offer me a new home for the @internet column -- an
offer I was happy to accept, since Jack encourages me to write to any
length I see fit.
The first @internet appearance in Boardwatch was "What's in a
Namespace?" in the May issue. That one was an even longer, more
detailed backgrounder on the IAHC's new domain proposal than "The New
Domain Name Game". (Since Cardinal Business Media owned the rights to
"The New Domain Name Game", I couldn't simply hand it over to
Boardwatch. Instead, I wrote a new article on the same topic. As it
turned out, "The New Domain Name Game" actually *did* get published
in CBM's "EC.COM" magazine in June. The publishing business can be
pretty confusing, sometimes.)
The second Boardwatch @internet was "What's So Hard About CIDR?" in
the June issue.
Those two columns are now available on both the Boardwatch website
http://www.boardwatch.com
and on my own site at
http://www.starkrealities.com/articles.html
If you choose to read them on my site, you'll notice that there are
two new link tokens in the left margin of each page. One invokes a
Javascript window with my PGP public key, for those of you who'd like
to send me confidential mail. The other is a link to my new
Web-based, serialized science fiction novel, "A Season in Methven --
The Journals of Drew Wilde" (a project on which I've been working for
some time now).
You can access the novel directly at
http://www.starkrealities.com/Methven/
Finally, my third Boardwatch @internet column, "Canning Spam", appears
in this month's paper issue, (it will appear on both websites in early
August,) which should be available at better newsstands, everywhere.
As always, if you're tired of receiving these announcements, send me
mail requesting to be removed (the return address on this mailing is
100% valid) and I'll take your name off the list within 24 hours.
BTW--last time, I got (and deleted) several blank pieces of mail
before it occurred to me that they might *just* be unsubscribe
requests. If yours was one of them, I apologize for being so slow on
the uptake. To ensure that I don't make another such mistake, please
include the word "unsubscribe" in the body or subject of your message
(I process all remove requests manually, so I'll figure it out) or
otherwise indicate that you want me to buzz off.
Thanks again for your support!
Regards,
Thom Stark
Email: thom@starkrealities.com URL: http://www.starkrealities.com
PGP public key: http://www.starkrealities.com/thomskey.txt
(510) 526-9600 voice STARK REALITIES fax (510) 526-9063
POB 457 El Cerrito, CA ZIP 94530-0457
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 1997 17:55:02 -0400
From: Al-Karim Murji <murji@mail.newlink.ca>
Organization: New Link
Subject: Reform the International Phone System
An international system should exist for phone systems. Our current
international phone system is a mess.
Have the first digit indicate the Continent and the next two digits
indicate the country ie,
+1 for North America
+2 for South America
+3 for Eurasia West of the Urrel Mountains
|
|-------- France 33
|-------- United Kingdom 44
|
Provincal/State Codes
|
|-------- England 2
|
Regional Codes
|--------- West Midlands
1
|
City Codes
|
|------------- Brimingham 1
|
District Codes
|
|-------------- Forest Hill 3
|-------- Wales 3
|-------- Scotland 4
|-------- Northern Ireland 5
+4 for Eurasia East of the Urrel Mountains
+5 for Africa
+6 for Austrialia
+7 Antartica
+8 International FreePhone Service
so as an example to call someone in Forest-Hill district of Brimingham
which is in the West Midlands England UK you would dial the number as
follows:
Euro UK England
West-Midlands Brimingham Forest-Hill ##local Number
you would dial (+3 44) - ( 2
1 1
3) xxxx-xxxx
Again that number would be (+344)-(211)-3xxxx-xxxx
Why not have standards internationally?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, we do have many international
telephone standards as devised over the years by the ITU, and to
some extent the numbering system is pretty standard. Overall, each
continent has a pretty distinctive set of numbers to be used for
its country codes. They are not organized quite as well as your
example I suppose, but they are reasonable in my opinion. PAT]
------------------------------
Subject: Alabama PSC Targets Slammer
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 18:28:43 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com
State targets California company for `slamming' customers
BY PHILLIP RAWLS
Associated Press Writer
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- A California-based company accused of
portraying itself as AT&T is being targeted by an Alabama campaign to
crack down on companies that switch consumers' long-distance service
without approval.
The Public Service Commission has scheduled a hearing July 17 for
Business Discount Plan to explain why the PSC shouldn't revoke its
license to sell long-distance service in Alabama.
PSC spokesman David Rountree said Wednesday the PSC has received 108
complaints this year -- mostly from small Alabama businesses -- that
their long-distance service was improperly switched to the California
company.
"People are calling us to say Business Discount Plan is representing
themselves as AT&T and offering big discounts," he said.
Officials at Business Discount Plan's headquarters in Long Beach,
Calif., did not return telephone calls seeking comment Wednesday. The
company received approval from the PSC in September 1996 to sell
long-distance service in Alabama.
Switching long-distance customers without their approval is a practice
known as "slamming," and it has been a problem in Alabama and
elsewhere since competition heated up in the long-distance phone
market.
The PSC has cracked down on several companies, but its strongest
action came in May, when it asked the attorney general to bring
criminal charges against Long Distance Services Inc. of Troy,
Mich.. The commission took the action after receiving complaints from
889 consumers about their service being switched without their
consent.
A marketing firm representing LDSI had used sweepstakes boxes set up
in restaurants and stores to get most of the company's more than 4,000
customers in Alabama.
Attorney General Bill Pryor said Wednesday he is still reviewing the
case and has not decided what to do.
Also in May, the Legislature passed a law to allow the PSC to fine
telecommunications companies up to $500 for each customer who has
service switched without approval.
The new state law, sponsored by Sen. Gerald Dial, D-Lineville, also
prohibits the use of contests or sweepstakes to get people to switch
phone providers.
In Connecticut, another California phone company has agreed to pay
$56,000 to settle similar charges.
National Telephone & Communications, Inc., based in Irvine, Calif.,
targeted more than 40 consumers in a yearlong statewide scam, Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal said Tuesday.
------------------------------
Subject: Telephone Workers March Against Privatization
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 18:33:20 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Telephone workers protest against planned privatization
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- Hundreds of telephone workers marched in
towns throughout Puerto Rico Wednesday to protest plans to sell off
the profitable state-owned utility.
The Independent Brotherhood of Telephone Workers threatened an
island-wide strike if Gov. Pedro Rossello refuses to abandon plans to
privatize the Puerto Rican Telephone Company. The company, the sole
provider of local telephone service for the island's 3.8 million
residents, earned more than $1 billion in revenues last year.
"We're going to take to the streets ... town by town," said union
president Annie Cruz. "We'll go to the beaches, the commercial
centers, the universities ... to make clear our opposition to this
sale."
She said the strike could begin later this month and could last
indefinitely.
Rossello announced the privatization plan in April. Immediately, union
officials and opposition legislators vowed to block the move, arguing
it would cut off a key source of government revenue in favor of
short-term gain.
Rossello plans to use revenue from the sale to cut the deficit and
fund a controversial health care program for millions of Puerto
Ricans. Already one million people benefit from the program, which
allows poor residents access to private hospitals.
Rossello's New Progressive Party controls both houses of the
legislature in this U.S. commonwealth.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 15:17:01 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Refiew: "Web Developer's Guide to JavaScript and VBScript"
BKWDGTJV.RVW 961219
"Web Developer's Guide to JavaScript and VBScript", Peter Aitken, 1996,
1-883577-97-7, U$39.99/C$55.99
%A Peter Aitken
%C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260
%D 1996
%G 1-883577-97-7
%I Coriolis
%O U$39.99/C$55.99 800-410-0192 +1-602-483-0192 fax: +1-602-483-0193
%P 416
%T "Web Developer's Guide to JavaScript and VBScript"
In the programming holy wars, it is written that scripts are for
people who can't handle programs. However pejoratively it may be
said, it is quite literally true, so the level of this book should
come as no surprise. Aitken does not assume any familiarity with
programming, but provides everything the reader will need to start
writing scripts.
Much more space (about three times as much) is given to JavaScript
than to VBScript. Aitken does seem to assume that anyone who wants to
use VBScript will already be familiar with Visual Basic itself, or VBA
(Visual Basic for Applications). He's probably correct.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKWDGTJV.RVW 961219
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 18:41:34 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: 1960s Bell System Brochure
1960s Bell System Brochure
Transcribed here for nostalgic purposes is a mid-1960's brochure on
"How to use your new Bell Telephone". I recently ran across this in my
papers. It came from my grandparents' house when we were cleaning up
some of their things after they had passed away.
It is 8.5 x 5 inches horizontal, when folded once. At the top of the
front cover is the inscription "How to use your new Bell Telephone".
All of the pictures are Black-and-White photographs, so I don't know
if the telephones pictured are white, ivory, beige, etc.
The front cover/panel has two pictures side-by-side. The left-hand
photo is a man with a 1950's business-man's hair style and attire,
i.e. a gray tweed-like suit-coat and striped tie. He is holding a
fountain pen in his hand, sitting at a desk, smiling, speaking on a
WECO-model 500 desk telephone. In the right-hand photo is (most
likely) his wife, standing up and smiling and speaking on a WECO-model
554 wall telephone. She is in early 1960's "June Cleaver / Harriet
Nelson / Donna Reed / etc." style attire. There are folding-shuttered-
panels just behind her, similar to what would divide the kitchen from
a dining room.
All of the photos of WECO telephones in this brochure are ROTARY DIAL,
with the telephone number "Area Code 311, 555-2368" printed on the
number card inside the dial.
When the top panel is folded up, the 'inside' of the brochure (8.5 x
10 inches) has the inscription "How to use your new Bell Telephone"
printed across the top. There is a large picture of a 500 deskset and
a 554 wall telephone. The 'instructions' now follow:
o To make a call on your new telephone, just lift the handset, wait
for the dial tone, then dial the number.
o Be certain of the number you are calling. If in doubt, consult your
directory.
o When dialing, be sure to turn the dial until your finger touches the
[metal dial]stop; then release.
o Don't mistake the numeral "one" for the letter "I", or the numeral
"zero" for the letter "O" when dialing.
o To be heard clearly, use a normal tone of voice and speak directly
into the mouthpiece of the handset.
o Your new telephone has a control which you can use to adjust the
volume of the telephone ring.
- With the Desk Set, turn the volume control wheel, located on the
underside of the telephone, in the direction of the arrow, to increase
[ringing] volume.
- With the Wall Set, move the volume control lever, located on the
bottom of the telephone, to the left to obtain maximum [ringing] volume.
o If your area has Direct Distance Dialing, use the prefix codes and
Area Code (where required) for the location you are calling if it is
outside your own area. Area Codes are listed in your telephone directory.
[By prefix codes, it is meant the access prefix for DDD, such as 1+,
112+, or similar codes, from such locations which have required them]
o To help others call you, tell them your Area Code.
o If your telephone ever needs servicing, call your Bell Telephone
Company Repair Service.
[That's back when "The Telephone Company" owned the CPE, and wanted
ONLY telco-supplied CPE connected to your loop, unless there were VERY
special exceptions]
o To clean your new telephone, should cleaning become necessary, simply
use a damp cloth and mild soap. Detergents, chemically treated cloths,
or harsh cleaning agents are not recommended.
[Since WECO/NECO made these telephones better than military tanks, these
phones probably would survive an atomic blast without a scratch on them.
But the brochure still indicated not to use harsh cleaning agents, etc.]
[The flip-side of this brochure has the inscription:
OTHER BELL-SYSTEM PRODUCTS TO MAKE YOUR HOME MORE ENJOYABLE
There are four photographs, all black and white, next to a description]:
The BELL-CHIME ringer calls you to the phone musically, with a melodic
chime. Comes in velvety gold or soft ivory to complement any decor. It
can also be set for the familiar telephone ring, or to ring loudly when
you plan to be outdoors but near the house.
Elegant looking PRINCESS (R) telephone fits most anywhere, lights up for
easy dialing. This compact, oval-shaped telephone is available in a
range of decorator colors. It's little, it's lovely, it lights!
PANEL-PHONES represent the forward look in built-ins! Space-saving
feature makes it ideal for kitchens. Available in two models with a
brushed aluminum or copper finish.
[The picture of the panel phone indicates the ringer's volume control
as a small clear plastic knob, below the dial. The handset is on a
straight cord that RETRACTS into the base, similar to power cords on
vacuum cleaners and other similar appliances]
Fully-transistorized HOME INTERPHONE communications equipment makes it
easy to talk between telephones in a home. Door answering feature
permits conversations with persons ringing doorbell. If desired,
a calling party may be put on "hold" while using interphone to answer
door or talk to another part of the house.
[The picture is that of a 554 wall telephone, but with the clear plastic
'hold' knob on the top, and the rotating (swivel) clear plastic knob for
residential 2-line situations. There is a rectangular speaker mounted
next to the 554 wall unit]
[the OLD pre-1970's Bell System logo is then indicated at the bottom.
Next to it is the following text]:
These Desk and Wall telephones are products of BELL SYSTEM teamwork ...
Developed by BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES
Manufactured by WESTERN ELECTRIC
Brought to you as a service, by your BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
[At the bottom right hand corner is the code GN-2410 and date 1-65]
-------------
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not think panel telephones were
ever very popular or widely accepted. The reason was a hole had to be
cut in the wall of the room where the panel phone would be mounted. All
the innards were actually inside the wall of your house with the dial
mounted flush against the wall. As Mark pointed out, the cord to the
receiver was spring-loaded much like the cords on a switchboard and
the weight inside would pull the cord back in -- retract it -- autom-
matically whenever the phone user replaced the receiver. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #173
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 7 08:49:04 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA24316; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 08:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 08:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199707071249.IAA24316@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #174
TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jul 97 08:49:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 174
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Implementing 911 in a Rural State (oldbear@arctos.com)
Voice Mail That Works *Well* Under NT; Rant Against WinFax (Garry W)
California Company Fined for Connecticut Slamming (Tad Cook)
Court Reject FCC Payphone Compensation Rates (Tad Cook)
Vertical Service Codes -- ITU Standardization? (Mark J. Cuccia)
Seeking Rolm User Group (Pat Barrett)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 12:32:56 -0400
From: The Old Bear <oldbear@arctos.com>
Subject: Implementing 911 in a Rural State
Where the Streets Have No Names
-------------------------------
Enhanced-911 addressing creates statewide confusion in Maine
by
ANNALIESE HOOD
Contributing Writer of The Maine Times
Maine's new statewide Enhanced-911 system, authorities agree, is a
technological necessity, one that will save lives through faster and
more accurate processing of emergency calls. But in the short run,
the E-911 startup is creating a serious headache -- a statewide
changing of addresses, often not only once, but twice, thanks to a
lack of coordination between town offices and the post office.
The goal of E-911 is simple: For any fire, ambulance or police
emergency call, the address and telephone number of the caller will
appear on a computer screen from where the services will be
dispatched. And most Mainers expect the new system to operate like
"Emergency 911," the television show.
But getting all those addresses onto the computer screen does not make
for good television drama. It involves the changing of old habits and
the input of towns, the Postal Service, the Office of Geographical
Information Systems and the Emergency Services Communications Bureau.
When the tiny town of Mt. Chase (population 254) implements its
changes, addresses such as RR 1, Box 164, Patten, 04765 will become 22
Owlsboro Road, Mt. Chase, 04765. Most -- but not all -- rural route
addresses in Maine will be replaced with street names. Streets,
location numbers and even delivery routes will be changed so that
dispatchers can find people and an entire town can be served out of
one post office.
In recent years, some road names have already been changed; E-911 may
change them again. The Stockholm Road in Conner was changed because
it no longer goes to Stockholm. Route 2 in Island Falls has also been
known as Main Street because it passes through the center of town; one
proposal calls for a return to its historical name, the Pine Tree
Road, because that's what the adjoining town of Crystal calls it.
Predictably, many people are not pleased with the changes. Houlton
has a Franklin Street, Franklin Avenue and Franklin Court. It will
have just one Franklin when E-911 is complete. Tim Humphrey lives on
one of the Franklins, and he sees no reason to change the names. "We
all know where the streets are," he said. But Houlton Town Manager
Allan Bean says the names have resulted in problems for public safety
response. "You can see fire, but you cannot see a heart attack," Bean
said. "People have even given their addresses incorrectly."
Thirty roads were recently renamed in Yarmouth, and the entire town
was renumbered. "You were lucky if you kept your number," said Public
Works Director Bill Shane. "It used to be that No. 8 was 80 feet in
on one street and 250 feet in on another. Now No. 8 is always 80-odd
feet in."
Yarmouth followed recommendations from the Emergency Services
Communications Bureau to the letter, sending out 3,500 new addresses
on Feb. 1. Since then, only half of the town's residents have posted
the new numbers. There is nothing in the law yet to prompt
compliance.
Shane said that if he had to do the address change project over again,
he would have eliminated the numbers 13, 69 and 666. "Nobody wanted
them," he said. "People felt they would inhibit the resale value of
their homes." Shane said he also would have sent out notices earlier.
It doesn't matter what the particular annoyances are for each town
with regard to the E-911 changes, said Jim Odgers, planning board
chairman in island Falls. "We've got to do it," Odgers said. "Fifty
years from now, no one will even know. Future generations will only
know it as it is."
Of the 492 organized municipalities preparing for E-911, less than a
fourth -- 107 towns and cities -- have completed the process, said
Maria Jacques, support services coordinator for the Emergency Services
Communications Bureau in Augusta. The communities that have switched
are the larger ones=C4 those which have completed the change represent
about 50 percent of the state's population.
Some cities, such as Waterville, have hired people to readdress and
complete the process. Most towns are doing it through volunteer help.
"The very smallest towns are often volunteered-out," Jacques said.
"We are very impressed with the volunteer effort -- the dedication to
stick with this process through a lot of frustration is remarkable."
They stick with it because most Mainers seem to believe in E-911's
ability to save lives. Nevertheless, the timing of the new system
brings new complications to rural living. The U.S. Postal Service has
added to the confusion by making address changes on its own timetable,
often renumbering rural routes before towns assign street addresses.
Towns such as Sidney, Livermore Falls and West Gardiner had their
delivery addresses changed, only to have them changed again by E-911.
According to Paul Shinay, manager of address systems in Maine, the
Postal Service reviews routes annually. A major overhaul that began
in late 1994 was initiated "when a carrier died up north,"he said.
When supervisors looked at the carrier's route, they discovered he had
been delivering to five or six towns. They decided to consolidate and
realign the routes. Shinay said only minor changes had been planned,
but once the process began, it snowballed -- each small change
affected another route.
"The Postal Service is a business," Shinay said. "And these are
business decisions. Operationally, we have to adjust regarding safety
patterns and the growth of towns. When a town is close to reconciling
their 911 changes, we will accommodate them and wait."
The towns of Parsonsfield and Porter are examples of the Postal
Service's willingness to work with E-911 agencies, Shinay said. "We
would have adjusted [addresses] on June 7, but both towns have
committed to having all of their re-addressing completed by Sept. 1.
So we'll wait, but if a town can't commit, we must move on and make
our changes."
What all this means for vast Aroostook County is anyone's guess.
David Cyr, county public works Director, is part of the team that
oversees E-911 Adjustments for the 108 unorganized townships there.
At a recent meeting in Benedicta, he explained to a handful of
residents -- the biggest turnout of four informational meetings --
that "we have an opportunity to start with a clean slate. "
But a clean slate doesn't mean everyone will get treated the same.
Aroostook County Sheriff Ted St. Pierre, a member of the unorganized
territory committee, said "every lot will have a number, whether
someone lives there, or a house is there or not."
Cyr said the committee has finished only four unorganized townships
and must look at the remaining 104, some of which have no residents
and require no action.
With 15,000 people in the unorganized territories, not every resident
or every parcel will be handled the same way, said the state's Maria
Jacques. "Two or three pilot projects have been done, but we're not
sure yet what the process will be," she said.
Here's an example of what Aroostook County is up against: Cyr said
Cross Lake, another unorganized township, has its mail delivered
through three post offices -- Stockholm, Fort Kent Mills, and
Sinclair. Fort Kent Mills, however, says it doesn't deliver to Cross
Lake residents, but Fort Kent and Stockholm do. Fort Kent Postmaster
Manzer Belanger said that a rural carrier from New Sweden delivers in
Stockholm, and there were some changes on June 7, but he doesn't know
what they were; he suggested calling New Sweden.
The New Sweden postal clerk said that part of the route goes through
Stockholm, not New Sweden. Linda Woods, officer-in-charge at
Stockholm, said she delivers to some 20 residents of Cross Lake. She
said changes are coming, but she had no idea what they are, or whether
they will affect Cross Lake.
And what about coordinating phone numbers with new address changes?
Who will be responsible for keeping that ever-changing information
updated? Some local officials say it will be done locally. Others
say the telephone companies seem to be the most likely overseers.
Maria Jacques said the telephone service provider for E-911 hasn't
been selected yet, and that a decision should be made within five
months; an earlier move to select Nynex was subsequently overturned.
Mt. Chase officials say they will be ready for E-911 in the fall.
Houlton is looking at startup at the beginning of 1998, while Island
Falls is hoping for the summer of 1998. Aroostook County's
unorganized territories have two more years.
Jacques said Lincoln County will probably be the first to operate
completely under enhanced 911, putting Maine one step ahead of Vermont
and West Virginia -- the only two states with less 911 coverage.
Jacques said 85 percent of states have some type of 911 coverage, and
that 95 percent of the coverage is Enhanced-911.
Some Maine towns are not required to do anything. But as Jacques put
it, "Garbage in, garbage out." The garbage, in this case, is the state
of many rural address systems.
"The system only will function as well as the quality of its
information," Jacques said. "Inaccurate addresses do not help save
lives. We liken it to an onion -- the more you peel it back, the more
you cry. I know we'll be addressing forever."
------------------------------
From: gnews2@ithaca.com (Garry W)
Subject: Voice Mail That Works *Well* Under NT; Rant Against WinFax
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 02:58:01 GMT
Organization: West Coast Online's News Server - Not responsible for content
This is a rant.
@&!^#%! I have a $4000 PC here, the best non-commercial voice mail
software I can apparently buy, a respectable dedicated modem for doing
the voice mail, and it works lousy, I've already researched this
problem for six months, and I am about to give up and buy a cheap
answering machine at the drugstore. RRrargh!
My question for the group is: is there any possibly-brand-new
hardware/software combination that does good, robust voice mail under
NT? I have been through two brands of hardware and about nine brands
of software to no avail. I just want to do a reliable, good home
answering machine. I'm willing to spend up to $300.
Half the "Fax/Voice mail" packages support voice mail as pure
marketing hype. Half the remainder don't support essential functions,
for example retrieving a message from a remote phone. Most of the rest
never heard of NT and do not work at all under NT (one wonders if they
work at all under Windows...). And the one that remains, Winfax Pro,
which I bought, turns out to be unreliable and flakey.
I know, I know, "good/robust" is not an interesting/commercially
viable concept in the modern home computer world. I can put up with
the latest-and-greatest MS Word crashing on me. But unfortunately I
can't put up with losing voice messages or being unable to understand
them.
I *could* go for a commercial telephony package. The lowest level
telephony hardware I can find is about $500, used. Unclear what the
software would cost.
I wish I had kept notes through the six months about what was
specifically was nonfunctional in each package, so I share with
you. Unfortunately, I didn't; I didn't think this was going to be this
hard.
I had wanted to this on my computer rather than the $39 drugstore machine so
that:
- I could delete messages individually
- The voice quality would be high
- I could save more than a few minutes' of messages
- I could save messages *forever*
- maybe even I could receive a Fax when I wasn't home.
Doesn't seem so hard.
Suggestions? Other than shooting myself/Bill Gates/etc?
The current setup is a Cardinal "33.6 Speakerphone" modem with Winfax
Pro. The important Winfax problems are that a) the software jams hard
every few days, requiring a reboot, b) people get cut off mid-word,
and c) the voice quality is lousy. Less critically, people who just
hang up have a long dose of silence recorded anyhow, and
remote-retrieval is "hard of hearing". (The WinFax voice-quality and
silence-detection controls allow one to make the behaviour worse but
not better.)
The Cardinal I bought because it was mentioned around here that the
voice quality was "good", and because my USR Sportster was hopeless
for voice mail. As mentioned around here.
Garry
------------------------------
Subject: California Company Fined for Connecticut Slamming
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 11:28:58 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
California long-distance company to pay fine for slamming Connecticut
consumers
BY CRISTINA C. BREEN
Associated Press Writer
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- A California-based phone company discovered
that dialing for dollars in Connecticut can be a costly venture when
long-distance service is switched without customers' knowledge.
National Telephone & Communications, Inc., based in Irvine, Calif.,
will pay $56,000 to settle charges that it targeted more than 40
consumers in a yearlong, statewide slam, Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal said Tuesday.
NTC employees forged consumers' signatures on forms to switch their
service to NTC, Blumenthal said.
Some of the consumers affected by the slam may have been contacted by
phone before the switch was made, but some appeared to be "pulled out
of a hat," said Mark A. Shiffrin, commissioner of the Department of
Consumer Protection.
Nearly a third of the consumers targeted in the slam had Asian and
Hispanic surnames, Shiffrin said.
The company will have to refund consumers affected by the slam for all
long-distance phone charges and must pay each consumer at least $100
in restitution. In addition, the company will pay the state $50,000 as
part of the agreement.
The state is also forcing the company to take extra steps before
switching a consumer's service.
The carrier change will have to be verified by an employee in the
NTC's corporate office. It will later have to be verified again by an
independent third party, and be confirmed by the customer in writing.
"We are going to be very vigilant in looking for slam scams, as there
is more competition" in the long-distance telephone industry, Shiffrin
said.
Blumenthal called the slam "blatant, flagrant, and clearly a violation
of the law."
Shiffrin and Blumenthal said phone scamming is becoming more common,
as deregulation in the telephone industry places an increasing number
of competitors into the marketplace.
Blumenthal warned consumers to beware of callers pitching new
long-distance services. He said some "slam artists" send bills with
logos and print similar to those of large, nationally-known
long-distance companies.
Any consumers who are currently under NTC service or believe they are
the victims of a long-distance slam should contact the DCP or the
Attorney General's office.
------------------------------
Subject: Court Reject FCC Payphone Compensation Rates
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 12:10:51 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Court tells government to rewrite phone compensation rates
BY JEANNINE AVERSA
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected a
government rule requiring long-distance companies to pay owners of pay
phones millions of dollars more for such services as toll-free and
access-code calls.
But the court upheld the Federal Communications Commission's authority
to set rates for local pay phone calls.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the
FCC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining financial
compensation to pay phone owners for certain types of calls.
The court sent the rules back to the FCC, which will rewrite them, FCC
attorneys said. Because the FCC will get a second chance to write the
rules, it is unclear how pay phone customers ultimately will be
affected.
A 1996 telecommunications law directed the FCC to require AT&T, MCI,
Sprint and other companies that supply service to pay phones not only
to compensate independent pay phone owners -- as they have done for
years -- but also local telephone companies that own phones. The FCC
set the compensation rate.
The law also instructed the FCC to ensure that pay phone owners are
"fairly compensated for each and every intrastate and interstate
call."
Such calls include local coin calls, toll-free calls and so-called
access code calls -- when a caller dials an 11-digit code to reach his
or her preferred long-distance company, thus bypassing the company
that is providing service to the phone.
The court rejected the way the FCC figured compensation for toll-free
and access code calls. The FCC determined the compensation by
multiplying the average number of such calls to be compensated each
month from pay phones by 35 cents -- the price of local calls in the
majority of states that have deregulated local pay phone rates.
"The FCC failed to respond to any of the data showing that the costs
of different types of pay phone calls are not similar," the court
said. "Rather, the FCC's order cavalierly proclaims that the costs of
local coin calls versus 800 and access-code calls are `similar'
without even acknowledging any of the contrary data," the court added.
The court's action on Tuesday was based on 20 consolidated cases
against the FCC's pay phone rules, including suits filed by AT&T, MCI
and Sprint. They had no immediate comment.
State regulatory commissions and the National Association of the State
Utility Consumer Advocates challenged the FCC's authority to
deregulate rates for local pay phone calls.
"We hold that the statute unambiguously grants the commission
authority to regulate the rates for local coin calls," the court said.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 17:31:54 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Vertical Service Codes -- ITU Standardization?
Regarding my earlier posts on Mexico's Vertical Service Codes, I have
received email from several people, in the UK, in New Zealand and in
France, who commented that the numericals and instructions are very
similar or even identical to what they use for their country's telco
vertical services, or cellular/GSM vertial services. Even one U.S.
cellular company did use these very same codes for its vertical
services.
Some mentioned that _generically_, you activate a service/feature with
*+code+(*+number)+# and de-activate a service/feature with #+code+#.
DTMF is required, at least for the */#. Also, the (3-way and
call-waiting) "FLASH" _always_ give a recall-dialtone, and the
'bridging' or 'switch-over' or 'drop' digit is dialed (I don't know if
this digit must be DTMF'd only, or if it can be dialpulsed) in the UK
and in Mexico. From a cellular, at the "SEND" button is always
required.
Many who emailed me seem to think that the ITU has a standard for
vertical services codes and functions/features. One person mentioned
E.132, "Standardization of Elements of Control Procedures for
Supplementary Telephone Service".
Unfortunately, as we all know, the ITU has 'shut off' web-access to
their documents unless one has a subscription (VERY expensive) to a
username/password! :(
It _would_ be nice to see the actual ITU recommended master list of
vertical service codes!
Thank you to all who emailed me with comments, corrections,
clarifications, etc.
-------------
Western-Electric Quality, Planned UN-obsolescence
THE BELL SYSTEM:
AT&T / Long-Lines / Bell-Labs / Western-Electric (including Teletype
Corp.) / and your local operating Bell Telephone Company- including:
Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England Telephone (CT), Bell Canada
(PQ/ON, and subsidiary local telcos in the eastern Provinces and parts
of the Northern Territories; Northern-Electric/Bell-Northern-Research)
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
From: Pat Barrett <pbarrett@aerotek.com>
Subject: Seeking Rolm User Group
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 14:27:03 -0400
Organization: Aerotek, Inc.
Reply-To: pbarrett@aerotek.com
I am trying to find any user groups for ROLM PBX's. I am in charge of
staffing a position for a couple of Rolm Techs and have questions
regarding the PBX. I was hoping a user group could help me out.
Pat Barrett
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #174
******************************
From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Jul 7 09:15:34 1997
Return-Path: <editor@telecom-digest.org>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA25785; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 09:15:34 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 09:15:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: editor@telecom-digest.org
Message-Id: <199707071315.JAA25785@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #175
TELECOM Digest Mon, 7 Jul 97 09:15:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 175
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
765 is Mandatory in Central Indiana (Tad Cook)
Pac Bell to Stop Mailing Unsolicited Gold MasterCards (Tad Cook)
US West Asks for Tough Slamming Rules (Tad Cook)
Re: IRS Raids a Cypherpunk (Bradley Ward Allen)
Re: "Out of Area" When Will it End? (Bradley Ward Allen)
Re: ESS Computer Architecture? (Jan van der Meer)
Re: US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up" (Danny Burstein)
Re: History of DDD and STD (Mark J. Cuccia)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 765 is Mandatory in Central Indiana
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1997 22:59:51 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
New Area Code Becomes Effective in Central Indiana
BY MARY FRANCIS, THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR AND NEWS
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jun. 28--Mandatory dialing for the new 765 area code for parts of
central Indiana took effect today, despite a last-ditch effort by a
cellular phone company to delay the switch.
The optional-dialing period for the new 765 area code began Feb. 1 and
ended today. Effective today, callers to certain areas surrounding
metro Indianapolis won't get through unless they use the 765 area
code; they will get a recording telling them to use the new area code.
Westel-Indianapolis Co., operating under the name of Cellular One,
filed an emergency petition Thursday with the Indiana Utility
Regulatory Commission. The petition sought to suspend today's start
of mandatory dialing for 765 and extend the optional use of the 317
area code.
The commission has not yet ruled on the merits of the case, but on
Friday refused to suspend the start of new dialing rules, said Cheryl
Bickel, public information director for the IURC.
According to the IURC, Cellular One claimed that Ameritech Indiana
would require local callers to dial 11 digits (1 plus the area code)
to reach cellular customers in the other area code, even if the calls
aren't considered long distance. Land-based phone customers who make
the same calls would have to dial just 10 digits.
Joe DeLuca, a Cellular One spokesman, said he had not yet received a
copy of the IURC ruling and declined to comment on it.
But Dennis McCabe, spokesman for Ameritech in Indiana, said Ameritech
does not have different rules for the cellular customers.
For all callers, if the call is considered long distance, callers must
dial 1 plus the area code, he said. However, if the call is not long
distance, but is in a different area code, callers dial just the area
code plus the number.
A good example is a call between Zionsville (317) and Lebanon
(765). It's not subject to long distance charges, but callers still
need to dial the area code to get through, McCabe said.
"We're trying to keep it simple. If customers see the 1, it's long
distance," he said.
Indianapolis and most of the adjacent counties will still be in the
317 area code. The change is necessary because central Indiana is
running out of phone numbers with the demand for cell phones, faxes,
beepers and other telecommunication devices.
------------------------------
Subject: Pac Bell to Stop Mailing Unsolicited Gold MasterCards
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1997 23:03:05 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Telephone company to stop mailing credit cards
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Pacific Bell has said it will stop sending
credit cards to Californians amid customer complaints and accusations
that the program is illegal.
The telephone company's decision did not, however, come in time to
keep 300,000 customers from receiving notice that their calling cards
would be replaced with Gold MasterCards with varying credit limits.
The customers were told no action is needed to convert their cards,
which already have been mailed. A toll-free number was provided for
declining the card, as well as a "P.S." saying the recipient would
receive the credit card "if we don't hear from you by July 8, 1997."
Pacific Bell spokeswoman Mary Hancock said the Pacific Bell Savings
Gold MasterCards can still be activated. She suggested that unhappy
customers cut up their credit cards in little pieces.
"We pledged that we will never do anything like this again," Hancock
said. "We will never be mailing cards like this to consumers."
The decision Thursday was made partly in response to a {San Francisco
Examiner} article that disclosed concerns about the issuing of the
cards.
PacBell and its issuing bank, Household Bank of Salinas, said thieves
could not fraudulently use the cards without activation. To be
activated, customers must call PacBell and provide personal
information, including their Social Security number.
Hancock said that explanation was buried in PacBell's four-page letter
sent to customers.
"Protecting our brand image and our good name is the most important
thing for us," Hancock said. "It's more important than any revenue we
could get from a program like this."
The issuing of the cards without consent appeared to be a violation of
a 1971 California consumer-protection law passed in response to
mailings of unrequested credit cards. The law says no credit card can
be issued except in response to a specific request or as a renewal or
substitution.
Household and PacBell contended that the credit cards were legal
because they replaced existing calling cards, which they say is a kind
of credit card.
Federal Trade Commission regional director Jeff Klurfeld said mailing
the credit cards is legal.
"The offer is being made to people who are already card holders and
they are basically being given a card with expanded coverage,"
Klurfeld said.
Gail Hillebrandof of the West Coast office of Consumers Union disagreed.
"It appears it's a violation of law, and in any case, it's bad public
policy to send people credit cards they haven't asked for," she said.
Household Bank officials said their program is legal because AT&T is
working on a similar plan. However, AT&T spokesman Mitch Montagna said
his company's credit card promotion won't be available in California.
------------------------------
Subject: US West Asks for Tough Slamming Rules
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 1997 02:18:02 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
US West Asks FCC to Adopt Tough Rules on `Slamming'
BY MELINDA NORRIS, OMAHA WORLD-HERALD, NEB.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
June 30--US West Communications Group asked the Federal Communications
Commission Monday to establish fines and penalties for companies that
repeatedly switch consumers' long-distance telephone service without
their permission.
The FCC says such unauthorized switching, known in the industry as
"slamming," generates the most telephone-related complaints to the
agency. The FCC says such complaints account for 34.4 percent of all
written correspondence to the agency.
Phone users usually don't discover they were slammed until they get
their phone bill and it's from a different company. In the interim,
they may notice a loss of some service features, lower quality service
or higher rates, the FCC has said.
US West is asking the FCC to create rules enforcing the anti-slamming
provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the provision,
companies cited by the FCC for slamming must reimburse a customer's
chosen long-distance carrier for any revenue collected from the
switch.
US West said that because no rules enforce the provision, companies
continue to keep the revenue, which is an incentive to keep slamming
consumers.
US West also is asking the federal agency to impose fines for the
biggest offenders.
US West's proposal involves:
-- Imposing fines of $100 per incident against companies when more
than 5 percent of their new customers complain they were slammed. The
fine would be imposed for every complaint exceeding the 5 percent
threshold. That threshold would be reduced to 4 percent after one
year; 3 percent after two years; and 2 percent after three years.
-- Imposing fines of $250 per incident against companies when more
than 10 percent of their new customers complain they were slammed. The
fine would apply to complaints exceeding the 10 percent
threshold. That threshold would be reduced to 8 percent after one
year; 6 percent after two years; and 4 percent after three years.
Recently, the FCC has imposed a total of $1.7 billion in fines on 13
telecommunication companies for slamming and slamming-related
offenses.
US West also is calling for stricter verification requirements for
companies that are the targets of frequent consumer complaints.
Strict verification of the switch by the consumer is necessary because
many phone customers are tricked into switching, U S West
said. Authorization for changing long-distance carriers is often
hidden in the fine print of contest entries and other promotional
gimmicks that are mailed to homes or handed out at public events.
US West said that if the FCC declines to impose stricter verification
guidelines, it will ask the federal agency for permission to impose
its own guidelines within its 14-state market area.
US West said slamming complaints from throughout its region have
increased almost 150 percent, from an average 9,473 per month in 1994
to a current average monthly rate of 23,244. The Baby Bell does not
have a state-bystate breakdown of slamming complaints.
US West is a regional Bell operating company that provides local
telephone service, but intends to offer long-distance service.
IF YOU'VE BEEN SLAMMED: Consumers who think they are victims of slamming
should:
Verify their long-distance carrier by placing a phone call to a free
automated operator who will tell you what company services the phone
you are using. The number is (700) 555-4141.
Contact US West at (800) 922-1879.
Write the Federal Communications Commission with a full description of
the incident, including the names of the phone companies and employees
involved. The address is:
FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Consumer Complaints, Mail Stop 1600A2,
Washington D.C., 20554
(c) 1997, Omaha World-Herald, Neb. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Business News.
------------------------------
From: ulmo@panix.com (Bradley Ward Allen)
Subject: Re: IRS Raids a Cypherpunk
Date: 06 Jul 1997 17:50:01 -0400
Organization: panix
My first reaction to this without further information is that the
government is doing its job, but that one quick read of the article
doesn't show whether they did their job right or not, especially with
respect to adhering to the "would-be-assasin"'s rights.
But, without that further information, I must prod, "what's wrong?"
I suppose nothing at first glance, but it is worthwhile reporting for
the record, so that if something *does* happen interesting (right or
wrong or whatever) that we have the prior information. I wish you
could mark it "for the record ..." in that case ... and then I'd be
perfectly happy :) OTOH if I missed something going on wrong, then
marking that would be nice, such as "it seems as though ..." or is
supposition that dangerous? If it's that dangerous, then avoiding
that danger may be allowing people like me to inadvertantly supress
spreading your information for lack of interest and/or categorization.
Perhaps the added danger of saying "it seems as though ..." is more
useful than you think. Or perhaps I'm just being mislead somehow, or
ignorant.
In article <telecom17.83.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.COM> wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:39:21 -0500
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> Subject: IRS raids a cypherpunk
> [I've attached some excerpts from the article. Check
> out the URL below for the whole thing. --Declan]
> ********
> http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,800,00.html
> The Netly News Network
> April 3, 1997
> IRS raids a cypherpunk
> by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
>
> Jim Bell's first mistake was publishing an essay describing how
> disgruntled citizens could kill off Federal government agents by using
[...]
My comment: did he show intent? Without that ... yes, I know, it
could be implied. However, let's look at it like this: someone is
holding up a big sign in front of your house that says "This is how I
can kill you." I think you'd feel in your rights to investigate the
person who is holding up such a sign. If you find them to be your
friend or even not your enemy, and otherwise not threatening you, then
you can relax to the more odd situation of sitting there, being
bothered by the sign and wondering what it's all about, but not really
needing to do anything except work to get it removed. OTOH, if you
find them to be attempting to do something to you, you should get them
and the sign removed post-haste. Finally, if you cannot figure out
whether they are there to cause hurt to you or not, this is where it
gets fuzzy: what should you do and what does the law allow you to do?
Do we get the same rights as the IRS? I would hope so.
------------------------------
From: ulmo@panix.com (Bradley Ward Allen)
Subject: Re: "Out of Area" When Will it End?
Date: 06 Jul 1997 19:20:58 -0400
Organization: panix
Unfortunately FCC recently allowed even SS7 carrying systems, for
those customers who have their own equipment (think PBX behind DS1),
they aren't required to pass which phone number or cooperate in the
CID at all, and the FCC allowed the local carrier to mark these as OOA
(out of area) (rather than what they used to do, use some main base
number, which often got correlated with a name within NYNEX)!!!!
Now, add to the confusion things like international calls, calls where
CID is one way (Omnipoint cellular in NYC) ... oh god it gets crazy!
Systems that aren't internally SS7 but choose to adhere to all or part
of CID passing anyway ...
My best suggestion is to get some cheap device which directs all "OOA"
calls immediately to an answering machine seperate from other calls,
something like "Since we are unavailable, please leave a message
stating where you are calling from, your time, your number, your name,
what this is regarding, and your address if applicable." That will
end a lot of confusion and trouble. The "we" is referring to the
calling party, and "unavailable" refers to a synonym used for "out of
area" that many of my phones use (my Audiovox says "UnA"). So, it is
plainly truthful and yet makes the caller think you're not referring
to their calling settings -- avoiding the disgruntled response that
that knowledge brings in many callers.
What *I* want to know is where such devices exist, how, how much.
I want one!!! For my BANM cell phone too (sigh).
In article <telecom17.164.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Bruce James Robert
Linley <linley@netcom.com> wrote:
> Forgive a stupid question, but when will caller ID be fully
> implemented in the US? I thought the FCC mandated full compliance by
> now, yet I get tons of telemarketers who read as "out of area" on my
> CID box. I think they're hiding behind outdated equipment deliberately
> to avoid identifying themselves. So, when will the day come that
> everyone either sends CID, deliberately chooses to anonymize
> themselves, or must get off the telephone system?
------------------------------
From: Jan van der Meer <etmjvdm@etm.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: ESS Computer Architecture?
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 14:26:55 +0200
Organization: Ericsson Telecom bv, Rijen, the Netherlands
I considered this an interesting subject, so I kept the thread around
a bit. Lets see if we can expand the scope to e.g. an Ericsson
telecom switch.
In article <telecom17.146.3@telecom-digest.org>, Lisa Hancock
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> I'm a business application computer programmer (COBOL, BASIC, etc.)
> and I always wondered what it was like to program Electronic Switching
> Systems. I've seen articles describing the logical organization of
> different ESS components, but nothing describing the programming
> language itself that they use. Could anyone answer the following
> questions?
The Ericsson AXE10 switch main computers are programmed in PLEX which
is a proprietary language. I'll just give an example here;
-------start of AXE10 code example---------------------------------
DOCUMENT SomeProgramName;
! Comments are preceeded by an exlamation mark
! Could be a good idea to describe here what the thing is doing
DECLARE;
! variable stuff
GLOBAL NSYMB OutSideParameter (32768); ! Indicate type and max.here
! actual value is filled in
! during application building
NSYMB InSideParameter 12 ; ! Constant declaration
RECORD RecordName; ! Records are nice to have
SYMBOL VARIABLE VarName1 = (IDLE,BUSY,WHATEVER);
! In telecom we use records
! e.g. for trunk or line states
! so a sort of enum is
available
VARIABLE SubNumber(10) 4 ; ! This one can store 10-digits
VARIABLE SigType 16 ; ! Takes 16-bits
VARIABLE VarName2 16 ; ! For example below
END RECORD;
POINTER RecPoint(RecordName); ! Declares the pointer to the
record
! Outside of the record variable declaration is similar, the example
above
! shows a persistent declaration. It is also possible to declare
temporay ones,
! tag names to bits or groups of bits like:
STRUCTURE VarName2 =
1 TopLevel 4, ! First 4 bits can be addressed with 'TopLevel'
name
2 Demo1 2,
2 Demo2 2, ! split them again, so 'Demo2' is inside
'TopLevel'
1 Rest 12; ! The last 12 bits so it still fits in
'VarName2'
! as decalred in the record above
END DECLARE; ! end of data part
PROGRAM; ! Here the real(demo) code starts
PLEX;
ENTER StartThing WITH ! Here we receive a message from some other
RecPoint, ! process, the first thing is normally the
SigType; ! pointer. Here we load a value in the record.
IF SigType = InSideParameter THEN
SEND SomeMessage REFERENCE
Destination WITH
RecPoint,
VarName2;
ELSE
DO SomeSubRoutine;
FI;
EXIT; ! Give control back to the scheduler.
! I do not want to expand more, the langauge has capabilities like
! CASE...WHEN...OTHERWISE...ESAC, possibilities to handle timers
! which is crucial for telecom. Even GOTO is available, and quite
! often used for error and exception handling.
END PROGRAM;
--------------end of AXE10 code example------------------
> 1) What does the basic instruction set of an ESS look like? (This
> would be equivalent to the Assembler language for the machine -- the
> most basic programmable instructions.) I would assume they have the
> usual LOAD, STORE, ADD computer instructions, but do they have
> specialized instructions for call handling? That is, somehow the
> switch has to be programmed to send out ringing current to the called
> party, and a ringing signal to the calling party. ?
In AXE10 ringing, or more in general communication to users/telephone
sets and other switches, are handled by distributed processors. These
have a special instruction set aimed to the hardware they are
controlling. So the main computers send messages, similar to the
example above, to the hardware controlling processors. They will then
handle the hardware, and e.g. handle the actual ringing timing. Detect
the off-hook (timing as well) and then inform the main computers with
a message where the pointer would indicate e.g. the subscriber line.
> Is this instruction
> set unique to an ESS, or is it similar to other computers ?
In the case of AXE10 this is unique as far as the main computers are
concerned. Also the distributed processors have a unique instruction
set aimed to their task (hardware control and line scanning). There
exists now a number of them based on general purpose microprocessors.
Used in cases where we want to use C/C++ e.g. to handle TCP/IP.
Jan van der Meer,Ericsson Telecom, Intelligent Networks Application Lab.
Phone: +31 1612 49422 (ECN 834 9422) Fax:+31 1612 49699 (ECN 834
9699)
Address: P.O.BOX 8 ;5120AA Rijen ; the Netherlands.
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein)
Subject: Re: US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up"
Date: 6 Jul 1997 20:57:49 -0400
Organization: mostly unorganized
In <telecom17.172.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu> tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
> U S West settles suit for $8 million
> DENVER (AP) -- The cellular telephone arm of U S West has agreed to
> pay $8 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over its billing
> practices.
[snip]
> The lawsuit, settled Thursday, claimed U S West's NewVector Group
> didn't properly disclose its practice of calculating phone charges by
> rounding up to full minutes of use.
[snip]
I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm uncomfortable with this
round of lawsuits against the telcos in this regard.
"Rounding up" is the standard practice in pretty much every business
endeavor. If, for example, you mail something that weighs 4.1 ounces,
you pay for 5 ounces. If you send something via Fedex that weighs 7.05
pounds, you pay for 8. This is quite well understood.
So to me, at least, this is the common way of doing things and should
not create a legal liability for the telcos.
On the other hand, certain of their practices, i.e. the cellular
companies that charge for airtime while waiting for the person to
answer, or the ones that charge airtime for busy/unaswered calls,
_are_ excpetional and they (the telcos) should be wrung by the neck
until they come clean on these. I haven't seen any lawsuits on
these ... (I'd love to hear if there are any.)
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 20:52:43 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Re: History of DDD and STD
John McHarry <nospam.mcharry@erols.com> wrote:
> There was an excellent article on this subject in the Digest a few
> years ago, but I cannot find it in the archives. It went over the
> original development in Europe and the later re-invention in North
> America. If you or any of the regulars still have a copy, I, and
> probably a lot of others would enjoy a repost. Thanks.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The best people to speak with on this
> topic would be Mark Cuccia and David Leibold. Both make regular
> contributions on area code/dialing history. Carl Moore also for many
> years prepared area code history articles for the Archives. PAT]
Over the past two years, I've mentioned some of the history of DDD
(Direct Distance Dialing) in North America (US and Canada). In Summer
1995, in August 1996, and in December 1996, I posted various articles
on DDD's historical development, a bit more in depth. These articles
appeared in 'numbered' issues in the respective annual volumes, and
would be in the archives under "Back Issues", but are not
'specific/individual' articles archived on their own.
Also back last August, I _was_ loaned (by someone who started with
Bell Labs in the 1950's and retired from Bellcore in the early
1990's), the 1951 customer instruction booklet for the Englewood NJ
experiment with customer long-distance dialing. I did transcribe this
booklet, and that is in the archives, under "history". It did go out
as a special emailing in late September 1996.
As for the UK's STD, I understand that it first became available in
the late 1950's, between some of the more larger and/or important
cities. There might be some sites on the web with STD historical
development, and I think that some of the participants in uk.telecom
have some good info on STD history as well, including various changes
in the codes/numbering/lettering of STD and central-office codes over
the 1960's, etc.
Somewhere, I saw a book on UK telephone history, and included in there
is a publicity photo of Carol Burnette - er - I mean Queen Elizabeth
II, from 1957 or 1958. Her Highness was seated at a table (wearing one
of her famous hats), smiling, and dialing a desk telephone from that
time-period (the UK's version of the '500' set), to inaugurate STD,
Subscriber Trunk Dialing.
I think that Australia's STD began to be introduced in the _very_
early 1960's. At the same time as well, the postmaster-general (which
ran the telephone network back then) eliminated Australia's "EXchange
names" and went to "All Figure Calling".
---------
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #175
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jul 10 22:53:19 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id WAA26348; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:53:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:53:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707110253.WAA26348@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #176
TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jul 97 22:53:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 176
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Spam Makes Netcom Block Free Emailer (Eric Florack)
UUNET and IDSL (baudshop@isrv.com)
Book Review: "Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier" (Rob Slade)
New Area Code for Oklahoma (Tad Cook)
House Passes Telemarketing Fraud Bill (Tad Cook)
Book Review: "Active Java" by Freeman/Ince (Rob Slade)
Fun With Inside Wire (Adam H. Kerman)
FCC Seeks New Vanity Number Comments (Judith Oppenheimer)
Plea For Information (Steve Porter)
What is "Trapping" a Phone Line? (Rodney B. Roeber)
Why no ANI? (David Jensen)
Border Towns (Dave Leibold)
Re: Border Towns (Linc Madison)
RJx, USOC, and Jack Types (John Agosta)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 05:24:21 PDT
From: Eric Florack <Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com>
Subject: FW: Spam makes Netcom block free emailer
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C12138%2C00.html?nd
Spam makes Netcom block free emailer
By Jeff Pelline
July 2, 1997, 6:40 p.m. PT
Netcom On-Line Communications Services (NETC) was forced to block
incoming email from Hotmail last weekend because spam bearing a
Hotmail address threatened to clog Netcom's network, its executives
said today.
The incident illustrates a growing problem on the Net: figuring out
how to filter spam without thwarting what some users called legitimate
email communication. (Spammers disagree with that assessment.) In this
case, users became frustrated when the Hotmail email was refused.
Free email providers such as Hotmail increasingly have become tools
for spammers, largely because it is so easy to sign up for
accounts. That comes despite reminders that the services are not
"anonymous" (IP addresses are attached to outbound messages, for
instance) and despite promised enforcement of any violations. To
compound matters, when the email is forged, as occurred in this case,
it is hard to control, the companies concede.
Late Friday, Netcom started seeing a "huge influx" of unsolicited
messages from the "hotmail.com" domain, many of them destined for
America Online members, according to Craig Clemens, vice president of
operations for the national ISP. But he said AOL didn't accept the
spams for some unknown reason, so they started piling up on Netcom's
computers -- one of the midway points on the mail's delivery route.
Because they couldn't be sent, the messages were queued, creating a
load on the Netcom system. (AOL didn't return calls seeking an
explanation on its end.)
"The only way we could keep this from becoming an 'event' was by
blocking incoming mail from Hotmail," Clemens said. "We were getting
stuck in the middle." The blocking was confined to so-called "shell
users," an estimated 15,000 Netcom dial-up customers who aren't
directly connected to the Internet, he added. By Monday morning,
"everything was stabilized" and Netcom removed the block on emails
from Hotmail.
But some users were angry. "Netcom shell users cannot receive email
from addresses in the 'hotmail.com' domain," complained one to CNET's
NEWS.COM. "They have failed to let users know if any other domains
have been banned. I have legitimate contacts with Hotmail addresses
and have had to set up alternative ways for them to contact me. My
main gripe is that I had to find this out by mail being refused and
people complaining to me."
Netcom's Clemens said other domains had not been blocked and that last
weekend's spamming helped make the ISP better prepared for similar
incidents in the future. He considered the episode a success compared
with past incidents because its network didn't get overloaded, slowing
down service for everyone.
Hotmail and Netcom executives both confirmed that, in this case, the
email was forged. Hotmail will investigate the matter and close the
offender's account if necessary, said Rex Smith, its chief operating
officer. "We're working hard to catch up with them."
The company routinely investigates such matters, which includes
sharing the log files with ISPs if necessary to catch the perpetrator,
he added. Remedies include closing the account and notifying law
enforcement authorities if any crime is suspected.
Hotmail recently drew complaints about junk email from a pornography
site that bore a Hotmail address. That too was deemed a "spoof," Smith
said, and the account was closed.
Other free email services are coping with this problem, which comes
amid a rapid growth spurt in the market. "There are cases where a
person spamming or sending junk email doesn't use NetAddress but sets
the 'reply-to' field in their mail software to point to a NetAddress,"
says a posting on that company's Web site. "We have limited control in
these cases, but we will investigate the 'reply-to' address to
evaluate if this subscriber is the true sender of the spam."
But Smith conceded: "Right now, most of the measures are reactive.
There is more technological expertise that needs to be brought to
bear" and perhaps legal remedies. The Federal Trade Commission has
said it will crack down on spammers who are deceptive in their
messages as well.
Some ISPs think they have a technical solution to help: Get the free
email services to add specific header information that can be added
only when their servers process the mail. If the mail doesn't have the
ID from their servers, it can be rejected. They hope that the services
can work with email and software companies to form a standard, but
that takes time and money.
------------------------------
From: baudshop@isrv.com
Subject: UUNET and IDSL
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 11:08:39 -0400
Noticed that uunet is bringing out a service called idsl - 768kbs hdsl
dedicated lines aimed at small business users.
They intend to offer this service nation wide within a year at
substantial cost savings over traditional leased lines.
This all bring up a number or interesting questions -
1. Is this a bypass of the ILECS to their POP's or is it a colocation
agreement?
2. Where are they getting 768kbs hdsl controllers? I believe Rockwell
is due out with 384kbs controllers this year but have not heard about
768 ones yet.
3. If this is to be a bypass, how do they intend to aquire the copper
as it seems that the ILECS have decided to withdraw the tarriffs on
dry pairs.
4. How are the LECS going to handle this given that a bypass at that
bandwidth would allow uunet to effectively become the subscribers
provider for not only data but voice, video conferencing and any other
high bandwidth local or global services?
5. If uunet can swing this can the little mon and pop ISP's get in one
the game?
It seems that the battle for the copper has begun and there is going
to be a lot of money to be made with this technology but once again it
will probably be a game which only the big boys can play.
Perhaps we should push for true deregulation of the local loop by
requiring CSAP's (CUSTOMER SERVICE ACCESS PORTS) at the CO's which can
be switched (cross connected) to any service provider that the
customer designates.
Does anyone out there work for the FCC?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 13:29:18 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier"
BKSCHPUB.RVW 961220
"Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier", Robin P. Peek/Gregory B.
Newby, 1996, 0-262-16157-5, U$35.00
%E Robin P. Peek rpeek@vmsvax.simmons.edu
%E Gregory B. Newby gbnewby@uiuc.edu
%C 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1399
%D 1996
%G 0-262-16157-5
%I MIT Press
%O U$35.00 curtin@mit.edu www-mitpress.mit.edu
%P 363
%T "Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier"
This book looks at the advantages, disadvantages, likelihood, and
ramifications of the electronic publication of academic papers. In a
series of essays, it examines a wide variety of related issues.
Points addressed include the impact of electronic publishing on
scholarly life, different forms, affect on traditional journals, peer
review, economics, integrity, libraries, politics, management,
citation, and copyright. Some articles deal in more depth than
others, but all raise serious issues. A number of times pieces echo
each other, but this repetition serves to indicate what agreement does
exist on the major topics.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKSCHPUB.RVW 961220
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
Subject: New Area Code for Oklahoma
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 12:12:09 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
New Area Code Chosen for Oklahoma
BY WESLEY BROWN, TULSA WORLD, OKLA.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 9--Oklahomans soon will have a new area code to remember along
with the familiar 405 and 918 numbers, Oklahoma Corporation Commission
officials said on Tuesday.
The new number, 580, will be for northwest, southwest, south-central
and extreme southeastern Oklahoma, said commission spokesman Pat
Petree. Essentially, it will replace nearly all of the existing 405
region except metropolitan Oklahoma City. The 580 code takes effect
Nov. 1.
The 918 area code, which covers Tulsa and most of eastern Oklahoma,
is not affected by the change.
"Permissive" dialing, using both area codes, is set to start Nov. 1
and end April 1, 1998.
An intercept period, which would require use of the new area code and
provide a message to those using the wrong number, would follow and be
in effect through May 1998.
While the plan will not shuffle any numbers in eastern Oklahoma --
everyone served by the 918 area code will continue to have the same
number -- the change for numbers in the rest of the state provides a
blueprint for what will happen here in about two years, Petree
said. The new area code was implemented because of the increasing
number of Oklahomans using phones, modems, pagers and other
telecommunications devices.
The 405 area was expected to run out of numbers by the third quarter
of 1998.
The 918 area code probably will run out of numbers by the first
quarter of 2001, said John Gray, senior assistant general counsel for
the Corporation Commission. To meet needs, phones in Tulsa probably
will keep the 918 area code, while those outside metropolitan Tulsa
would receive a new area code, Gray said.
------------------------------
Subject: House Passes Telemarketing Fraud Bill
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:22:29 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
House passes bill to boost penalties for telemarketing fraud
BY CASSANDRA BURRELL
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -- Telephone callers who use phony sales pitches to talk
unsuspecting people out of their money would face harsher criminal
penalties under a bill the House passed Tuesday.
The measure also directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to raise
penalties for telemarketers who target victims who are 55 years old or
older.
Telemarketers convicted of fraud would be required to forfeit any
money or assets gained through their activities. The bill, passed by
voice vote, expands current law by allowing prosecutors to charge
organizers of telemarketing schemes with conspiracy.
The Federal Trade Commission estimates that consumers lose as much as
$40 billion each year through telephone fraud.
"Since money is all that matters to a crooked telemarketer, the bill
strikes where it hurts," said Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla.
"Older people are especially vulnerable," said Rep. William Delahunt,
D-Mass. "For them, that unwanted telephone call can mean the loss of
everything they have saved over a lifetime."
The bill, introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., is targeted at
people who call victims at home and claim to be soliciting
contributions for charitable or religious groups.
"Others call offering lavish gifts and prizes, such as free weekend
resort packages or new automobiles or homes, and cajole victims into
sending significant sums of money to offset shipping costs or pay
taxes in order to claim their prize," said a statement from the House
Republican Conference.
Many unscrupulous telemarketing operations target the elderly,
supporters said.
"As many senior citizens live alone, they will entertain such calls as
a means of companionship and wind up sending hundreds of thousands of
dollars to unknown groups who promise great winnings or threaten them
with legal action if they do not respond favorably to the
organization's officer," the statement said.
The Sentencing Commission is an independent agency that establishes
sentencing policies, including detailed sentencing guidelines used by
federal judges. Goodlatte chose to have the commission set higher
penalties rather than write them into the bill to give judges more
flexibility in setting sentences appropriate to individual cases.
The bill is H.R. 1847.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 12:11:51 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Active Java" by Freeman/Ince
BKACJAVA.RVW 961220
"Active Java", Adam Freeman/Darrel Ince, 1996, 0-201-40370-6, U$25.95
%A Adam Freeman
%A Darrel Ince
%C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984
%D 1996
%G 0-201-40370-6
%I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%O U$25.95 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com
%P 235
%T "Active Java"
This guide concentrates on applet programming. It assumes a programming
background, but no particular language.
The explanations are clear in regard to use and coding. However, the
material seems to emphasize production, perhaps, at the expense of
understanding. The discussion of object-orientation is alright as far
as syntax is concerned, but doesn't really explain the concepts.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKACJAVA.RVW 961220
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:41:48 CDT
From: Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.chinet.com>
Subject: Fun With Inside Wire
This morning, I had a visit from Ameritech repair. I pay for inside
wire. Much of the telephone wire is old-fashioned 3-conductor wire.
Recently, I discovered such wire leading from a wiring block to the
basement. In the basement, it was a part of a bundle of wire to the
other apartments. I asked that repair identify the proper
conductors. During the original installation, the technician informed
me that there were no wires there, otherwise I would have had it
activated at the time.
The repair guy showed up and informed me that this "inside wire" was
not part of my maintenance agreement because it wasn't working when I
moved in. Of course, nothing was working as the previous tenants had
already turned of their phone service. I asked him to do the job
anyway. I'll argue about the bill with the business office.
He billed me for $93: $51 "repair visit charge" and 2 increments at
$21 per 15 minutes. He insisted on installing a jack on the block. I
told him I was going to install a hard-wired extension but he claimed
that would violate my maintenance plan.
I'm afraid I accidently did that anyway. There was a second wiring
block connected in series with the first. I couldn't resist: The
telephone number is labeled Area Code 212 PE 6-5000, ext. 914. It was
lifted from a pile of telephone sets being tossed out at that hotel!
But, it won't ring. He must have reversed the polarity, either in the
basement or when he installed the outlet. Aargh!
------------------------------
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
Subject: FCC Seeks New Vanity Number Comments
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 14:18:24 -0400
Organization: ICB Toll Free - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting
Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net
On July 2, 1997 the FCC released the following Public Notice seeking
further comment on toll-free vanity number issues, primarily
pertaining what the FCC calls 'special right or protection', including
right of first refusal for 800 number holders based on brand,
trademark, misdial and other issues discussed in the original NPRM and
subsequent comments, replies and petitions.
Interested parties would be well advised to review the background
information on this issue as well as the contradictions and questions
raised and as yet unanswered via Petitions for Reconsideration and/or
Clarification, and Comments and Replies, in the recent FCC Order, The
COMMISSION ESTABLISHES RULES PROMOTING EFFICIENT USE, FAIR DISTRIBUTION
OF TOLL FREE NUMBERS. Report No: CC-97-17. by 2nd R&O & FNPRM. Action
by: the Commission. Adopted: April 4, 1997. Dkt No.: CC-95-155. (FCC
No. 97-123).
Most of these documents can be found at, or linked from, ICB Toll Free
News, http://www.icbtollfree.com.
Judith Oppenheimer
Publisher
ICB Toll Free News
---------------------------------
FURTHER COMMENTS
TOLL FREE SERVICE ACCESS CODES
CC Docket No. 95-155
On October 4, 1995, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (CC Docket No. 95-155) addressing various issues relating to
toll free service access codes and, among other issues, requesting
comment on the issue of vanity-number treatment in future toll free
codes. Toll Free Service Access Codes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
10 FCC Red 13692 (1995) (NPRM). The pleading cycle in response to the
NPRM closed on November 15, 1995. In January 1996, the Common Carrier
Bureau directed Database Management Services, Inc. to set aside 888
vanity numbers by placing them in "unavailable" status until the
Commission resolves whether these numbers should be afforded any special
right or protection. Toll Free Service Access Codes, Report and
Order, 11 FCC Red 2496 (1996).
The record on the NPRM is almost two years old. At this point, the
industry is preparing to deploy the next toll free code in 1998. We
seek, therefore, to refresh the record in CC Docket No. 95-155 on
issues associated with the treatment of vanity numbers, both with 888
as well as numbers in future toll free codes. Specifically, parties
should comment on issues such as, but not limited to, a vanity-number
lottery and Standard Industrial Classification Codes. We ask that
parties confine their discussion to issues concerning vanity numbers
and avoid simply reiterating their earlier pleading.
Comments and reply comments in response to this Notice should be no more
than 20 pages, and must be filed on or before July 21, 1997, and reply
comments must be filed on or before July 28, 1997... For further
information, contact Robin Smolen (202 418-2353) of the Network Services
Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
---------------
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com
800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/icbinfo2.html
800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/expert2.html
1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714
------------------------------
From: gurudude@mindless.com (Steve Porter)
Subject: Plea For Information
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 19:57:56 GMT
Organization: CMS Marketing
I maintain a fairly large telemarketing database and am being flooded
with the recent area code splits occurring across the nation. Is there
any central clearinghouse or some such list where I can access the
nxx's changing for each npa? I am able to get such lists (usually fax
only) after much social engineering of various operators, but it would
seem that *someone* must have a master list and it should be available
somewhere on the net ... any help?
Steve Porter
gurudude@mindless.com
P.S. We are a business To business marketing firm that *NEVER* calls
anyone at home or during dinner... <smile>
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I imagine if Mark Cuccia, Carl Moore or
Dave Leibold are reading this they will be in touch with you very
soon. They have voluminous files on this. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Rodney B. Roeber <roeberr@flinthills.com>
Subject: What is "Trapping" a Phone Line?
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 12:59:55 -0500
Organization: Flint Hills Computers
Reply-To: roeberr@flinthills.com
Hi,
I've recently read enough about "trapping" to get my interest.
Unfortunately, what I've doesn't explain much. Here goes:
Apparently, if I answer a phone call and hang up first, my phone line
can be trapped so that the receiver is still active without me knowing
it. The only way to "untrap" the line is to make a phone call. If
only one phone is on the line, unplugging the line for 10 or more
seconds also works.
Can someone who really knows what this is about explain it to me?
Thanks.
Rod
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:19:47 -0500
From: david.jensen@teldta.com (David Jensen)
Subject: Why no ANI?
Hello:
We have dial-in modem pools for our staff using toll-free service from
AT&T. Recently we have made some changes that have increased the size
of the bill and encouraged me to do some analysis of it. The bills
seem to be correct, but, in the bill detail, a few percent of the
calls, from different parts of the country, are reported with the
originating number as NXX 000 0000 and the originating city is
0000000000.
Questions. Are these coming from behind a PBX? If so, why don't I get
a trunk number or the outbound line number? Why would any IXC connect
without providing that information? Do the tarriffs require it? Can or
will an IXC, AT&T here, block those calls for us?
Thanks,
Dave Jensen
TDS Computing Services
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 23:09:14 EDT
From: Dave Leibold <dleibold@else.net>
Subject: Border Towns
The {Toronto Star} issue of 1 July 1997 carried a feature on border
towns, namely some examples of communities along the U.S.-Canada
border. This includes the Hyder (Alaska)/Stewart (British Columbia)
situation, where BC Tel provides dial tone into Alaska.
The article should be available online, at least for the next several
weeks. Try the URL to find the "Hands across the border" article:
http://www.thestar.com/thestar/back_issues/ED19970701/opinion/
Or ... if that causes trouble, try www.thestar.ca, proceed to back
issues, then select 1 July 1997 and proceed to Editorials.
David Leibold -+- dleibold@else.net ++ aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 23:19:46 -0700
From: Linc Madison <LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.com>
Subject: Re: Border Towns
Dave Leibold wrote:
> The {Toronto Star} issue of 1 July 1997 carried a feature on border towns,
> namely some examples of communities along the U.S.-Canada border. This
> includes the Hyder (Alaska)/Stewart (British Columbia) situation, where BC
> Tel provides dial tone into Alaska.
> The article should be available online, at least for the next several
> weeks. Try the URL to find the "Hands across the border" article:
> http://www.thestar.com/thestar/back_issues/ED19970701/opinion/
> Or... if that causes trouble, try www.thestar.ca, proceed to back issues,
> then select 1 July 1997 and proceed to Editorials.
There's a consistent off-by-one error in the back issues section of
the web site. If you pull up the 1 July 1997 directory, you get the
30 June edition.
The correct URL for the article is:
<
http://www.thestar.com/thestar/back_issues/ED19970702/opinion/970701NEW02_IN-STEF1.html >
The article is in the 01 July issue, so you have to be in the ED19970702
directory.
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Eureka.vip.Best.com
------------------------------
From: jagosta@interaccess.com (John Agosta)
Subject: RJx, USOC, and Jack Types
Date: 11 Jul 1997 01:27:31 GMT
Organization: Agosta and Associates
Recently, there have been a few questions about RJxx jacks, pin-outs,
and such.
Here is a little something that may help out; it is (almost) 'verbatim'
from the Siemmon Company's catalog which contains some very good info
on wiring guidelines. You can contact them at 203 - 274 - 2523.
There are 4 basic modular jack styles. The 8 position and 8 position /
keyed modular jacks are commonly and incorrectly referred to as RJ45
and keyed RJ45, respectively.
The 6 position jack is commonly referred to as RJ11. Using these
terms can sometimes lead to confusion since the RJ designations
actuaslly refer to very specific wiring configurations called USOC
(Universal Service Ordering Codes).
Each of these jacks can be wired for different configurations.
Looking into the female connector, with 'clip' at bottom, the wiring
is as follows:
6 Posistion jacks:
1 2 3 4 5 6 T/R Pair Pin #
T 1 4
R 1 3
T 2 2
R 2 5
T 3 1
R 3 6
RJ11 is a 1 pair jack.
RJ11C is a two pair jack.
RJ25C is all three pairs.
DEC's modified 6 position jack has an 'offset' key structure and is
called MMJ. The offset was intended to prevent accidentally plugging
DEC terminal equipment into analog lines and vice versa. Wiring is as
follows:
T/R Pair Pin #
T1 1 3
R1 1 2
T2 2 4
R2 2 5
T3 3 1
R3 3 6
8 position USOC jacks can be wired for RJ45S, RJ46S, and RJ47S.
Pin and pair placements are as follows:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T/R Pair Pin #
T1 1 5
R1 1 4
T2 2 3
R2 2 6
T3 3 2
R3 3 7
T4 4 1
R4 4 8
(Specific wiring for USOC configurations, with common applications
can be found at www.ameritech.com)
T568A Jacks:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T/R Pair Pin #
T1 1 5
R1 1 4
T2 2 3
R2 2 6
T3 3 1
R3 3 2
T4 4 7
R4 4 8
T568B Jacks:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T/R Pair Pin #
T1 1 5
R1 1 4
T2 2 1
R2 2 2
T3 3 3
R3 3 6
T4 4 7
R4 4 8
(Pairs 2 and 3 are reversed from T568A)
Other jacks include:
10Base-T T/R Pair Pin #
T1 1 1
R1 1 2
T2 2 3
R2 2 6
Token Ring T/R Pair Pin #
T1 1 5
R1 1 4
T2 2 3
R2 2 6
ANSI TP-PMD
X3T9.5 T/R Pair Pin #
T1 1 1
R1 1 2
T2 2 7
R2 2 8
Colors:
UTP 24 AWG stranded patch cable starting with pair 1:
Green / Red, Black / Yellow, Blue / Orange, Brown / White.
UTP solid 24 AWG horizontal cable starting with pair 1:
White / Blue, White / Orange, White / Green, White / Brown.
Hope this helps.
ja
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #176
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jul 10 23:19:12 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA28167; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:19:12 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:19:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707110319.XAA28167@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #177
TELECOM Digest Thu, 10 Jul 97 23:19:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 177
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
AT&T Wireless Plans for the Local Loop (Tad Cook)
BellSouth National DA Service Debuts in Kentucky (Mike King)
Re: Area Code Splits: Long Term Solution? (John R. Grout)
Re: Voice Mail That Works *Well* Under NT; Rant Against WinFax (D Richards)
Re: Voice Mail That Works *Well* Under NT; Rant Against WinFax (jfmezei)
Re: Voice Mail That Works *Well* Under NT; Rant Against WinFax (JP White)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: AT&T Wireless Plans for the Local Loop
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 12:34:53 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
AT&T Gets Wired for Local Calls
BY JOSEPH R. PERONE, THE STAR-LEDGER, NEWARK, N.J.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 6--AT&T Wireless Services Inc. is already the T. Rex of the cell
phone business.
Now, the nation's biggest cell phone carrier is searching for new prey
by jumping from cars into homes. It is central to parent company AT&T
Corp.'s goal of entering local phone markets now that merger talks
with SBC Communications Inc. have plunged into the tar pits.
Talks broke down a week ago after regulators assailed the
combination. As SBC tries to find its own way in the long-distance
market, AT&T is moving forward with plans to enter local phone
markets, including the use of "Project Angel" which was developed by
its wireless behemoth.
Project Angel is a strategy to use AT&T Wireless to crack local
markets. A wireless device the size of a pizza box would be attached
to a customer's home to transmit voice or data to a wired antenna
connected to AT&T's network. One antenna could serve 2,000 homes.
Using a fixed wireless system is one option available to AT&T. It can
also attract local customers by reselling the discounted service of
existing local carriers or by leasing parts of the Bell
systems. However, a wireless system will provide better service and
provide long-term cost savings in some areas, executives say, adding
that AT&T will test a Project Angel system in Chicago later this year.
"We're becoming an all-distance company," says Dan Hesse, the new head
of AT&T Wireless Services. "Becoming a strong local phone service
player is right up there on our list as well as being a wireless
player."
The wireless unit is AT&T's fastest growing business. Cell phone
customers accounted for $3.9 billion of AT&T's sales last year, for a
nearly 17-percent increase. AT&T's long-distance business rose only 3
percent last year to more than $46 billion because of pressure from
competitors.
The nation's cellular industry has been growing dramatically. The
number of cellular phone customers in the United States soared from
11.1 million people five years ago to 44 million last year, according
to the Cellular Telephone Industry Association. The numbers are
projected to grow to 136 million people by 2005.
The entire telecommunications market is forecast to explode during the
next decade from $200 billion to $500 billion, according to Prudential
Securities. The domestic wireless market should grow from about $25
billion to $100 billion in just three years, Prudential says. AirTouch
Communications Inc. and Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile Inc. are among the
companies competing with AT&T for that market.
By going to the air, AT&T can bypass access fees it would have to pay
the Baby Bells for every local call placed by customers.
"AT&T pays about $15 billion a year in access fees," said Gary Miller,
president of Aragon Consulting Group of St. Louis. "For example, on a
call from Newark to Dallas, Bell Atlantic is paid an access fee and so
is SBC Communications. Bell Atlantic and SBC pick up about 35 percent
to 40 percent of the cost of that call. If AT&T could eliminate those
local access charges by using a wireless system, imagine what that
would do to their bottom line."
AT&T spent about $16.3 billion on international and domestic access
fees last year, according to the company's annual report. AT&T said
last week it will cut basic rates for customers to reflect small
access fee refunds that regulators have ordered the Baby Bells to
pay. AT&T is calling for larger access fee cuts, however.
Miller of Aragon Consulting explained that all major telephone
companies are using wireless service as one leg of a four-legged stool
of phone service. The other legs include local service, long-distance
and Internet access.
"Eventually, you'll have a cordless phone, and you'll be talking to
somebody in your house and then you'll go out on the back deck to
check the hamburgers on your grill and then you'll remember you have
to pick up your son at soccer practice," he said. "So, you'll get in
the car with the phone and never have to break your original
conversation."
The central player in AT&T's all-distance phone strategy is AT&T
Wireless Services Inc., based in Kirkland, Wash., near Seattle. The
nation's largest cellular carrier had 7.2 million customers as of last
year, according to Radio Communications Report, a Denver publication
that tracks the cell phone industry.
"Wireless (operations) represent a significant portion of the earnings
growth for telecommunications companies," said David Friedman, an analyst
for Bear Stearns in New York.
Although AT&T is the biggest cell phone company, it is not the leader
in all markets. Lately, it is hearing footsteps from predators in the
distance.
AirTouch of San Francisco agreed in April to buy US West New Vector
Group Inc. of Bellevue, Wash., for $5 billion in stock and debt. The
combination will have 5.3 million customers and become the nation's
second-largest wireless phone company. Current runner-up Bell Atlantic
Nynex Mobile Inc. would drop to third with 4.5 million customers.
AirTouch-US West "is going to be a pretty strong (wireless) brand,"
said Marc Lowenstein, a telecommunications analyst for The Yankee
Group of Boston. "AirTouch has been building their brand in California
and the western United States." He predicts "a battle of the brands"
between AirTouch and AT&T.
Two other cellular companies were gobbled up last month. Former TV
station owner Price Communications Inc. of New York plans to buy
Palmer Wireless Inc., the 17th largest wireless company, for $880
million.
The Blackstone Group, an investment firm, is taking a majority stake
in the No. 18 carrier, CommNet Cellular Inc., for $718 million.
Analysts say Blackstone most likely will hold onto CommNet for a few
years and then sell it at a premium to another wireless company.
The chess-board moves of recent months could force other wireless
players, such as Bell Atlantic Nynex, to expand their footprint beyond
a specific region.
Prudential Securities Analyst Michael Elling says he wouldn't be
surprised if some day Bell Atlantic tries to buy AirTouch.
"If you are Bell Atlantic Nynex, are you going to be satisfied with
just the East? No," he said. "The Beast of the East wants to go
national, and AirTouch makes up that national footprint."
An SBC-AT&T merger would have united the nation's biggest
long-distance company AT&T with the biggest local phone company,
SBC. AT&T could have entered lucrative local phone markets in
California, Texas, Nevada, Kansas and Arkansas. However, SBC
reportedly declined to say how it would open its local markets. Both
companies also would have had overlapping cell phone territories in
areas such as Los Angeles.
AT&T has refused to comment on its discussions with SBC. However, the
specter of an SBC-AT&T combination could prompt the Baby Bells or GTE
Corp., a local, long-distance and wireless player, to attempt a merger
with SBC, according to a recent Merrill Lynch report.
"In other words, the most likely outcome may simply be that the
incumbent local `telco' consolidation that we have been foreseeing
would happen on a faster time scale," the New York investment firm
said.
Prudential Securities says, at the very least, the big cell phone
carriers will become larger. "We believe wireless industry
consolidation may be inevitable, and that players with existing (size)
will hold all the cards," Prudential said in a report last March.
Prudential points out the electronic paging industry shrank from 40
players during the early 1980s to just a dozen, and will eventually
shrink to half that. The paging industry is still awaiting the outcome
of a bankruptcy filing by MobileMedia, the nation's second-largest
paging company. The troubled Ridgefield Park company's assets could be
acquired by its creditors or another paging company.
Investors are worried about two problems facing wireless phone
companies: how to attract subscribers without spending a fortune and
how to eliminate "churn," the loss of customers to a competitor that
offers a better phone or more free air time.
"That will be a challenge," Hesse concedes, adding that AT&T is trying
to reduce its price-per-minute wireless costs. For example, the
company is insisting vendors such as Lucent Technologies Inc. provide
phones along with the wireless network equipment it sells to AT&T,
analysts say. Through such supplier deals, AT&T can reduce its
overhead.
Bell Atlantic Nynex says it spends at least $214 to acquire each new
customer, and it estimates AT&T spends twice as much. AT&T also spends
an average of $200 although it might spend more to acquire some
customers, according to Robin Traum, an AT&T Wireless
spokeswoman. Analysts say companies generally spend at least $100 per
customer.
Stock analysts say AT&T could be faced with higher costs because it
has yet to integrate its wireless and wire-line operations into a
seamless unit.
"They are not heavily integrating sales and distribution or billing,"
said Michael Elling, telecommunications analyst for Prudential
Securities in New York. The company's wireless headquarters
"is run autonomously. For a long time, the executives (at operations
headquarters) in Basking Ridge rarely made visits to Seattle."
Bell Atlantic Nynex says it can hold down costs through its 40 company
stores that sell phones in the metropolitan area. AT&T relies heavily
on electronics chain retailers and auto dealers to sell its service.
"It is less expensive to provide (distribution) through our retail
stores," says Rick Conrad, president of the New York-New Jersey metro
region for Bell Atlantic Nynex Mobile Inc.
Bell Atlantic Nynex has a total of 500 retail outlets in the
metropolitan area. The Bedminster company has 1,800 employees in New
Jersey. AT&T Wireless has 1,100 workers at its regional headquarters
in Paramus and 2,200 retail outlets in the New York-New Jersey area.
Bell Atlantic executives claim their strategy leads to lower costs in
the long run as the company develops loyal customers who don't change
service plans every few months.
"We have found that the store customers deliver high revenues per
account and have the lowest churn rate of all of our distribution
channels," said John Stratton, vice president of retail stores and
operations in New York and New Jersey for Bell Atlantic Nynex.
------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: BellSouth National DA Service Debuts in Kentucky
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 17:45:07 PDT
----- Forwarded Message -----
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:27:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: BellSouth <press@www.bellsouthcorp.com>
Subject: BellSouth National DA Service Debuts in Kentucky
BellSouth ...............................................July 10,1997
BellSouth National DA Service Debuts in Kentucky
ATLANTA -- The world is about to become a little bit simpler for
telephone customers in Kentucky. Beginning July 15, BellSouth will
introduce its new National Directory Assistance (NDA) service on a
trial basis in the bluegrass state.
"We believe our customers are going to love NDA," said BellSouth
President - Interconnection Services Mark Feidler. "No longer will
callers have to remember to dial one number for local directory
assistance and another for "long distance" directory assistance.
BellSouth will offer both local and nationwide listings from a single
telephone number -- 1+411 in Kentucky."
Feidler explained, "When customers call 1+411, they will be asked for
the state and city of the party whose number they need. If the number
is located outside of the BellSouth local calling area, the call will
be routed to our NDA office, otherwise the call will go to local
directory assistance operators."
Feidler believes NDA will be a big hit with users because it doesn't
require callers to know the area code for the listings they are
seeking. "Other nationwide listing services require callers to know
the area code for distant parties before their calls can be routed to
the appropriate office to look up the number. This can result in
calls to local directory assistance for area codes in addition to
calls for the distant parties' telephone numbers, both of which may
carry charges," Feidler said.
BellSouth's NDA service begins with the BellSouth DA database, Feidler
explained, and adds to it listings from states where BellSouth doesn't
provide telephone service. These out-of-region listings are provided
by a leading national listings database vendor. "One advantage we
have over most competing national DA services is access to the most
up-to-date BellSouth in-region listings," Feidler said.
In addition to simplifying the way its customers call for nationwide
listings and providing an accurate and reliable source for those
listings, BellSouth will charge less for its NDA than other competing
services. NDA calls cost $.85 and callers may request two national
listings per call.
After NDA's July 15 premiere in Kentucky, BellSouth plans to make NDA
available in the company's other eight states by early 1998.
BellSouth provides telecommunications services in nine Southeastern
states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee. With its
headquarters in Atlanta, BellSouth serves more than 22 million local
telephone lines and provides local exchange and intraLATA long
distance service over one of the most modern telecommunications
networks in the world.
For more information on BellSouth, visit the company's site on the
World Wide Web at http://www.bellsouth.com.
# # #
For More Information Contact:
John Goldman, (205) 977-5007
-------------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
------------------------------
From: j-grout@glhpx2.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout)
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits: Long Term Solution?
Date: 09 Jul 1997 15:47:57 -0500
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Reply-To: john.grout@reasoning.com
jfmezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca[nospam]> writes:
> Assuming that the growth projections at the time the 0-1 limitation
> was removed are now completely way off, would it have been better **
> IN HINDSIGHT ** to have gone to 8 digit telephone numbers right away?
No, because the absolute minimum lead time before a NANP expansion
could be supported countrywide would be more time than we have had
since the beginning of the process to remove the 0-1 limitation. To
me, ten years seems like a rational time frame from a logistical (not
technological) point of view, even with active (governmental?)
assistance to retire old LEC equipment before the end of its useful
life (and I have no idea what would be done to help retire old PBXes).
> The removal of the 0-1 seems recent enough. If the added growth,
> originally expected to occur in the next 20 years is instead going to
> happen in 8 years, won't we be forced to add a digit to telephone
> numbers anyway making all those area code splits unnecessary surgery
> had we gone to 8 digit numbers right from the start? 5 years perhaps?
If 8 years is a reasonable estimate of unrationed growth, we're going
to begin to see phone number rationing while a NANP expansion begins.
[What would phone number rationing do to local phone competition? Bad
things, I expect]
From a user interface standpoint, I would prefer to see longer local
phone numbers than mandatory 10 digit dialing, but our PUC (in
California) has already said we'll have the latter before general
overlays are permitted, and it looks as if they'll be needed before
long.
John R. Grout john.grout@reasoning.com
------------------------------
From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards)
Subject: Re: Voice Mail That Works *Well* Under NT; Rant Against WinFax
Date: 10 Jul 1997 20:59:44 GMT
Organization: Ripco Communications Inc.
In article <telecom17.174.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Garry W <gnews2@ithaca.
com> wrote:
> This is a rant.
> @&!^#%! I have a $4000 PC here, the best non-commercial voice mail
> software I can apparently buy, a respectable dedicated modem for doing
> the voice mail, and it works lousy, I've already researched this
> problem for six months, and I am about to give up and buy a cheap
> answering machine at the drugstore. RRrargh!
This is about my experience -- all the "consumer grade" voicemail has
major software problems, hardware problems, or both. I have found a
few good software packages, but no good and affordable hardware.
> My question for the group is: is there any possibly-brand-new
> hardware/software combination that does good, robust voice mail under
> NT? I have been through two brands of hardware and about nine brands
> of software to no avail. I just want to do a reliable, good home
> answering machine. I'm willing to spend up to $300.
I've found some very good software packages, but so far all the hardware
that I have tried tends to either have sound quality problems or just drop
calls at random.
> Half the "Fax/Voice mail" packages support voice mail as pure
> marketing hype. Half the remainder don't support essential functions,
> for example retrieving a message from a remote phone. Most of the rest
> never heard of NT and do not work at all under NT (one wonders if they
> work at all under Windows...). And the one that remains, Winfax Pro,
> which I bought, turns out to be unreliable and flakey.
Most of the packages I have tried that are designed specifically for
voicemail are either written for Windows 3.1 or have both a 16 and
32-bit version. None of the consumer-grade packages are NT specific.
> I know, I know, "good/robust" is not an interesting/commercially
> viable concept in the modern home computer world. I can put up with
> the latest-and-greatest MS Word crashing on me. But unfortunately I
> can't put up with losing voice messages or being unable to understand
> them.
> I *could* go for a commercial telephony package. The lowest level
> telephony hardware I can find is about $500, used. Unclear what the
> software would cost.
For a robust software package, add another zero to that figure.
> I wish I had kept notes through the six months about what was
> specifically was nonfunctional in each package, so I share with
> you. Unfortunately, I didn't; I didn't think this was going to be this
> hard.
Too bad -- we have a web site where we do have notes on what's wrong
with each package we've tried, and would appreciate additions.
> I had wanted to this on my computer rather than the $39 drugstore machine so
> that:
> - I could delete messages individually
> - The voice quality would be high
> - I could save more than a few minutes' of messages
> - I could save messages *forever*
> - maybe even I could receive a Fax when I wasn't home.
Standalone digital machines have most of these features. Tape
machines have better voice quality than consumer-grade voicemodems.
> Doesn't seem so hard.
> Suggestions? Other than shooting myself/Bill Gates/etc?
> The current setup is a Cardinal "33.6 Speakerphone" modem with Winfax
> Pro. The important Winfax problems are that
> a) the software jams hard every few days, requiring a reboot,
Software bug
> b) people get cut off mid-word,
Probably hardware bug
> and c) the voice quality is lousy.
I have the same Cardinal modem, possibly different software settings
for recording quality, but the voice quality is acceptable -- not
great, but acceptable.
> Less critically, people who just hang up have a long dose of silence
> recorded anyhow,
Hangup detection is a function of the modem, but most of the better
packages have the ability to not keep recordings under a certain
length.
> and remote-retrieval is "hard of hearing". (The WinFax voice-quality and
> silence-detection controls allow one to make the behaviour worse but
> not better.)
> The Cardinal I bought because it was mentioned around here that the
> voice quality was "good", and because my USR Sportster was hopeless
> for voice mail. As mentioned around here.
David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three
My opinions are my own, IRS withstanding Public Access in Chicago
Proud to be the 5,000th least-important Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
usenet-abuser, by the unofficial GSUA. (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail!
------------------------------
From: jfmezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca[nospam]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail That Works *Well* Under NT; Rant Against WinFax
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 20:30:34 -0500
Organization: VTL
Reply-To: jfmezei@videotron.ca[nospam]
Garry W wrote:
> @&!^#%! I have a $4000 PC here, the best non-commercial voice mail
> software I can apparently buy, a respectable dedicated modem for doing
> the voice mail, and it works lousy, I've already researched this
> problem for six months, and I am about to give up and buy a cheap
> answering machine at the drugstore.
I have been running MAGNUM TFLX software on a MAC plus running System
6.5 for years now. Fully programmable. When I bought it, there were
different levels , some of which allowed access to a "database" to
read/write records (eg: take orders, verify username/passwords etc).
It still works, even though my old MAC+'s screen burned.
Remember that some architecture are better suited at handling sounds
than others.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:00:41 -0500
From: JP White <ffv.aerotech@nashville.com>
Reply-To: ffv.aerotech@nashville.com
Organization: FFV Aerotech
Subject: Re: Voice Mail That Works *Well* Under NTl Rant Against WinFax
Did you try the software package Ancilla? This normally a giveaway
with PhoneBlaster cards, but is also available seperately. For more
info see http://www.ancilla.com See also my comments below about the
PhoneBlaster. They claim it runs on NT but I run it on 3.1 and 95,
without major hiccups.
Ancilla can do all the things you want, although quality is a relative
term. With the Creative labs Phoneblaster (which is a sound card/modem
combination capable of full duplex voice operation), I've had no
complaints about quality. It uses the Rockwell chipset which I have
found gives me 28.8 connects about 85% of the time! The Ancilla
software also supports caller ID so you can track people who hangup
without leaving a message. I paid $200 for the Phoneblaster in Media
Play and $110 for the 28.8 upgrade (direct from creative), there is
now a 28.8 PNP upgrade available also. If voice mail is all your'e
interested in then the 28.8 upgrade will not be necessary.
I would personally recommend the PhoneBlaster card together with the
Ancilla software. (Though Ancilla's authors, Kallman claim to support
Cardinal and USR modems).
Hope this helps you out.
JP White
Manager Information Systems
FFV Aerotech Inc.,
Tel : 615-399-6121
Fax : 615-367-4327
Email: mailto:ffv.aerotech@ffvaerotech.com
Web: http://www.ffvaerotech.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #177
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Jul 11 00:20:33 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id AAA01561; Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:20:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:20:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707110420.AAA01561@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #178
TELECOM Digest Fri, 11 Jul 97 00:20:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 178
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
ISDN Appeal in Maryland (Monty Solomon)
Re: "Out of Area" When Will it End? (Stan Schwartz)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (jrro@watson.ibm.com)
Re: US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up" (Nils Andersson)
Re: Sprint PCS Conflict With SWBT CallNotes (Michael Wengler)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 23:09:03 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: ISDN Appeal in Maryland
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 1997 15:47:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Packard Love <love@cptech.org>
Subject: ISDN Appeal in Maryland
Info-Policy-Notes - A newsletter available from listproc@cptech.org
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES
July 6, 1997
CPT's ISDN Tariff Appeal in Maryland
CPT has been active in a number of state ISDN tarff proceedings over
the past couple of years. This is a copy of an appeal we just filed in
the Maryland proceeding, where a hearing examiner recently issued an
opinion which gave little if any consideration to the positions
presented by CPT or the Maryland Office of People's Counsel (OPC).
The Maryland proceeding involves the Bell Atlantic (BA) so-called
"call pack" tariffs. The "call pack" system has the consumers pre-pay
larger blocks of usage at lower rates, or face very high per minute
charges for usage that exceeds the call pack option. One of the way
that Bell Atlantic inflates their costs is by estimating that
consumers will use 90 percent of their pre-paid usage each month, with
no high priced overage. The ratio of actual use to usage purchased is
called the "fill rate." CPT believes the actual average fill rate is
far lower than 90 percent. Indeed, it is hard to believe that
consumers will buy prepaid packages that conform almost exactly to
actual usage month after month. CPT has asked the Maryland PSC to
calculate rates using a 30 percent fill rate, or to have Bell Atlantic
provide the Maryland PSC with actual fill rates over the past several
months. In discovery in the Maryland and New Jersey cases Bell
Atlantic refused to provide CPT with fill rates for each ISDN call
pack, but BA has provided overall data in one proceeding which is
suggests the 90 percent assumption used by the Maryland Hearing
Examiner is absurd. If the Maryland PSC makes an adjustment for this
item alone, Maryland consumers may be able to purchase very large
usage allowances (more than dial-in users would need) for less than
$30 per month.
James Love <love@cptech.org> 202.387.8030
http://www.cptech.org
Before the
MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Case No. 8730
In the Matter of the Residential )
Intellilinq BRI Service Offering ) Case No. 8730
of Bell Atlantic, Maryland, Inc. )
)
APPEAL OF THE CONSUMER PROJECT ON TECHNOLOGY
1. Introduction.
The Consumer Project on Technology appeals the Proposed Order of
the Hearing Examiner (POHE) in Case No. 8730, regarding residential
ISDN rates in Maryland. The central issue raised in this appeal is
that the hearing examiner erred by permitting Bell Atlantic (BA) and
staff to assume unrealistic and empirically refutable assumptions
regarding the amount of Callpack pre-paid usage that consumers
actually use in a given month. This is referred to as the Callpack
"fill rate." As discussed by CPT's expert Fred Goldstein, BA's
assumption of an average 90 percent Callpack "fill rate," given the
proposed penalties for overuse, is completely unreasonable. This
means that BA assumes customers will use 90% on average of whatever
Callpack option they purchase and the price charged by BA is hinged
upon this erroneous assumption. CPT presents a simple modification of
this assumption which lowers staff estimates of usage costs by 70
percent for each Callpack option. In the event that the Commission is
reluctant to specify the proper adjustment, based upon the record
before the Commission, CPT asks that the Commission order an
adjustment based upon the fill rate for each Callpack option over the
past six months. This information is available and it is unreasonable
to use BA's fanciful assumption of 90% rather than either the actual
fill rate or a more rational assumed fill rate. CPT also raises a
number of additional objections to the proposed order.
With regard to usage costs, CPT strongly urges the Commission to
reject the Bell Atlantic analysis, which is based upon an average cost
pricing model, and which does not reflect the enormous economic
efficiencies from greater off- peak usage of the network.
CPT objects to the treatment of loop expenses. Specially, CPT
objects to the POHE's decision to allocate 90 percent of loop expenses
to residential ISDN service, on the grounds that the 10 percent not
allocated to residential ISDN service represents an inadequate
contribution to the loop from long distance calls, features and other
services provided over the local loop. CPT asks that loop costs be
based upon the Office of People's Counsel recommendation of $18 per
month.
CPT believes the POHE does not accurately reflect the record of
the proceeding. For example, the POHE errs in omitting the name of
one of the two CPT witnesses. Mr. Love's testimony is left off the
list of witnesses on page 4. And this seems far more than just a
typographical error because the POHE does not address any of the
central themes presented by Mr. Love or Mr. Goldstein in testimony
before the Commission.
The POHE's discussion of other state ISDN tariffs is incomplete
and unbalanced. Completely ignored is Mr. Love's analysis. The POHE
repeats the errors of Ms. Dean's testimony, without any recognition of
CPT's criticism of Ms. Dean's survey of state ISDN tariffs. POHE
also presents baseless and incorrect assertions by BA as if they have
a factual basis.
2. Usage Costs
OPC's witness testified that the Bell Atlantic usage costs were
derived from an average cost pricing model. As we have stated
repeatedly, it is inappropriate for Maryland regulators to use average
cost pricing models, based upon historic POTS traffic, to set rates
for data services where a far greater percent of usage falls in off
peak hours, when it is essentially costless to use the network.
The fact that off-peak usage does not consume economic resources
is why many state commissions have set call-packs, flat rates or flat
rate options far lower than is recommended by the POHE. This was a
major point of Mr. Love's testimony, which the POHE never addressed.
In addition to Mr. Love's testimony in this proceeding, CPT urges the
Commission to take notice of the January 10, 1997 Report and Order by
the Public Service Commission of Utah. (Attachment 1, Docket
No. 95-049-T20). In this Order, the Utah PSC set a flat rate for ISDN
(without features) at $64, about one third the rate recommended by the
POHE, and just $10 more than the 200 hour option. The $10 difference
between the 200 hour call pack option and the flat rate pays for an
additional usage allowance of 1,245 hours per month. This works out
to less than 1 cent per hour. The reason that the Utah PSC has such a
small differential between the 200 hour call pack and the flat rate
option is that off-peak usage is essentially costless. CPT believes
the POHE ignored its testimony and briefs on this point, and as a
result, it proposes excessive rates for its flat rate option. This
point would be even more clear if the POHE had reported the many under
$60 or under $35 per month flat rate tariffs in its analysis, rather
than simply quoting from Ms. Dean's biased and selective flat rate
tariffs, which omitted flat rate tariffs from Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Tennessee, California (Roseville), Arkansas
(NATCO) and Texas, as well as proposed flat rates current on appeal in
New Mexico and Delaware [page 19].
The problem with an average cost pricing model based upon voice
POTS calls is that after a certain point of usage, the call must be
using off peak network resources. For example, suppose a consumer
actually used 140 hours of service in one month. That is 4.67 hours
per day, on average. The 300 hour call pack option covers 10 hours
per day, on average. Any reasonable analysis would conclude that this
takes the customer out of the range of voice calling patterns - and
because of the greater use of off- peak calling, it should reflect
lower average costs.
However, even based upon this fundamental problem with the usage
cost analysis, it is useful to examine the record in this proceeding.
The staff presented the boundaries for usage costs, based upon FCC's
publicly reported high and low estimates of usage costs. The POHE
reports the OPC claims that 2B usage costs are $.007, thus the 1B cost
would be $.0035. BA is seeking $.02 peak and $.01 off-peak - between
2.5 and 10 times the FCC's estimates of average costs. However, for
the Callpack Option, BA is pricing the service at $.0063 to $.0023 per
minute, depending upon the Callpack. If one looks at the incremental
usage costs of the various Callpack options, then BA is pricing usage
at $.0031 per minute for the incremental usage between the 60 and the
140 Callpack ($15 for 80 an additional hours of usage), or $.0023 for
the incremental usage between the 500 hour and the flat rate options.
($129 for an additional 945 hours).
The Staff usage costs reflect Ms. Ann Dean's adjustments for
excessive charges, and should be given even more weight by the
Commission than BA's self serving analysis. Each and every one of
Ms. Dean's Callpack usage figures is less than $.003 per minute. For
every Callpack except for the 20 hour and the flat rate, Ms. Dean uses
$.0027 to $.0028 per minute. For the incremental cost of the Flat
Rate option Ms. Dean uses $.0017 per minute, or $.104 per hour --
lower than the other callbacks, but still about 13 times higher than
the $.008 per hour used by the Utah Commission.
Table 1
Usage Cost Estimates
Per minute Per hour
High FCC $0.0020 $0.120
Low FCC $0.0040 $0.240
OPC $0.0035 $0.210
BA Standard Peak $0.0200 $1.200
BA Standard Off-peak $0.0100 $0.600
Average BA Callpack Rates
BA CP 20 $0.0063 $0.375
BA CP 60 $0.0060 $0.358
BA CP 140 $0.0043 $0.261
BA CP 300 $0.0037 $0.222
BA CP 500 $0.0032 $0.193
BA 1445 - Flat $0.0026 $0.156
Incremental BA Callpack Rates
BA CP Incremental - 140 $0.0031 $0.188
BA CP Incremental - 1445 $0.0023 $0.137
Average Staff Callpack Rates
Staff CP 20 $0.0025 $0.150
Staff CP 60 $0.0028 $0.167
Staff CP 140 $0.0027 $0.164
Staff CP 300 $0.0027 $0.163
Staff CP 500 $0.0027 $0.162
Staff 1445 - Flat $0.0021 $0.124
Incremental Staff Callpack Rates
Staff CP 20 $ 0.0025 $0.150
Staff CP 60 $ 0.0029 $0.175
Staff CP 140 $ 0.0027 $0.163
Staff CP 300 $ 0.0027 $0.163
Staff CP 500 $ 0.0027 $0.160
Staff 1445 - Flat $ 0.0017 $0.104
The POHE correctly observes that BA did not present any evidence
supporting the very high 1 to 2 cent per minute usage charges for
calls outside the Callpack, and it should be noted that the much lower
Callpack usage rates present a more reasonable rate. This would be
true even if the Callpack rates were divided by .9, the percentage
fill rate estimated by BA and Ms. Dean. However, the Commission
should recognize, that if it requires BA to use a more reasonable
usage rate, based upon the 140 hour call pack, it will mostly
eliminate the need for the call pack options altogether. This is
simply because users will be better off without a Callpack, as long as
their actual usage is less than the Callpack option, once the punitive
1 to 2 cent per minute rates are eliminated, as has been proposed by
the POHE. Moreover, the usage rate which is then used effectively
becomes the relevant tariff for most ISDN users. For this reason, we
request a remand on what the appropriate usage rate should be. The
POHE itself admits that there is no record for the BA proposal for 1
to 2 cents per minute. If BA agrees to the usage fee of less than
$.003, which Ms. Dean uses, then a remand may not be necessary on
this point alone. But if BA asks for a usage rate above $.004, the
outer bound given by the FCC and presented by Staff, there needs to be
a remand on this number.
3. Callpack Fill Rates
As indicated above, CPT is extremely concerned about the BA and
staff use of the assumption that consumers use 90 percent, on average,
of the Callpack pre-paid usage. This is an unreasonable assumption
for many reasons. Who among us would use expect usage that differed
by only 10 percent per month - the consistency necessary to estimate a
90 percent fill rate? (See Fred Goldstein's testimony). CPT believes
the average fill rate is far different than the expected fill rate
presented by BA and staff. Moreover, CPT believes BA can easily
present the Commission with the average fill rates for each call pack
option. CPT believes the actual fill rate may be in the neighborhood
of 30 percent, but we do not know what the actual fill rate is for
each option. CPT asks the Commission to adjust the rates downward to
reflect the actual fill rates, based upon evidence from current
Callpack customers.
Table 2
Call Pack Usage Costs based upon 100 Percent Fill
FCC low FCC high Staff Staff
Call $0.002 $0.004 $0.0030 $0.0019
Pack
20 $2.40 $4.80 $3.60 $2.28
60 $7.20 $14.40 $10.80 $6.84
140 $16.80 $33.60 $25.20 $15.96
300 $36.00 $72.00 $54.00 $34.20
500 $60.00 $120.00 $90.00 $57.00
1445 $173.40 $346.80 $260.10 $164.73
Table 3
Call Pack Usage Costs based upon 90 Percent Fill
FCC low FCC high Staff Staff
Call $0.002 $0.004 $0.0030 $0.0019
Pack
20 $2.16 $4.32 $3.24 $2.05
60 $6.48 $12.96 $9.72 $6.16
140 $15.12 $30.24 $22.68 $14.36
300 $32.40 $64.80 $48.60 $30.78
500 $54.00 $108.00 $81.00 $51.30
1445 $156.06 $312.12 $234.09 $148.26
Table 4
Call Pack Usage Costs based upon 30 Percent Fill
FCC low FCC high Staff Staff
Call $0.002 $0.004 $0.0030 $0.0019
Pack
20 $0.72 $1.44 $1.08 $0.68
60 $2.16 $4.32 $3.24 $2.05
140 $5.04 $10.08 $7.56 $4.79
300 $10.80 $21.60 $16.20 $10.26
500 $18.00 $36.00 $27.00 $17.10
1445 $52.02 $104.04 $78.03 $49.42
Rates based upon 30 percent fill rate and OPC's adjusted
loop costs
To illustrate what reasonable rates would be, we have used the
OPC's $18.50 adjusted loop costs, and the FCC and staff usage costs,
with an assumption of a 30 percent fill rate, which we believe is more
reasonable. The Staff usage costs are based upon the Staff's average
rates for 140 hour Callpack and the flat rate option, adjusted for the
90 percent fill rate assumption used by BA and the Staff.
Table 5
Tariffs based upon OPC adjusted loop at $18.50, FCC and
Staff Usage Costs, and 30 Percent Call Pack Fill Rate
FCC FCC high Staff Staff
low
Call $0.002 $0.004 $0.0030 $0.0019
Pack
20 $19.22 $19.94 $19.58 $19.18
60 $20.66 $22.82 $21.74 $20.55
140 $23.54 $28.58 $26.06 $23.29
300 $29.30 $40.10 $34.70 $28.76
500 $36.50 $54.50 $45.50 $35.60
1445 $70.52 $122.54 $96.53 $67.92
4. Errors in the Record
The POHE is not a balanced document. Not only does it ignore
CPT's analysis in the case, it dismisses the CPT recommendations as
"very dubious" (page 23), while it reports as fact many unsupported
assertions made by BA. For example, the POHE reports Bell Atlantic's
assertion that NATCO's flat rate ISDN rate of $17.90 is a "loss
leader, since it made a substantial profit on long distance calls by
ISDN customers to Internet Service Providers," (page 19) as fact. But
this is simply untrue. NATCO subscribers access their Internet
Service Provider via local toll free calls. In fact, the total cost
of NATCO's flat rate 2B ISDN service and flat rate Internet service is
$40 per month, for both services combined. CPT presented testimony
during the hearing that NATCO reported that the $17.90 flat rate for
ISDN was profitable, but the Hearing Examiner struck this from the
record.
The Hearing Examiner also refused to allow an exhibit which was
an NRRI cost study for ISDN in Tennessee, even though Ms. Dean
misrepresented facts from that very study regarding loop costs, and
the exhibit was needed to set the record straight. Now the POHE says
that there is no record to support an allocation of loop costs for
ISDN, an issue specifically dealt with in the excluded exhibit.
Moreover, the OPC did not ask to exclude the loop, as was stated in
the POHE. The OPC wanted to adjust the loop in the same way that
residential POTS lines are adjusted. This is CPT's recommendation as
well.
Ms. Dean also misrepresented information on the California ISDN
tariff proceeding, and CPT was not permitted to provide an exhibit
which corrected that error. This issue itself provides an important
insight to the Maryland ISDN hearing and the accuracy of the POHE.
The California PUC decided to tariff residential ISDN for less than
$30 per month, with a 200 hour usage allowance. (Attachment 2) This
was very close to the CPT recommendation for Maryland, which the
hearing examiner dismissed as "very dubious."
Finally, we regret the POHE did not move BA in the direction of
more constructive steps to deal with data calls, such as
always-on-ISDN, the new Nortel and Lucent data transport switches, or
other approaches that are needed to provide residential digital data
connections to the Internet.
Conclusion
CPT believes the POHE is demonstrably incorrect in several areas
as discussed above. The common strain throughout the document is one
of deference to unsubstantiated and often inaccurate assumptions made
by Bell Atlantic, while evidence provided by CPT as well as OPC,
either refuting Bell Atlantic or pointing out that the proposed rates
are based upon inaccurate assumptions or a total lack of data, are
ignored. The public interest requires that the Maryland Public
Service Commission approve reasonable ISDN rates based upon actual
costs incurred by Bell Atlantic. The POHE does not provide such
rates.
CPT respectfully requests that its proposed rates be adopted as
follows: 1. A Virtual Flat Rate allowing for 200 hours of off-peak 1B
usage for under $30; or 2. If BA's Callpack system must be used, the
tariff should be based upon the OPC recommended $18.50 loop cost plus
the Staff usage rates from table 5 (using the $.003 usage for
Callpacks up to 140 hours, and the $.0019 usage for Callpacks over 140
hours), plus a 30% fill rate, which yields the following rates: 20
Hours - $19.58; 60 Hours - $21.74; 140 Hours - 26.06; 300 Hours -
$28.76; 500 Hours - $35.60; Flat Rate - $67.92 (See Table 5).
Respectfully Submitted:
July 3, 1997
_________________
Todd J. Paglia
Staff Attorney
Consumer Project on Technology
PO Box 19367
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 387-8030
Certificate of Service
I, Todd Paglia, hereby certify that the foregoing
Notice of Appeal of the Consumer Project on Technology was
served on the parties on the 3rd of July, 1997, by U.S.
mail.
_________________
Todd J. Paglia
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a newsletter sponsored by the Consumer Project
on Technology (CPT), a project of Ralph Nader's Center for Study of
Responsive Law. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential
Information. Archives of Info-Policy-Notes are available from
http://www.essential.org/listproc/info-policy-notes/ (no period). CPT's
Web page is http://www.cptech.org (no period). CPT can both be reached
off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, Voice: 202/387-8030;
Fax: 202/234-5176. Subscription requests to listproc@tap.org with the
message: subscribe info-policy-notes Jane Doe
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
From: Stan Schwartz <bigstan@bigfoot.com>
Reply-To: bigstan@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: "Out of Area" When Will it End?
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 01:52:05 -0400
In article <telecom17.164.8@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Bruce James Robert
Linley <linley@netcom.com> wrote:
> Forgive a stupid question, but when will caller ID be fully
> implemented in the US? I thought the FCC mandated full compliance by
> now, yet I get tons of telemarketers who read as "out of area" on my
> CID box. I think they're hiding behind outdated equipment deliberately
> to avoid identifying themselves. So, when will the day come that
> everyone either sends CID, deliberately chooses to anonymize
> themselves, or must get off the telephone system?
In some cases (many of which "just happen" to be in NYNEX/NY
territory), there is still outdated equipment in use. Customers in
these areas can't get CLASS services, and one person I know in one of
these exchanges had to change his phone number because he needed to
have distinctive ringing for his business.
Here are a couple of CO's as an example:
In the 516 NPA, Farmingdale has a 5ESS which has all of the CLASS
features available, and a 1AESS which has none. The prefixes in the
1A are 391, 454, 531, 752, and 753. Calls from these exchanges show
up as "out of area" on my CID boxes.
In the 212 NPA, I have an acquaintance in the East 56th street DS1,
which serves prefixes 308, 311, 355, 486, 644, and 759. The same
applies on calls from here.
In the early 90's, NYNEX's response to when these prefixes would be
updated was "by the first of next year" (no matter what year it was).
Now, all I get is "we have no date listed for that, sir".
Stan
------------------------------
From: jrro@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: 9 Jul 1997 15:02:14 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Reply-To: jrro@watson.ibm.com
In <telecom17.173.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mark J. Cuccia
<mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> writes:
> o To clean your new telephone, should cleaning become necessary, simply
> use a damp cloth and mild soap. Detergents, chemically treated cloths,
> or harsh cleaning agents are not recommended.
> [Since WECO/NECO made these telephones better than military tanks, these
> phones probably would survive an atomic blast without a scratch on them.
> But the brochure still indicated not to use harsh cleaning agents, etc.]
This is a distinguishing characteristic of those 500 sets ... if you
hit someone in the head with one, you could kill the person.
WE went to a lot of trouble to make those sets bullet-proof, as they
were the owners. This really show thru on the insides, as all the
wire lugs are crimped and soldered, and the various switch contacts
inside are *all* bifurcated. The engineers realized that if a piece
of dust got into one contact, it would eventually work its way out
(the contacts were made to be wiping, btw) but in the meantime, the
instrument would be "broken." So they just split the contact spring
down the middle, and added another set of buttons on the ends -
thereby reducing the problem a couple orders of magnitude, and
eliminating the labor charges connected with a house service call.
Every bit of those 500 sets was done that way -- so they could be
immersed for days, and still operate. The hybrid coil is potted in a
flexy, gummy, silicone grease goop that must have been a real
materials challenge to the WE folks. But it works great.
I love those sets. Every time someone asks me to install a "modern"
phone, I argue against it, but the when they insist, I take the 500
set as payment.
Someday, pulse dialing will be eliminated. Until then ...
Jim
J
R
R
zero
at watson.ibm.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:41:49 -0400
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up"
In article <telecom17.175.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, dannyb@panix.com (Danny
Burstein) writes:
> On the other hand, certain of their practices, i.e. the cellular
> companies that charge for airtime while waiting for the person to
> answer, or the ones that charge airtime for busy/unaswered calls,
> _are_ excpetional and they (the telcos) should be wrung by the neck
> until they come clean on these. I haven't seen any lawsuits on
> these ... (I'd love to hear if there are any.)
There are several catches here. Most cellproviders charge "half" for
uncompleted calls. If you let it ring for 58 seconds you pay for 30
seconds (halfrate). If you let it ring for 62 seconds, you pay for 60
seconds. The catch is, if the phone rings for a minute or so, and
then answers, you get charged full rate for the full time, i.e. from
when you hit SEND till you hit END.
Regards,
Nils
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, you mean the SND key on my cell
phone means 'send'? I thought it meant 'spend'. grin ... PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 1997 12:38:15 -0700
From: Michael Wengler <mwengler@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Sprint PCS Conflict With SWBT CallNotes
I am sure it can be classified as a SWBT CallNotes bug. You should
call SWBT and tell them CallNotes is not working right and describe
your situation.
If CallNotes was working right, then EITHER:
1) Those calls would get to your mailbox in CallNotes, not some
generic prompt;
OR
2) SWBT switch, which knows this was a forwarded call, should realize
it was one CallNotes wouldn't handle, and should then NOT forward the
call to CallNotes!
What is happening is that CallNotes is using the original DialedNumber
to identify where in CallNotes your call should be routed. Instead,
CallNotes should be using the RungNumber to make that determination.
Obviously, in 99.94% of situations, DialedNumber and RungNumber point
to the same phone. But if the call got there by forwarding, they
point to different phones, and since your Sprint phone number is not a
CallNotes subscriber ... it thinks you are calling in for your messages.
A cool test of this would be to find a landline phone that has call
forwarding. Set it to call forward to your home phone. Call your
home phone, then see how CallNotes handles this one. If CallNotes
bobbles this one too, you know it is NOT a SPRINT problem at all. If
CallNotes handles this call correctly, then it means SWBT is doing
something really wierd, since if they had the info they needed to ring
your home phone, then they had the info they needed to get CallNotes
into the right state, but failed to do it.
The reason this is a BUG is that if SWBT is not going to support taking
messages for calls forwarded to you, then the SWBT switch should not
forward your call to CallNotes at all. Essentially, by forwarding the call
to CallNotes, they are admitting that their INTENTION was to correctly
handle this situation, but that they have bollixed it. Obviously, the SWBT
switch knows both the DialedNumber and the RungNumber or else your home
phone wouldn't have Rung! So SWBT switch has all the info it needs in
order to:
1) Forward to CallNotes with RungNumber so CallNotes process correctly;
2) Recognize a forwarded call which then should not be forwarded to
CallNotes.
<http://people.qualcomm.com/mwengler/home.htm>
Michael J. Wengler mwengler@qualcomm.com
R-303R at QUALCOMM, Inc. Voice: (619) 658-5476
6455 Lusk Blvd Beep: (619) 605-3580
San Diego, CA 92121-2779 PCS: (619) 602-8515
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not think it believes he is
calling in for messages. If it thought it was him, for example
because he was using his own phone to call the main incoming
number, then it would respond by saying something like 'enter
your password now, or press the pound sign to enter a different
mailbox number.' Only if it has no idea at all who is calling
does it go to the very generic prompt he reported receiving.
With most telco voicemail things I know about, a subscriber can
dial the main incoming number and still get two different prompts
depending on if he is calling from his own (or some other sub-
scriber's phone) or if he is calling from a number which is
totally unknown for any reason to the voicemail. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #178
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jul 15 00:12:41 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id AAA17133; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:12:41 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 00:12:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707150412.AAA17133@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #179
TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jul 97 00:12:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 179
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
562 Mandatory July 26 (Tad Cook)
UCLA Short Course on Multirate Digital Filters and Applications (B Goodin)
303 in Jeopardy (Donald M. Heiberg)
Book Review: "CDPD: Cellular Digital Packet Data Standards" (Rob Slade)
Peetz Colorado Coop TelCo (Donald M. Heiberg)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: 562 Mandatory July 26
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:03:23 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
562 Area Code Becomes Mandatory on July 26;
`Get Acquainted` Dialing Period Will No Longer Be In Effect
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 14, 1997--Effective July 26, anyone
who wants to complete a call into the 562 area code, serving
southeastern Los Angeles County and small portions of Orange County,
will only be able to do so by dialing the 562 area code.
Anyone not dialing the 562 area code will receive a recorded message
reminding them of the area code change. The reminder will last for
three months.
The 562 area code was created through a split of the 310 area code in
January 1997.
For the last six months, a `get acquainted` dialing period has enabled
callers to use either the old 310 or new 562 when completing a call to
customers in the new 562 area code. Also, for the last six months,
people in the 310 and 562 area codes could call between the two area
codes using seven digits.
That arrangement will end July 26 and customers will have to dial 1 +
the area code and the seven-digit number to dial between the 310 and
562 area codes. A reminder of important details: Area Code Boundaries
-- Former 310 area code customers in the southeastern part of Los
Angeles County and small portions of Orange County must begin using
the 562 instead of the 310 as their area code beginning July 26. Among
the cities in this area are: Paramount, Downey, Pico Rivera, Whittier,
Norwalk, Lakewood, most of Long Beach (however a small portion remains
in 310), Los Alamitos and La Habra and part of Bell Gardens, Brea, La
Mirada and La Palma.
-- Existing 310 area code customers in the southwestern portion of Los
Angeles County will keep the 310 area code. Among the communities in
this area are: San Pedro, Wilmington, Compton, Torrance, Redondo
Beach, El Segundo, Santa Monica, and Malibu and most of Gardena,
Culver City, West Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. Price of Calls Will
Not Be Affected
California Code Administrator Doug Hescox, who oversees area code
relief efforts on behalf of the statewide telecommunications industry,
said the introduction of the 562 area code will not affect the price
of telephone calls.
`Call distance determines call price. What is a local call now will
remain a local call regardless of the area code change.` He also said
the area code's introduction will not affect customer's seven-digit
phone numbers. `Only the area code portion of their phone number will
change.`
Hescox said the 562 area code was created to meet the seemingly
insatiable demand for new phone numbers being seen not only in Los
Angeles, but across the state. `Californians are continuing to use
telephone numbers at record rates,` he said. `California already has
16 area codes and will need to add seven more through 1998 to keep
pace with customer demand for new phone numbers.
`Two primary factors driving that demand are local telephone service
competition and the high-technology explosion. With the onset of
widespread competition in California's local telephone market, each
new provider requires its own supply of phone numbers.
Further, the rising demand for fax machines, pagers, cellular phones,
modems for Internet access and other high-tech equipment also is
increasing the demand for phone numbers,` he said. Things to Remember
Change stationery, notify friends and associates.
Hescox noted that its important to remember, if you haven't already done
so, to make important changes including:
-- Change stationery, business cards and advertising to reflect the new
area code
-- Notify friends, relatives, business clients and customers of the new
area code
-- Update fax machine group calling lists that have numbers affected by the
change
-- Reprogram speed dialers, auto dialers, alarms and PBX (private phone
systems) to reflect the change (contact your equipment vendor for
assistance)
-- Reprogram outdial lists on personal computers that have numbers affected
by the change
-- Check with their wireless phone and paging service providers to see if
reprogramming is required
`People in the 310 and 562 area codes need to remember that the area
code change affects both area codes,` Hescox said.
`For instance, people in the 310 who had fax machine group calling
lists into the 562 area code based on seven digits will have to
reprogram these lists to include 1 + the 562 area code. The same is
true for people in the 562 who now will need to dial 1 + 310 to reach
people in the 310 area code.` 562 is California's 1st New-Style Area
Code; Make Sure Equipment Can Accommodate
The new 562 area code is part of a series of new-style area codes
introduced in North America beginning in 1995 that can be any three
digits from 220 to 999. It is the first of these new codes introduced
in California. This has special implications for certain types of
telecommunications equipment, which must be reprogrammed to recognize
the new-style area codes, Hescox said.
`Historically, area codes always had either a '1' or '0' as the middle
digit for identification purposes, but by 1995 all of those codes had
been assigned. However, certain types of telecommunications equipment
were built to look for that middle digit of '1' or '0' to process the
call.
`Because of this, it's important for customers to know that PBX
(private phone) systems, auto-dialers, alarms and other
telecommunications equipment may have to be re-programmed to recognize
these new-style area codes in order for calls to complete,` said
Hescox. People should check with their vendors to see if their
equipment needs to be updated.
Business customers are also reminded to notify their customers of the
area code change. `That way, they can modify their PBX systems so
they can place calls to the new 562 area code,` Hescox said.
The new 562 area code is expected to accommodate the need for new
phone numbers until the first quarter of 2006, while the reconfigured
310 area code is expected to have enough telephone numbers to last
until the third quarter of 1999.
The need for area code relief in the 310 area code was originally
announced in March 1994. In August 1995, the California Public
Utilities Commission ordered a geographic split of the 310 area code
to meet the need for more phone numbers. A group of city and county
government officials from the affected areas proposed the area code
boundaries, which were later approved by the Commission.
http://www.businesswire.com
------------------------------
From: Bill Goodin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Multirate Digital Filters and Applications"
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 18:29:24 -0700
On October 8-10, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Multirate Digital Filters and Applications", on the UCLA campus in
Los Angeles.
The instructor is Professor frederick harris, Electrical and Computer
Engineering, San Diego State University.
This course is an introduction to multirate digital filters, which are
variants of non-recursive filters, and incorporate one or more
resamplers in the signal path. These embedded resamplers affect
changes in sample rate for upsampling, downsampling, or combinations
of both. Changes in sampling rate as part of the signal processing is
a feature unique to sampled data systems. and has no counterpart in
continuous signal processing. Benefits include reduced cost for a
given signal processing task and improved levels of performance for a
given computational burden. This economy of computation has become an
essential requirement of modern communication systems, particularly
battery-operated equipment.
Specific course topics include: Introduction to sample rate
conversion, Non-recursive (finite impulse response) filters, Prototype
FIR filter design methods, Decimation and interpolation, Multirate
filters, Two-channel filter banks, M-channel filter banks,
Proportional bandwidth filter banks and wavelet analysis, Polyphase
recursive all-pass filter banks, Multirate filter applications.
UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course
since 1995.
The course fee is $1195, which includes extensive course materials.
These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale.
For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
From: Donald M. Heiberg <dheiberg@ecentral.com>
Subject: 303 in Jeopardy
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:45:53 -0600
From the {Rocky Mountain News}, July 12
http://www.denver-rmn.com/business/0712acode.htm
Area code 303 frozen, for now.
Unusual action taken to protect remaining blocks to ensure fair
allocation of numbers
By Rebecca Cantwell=20
Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
-------------------------------------------------------
The official in charge of doling out blocks of phone numbers put a
temporary freeze on issuing more "303'' numbers this week.
Numbering plan administrator Jack Ott declared that 303 numbers are in
jeopardy and "special conservation measures must be invoked'' in
documents filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
He wants to assure that the remaining 303 numbers will be fairly
allocated to the fiercely competitive telephone, wireless and paging
companies that covet them.
"This is unusual,'' said Public Utiltities Commission spokeswoman
Barbara Fernandez. "There has never been a jeopardy declared in Colorado
in the past.''
Ott has told the PUC that all available central office codes, or
prefixes, for 303 will be used up during the third quarter of 1998 and a
new area code should be in place by May 31.
But during testimony last week on adding an area code or two to the 303
terrain, some feared a "run'' on 303 numbers before then.
Companies just entering the local telephone market worry that they will
be at a competitive disadvantage with US West, which has the bulk of 303
numbers, if an overlay area code is adopted. An overlay would leave all
303 numbers alone but give a new area code to most new users.
Ott's declaration to the PUC is accompanied by a "Jeopardy Allocation
Plan'' to ration the remaining blocks of 303 numbers. He proposes a
quota system for telephone, paging and wireless companies.
Ott, a US West Communications manager whose authority derives from
federal law, said the freeze will last 30 days or until the PUC adopts
a final plan for rationing numbers, whichever is shorter. If the PUC
hasn't acted, he said his plan will be put in effect. The commission
plans to consider Ott's plan at a meeting July 29.
After listening to three days of testimony on area code changes last
week, the commission is slated to decide Friday whether to add an
overlay on top of all of 303 or to split the region geographically.
During the hearings, some experts argued that there isn't a real
shortage of 303 numbers, but a flaw in how they are allocated.
Currently, companies receive them in blocks of 10,000, corresponding
to a prefix. Many numbers in those blocks are unused in some areas,
experts testified.
Saturday, July 12, 1997
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 10:29:10 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "CDPD: Cellular Digital Packet Data Standards"
BKCDPDST.RVW 970119
"CDPD: Cellular Digital Packet Data Standards and Technology", John
Agosta/Travis Russell, 1997, 0-07-000600-8
%A John Agosta
%A Travis Russell
%C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6
%D 1997
%G 0-07-000600-8
%I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne
%O 905-430-5000 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca
%P 243
%T "CDPD: Cellular Digital Packet Data Standards and Technology"
This book is a serviceable reference to the standards and technology
of cellular digital packet data (CDPD). Those implementing CDPD
applications will find all the necessary details in regard to packet
composition and header formation.
I must admit that the implicit, and almost completely subjective,
"but" in the preceding paragraph surprised me. After all, the topic
is technical, and one doesn't generally expect more than the facts.
However, in comparison to Sreetharan and Kumar's "Cellular Digital
Packet Data" (cf. BKCDPD.RVW), the current work is somewhat lacking.
There is little excitement or sense of challenge. In addition, the
complacent tone of the book is unattractive. The acceptance of a
monthly cost exceeding that of a year's telephone or Internet service,
for a data budget which would be consumed in less than a minute's
worth of Web browsing, reflects a smugness that seems to be all too
prevalent in the telecommunications industry as a whole. It does not
presage well for the use of CDPD in applications other than the
limited, low traffic, high transaction value situations such as point
of sale terminals.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCDPDST.RVW 970119
======================
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
From: Donald M. Heiberg <dheiberg@ecentral.com>
Subject: Peetz Colorado Coop TelCo
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 09:42:17 -0600
From the {Denver Post}
http://www.denverpost.com/news/news696.htm
Rural subsidies at issue
By Jim Carrier
{Denver Post} Business Writer
July 14 - A telephone is hard to come by in Peetz.
There's no store downtown. In fact, there's no downtown. There's a post
office, school, grain elevator-gas station, town office and one bar.
Farmers must drive 16 miles north to Nebraska or 25 miles south to
Sterling to shop for telephone equipment at Wal-Mart.
But when they get it home and plug in - Shazam! - they connect to one of
the smallest and most sophisticated telephone systems in the country.
In the sixth building "downtown" is the Peetz Cooperative Telephone Co.
Customers: 200. Employees: two - Glenna in the office and Jerry outside
making repairs - who know every customer's first name.
For 15 bucks a month, Peetz residents get touch-tone service with call
waiting. For a buck more they call forward. For another buck,
distinctive rings for the kids' second line. Then there's voice mail.
All-weather buried lines. Glass-fiber long distance. Everything they
need to plug into the Internet or hook up satellite TV or read {The
Denver Post Online}, which wheat grower Kurtis Hiett does several times a
week.
All this from two small boxes installed in May, back behind Glenna
Hume's desk. It's a state of the art, digital switching service that
hums away while Glenna cuts the year-end dividend checks for the
cooperative, if it's been a good year.
Sounds idyllic doesn't it? What with deregulation and competition and
big-deal telephone companies picking at us for their business? How do
they do it, way up in Peetz?
The answer is those same big companies, AT&T, MCI, US West and about 50
other national telephone companies that keep cash flowing into rural
America.
Less than 20 percent of Peetz's annual telephone bill is paid by its
200 customers. The rest comes from the long distance carriers through
various pools and access fees, a passel of subsidies from all
U.S. phone customers that means great service, low rates and money
back to people in Peetz.
Yet under the federal deregulation that revolutionized long distance,
those subsidies are at risk. The Federal Communications Commission has
proposed, but tabled, "reform" plans and "efficiencies" that Peetz
residents fear could double or quadruple local phone bills.
Peetz is one of 26 independent telephone companies in Colorado and one
of 1,500 in the country. Colorado's smallest are Willard with 60
customers and Stoneham with 73, both in the Peetz neighborhood of
northeastern Colorado. The 26 companies, in aggregate, cover less than
3 percent of the state's population.
They are called "high cost" companies because their cost per line is 115
percent above the national average of $24 per line. With 198 miles of
line, and 20 miles to its most distance ranch, the Peetz cooperative
can't charge enough to pay for its costs.
Subsidies that began in the 1930s - Peetz Cooperative was started by
farmers in 1918 - have helped them stay modern. Peetz, for example, got
rid of party lines 15 years ago, long before US West did in rural areas.
Of its 1996 revenues of $292,749, the Peetz telephone company received
$157,000 from long distance telephone companies through the National
Exchange Carrier Association, which redistributes the money. Another
$46,000 came from instate long-distance companies, about half from US
West, which pays Peetz 10 cents per minute to access Peetz' customers.
"We pay them more money than they turn over to us in toll revenue," said
Guy Duncan, senior access manager for US West.
By contrast, Peetz' 200 customers paid $45,461 for local service, an
average of $18 per month.
Also included in the income mix last year was $19,440 from a federal
"universal" fund, paid by big companies, a figure projected to grow to
$67,000 this year. It also got $7,622 from a Colorado High Cost Fund
pool and $2,328 from a low-income Lifeline, both paid for by Colorado
telephone customers.
Peetz was also able to borrow more than $200,000 at 5 percent interest
from the Rural Electric Association to buy its new equipment. Because of
the debt, no dividend was returned to its long-term customers last year,
but it can amount to $200 to $300 for heavy long-distance users.
Under the initial FCC proposal, $18 billion in rural subsidies would be
eliminated, including a 50 percent cut in access fees to be replaced by
flat monthly fees for each business line. In rural Peetz, with few
businesses, that's a joke.
"Our customers wouldn't be able to afford telephone service if they
stopped the subsidy. I'm sure bills would be over $100 a month," said
Hume.
The FCC proposal met vehement protest - part based on business, part on
nostalgia for the rural way of life - that has moved it back to the
drawing board. No one expects subsidies to disappear.
"There's a very strong political move to protect and support rural
telephone companies," said Larry Povich, an industry analyst with the
Federal Communications Commission. "We will continue a level of support
to these companies." Subsidy aside, it's still better in Peetz, where
everybody knows your name.
"I have some that come in to pay their bill as soon as they get it from
the post office. They come right over," said Hume.
And when something goes wrong? "This is a pretty tight community.
Nobody's afraid to say anything and it's done in a peaceful,
respectable manner," said Hiett, chairman of the nonprofit's
board. The most common problem is lightning strikes at the house box.
"They're so efficient, it doesn't seem like we have to have anything
fixed," said Postmaster Sandra Vallier.
As Peetz joins forces with other tiny telephone companies, they realize
that if subsidies remain, they may be so lucrative that competing
telephone companies may come in, just as they are doing in Denver, to
lure customes away.
A harbinger are the calls - through the lucrative "access" - that pour
into Peetz each night.
"I get several right here at the post office," said Vallier. "They're
selling anything and everything. They call you up at all hours at night.
It gets real annoying.''
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #179
******************************
NOTE: Due to mailing problems, issue 180 was lost in transit and
it eventually reached the archives following issue 184. Look
down in this file three more issues to find number 180.
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jul 15 09:15:19 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA08755; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:15:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707151315.JAA08755@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #181
TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jul 97 09:15:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 181
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
US-Pacific Islands - Caller-ID, Other Info (Mark J. Cuccia)
609 NPA Split Hearing: Nobody Showed (Tad Cook)
Experts Suggest Area-Code Strategies for Saint Paul, Minn. (Tad Cook)
Re: Fun With Inside Wire (Alan Boritz)
Re: Fun With Inside Wire (Gary Breuckman)
Re: Fun With Inside Wire (Carl Knoblock)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (William H. Bowen)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Lee Winson)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Ed Ellers)
Re: RJx, USOC, and Jack Types (Almeda Eyre-Eagles)
Re: RJx, USOC, and Jack Types (Gerry Belanger)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 10:14:48 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: US-Pacific Islands - Caller-ID, Other Info
On Thursday evening CDT (New Orleans) which was Friday daytime (Guam
time), I placed a call to GTA (Guam Telephone Authority) about a
dialing and interconnection matter.
As many now know, Guam and Saipan (CNMI) have become incorporated into
the NANP (North American Numbering Plan), Country-Code +1, as of
1-July-1997. Through 30-June-1998, both are supposed to also be
permissively dialable under their own ITU-assigned country-codes (+670
for Saipan and the Northern Mariana Islands; +671 for Guam). The
numericals of their ITU country-codes have become the same numericals
for their area-codes under country-code +1.
Also, it seems that via at least the "big-three" (AT&T, MCI, Sprint),
these two US Pacific territories are also now incorporated into the
_domestic_ billing structure when called from the US (including Alaska
and Hawaii). I'm not sure about calls between Guam/CNMI and
Puerto-Rico/USVI when it comes to billing and rating. But I've been
told that Guam/CNMI are also now incorporated into the US-domestic
OutWATS band structure, as well as the US-domestic InWATS (toll-free
800/888/etc) band structure. Last year, we had been told that it
wouldn't be until about August, a month after Guam/CNMI became
dialable as part of the NANP, that they would become domestic-rated
between the mainland US.
Also, calls to Directory Assistance on Guam or Saipan (at least from
the US) can be reached (via some/most carriers) with NANP-dialing:
671-KLondike-5-1212 for Guam
670-KLondike-5-1212 for Saipan/Mariana
I _assume_ that (at least from the US) such calls will be between
90-cents and $1.00, not counting any possible calling-card surcharges
when billing to such.
Anyhow, the person I needed to speak with in Guam was out-to-lunch, as
it was Friday 'noontime' over there. I left a message with his
voicemail, and included my home telephone number. About an hour later,
he called me back, and my Caller-ID box indicated the full ten-digit
telephone number, 671-646- and the last four digits! However, the
'name-field' on the ID box was just a 'string-of-dashes'.
The name-field being 'blank' was not a problem with AT&T or whatever
LD carrier was used on the call, but probably BellSouth on _my_
end. Since this 671-646- number was obviously _not_ in the BellSouth
name-lookup database, and since BellSouth probably doesn't (yet) have
a way to name-lookup GTA's database, BellSouth 'defaulted' to just the
string-of-dashes for the name-field.
However, on calls from Ameritech in the Chicago area, I _am_ getting
names, as I usually do on both (inTRA-LATA) local and toll calls
_completely_ handled by BellSouth, and LD-company-carried (inTER-LATA)
calls which originate from most anywhere in BellSouth's nine-state
territory. However, calls from non-BellSouth (i.e. CLEC and incumbent
independent telcos) wirecenters within BellSouth LATA's sometimes are
"out-of-area", or if I get the ten-digit number, the name-field gives
the city and the abbreviation of the state. BTW, here in New Orleans,
BellSouth Mobility _is_ passing Caller-ID data on local and inTRA-LATA
(BellSouth-handled) calls, but the 'name' is "NEW_ORLEANS,_LA". Calls
from my cellular to points outside of my LATA still show up on the
far-end as "out-of-area".
Calls from Ameritech in Wisconsin (via most carriers) are showing up
on my ID-box with the ten-digit number, but only the city/state
indication. But on _my_ calls to Ameritech (Wisconsin, and
Chicago-area) give a name as "LOUISIANA_CALL", not even indicating
"New Orleans". Calls from _other_ LEC areas, to me, give the
city/state indication if the ten-digit number shows up, and calls to
me from Canada (if the ten-digit number shows up) still give the
spelled-out name of the (primary) province served by the area-code, in
the 'name-field'.
I haven't yet received a call from Alaska or Hawaii, nor Saipan, nor
PR/USVI, nor non-US NANP Caribbean locations. Some of them might have
a ten-digit number show up, while others might be "out-of-area". But
on calls from Guam where I am getting a full ten-digit-number,
BellSouth _SHOULD_ give me a default of city/GM (or city/NN for 670
Northern Mariana Is), or at least default spell-out "GUAM" (and
"SAIPAN" or "CNMI" or "MARIANA_ISLANDS" from 670) for my name-field on
the Caller-ID box.
Some other things regarding American Samoa and other US (and UN) Pacific
islands:
American Samoa (ITU-assigned country-code +684) hasn't yet really made
any moves forward to join the NANP. Early this year, they didn't really
want to become incorporated into the (US) domestic-based billing/rate
shedules, however at a Pacific Islands telcom carriers' meeting last
month in Washington DC, they _did_ indicate that they wanted to become
domestically rated with other US jurisdictions. However, it was
determined that there could be problems and confusion with such if
American Samoa was still not part of the NANP. The US Govt's State Dept.
and Interior Dept. have desired that American Samoa become incorporated
into the NANP and domestic billing, just as with Guam/CNMI.
Bellcore-NANPA did 'reserve' NPA 684 some time ago, in case America
Samoa was going to join the NANP at the same time as Guam/CNMI. But
about a year ago, the 684 NPA was put back into the general availability
pool. However more recently, 684 again is reserved in case American
Samoa _does_indeed_ join the NANP.
American Samoa's local numbering is 7-digits, of the NXX-xxxx format.
Directory Assistance (in Pago-Pago) must _still_ be connected by the
local/toll operator. AT&T's operator-handled directory charge for
Am.Samoa is $7.95! And while I still don't know the name and telephone
number of Am.Samoa's local telco, I do have a number for a government
office down there. The prefix is 633-, and the line-numbers are
consecutive as if in a hunt-group. When I called last night (American
Samoa time was just after 5:30 pm on Thursday afternoon ... they are on
the same side of the Int'l-Date-Line as Hawaii), I heard a faint string
of 'MF' just before I heard 'standard' North American 'ESS-ringing' tone
and cadence. But it turned out that I was a bit too late in my call, and
the various "hunt-group" numbers just rang-and-rang.
The island of Palau (just southeast of the Philippines) is country-code
+680. I don't have any indications if they intend to join the NANP or
not, however, I'd heard that their international access prefix is being
changed from the ITU international recommendation of '00+', to the NANP
standard of '011+'. IMO, this is an omen! <grin> I don't know what their
dialing and numbering standards are offhand.
Two other US/UN Pacific island areas are the Federated States of
Micronesia (+691), and the Marshall Islands (+692). Both are located
about east-southeast of Guam/CNMI. I also don't know what their
numbering/dialing patterns are, nor do I know if they use 00+, 011+, or
something else for international access. _IF_ they decide to join the
NANP, they can _NOT_ carry-over the numericals of their country-code, as
no three-digit NANP area-code can carry a middle-digit of '9' since that
range is reserved for NANP future expansion to a "longer-than-ten-digit"
format.
The Philippines (+63) _used_ to be a US possesion, prior to 1948. They
got their independence on 4-July-1948. (The US got control of Cuba,
Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and I think maybe some other territory,
from Spain, after the Spanish-American War, some 100 years ago). From
what older people have told me, during WW-II, people in the US thought
that after "the war", the Philippines would have become the 49th state!
General Telephone (or GT&E as it was also known) did own and operate
_some_ of the telephone/telecom services in the Philippines from the
mid-1950's through the mid-1960's. When GTE wanted to purchase the
Mutual Telephone Company of Hawaii in the mid-60's, they sold off their
Philippines interests, _probably_ (tho' I don't know for sure) due to
FCC/FTC/DOJ/etc. 'antitrust' rules. There have always been several
telephone companies and carriers in the Philippine Islands. Some have
had competition against one another (with _no_ interconnectivity), while
others just were monopolies on their respective island/territory and
sometimes did interconnect. There has been quite a hodge-podge of
equipment, tones, numbering/dialing, etc. Some of the old SxS exchanges
sound like US-based (GTE)AE-made Step, and I wouldn't be surprised if
_some_ of the modern exchanges have North American ringing indication
tone and dialtone. However, the numbering and dialing plan is _very_
NON-North-American, and much like other countries have been for some
time - i.e. mixed-length, variable-parsing, etc.
I don't forsee the Philippines desiring to become included within the
NANP at any time soon, but you never know!
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Subject: 609 NPA Split Hearing: Nobody Showed
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:23:35 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Call for Hearings on New Jersey Area Code Goes Unanswered
BY DANIEL WEISSMAN, THE STAR-LEDGER, NEWARK, N.J.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 11--What if they had a public hearing on how to split the 609
area code and no one came?
Ask Board of Public Utilities Commissioner Carmen Armenti.
Yesterday he conducted the second public hearing on that proposal in
the BPU offices in Trenton on that plan, with just one witness,
Kenneth Birtcile, 72, of Trenton appearing. Birtcile urged that the
code be split geographically so local calls could be made by dialing
seven digits.
A similar plan, which is now in effect, inflamed North Jersey last
year when the BPU began its deliberations that led to the new 973 and
732 area codes.
Armenti said no one from the public showed up Tuesday in Camden for
the first hearing. The only comments came from Assemblyman George
Geist (R-Camden), who complained the commission should hold its
hearings at night to give more people the opportunity to be heard.
Armenti said he believes the 609 area code hearings have been sparsely
attended because the telecommunications companies didn't bring in
people to testify as they did in North Jersey.
But despite the apparent lack of public interest, the area code
situation in South Jersey is as severe as it was in North Jersey
before the commission moved to establish a new 973 and 732 area codes.
"There's been an explosion of fax machines, pagers, cell phones and
modems," said Armenti.
He said the region is expected to run out of numbers by next June, and
he is hopeful the commission will make its decision by the end of the
year on how to split the 609 area code so the new system can be in
operation by the middle to end of next year.
If the division is made geographically, eight of the 216
municipalities in the existing 609 area code will end up with two area
codes within their borders.
The alternative is to assign a new area code to all new telephones,
which would require dialing 10 digits to make some local calls and the
possibility of some homeowners finding they have two different area
codes within their own home.
"We want it done with the least disruption possible," said Armenti.
Wayne Milby, area code administrator for the Bell Atlantic region,
warned the 609 region could run out of available numbers before the
end of next June. Bell Atlantic New Jersey spokesman Tim Ireland said
each area code has a capacity for 7.7 million numbers. "It's getting
close to being used up in the 609 code," he said.
Armenti refused to speculate on how the PUC would divide the 609 area
code. He said that will be determined after Bell Atlantic, AT&T and
other telephone-service providers get their say in September at
hearings that are expected to draw more public interest.
------------------------------
Subject: Experts Suggest Area-Code Strategies for Saint Paul, Minn.
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:25:42 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Experts Suggest Area-Code Strategies for Saint Paul, Minn., Area
BY MARTIN J. MOYLAN, SAINT PAUL PIONEER PRESS, MINN.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 11--Would 15 million or 16 million phone numbers be enough to
meet the Twin Cities' appetite for home and business lines, pagers,
cell phones, fax machines, modems and other devices?
That's how many numbers would become available in the Twin Cities if a
new area code is added and new technology is adopted to maximize use
of all available phone numbers.
Greg Doyle, a telecommunications analyst with the Minnesota Department
of Public Service, says hundreds of thousands of numbers in the 612
area code are unused now.
As many as 7.9 million seven-digit numbers are available within an
area code. But Doyle said his poll of telecommunications firms
indicates that only about 5 million numbers in the 612 areas code are
in use.
Two technologies on the horizon -- number portability and number
pooling -- would facilitate the use of unused numbers, perhaps
delaying the need for yet more new area codes in the future, Doyle
told Public Utilities Commissioners Thursday.
The commissioners were in Minneapolis holding the second in a series
of six public hearings about the Twin Cites' need for a second area
code. About 20 people, including state and telecommunications
industry employees, showed up.
The PUC hopes to decide the area code matter by August.
Number portability means customers could change local phone companies
but keep their phone numbers. Pooling will allow unused numbers
assigned to a particular area or telecommunications firm to be
reassigned to another area or company.
Now, numbers are generally assigned in blocks of 10,000, even though a
company or exchange may use only a small portion of them.
Perhaps number pooling and portability would postpone the need for yet
another area code for the metro area until well into the next century,
Doyle suggested.
And if that's the case, maybe the PUC would favor giving one part of
the Twin Cities the 612 area code and the other a new area code,
figuring another dismemberment wouldn't be painfully close, he said.
Otherwise, perhaps the PUC would favor an overlay, which leaves
existing customers with their present numbers but assigns a new area
code to customers getting new service, Doyle suggested.
US West and other phone companies took number portability into account
in projecting how long various solutions would delay the need for yet
another area code. But they apparently did not consider number
pooling. It's not specifically mentioned in their report to the PUC.
The various area code alternatives the industry advanced would
postpone the need for another area code by for up to 11 years.
The metro area will get a second area code by the fall of 1998, at the
latest. Consumers and businesses -- gobbling up extra voice and data
lines, and using more cell phones, pagers and fax machines -- are
draining the 612 area code of telephone numbers fast.
The question is whether we'll get an overlay -- two area codes for the
same region -- or a split, in which some part of the Twin Cities keeps
the 612 area code and the severed region gets a new one.
With an overlay, even phones within the same home or business could
have different area codes, and all local calls would require 10-digit
dialing.
------------------------------
From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: Fun With Inside Wire
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:27:40 -0400
In article <telecom17.176.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> This morning, I had a visit from Ameritech repair. I pay for inside
> wire. Much of the telephone wire is old-fashioned 3-conductor wire.
> Recently, I discovered such wire leading from a wiring block to the
> basement. In the basement, it was a part of a bundle of wire to the
> other apartments. I asked that repair identify the proper
> conductors. During the original installation, the technician informed
> me that there were no wires there, otherwise I would have had it
> activated at the time.
> The repair guy showed up and informed me that this "inside wire" was
> not part of my maintenance agreement because it wasn't working when I
> moved in.
Bull!! Inside wire is inside wire, whether you installed it, or if it
had been there since Thomas Edison was a kid. However, if it's
embedded base (with no demarc) it's REGULATED, until it's pulled out
or modified. An inside-wire maintenance agreement is supposed to
cover NON-REGULATED inside wire, regardless of who installed it, since
the intent is to handle maintenance for that which is no longer
supposed to be part of the regulated service.
The wire between the service entrance for the building and your
demised premise (in a multi-tenant residence) is COMPLEX wire, and is
STILL regulated. Complex wire is NEVER covered under a telco
maintenance agreement, since its maintenance is part of your monthly
service charge.
> Of course, nothing was working as the previous tenants had
> already turned of their phone service. I asked him to do the job
> anyway. I'll argue about the bill with the business office.
If your telco didn't install a standard network interface when you
turned on the service, then they chose to continue the inside/complex
wire arrangement. And they can't force you to have the SNI in the
basement, if you don't live there. In the absence of a contemporary
service installation (with an installed demarc), your point of
demarcation is established in your leased premise, NOT in a common
area to which you have no right of access.
> He billed me for $93: $51 "repair visit charge" and 2 increments at
> $21 per 15 minutes. He insisted on installing a jack on the block. I
> told him I was going to install a hard-wired extension but he claimed
> that would violate my maintenance plan.
The installer had no clue, and the business office will try to bully
you into not bothering them about it. File a complaint with your
state's equivalent of a public utilities commission and ask them to
order Ameritech to credit the "repair visit" charges, since you
already paid for inside wire maintenance on embedded base, for which
you shouldn't have been charged in the first place. If you're in the
mood, you could also request an investigation into Ameritech cheating
tenants of multi-unit apartment houses into paying AGAIN for repairs
for which they've already paid as part of an inside-wire maintenance
agreement.
> But, it won't ring. He must have reversed the polarity, either in the
> basement or when he installed the outlet. Aargh!
Great, charge that the repair technician was incompetent, too, and
demand a service refund. <g>
------------------------------
From: puma@execpc.com (Gary Breuckman)
Subject: Re: Fun With Inside Wire
Date: 15 Jul 1997 03:02:29 GMT
Organization: Puma's Lair
In article <telecom17.176.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid I accidently did that anyway. There was a second wiring
> block connected in series with the first. I couldn't resist: The
> telephone number is labeled Area Code 212 PE 6-5000, ext. 914. It was
> lifted from a pile of telephone sets being tossed out at that hotel!
> But, it won't ring. He must have reversed the polarity, either in the
> basement or when he installed the outlet. Aargh!
Reversed polarity would not cause a ringing problems. The only
problem that reversed polarity is likely to cause is with original WE
2500 telephone, where the touchtone keypad will not work if the
polarity is wrong.
It's more likely, since the phone was from a hotel, that the internal
wiring is modified.
puma@execpc.com
------------------------------
From: Carl Knoblock <cknoblo@oasis.novia.net>
Subject: Re: Fun With Inside Wire
Date: 15 Jul 97 04:29:22 GMT
Organization: Newscene Public Access Usenet News Service
Polarity should not affect ringing. More likely, the ringer is wired to go
from one side to ground. You need to open it up and inspect the wiring.
Carl G. Knoblock Metro Apple Computer Hobbyists
cknoblo@oasis.novia.net Member: The Dead Computer Society
cknoblo@delphi.com KFest 97 July 30 - August 3, 1997
------------------------------
From: bowenb@best.com (William H. Bowen)
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 04:57:30 GMT
Reply-To: bowenb@best.com
jrro@watson.ibm.com wrote:
> In <telecom17.173.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mark J. Cuccia
> <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> writes:
>> o To clean your new telephone, should cleaning become necessary, simply
>> use a damp cloth and mild soap. Detergents, chemically treated cloths,
>> or harsh cleaning agents are not recommended.
>> [Since WECO/NECO made these telephones better than military tanks, these
>> phones probably would survive an atomic blast without a scratch on them.
>> But the brochure still indicated not to use harsh cleaning agents, etc.]
> This is a distinguishing characteristic of those 500 sets ... if you
> hit someone in the head with one, you could kill the person.
> WE went to a lot of trouble to make those sets bullet-proof, as they
> were the owners. This really show thru on the insides, as all the
> wire lugs are crimped and soldered, and the various switch contacts
> inside are *all* bifurcated. The engineers realized that if a piece
> of dust got into one contact, it would eventually work its way out
> (the contacts were made to be wiping, btw) but in the meantime, the
> instrument would be "broken." So they just split the contact spring
> down the middle, and added another set of buttons on the ends -
> thereby reducing the problem a couple orders of magnitude, and
> eliminating the labor charges connected with a house service call.
> Every bit of those 500 sets was done that way -- so they could be
> immersed for days, and still operate. The hybrid coil is potted in a
> flexy, gummy, silicone grease goop that must have been a real
> materials challenge to the WE folks. But it works great.
> I love those sets. Every time someone asks me to install a "modern"
> phone, I argue against it, but the when they insist, I take the 500
> set as payment.
> Someday, pulse dialing will be eliminated. Until then ...
Jim,
Wherever my late father is, he would be smiling reading your post.
He worked as an engineer for Teletype and then WE from 1947 until he
retired in 1974, and helped design a lot of that old "bulletproof"
equipment. Besides the 500/2500 series, remember the original Princess
phone? That was one fancy phone that would take nearly as much abuse
as a 500/2500 and keep on working.
I have two old 1966-vintage 2500 series Touchtone phones (the old
style with only 10 buttons: no * or # keys) that I keep as keepsakes,
and also as backups in case my modern cordless phone decides to croak.
You can't beat those old ones for reliability OR audio quality.
Regards,
Bill Bowen
bowenb@best.com
"The old Bell Brat"
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: 14 Jul 1997 23:22:18 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
Per Jim's post...
> I love those sets. Every time someone asks me to install a "modern"
> phone, I argue against it, but the when they insist, I take the 500
> set as payment.
I look for telephones at yard sales. Often people put out their
Cobras or other generic brand phones, even new AT&T models. If I ask
sellers if they have a traditional Bell set, they often reply "Yes we
do, but we're keeping that one. That always works and it's our
backup."
Unfortunately, with so many businesses answering with an automated
PBX, having touch-tone is almost a must nowadays, sadly. Plus, with
all the area code splits, alternate LD carriers, and special prefixes,
using a rotary dial can be tiring and error phone, to wit:
1170,10272,1609-555-2368. Nineteen digits -- that's a lot!
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <kd4awq@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 19:14:32 -0400
jrro@watson.ibm.com wrote:
> This is a distinguishing characteristic of those 500 sets ... if you
> hit someone in the head with one, you could kill the person."
Just ask Gene Hackman (or perhaps his stunt double). His character in
"Get Shorty" was punched in the jaw with a 6-button key telephone,
something that I doubt would work with today's phones, even Lucent's.
(The character who did it was played by Dennis Farina, who
coincidentally was standing by in the "Crime Story" pilot when another
actor knocked out a window with the G-type handset from a 500-series
set.
> I love those sets. Every time someone asks me to install a "modern"
> phone, I argue against it, but the when they insist, I take the 500
> set as payment.
> Someday, pulse dialing will be eliminated. Until then ...
What, you don't like 2500 Touch-Tone sets? :-)
------------------------------
From: kiskiss@mail.goodnet.com (Almeda Eyre-Eagles)
Subject: Re: RJx, USOC, and Jack Types
Date: 15 Jul 1997 04:55:52 GMT
Organization: GoodNet
John Agosta (jagosta@interaccess.com) wrote:
> RJ11 is a 1 pair jack.
> RJ11C is a two pair jack.
An RJ11C is a 1 pair baseboard mounted jack.
An RJ14C is a 2 pair baseboard mounted jack.
An RJ11W is a 1 pair wall phone jack (RJ14W is a 2 line..)
------------------------------
From: wa1hoz@a3bgate.nai.net (Gerry Belanger)
Subject: Re: RJx, USOC, and Jack Types
Date: 15 Jul 1997 10:54:48 GMT
Organization: North American Internet
John Agosta (jagosta@interaccess.com) wrote:
> Here is a little something that may help out; it is (almost) 'verbatim'
> from the Siemmon Company's catalog which contains some very good info
> on wiring guidelines. You can contact them at 203 - 274 - 2523.
Correction: 860 - 274 - 2523. Permissive dialing ended last october.
Gerry Belanger, WA1HOZ wa1hoz@a3bgate.nai.net
Newtown, CT g.belanger@ieee.org
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #181
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jul 15 22:20:21 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id WAA03325; Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:20:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707160220.WAA03325@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #182
TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jul 97 22:20:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 182
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Administrivia: Did You Receive Issue 180? (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Georgia PSC -- Atlanta Area Gets Overlay (Stanley Cline)
888 Replication Looophole Disabled (Judith Oppenheimer)
Summertime's Dog Days Have Electronic Leash (Tad Cook)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Jim Rosen)
Re: GA Telco Customers Vote on EAS (Stanley Cline)
UCLA Short Course: Project Management Principles and Practice (B Goodin)
Book Review: "How to Set Up and Maintain a Web Site" by Stein (Rob Slade)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 21:47:36 EDT
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Subject: Administrivia: Did You Receive Issue 180?
There seems to have been a problem with issue 180 and several readers
not getting a copy ... as well as the Telecom Archives not getting a
copy either. If you received it, please let me know -- DO NOT -- send
me dozens or hundreds of copies ... just say you got it or not. If
I still need it by this time tomorrow I will ask one of you to send
me a copy.
Thanks,
Patrick Townson
------------------------------
From: roamer1@mindspring.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Georgia PSC -- Atlanta Area Gets Overlay
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 00:51:15 GMT
Organization: An antonym for Chaos
Reply-To: roamer1@mindspring.com
Well, it's official. :-)
From the Georgia PSC's web site ( http://www.state.ga.us/PSC/ ):
--- begin PR ----
CONTACT: Shawn Davis, Public Information Officer
(404) 656-6558 or 1-800-282-5813
ATLANTA'S NEW AREA CODE 678 WON'T CHANGE PHONE NUMBERS
ATLANTA -- The Atlanta toll-free calling area will get a new area code
next year, but we won't have to hassle with advertising new numbers or
reprinting stationary. With phone numbers in the 770 area code
expected to run out in January, today the Georgia Public Service
Commission (PSC) ordered that the new code, 678, be assigned only to
new numbers rather than split the Atlanta calling area and change over
one million telephone numbers. The area code changes will not affect
the Atlanta toll-free calling area - the largest in the world at
nearly 8,000 square miles.
The phone number crunch is not unique to Atlanta. Since January of
1995, when the 404 area code was split to add 770, there have been 60
new codes introduced in 28 states. Requests for additional lines for
pagers, modems, fax lines, cellular phones and Internet access have
contributed to the exhaust of the 770 area code five years earlier
than expected. Last March BellSouth notified the PSC that 770 numbers
would be depleted by next year, leaving the PSC in a position of
having to choose between relief plans mandating ten-digit dialing or
changing 1.5 million telephone numbers.
The PSC held five public hearings throughout the Atlanta area in May
and June to gather public input on whether to implement a number
overlay plan or geographic split. There were two geographic splits
considered which placed the new code on one side of I-75/85 or in a
ring around a smaller 770 area. After hearing virtually no support for
the split plan, the PSC chose an overlay plan that does not affect
existing numbers and would cause the least disruption to the public.
Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York all have adopted number overlay
plans.
The overlay plan provides for a long term solution to meet future
growth demands. "We couldn't continue to carve up the Atlanta area
every few years and constantly change people's phone numbers in the
process. New and competitive telecommunications services continue to
evolve which means this problem won't go away without addressing it
with a long term solution," said PSC Chairman Stan Wise. "When area
codes are needed in the future, the overlay establishes the framework
to add a new area code without debate or disruption," added Wise.
As phone numbers in the 770 geographic area exhaust, new numbers will
be assigned to the new 678 area code. The code is currently reserved
for the Atlanta area by the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator until formal application is made next month by BellSouth
who administers the area codes for Georgia. The new code is expected
to provide relief for five to seven years.
Initially, 678 will only be used to fill requests from new customers
locating in the 770 area. When high growth areas in 770 begin to
exhaust their available numbers, the BellSouth system will
automatically give new customers a 678 number. When a current customer
wishes to add a phone line in their home or business, the BellSouth
system will first search for an available number in the customer's
area code. When 404 numbers run out in approximately 2001, number
requests will begin to be allocated from 678.
While the overlay plan means no phone numbers will change, telephone
customers will have to adjust to ten-digit dialing this January
because the numbers with the new code will be scattered throughout the
toll-free calling area. But PSC Chairman Stan Wise believes ten-digit
dialing will not be foreign to most customers: "I think most people
have already grown accustom to dialing ten-digits between the 404 and
770 areas," said Wise.
BellSouth will now begin a mass marketing campaign to notify customers
through advertisements, billing inserts and mail-outs of the impact of
ten-digit dialing. Some modification will be necessary for automatic
dialing systems which were not adjusted during the 404/770 change in
1995. BellSouth is encouraging customers to begin testing their
systems for ten-digit dialing capability now.
--- end PR ---
Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS!
CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** (wk) scline(at)mindspring.net
(hm) roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/
**NO SPAM!** http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ and http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 19:08:25 -0400
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>
Reply-To: j.oppenheimer@worldnet.att.net
Organization: ICB Toll Free - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting
Subject: 888 Replication Loophole Disabled
Perhaps now, RespOrgs and business users will abandon shortsighted
reliance on ever-dwindling loophole privileges, and fight for
legitimate marketing and business requirements.
-----------
New York, NY July 15, 1997 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) The set-aside release
process established by the FCC in June '96 and used by savvy 800
subscribers to replicate their 888s, has been effectively disabled by
the SMS/800 Management Team.
While 888 release requests will still be initiated by the
matching-800-number-subscriber, no longer will only their RespOrg be
notified of the release, generally completed one day following
submission of forms to DSMI. Casual subscriber/RespOrg coordination
for matching 888 number activation has effectively been disabled, over a
year after its inception.
Instead, beginning after close of business on Friday, July 18, all
requests received during a normal business week will be accumulated;
announced the following Wednesday to ALL RespOrgs, and then released to
the spare pool the following Wednesday. (Example: requests received
during the week of July 21-25 will be announced on July 30th, and
released on August 6th.)
Releasing set-aside 888s has involved some risk (upon release to spare,
anyone could reserve the numbers, first come first serve), but the
private nature and fast turnaround made it relatively easy for an 800
user to capture their equivalent 888 with the assistance of a
cooperative RespOrg. Needless to say, this has been the case for many
prominent 800 users.
However, 888 number releases will now be announced to all RespOrgs,
and released en mass for general consumption a full two weeks later.
Cautious RespOrgs will likely begin advising customers against 888
release, rendering 888-set-aside numbers hostage to potential auction
or FCC lottery.
Perhaps now 800 carriers and marketers will abandon reliance on
dwindling loophole privileges, and lobby more aggressively for
legitimate business and consumer interests.
Indeed, the FCC recently issued a Public Notice seeking new comment on
toll-free vanity number issues. Comments and reply comments in
response to this Notice should be no more than 20 pages, and must be
filed on or before July 21, 1997, and reply comments must be filed on
or before July 28, 1997 ...
----
FURTHER COMMENTS
TOLL FREE SERVICE ACCESS CODES
CC Docket No. 95-155
On October 4, 1995, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (CC Docket No. 95-155) addressing various issues relating
to toll free service access codes and, among other issues, requesting
comment on the issue of vanity-number treatment in future toll free
codes. Toll Free Service Access Codes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
10 FCC Rcd 13692 (1995) (NPRM).
The pleading cycle in response to the NPRM closed on November 15,
1995. In January 1996, the Common Carrier Bureau directed Database
Management Services, Inc. to set aside 888 vanity numbers by placing
them in "unavailable" status until the Commission resolves whether
these numbers should be afforded any special right or protection. Toll
Free Service Access Codes, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2496 (1996).
The record on the NPRM is almost two years old. At this point, the
industry is preparing to deploy the next toll free code in 1998. We
seek, therefore, to refresh the record in CC Docket No. 95-155 on
issues associated with the treatment of vanity numbers, both with 888
as well as numbers in future toll free codes. Specifically, parties
should comment on issues such as, but not limited to, a vanity-number
lottery and Standard Industrial Classification Codes. We ask that
parties confine their discussion to issues concerning vanity numbers
and avoid simply reiterating their earlier pleading.
Comments and reply comments in response to this Notice should be no
more than 20 pages, and must be filed on or before July 21, 1997, and
reply comments must be filed on or before July 28, 1997... For further
information, contact Robin Smolen (202 418-2353) of the Network
Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com
800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/icbinfo2.html
800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.thedigest.com/icb/expert2.html
1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714
------------------------------
Subject: Summertime's Dog Days Have Electronic Leash
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:06:08 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Summertime's dog days have electronic leash
by Sue Hutchinson, {San Jose Mercury} News
IT USED to be that the dog days of summer meant downtime. They meant
going to some rustic refuge where the general store didn't even have a
pay phone. That was when people knew how to relax. When a "Gone
Fishin' " sign meant, "I have a life."
But those days are waning, especially in this valley. Now we are
expected to merge office and personal time, seamlessly and
ceaselessly, like a crass shark swimming past coral reefs while
passing out business cards.
I know vacationers who have tried to sneak their offices into the
camping gear only to be busted by spouses who catch them charging
laptop batteries before hopping into the minivan. And if you hear an
unusually loud cricket chirping on a desolate lake, you know it's
probably a cell phone. You half expect to look over and see a guy in a
rowboat put down his fishing rod so he can answer his ringing
shoe. There's even a good chance the most remote general store has a
fax machine.
THIS QUEST for ultimate convenience has mutated into a fascist
obsession with being "reachable" at all times. Phones are ringing in
the shower and pagers beep in wedding-reception lines. It's impossible
to be that "in touch" without being chronically uptight. Even in
California.
We have managed to take advances in telecommunications intended to
make our lives easier and forge them into an electronic leash. We've
reached a point where a Sherpa guide could tap you on the foot from a
rope hanging down 10,000 feet in the Himalayas, only to hand up a cell
phone and say, "Your boss is on line one."
And we're supposed to think this is a good thing. According to the
mavens of consumption on Madison Avenue, we're supposed to be grateful
that home will never be too far from the office. While we're busy
bragging about being able to run a business meeting from our breakfast
nook in our pink fuzzy bedroom slippers, we haven't pondered the
nightmare that now we are expected to run business meetings in our
pink fuzzy bedroom slippers from the breakfast nook.
Sadly, I think I've already started on the slippery slope to joining
the "in-touch" generation. Now that I have 150,000 miles on my car, I
decided it's foolish not to have a cell phone in case I break down
some place frightening, like outside of a Bennigan's. So I went
shopping last month at the Santa Clara Good Guys.
BUT MY fellow shoppers laughed when they heard me say I only planned
to use the phone for emergencies. "Oh, that's how it starts out," one
guy said. His skin had the fish-belly white tinge common among
software designers who have been overexposed to fluorescent lighting.
"You'll see," he said. "You'll be taking calls in traffic jams and
calling your co-workers in their cars. Your bills will be huge."
So far, my bills have not been huge. I haven't memorized my cell phone
number and I haven't given it to anyone. My car is still a
chatter-free zone. Whenever I look over into the next lane to see
people yakking on the phone, I feel like I'm driving a covered
wagon. But it's a relief.
The problem with being able to reach out and touch someone is that
they, in turn, can reach out and touch you. And when everyone is out
there groping, a lot of people are going to get molested. Or yanked up
short by the electronic leash.
Hopefully this won't mean the American summer vacation is poised to go
the way of LPs and dial telephones. But in a world of cell phones,
pagers and portable fax machines, can you ever get away from it all?
------------------------------
From: jrro@watson.ibm.com (Jim Rosen)
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: 15 Jul 1997 18:22:46 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Reply-To: jrro@watson.ibm.com
In <telecom17.181.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Ed Ellers <kd4awq@worldnet.att.
net> writes:
>jrro@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>> set as payment.
>> Someday, pulse dialing will be eliminated. Until then ...
> What, you don't like 2500 Touch-Tone sets? :-)
It's a matter of principle. For a long time (don't know if it is
still true) the telephone company charged extra for touch-tone
service. You could always just install a tone phone, and use it, but
then they would just add the charge to your bill.
That really bugged me - here's a system that makes the company's
switching easier and faster, and all they can think to do is to charge
the customers *extra* because they can.
So I will be the last guy with a pulse-dial phone. Actually, the list
in my house is:
Upstairs: Automatic Electric candlestick phone. The only conversion
I did on that was to install the varistors to make the
level correct. Everything else is pretty much stock, although
I have re-built the dial. Ringer is a Stromberg Carlson in
a box on the wall.
Downstairs: Another candlestick phone - made by Leich Electric Co.
I put a hybrid coil in the wall box, and had to replace
the transmitter in this phone. There's a dial in the
wall box, too.
Basement: Pre-model 500 desk set - you folks here probably
know better what model it is. Vaguely art-deco looking
with a cast metal body and the handset with the shrouded
transmitter.
Garage: What else? My aunt's old wall mount 500 rotary dial set.
Cheers - Jim Rozen
J
R
R
zero
at watson.ibm.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Might it be a model 302? PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 14:32:53 -0400
From: Stanley Cline <roamer1@pobox.com>
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
Subject: Re: GA Telco Customers Vote on EAS
Tad Cook quoted:
> Jul. 14--Telephone customers in Pine Mountain, Talbotton and Woodland
> will be sent ballots in 60-90 days to vote on whether they are willing
> to pay higher telephone rates to call Columbus without a long-distance
> charge.
The Talbotton-Columbus fight has gone on for some time.
> EAS was approved by the Georgia General Assembly in 1995. It provides
> for toll-free calling between customers whose central telephone
> offices are 22 miles apart or closer, Davis said.
Not always... :^(
Trenton (GA) Telephone Company must have been exempt, because the
706-657 CO is within 22 miles (16 miles V/H, to be exact) from the
Rossville, GA BellSouth CO and not only was Trenton toll (using
BellSouth. With AT&T and certain other carriers it was free) from my
parents' house in Rossville, but TTC was charging its customers
$70/month to get a FX/FCO line to call Rossville (and Chattanooga,
etc.) without toll charges!
(The PSC has since decided to do something about Trenton, but I don't
know exactly what.)
And "EAS" never did, and still does not, deal with most interLATA
calls, such as the never-ending complaints about LD between Dalton and
the Rossville and Ringgold areas. (Until recently, calls to Dalton
were more expensive than calls to Alaska.)
I do have to say, however, that IMO, the Georgia PSC is much more
progressive than the PSCs/PUCs in other states (especially California
and the Northeast). The Georgia PSC gave Atlanta both an overlay NPA
(details on that later today, I hope) and the world's largest
toll-free/untimed, local calling area, and has also dealt with rural
telephony issues, COCOTs, and local competition better than most other
utility commissions I'm aware of.
Thanks, PSC!
Stanley Cline ** roamer1@pobox.com ** www.mindspring.com/~scline/
support a law against SPAM. see http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
From: Bill Goodin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA Short Course: Project Management Principles and Practice
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 09:27:50 -0700
On October 7-10, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Project Management Principles and Practice", on the UCLA campus
in Los Angeles.
The instructor is Arnold M. Ruskin, PhD, PE, PMP, Partner, Claremont
Consulting Group and Technical Manager, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Each participant receives the text, "What Every Engineer Should Know
About Project Management", 2nd Edition, Arnold M. Ruskin and W.
Eugene Estes, 1995, and extensive course notes.
For technical program and project managers and personnel, functional
managers whose staff participate in programs and projects, and
executives to whom program or project managers report.
Corporate personnel increasingly work on "one-time" assignments called
programs or projects. These efforts require particular approaches,
methods, and systems for their planning, execution, and control. The
purpose of this course is to develop insight into the special
characteristics of programs and projects and the tools and techniques
needed to manage them.
Specific objectives for the course are:
o to understand the nature of program and project management;
o to understand the importance of end-item focus, careful
planning, appropriate control, open and timely communication,
and interproject coordination and prioritization;
o to gain an appreciation of project planning, control, and other
useful tools;
o to understand alternative organizational structures, elements of
leadership, and ways of maximizing personal and project
effectiveness.
Specific topics include: Nature of projects, Group exercise: anatomy
of a project, Duties of the project manager, Project planning
techniques, Measuring cost, schedule, and technical performance,
Project control techniques, Implementing planning and control
techniques, Project organizations and staffing, Project management in
multiproject and matrix environments, Fiedler's contingency model of
team effectiveness, Team-building, Project startup meetings, Case
study: integrated project management, Risk management, Project
management exercise: complex project decision-making.
Prerequisite:
Firsthand involvement in or responsibility for programs or projects or
some portion thereof.
UCLA Extension has presented this highly successful short course since
1982.
The course fee is $1295, which includes the text and course materials.
These course materials are for participants only, and are not for
sale.
For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:52:36 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "How to Set Up and Maintain a Web Site" by Stein
BKHSUMWS.RVW 970119
"How to Set Up and Maintain a Web Site", Lincoln D. Stein, 1997, 0-201-63462-7,
U$39.76
%A Lincoln D. Stein lstein@genome.wi.mit.edu
%C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984
%D 1997
%G 0-201-63462-7
%I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
%O U$39.76 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com
%P 816
%T "How to Set Up and Maintain a Web Site"
Having exhausted the need (and desire) for shopping lists of URLs
(Uniform Resource Locators) and documentation for Web browsers,
attention appears to have turned to the creation and care of Web
sites. This seems to be a more useful exercise. Having established
an Internet "presence" with Web pages, companies are now starting to
become interested in the functions that only full control of a site
can provide. In addition, Web servers are the usual basic interface
for intranets, thus hitting two of the 90s hot topics at the same
time.
Stein has produced a very solid and useful guide. His explanations
are clear and correct. The material included covers an introduction,
background concepts, installation of software, an overview of servers,
security, HTML, software tools, style, scripting, JavaScript, Java,
and available online references. For current Web site uses, this
provides a thorough foundation.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHSUMWS.RVW 970119
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse
Please note the Peterson story - http://www.netmind.com/~padgett/trial.htm
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #182
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jul 17 09:14:46 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA14764; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:14:46 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:14:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707171314.JAA14764@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #183
TELECOM Digest Thu, 17 Jul 97 09:14:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 183
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Four11.com: Online Privacy Policies in Real Life (Monty Solomon)
AT&T Adds Local Service in South East Texas (Tad Cook)
FCC's Access Reform Order (Fletcher Reed)
UCLA Short Course on "Advanced Digital Communications" (Bill Goodin)
Third Party Central Office Feature Testing (Marty Tennant)
BellSouth Responds to MCI (Mike King)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 01:39:26 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: Four11.com: Online privacy policies in real life
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 07:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Four11.com: Online privacy policies in real life
Feel free to repost this message where appropriate until August 1st, 1997.
Four11.com: Online privacy policies in real life
A few weeks ago, on the eve of the FTC hearings on online privacy,
the Electronic Privacy Information Center released a study of 100 top
Web sites. This study showed that even though many of these sites
captured personal information, virtually none of them had privacy
policies that complied with globally accepted fair information norms.
Those that did have privacy policies rarely made them easy to find.
Nobody who uses the Internet regularly could be surprised by these
results. Let us consider a case study in online privacy. Several
months ago, I began receiving a flood of unsolicited messages asking
me for my autograph. Given that I am not any sort of celebrity, the
source of these messages was a mystery. The messages rarely mentioned
my name or exhibited any knowledge of who I am. Some of them were
form-letters (e.g., "our school is auctioning celebrity memorabilia
to raise money"), and at least one contained a digitized photograph
(which I thankfully did not have the software to display) of an
actress who assured me that I was her biggest hero in the world and
would I please get her a role in a movie. This was all incredibly
obnoxious. Finally I began asking the senders where they were getting
my name. Usually I got no response, but eventually I got some replies
mentioning amateur "e-mail addresses of the celebrities" Web sites.
Bad as it was, the problem soon became much worse, and after some
research (including help from friends who have more time than I to
resolve such mysteries) the problem was traced to a "celebrity e-mail
addresses" service at http://www.four11.com. Four11.com is a company
that runs a so-called "white pages" Web site that permits Internet
users to look up personal information on a large number of people.
The site is funded by advertising. If you dig deep in their Web site,
below a list of their two dozen corporate partners, you will find the
following statement:
Our Commitment to Privacy
Four11 is committed to protecting its customers' privacy. Anyone
who does not want to be listed in either the telephone or email
directory can request to be removed, and a separate database is
maintained to prevent them from ever being accidentally re-added
to the directory. In addition, Four11 has promised never to sell
or trade its users' address information and believes it is essential
to protect its users from unsolicited commercial e-mail and mass
marketing.
My first move was to put this statement to the test. Having decided
to advertise my name and e-mail address without my permission, the
least they could do was to remove them from their site upon request.
This did not happen. I sent approximately twenty messages over a
three-month period, each time asking for my name to be removed from
the four11.com site. Sometimes I got an automated promise of a reply.
Sometimes I got no reply at all. Eventually I got a promise to remove
my name and address from the site, but this promise was not fulfilled.
Pressed for an explanation, they told me that they had removed me from
the database and that my name would disappear from the site the next
time the database was "compiled". I waited a week, then two, then
three, and still my name and address were advertised on the four11.com
site; I still received nuisance e-mail from people who were obviously
spamming every "celebrity" address they could find. I wrote again and
got no response, and again, and was told that my name was no longer
in any four11.com database. This was an obvious falsehood, given
that any child could say "lynx http://www.four11.com" and follow the
"Celebrity" and "Authors/Journalists" links and find my name and my
e-mail address.
Now I was getting mad. I wrote to the officers of the company
(whose e-mail addresses I found using the four11.com service) and
suggested that maybe they would like to get a batch of autograph
requests themselves. Two of them replied, claiming that my name
was not in their database. Finally, after another delay and another
round of fruitless requests, I wrote to the president of the company
and documented that my name and address were still appearing on
their pages. A four11.com employee wrote back, claiming that my name
would disappear from their site yesterday. This promise did not come
true either, and as of this writing, my name and address continue to
be advertised on the four11.com Web pages, provided that one looks
at them using a text-based browser such as lynx. It would seem (if
you believe their latest explanation) that they had forgotten to
"compile" the text-based pages, but even when they had figured this
out they still failed to comply with a specific promise to fix it.
We can learn some lessons here. One is that the world's best privacy
policy is worthless unless it is followed. This kind of situation is
precisely why most industrialized countries (and several others) have
data protection laws. Such laws typically obligate organizations that
keep personal data to register their databases and keep track of them.
It's not good enough say, oops, sorry, we forgot about one of the
databases in which we've been publishing your personal information on
the World Wide Web for the past several months.
Another lesson is that lists of "celebrity" addresses are obnoxious.
Big Hollywood stars have machinery to filter their mail and answer
autograph requests. That's the business they're in. But many of the
people who are indiscriminately added to these lists are normal people
who live in apartments and answer their own mail as best they can.
Being deemed a "celebrity" by some fool on the Internet, therefore,
should not cause one to lose one's rights to privacy. And it is not
reasonable for a company to profit by causing nuisances for innocent
people.
In light of my experience, I do not think that four11.com can be
trusted to protect anyone's privacy. I would urge you to write them
at humans@four11.com and ask them to remove your name and all of your
personal information from each of their databases, and not to re-add
that information to their databases later on. I would also ask you
to encourage them to shut down their "celebrity" pages until they have
gotten specific permission from each individual whose address they
are advertising. I have had to invest an unbelievable amount of time
resolving this problem, and I can easily believe that many others
are suffering silently because they do not have the time or technical
skill to resolve it themselves.
Thanks very much
Phil Agre
I am writing on my own behalf only, and not to represent the views of
my employer or anyone else.
------------------------------
Subject: AT&T Adds Local Service in South East Texas
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 20:52:28 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
AT&T Adds Local Service in South East Texas
BY JENNIFER FILES, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 16--With little fanfare and no advertising, AT&T Corp. began
selling local-phone service to residential customers in Galveston and
Texas City on Tuesday, in a limited offering that reflects rising
concern that the nation's local-phone markets may be too tightly
controlled to crack.
AT&T is buying the right to use Southwestern Bell's phone networks at
a discount under agreements reached through state arbitration, then
reselling the service to consumers. If things go well for the first
couple of thousand people who sign up, Southwest regional president
Rian Wren said, the company plans to expand the offering to other
Southwestern Bell customers throughout Texas as soon as a month or two
from now.
Big long-distance companies have been negotiating to provide
local-phone service in Texas for 18 months, since the federal
Telecommunications Act officially opened the nation's local-phone
markets. About five new entrants have begun providing residential
service in Texas, a spokeswoman for the state's Public Utility
Commission estimated, but many observers have said competition won't
count until AT&T and MCI get into the game.
For the long-distance giants, local service has come slowly and at
greater cost than expected. AT&T's six other attempts to provide
local-phone service started out on a small scale and have stayed that
way, despite the carrier's early claims that it would capture a
sizable chunk of the nation's phone business. Not long ago, CEO Robert
Allen said publicly that the company might be wise to merge with a
local-telephone provider. But reported talks that AT&T would link up
with Southwestern Bell fell through.
AT&T isn't the only one having problems: Last week, MCI Communications
said it will lose $800 million in its local-telephone business this
year twice what it expected and blamed red tape from local
monopolies. British Telecom responded by holding talks to discuss the
impact on its merger with MCI, and though MCI president Tim Price has
denied it, the Financial Times of London reported that his job could
be in jeopardy.
The Federal Communications Commission pledged Tuesday to set up a task
force that will investigate allegations that local-phone companies are
blocking competition. "There's an immediate need for swift and certain
enforcement actions to ensure delivery of the benefits of competition
of the 1996 act to consumers," Chairman Reed Hundt said in a
statement.
Local-phone companies including Southwestern Bell argue that many
markets are already open and that delays aren't their fault. "AT&T is
one of more than 100 companies the Texas Public Utility Commission has
authorized to compete in this market," said David Cole, Southwestern
Bell's president for the Texas market.
Under the arbitrated agreement, Southwestern Bell gives AT&T a 21.9
percent discount on its services. AT&T's rates to consumers will be
roughly the same as Southwestern Bell's, Mr. Wren said, with prices a
few pennies higher in some markets and a little lower in others. In
Dallas, for example, AT&T will charge $10 a month, compared with
Southwestern Bell's $10.03, while Fort Worth rates will be $10.50,
compared with Bell's $10.58, a spokesman said.
Would-be local-phone companies say that finalizing negotiations is
only half the battle: Actually transferring customers between networks
can also be a problem. In California, for instance, AT&T angered
consumers when it was unable to switch them over quickly enough, and
it blamed the local-phone company for not holding up its end of the
bargain.
But in Texas, AT&T has tested the technology, switching over 250 of
its workers from Southwestern Bell service.
The company started in smaller markets "so we can control it,"
Mr. Wren said, adding that advertising is scheduled to begin only
after the system has been stress-tested.
Southwestern Bell's Mr. Cole said that the company has given AT&T
access to the same electronic systems its own employees use when they
sign up a new customer. "There shouldn't be any operations problems."
Southwestern Bell serves roughly three out of four Texas telephone
customers. AT&T and GTE are still arguing over how to transfer service
to its customers, which make up 15 percent of the market.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 97 14:26:52 EDT
From: Fletcher Reed <fletcher.reed@telops.gte.com>
Subject: FCC's Access Reform Order
Could someone explain a little better what the following means:
Access Charge Reform CC Docket No. 96-262
Price Cap Performance Review for Local Exchange Carriers CC Docket No.
94-1
Transport Rate Structure and Pricing CC Docket No. 91-213
End User Common Line Charges CC Docket No. 95-72
5.......... As detailed below, we will identify the implicit federal
universal service support currently contained in interstate access
charges through three methods.
6. First, we will reduce usage-sensitive interstate access charges by
phasing out local loop and other non-traffic-sensitive(NTS) costs from
those charges and directing incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to
recover those NTS costs through more economically efficient, flat-rated
charges.......
7. Second, we will rely in part on emerging competition in local
telecommunications markets, spurred by the adoption of the 1996 Act, to
help identify the differences between the rates for interstate access
services established by incumbent LECs under price cap regulation and
those that competition would set....
8. Third, we will engage in further deliberations on a
forward-looking economic cost-based mechanism that we will use to
distribute federal support to rural, insular, and high cost areas,
beginning in 1999..... all ... Through this First Report and Order,
we direct that federal universal service support received by incumbent
LECs be used to reduce or satisfy the interstate revenue requirement
otherwise collected through interstate access charges. Accordingly,
through both our Universal Service Order and this First Report and
Order on access reform, interstate implicit support for universal
service will be identified and removed from interstate access charges,
and support will be provided through the explicit interstate universal
service support mechanisms.
The full text can be found at HTTP://www.fcc.gov
If you have any questions please call
Fletcher Reed
(813) 272-8716
------------------------------
From: Bill Goodin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Advanced Digital Communications"
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 09:09:37 -0700
On October 13-15, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Advanced Digital Communications: The Search for Efficient Signaling
Methods", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles.
The instructor is Bernard Sklar, PhD, Communications Engineering
Services.
The starting point and frame of reference in this course is quite
different than in a basic course. In a basic course, we would outline
fundamental relationships, and thereby learn how to compute
performance parameters of given systems. Here, we begin only with
some requirements. The focus is not on a particular system, but
instead on how to make reasonable design choices based on given
requirements. The requirements then drive us toward the selection of
some candidate systems.
The course reviews system subtleties in transforming from data-bits to
channel-bits to symbols to chips; it also reviews the Viterbi decoding
algorithm. Other important topics include trellis-coded modulation,
power- and bandwidth-efficient signaling, and spread spectrum signaling.
The course emphasizes fading channels and how to mitigate the effects
of fading, with specific examples of how various mobile systems have
been designed to withstand fading. These systems include the Viterbi
equalizer in the Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) and
the Rake receiver in CDMA (IS-95). The course also examines the
recently discovered Turbo codes, whose error-correcting performance
is close to the Shannon limit.
The course fee is $1195, which includes extensive course notes.
These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale.
For additional information and complete course descriptions, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/
These courses may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 08:39:20 -0700
From: Marty Tennant <marty@sccoast.net>
Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net
Organization: low tech designs, inc.(tm) Bringing Technology Down to Earth
Subject: Third Party Central Office Feature Testing
I am trying to find a source for the testing of feature interactions
related to the Advanced Intelligent Network on #5ESS, 1AESS and Nortel
DMS switches.
Is anyone aware of an independent testing lab for the
telecommunications industry where such activities take place?
Many thanks,
marty tennant, president, low tech designs, inc.(tm), "Bringing
Technology Down to Earth"(sm),
1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 voice,
(803) 527-7783 fax
------------------------------
From: Mike King <mk@wco.com>
Subject: BellSouth Responds to MCI
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 23:21:44 PDT
----- Forwarded Message -----
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:54:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: BellSouth <press@www.bellsouth.com>
Subject: BELLSOUTH RESPONDS TO MCI
BellSouth ..................................................July 11, 1997
BELLSOUTH RESPONDS TO MCI
BACKGROUND: MCI late Thursday told analysts that they would lose more
money than expected in their venture into the local telephone
business. They attempted to place the blame for this miscalculation
on the Bell companies.
The following response may be attributed to Ron Dykes, BellSouth Chief
Financial Officer:
"MCI is learning what we have known all along -- it is expensive to
operate a local telephone network. They've tried to tell regulators in
the Universal Service debates that it is not, but the plain fact is; it
is!
"Any startup business tends to lose money at the beginning. Long
distance companies losing money as they get into local telephony is
not exceptional. BellSouth will experience the same unremarkable
phenomenon when we enter long-distance. The remarkable part of this
saga is MCI's brazen attempt to turn this fact of business life into
something more than it is in order to gain political advantage.
Regulators shouldn't be fooled by this ploy.
"BellSouth has created new networks in close to 20 countries, from
cellular networks in the United States, to long-distance and local
networks in Australia and cellular networks throughout South America.
It's expensive. Until a business develops a critical mass of
customers, we lose money. When BellSouth loses money on start-ups
we've never blamed others for our loss.
What is wrong here is MCI is using this fact of business life as a
political ploy to try to fool regulators and legislators.
"MCI has purposely made their problems worse by launching a project to
build networks in some of the nation's largest cities, then ignoring
potential revenue from residential customers along their network grid.
They're doing this -- as we've continually pointed out -- so they can
argue that there is no residential competition in local, and the Bell
companies shouldn't be allowed into long distance.
"As for their assertion that they cannot get interconnection agreements,
the facts are these -- MCI has signed agreements that have been approved
by state commissions in our five largest states: Florida, Georgia,
Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee. They are serving business
customers in these states today. We are in what we believe to be the
final stages of negotiations in our other four states. Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.
"These interconnection agreements have allowed MCI to sign up business
customers and have them interconnected to our networks. MCI can't
have it both ways, cream skimming business customers on a system that
works, then saying the system doesn't work so they can't serve
residential customers.
"MCI, like their brethren at AT&T, has decided it is in their
political interest not to compete for residential customers. In their
typical way of using half truths to pervert the political process,
they are now twisting that part of their business plan to put the
blame on others. It won't fly.
"SBC Warberg Inc. analyst Barry N. Sine summed it up nicely when he
reported 'essentially MCI made a huge gamble on the local telephone
market and it is now obvious that they jumped the gun.'"
###
For more information:
Bill McCloskey
(404) 249-2274 or (404) 249-2281
Pager (800) 946-4645 PIN: 2297390
---------------
Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #183
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Jul 18 23:39:13 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id XAA15431; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 23:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707190339.XAA15431@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #180
TELECOM Digest Tue, 15 Jul 1997 02:32:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 180
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
US-Pacific Islands - Caller-ID, Other Info (Mark J. Cuccia)
Bell Atlantic Mum on 412/724 Split (Tad Cook)
GA Telco Customers Vote on EAS (Tad Cook)
Another Oncor Ripoff (Monty Solomon)
617/508 Split - Nine Years Later (Lord Somnolent)
Book Review: "Netscape Developer's Guide to Plug-ins" by Young (Rob Slade)
American Samoa Telecom Profile (Mark J. Cuccia)
UCLA Short Course: "Design for Testability and Built-in Test" (Bill Goodin)
Computer Humor: Grand Mistakes (Erik Florack)
-----------------------------
Better late than never! For some reason issue 180 did not get
out of the mailqueue and to subscribers. To make matters worse,
a copy did not even get to the archives which would have allowed
me to reconstruct it. My thanks to Mark Cuccia for sending me
the articles collected from far and wide on Usenet (where it
did manage to get distributed, and to Jim Bellaire who also
took the trouble to compile them all and restore them to Digest
format. Anyway, let's try again. PAT
-----------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Bell Atlantic Mum on 412/724 Split
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 17:55:44 PDT
Bell Atlantic Isn't Answering Queries About Pennsylvania's New Area
Code
BY KEN ZAPINSKI, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 14--Bethel Park Mayor Alan Hoffman said it's ridiculous that the
new 724 area code will split his community in two.
And he is aggravated that Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania Inc. won't tell
his constituents whether they're on the 724 side or the 412 side of
the line. "I'm certain that someone in that organization has those
answers," Hoffman said.
The Public Utility Commission ruled yesterday that the new area code
must be in effect by April 30. Area code 724 will replace 412 on all
1.5 million numbers outside of Pittsburgh and its nearby suburbs.
But who exactly falls where, Bell Atlantic isn't saying.
A Bell Atlantic official oversaw the development of the area code
proposal more than 18 months ago. Company spokeswoman Shirley Risoldi
said the phone company will not release data on which telephone
numbers are where until company officials are sure the information is
complete and accurate.
"We do not feel it is appropriate now to hand out this information,"
she said. "We do not want to give out information until we can
accurately portray it."
Besides, Risoldi said, people don't need to worry about the new area
code yet. "It's not going to happen until next year," she said.
Eric Rabe, Bell Atlantic's assistant vice president for corporate
communications, said the company had not yet seen the official order
from the PUC. Furthermore, it was still unclear how 412 area codes on
wireless phones will be treated, Rabe said.
"The bottom line is we don't have the information ready to give to
you," Rabe said. The new area code boundary will not affect telephone
rates.
In May, Bell Atlantic released a list of 27 communities that would
straddle the boundary, partly in 412 and partly in 724. But Risoldi
said the company isn't sure which exchanges will end up where.
"I would think that they would know that," Pennsylvania Consumer
Advocate Irwin Popowsky said. "I really don't know why that's not
available."
Bell Atlantic reluctance has even caused problems for the PUC's press
office, which is supposed to explain the commission's decisions to the
media and the public.
"It's fair to say we're trying to clarify what the exact boundaries
are," PUC press secretary John Frazier said. "Obviously there is
interest from the media and the public on who is going to be in what
code."
Bethel Park's Hoffman said it is silly that somewhere in his
community, people will have to dial 11 digits -- 1 plus the area code
plus the number -- just to reach someone across the street who is on
the other side of the line.
This means Hoffman would have favored Bell Atlantic's preferred
option, to mix in 724 numbers right alongside the existing 412
numbers, the so-called overlay option, right?
Think again. "It would have been even worse," Hoffman said. Bell
Atlantic's plan would have required people to dial 10 digits -- area
code plus number -- for all local calls.
Following are the communities that would have two area codes:
Baldwin, Bethel Park, Braddock Hills, Castle Shannon, Churchill,
Duquesne, East Pittsburgh, Forest Hills, Fox Chapel, Green Tree,
Kennedy, Kilbuck, Moon, Mt. Lebanon, Neville, North Braddock, O'Hara,
Ohio Township, Penn Hills, Pittsburgh (Ward 28), Robinson, Ross,
Scott, Shaler, West Mifflin, West View and Wilkins Township.
(c) 1997, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Business News.
------------------------------
Subject: GA Telco Customers Vote on EAS
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:32:31 PDT
Georgia Telphone Customers to Vote on Long-Distance Charges
BY HARRY FRANKLIN, COLUMBUS LEDGER-ENQUIRER, GA.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 14--Telephone customers in Pine Mountain, Talbotton and Woodland
will be sent ballots in 60-90 days to vote on whether they are willing
to pay higher telephone rates to call Columbus without a long-distance
charge.
That decision was made this week by the Georgia Public Service
Commission after a hearing in Talbotton Tuesday night that drew some
200 people from the three towns.
"The response was very, very favorable," said Shawn Davis, PSC public
information officer. However, most customers want the service without
the higher fees, he said.
"We are now working with the three telephone companies to see if we
can shade the figures (higher rates) down," said Davis. "Any time we
closely examine with the telephone companies their rates, you get
closer and closer to actual costs."
The final rate increases will be included on the ballots submitted to
customers in each of the three towns, he said.
BellSouth provides telephone service to Pine Mountain; Alltel to
Woodland; and Public Service Telephone Co. to Talbotton.
Davis said some residents attending the public meeting were confused
about several issues. "Some residents thought we were one of the
telephone companies that would benefit from the higher rates," said
Davis.
Others did not understand why the rate increases would not be the same
for customers in all three towns.
He explained that the companies have different customer bases and
revenue needs, and that their estimates of rate increases are based on
their own needs.
Some residents also didn't understand why it would cost them more for
the Extended Area Service -- toll-free calling to and from Columbus --
than it would for other nearby towns with the extended service.
EAS was approved by the Georgia General Assembly in 1995. It provides
for toll-free calling between customers whose central telephone
offices are 22 miles apart or closer, Davis said.
"During the first sweep, we were able to include some 80 percent of
the population in a larger toll-free calling area," he said. "This is
a special EAS plan. These communities are 30 miles on the average from
Columbus."
He said providing the service will cost more because of the longer
distances.
Davis said BellSouth can provide the service cheaper because it has a
larger customer base to share the added cost than the other companies.
For more information, call the PSC consumer affairs office at
1-800-282-5813.
------------------------------
Subject: Another Oncor Ripoff
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 97 12:08:14 -0400
Excerpt from {The Boston Sunday Globe} 7/13/97 ...
Consumer Beat
Another Oncor ripoff. Suzanne and Jerry House of Winchester were on
their honeymoon in Florida when they made a handful of brief
long-distance calls using their Nynex calling card from a pay phone
near their hotel. They ended up getting charged more than $100 by a
company called Oncor Communications Co.
We've said it before, but it's worth saying again. Oncor pays hefty
commissions to pay phone owners to become their exclusive
long-distance provider. Unwary callers can get stuck with huge bills,
even if they use a calling card or call collect. The only way to avoid
the ripoff is to dial around Oncor by using the 800-number access code
for your long distance company. That's 800-54Nynex for Nynex. AT&T
claims its calling card will block the call if Oncor is involved, thus
forcing the user to dial 800-CALLATT.
------------------------------
Subject: 617/508 Split - Nine Years Later
From: Lord Somnolent <sleepy@os.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 03:31:05 -0400
In the beginning (1947), there were two areacodes - 413 and 617 -
serving Massachusetts. Back then the state could get away with just
one, but they decided it should get two to make any split later
instead of sooner. The jerk who mapped out the two areacodes, however,
made 413 serve a sigificantly smaller populaton than 617.
In the mid 80s, 617 was becomming full. So New England Telephone
proposed an areacode split. They came out with the list of COs that
would go into 508, and of course there was the usual bickering/lawsuits
from people who don't want to go into a different areacode. But the
plan was finalized, and on July 16, 1988, areacode 508 took up the
geographic bulk of the state.
Nine years have passed since then, and there are still many mentions
of 617 around the 508 area, even in the depths of NYNEX. Up until a
few months ago, you could still get an (old) recording telling you to
dial using areacode 617.
Many Eastern/Central Massachusetts residents, including those that
still haven't recovered from the July 1988 split, will change
areacodes again, thanks to a surge in demand for numbers that is
making areacodes all over split. On September 1st, a part of 508 will
become 978 and a part of 617 will become 781. While a split is more
welcome than an overlay, we'll have to see how well these changes are
implimented when the next round of changes take place. From what I
have heard, it seems the new areacode 508 will need a split or overlay
of some sort in 2003. It will be interesting to see how Massachusetts
residents will react to this development.
NYNEX is beginning to implement the new Massachusetts areacodes 781 and
978. The Worcester CO is being programmed to handle the new areacodes,
but I guess it's in beta <grin>.
When things get settled, the way to dial some calls will change. Local
calls within your areacode are 7 digits, local calls outside your
areacode is 10 digits, toll calls are still 1+10 digits. The beta
software, however, produces interesting results when you use areacode
978:
1. Dialing a toll number that will be in 978 using 1-978-7 digits works.
2. Dialing a toll number that will remain in 508 with 1-978-7 digits
works.
3. Dialing a local number that will be in 978 using 978-7 digits works.
4. Dialing a local number that will remain in 508 using 978-7 digits
doesn't work (consistent with new dialing plan but inconsistent with 2).
From these findings one can deduce that, at least for the Worcester CO,
they are treating 978 identically like 508 for the purposes of 1+
dialing (this CO also treats 617/781 like this), and for local calls
they have programmed in the numbers that will need 10-digit dialing.
The original dialing patterns (pre-split) still work here.
I will be posting updates as they are discovered.
------------------------------
Subject: Book Review: "Netscape Developer's Guide to Plug-ins" by Young
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 11:28:32 EST
BKNDGTPI.RVW 970119
"Netscape Developer's Guide to Plug-ins", Douglas A. Young, 1997,
0-13-270992-9, U$44.95/C$62.95
%A Douglas A. Young
%C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
%D 1997
%G 0-13-270992-9
%I Prentice Hall
%O U$44.95/C$62.95 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com
%P 494
%T "Netscape Developer's Guide to Plug-ins"
The Netscape browser, in common with most others, is able to handle
data and present certain data types. These include HTML, text, and a
limited number of graphics formats. In order to present animation,
video, and so forth, Netscape uses the concept of a browser "plug-in".
A plug-in is an application which can work both with Netscape and the
data type to be dealt with. When the browser encounters a specialized
data format, it calls the user's copy of the plug-in and passes over
the data, which the plug-in presents to the user in the appropriate
manner.
Young's book is a guide to the Netscape Plug-in API (Application
Programming Interface) which programmers can use to develop their own
plug-in programs for use with Netscape. The tutorial teaches by
having the reader follow along with example programs for special text
effects, graphing, and a tic-tac-toe game.
The book assumes a thorough determination to learn plug-in
programming. The material is not particularly easy to follow, nor
overly concerned with the problems associated with the plug-in
concept. Distribution of plug-in applications is a major problem,
since the user must have the application and also must have installed
it before dealing with any data that requires it. This is not really
looked at until chapter four, and is then dismissed in half a page.
Similarly, plug-ins are platform dependent, and separate programs must
be made available for each platform to be addressed. The issue is
raised in the book, but any answers are left as an exercise to the
reader.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKNDGTPI.RVW 970119
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
------------------------------
Subject: American Samoa Telecom Profile
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 12:34:07 -0500
After searching of http://www.samoanet.com:
LEC: local government's "Office of Communications" also provides
cellular services, with over 3,000 cellular phones.
International trunkings: Samoa Technologies, Inc. their SamoaSAT
division has an IntelSAT-B type stations, with two dishes (one is
13-meters, the other is 15-meters).
Services provided by the LEC and SamoaTech:
Voice, Data, Video, ISDN, T-1, Telex, Telegraph, Internet and email.
All switch(es) are digital, probably Nortel DMS.
Seven-digit local dialing (NXX-xxxx).
At least _seven_ c/o-code prefixes under country-code +684
(soon to be country code +1 and NPA 684 ?)
622, 633, 644, 655, 677, 688, 699
'0' for local/toll/international assistance operator;
411 for local directory/information;
611 for local repair;
911 for local emergencies.
I couldn't find the dialing instructions for (toll) and international,
so I don't know if they are using 1/0+ and 011/01+. I doubt that there
is any fg.D-type "CIC"-code 10(1X)XXX+ type access (yet). I couldn't
find anything like toll-free 800/888/etc, nor PAY-per-call 900 (nor
976 local PAY-per-call). I didn't see anything on 555- numbers. When I
tried to dial 011+684-KL.5-1212 via AT&T/Sprint/MCI, I was blocked by
the carrier, in each one's _first_ toll switch in the connection "Your
international call cannot be completed as dialed..." (AT&T gave me the
New Orleans #4ESS toll-switch identification, "060-T").
I couldn't find if there are "Custom-Calling" or CLASS (vertical
services)
The "Office of Communications" telephone numbers:
684-633-1121 Director (manager?), Radiograms
684-633-4484 Radio/TTY maintenance
684-633-1126 Telephone Business Office
684-633-9029 Business Office
684-633-4949 Time-of-Day (town of Pago-Pago)
684-699-4949 Time-of-Day (town of Tafuna)
684-633-9111 Fax Service/Public-booth
684-633-9026 Accounting
684-633-9018 DCO (town of Fagatogo)
684-699-9029 Warehouse (town of Fagatogo)
One of the Am.Samoa websites indicated:
Area Code 684. From the US, dial 011-684-number.
I didn't find anything about any possible differences between local or
intra-Am.Samoa toll (if there is such toll; CNMI does have intra-CNMI
but inter-island toll), nor anything about long-distance (international)
dialing/rates/etc. from American Samoa. Nor did I find anything about
"Custom-Calling" (Vertical-Services) in this territory, but again, I
wouldn't be at all surprised if they used "*XX/11XX" or "NX(#)" type
codes, with the "XX" portion identical to what the NANP uses for each
and every same vertical service.
If I find anything else new or additional for American Samoa, I'll post
it.
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060-T" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Subject: UCLA Short Course: "Design for Testability and Built-in Test"
From: bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu (Bill Goodin)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 22:19:56 GMT
On September 3-5, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Design for Testability and for Built-In Test", on the UCLA campus in
Los Angeles.
The instructor is Louis Y. Ungar, MA, President, A.T.E. Solutions,
Inc.
This course presents all aspects of Design for Testability and for
Built-In Test, from what it is, why you might need it, why someone
would object to it, and what it can and cannot accomplish. The course
discusses how today's technology has become elusive to certain failure
modes and how important it is to expose them through more testable
designs. First, simple techniques to enhance observability and
controllability are presented, as well as how to access literally
hundreds of internal points with as few as four additional edge
connector pins.
Other topics include:
o Specific guidelines for both digital and analog circuits
o Structured testability techniques, such as internal and
boundary
o Understanding the IEEE 1149.1 (JTAG) standard's operation and
use limitations
o New techniques in testability, including IDDQ testing and I/O
mapping
o What is built-in [self] test (BIST) and how to apply it
o Structures such as linear feedback shift registers (LFSRs),
signature analyzers, and pseudo-random signal generators.
The course fee is $1195, which includes all course materials. These
materials are for participants only and are not for sale.
For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
Subject: Computer Humor: Grand Mistakes
From: Erik Florack <Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 1997 05:22:34 PDT
"Who in their right mind would ever need more than 640k of ram!?"
- Bill Gates, 1981
"Any serious graphics applications still run better on Apple's
Macintosh platform..." - Bill Gates, 1991
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." --Popular
Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Thomas
Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked
with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a
fad that won't last out the year." --The editor in charge of business
books for Prentice Hall, 1957
"But what ... is it good for?" --Engineer at the Advanced Computing
Systems Division of IBM, 1968, commenting on the microchip.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." --Ken
Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,
1977
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to
us." --Western Union internal memo, 1876.
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would
pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" --David Sarnoff's
associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in
the 1920s.
"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing,
even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about
funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our
salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went
to Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You
haven't got through college yet.'" -Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve
Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve
Wozniak's personal computer.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #180
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sat Jul 19 00:25:29 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id AAA17564; Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 00:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707190425.AAA17564@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #184
TELECOM Digest Sat, 19 Jul 97 00:25:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 184
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
NJ PUB Sets LEC Competition Rates (Tad Cook)
East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates (Tad Cook)
First 900-Number "Anti-Spam" Scams Starting to Emerge (Andrew C. Green)
How Did Ohio Get 330 *and* 440? (Peter)
AT&T President Forced to Resign (oldbear@arctos.com)
PA Phone Rate Ruling (Tad Cook)
Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Lee Winson)
Re: GA Telco Customers Vote on EAS (Ken Eikert)
Call For Papers: Applied Telecommunication Symposium (B.L. Bodnar)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: NJ PUB Sets LEC Competition Rates
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:41:35 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
New Jersey Public Utilities Board Sets Rates for Leasing Phone Network
BY RAYMOND FAZZI, ASBURY PARK PRESS, N.J.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 18--The state Board of Public Utilities yesterday set the rates
Bell Atlantic-New Jersey will be paid to let competitors lease parts
of its telephone network.
Opinions about how this will affect consumers vary.
Although the BPU called the action a boon to competition, all the key
players in the deregulation debate criticized the board's final numbers,
but for different reasons.
Bell Atlantic-New Jersey President Len J. Lauer said he was "extremely
disappointed" by the rates, arguing they are so low they do not even
pay for what it costs his company to deliver the respective services.
AT&T Corp. said the rates are too high -- so high, in fact, that AT&T
spokesman Dan Lawler said the company will re-evaluate its plan to
provide local telephone service in New Jersey. 1 The state Division of
the Ratepayer Advocate, meanwhile, also said the rates are too high
and will discourage competing telephone companies from doing business
in New Jersey.
"I think we're going to have less competition for residential
ratepayers," state Ratepayer Advocate Blossom A. Peretz said.
The rates that were set by the BPU yesterday do not directly affect
telephone customers. They represent the charges that competitors of
Bell Atlantic-New Jersey will have to pay to make use of the company's
telephone network.
But they will have an indirect impact on customers because they be an
important factor in determining whether competitors will do business
in the state and how much they will charge if they do.
The BPU set the rates using criteria established by the U.S.
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which set up the rules and time frames
for deregulating the nation's local telephone markets.
BPU Executive Director Michael Ambrosio said the board needed to
establish what it would cost an efficient company to deliver the
services that Bell Atlantic-New Jersey will be leasing to
competitors. A 12-percent profit margin was then added to establish
the final rates.
As a basis for the decision, the board used a cost model submitted by
Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, and another submitted by AT&T and MCI
Communications, giving them weights of 60 percent and 40 percent
respectively in determing the final numbers.
As an example, the BPU decided that to gain access to Bell Atlantic's
local loop -- basically the wires that run from the customers home or
business to the switching office -- a competitor has to pay the
company $16.21 per month per customer.
Bell Atlantic's proposal was $22.63, versus a proposal of $10.92 by
AT&T and MCI. The Division of the Ratepayer Advocate submitted a
$13.70 proposal that was not used in the final decision.
"Today really sets the rules of the game for Bell Atlantic making its
facilities available to its competitors," Ambrosio said. "We think
that the rate is sufficient to stimulate competition and reflects the
cost."
However, the BPU did acknowledge that competition in the state's local
telephone market has been slow to develop. As part of its decision
yesterday, the BPU said it plans to investigate the reasons why Bell
Atlantic-New Jersey has not yet been subjected to significant
competition in local service.
The Federal Communications Commission has proposed undertaking a similar
study looking at the lack of local service competition on a national level.
------------------------------
Subject: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 18:19:14 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Think tank official calls for western uprising
BY KRISTEN MOULTON
Associated Press Writer
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Phillip Burgess, president of a free-market
think tank, is hoping to ignite a new western rebellion.
But his battle cry is for conservative lawmakers and governors to take
an unaccustomed stance -- one that rejects pure business competition
and free-market principles.
Burgess of the Center for the New West wants westerners to demand that
telephone customers nationwide help pay the costs of providing service
to rural America.
If they don't, rural economies will stagnate and western states will
be swamped by soaring telephone costs brought on shifting Federal
Communications Commission policy under the Telecommunications Act of
1996, Burgess said.
"What's coming out of the FCC is a distortion of congressional intent,"
Burgess said at a summit here on Friday. "It pits the West against the
East, rural against urban, small business against big business."
The summit attracted 70 lawmakers, regulators, economic developers and
local government officials from 13 western states. It was sponsored by
the Center for the New West.
Mel Brown, the speaker of the Utah House and chairman of the summit,
said that unless the course of telecommunication deregulation is
changed, "The result will be that hundreds of rural communities
throughout the West will end up being the `have nots' of
telecommunications."
The problem is that the FCC is stripping away the $18.5 billion
subsidy long distance companies have been paying to help local phone
companies provide service to high-cost customers, mostly in small
towns and rural areas.
Under a rule approved in May, the FCC intends to provide 25 percent of
the funding for a universal service fund to ensure affordable phone
service and wants each state to come up with the remaining 75 percent
needed within its borders.
That could strike hard at western and some southern states, which have
fewer residents to pick up bigger tabs. The cost of providing rural
phone service is often four times higher and sometimes 10 times higher
than the cost in urban areas.
Burgess said the FCC's plan is doomed because state lawmakers and
those in Congress are not going to stick rural customers with basic
phone service bills of $60 or more a month.
He likened it to charging residents of Wyoming 72 cents for a postage
stamp and New Yorkers 11 cents to reflect the true cost of providing
postal service, he said.
Policy makers like Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, who addressed the group
Thursday night, must realize that no one truly wants competition,
Burgess said. "He's trying to be agnostic on this and he just can't
do it."
That's because competition always pushes prices close to costs, he
said. That would mean steeply higher prices for residential phone
customers and rural residents.
"As much as I'd like this to be a competitive system, it ain't gonna
happen," Burgess said. "As soon as we can get people to realize
they're hallucinating on this competition stuff, (a solution) could
happen overnight."
Burgess proposes surcharges on all customers' bills nationwide, with each
surcharge listed explicitly.
Summit participants reached a "call to action" that jibed with
Burgess' recommendation. They suggested a national universal service
fund created by a 5 percent or 6 percent surcharge on all telecommun-
ications services in the country.
Two rural economic development officials, from Oregon and Colorado,
pleaded with phone companies representatives to not abandon small
towns.
Robin Roberts of Bend, Ore., executive director of the Central Oregon
Economic Council, said the companies have to "stop the whining" and
work with rural officials to build the telecommunications
infrastructure needed to attract business.
Florine P. Raitano of Dillon, Colo., executive director of the
Colorado Development Council, said if Colorado ends up having to
charge state phone customers for 75 percent of its universal service
fund, business recruitment will suffer.
That would especially hurt rural communities, she said.
"The future is bleak indeed," Raitano said. "We are already behind on
this information superhighway. We're on a tricycle."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 11:07:57 -0500
From: Andrew C. Green <acg@dlogics.com>
Subject: First 900-Number "Anti-Spam" Scams Starting to Emerge
Question: How does one get further information about a 900 number?
This particular one is (900) 336-9970, pitching a "Pay us $4.95
and we won't spam you anymore" scheme. It was listed in a scam
spewed in email across the Internet under the Subject line of
"END YOUR EMAIL SPAM & HOME JUNKMAIL NOW!" (see below)
The culprits hijacked a mailserver at tpoint.net, which from
what I see in the headers of the message below is not doing
reverse IP lookups, unfortunately; I can only guess whether
a Juno account is really involved (but of course, even if it
is, who cares; that's not really where the problem lies here).
I have snipped out our local system headers, but am leaving in
the routing headers and text of this spam so we can marvel at
the audacity of this bunch. Sysadmins at tpoint.net have
already been notified, FWIW.
>Return-Path: <@tpoint.net:00gytd@juno.com>
[our local headers beyond chigate snipped]
>Received: from challenger.tpoint.net(204.29.207.17) by chigate
>via smap (V1.3) id sma001257; Thu Jul 17 17:59:20 1997
>Received: from juno.com by tpoint.net with SMTP (8.8.2/25-eef)
> id WAA26857; Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:24:40 GMT
[point of injection above, though whether it's really from Juno
is anyone's guess; I understand it is unlikely, though]
>Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:24:40 GMT
>From: 00gytd@juno.com
>To: global@savetrees.com
>Subject: END YOUR EMAIL SPAM & HOME JUNKMAIL NOW!
>Reply-To: 00gytd@juno.com
>Comments: Authenticated sender is <00gytd@juno.com>
>Received: from juno.com (juno.com [000.000.000.000]) by juno.com
>(0.0.0./0.0.0.) with SMTP id AAA000000 for <00gytd@juno.com>;
>Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:21:28 -0500 (EST)
>Message-Id: 0000000000.AAA000@juno.com
>X-Uidl: 55428138445429169451713872766147
[bogus headers above implicating CyberPromo (probably right) and
Juno (probably wrong)]
>END YOUR EMAIL SPAM AND HOME JUNKMAIL NOW!
>Remove it from your HOME MAIL BOX and your EMAIL BOX.
>
>We are a marketing firm hired by the Marketing Alliance Op-Out
>Group.
>
>This could be the last junkmail you get and, yes, this is a
>one time mailing.
>
>We are working with an automated service for consumers to
>remove their names from the top 3200+ direct mail groups
>that send you 80-90% of the unsolicited material you receive
>at home in your postal mail box and the top 60+ email direct
>marketing groups that send to your computer.
>
>The entire cost to you is $4.95. Less than the cost of your
>time to open and throw out junkmail.
>
>The service uses the new BoxFree(tm) auto-tabulation and
>submission system.
>
>1. Call 1-900-336-9970.
>This will bill your phone a one-time charge of $4.95. The
>only cost of this service.
>This will give you your Personal Identification Number (PIN#).
>You must be over 18 to call and have a touchtone phone. Have a
>pencil and paper ready to write down your PIN number.
>
>2. Email the following information to: valu@answerme.com
>This email address is an automatic response computer that will
>start you through the remove process.
>Email the following:
>A. Your valid PIN #.
>B. The Email address you want removed. (One per order)
>C. The Home address you want removed. (One per order)
>D. The First and Last Name you want removed. (One per order)
>
>That's it!
>
>Please forward this to others in your office or to friends who
>might benefit.
[Not in my lifetime, pal.]
>A new PIN # is needed for each new name or address.
>
>(c)1997 IMAGIneos, All Rights Reserved.
Some checking shows that this bunch used to have a domain
which has since been cancelled, though this predates the spam
anyway; they've apparently migrated to junk email scams. It
would be nice to be able to put a name or two to these idiots.
Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331
Datalogics, Inc.
101 N. Wacker Drive, Ste. 1800
Chicago, IL 60606-7301 FAX: (312) 853-8282
(Note: Header munged for spam tracking; email acg at the above
domain to contact me.)
------------------------------
From: Peter <sorry@nospam.com>
Subject: How Did Ohio Get 330 *and* 440?
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 20:37:06 -0400
Organization: Solid Ground Enterprises
How did Ohio, with about 4% of the US population (11-mumble million
out of 260-something-million) get 2 of the 6 (33%) of the most
desirable new-format area codes? (220, 330, 440, 550, 660, 770; 880 =
toll-free-something or another, 990 = reserved for expansion)
What gives? Just curious.
Clueless in Detroit but still 313,
pjt (peter313@pjt.com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 20:57:09 -0400
From: The Old Bear <oldbear@arctos.com>
Subject: AT&T President Forced to Resign
AT&T PRESIDENT FORCED TO RESIGN
The AT&T board of directors has forced the resignation of AT&T
President and Chief Operating Officer John R. Walter, who was
second-in-command after Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Allen.
Walter, who had been recruited nine months ago from R.R. Donnelley &
Sons, a printing company, was told that the board had lost faith in
his performance, and board member Walter Y. Elisha told a reporter:
"He lacked the intellectual leadership to lead AT&T. He's a bright
guy, but the complexity of the business is far greater than he might
have realized."
As summarized from The New York Times, July 17, 1997 in Edupage
------------------------------
Subject: PA Phone Rate Ruling
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 19:39:49 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Bell, Competitors Complain about Pennsylvania Phone Rate Ruling
BY KEN ZAPINSKI, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
HARRISBURG, Pa.--Jul. 11--State regulators decided yesterday how much
it will cost companies to compete in the local telephone market.
Now the question is, will consumers save much?
No way, say companies like AT&T and MCI. The prices set by the Public
Utility Commission in a 3-2 vote are so high it will be difficult for
consumers to escape Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania's rates.
Hogwash, say Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania executives. The PUC's prices
are so low that Bell Atlantic will be subsidizing rival companies that
want to steal their local phone customers.
Representatives on both sides of the dispute say they are thinking about
appealing the ruling.
At issue is how much Bell Atlantic can charge other telephone
companies to use its lines and equipment to provide local phone
service. As a way of encouraging competition, the federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires companies like Bell Atlantic
to permit competitors to use its lines, switches and other
equipment. But it is up to the states to set the prices.
In January the PUC set an overall price for access to the entire Bell
Atlantic set-up. Yesterday, commissioners established the a la carte
price list for use of the individual components, like lines and
switches, for companies that can set up parts but not all of their own
networks.
What does this mean for consumers?
For people to save money, competing companies need to be able to
purchase access from Bell Atlantic at a big enough discount so they
can undercut Bell Atlantic's retail price and still make a profit.
Curry Communications Inc. of East Pittsburgh, for instance, is buying
complete access to Bell Atlantic's network under the rules set up in
January. It's paying a PUC-mandated discount of about 18 cents on the
dollar.
In effect, the company is allowed to buy $1 worth of access for 82
cents. It then resells it to customers at 95 cents, but to make a
profit the company needs to be able to advertise, handle customer
problems, and bill customers with something less than the remaining 13
cents. Company officials say they can do this because their operation
is more efficient and has lower overhead than Bell Atlantic.
That route is how now-established long-distance companies like MCI and
Sprint got their start in the 1980s. Eventually they made enough money
to build their own long-distance networks and weaned themselves away
from AT&T's.
AT&T, MCI and other companies want to replicate that model in the
local phone market. But they say the prices set yesterday by the PUC
are so high they will discourage the laying of phone lines and other
work needed to construct new local phone networks.
Until new networks are completely in place, the competitors would
still need access to some Bell Atlantic equipment. And the prices
approved yesterday are among the highest in the country, Bell
competitors said.
To use Bell Atlantic's phone line running from a switch to a
customer's home will cost, on average, $16.78 a month. In Maryland,
where Bell Atlantic also operates, regulators have set the charge at
$13.16, according to figures provided by PUC Commissioner David
W. Rolka. And the Federal Communications Commission estimated the
Pennsylvania line charge should be around $12.30.
Bell Atlantic officials said the prices approved by the PUC are
actually too low, given the cost of providing service to rural areas
of Pennsylvania.
"AT&T and MCI are essentially saying, `Bell, you bear the risk of my
entry into the market,"' said Daniel J. Whelan, president and chief
executive of Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania. "If AT&T and MCI don't like
these prices ... let them build their own network."
How divergent are the views on this issue? Yesterday's ruling will
allow Bell Atlantic to charge a higher price for a competitor to use
the company's network than it charges an average business customer for
phone service, according to AT&T executive Jim Ginty. Yet Commission
Chairman John Quain said the prices actually represent a nearly 50
percent discount off Bell Atlantic's average business rate.
Jay Young, MCI's regional director of public policy, said Quain was
mistaken when he said he set the prices with one eye toward providing
Bell Atlantic "with an adequate revenue stream."
Said Young: "That is not what the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is about
... The point of more competition is to drive down prices."
But Quain said Bell Atlantic needed enough money to modernize its
network.
Meanwhile, Rolka, who along with Commissioner John Hanger opposed the
price plan, raised the specter of a future Bell Atlantic rate hike. In
approving a la carte prices yesterday that added up to more than what
Bell Atlantic currently is allowed to charge, the PUC implicitly
acknowledges that the phone company's rates were not high enough to
cover its costs.
If Bell wants to push for higher rates, Rolka warned, "the commission
will have little choice but to make the necessary changes."
Whelan said Bell Atlantic's rates are frozen until 1999 and the
commission can always reject a rate hike, regardless of yesterday's
decision.
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)
Subject: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: 17 Jul 1997 00:12:54 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
There has been numerous newspaper articles announcing area code splits
and overlays, some posted in this newsgroup. The articles finally
have told the public the reason for more area codes is _competition_,
not increased phone use. Each new phone company will require a block
of 10,000 numbers, even if it needs only a handful.
The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (and I'm sure others) is
investigating various ways to avoid adding more area codes.
One method is assigning smaller than 10,000 blocks. For example, in
North Philadelphia, (215) BA 9-1xxx could be assigned to Bell of
Penna, (215) BA 9-2xxx could go to AT&T local, (215) BA 9-3xxx could
go to MCI local, and so on.
This to me makes a lot of sense. For billing locations, (215) BA 2
would continue to mean North Philadelphia, as it always has. The
actual local distributor routing would be handled internally by the
switch gear.
For large centrex customers, who may have several exchanges assigned
to them, the whole block could be passed to a new carrier if desired.
This would allow the company to keep its existing numbers.
The disadvantage is massive reprogramming of all local switches and
tandem intermediate switches to support all this. Who will pay for
the software development and testing and implementation?
It seems to me the new companies ought to foot the entire bill. If I
own a business and you open up next door, I shouldn't have to provide
you with a parking lot at my expense.
Another method of number saving is some sort of "remote call
fowarding" arrangement whereby unused numbers in other area codes are
"borrowed". I don't understand how this will work. This also will be
costly.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 18:48:34 -0700
From: Ken Eikert <eik@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: GA Telco Customers Vote on EAS
Stanley Cline wrote:
> Tad Cook quoted:
>> EAS was approved by the Georgia General Assembly in 1995. It provides
>> for toll-free calling between customers whose central telephone
>> offices are 22 miles apart or closer, Davis said.
> Not always... :^(
> Trenton (GA) Telephone Company must have been exempt, because the
> 706-657 CO is within 22 miles (16 miles V/H, to be exact) from the
> Rossville, GA BellSouth CO and not only was Trenton toll (using
> BellSouth. With AT&T and certain other carriers it was free) from my
> parents' house in Rossville, but TTC was charging its customers
> $70/month to get a FX/FCO line to call Rossville (and Chattanooga,
> etc.) without toll charges!
> (The PSC has since decided to do something about Trenton, but I don't
> know exactly what.)
I'm not sure I understand the 22-mile law. I understand the 16-mile
law, excerpted below.
["O.C.G.A." is Official Code of Georgia Annotated.]
O.C.G.A. 46-2-25.2. Sixteen mile toll free telephone calling ...
* (a) It is the goal of this Code section to provide for toll free
* calling between two telephones where the central offices serving
* such telephones are within 16 miles of each other.
*
* (b) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this Code section, on
* and after July 1, 1992, the Public Service Commission shall not
* approve any new rate schedule which authorizes a long-distance
* charge for calls between two telephones where the central offices
* serving such telephones are within 16 miles of each other.
No problem, I understand that. Now, the 22-mile law:
O.C.G.A. 46-2-25.3. Toll-free calls within 22 miles of exchange ...
* (a) On and after June 1, 1998, there shall be toll-free calling
* between two telephones within a 22 mile radius of an exchange
* serving such telephones as such 22 mile calling areas are
* designated on maps on file with the commission in any local
* exchange as provided in subsection (b) or (c) of this Code
* section; provided, however, that the provisions of this Code
* section shall not apply to a subscriber who has elected an
* optional plan. Such calls made in the 22 mile radius shall be
* considered local calls. Nothing in this subsection shall
* preclude the offer of optional rate plans.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'll take a stab at this. AFAIK, 46-2-25.3
supplements, not repeals, 46-2-25.2.
Guess Number 1. "Exchange" means CO, so all calling shall be
toll-free within a 22-mile radius of any CO for all phones served by
that CO. Is this a problem in Georgia? Are there LECs charging LD
for calls between customers served out of the same CO?
Guess Number 2. "Exchange" means the geographic area served by a CO,
so all calling within an imaginary line drawn 22 miles outside the
exchange boundary is toll-free. But, IMHO, the language of the law
does not logically support this conclusion.
Guess Number 3. It means the same thing as the 16-mile law; just
change "16" to "22." This is what many people (including me) seem to
have assumed, but again, the language of the law does not logically
support this, IMHO.
Does anyone have any word on how the law is being interpreted
and applied by the Georgia PSC?
------------------------------
From: bohdan@ihgp4.ih.lucent.com (-Bodnar,B.L.)
Subject: Call For Papers: Applied Telecommunication Symposium
Date: 18 Jul 1997 17:59:53 GMT
Organization: Lucent Technologies
CALL FOR PAPERS
APPLIED TELECOMMUNICATION SYMPOSIUM (ATS)
Part of the 1998 Advanced Simulation
Technologies Conference (ASTC '98)
April 5-9, 1998
Boston Park Plaza Hotel
Boston, Massachusetts, USA
The Applied Telecommunication Symposium is intended for
professionals, engineers, software developers, managers, and
others interested in cellular and packet traffic characteristics,
analysis of telecommunication networks, and practioners operating
telecommunication networks.
We are looking for innovative technical papers describing
projects, applications, and research and development work
pertinent to telecommunication. Topics of interest include, but
are not limited to:
- TRAFFIC MODELING e.g., Internet traffic, packet switching,
cellular (CDMA, TDMA, etc.)
- COMPONENT MODELING e.g., probabilistic processor modeling,
interprocessor communication
- OVERLOAD CONTROL AND HIGH LOAD HANDLING
- SYSTEMS e.g., router design and evaluation, ATM, voice/data
integration
Three copies of a 300 word abstract or a draft paper should be
submitted to the session organizers by September 26, 1997. The
abstracts or draft papers should be sent to:
Applied Telecommunication Symposium
c/o ASTC'98
P.O. Box 17900
San Diego, CA 92177 USA
E-MAIL: scs@scs.org
WWW: http://www.scs.org/confernc/Astc98/
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #184
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Sun Jul 20 09:31:19 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA27307; Sun, 20 Jul 1997 09:31:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 09:31:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707201331.JAA27307@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #185
TELECOM Digest Sun, 20 Jul 97 09:31:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 185
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
U.S. Appeals Court Sets Aside FCC Phone Rules (Tad Cook)
8th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision on Interconnection Order (J. Harris)
Sprint to Reorganize LEC Division (Tad Cook)
Ringer on Old Phones (John Shaver)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Terry Kennedy)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Lord Somnolent)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (David Clayton)
Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates (Craig Macbride)
Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates (Nils Andersson)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: U.S. Appeals Court Sets Aside FCC Phone Rules
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 12:17:03 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
U.S. appeals court sets aside FCC phone rules
BY ROGER FILLION
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A federal appeals court Friday overturned key
parts of landmark federal rules designed to pry open to competition
the $100 billion local telephone market controlled by the regional
Baby Bell companies.
The St. Louis-based court said the Federal Communications Commission
lacked the authority to issue rules governing the pricing of local
calls. The rules are part of the agency's bid to open local phone
monopolies to long-distance carriers and others wanting to offer local
service.
Experts called the long-awaited ruling a victory for the Bells and
their ally GTE Corp. and a setback for the FCC and long-distance
carriers like AT&T Corp. and MCI Communications Corp., which had asked
the court to uphold the rules.
The decision, sure to be appealed to the Supreme Court, throws more
uncertainty into stalled federal efforts to bring new competition to
the local phone market after last year's huge telecommunications act.
The FCC rules spell out how new competitors can hook up to local phone
networks, as well as the price the new entrants should pay for using
the networks. The rules -- adopted last August but suspended by the
court in the fall -- are meant to implement the telecom act.
But the court, in a lengthy ruling, said the act "directly and
straightforwardly assigns to the states" -- and not the FCC -- the
authority to set prices for local phone service.
The FCC had ordered the Bells and other local carriers to offer big
discounts by leasing lines in bulk to competitors at rates of 17
percent to 25 percent below retail prices.
The agency also ordered local carriers to "unbundle" their local
networks into seven pieces -- such as call-switching devices -- that
new rivals could lease to complete their own networks.
The "unbundled elements" were to be priced at competitive levels based
on the cost of new and more efficient facilities.
"This is a signal that deep discounts are on shaky legal ground," said
analyst Scott Cleland of Legg Mason Precursor Group, the research arm
of the Baltimore-based brokerage.
"When reading the decision, it's clear the court felt the FCC misread
the telecom act," he added.
Baby Bell and GTE officials claimed victory, saying their arguments
won out over those of the FCC and long-distance carriers who had asked
the court to back the agency's rules.
"It's better than expected," said a spokesman for BellSouth
Corp. "It's clear the court read the act and knows the intent of
Congress."
------------------------------
From: John P. Harris <johnhsa@iamerica.net>
Subject: 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision on Interconnection Order
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 14:46:43 -0700
Major Portions of the FCC's Interconnection Order have been Vacated
Summary
In a decision rendered Friday afternoon, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals in St. Louis issued a decision in the consolidated appeal of the
FCC's Interconnection order (CC 96-98).
Generally, the court found that the FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in
promulgating pricing rules regarding local telephone service. As a
result, the FCC's rules for establishing resale discounts, and the
pricing of unbundled network elements are voided.
The court also vacated the FCC's "Pick and Choose" rule which permitted
competing carriers to pick individual provisions from an incumbent LEC's
contracts with others, without being bound to the entire contract.
Furthermore, it is not necessary to obtain state commission approval of
agreements which predate the passage of the Act (2/8/96), unless the
state rules require such approval. Even then terms, conditions and
pricing in such pre-Act agreements may not be available to competitive
local carriers unless the state commission explicitly states that they
are.
Finally, the court's decision clarifies that state commissions have the
exclusive authority to determine rural exemptions from interconnections
obligations within the framework of the Telecommunications Act. The
FCC's standards for making determinations regarding exemptions are of no
effect.
Jurisdiction
The court states that the "FCC exceeded its jurisdiction in promulgating
the pricing rules regarding local telephone service".
The FCC and its supporters did not contest the fact that the state
commissions had final responsibility to set prices under the Act.
However, they claimed that section 251 (d)(1) gave the FCC parallel
authority to establish parameters which the State pricing policies must
follow. The court decided that pricing for local service (and
therefore, we believe, elements thereof) is the exclusive domain of the
state commissions. State commission pricing rules must conform to
section 251 of the Act but are not limited to the FCC's pricing rules.
In order to win its position of dual authority with the states, the FCC
needed to demonstrate either that the Act specifically granted them that
authority, or that they could preempt state authority under the
"Impossibility Exception".
The court noted that in the Cable Act, Congress explicitly granted the
FCC jurisdiction over industry rates and requires state commissions to
follow the FCC's rules. The absence of such explicit language in the
Telecommunications Act convinced the court that it was not Congress's
intent to grant the FCC any such authority.
The impossibility exception is a concept evolved out of prior case law.
It applies when it is impossible to separate the Interstate and
Intrastate components of FCC regulation, or if state regulation negates
the FCC's lawful regulation of Interstate communication. On surface
this argument is somewhat compelling since a loop cannot be physically
split into parts which provide Interstate vs. Intrastate services.
However, the court found that the act clearly granted authority to set
rates for interconnection, unbundled access, resale, and transport and
termination of traffic to state commissions. Further, access is
merely a service provided by a LEC while unbundling, resale etc.
provides a means of "local" competition.
Since the FCC failed to demonstrate either case, the court determined
state commissions have exclusive authority over pricing policies for
these services.
It should be noted that the court did not review the relative merits of
the FCC's pricing system. It is possible that a state commission
could adopt the FCC's pricing method with little or no changes but they
are not required to adopt that method.
"Pick and Choose Rule" struck down
The court's decision also vacates the rule requiring LECs to make the
individual terms of agreements with other carriers available to
requesting carriers. That is to say, prior agreements must be viewed
in their entirety and not as a collection of terms from which a
requesting carrier is free to "pick and choose". The court determined
that the FCC rules would discourage the give and take essential to
negotiations which was the clear preference of Congress. The "pick
and choose" rules do remain in effect for CMRS providers only.
Part 51.303 which subjects interconnection agreements made prior to the
Act to the "Pick and Choose" provision is also vacated by the court's
decision. This ruling by the court could have a substantive impact on
the status of EAS, Wide Area Calling Plan, and RCC interconnection
agreements. It could make the revision of these agreements
unnecessary.
Rural Exemptions
The ruling reserves to State Commissions the power to decide standards
required for determining rural exemption from interconnection.
Although it is likely that some states will adopt rules similar to those
promulgated by the FCC.
Pricing Standards
The LECs had challenged the FCC's rules for pricing unbundled network
elements on two fronts:
As a violation of the terms of the Act and
As an unlawful taking of property.
Violations of terms of the Act
Operational Support Systems
The LECs lost their argument that Operations Support Systems (OSS) do
not constitute a network element as defined by the Act. The court
determined that "network element" also includes operator services,
directory assistance, and vertical features such as call waiting.
Definition of technically feasible
The court agreed with the FCC's interpretation of Act sections
251(c)(2 - 3) regarding interconnection requirements at technically
feasible points. However, while economics can not be taken into
consideration in the determination of a "technically feasible
point", the economics can be considered in establishing the cost of
that interconnection and the subsequent pricing of that service.
Superior Quality Rules
The court ruled that the FCC misinterpreted the phrase "interconn-
ection at a level of quality at least equal to that provided to the
LEC itself". The Commission had interpreted, in Part 51.305 (a)4,
that an incumbent LEC could be required to provide a superior quality
of service if so requested by the competing carrier.
Unconstitutional taking of property
Since the court has vacated the portions of the order dealing with
pricing of unbundled elements, the taking of property issue is one
that can't be quantified until prices are reset. It is the opinion of
the court that if a fair price is paid for the unbundled element,
there is no unconstitutional taking of property.
Summary
In summary, the court declined to vacate the entire interconnection
order but did reject FCC rules related to pricing, the applicability of
other agreements to current interconnection, and the FCC standards for
determination of exemption from certain requirements of section 251 of
the Act.
Complete text of the decision available at http://ls.wustl.edu/8th.cir
------------------------------
Subject: Sprint to Reorganize LEC Division
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:14:53 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Sprint Corp. to Reorganize Its Local Telephone Division
BY TED SICKINGER, THE KANSAS CITY STAR, MO.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 18--As part of what it characterizes as a major growth strategy
in its local telephone operations, Sprint Corp. said Thursday that it
would reorganize and centralize the management of its local telephone
division.
Beginning in January, the division, which serves customers in 19
states, will consolidate its existing regional headquarters in
Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Overland Park into a national
organization based in Kansas City.
Instead of a regional focus, the company will be organized by three
market segments: Business Markets, serving large- and medium-sized
businesses; Consumer and Small Business Markets, serving residential
customers and small businesses; and Carrier Markets, which will sell
network capacity and services to competing local companies and
long-distance providers.
As a result of the changes, customers will be able to purchase all of
Sprint's services, including long-distance service, wireless and
Internet access, through the local division.
"A national organization structured around market segments allows us
to better serve our customers with Sprint's full portfolio of
services, while streamlining processes and eliminating duplicative
operations," said Michael Fuller, president of the division.
Fuller expects staff reductions to be minimal. Most of the division's
26,000 employees will remain in their current locations, but all
regions will report to Kansas City.
"There may be some reductions in some areas and additions in others,"
said Steve Dykes, a company spokesman. "If anything, it's a positive
for Kansas City."
------------------------------
From: John Shaver <shaverj@huachuca-emh31.army.mil>
Subject: Ringer on Old Phones
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 14:14:04 -0700
Some of the old telephone sets required strapping electrically the
yellow and green leads (There were/are 3, red, yellow, and green, in
the cord between the phone and the wall) to activate the ringer. I
remember this fact from the early days of having to report phone
ringers to the company and attempts to keep them from getting excited
about too many additional ringers.
------------------------------
From: Terry Kennedy <terry@spcuna.spc.edu>
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 21:10:06 GMT
Lee Winson <lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com> writes:
> There has been numerous newspaper articles announcing area code splits
> and overlays, some posted in this newsgroup. The articles finally
> have told the public the reason for more area codes is _competition_,
> not increased phone use. Each new phone company will require a block
> of 10,000 numbers, even if it needs only a handful.
Anybody who wants to compete as a LEC is going to need a *lot* more
than a single exchange prefix of 10,000 numbers - it's not
cost-effective to enter a market planning on having that small a
customer base unless you can target a specific customer and make money
on their long distance/internatonal calling, while losing money on
their local provisioning.
> One method is assigning smaller than 10,000 blocks. For example, in
> North Philadelphia, (215) BA 9-1xxx could be assigned to Bell of
> Penna, (215) BA 9-2xxx could go to AT&T local, (215) BA 9-3xxx could
> go to MCI local, and so on.
The last time I looked (January 1997) Bellcore was finalizing the
reqirements for local number portability (LNP) with an anticipated
deployment date of January 1998. The LERG has some new fields
assigned, one of which is whether or not a switch supports local
number portability.
Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing
terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
+1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 17:14:58 -0400
From: Lord Somnolent <sleepy@os.com>
Organization: KoB
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Lee Winson wrote:
> One method is assigning smaller than 10,000 blocks. For example, in
> North Philadelphia, (215) BA 9-1xxx could be assigned to Bell of
> Penna, (215) BA 9-2xxx could go to AT&T local, (215) BA 9-3xxx could
> go to MCI local, and so on.
> This to me makes a lot of sense. For billing locations, (215) BA 2
> would continue to mean North Philadelphia, as it always has. The
> actual local distributor routing would be handled internally by the
> switch gear.
I agree, in that 215-BA9 would still correspond to a specific area for
the place field on a phone bill for inbound LD calls, plus tandems
elsewhere in the network don't have to worry about provider-specific
routing.
> For large centrex customers, who may have several exchanges assigned
> to them, the whole block could be passed to a new carrier if desired.
> This would allow the company to keep its existing numbers.
Good, very good.
> The disadvantage is massive reprogramming of all local switches and
> tandem intermediate switches to support all this. Who will pay for
> the software development and testing and implementation?
I doubt it is going to be much of a biggie. Simple logic code, ie if
215-BA9-9 go to telco A, else telco B.
> Another method of number saving is some sort of "remote call
> fowarding" arrangement whereby unused numbers in other area codes are
> "borrowed". I don't understand how this will work. This also will be
> costly.
According to V/H tables, Boston and Cambridge have "borrowed" (not sure
if its permanent) OCs from areacode 508. Not sure how that's working
out, because Boston now has a 617-726 and a 508-726.
You can program all the tandems and switches in the network to route
certain numbers to other places, but if you do that for a lot of
numbers the code gets bulky, and the time to complete a call
increases.
------------------------------
From: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au (David Clayton)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 09:36:18 GMT
Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Reply-To: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) contributed the following:
> The disadvantage is massive reprogramming of all local switches and
> tandem intermediate switches to support all this. Who will pay for
> the software development and testing and implementation?
Sooner or later your 7 digit numbering scheme is going to restrict, or
confuse, the 'phone users in North America.
When is someone going to "bite the bullet" and come up with something
that will be useable for the near future, (like the next 20-30 years),
rather than, what from a distance, looks like "trying to panel beat a
wreck"?
Or does the deregulation of your market mean that no one now has the
authority to do this?
In Australia we are in the midst of a numbering plan revamp which has
everyone in the country going to 8 digit numbers which, (with some
crystal ball gazing), should take care of things for quite a while into
the future.
Regards,
David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@acslink.aone.net.au
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
------------------------------
From: craig@rmit.EDU.AU (Craig Macbride)
Subject: Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates
Date: 19 Jul 1997 17:05:48 GMT
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
> Mel Brown, the speaker of the Utah House and chairman of the summit,
> said that unless the course of telecommunication deregulation is
> changed, "The result will be that hundreds of rural communities
> throughout the West will end up being the `have nots' of
> telecommunications."
Rural areas, economically, have obvious disadvantages and
advantages. Being far from major cities tends to result in getting
cheap land, housing, insurance, etc, while having transport and
communication costs for those people may be quite high.
Why shouldn't they pay the costs of their communication needs? Should
they have government-subsidised fuel too, so that they can drive to
the nearest city as cheaply as residents of its own suburbs? Should
those rural residents pay a subsidy to help city residents afford
their ever-increasing rents? Of course not. It's just something that
makes up the cost of living where they chose to live.
Craig Macbride <craig@rmit.edu.au> URL: http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~craigm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 20:22:32 -0400
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates
In article <telecom17.184.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
writes:
> "What's coming out of the FCC is a distortion of congressional intent,"
> Burgess said at a summit here on Friday. "It pits the West against the
> East, rural against urban, small business against big business."
Only the desire for cross-subsidies "pits" anybody against anybody. In
a deregulated system, everybody pays their own costs and nobody is
pitted against anybody. The "pitting" is an artefact of pressure
groups trying to use the armed forces of the US to furhter their own
economic ends.
> He likened it to charging residents of Wyoming 72 cents for a postage
> stamp and New Yorkers 11 cents to reflect the true cost of providing
> postal service, he said.
One reason this is not done is that the costs to administer it are
significant. For the rest, what would be wrong about having different
postal rates? Parcels do, by the way, based on distance. more or
less.
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #185
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jul 21 01:44:11 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id BAA18874; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 01:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 01:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707210544.BAA18874@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #186
TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Jul 97 01:44:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 186
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Joel)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Mark Peters)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Almeda Eyre-Eagles)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Ed Ellers)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Lee Winson)
Re: First 900-Number "Anti-Spam" Scams Starting to Emerge (Joe Sulmar)
Anti-Spam Technology (Monty Solomon)
Spam Tools, Phone Fraud (Monty Solomon)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel <cyberjoel@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 11:12:37 -0700
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
With a boat load of re-programming by Local Carriers and LD we could
say ...
Right now the way calls are made adhere to these rules ...
[ "xxxx" CountryCode]- [ "x" Prefix For Outside Lines]-[ "213" Area
Code] [Block Address "555-1212"]
WHILE this would also work
[CountryCode 'xxxx" ]-[ 'x" Prefix For Outside Lines]- [Area
Code"X213 (Note the 4 Digits)]- [Block Address "555-1212"] would be
solely for digital means of communications, [cells, pagers, etc..] and
buisness' implementing PRI, and Trunk Technology. In short for the
digital means of communications
or EVEN better yet lets put them together ...
[ "xxxx" CountryCode]- [ "x" Prefix For Outside Lines]-[ "213"
Area Code] [Block Address "555-1212"] is for residential numbers, non
profits, etc and businesses' that already have numbers in their set block
--AND--
[CountryCode 'xxxx" ]-[ 'x" Prefix For Outside Lines]- [Area
Code"X213 (Note the 4 Digits)]- [Block Address "555-1212"] would be
for soley digital means of communications, [cells, pagers, etc..] and
buisness implementing PRI, and Trunk Technology. In short for the
digital means of communications
I am not sure about the country code digits but you get the idea ..
Good Day.
Joel Phillip Swinson
First Step Networking and Technologies a division of InterSolar Bell
Communications Group of California.
"Watch out local bells were coming out with DS access with no relay costs."
------------------------------
From: mpeters@mcs.com (Mark & Marjorie Peters)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: 21 Jul 1997 01:22:52 GMT
Organization: MCSNet Services
Within a few years, we will have number portability. That means that I
can switch to complany "B" from company "A" without changing my phone
number. The people having the numbers one more and one less than mine
could also be with different phone companies. Every phone number would
need to be translated in a manner similar to 800 and 888 numbers. A
pool size of one is the ultimate number pooling.
Mark Peters
------------------------------
From: kiskiss@mail.goodnet.com (Almeda Eyre-Eagles)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: 21 Jul 1997 03:08:56 GMT
Organization: GoodNet
Lee Winson (lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote:
> One method is assigning smaller than 10,000 blocks. For example, in
> North Philadelphia, (215) BA 9-1xxx could be assigned to Bell of
> Penna, (215) BA 9-2xxx could go to AT&T local, (215) BA 9-3xxx could
> go to MCI local, and so on.
The idea here is Number Portability. If a single subscriber wants to
change telcos, they should be able to without losing their telephone
number.
I have supported two different methods for number conservation.
VIRTUAL LOCAL CALLING
This is a method that does not tie a telephone number to a specific
central office. Telephone numbers would be administrated by a
database similar to the SMS database used by 800/888 numbers.
Here's how it works, a telephone number is strictly a directory
number. When the number is called, it will route to a "route index
number" which will be the subscriber's physical "number". The switch
would query the RIN server and route the call.
If a customer wants to move anywhere in the NPA, they can keep their
telephone number.
Based on the culture in each state, the information back from the RIN
server will also indicate if the number is a local call or toll call
and that information will be used to determine if 1+ dialling is
required.
A future enhancement will be to eliminate exchange boundaries all
together! When a customer starts a new service, their V&H location
will be entered into the RIN database. Billing will be done based on
the distance between the customer's location and the called number's
V&H.
This will eliminate the need for remote call forwarding and all
foreign exchange services. RCF and FX services will be done by
actually by placing a different V&H coordinate in the database.
Customers can use a dialing code, like 711 to allow the customer to
dial a telephone number to determine the distance.
8-DIGIT COMPATIBLE DIALING
Major metropolitan areas will be assigned a 2 digit area code number
and 8 digit telephone numbers.
For example, we can use area code 89 for the Los Angeles area instead
of the upcoming 213/323 split.
In this situation, *ALL* number's area codes will change.
Current telephone numbers would be 892-XXX-XXXX (89)2X-XX-XX-XX
All new numbers will be 893-XXX-XXXX (89)3X-XX-XX-XX
Calls within the area code would dial 8 digits.
Calls from outside the area code would dial 1-892-XXX-XXXX or
1-893-XXX-XXXX.
Upon expansion, all new numbers will go into the 894 NPA and so on up
to 899.
Keep in mind, that most 10's blocks already have a number in use. The
first priority would be is to use blocks where there is a NPA with a 0
as the third digit (like 520, 360, 970, etc.) and use those blocks for
8 digit dialling.
Target areas for 8 digit dialing would be:
Los Angeles (213/323 split)
San Francisco
New York City
Seattle (this would have worked better than the 3 way split)
Atlanta
Phoenix
Denver
and others.
All of these areas have (or had) recent area code splits.
This is the type of dialing system we need in the USA. It won't only
clear up the area code issue once and for all, but it will surplus a
lot of 80s era PBX switches.
Rich Eyre-Eagles
Tempe, AZ
http://www.recnet.com
http://www.recnet.com/resume
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <kd4awq@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: 21 Jul 1997 05:32:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Jim Rosen <jrro@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
"It's a matter of principle. For a long time (don't know if it is
still true) the telephone company charged extra for touch-tone
service. You could always just install a tone phone, and use it, but
then they would just add the charge to your bill."
That depends on the phone company's equipment, and how they decide to
set it up. BellSouth in Kentucky doesn't enable tone on ESS-served
lines that aren't billed for it -- you can't break dial tone. (As of
the last rate change -- I don't remember when it was -- Touch-Tone is
now standard, but existing non-tone-enabled lines get a $1/month
discount.)
"That really bugged me - here's a system that makes the company's
switching easier and faster, and all they can think to do is to charge
the customers *extra* because they can."
It only made switching easier and faster on electronic switching offices.
When Touch-Tone was first introduced, it was on crossbar and even
step-by-step offices and required added equipment.
"Basement: Pre-model 500 desk set - you folks here probably know
better what model it is. Vaguely art-deco looking with a cast metal
body and the handset with the shrouded transmitter.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Might it be a model 302? PAT]
Not with the shrouded transmitter. It sounds like a 202, which
required a separate ringer box (as did the similar "candlestick"
phone, which I think was called the 102). Later 202s did have the
same handset as 302s, so it's possible that he somehow has an early
302 that got the handset from a 202, possibly as a service
replacement. (Early 302s had a cast metal housing, while later ones
had a plastic housing.)
Now what was really weird was what they called a "5302;" that was a
field mod kit that Western Electric put out to allow the Bell
companies to "modernize" 302 sets. It consisted of a new plastic
housing that looked like that of a 500 but was made to go over a 302
base and a new plastic plate (with "outside" numbers and letters) to
go on the 302's dial. This, combined with a new G-type handset, a
coiled handset cord and a new (black plastic-covered) mounting cord,
would make a 302 look "new" enough so that the customer wouldn't write
nasty letters about being given an obsolete phone but charged the full
rate. I have no idea how many of these were used; my own old 302 set
was remanufactured in 1953, so apparently it took quite some time for
the 500 to take over.
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: 21 Jul 1997 03:01:35 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
Regarding touch tone ...
Many places no longer charge extra for it. (Actually, they raised the
price of pulse service to be the same as touch tone.)
I've heard, though not confirmed, that some places served by independent
telcos no longer accept rotary on their central office.
The {Wall Street Journal} reports about 30% of the country is still
using rotary phones.
Newsweek had a photo of a rotary phone as trendy.
In the early days of touch tone, it was an extra cost for the company.
Sometimes they had to convert your tones into pulses for their
switchgear.
BTW, are you member of telephone groups such as TCI or ATCA?
In closing, I noticed your "watson.ibm" address. Are you with IBM?
I'm trying to convince my employer we should have kept our 407
machines fed by 026 punches. No success. [I'm also trying to find
out how IBM's "Card Programmed Calculator", which was a souped-up 604,
worked. It was a "poor-man's computer" in 1948 and very popular.]
------------------------------
From: Joe Sulmar <nospam@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: First 900-Number "Anti-Spam" Scams Starting to Emerge
Date: 21 Jul 1997 02:53:28 GMT
Organization: Sulmar Systems Engineering
Andrew C. Green <acg@dlogics.com> wrote:
> Question: How does one get further information about a 900 number?
> It would be nice to be able to put a name or two to these idiots.
Andrew--
I am not familiar with email headers so I couldn't completely follow
your analysis, but I am familiar with 900 numbers and how they are
administered. I think that you can identify the operator of the 900
number and get its owner's business address and telephone number from
the long distance carrier that issued the phone number.
Only AT&T and MCI are issuing national 900 numbers these days, and
both carriers are concerned about abuses. They are afraid of FCC
regulation so they try to self-police. When you get your phone bill,
your 900 charge will show up either on an AT&T or an MCI page and the
page will contain a customer service phone number. Call the customer
service number and complain that you did not get the service
advertised, and that the operator of the 900 number did not identify
itself in the promotion that induced you to call the number. The long
distance carrier will provide you with the name, address and phone
number of the party that operates the 900 number. They will also
credit you for the cost of the call if you did not get what you paid
for. If they hesitate to provide this information, ask them for the
proper number at the FCC so that you can register a complaint. I am
confident that you will be able to get this information.
Of course, when you contact the 900 operator they will deny all
knowledge, but you can rest assured that they are the guys to whom MCI
or AT&T is sending the money that people pay for calling the 900
number. Perhaps they dish a percentage of it out to partners who
operate the email end of the project, but at least you will have
located the lead partner that controls the money flow.
Hope this helps.
Joseph J. Sulmar -- Lexington, MA USA -- jsulmar@helpsite.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 23:38:16 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: Anti-Spam Technology
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 00:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: anti-spam technology
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below.
You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use
the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions
for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 15:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: risks@csl.sri.com
Subject: RISKS DIGEST 19.24
RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Wednesday 16 July 1997 Volume 19 : Issue 24
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 08:49:05 -0800
From: "Simson L. Garfinkel" <simsong@vineyard.net>
Subject: Anti-spam technology
A little more than a month ago, Vineyard.NET, my ISP, started blocking
SMTP connections from computers on the Internet that do not have valid
reverse DNS. We did this an an anti-spam measure. A few days after
we brought up the new system, spamming dropped dramatically --- more
than 75%!
We decided to filter against sites that do not have valid reverse DNS
because a lot of spammers do not have valid reverse DNS. But it also
seems that we have caught up in our filter some legitimate sites that
do not have their nameservers properly configured. Below is a list of
all of the sites.
Interestingly, there are some sites below which are obviously spamming
sites (wow.boundless.com, for example). But there are also a lot of
legitimate sites as well, like aw.com, www.fda.gov,
newshost.nytimes.com.
I'm trying to contact the postmasters at these sites to get them to
correct their systems. So far, I have sent many messages to the folks
at Dow Jones, for instance. Unfortunately, all of those messages have
been ignored.
So I'm not really sure what to do. I like the anti-spam filter. I
don't want to start building an exception list. And it seems that as
the Internet gets larger and larger, more and more machines are
improperly administered.
Perhaps it would be simpler to just block the known spammers.
www.fda.gov 150.148.6.1 29
BANYAN.SMTP.IHS.GOV 161.223.220.100 226
mailer.usatoday.com 167.8.29.60 229
portia.teleport.com 192.108.254.5 11
aw.com 192.207.117.2 38
acc 193.227.61.28 11
jupiter.netdepot.com 198.81.231.2 77
wow.boundless.com 199.171.140.20 288
newshost.nytimes.com 199.181.173.226 456
simon.switchboard.com 199.222.0.10 13
charon.valueweb.net 199.227.124.197 58
home.corecom.net 199.237.128.11 77
jupiter.internet-australia.com 203.24.127.2 2
vision.eri.harvard.edu 204.166.91.12 38
aramis.link7.lat.net 204.179.70.11 154
mail2.gp.k12.mi.us 204.39.34.7 154
www.jobson.com 204.5.4.10 2
www.jobson.com 204.5.5.104 33
hermes 204.77.214.122 10
mail-lax-3.pilot.net 205.139.40.17 143
deptvamc2-bh.va.gov 205.183.31.66 238
ns.sprintout.com 205.219.168.10 76
cordoba.shoppingplanet.com 205.254.167.153 1
easyaccess.ieaccess.net 206.112.36.11 39
ns1.digitaldelights.com 206.117.108.254 98
maui.net 206.154.205.1 41
apstech.com 206.242.178.253 1
mailserver.ccipr.com 206.40.70.7 39
netsys.hn 206.48.255.1 77
smtpmail.resortnet.com 206.99.110.1 38
smtp.autobytel.com 207.113.145.22 77
internetmedia.com 207.120.43.133 77
smarti2.smartworld.net 207.121.91.100 18
www.angelfire.com 207.226.241.14 38
mail.macline.net 207.230.18.26 21
WELCOME 207.88.168.5 153
shani.marathon4com.net 208.12.112.31 2
pixelhype.com 208.150.36.215 1
[208.153.0.4] 208.153.0.4 3
nwnet.newsweek.com 208.194.106.7 38
firewall 208.198.116.12 10
listserv.dowjones.com 208.198.167.29 220
t-1net.com 208.21.213.10 34
demie.netsense.net 208.5.234.3 39
lamprey.internetmedia.net 209.25.82.66 30
ns.ultimatew.com 209.36.206.66 38
tripod.com 38.217.84.3 31
wopia.wo.erim.org 38.250.219.10 117
[Incidentally, CSL.sri.com is now filtering out e-mail from sites from
which we have been receiving inordinate numbers of spams. This may have
some unfortunate consequences, such as RISKS not being able to receive
mail from some of you whose ISPs have been deemed less than helpful.
Sorry! The situation is really out of hand. I'm getting hundreds of spam
messages. PGN]
-------------------------
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like PGN, my spam-to-useful-message ratio
is terribly out of whack. Usually there are a couple dozen spam
messages in the telecom incoming mailqueue each day. Some of the same
old dreadful, dreary, ignorant 'business opportunities', sexually-
oriented ads, and assorted junk mail we have all seen time and again
just keeps coming around.
The orginal author points out that Dow Jones has consistently refused
to respond to him or offer any cooperation. I wouldn't let that worry
me at all ... I'd just continue doing as he was doing and flush all
their mail down the dev/null sewer or possibly return it to them.
What PGN and others using his approach might want to do to get through
to the 'good guys' at those notorious sites being blocked is possibly
send all the mail to a script which prepares an autoreply saying in
effect:
"This is a LIMITED reply to your mail to advise you that it
has not been read and will not be read due to the strong likelyhood
of it being spam, coming from a known spam site. If it is not spam
and was intended for <name of> Digest, you'll need to resubmit it
from some other location. When doing so, you may wish to consider
simply signing on with one of the several ISP's who have chosen to
work cooperatively with the net to end the scourge of spam. You may
wish to also forward this note to the postmaster at your present
site, expressing your opinion about the inconvenience the site's
policies have caused. Presently, we block inbound and outbound
mail/other traffic --destroying it on receipt -- from:"
List sites here.
--------------
Now send the above from some name that will -- if the autoreply
itself is returned -- cause it to trash itself and avoid loops
if it sees itself coming back again, etc. This way at least the
good guys will see it and know you are not ignoring them. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 23:32:46 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: Spam Tools, Phone Fraud
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 01:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: spam tools, phone fraud
[Simson's message follows up on the message about anti-spam tools that
I forwarded the other day; it includes further pointers on the
subject. I've also included a message about (what the author
speculates is) an 809 area code fraud. My main reason for including
the latter message is that I have seen several assertions, including
one in a rumors-on- the-Internet column in a well-known magazine about
the world of the Internet that shall remain nameless, that warnings
about Caribbean telephone fraud are hoaxes. These assertions never,
in my experience, come with remotely the level of documentation as the
warnings themselves. This is a common pattern, I've noticed. You may
recall that the widely repeated claims that wildly exaggerated rumors
about the Lexis-Nexis P-TRAK service had been widely posted on Usenet
were never documented or verified. When I first made this
observation, I was directed to a great abundance of supposed evidence,
almost all of which consisted of entirely factual messages taken from
news reports, or else the original message, which contained only very
minor errors. And although my sanity and honesty have been pointedly
questioned on several occasions, I never seen any better evidence, or
indeed any further attempts to document these serious claims. On a
related topic, several subscribers pointed out the San Jose
Mercury-News' utterly mysterious apology for its series about the
connection between various CIA assets and the crack epidemic, which
was publicized on this list among many others.
The only reason that I haven't burdened you with abundant additional
material on this topic is that I'm really tired. Perhaps by August
we'll finally manage to complete the switchover to Paul Duguid's guest
editorship, to which I am really looking forward.]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below.
You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use
the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions
for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 16:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: risks@csl.sri.com
RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Friday 18 July 1997 Volume 19 : Issue 25
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:43:26 -0400
From: "Simson L. Garfinkel" <simsong@vineyard.net>
Subject: Anti-spam redux
More time had elapsed between when I did my anti-spam DNS work and
when the article appeared in RISKS. During that time, Vineyard.NET
decided to abandon our DNS-blocking SMPT server. The reason was that
two key Internet sites---AT&T's WorldNet and Dow Jones ---quiet simply
refused to set up valid reverse DNS for the mail servers.
We have since explored other blocking technology. We are continuing to
block mail that does not have a valid From: addresses. We now also
allow our users to have their own individual list of domains to
block. We are doing this with a modified SMAP, part of the Trusted
Information Systems Firewall Toolkit. You can download the modified
SMAP from ftp://vineyard.net/simson/smap.c. You can download the rest
of the Firewall Toolkit from ftp://ftp.tis.com/.
If you are running sendmail, I strongly suggest that you run the
Firewall Toolkit's SMAP wrapper. You can find instructions on how to
install it in my book Practical UNIX and Internet Security, published
by O'Reilly & Associates.
I am also told that there is a very nice list of domains to block
maintained by J.D. Falk, kept at:
ftp://ftp.cybernothing.org/pub/abuse/
There is now also a mailing list of anti-spamming tools. You can find
info about it at http://www.abuse.net/spamtools.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 14:08:08 -0400
From: Greg Corteville <cortevi5@egr.msu.edu>
Subject: The truth about Usenet's Psychic Spammers!
By now I'm sure we've all seen some of the garbage from the notorious
"psychic spammers" on just about every Usenet group. I decided to do
a little investigating. I wrote down a few of the 800 numbers listed
in the ads and went to a campus telephone that cannot be billed. It
has no long distance service. After dialing the number, callers are
treated to a very brief and very fake "recorded reading". You are
then urged to call a different number for your "personal" reading.
The number they want you to call has an 809 area code!
For those of you unaware of the 809 area code problem, I'll explain.
To make an international phone call, you usually need to dial 011
first. This makes it quite obvious that it is an international phone
call and will likely be expensive. However, several foreign countries
have been assigned "North American" area codes recently. Among them,
area code 809 for the Caribbean. Since these people are not bound by
US law, they do not need to disclose the full cost of making the phone
call. Callers are usually charged exorbitant amounts of money,
similar to a 900 number. Some people have been charged as much as $25
per minute! These people are scam artists and are using the Internet
as their latest method of attack.
For more information on the area code 809 problem, take a look at these
websites:
http://www.fraud.org/809alert.htm
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/WEBSITE/NEWS/LEGALMAT/9701cpd.htm
http://www.ece.orst.edu/~alper/Info/scam.html
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So ... AT&T's WorldNet and Dow Jones
refused to cooperate, and based on that, the entire plan -- which
seemed to be a good one -- was scrapped. That's nonsense! I would
have cut those two out of the loop as fast as I could snap my
fingers ... and if enough ISPs took the same roughshod approach and
just told the big guys 'if you want your users to be able to connect
with the rest of us then you work along the way we tell you', you
would see a difference. Oh, I know there are all kinds of ways to
work around blockades and stuff, but as was pointed out in the
article before this one, during the short time they required that
validation on mail, about 75 percent of the spam vanished. Now that
is good news! I'd simply approach it as a business decision and
look at the bottom line, telling Dow Jones and WorldNet that yeah,
they have a number of good subscribers and I would hate to lose
connectivity with them but on the other hand a few million other
users are demanding that all the trash mail and spam come to a
halt. So does an ISP work along with the greater net and try to
restore some integrity to email or does he get led along by the
nose by one or two holdouts? The answer should be simple.
I used to think that the petty tyrants who administered Fidonet
years ago were wrong for taking the approach they did: if any
given site's traffic, taken as a whole, looking at it all in
context was considered 'excessively annoying' then that site was
pulled off the next week's node list so no one else could ever
find them again. And if some other site was caught in the act of
handling mail/news for the banned site, then that one got the
ax also. I used to think that was terrible, and admittedly, the
Fido admins were a highly political bunch, and easily offended.
But to quote PGM, 'this has really gotten out of hand'. Indeed
it has. More power to those admins who are validating addresses
and using other techniques to keep the flood from getting worse.
In addition, remember to turn their autoresponders against each
other, to sue a spam-site admin at the drop of a hat, and to
pollute every toll free number they advertise. Spam will stop
when spammers no longer have the perception that it is profitable
and easy. You can teach them that by banging on them constantly.
Hackers, do your part by continuing to bust up their toy computers
and causing them so much grief they finally give up. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #186
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jul 21 09:26:14 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA06199; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:26:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707211326.JAA06199@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #187
TELECOM Digest Mon, 21 Jul 97 09:25:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 187
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Bob Peticolas)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Roy Smith)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Dave Garland)
Re: Sprint PCS Conflict With SWBT CallNotes (Hendrik Rood)
Re: What is "Trapping" a Phone Line? (Jay Hennigan)
Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State (Rob Levandowski)
Re: US West "Pulls" Dry-Copper (DSL) Tariffs (R. Bailey)
Re: US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up" (Steven Lichter)
Re: US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up" (Paul Joslin)
Re: Third Party Central Office Feature Testing (Vance Shipley)
Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (Carter Thomasson)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 15:32:47 -0600
From: Bob Peticolas <bobp@zianet.com>
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
> Basement: Pre-model 500 desk set - you folks here probably
> know better what model it is. Vaguely art-deco looking
> with a cast metal body and the handset with the shrouded
> transmitter.
> Garage: What else? My aunt's old wall mount 500 rotary dial set.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Might it be a model 302? PAT]
Pat,
The 302 had an F1 handset which did not have a "shrouded" transmitter.
That would be a E1 handset which matched the "202" desk set. The 202
had the hook switch up in the air above the base with a narrow "neck"
that you could use to pick up the phone. The hookswitch vaugely
resembled the old "french phone" with all of the fancy bright work.
The 202 also required a wall box as there wasn't room in the base for
more than the dial and a terminal strip for the cords to tie down.
I noticed that a lot of the 202 style phones wound up in motels that
had cord switchboards, both of the same era. Also, 202's were mated
with local battery wall boxes for rural lines (using magnetos for
signaling) back in the '50s.
Bob Peticolas (505) 526-2226
bobp@zianet.com fax (505) 525-0015
Peticolas Photography
Las Cruces Community Theater
Mesilla Valley Film Society - Fountain Theater
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 09:00:56 -0400
From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing
bowenb@best.com wrote:
> You can't beat those old ones for reliability OR audio quality.
The standard for phone set quality back in those days was that if you
pushed the telephone off of edge of the desk by accident, the floor
would sustain more damage than the phone.
Roy Smith <roy@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
New York University School of Medicine
550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am reminded of an incident from
many years ago, when elevators were operated manually by a man who
sat in each elevator and 'drove them up and down'. The elevator
had a phone installed for the elevator operator's use in emergencies.
Mainly that meant if the elevator stalled between floors, etc, but
in the case at hand, the emergency was a rowdy passenger who tried
to start a fight with another passenger. The operator lifted the
phone receiver and used it to smack the unruly passenger over the
head, knocking him unconcious. It was reported in the {Chicago
Tribune}; sometime in the early 1960's as I recall. PAT]
------------------------------
From: dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland)
Date: 20 Jul 97 10:45:09 -0600
Subject: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Organization: Wizard Information
> For a long time (don't know if it is still true) the telephone
> company charged extra for touch-tone service.
USWest in Minnesota charged ($1.20/mo residential, $2.20 business)
until 3/31/97. Then they squeezed a change through the PUC that raised
everybody's base rate ($0.95 residential increase) but dropped the
surcharge. Their logic was that this would result in a reduction in
rate for a majority of customers, and that "TouchTone Service is an
essential component of modern telecommunications".
Dave
------------------------------
From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood)
Subject: Re: Sprint PCS Conflict With SWBT CallNotes
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 02:23:29 GMT
Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses
Reply-To: hrood@xs4all.nl
john@wpa.com (John Bartley) enlightened me about:
> I live in the St. Louis area which recently got turned on for Sprint
> PCS service. I got my phone today and have been experimenting with
> various features. Can anyone help me understand why the following
> problem is happening when I attempt to use the call-forwarding feature
> from PCS?
> My normal home telephone line has SWBT CallNotes voicemail system. This
> has the busy/no answer feature that allows incoming calls to go to
> voicemail. Sprint doesn't have voicemail activated yet in the
> St. Louis area, so I tried to forward my PCS phone to my home phone,
> assuming that the forwarded calls would end up being routed to my
> CallNotes voicemail.
> Ha! The call rings at my home the designated number of rings after
> being forwarded from Sprint, but when it transfers to CallNotes it is
> transferred to the number I call to pick up messages instead of going
> to my mailbox. This obviously won't work out too well, since the
> person who is calling would have no idea how they got to the messages
> they're receiving.
> I verified that "normal" no answer calls do work as they "almost"
> always do - i.e., the caller receives my personal greeting instead of
> being prompted to enter a mailbox number.
> Is this a little one-upsmanship on the part of SWBT in defeating what
> I'm trying to do? I pay the bill for having my calls forward to
> voicemail, so why should SWBT care where they come from or how they
> got there? It seems like a technical paradox, but I want to have some
> informed opinion from the technical wizards before I call to complain!
> :-) By the way, should I complain to Sprint, SWBT or both?
It seems that at least SWBT has installed signalling software with
multiple call forwarding (relatively new SS#7 enhancement). This means
a forwarded call from cellular to your fixed line to your voice-mail
box appears at the VMB with two forwarding numbers. The first is your
PCS-number, the second your fixed number. When your VMB is not
upgraded and only capable of reading the first number it sees a number
where it is programmed to start with the general menu and not with the
menu voor leaving a message.
The conclusion might be that the VMB has to upgrade too.
Hendrik
------------------------------
From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan)
Subject: Re: What is "Trapping" a Phone Line?
Date: 21 Jul 1997 05:06:53 GMT
Organization: West.Net Communications
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 12:59:55 -0500, Rodney B. Roeber <roeberr@
flinthills.com> wrote:
> I've recently read enough about "trapping" to get my interest.
> Unfortunately, what I've doesn't explain much. Here goes: Apparently,
> if I answer a phone call and hang up first, my phone line can be
> trapped so that the receiver is still active without me knowing it.
> The only way to "untrap" the line is to make a phone call. If only
> one phone is on the line, unplugging the line for 10 or more seconds
> also works.
This would require that a device not part of the normal telephone or its
wiring were surreptitiously placed on your premises.
> Can someone who really knows what this is about explain it to me?
In the very old days of step-by-step equipment, the calling party
controlled the connection, and if you received a phone call and the
calling party remained off-hook, they could tie up your phone line
indefinitely. This would not make the receiver active, but would
prevent you from using your telephone until the calling party hung up.
Also in the olden days, there was a device called an "infinity
transmitter" that could be placed either inside a telephone or
otherwise connected to the telephone line. Once such a unit was
in place, a bad guy could dial your number and place a tone on the
line. The device would detect the tone, ideally before the phone
began to ring, and answer the incoming call, connecting a live
microphone to the line.
In modern exchanges, there is no audio cut-through from the calling
party until the phone is answered, thus preventing the "infinity
transmitter" from answering the call, as it will never detect the
tone until after someone or something else answers the phone.
While it is possible to use a variation of the infinity transmitter
on a modern phone system in the manner you describe, such would still
require that the "bug" be installed on your premises ahead of time.
Also, modern exchanges do not allow the calling party to sieze control
of the circuit indefinitely. If you hang up and remain on-hook for more
than 20 seconds or so, the cnnection will release. The exact amount of
time varies. It is possible to hang up on an incoming call and then
pick up another extension without dropping the call, if you're quick,
in most exchanges.
If you find a difference in characteristics of line release between
simply hanging up and physically unplugging the phone, then either the
phone is defective or possibly contains a bugging device.
You can bet that if someone has had access to your premises to plant
one bugging device, it is likely that they planted several. Hire an
expert to sweep the place, and always leave several radios on tuned
to different talk shows in your absence. ;-)
------------------------------
From: macwhiz@phoebe.accinet.net (Rob Levandowski)
Subject: Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 16:10:19 -0400
Organization: ACC iNet (from ACC Long Distance)
In article <telecom17.174.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, The Old Bear
<oldbear@arctos.com> wrote:
> When the tiny town of Mt. Chase (population 254) implements its
> changes, addresses such as RR 1, Box 164, Patten, 04765 will become 22
> Owlsboro Road, Mt. Chase, 04765. Most -- but not all -- rural route
> addresses in Maine will be replaced with street names. Streets,
> location numbers and even delivery routes will be changed so that
> dispatchers can find people and an entire town can be served out of
> one post office.
My parents have a house in rural New Hampshire, which only recently
got E911. I don't know how they show my parent's address -- they
don't receive mail there -- but here's how we give it to Federal
Express:
Levandowski
Second dirt road on left off Shedd Hill Road
White house on left at end of road (past Louise Johnson)
City, State, Zip
If someone HAS to send something via the Postal Service, it's
Levandowski
c/o General Delivery
City, State, Zip
and then the postmaster calls, lets them know they have mail, and they go
to the post office -- well, it's called a post office, but it's actually
the postmaster's breezeway, which has some mailboxes and a drop slot -- and
pick it up.
It brings a whole new meaning to "relative addressing." This is actually
the way things are shipped in that area -- many of the roads have no
official name, so you use the closest named road as a referent. Also, if
someone has a mailbox, or preferably orders a lot of things through the
mail, you refer to them too.
The "official" name of a dirt road in that area, if it has not been
otherwise named, is the name of the current title holder of the land
lot farthest in on the road. That means that the dirt road could be
referred to as "Walker Road" now, but if John Smith bought the
Walker's property, it'd become "Smith Road." Unfortunately, attempts
to choose a name for the road amongst the residents have never
succeeded.
Before E911, there was no concern about an emergency. If something
happened, we knew the Chief of Police -- everyone in town did. We'd
call him, he knew where we lived, and he'd see that help got there one
way or another. Now with E911, help is dispatched from several towns
away. It makes me wonder if E911 will be as much of an improvement in
these areas as it is elsewhere.
Robert Levandowski
macwhiz@phoebe.accinet.net
------------------------------
From: R Bailey <bailey_r@prc.com>
Subject: Re: US West "Pulls" Dry-Copper (DSL) Tariffs
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:16:27 -0400
Organization: prc
Reply-To: bailey_r@prc.com
Pete Kruckenberg wrote:
> Interactive Week is carrying an article
> (http://www4.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/970606f.html) regarding US West's
> recent pulling of their dry copper tariff in all but one of the
> states that they service. A more recent article
> (http://www4.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/970609d.html), apparently
> unrelated, discusses US West's solicitation of wireless local loop
> (WLL), and their intention to move to wireless in order to free up
> copper for xDSL.
> This is incredible. Now that the law requires competition, US West is
> trying to all but eliminate competition in the DSL market, as well as
> any other service that requires copper to the home. Even other
> carriers considering WLL to get to residences will run up against
> competition from US West, but they'll be effectively out of the market
> between ISDN and T1 speeds, especially in the residential market.
> First, can US West arbitrarily "pull" a tariff like this? I find it
> especially odd that some customers (existing dry copper clients) will
> be able to continue ordering/using dry copper, but nobody else can.
> Second, what exactly are the provisions of the '96 Telecom Act
> relating to dry copper, as far as CLECs and others are concerned? I've
> heard several CLECs complain that they cannot get access to dry
> copper, and I'm wondering why that is the case?
> Third, as an ISP (who is effectively unable to gain access to
> co-locate space at the CO, because we're not a CLEC), what is the best
> course of action to try to resolve this issue? My guess is that as
> long as US West doesn't offer the service, the PUC/PSC cannot force
> them to. Is this true? Is my only recourse through legislation?
> I have suspected that US West would try to pull this kind of thing
> eventually. Utah is their pet state for DSL service, and I suspect
> that as soon as they saw how simple and cost-effective it can be, they
> started figuring out how to monopolize it. They're doing well at that,
> for sure.
Read Bob Metcalfe's article in this week's InfoWorld (7/7/97, p.119,
may be online somewhere at http://www.infoworld.com). Evidently,
U.S.West has discovered that some people are ordering burglar-alarm
circuits, putting xDSL electronics at either end, and getting 1.5Mbps
comm for a fraction of what U.S.West charges for T1. So they decided
to pull burglar-alarm circuits from the market, lest others buy them
and use them to compete with USW's own services. Guess you can do
this sort of thing when you have a monopoly ...
------------------------------
From: stevenl@pe.net (Steven Lichter)
Subject: Re: US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up"
Date: 20 Jul 1997 18:07:41 -0700
Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company
Nils Andersson (nilsphone@aol.com) wrote:
> There are several catches here. Most cellproviders charge "half" for
> uncompleted calls. If you let it ring for 58 seconds you pay for 30
> seconds (halfrate). If you let it ring for 62 seconds, you pay for 60
> seconds. The catch is, if the phone rings for a minute or so, and
> then answers, you get charged full rate for the full time, i.e. from
> when you hit SEND till you hit END.
AirTouch no longers charges for no answer or busy calls. I would guess
others will follow.
*****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS*****
NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(b),
a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is
subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.
E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
I ALSO DON'T BUY FROM BULK E-MAILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours,
Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers.
------------------------------
From: Paul Joslin <paul.joslin@sdrc.com>
Subject: Re: US West Settles Suit on "Rounding Up"
Date: 20 Jul 1997 15:21:46 -0400
Organization: SDRC, Information Services
"Danny" == Danny Burstein <dannyb@panix.com> writes:
> In <telecom17.172.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu> tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
>> U S West settles suit for $8 million
>> DENVER (AP) -- The cellular telephone arm of U S West has agreed to
>> pay $8 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over its billing
>> practices.
>> The lawsuit, settled Thursday, claimed U S West's NewVector Group
>> didn't properly disclose its practice of calculating phone charges by
>> rounding up to full minutes of use.
> I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm uncomfortable with this
> round of lawsuits against the telcos in this regard.
I don't think the practice is the problem. It's the "did not
properly disclose" part that causes the trouble... I don't know
that I want the guvment deciding what would be proper disclosure,
but a telco might, to forestall having to satisfy 50 attorneys-general.
Paul R. Joslin The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns
paul.joslin@sdrc.com something that will always be useful and which never
+1 513 576 2012 will grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain.
------------------------------
From: vances@motivity.ca (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Third Party Central Office Feature Testing
Organization: Motivity Telecom Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:41:09 GMT
In article <telecom17.183.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Marty Tennant
<marty@sccoast.net> wrote:
> I am trying to find a source for the testing of feature interactions
> related to the Advanced Intelligent Network on #5ESS, 1AESS and Nortel
> DMS switches.
> Is anyone aware of an independent testing lab for the
> telecommunications industry where such activities take place?
I visited just such a place on Friday. The Telecom Applications
Research Alliance (TARA) provides a lab with a captive DMS 100
provided by Nortel. They have all software loads available. They
also have a cisco lab and high bandwidth Internet connectivity.
Call:
Terry M. Hallett, Director - Telecommunications
& Information Technology
Tel: +1(902)421-6028
Email: thallett@tara.ca
Telecom Applications Research Alliance
5562 Sackville Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 1L1
Tel: +1(902)421-6000
Fax: +1(902)421-6030
http://www.tara.ca
Vance Shipley, vances@xenitec.on.ca
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 16:05:10 EST
From: CThomasson@ASSOCDATA.COM (Carter Thomasson)
Subject: Ontario Northland Transportation Commission
Am seeking information on the scope of telephony services provided by
this company. Any information or reference to sources will be
appreciated.
Thanks,
Carter Thomasson
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #187
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jul 23 09:20:15 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA21585; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:20:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707231320.JAA21585@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #188
TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Jul 97 09:19:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 188
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Mark Cuccia in the News! (Judith Oppenheimer)
GTE Seen As Takeover Target (Avi Freedman)
Book Review: "The Writer's Guide to the Internet" by Groves (Rob Slade)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (David G. Lewis)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Fred R. Goldstein)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Mike Parker)
Re: 617/508 Split - Nine Years Later (Bob Goudreau)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 08:15:45 -0400
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@ICBTOLLFREE.com>
Reply-To: joppenheimer@ICBTOLLFREE.com
Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting
Subject: Mark Cuccia in the News!
Doing my morning news search, look what I found! Great story Mark !!!
:o)
Judith
Monday, July 21, 1997
Get Me PEnnsylvania 6-5000 Telecom: A modest effort is
underway to revive the golden age of descriptive telephone exchange
names.
By DANIEL AKST
I am a son of New York and proud of it, but in truth I grew up in
Oregon--ORegon 4, I think, or maybe ORegon 5, but certainly ORegon,
for that was the bucolic Manhattan telephone exchange in which, for a
while, we lived.
New York City, like most of the country, was divided into a
variety of these, and they could say as much about you as your accent,
which believe me said plenty. ORegon was, well, the
wilderness. BUtterfield 8, by contrast, was the much tonier
telecommunications precinct immortalized by John O'Hara and later
Elizabeth Taylor. MUrray Hill was pretty good too, although there was
one of these in New Jersey as well.
Something like 30 years ago, telephone exchange names went the
way of the Pony Express, stamped out by -- what? Advancing technology?
Ma Bell's tin ear in her old age? Those were factors, of course, but
the real reason, to my mind, was democracy.
Ours is a system that inevitably provides for the great mass of
Americans what initially is the province of the rich, whether divorce
or auto ownership or Internet access. Exchange names that worked fine
in an ocean-bound, monolingual, operator-assisted society didn't work
well when absolutely everybody had to have a telephone. With the need
to provide more and more numbers, and with the old-fashioned local
exchanges consolidated, romantic-sounding phone prefixes like YUkon,
KLondike and SWinburne were bulldozed to make way for a more
functional, if antiseptic, digital purity.
But were those exchange names really so untenable?
Robert Crowe and Mark Cuccia think not. Crowe is a 39-year-old
computer consultant who grew up in SYcamore 4 (that's Pasadena, to the
uninitiated), and he wants to bring back the golden age of descriptive
telephone numbers.
"Exchange names helped foster a sense of place and community, in
the same way that cities do," he writes. "They're also a link to our
more analog past, which is fast slipping away."
In furtherance of this glorious ideal, Crowe runs the Telephone
Exchange Name Project on the Internet, at
http://www.scruznet.com/~rcrowe/TENproject.html, where he gathers
historical exchange names and provides a grid of numbers and the
exchanges that were used in various cities during the salad days of
"characterful" phone listings.
Crowe says he is dumbfounded by the enormous response from
visitors to his site, who are invited to e-mail him with any exchange
names he might not know about. Many do, but many others simply write
to say how the site reminded them of an incident from childhood, or a
long-ago relative.
Others have contributed historical information (or
misinformation, I suppose). One noted that exchange names often came
from the name of the street on which the local telephone exchange was
built. Another explained the origins of the GAspee exchange. (It was a
British battleship burned by smugglers, and gave its name to a region
of Rhode Island.)
At Pacific Bell, the first person who fielded my inquiry about
all this was 25, and her voice contained just the right note of wary
indulgence, as if I were asking about discounts for Spanish-American
War veterans. No doubt rolling her unbearably youthful eyes, she
passed me along to a Pacific Bell spokesman of a certain age.
"WAlnut 9!" said Ho Blair triumphantly, recalling his childhood
exchange. "That was in Akron, Ohio. Isn't this fun?" We wallowed in
nostalgia for a minute -- Blair likened exchanges to the madeleine in
Proust that brings back a flood of memories -- before he gave me what I
needed, which was confirmation that PacBell wouldn't dream of going
back to a mix of letters and numbers.
For one thing, combinations like 97 don't lend themselves readily
to pronounceable names, and besides, alphanumeric phone numbers cause
all sorts of problems internationally. On the other hand, Blair said,
there's nothing to stop folks from giving out their own numbers in any
form they want.
This is easier nowadays, thanks to Cuccia, who keeps accounts at
Tulane University Law Library but really seems to live for phone
company lore, and who provided Crowe with a list of "suggested"
exchanges from AT&T, circa 1955. This wonderful document, also on
Crowe's Web site, enables anyone to locate a semiofficial exchange
name for sprucing up stationery, invitations, etc., even if the
original exchange corresponding to your prefix isn't known.
Frenetically mobile Americans may find adopting one of these
exchange names nearly irresistible, since it makes us look like we've
been in the same place forever. Besides, why shouldn't the luscious
patina that derives from permanence and class be as democratically
available as tube socks and big-screen TV?
The names themselves are often deliciously '50s. Like real estate
developments, they tend toward the WASPy or the pastoral; nobody seems
to have had a phone number beginning with BErnstein, GOmez or
SLagheap.
Although I have spent the last couple of years dodging regular
work, I confess that I would be sorely tempted by the job of doling
out exchange names in some enlightened effort to inject character into
the nation's phone numbers. I imagine designating Berkeley as
SAnctimony 5. The local fast-food strip could become ADipose 8.
Why should parts of Los Angeles not be LOtus? How can Seattle get
through another day without, say, BIrkenstock 6 or LAtte 2? I vow to
set aside GUru for Marin County; MOribund for Utica, N.Y.; POodle for
Beverly Hills; and, in general, rule justly and without special
favors.
Until that day, as Crowe and Cuccia point out, each of us can
choose any exchange name that fits our number. As a conventional sort
with average social-climbing instincts, I'll probably adopt YOrk 9,
but most Americans are not such mindless conformists. Since there are
no longer any official exchange names, what's to stop us from making
up any exchange that suits our number -- and ourselves? Why not
SMoothie 4 or BUddhist 8 or FIduciary 3?
To James E. Katz, who has the good fortune to be a telephone
sociologist at Bellcore, the soon-to-be-lopped-off research arm of the
Baby Bells (it's about to be sold), this nostalgia for exchange names
reflects the age-old tension between our longing for community and our
radical individualism, since rather than any large-scale return to
exchange names, individual vanity numbers are probably the coming
thing.
Instead of a pair of letters that we share with others in our
immediate neighborhood and that conveys where we live as well as, by
extension, who were are, we'll get to pick a number that spells out
something in letters, just as people do with vanity license plates.
Those who prefer not to wait can visit one of several cabalistic
Internet sites that will figure this out for you. Start at
http://www.yahoo.com; under Reference, choose Phone Numbers, and
you'll see several sites that allow you to type in a number and find
out what it spells, or type in some words and find all the telephone
numerical equivalents.
Get Pacific Bell to assign you this number and then baffle
everyone you know by telling them your number is (310) AEROBIC or some
such.
Of course, it's easy to carry this sort of thing too far.
Cuccia, for instance, likes to give his address as New Orleans 28,
La. Personally, I love those old delivery zone codes, but the Postal
Service seems to have enough trouble as it is. Remember, they don't
call it snail mail for nothing.
-----------
Special to The Times; Daniel Akst Is the Author of "St.
Burl's Obituary," a Novel
Copyright Los Angeles Times
-----------
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com
800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com/icbinfo2.html
800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com/expert2.html
1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:38:18 -0400
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
Subject: GTE Seen As Takeover Target
GTE Seen As Takeover Target - Report [Reuters News Service]
09:46 a.m. Jul 21, 1997 Eastern
NEW YORK - GTE is seen as an attractive takover target as long
distance carriers aim to enter local telecommunications markets and
capitalize on GTE's strength in Internet and data transmission,
Business Week reported in its July 28 issue.
GTE's chief executive officer Charles Lee is not discouraging merger
talk, the magazine said.
``I'll continue to explore other business arrangements to the extent
that they make sense for helping shareholders,'' Lee told Business
Week.
Since GTE is spread out in 28 states in mostly rural or suburban
regions, the company would serve as a springboard for a leading
carrier such as AT&T, MCI Communications, or Britain's Cable &
Wireless to enter local businesses, the magazine reported.
GTE's proposed acquisition of BBN and its fiberoptic capacity
arrangement with Qwest Communications gives it a strong position in
data transmission, the magazine said.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 10:51:15 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "The Writer's Guide to the Internet" by Groves
BKWRGDIN.RVW 970221
"The Writer's Guide to the Internet", Dawn Groves, 1997, 1-887902-13-9,
U$18.95/C$25.95
%A Dawn Groves dawng@skycat.com
%C 8536 SW St. Helens Drive, Wilsonville, OR 97070
%D 1997
%G 1-887902-13-9
%I Franklin, Beedle & Associates
%O U$18.95/C$25.95 +1-503-682-7668 http://www.fbeedle.com
%P 248
%T "The Writer's Guide to the Internet"
OK, everyone has, or needs, a guide to the Internet, but if this book
is to be a writer's guide, we need to know the purpose for which a
writer wants to use the Internet. There are multiple answers in
Groves' work. Not clearly delineated, perhaps, but generally falling
into the categories of research, online publication, and marketing.
Because of my background, research is my first thought in regard to
the net. Groves covers the basics briefly, but emphasizing those
tools of most interest to writers. She adds a few topics, such as
email interviews, which are not dealt with in other works. However,
the overall coverage of Internet applications and resources is quite
terse. References to some of the better Internet guides would have
been helpful.
The sections dealing with online publication are succinct, helpful,
and very useful. This topic has a substantial place in the book. In
spite of the restrictions of space, the material easily stands, with
whole texts dedicated solely to establishing an Internet presence.
For newcomers who are not involved with establishing their own
Internet server, this is an excellent introduction.
Marketing and contacts are discussed briefly. Some professional
associations are listed but, overall, the book seems to deal with this
relatively important topic somewhat distantly, and without feeling.
Writers who already use the Internet will know most of this, although
there are some useful and specific points for everyone. For the
writer coming to the net for the first time, a very useful work.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKWRGDIN.RVW 970221
======================
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." - Edmund Burke http://www2.gdi.net/~padgett/trial.htm
------------------------------
From: root@newshub.netnews.att.com (David G. Lewis)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:47:43 -0400
Organization: AT&T - NCS
Reply-To: ems.att.com!dglewis@attrh1.attrh.att.com
Lord Somnolent wrote:
> Lee Winson wrote:
>> One method is assigning smaller than 10,000 blocks. For example, in
>> North Philadelphia, (215) BA 9-1xxx could be assigned to Bell of
>> Penna, (215) BA 9-2xxx could go to AT&T local, (215) BA 9-3xxx could
>> go to MCI local, and so on.
>> This to me makes a lot of sense. For billing locations, (215) BA 2
>> would continue to mean North Philadelphia, as it always has. The
>> actual local distributor routing would be handled internally by the
>> switch gear.
> I agree, in that 215-BA9 would still correspond to a specific area for
> the place field on a phone bill for inbound LD calls, plus tandems
> elsewhere in the network don't have to worry about provider-specific
> routing.
Not necessarily true, depending on the routing methodology used
"elsewhere in the network". For example, consider a large
interexchange carrier with a nationwide network of, say, 40 or more
switches (I know of three such), which uses some type of
nonhierarchical routing. In this nonhierarchical routing, the first
switch in the IXC's network translates the dialed number to determine
the destination IXC switch, which routes the call to the destination
local exchange carrier switch.
It is very likely that competitive local exchange carriers will not
have precisely the same access arrangements as the incumbent LEC. In
other words, using Lee's example, Bell Atlantic may connect its North
Philly end office to an IXC switch in North Philadelphia, but a CLEC
may connect its end office serving that North Philly area to the IXC
switch in central Philadelphia.
Therefore, that IXC has to "worry about" the routing in all the switches
in its network, not just the ones in Philadelphia.
On the other hand, a LEC switch in a different LATA will still only need
to determine that the call is interLATA, and won't care which distant
LEC will handle the call.
>> The disadvantage is massive reprogramming of all local switches and
>> tandem intermediate switches to support all this. Who will pay for
>> the software development and testing and implementation?
> I doubt it is going to be much of a biggie. Simple logic code, ie if
> 215-BA9-9 go to telco A, else telco B.
The real answer is somewhere in between. It shouldn't be new code -
switches know how to route phone numbers; it's what they do. However,
the structure used to determine routing of phone numbers (called
"translators" in phone parlance) are generally designed assuming that
each digit in a given digit position of a phone number will map to a
different routing decision. So opening a seventh digit for
translation (the thousands digit of the line number) will result in
populating ten new data fields (digit 0 -> route A, digit 1 -> route
B, up to digit 9 -> route J), even if all but one are identical.
This is somewhat inefficient use of switch resources; how inefficient
depends on how many of the 10 values mean something other than "route
to the incumbent LEC". By contrast, assigning all LECs an entire CO
code makes efficient use of switch resources (since if a switch
translates an NPA on six digits, it is already populating all CO codes
in that NPA with something), but makes inefficient use of NANP
numbering space.
The other issue, of course, is that all the operations systems which
support routing in all carriers (LEC and IXC), and all the data
feeding them, from the LERG out, assume that a CO is uniquely
identified by an NPA-NXX. That could be a more significant change
than the switches - not insurmountable, but not insignificant.
Disclaimer - I don't know what my company's position is on CO code
sharing, but nothing in this post should be construed one way or the
other...
David G. Lewis AT&T Network and Computing Services
Network Planning
The future - it's a long distance from long distance.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 11:46:13 -0400
From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: 617/508 Split - Nine Years Later
Lord Somnolent <sleepy@os.com> wrote:
> In the beginning (1947), there were two areacodes [sic] - 413 and 617 -
> serving Massachusetts. Back then the state could get away with just
> one, but they decided it should get two to make any split later
> instead of sooner. The jerk who mapped out the two areacodes [sic],
> however, made 413 serve a sigificantly smaller populaton than 617.
I seem to remember reading many years ago in the Digest that there was
a reason for MA's curious area code configuration way back then. It
was something along the lines of 413 being a test area for the
original use of area codes by telco operators in routing calls, before
they were available for direct-dial customer use. The boundary was
drawn where it was in order to keep the test area to a manageably
small size and population -- NPA 413 covers only a small geographic
portion of the state (perhaps a third or a fourth of the land area),
and an even tinier share of the population (~10 percent). Does this
ring a bell with anyone who can provide more details?
Linc Madison's Telecom Page <http://www.best.com/~eureka/telecom/> does
show that in the original area code plan, the 413 area in fact covered
almost all of the state outside the Boston metro area, but the boundary
line appears to have been moved sometime around 1960. If the original
boundary had been kept, the Boston-area NPA could have stayed unchanged
until the present era (the original plan's 617 zone seems to be a close
match to the current post-508-split 617 zone), and the 1980s split that
gave birth to 508 would have affected 413 instead (and would probably
have come a bit earlier in the decade).
Supposedly, this is also connected with the reason that MA's two
original NPAs were assigned in the opposite manner in which one would
expect. The NPA with the Boston metro area (in the top 5 or 6 in the
country by population at the time) got 617 (a total of 14 "pulls" on a
rotary dial), while the rural western end of the state got the coveted
413 (which at only 8 "pulls", is tied for the seventh-shortest code in
the NANP). If it weren't for the test phase involving western MA, the
code assignments would have been reversed, or so I remember reading.
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 12:49:01 -0400
From: Fred R. Goldstein <fgoldstein@bbn.nospam!com>
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Terry Kennedy wrote:
> Anybody who wants to compete as a LEC is going to need a *lot* more
> than a single exchange prefix of 10,000 numbers - it's not
> cost-effective to enter a market planning on having that small a
> customer base unless you can target a specific customer and make money
> on their long distance/internatonal calling, while losing money on
> their local provisioning.
That's not a problem. Sharing prefixes doesn't limit a carrier in
general. Each carrier today needs a WHOLE prefix in EACH rate center
(exchange area) that it wishes to serve. In the two-country
(Bergen/Hudson) "reduced" Area Code 201, there are 22 rate centers,
give or take. In the current Area Code 617 (Boston and suburbs plus a
small south-shore "panhandle", there are 58 rate centers! Each area is
smaller than metro Denver or Atlanta or Minneapolis. A CLEC won't
typically go into every rate center, but they will need quite a few
prefices to be able to cover much ground. Since some rate centers are
quite small (in 201, for instance, Wyckoff, Oakland, and Closter come
to mind; in 617, try Sharon, Marblehead, Hull, Whitman, etc.) a
1000-number block should be more than adequate.
>> The disadvantage is massive reprogramming of all local switches and
>> tandem intermediate switches to support all this. Who will pay for
>> the software development and testing and implementation?
Lord Somnolent wrote,
> I doubt it is going to be much of a biggie. Simple logic code, ie if
> 215-BA9-9 go to telco A, else telco B.
In practice, not bad, because Class 5 local COs can communicate with
one another via the tandem office, and only the tandem needs sort out
carriers. End offices might eventually optimize their nearest
prefices that way, but it's a relatively minor impact. Another
proposal, to share prefices among multiple rate centers within a
carrier, breaks all kinds of billing software.
> You can program all the tandems and switches in the network to route
> certain numbers to other places, but if you do that for a lot of
> numbers the code gets bulky, and the time to complete a call
> increases.
The FCC has ordered portability via a scheme that resembles 800
numbers. If a call is made to a prefix that is "portable", then a
database is queried first, THEN the call is sent to the switch
indicated by the "location routing number" (LRN) in the database.
This slows down ALL calls a smidge, but is "fairer" (don't argue with
me on this, it's the FCC's decision) than the alternative, "query on
release", wherein the prefix routes calls to the obvious destination
switch, but that switch returns ported-number calls for database
lookup and delivery.
David Clayton in Oz writes,
> When is someone going to "bite the bullet" and come up with something
> that will be useable for the near future, (like the next 20-30 years),
> rather than, what from a distance, looks like "trying to panel beat a
> wreck"?
An industry group is working on NANP expansion. However, bear in mind
that it MUST NOT use a "flag day" approach, and the only convenient
place in the current plan set aside for expansion is N9X-series area
codes. These could become N9XX 4-digit codes with 7-digit numbers,
N9XX 4-digit codes with 8-digit numbers, N9X 3-digit codes with
8-digit numbers (but how inefficient!), etc.
The US DOES NOT tolerate mixed-length numbers. This is not just a
feature of the network but also of the expectation placed upon it --
the 3-3-4 scheme is FIXED in incredible volumes of software ranging
from cash registers to delivery companies to credit cards. It makes
"year 2000" look like a cakewalk. So whatever expansion scheme is
chosen will take at least a decade to implement, I suspect.
Fred R. Goldstein fgoldstein@bbn.com
BBN Corp. Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850
------------------------------
From: mike_parker@mindspring.com (Mike Parker)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: 22 Jul 1997 02:07:36 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
In article <telecom17.184.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com
(Lee Winson) wrote:
> The disadvantage is massive reprogramming of all local switches and
> tandem intermediate switches to support all this. Who will pay for
> the software development and testing and implementation?
Nortel's DMS 100 end-office switch supports the capability to
provision Directory Numbers (DNs) on an NXX-X basis in its latest
(NA007) release. The optional feature is called 'Enhanced DN System'
and is included with the software necessary to support LNP.
Massive reprogramming is not necessary and testing and implementation
is being done by Nortel, Bellcore and the companies that purchase the
NA007 release.
> Another method of number saving is some sort of "remote call
> fowarding" arrangement whereby unused numbers in other area codes are
> "borrowed". I don't understand how this will work. This also will be
> costly.
Remote call forwarding is now called 'poor man's LNP'. The industry
agreed- upon method for implementing number portability is called
'Location Routing Number' where essentially each switch in the network
is now identified by a ten-digit LRN (NPA-NXX-XXXX) rather than the
NPA-NXXs used today.
An excellent tutorial on LNP can be found at: www.iec.org.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #188
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jul 24 07:56:16 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id HAA07038; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 07:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 07:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707241156.HAA07038@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #189
TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Jul 97 07:56:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 189
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
SW Bell Voice Mail Loses Messages (Tad Cook)
UCLA Short Course on IS-95 (CDMA) US Digital Cellular Standard (B Goodin)
Maryland ISDN Proceeding (Monty Solomon)
Re: Mark Cuccia in the News! (Nils Andersson)
Re: Mark Cuccia in the News! (Louis Raphael)
Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island (Mark J. Cuccia)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: SW Bell Voice Mail Loses Messages
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 14:40:57 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Southwestern Bell Voice-Mail Service Loses Clients' Messages During
Upgrade
BY DAVID HAYES, THE KANSAS CITY STAR, MO.
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 23--Welcome to phone-mail purgatory.
Mark Honer, who owns a video-production business in Fairway, jumped to
answer his office phone Monday. But before the echo of the first ring
had died out, the caller was gone, transferred into voice mail.
Fine, deal with it. Honer called his answering system, CallNotes, a
remote voice-mail service offered by Southwestern Bell, to pick up the
message. Not that easy, he found out. Callers could leave messages,
but Honer couldn't listen to them.
Then Honer's phone rang again.
"It defaulted that it answered the phone after the first ring, and I
couldn't change it," Honer said. "It was pure frustration."
Honer and at least 250 other CallNotes subscribers found themselves in
that position on Sunday and Monday after Southwestern Bell upgraded
its CallNotes system. Although most of the system's 42,000 customers
were unaffected by the change, the transition wasn't made properly for
about 250 customers, said Virginia McGrath, a spokeswoman for the
company.
Customers could receive messages, but they couldn't listen to them.
The problem was solved by Tuesday, McGrath said, but about 50 persons
were unable to retrieve messages left during the previous 48 hours.
McGrath said Southwestern Bell is planning to help customers like
Honer by calling them and providing a telephone number they can use to
listen to the messages left on Sunday or Monday.
------------------------------
From: Bill Goodin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA Short Course on IS-95 (CDMA) US Digital Cellular Standard
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 09:30:29 -0700
On October 20-22, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"IS-95 (CDMA) US Digital Cellular Standard and Wideband CDMA
Proposals", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles.
The instructors are Babak Daneshrad, PhD, Assistant Professor,
Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA, and Zoran Kostic, PhD, MTS,
Wireless Communications Systems Research Department, AT&T Bell
Laboratories.
Spread spectrum data communication has seen a revival in recent years.
Two of the main driving forces behind its current interest have been
the opening of the ISM bands by the FCC in the mid-1980s and the
standardization of the IS-95 (CDMA) U.S. digital cellular standard.
Currently available wireless LAN products operating in the ISM bands
are based on either direct sequence or frequency-hopped spread
spectrum technology (WaveLAN, RangeLAN, etc.). Spread spectrum
systems are also being used in the implementation of wireless local
loops (AirTouch) as well as for digital cellular communications where
field trials and limited service are already being offered in various
sites in the U.S. and Asia.
With recent announcements by PrimeCo (PCS consortium, Bell Atlantic,
NYNEX, etc.) regarding its intent to use a CDMA-based system for its
future PCS network, it is expected that spread spectrum communication
will become more prominent in the future.
This course is intended for individuals involved in CDMA product
design and system deployment, and provides a foundation for the design
of direct-sequence spread spectrum systems (DSSS) for wireless
communications. A wide range of issues are covered, ranging from
system (cellular) engineering to hardware design and partitioning.
The course is motivated by the IS-95 (CDMA) U.S. digital cellular
standard -- one of the more complex DSSS systems in use today. This
course also looks at proposals for IMT-2000 global wireless
communications based on CDMA technology. All parts of the standard
relating to the physical layer as well as the MAC layer protocols are
covered. The course also provides a thorough treatment of the
wireless channel and mechanisms involved in radio wave propagation.
The course begins with an overview of the cellular industry and the
differentiating factors between the various cellular standards,
followed by an introduction to the mechanisms of code division
multiple access (CDMA), its limitations, and the concepts in the IS-95
standard to overcome them. Physical layer issues are discussed, such
as the importance of timing synchronization among users, as well as
the CRC, coding, and interleaving schemes used in the IS-95. Key
issues in the implementation of a typical IS-95 transceiver are also
examined.
The course fee is $1295, which includes all course materials. These
materials are for participants only, and are not for sale.
For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 02:22:05 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: Maryland ISDN Proceeding
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 21:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Subject: Maryland ISDN proceeding
The following is a brief note regarding the current proceeding for
setting ISDN tariffs in Maryland. It is a bit hard to follow, and I
apologize for that. The issues raised in the Maryland ISDN proceeding
are the same for all Bell Atlantic states, which are based upon the
same pricing model, and also all US West states that use the "call
pack" approach to setting ISDN tariffs (pre-paid blocks of usage
allowances, combined with high per minute fees for usage that exceeds
the call packs).
Jamie
The Maryland ISDN Proceeding and the dispute over
ISDN Call Pack Fill Rates
July 22, 1997
James Love <love@cptech.org>
http://www.cptech.org
202.387.8030
The major dollar dispute in the Maryland ISDN proceeding concerns the
assumptions regarding average usage of so called "call pack" options.
Basically, the Maryland ISDN tariff is set up so that you either pay
hefty 2 or 1 cent per minute charges for each ISDN call, or you pre-pay
for usage, in "call packs." The two most popular call pack options for
Maryland would involve 60 or 140 hours. The user who subscribes to the
call pack option has to pay the 2 to 1 cent per minute fees if the user
exceeds the call pack. Since no one wants to pay the 2 to 1 cent per
minute fees, which add up in a hurry, nearly all Maryland consumers use
the call packs. The question is, how should the Maryland PSC tariff the
call packs?
(note, ISDN usage is calculated by B channel. 128 Kbps connections
require 2B connections).
The Maryland PSC staff says that Bell Atlantic's costs for usage are, on
average, somewhere between $.0017 and $.003 per minute, which includes a
nice contribution on top of direct costs. Assuming one accepts the per
minute usage costs (they are high, because they don't account for lower
costs of off peak usage), you still have to figure, how many minutes (or
hours) does a call pack customer actually use in a given month?
This dispute is about the "fill rate," which is a term to describe the
ratio of hours actually used, to hours of pre-paid usage purchased. For
example, a consumer who used 40 hours of a 140 hour call pack would have
a fill rate of 40/140 = 28.6 percent.
The Maryland PSC staff has just filed a brief with the Commission
arguing that it is reasonable to assume that residential ISDN consumers
will use, on average, 90 percent of pre-paid "call pack," and that they
will never exceed the call pack. Thus, the Maryland PSC staff seems to
believe that all Maryland consumer who buy the 140 hour call pack will
use an average of 126 hours each month, and no one will ever exceed the
140 hour usage allowance, and pay the hefty 2 to 1 cent per minute fees
for exceeding the call packs.
In a similar ISDN proceeding in NJ, BA provided data from Maryland ISDN
call pack customers. That data was used in the NJ case to argue that a
more reasonable assumption for fill rate would be 30 percent.
I am now working on a study of 196 telecommuters in Arizona, who use the
US West 200 hour call pack. These telecommuters are broken down into
four groups, which are described a:
1. almost exclusively workaholic engineers
2. non technical managers and non engineering
3. information systems personnel, including managers
4. mixed users, engineering and non engineering
I haven't finished the AZ study yet. However, I can report that using
June 1997 data, for the entire group of 196 telecommuters, the average
fill rate was 25.6 percent. For (1), the workaholic engineers, which
were very heavy users, the fill rate was 37.5 percent. For groups
number 2 and 3 (which are more typical of a mass market) the fill rate
was about 20 percent. It is also interesting that 5 of the 196 users
exceeded the 200 hour Call Pack allowance. The overage by the 5
amounted to 4.6 percent of all usage for the 196 users, and generated a
very large amount of revenue to US West, due to the high fees charged
for overage (fees 10 to 20 times USWest costs).
If the Maryland PSC allocates even 25 percent of the Loop costs to
interstate toll (the percent Bell Atlantic claims in FCC proceedings),
and uses a 30 percent fill rate assumption for its call pack options,
Maryland ISDN tariffs for most users should be priced below $30 per
month. CPT's appeal in this case is at:
http://www.cptech.org/isdn/mdappeal.html (no period.)
Today I talked with Steve Molnar (410.767.8052), the Maryland PSC
Director of Telecom, to ask why the Maryland PSC staff insists on
backing Bell Atlantic's ludicrous assumption of a 90 percent average
fill (with no overage), and why they opposed our request that the
Maryland PSC simply ask Bell Atlantic to disclose the actual average
fill for its existing ISDN call pack customers, and use the actual
average rather than the unsupported 90 percent assumption. Mr. Molnar
said that the staff had no obligation to justify its adoption of the
90 percent figure, and that it was up to us to persuade the Commission
that it should be something else. This won't be easy, because the
record closed in the Maryland ISDN proceedings before Bell Atlantic
disclosed anything about the fill rate (despite discovery requests).
Now this is up to the Maryland PSC.
The Maryland PSC home page is at:
http://www.psc.state.md.us/psc/home.html (no period). The names,
telephone numbers and Bio's of the Commissions are given below. You can
call the Commissioner directly, or write them, at:
Maryland Public Service Commission
William Donald Schaefer Tower
6 St. Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410) 767-8000
MD Toll Free 1-800-492-0474
MD Relay Service 1-800-735-2258 (TT/Voice)
Short Biographies - Commissioners
H. Russell Frisby, Jr., Chairman
(410) 767-8072: born December 28, 1950 in Baltimore, Maryland;
Swarthmore College (B.A. in Political Science), Yale Law School (J.D.);
Associate, Cable, McDaniel, Bowie and Bond (1975-77); Assistant Attorney
General of Maryland (1977-79); Attorney-Advisor, Federal Communications
Commission (1979-80); Legal Assistant to Commissioner Joseph R. Fogarty,
Federal Communications Commission (1980-83); Senior Attorney, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges (1983-86); Principal, Melnicove, Kaufman, Weiner &
Smouse (1986-89); Partner, Venable, Baetjer and Howard (1989-95);
assumed position as Chairman July 14, 1995, current term ends June 30,
1998; married (June), two children.
Claude M. Ligon, Commissioner
(410) 767-8116: born June 28, 1935, in Baltimore, Maryland; Morgan
State University (B.S. in Mathematics), University of Illinois (B.S. in
Civil Engineering), University of Maryland (M.S., Ph.D. in Civil
Engineering); United States Army Engineer Officer (Lt. Col.) (1957-79);
Manager of Civil Engineering and Transportation Systems Division of AMAF
Industries, Inc. (l979-85); assumed position as Commissioner February 4,
1985, current term ends June 30, 2002; married (Doris), two children.
E. Mason Hendrickson, Commissioner
(410) 767-8070: born February 11, 1922, in Frederick, Maryland;
University of Maryland (B.S. in Business); U.S. Army Air Corps Combat
Fighter Pilot (l942-45); Senior Officer of 1st National Bank of
Maryland (1967-87); assumed position as Commissioner June 1, 1992,
current term ends June 30, 2000; married (Virginia), three children.
Susanne Brogan, Commissioner
(410) 767-8099: born March 29, 1957, in Chestertown, Maryland;
Washington College (B.A.), University of Maryland (J.D.); Legislative
Assistant to Speaker of the House of Maryland General Assembly
(1986-92); assumed position as Commissioner November 1992, current term
ends June 30, 2001; married (David Bliden).
Gerald L. Thorpe, Commissioner
(410) 767-8073, born March 1, 1938, in Pontiac, Michigan; Wayne
State University (B.A., Ph.D.), Harvard University (M.A.). Professor of
Public Policy and Director of the Center for Policy Studies, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania (1970-80); Deputy Director of the Governor's
Office of Policy and Planning in Pennsylvania (1983-86); Executive
Director of the Maryland Energy Administration (1991-94); assumed
position as Commissioner September 14, 1994, current term ends July 1,
1999; married (Connie), three children.
___________________________________
James Love
Center for Study of Responsive Law
P.O. Box 1936, Washington, DC 20036
voice 202.387.8030; fax 202.234.5176
http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 19:29:13 -0400
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nilsphone)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Mark Cuccia in the News!
In article <telecom17.188.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Judith Oppenheimer
<joppenheimer@ICBTOLLFREE.com> writes:
> For one thing, combinations like 97 don't lend themselves readily
> to pronounceable names, and besides, alphanumeric phone numbers cause
> all sorts of problems internationally. On the other hand, Blair said,
> there's nothing to stop folks from giving out their own numbers in any
> form they want.
97 should not be hard. What about YPres or even YPsilanti, which is a
town somewhere in Michigan or neighborhood?
The hardest one, discussed in this NG, is clearly 95. The dictionary
gives YLang-ylang, an Indonesian tree, which is not a place
exactly. Those of us familiar with Sherri S. Tepper's writings will
assign YLles, her fairyland in "Beauty", which is euphonious and makes
sense to the English-speaking ear, to allow a mixed metaphore.
The biggest problem is that since about 1980, prefixes in a lot of
locations may contain a 0 or a 1 as the second digit, which kills the
idea unless you reassign letter "Oh" and letter "I" to zero and one.
The same problem is intensified for whole telephone numbers. A given
random seven-digit number, where any but the first can be a zero or
one will typically contain one. In fact, the odds of a random number
being a clean non-zero-or-one-containing number is 0.8**6 or about 26%
For the rest, I loved the essay, and will be checking the website for
prefixes.
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
From: Louis Raphael <raphael@spammy.cs.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: Mark Cuccia in the News!
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:18:53 -0400
Organization: McGill University Computing Centre
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
That was a really nice article, Judith. Thanks for posting it.
> Of course, it's easy to carry this sort of thing too far.
> Cuccia, for instance, likes to give his address as New Orleans 28,
> La. Personally, I love those old delivery zone codes, but the Postal
> Service seems to have enough trouble as it is. Remember, they don't
> call it snail mail for nothing.
Actually, there is someone else that does. The makers of the boxes
used at the SAQ (Societe des Alcohol du Quebec, the provincial liquor
monopoly), Domtar, has their box certificates on the bottom of the
box, followed by "Toronto 14, Ont." And this on the new boxes. Of
course, *all* box certificates are in imperial units, for those of you
that haven't noticed.
The Northwest Territories' new area code, 867, was picked to spell out
"TOP", BTW ... I find it a rather nice touch.
Louis, making another off-topic comment... :-)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 15:19:45 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island
The television situation commedy series, "Gilligan's Island",
originally ran from 1964-67 (three full seasons) on CBS-TV. There is
an episode entitled "You've Been Disconnected", origianlly telecast,
IN COLOR, over the Columbia Broadcasting System, on Thursday 13
January 1966, during the second (1965/66) season.
In this episode, a Pacific transoceanic undersea telephone cable
washed ashore onto the island after a storm. At first, nobody knew
what it was, except for 'The Professor'. He split the sheathing to
expose the various wires, and as expected on "Gilligan's Island", 'The
Professor' built (out of raw materials found on the island) a receiver
to connect to the various wires. Later, he built a transmitter
(microphone), and finally, out of the rubber from the trees on the
island, a rotary dial.
The intent was so that the stranded castaways could actually 'tap'
into the various wires, and 'DIAL' their way to being rescued! There
were some humorous telephone calls placed from "Gilligan's Island",
such as to a live announcement operator giving the times of various
motion-pictures at a theater and wouldn't listen to what the callers
would say, calls to people in the middle of the night (at the
called-end) who would hang-up on them, etc.
Towards the end of the episode, another storm is brewing, and the
castaways of "Gilligan's Island" begin to run for cover. After the
storm is over, they return to discover that the telephone cable has
washed back out to sea. 'The Professor' explains that this still isn't
a problem, since the internal wires had become exposed, salt-water
would cause transmission problems in the communications, and that
telephone company officials would investigate, and probably discover
them. They would still be rescued.
But, leave it to Beaver -- er -- I mean Gilligan! <grin>
Gilligan thought he was helping out and wrapped up the exposed wires
and split outer cable with some heavy leaves to protect them from the
storm. He didn't realize that the entire cable would wash back out to
sea.
Of course, this was fiction. If a real undersea intercontinental
telephone cable washed ashore, even back then, a simple handset, or
receiver and microphone wouldn't be able to communicate, even in
analog. Nor would rotary dialpulse be able to send 'address'
signaling. A trunking cable is _not_ the same thing as a local central
office loop. And a transoceanic cable used various transmission
methods, such as TASI (Time Assigned Speech Interpolation) which would
'strap' multiple individual conversations into a single channel, by
mixing them all togather in the 'pauses' between spoken words and
syllables. There would have to be a power source at the terminal
itself, rather than using power from the switch. Again, this was a
toll switch - an _international_gateway_ switch that they were
connected to, and not a local central office!
As for signaling the called number, most inter-office trunks don't use
dialpulses. And international or overseas trunks most certainly don't
use dialpulse. Most likely, there was SF 2400/2600-Hz supervisory
tones, and CCITT #5 address signaling, which was an extension of
existing Bell-System 'domestic' signaling, using all fifteen possible
MF tone-pair combinations.
Hey ... if 'The Professor' _really_ wanted to get the attention of
telephone company officials in the mid-1960's, maybe he should have
built an MF-tone-generator for signaling over this undersea cable that
had washed ashore! You can _BE_SURE_ that AT&T/Bell-System and
GTE-Hawaii security personnel would have done _everything_ to
investigate, seek out and apprehend the castaways of "Gilligan's
Island" for manufacturing, possessing and using ... a Blue-Box!
Did Gilligan's Islands ever get a country-code of their own? Are they
part of the NANP? Maybe +1-808 with their own dedicated NNX prefix?
Are they changing their NPA from 808 to maybe 'GIL' (445)? Did they
ever even get telephone service (with some form of switch on the
island), service other than the washed-ashore undersea cable!? <grin>
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #189
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jul 24 08:39:04 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA09286; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:39:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:39:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707241239.IAA09286@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #190
TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Jul 97 08:39:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 190
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
California's 17th Area Code Goes Into Effect Next Month (Tad Cook)
Mandatory Dialing for 562 (Tad Cook)
Bell Atlantic/Nynex Merger (Monty Solomon)
ACD and General Phone Switch Query (Rupa Schomaker)
The "Permanently" Trapped Phone Line (Lauren Weinstein)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (oldbear@arctos.com)
Re: GA Telco Customers Vote on EAS (Stanley Cline)
Pull Length (Was: Re: 617/508 Split - Nine Years Later) (Nils Andersson)
Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates (Lou Coles)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: California's 17th Area Code Goes Into Effect Next Month
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 20:26:16 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
California's 17th area code goes into effect next month
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) --
Beginning Aug. 2, San Mateo County and northern Santa Clara County
will get a new area code -- 650.
That means new stationery and business cards, and reprogrammed cell
phones, fax machines and modems for businesses and residents living
from Los Altos and Mountain View to Daly City.
The change also means the 415 area code will become the exclusive
province of San Francisco and Marin County.
The 650 code could become one of the most exclusive in the country,
with such wealthy, well-educated communities as Los Altos, Atherton,
Hillsborough, Palo Alto, Woodside and Portola Valley.
"This is one of the most conspicuous concentrations of wealth, talent
and education in the world," said Neil Smelser, director of the Center
for Advance Studies in Behavioral Sciences at Stanford.
About 2.5 million telephone numbers will be affected. The new area
code will be phased in over six months, when a call to a 650 number
will still go through if you use the 415 area code. After six months,
callers will get a recording saying they've misdialed.
Telephone rates -- particularly toll call rates -- are unchanged by
the new area code.
The 650 area code will be the state's 17th, with another ten expected
to be added by the end of 1998.
Doug Hescox, head of the administration that carries out area code
changes, said the change is needed because California is running out
of telephone prefixes. In the past three years, 1,333 new prefixes
have been created and another 1,700 will be added this year.
"The demand for numbers and those services requiring telephone numbers
is just exploding," Hescox said. "We are truly in an information age."
------------------------------
Subject: Mandatory Dialing for 562
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 20:31:38 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Area Code 562 Mandatory Dialing Starts July 26 for Most of Long
Beach, Area Code 310 East of the L.A. River
LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS WIRE)--July 22, 1997--On July 26,
dialing area code 562 will be required when placing calls to the
greater Long Beach area and to communities in the existing 310 area
code east of the Los Angeles river.
If the 562 area code is not properly dialed, a recording will
instruct callers to redial using 562.
In October 1995, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
announced plans to split the 310 area code that gives the cities of
Artesia, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Cerritos, Downey, La Habra,
Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Norwalk, Paramount, Pico Rivera,
Santa Fe Springs and Signal Hill the 562 area code. This code should
last about a decade.
On Jan. 25, 1997, a six-month transitional dialing period began during
which either the 562 or 310 area code would work.
New area codes do not affect the cost of calls: a local call today will
remain a local call. Distance and time of calls determine rates.
"The use of telephone numbers has simply grown astronomically," said
Carol Fisher, GTE California regional staff administrator.
"Competition in California's local service market, and technologies
like fax machines, wireless communications, pagers, card-swipe
transactions such as ATMs and gas stations, modems and the Internet
have increased the demand on numbers.
"In addition, families are finding the need to add telephone lines in
their homes to meet everyday needs. It's not just a Southern
California issue, but a statewide concern."
Here is a checklist of area-code items to remember:
-- Change business cards and stationery.
-- Let family, friends and business associates know the new
area code.
-- Reprogram speed calling, call forwarding and other
telephone-number-based equipment (call the manufacturer if
necessary).
-- Update pet tags and other identification material.
-- Check business PBXs and phone systems to ensure they can
process the new area code.
To verify PBX capabilities, businesses can call 562/317-0317, and a
recording will indicate the equipment is compatible with the new
coding.
Area codes are a California-wide issue; other area codes that are, or
will be, splitting include area codes 619 (San Diego), 415 (San
Francisco), 916 (Sacramento), 408 (San Jose), 209 (Stockton and Fresno
areas), 818 (northern Los Angeles County), 213 (Los Angeles), 805
(Ventura, Santa Barbara, Kern and San Luis Obispo counties), 714
(Orange County) and 510 (East Bay, Alameda).
The CPUC has ruled that area-code splits will be used until the next
century to relieve number shortages.
GTE California provides a variety of local and regional voice, video
and data services to more than 4 million customers in nearly 500
communities in California and parts of Nevada and Arizona. It is a
wholly owned subsidiary of GTE Corp. of Stamford, Conn., one of the
world's largest publicly held telecommunications companies.
Prefixes in the 310 Area Code Changing to the 562 Area Code: (The
prefix is the first three digits of a telephone number) 210, 218, 220,
227, 256, 259, 266, 272, 308, 317, 321, 340, 345, 346, 347, 356, 382,
383, 384, 401 thru 404, 406 thru 409, 420 thru 439, 460 thru 469, 483,
490 thru 499, 506, 528, 529, 531, 555, 561, 565, 566, 567, 570, 590,
591 thru 599, 601, 602, 621 thru 628, 630, 633, 634, 651, 653, 654,
658, 663, 667, 678, 683, 690 thru 699, 705, 709, 744, 776, 790, 795,
797, 799, 801 thru 804, 806, 807, 809, 860 thru 869, 877, 901 thru
908, 916, 920 thru 930, 933, 936, 938, 940 thru 949, 951, 961, 980
thru 989, 997 and 999.
CONTACT: GTE Public Affairs
Mike Murray, 310/435-9594
310/724-0701 (pager)
or
Larry Cox, 800/227-5556
URL: http://www.businesswire.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 01:54:01 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: Bell Atlantic/Nynex Merger
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Excerpt from THE INFOWORLD SCOOP: Tuesday, July 22, 1997
BELL ATLANTIC, NYNEX MERGER APPEARS TO BE IN THE CLEAR
Bell Atlantic and Nynex on Sunday agreed to a number of Federal
Communication Commission conditions designed to open their local
telephone markets to competition.
The agreement was expected to hasten approval of the companies' $23.7
billion merger and to speed their movement into the lucrative
Northeast corridor long distance market.
For the full story:
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?970721.etelecom.htm
------------------------------
From: rupa@rupa.com (Rupa Schomaker)
Subject: ACD and General Phone Switch Query
Date: 22 Jul 1997 21:43:00 -0700
Organization: RS Consulting
I'm currently evaluating two telephone switch vendors and their
product line. We needs a relatively small phone installation and call
center -- on the order of 60+ telephones and 15 agents on the ACD.
The ACD should have support for real time statistics both for the
supervisor and for the individual agents (so they know how well they
are performing, how many calls are in the queue, etc).
We currently have a Lucent Merlin Legend which is a decent phone
switch. However, it lacks any true ACD functionality (supposed to be
available with the R5 software and with the adition of Lucent's
Conversant Unix based telephony product). The Legend is also a pain
to administer (then again, most phone switches are a pain).
The two vendors we have been evaluating are Lucent's Compact Call
Center (Based on the Definity platform) and Executone's IDS
(Integrated Digital System).
Executone has been very easy to work with -- they seem to genuinely
want our business. We've been able to get great product demos and at
this point I'm comfortable with them as a vendor. However, they don't
seem to be quite as well-known as Lucent (who isn't). Is there anyone
out there that can give me good/bad experiences with the IDS? If you
are just a user of the executone system your feedback would be
appreciated. Any feedback on the usability and manageablility of the
switch, as well as teh ACD, would be appreciated.
We are also looking at Active Voice for our voice mail and fax
messaging -- any feedback on this would be appreciated.
As for the Lucent Definity based system, we have had very little
feedback from Lucent about it. Our sales rep has assured us that it is
"easy to manage and configure and all that" but we have yet to see a real
product demo. Any feedback on how the Difinity is managed (especially
the call vectoring and ACD stuff) would be greatly appreciated.
Finally, if you can suggest some pointed questions to either vendor
(eg: specific weaknesses in the product) I'd apprecciate the pointers.
We could of course use any help that we can!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 97 16:58:00 PDT
From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: The "Permanently" Trapped Phone Line
Greetings. I may have recounted this story in the past in this forum,
but anyway ... Back in the late 60's, a friend of mine (the late Bob
Bilkiss, creator of the "ZZZZZZ" phone line here in L.A.) had the
misfortune to be harrassed by someone locally who called his SXS phone
line from a pay phone, left the handset hanging, and departed. This
of course made his line unusable.
He called Pacific Telephone 611 repair from another line and explained
the trouble. They immediately asked him for the number that had
*called* him. He explained that he didn't know the calling number,
but that obviously it was a payphone since he could hear the nearby
road noise.
The following exchange then took place:
Bob: "I'm sorry, but I don't *know* the calling number."
611: "Sir, if you can't provide us with the calling number, we
can't clear the line."
Bob: "OK, let me get this straight. I don't know the calling number,
so you can't clear my line. And since my line isn't clear,
I can't use it."
611: "That is correct."
Bob: "Then I assume I should call the business office and order
another line right? Because, nobody, ever, will be able
to use that phone line again, right?"
611: (long pause) "Let me get you my supervisor."
Bob: "An excellent idea."
--Lauren--
"PRIVACY Forum Radio"
"Professor Neon's TV & Movie Mania"
www.vortex.com
------------------------------
From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear)
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:48:24 -0400
In TELECOM Digest V17 Issue 186, Ed Ellers <kd4awq@worldnet.att.net>
writes:
> Now what was really weird was what they called a "5302;" that was a
> field mod kit that Western Electric put out to allow the Bell
> companies to "modernize" 302 sets. It consisted of a new plastic
> housing that looked like that of a 500 but was made to go over a 302
> base and a new plastic plate (with "outside" numbers and letters) to
> go on the 302's dial. This, combined with a new G-type handset, a
> coiled handset cord and a new (black plastic-covered) mounting cord,
> would make a 302 look "new" enough so that the customer wouldn't write
> nasty letters about being given an obsolete phone but charged the full
> rate. I have no idea how many of these were used; my own old 302 set
> was remanufactured in 1953, so apparently it took quite some time for
> the 500 to take over.
I've got one of these. It was my 'bootleg' extension phone in my room
during my high-school years in the mid-1960s. I found it in a pile of
junk in the corner of a parking garage in Boston.
Because the base was a 302 set, it had a smaller footprint than the
500 set. The difference was at the back, where the 500 set projects
to house its bells. Also, it had the old style F-type handset (which
I changed to a G-type) without coiled cord.
BTW ... I was at the flea market at MIT in Cambridge last Sunday
trying to find homes for about a half-dozen six-button rotary key sets
and met a fellow who told me about the Antique Telephone Collectors'
Association (ATCA) which publishes a newsletter and has periodic
meetings around the U.S. The ATCA maintains a web site at:
http://www.cybercom.com/~chuck/atca.html
Cheers,
The Old Bear
------------------------------
From: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com (Stanley Cline)
Subject: Re: GA Telco Customers Vote on EAS
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 04:47:01 GMT
Organization: An antonym for Chaos
Reply-To: roamer1@RemoveThis.pobox.com
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 18:48:34 -0700, in comp.dcom.telecom I wrote:
> Trenton (GA) Telephone Company must have been exempt, because the
> 706-657 CO is within 22 miles (16 miles V/H, to be exact) from the
> Rossville, GA BellSouth CO and not only was Trenton toll (using
> BellSouth. With AT&T and certain other carriers it was free) from my
> parents' house in Rossville, but TTC was charging its customers
> $70/month to get a FX/FCO line to call Rossville (and Chattanooga,
> etc.) without toll charges!
> (The PSC has since decided to do something about Trenton, but I don't
> know exactly what.)
There's now a new wrinkle in the Trenton situation:
I drove through there over the weekend while in the Chattanooga area
visiting my parents, and stopped at the ONE telco-owned payphone I
could find. I dialed 1+various numbers, with the following results
from BellSouth's TOPS ACTS:
To Rossville (Georgia side only, all three COs), Kensington,
Chickamauga -- "25 Cents Please", no time quoted
To Ringgold -- "$1.40 [or so] please"
To Chattanooga, TN (including the Tennessee side of the three
split-state Rossville/Chattanooga COs) -- "$1.90 [or so], please"
So it appears that calls FROM Trenton TO areas within 16 miles (and
the 706-891 NXX, whose CO is about 22 miles away but is in the
"Rossville" ratecenter) are being handled as "free", but NOT the other
way around (from my parents' house in one of the Rossville COs within
16 miles, an operator quoted 5c/min as the weekend rate to Trenton.)
And Tennessee is still standard, expensive toll. :(
Unfortunately, Trenton is dominated by COCOTs (mainly CCI) which
charged $1 for four minutes. Georgia PSC regulations dictate that
COCOTs cannot charge more than the LEC's "own" payphones for any call
(and that if a call is local under EAS, Atlanta Metro calling, etc.,
it must be charged as "local". Remember all the Jasper problems?)
Hence yet another complaint to the PSC against CCI (who proceeded to
change one phone's AOSleaze from USLD to Opticom when I filed a
complaint. USLD [whom the complaint was really against anyway] is
still in hot water with the FCC.)
Question for the PSC: Why in the world is a COCOT vendor allowed to
use AOSleaze in an area that offers ONLY Fg.C carrier access (i.e., no
950, no 10[1x]xxx, no PIC, only AT&T and the LEC)? Yes, 800/888
numbers can be used just fine, but not for intraLATA BellSouth or
Trenton Telephone, ALLTEL, etc., and not for all combinations of
carrier and payment method!
As for Chattanooga in general: The local calling area from HAMILTON
COUNTY, TN has been expanded again -- from Hamilton County, the entire
LATA is local, with the exceptions of the Benton/Copper Basin area
(Polk County), Bridgeport/Stevenson, AL [who IMO belong in the
Huntsville LATA with most of the rest of that county] -- and Trenton.
> I'm not sure I understand the 22-mile law. I understand the 16-mile
> law, excerpted below.
They are both confusing.
> * (b) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this Code section, on
> * and after July 1, 1992, the Public Service Commission shall not
> * approve any new rate schedule which authorizes a long-distance
> * charge for calls between two telephones where the central offices
> * serving such telephones are within 16 miles of each other.
Note this says "NEW" rate schedule. And also remember that the
regulatory environment of the Rossville, GA COs is quirky, because of
the way they are intertwined with TENNESSEE BellSouth. From the
GEORGIA side of the Rossville COs:=20
* Tennessee rates for POTS
* Tennessee customer service, billing, etc.
* No intraLATA PIC (as in Tennessee)
* Georgia rates for ISDN <-- screw ISDN customers. What's new?
* Tennessee rates for DA (meaning "unlimited free calls")
* Some TN, some GA rates for intRALATA toll
* Some Georgia IXCs/rate plans are not available in Rossville COs, but
are in independents served by same tandem/toll switch as Rossville,
and in other BellSouth areas in GA (Atlanta, etc.)
* Georgia sets EAS area (mostly to independents south of the Rossville
ratecenter, and to all of Hamilton County, TN)
* Georgia rates for intERLATA toll (not BellSouth)
* Georgia regulation of COCOTs, COCOT certificates, etc.
> * (a) On and after June 1, 1998, there shall be toll-free calling
June 1, 1998. Why are they acting as if the law applies now? They
have probably ruled already in most such situations, other than
Trenton and interLATA cases.
> Guess Number 1. "Exchange" means CO, so all calling shall be
> toll-free within a 22-mile radius of any CO for all phones served by
> that CO. Is this a problem in Georgia? Are there LECs charging LD
> for calls between customers served out of the same CO?
AFAIK, there are no LECs in Georgia charging LD for intraCO calls
(aside from some possible exceptions relating to cellular MTSOs.)
> Guess Number 2. "Exchange" means the geographic area served by a CO,
> so all calling within an imaginary line drawn 22 miles outside the
> exchange boundary is toll-free. But, IMHO, the language of the law
> does not logically support this conclusion.
I certainly doubt this is the case. The intra-county "EAS" has been a
major headache for LECs -- I doubt most (if any) have the data to
support local calling to some numbers in one NXX, but not other
numbers, based on mileage alone.
> Guess Number 3. It means the same thing as the 16-mile law; just
> change "16" to "22." This is what many people (including me) seem to
> have assumed, but again, the language of the law does not logically
> support this, IMHO.
Same guess here. The language is heavily convoluted.
Further, I believe the PSC may also include interstate calls in the
22-mile radius, to deal with Trenton and other odd situations along
the GA/AL, GA/TN, and GA/SC state lines.
By the way: One of the Rossville COs (the 706-858/861/866 and
423-827/867 CO) is physically in Georgia, but is actually
listed/treated as a TENNESSEE CO by Bellcore! The other two are
really in Tennessee. THAT shows the way the Rossville, GA area is
intertwined with the Chattanooga switching/rates/etc.
Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS!
CLLI MRTTGAMA42G NPA 770 ** (wk) scline(at)mindspring.net
(hm) roamer1(at)pobox.com ** http://www.pobox.com/~roamer1/
**NO SPAM!** http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ and http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 19:29:15 -0400
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Pull length (Was: Re: 617/508 Split - Nine Years Later)
In article <telecom17.188.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com
(Bob Goudreau) writes:
> while the rural western end of the state got the coveted
> 413 (which at only 8 "pulls", is tied for the seventh-shortest code in
> the NANP). If it weren't for the test phase involving western MA, the
> code assignments would have been reversed, or so I remember reading.
Fascinating. I made a quick survey of short-pull area codes:
ac pulses City/State
212 5 New York
213 6 LA
312 6 Chicago
214 7 Dallas
412 7 Pittsburgh
313 7 Detroit
215 8 Pennsylvania
314 8 St Louis
413 8 Massachusetts
512 8 Austin
Note that both Texas and Pennsylvania got two of the coveted <=8 pull
area codes. New York state and California only got one each. San
Francisco got stuck with 415, 10 pulls, and the Nation's Capital drags
in with 202 at 14 pulls, just like Boston with 617.
Note that the LONGEST pull is in parts of Southern California with
909, only topped by the pseudocode 900. Note that there is no match,
990 cannot be assigned as the middle digit 9 is not allowed. However,
909 was introduced in the early nineties when MOST people were using
DTMF.
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
From: loucoles@mindspring.com (Lou Coles)
Subject: Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 18:22:16 GMT
Organization: Lincoln Cent Society
Reply-To: mindspring@loucoles.com
nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) wrote:
> In article <telecom17.184.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
> writes:
>> "What's coming out of the FCC is a distortion of congressional intent,"
>> Burgess said at a summit here on Friday. "It pits the West against the
>> East, rural against urban, small business against big business."
> Only the desire for cross-subsidies "pits" anybody against anybody. In
> a deregulated system, everybody pays their own costs and nobody is
> pitted against anybody. The "pitting" is an artefact of pressure
> groups trying to use the armed forces of the US to furhter their own
> economic ends.
>> He likened it to charging residents of Wyoming 72 cents for a postage
>> stamp and New Yorkers 11 cents to reflect the true cost of providing
>> postal service, he said.
> One reason this is not done is that the costs to administer it are
> significant. For the rest, what would be wrong about having different
> postal rates? Parcels do, by the way, based on distance. more or
> less.
Oh I like this idea, everyone paying the true cost of what it takes to
provide the product/service, plus markup one would hope. Food products
in NYC might still be a bit less than in Hawaii, but both would
soar. Then there is the logical end to this train of thought that
politicans are bound to see, true voting rights, why should the rest
of the country subsidize the New England region in the Senate, it's
not right that NY and VT have equal votes.
Best Regards,
Lou Coles
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #190
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jul 24 13:13:08 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id NAA28174; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:13:08 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:13:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707241713.NAA28174@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #191
TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Jul 97 13:12:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 191
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Detroit's Directory Assistance Does Less for More (Tad Cook)
ICB Toll Free URL Update (Judith Oppenheimer)
Re: Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (Mark J. Cuccia)
Re: Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (Paul Caccamo)
Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State (Trever Miller)
Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State (Matt Simpson)
Re: Anti-Spam Technology (Hillary Gorman)
Re: Anti-Spam Technology (Ray Normandeau)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Detroit's Directory Assistance Does Less for More
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 11:54:57 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Detroit's Directory Assistance Does Less for More
BY ALISON YOUNG, DETROIT FREE PRESS
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 22--Getting a telephone number from directory assistance has
become a geographic guessing game for some metro Detroiters.
If you aren't sure which of the 133 municipalities in Wayne, Oakland
and Macomb counties your party is in, you may be out of luck -- and 45
cents -- for using a service that some phone users say has become
increasingly unreliable in the past year.
"If you don't know exactly what city they're in, they won't look it up
for you," said Leland Spencer, a Royal Oak private detective who
occasionally turns to directory assistance.
It's a lament echoed by many. They contend that ever since Ameritech
began offering a nationwide directory assistance service -- for a fee
-- last year, operators have been less effective at locating local
telephone numbers. Many people simply hang up in frustration; about
ten every month file a complaint with state regulators. There were few
complaints before the change.
Ameritech spokeswoman Sara Snyder said the company has received some
complaints but the problems are not widespread.
"We are finding people are generally very satisfied with the service."
Snyder says the addition of nationwide directory assistance services
is not the reason local directory assistance services were changed in
August.
The changes in directory services were the result of the increasing
number of local phone numbers and the need to divide up the database
used by operators, Snyder said.
"Our operators will ask for a city or a nearby city to help us target
the search," Snyder said. "If a specific town isn't known, then we'll
ask for a nearby town.
"We've found that 98 out of 100 customers know the locality when they call
directory assistance."
Snyder denies that the company is requiring callers to know the exact
city, and says the operators -- who each handle about 1,200 calls a
day -- use the given city only as a starting point and as a way to
speed up each search. On average, directory assistance operators spend
18 seconds on each call, Snyder said.
Residential and business customers are allowed five free calls per
month to local directory assistance and charged 45 cents for every
call thereafter whether the operator can find the number or not.
Callers are entitled to three searches per call to directory assistance;
each city a caller guesses counts toward that three-search limit.
Directory assistance calls once were free.
Some consumers, like Spencer, contend operators are requiring them to
know the exact city.
Mary Jo Kunkle, spokeswoman for the Michigan Public Service Commission,
which regulates telephone companies, said this is one of the main
complaints of consumers.
"Particularly in the metro Detroit area, where there are so many
little cities, apparently if they can't identify the city exactly,
they won't get a number," Kunkle said.
Indeed, knowing the exact suburb can be difficult with so many
municipalities. Is the listing in Southfield? Or perhaps Lathrup Village?
Is it Birmingham, or maybe Beverly Hills, or perhaps even Clawson?
Consumers also are complaining about the accuracy of the numbers they
get and some contend they are being shortchanged by Ameritech's
directory assistance operators who by law are supposed to give them
three numbers per call.
"Some are saying they get one or two numbers, then they're
disconnected," Kunkle said.
But the number of complaints -- about 10 per month -- is too few for
the commission to take any action, Kunkle said. Instead, regulators
are trying to help mediate a resolution between customers and
Ameritech as complaints are filed. She acknowledged that few customers
think to complain to the commission about directory assistance.
Directory assistance is the only way for many metro Detroiters to get
telephone numbers.
Ameritech has divided the tri-county area into seven telephone books.
Customers are given a free phone book for the area covering their
address; but -- at $5 apiece for the other books -- few request a
complete set, company officials said.
Some cities, such as Troy, Farmington Hills and Romulus, are split
between two telephone books. Residents of those split cities must pay
to get the additional directory.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech here in the Chicago area
seems to be functioning the same way. Long ago I could ask the
operator to 'please check north suburbs' or 'please check area 312'
for the desired number and they did so. Now unless you start with a
specific suburb name they claim they cannot help you. And I do not
know how wide they are willing to search based on a town name either.
For instance, the other day I was seeking the number of someone I
thought lived in Glenview (the town next to Skokie to the northwest)
and the operator found nothing. It turns out the person was in the
little village of Golf, Illinois which is squeezed in between Skokie
and Glenview along Golf Road. The village of Golf -- which consists
of a large golf course, the national headquarters of a golf associa-
tion, and a couple hundred full time residents with village hall,
post office, train station and one-man police force -- is served by
the Glenview, IL phone exchange 847-329 for the most part but a very
few places on the far southeastern end of the village are served
by Morton Grove's 847-965 exchange. Now you would think directory
assistance could deal with that. And I suspect the DA operator was
looking at the entry I asked for but was waiting for me to use the
name 'Golf' instead of Glenview/Morton Grove/Skokie in requesting
the listing. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@ICBTOLLFREE.com>
Subject: ICB Toll Free URL Update
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:13:50 -0400
Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting
Reply-To: joppenheimer@ICBTOLLFREE.com
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS has moved to a new server. ICB links, bookmarks
and favorites to http://www.thedigest.com/icb/, should be changed to
http://www.icbtollfree.com.
Re-registration for email notification of ICB TOLL FREE NEWS updates
is also required to receive notice of updates. Registration form is
located at http://www.icbtollfree.com.
Thank you.
Judith Oppenheimer
Publisher
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com
800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com/icbinfo2.html
800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com/expert2.html
1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 11:11:41 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Re: Ontario Northland Transportation Commission
In TELECOM Digest, Carter Thomasson <CThomasson@ASSOCDATA.COM> asked:
> Am seeking information on the scope of telephony services provided
> by this company.
> Any information or reference to sources will be appreciated.
The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC), from what I
understand, is part of the provincial government. They provides the
service of the Ontario Northern Railway up the east part of Ontario
all the way to the Hudson Bay area. Under the Transportation
Commission is Ontario Northland Telecommunications.
Ontario Northland Telecommunications (as most every telco and
long-distance provider in Canada) is regulated by the CRTC. At one
time, the province regulated them, but a few years ago, the federal
CRTC took over regulatory authority over the various small and
province-wide telcos in Canada. CRTC, however, has for decades been
regulating Bell-Canada (PQ/ON), (GTE's) BC-Tel, and (BCE's)
Northwestel (YT, NWT, northern BC).
[BCE= Bell Canada Enterprises, the holding company of Bell-Canada
(PQ/ON), Northern Telephone (ON), Telebec (PQ), Northwestel
(YT/NWT/northern-BC), portions of the eastern provinces telcos, and
other telecommunications entities and operations in Canada (such as
Teleglobe, Telesat, cable-TV, etc.) and other parts of the world.]
Ontario Northland Telecommunications provides the traditional
(monopoly) toll access services to three other local telcos in
east/central and northeastern Ontario, and also has four local
exchanges of its own.
The largest local telco in that region is (BCE's) Northern Telephone
(Timmins is the largest exchange area, 705-264,267,268,360, others?).
In Cochrane ON (705-272), the local town government owns the local
telco.
In Iriquois Falls ON (705-258) the Abitibi-Price Paper Company owns
the local telco.
The four local exchange/wirecenter/ratecenter areas in this part of
Ontario which are directly operated Ontario Northland
Telecommunications:
Marten River (705-892) and Temagami (705-237,569), just to the south of
(BCE's) Northern Telephone local service region
Moose Factory (705-658) and Moosoonee (705-336), which are right on the
Hudson Bay, to the north of (BCE's) Northern Telephone local service
region.
From what I've been told by my friends in the "north country", the
fate of Ontario Northland Telecommunications is somewhat "up in the
air", as the current provincial government wishes to privatize such
operations to cut costs. I understand that the airline services of the
ONTC have been either discontinued or has been privatized.
It _could_ be possible that (BCE's) Northern Telephone will absorb the
toll functions of Ontario Northland Telecommunications, as well as the
four local exchanges. However, with the recent CRTC order of
competitive local telephone services, other things could happen,
although it may be some time before local competition comes to the
less populated parts of Canada such as this part of Ontario.
-------------
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060-T" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember once, a great many years ago,
calling somewhere in the wilderness of British Columbia for directory
assistance (at 604-555-1212 the operator transferred me to still another
operator) where I requested the number of the Canadian Pacific Railroad.
I still remember the answer I got from the operator: "This *is* the
Canadian Pacific Railroad, who are you seeking in the office?" This
was apparently some small place where the CPRR owned and operated the
telco -- if you could call it that -- as part of their facility
there. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Paul Caccamo <cii@onlink.net>
Subject: Re: Ontario Northland Transportation Commission
Date: 22 Jul 1997 22:56:22 GMT
Organization: Ontario Northland--ONLink
They have internet service ... try www.onlink.net ... as for other
services, they are the local telco in Moosonee and Temagami Ontario,
and also are the long distance provider over most of Northeastern
Ontario north of North Bay.
Paul Caccamo
------------------------------
From: trever@cyberdex.geniers.cuug.ab.ca (Trever Miller)
Subject: Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State
Date: 22 Jul 1997 21:33:06 -0600
Organization: Cyberdex Systems
Rob Levandowski (macwhiz@phoebe.accinet.net) wrote:
> Levandowski
> Second dirt road on left off Shedd Hill Road
> White house on left at end of road (past Louise Johnson)
> City, State, Zip
[much stuff about rural un-named or informally named roads snipped]
Erhm, what's wrong with land legal designations? ie: range, township,
section, etc?
Then all you need to do is have a county map with land designations
at the E911 dispatch and maybe in each emergency vehicle.
I _know_ you have a similar land-designation down in the states,
similar to Canada's except the ordering of the sections within the
township are (I think) reversed.
trever @ cyberdex.geniers.cuug.ab.ca Alberta Babylon 5 Mailing List Admin
http://www.nucleus.com/~millertr/ab-b5/
Only 892 days left to stock up on canned goods, fuel & ammo before 2000/1/1
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The legal land designations here are
very technical and confusing. The legal name for the land will usually
involve several fractions such as 'the northeast one-eighth of the
southwest one-quarter of the west half of such-and-such subdivision of
so-and-so's division of whatever annex to the township of some-name;
the fifty feet east of a dividing line north and south.' And
invariably after a legal notice of some sort prints all the above (and
I have seem some considerably longer than the example above) then the
legal notice will conclude by saying 'commonly known as 1234 Main
Street, Yourtown, USA.' However, the way directory assistance is going
these days, it may not be long until the operators require the full
legal land designation to be able to look up the number of the person
there! :) PAT]
------------------------------
From: msimpson@pop.uky.edu (Matt Simpson)
Subject: Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:04:22 -0400
Organization: University of Kentucky Computing Center
In article <telecom17.187.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, macwhiz@phoebe.
accinet.net (Rob Levandowski) wrote:
> My parents have a house in rural New Hampshire, which only recently
> got E911. I don't know how they show my parent's address --
Several years ago, we got rid of all our Route x, Box y addresses and
went to "street numbers". More recently, we went to E911. I had the
opportunity of calling 911 about a burglary in progress, and got to
hear the radio transmissions in the background. The dispatcher gave
the deputies the address; they seemed a little unsure of the location,
so one asked for my name; when she gave the name, then one deputy gave
the others instructions (cross the bridge, about a mile on the left).
Matt Simpson --- Lead Systems Programmer, MVS
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
msimpson@pop.uky.edu http://rivendell.cc.uky.edu
A programmer is a machine for turning beer into code
------------------------------
From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman)
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Technology
Date: 22 Jul 1997 15:17:21 GMT
Organization: You LART'em, we cart 'em
In <telecom17.186.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.COM>, or someone who hacked that account, wrote:
> A little more than a month ago, Vineyard.NET, my ISP, started blocking
> SMTP connections from computers on the Internet that do not have valid
> reverse DNS. We did this an an anti-spam measure. A few days after
> we brought up the new system, spamming dropped dramatically --- more
> than 75%!
> We decided to filter against sites that do not have valid reverse DNS
> because a lot of spammers do not have valid reverse DNS. But it also
> seems that we have caught up in our filter some legitimate sites that
> do not have their nameservers properly configured. Below is a list of
> all of the sites.
> Interestingly, there are some sites below which are obviously spamming
> sites (wow.boundless.com, for example). But there are also a lot of
> legitimate sites as well, like aw.com, www.fda.gov,
> newshost.nytimes.com.
> I'm trying to contact the postmasters at these sites to get them to
> correct their systems. So far, I have sent many messages to the folks
> at Dow Jones, for instance. Unfortunately, all of those messages have
> been ignored.
[snip]
The list of sites (which I snipped) is not a list of sites with
invalid DNS entries, but rather a list of hostnames which do not have
matching forward and reverse DNS entries. Obviously, this list
includes a bunch of legitimate sites. What I suggest that people do
(and what we do at netaxs) is to refuse mail which has a From line
containing a non-resolvable hostname. Forward and reverse DNS don't
have to match - you just have to be able to resolve the hostname. This
way, you reject the mail from the forging spammers, who not only don't
have REVERSE dns, but they don't have forward DNS either; and you
accept the mail from sites with overworked or underclued DNS
administrators :)
I'm sure there must be a couple of spammers who have working forward
DNS and invalid reverse DNS, but they're a drop in the bucket compared
to those who have no DNS entries at all.
hillary gorman...........Official Token Female..........hillary@netaxs.com
"So that's 2 T-1s and a newsfeed....would you like clues with that?"
hillary@hillary.net: for debugging your net or deworming your pet
Net Access...The NSP for ISPs....The NOC that rocks around the clock.
------------------------------
Date: 22 Jul 97 16:54:13 EDT
From: ray.normandeau@factory.com
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Technology
I would like to report the following anti-UCE (Unsolicited Commercial
Email/spam) activities on my part that has brought me a little bit of
satisfaction.
------------------
TECHNIQUE #1
If calling after hours to a spammer's 800#, their TAD may ask you to
leave a message.
I simply say "Please call me regarding an Email offer that I received".
Try to sound pleasant and enthusiastic.
Not only are they paying for the time taken for you to leave the
message (minimal cost, unless at the end of a long winded OGM of their
own and hundreds of people are doing this) but they then have to call
you at their cost at daytime rates. The best part is that the droid
who calls you up is tied up and can not handle other business.
When they return your call, have a problem remembering what their UCE was
about.
So ask them to explain ......
"Oh yeah ... that Email!"
"I just want to make sure that you remove me from the mailing list."
Spell out your name and ask that they repeat the spelling to you. Only
unethical firms would send UCE without knowing the victim's (oops,
recipient's) name. Right?
One bozo said I had to make my request by Email. I said that, that was
unacceptable to me as I have to pay to send Email.
I told them that since they have my name (right?), they must have my
address, and that I want them to send me written confirmation by snail
mail that they are removing me from their UCE list. And that whenever
they get calls from pay-phones in NYC it is to remind them that I am
waiting for their written confirmation. Hand held, programmable auto
dialers SURE can come in handy!
---------------------------------------
TECHNIQUE #2
I started over a month ago to DAILY re-send UCE to sender AND
to: postmaster@
with
"I received the quoted unwanted spamed advertisement (UCE) bearing your
Email address or your domain name. This spam was sent collect as I am
charged for every piece. On CompuServe, I pay by the minute. On
Invention Factory, time spent is debited from my daily allowance at the
end of which I am denied access to the system until the next day.
I do NOT want to receive anymore of this trash. Using my name as an
identifier I demand that I be immediately REMOVED from the distribution
list and that cause be shown why I should not file a complaint against
you for either initiating or aiding an abusive telemarketing practice.
If spam said that I was on a list that indicated that I might be
interested in the offering, I demand to be told the name of the list,
its description and its source.
Acknowledge this message, supplying me with the Message-ID line from
this site; e.g.: "Message-Id: <nnnnn.500.uupcb@factory.com" where
"nnnnn" indicates a specific message number. As there may be many
messages queued up in a transmission script, this is the only way that I
cam remove that particular message from further transmissions.
If you are the postmaster of the offending message origination site
acknowledge this as an official complaint and supply all above requested
information.
You may also want to respond to Newsgroup: news.admin.net-abuse.misc."
Some sites do not have "abuse@"; -so let the postmaster sort it out.
When I get UCE on CompuServe I send my complaint via Invention Factory
Internet site 212-274-8110. Let the spammer match my name with my CIS ID.
Some sites are bogus. Most are not.
I have found something VERY INTERESTING about this technique.
After MANY transmissions (like twenty or so) of my complaint and
quoted UCE I get responses from people who say "REMOVE".
I ask them "What remedial action has been taken in regards to my
complaint?"
In some cases the "sender" was non-existent and it seems that the
admin may have been the actual perp.
I then keep daily sending until they tell me something like the user
has left the ISP.
freeyellow.com however has started refusing my Email. So I may start
sending from other accounts.
----------------------------------------------------
TECHNIQUE #3
I have not done this one yet. That is to go to the NYC PR company for
AGIS and create such a ruckus in their office that they call the
police. The media would be notified beforehand. The PR firm for AGIS
is in NYC near Broadway, Fifth Avenue, Madison Square Park and 22
Street. If I can get enough participants, I will send out press
releases at my expense. We would do a practice/first strike without a
ruckus to prepare ourselves.
---------------------------------------------
TECHNIQUE #4
I have not done this one yet. If anyone in NYC wishes to file a suit
against a NYC based spammer I will serve the subpoena FOR FREE and
notify the media at my expense. I will also send out press releases at
my expense for the actual trial. If you have seen any PR regarding the
Coney Island Parade and the freak show at Coney Island, including the
legal battles two years or so ago, be advised that I was responsible
for most of the press releases.
We could turn NYC spam/UCE complaints into a media circus.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #191
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Jul 25 08:32:59 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA00898; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:32:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707251232.IAA00898@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #192
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jul 97 08:32:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 192
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
AOL to Sell Customer's Phone Numbers (Monty Solomon)
Toll Free Directory Listing Prices Change (Greg Monti)
NPA Dialpulse Length (was Re: 617/508 Split) (Mark J. Cuccia)
888 Auction (Judith Oppenheimer)
412/724 Split Official (Mark J. Cuccia)
BRI -ISDN Key System or PBX Available in North America? (Dennis Wong)
Re: 617/508 Split - Nine Years Later (Lord Somnolent)
Re: ACD and General Phone Switch Query (Brian Leyton)
Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State (Garrett Wollman)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:03:28 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: AOL to Sell Customer's Phone Numbers
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
<http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,12703,00.html>
AOL to give out phone numbers
By Janet Kornblum
July 22, 1997, 5:05 p.m. PT
On July 31, America Online (AOL) will start making its members'
telephone numbers available to telemarketers who do business with the
online giant.
Most members, though, don't know that because other than posting new
terms of service in an area that is not heavily trafficked, AOL
apparently has not yet made other efforts to inform members of these
and other changes to their terms of service (TOS). AOL's terms of
service contain rules that outline everything from acceptable online
behavior to its ability to sell member information.
The company already has taken heat from privacy experts and members
alike for selling its members' names and addresses, along with personal
profiles they obtain from other databases.
But few knew that AOL also has plans to sell phone numbers. "Once again,
AOL is surreptitiously disclosing information about their customers
without any notice," said David Banisar, staff counsel with Electronic
Privacy Information Center, an Internet privacy advocacy organization.
"As an AOL subscriber, I received no notice. People are not disclosing
this information so they can be bothered at dinnertime by telemarketers.
They were disclosing information to AOL in case there was some sort of
urgent reason for AOL to reach them, in case their credit card had
been stolen."
In its new TOS (posted at AOL keyword: TOS), the company states that
in addition to continuing its sale of member names and addresses, it
also "may make the list with telephone numbers available to companies
with which AOL has contractual marketing and online relationships for
the purpose of permitting such companies to offer products and
services over the telephone."
AOL spokeswoman Tricia Primrose said the company only plans to give
phone numbers to companies such as CUC International, an online
marketing firm that is paying $50 million for the privilege of selling
and marketing its services to AOL customers.
AOL has been bringing in millions of dollars from companies that want
to get in front of 8 million-plus service members. While the deals
clearly give companies online access to AOL's customers, they may also
be getting something marketers might consider far more valuable:
contact information such as phone numbers that allow them to directly
reach customers.
"We're not looking at this to give out member phone numbers to the
universe," Primrose noted. "We are wanting to provide subscriber lists
to companies with whom we have a contractual relationship."
She added that members can make sure their names and addresses don't go
out to third parties by changing their preferences in the My AOL
section.
Privacy advocates countered that they shouldn't have to take that step.
In fact, Banisar said that Internet services are the only electronic
subscriber services that are not prohibited from selling subscriber
information.
Evan Hendricks, editor of Privacy Times, added that even if AOL only
gives out phone numbers to companies like CUC, that still constitutes
what he called a violation of privacy.
"CUC is a large and aggressive company," he said. "It all really boils
down to notice and consent. They're basically doing what they want to do
to exploit people's data, and they continually try to bury the notice in
a place where few people are likely to look, instead of having a privacy
box on their open pages."
David Cassel, an AOL critic and publisher of the AOL List, usually is
apprised of even minute changes in policy. But he said he only found the
new terms of service "by accident."
"I had a question about something else and I went to TOS. When I got
there, I saw a small announcement that new provisions take effect in two
weeks," he recalled. "Somewhere in the TOS they promise to advise
members of coming changes. It hasn't happened yet. Since I write about
AOL, I make it a point to track these things. Many AOL users might not
realize they're bound by any new restrictions to the TOS and that AOL
can change those rules at any time.
"If AOL's users don't mind phone solicitations, it's not a problem,"
Cassel added. "But I imagine many of them do mind, and they need to be
made aware of AOL's plans to increase the phone solicitations they
receive so they can make an informed decision."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 23:41:39 -0400
From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti)
Subject: Toll Free Directory Listing Prices Change
According to a press release distributed by Business Wire, dated July
22, 1997, directory listing prices for toll free numbers in North
America will change. The press release was apparently written on
behalf of UDSI, an alternative directory assistance provider, so take
it with appropriate grains of salt. In summary:
- Up until now, AT&T was the only provider of directory assitance for
toll free 800 and 888 numbers. AT&T's toll free DA is reached by
calling 1-800-555-1212.
- Only users who wish their numbers to be listed are listed with toll
free DA. Being listed costs money. AT&T's existing charge is $14.07
per toll free number per month. There is currently no per-call charge
to the toll free number holder when a number is looked up or given
out.
- The $14.07 rate is paid by the Responsible Organization (RespOrg)
controlling each toll free number. This charge may or may not be
passed along to the 800 or 888 number holder.
- AT&T has filed a tariff to change its pricing structure. Instead of
$14.07 flat per month, the new fee will be $3.00 per month, plus
$0.37277 per inquiry given out to a caller. Still charged to the
RespOrg.
- UDSI (Universal Directory Services, Inc.) will offer a flat-rate
alternative to AT&T beginning in September. It will be reachable by
dialing 1-800-555-4141. UDSI will have to advertise that number since
nobody knows it.
- The cost to the toll free number holder using UDSI's service will be
$9.95 per month with no per-call usage charges. UDSI (1-800-414-4442)
will accept listings either from RespOrgs or directly from 800/888
number holders.
Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com
www.mindspring.com/~gmonti/home.htm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:02:55 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: NPA Dialpulse Length (was Re: 617/508 Split)
Nils Andersson <nilsphone@aol.com> wrote:
> I made a quick survey of short-pull area codes:
> ac pulses City
> 212 5 New York
> 213 6 Los Angeles
> 312 6 Chicago
> 214 7 Dallas
> 412 7 Pittsburgh
> 313 7 Detroit
> 215 8 Philadelphia
> 314 8 St Louis
> 413 8 Massachusetts (eastern)
> 512 8 Austin
> Note that both Texas and Pennsylvania got two of the coveted <=8 pull
> area codes. New York state and California only got one each. San
> Francisco got stuck with 415, 10 pulls, and the Nation's Capital drags
> in with 202 at 14 pulls, just like Boston with 617.
A few additional observations here ...
When the NPA format was finalized in October 1947, there were _two_
basic schemes of NPA codes -- N0X and N1N. Of course, the SAC-NPAs of
N00 are that - Special Area Codes, _not_ geographic/POTS NPAs, which
weren't even first utilized until the mid-1960's, and the shortest N11
format are three-digit 'short' codes for local special services and
are not really considered NPAs at all. Also in 1947, the N10 form were
reserved for future functions, which began as SAC-NPAs in the early
1960's for automated TWX and data services, and weren't used for POTS
or geographic NPAs until beginning in the early 1990's, several years
after being reclaimed from WUTCO, with the exception of 710 which was
reserved/assigned to the US Federal Government in 1983, about one year
after US TWX became switched exclusively on WUTCOs network instead of
the US portion of the DDD Bell/AT&T network.
In 1947, It was determined to have states/provinces with _ONE_ NPA
code to have N0X format NPA-codes, and states/provinces with _multiple_
NPA codes to have N1N format NPA-codes. Washington DC was treated as if
it were a single state with one NPA-code and was assigned an N0X format
code, 202.
Look at the 'short' length N0X codes ...
Total pulses (ignoring the middle '0' of ten) is 3:
201 New Jersey (only NPA code for the state until 1957/58)
Total pulses (ignoring the middle '0' of ten) is 4:
301 Maryland (only NPA code for the state until 1991)
202 Washington DC (still only NPA code for the District 'itself')
Total pulses (ignoring the middle '0' of ten) is 5:
401 Rhode Island (only NPA code, still)
302 Delaware (only NPA code, still)
203 Connecticut (only NPA code for the state until 1995)
Also, for the 'short' length N1N format codes, remember that when the
NPA format scheme was finalized in 1947, 512 covered more of southern
Texas than it does today. Prior to 1992, San Antonio was also
512. When Bellcore and SWBell split 210 from 512 in 1992, the state
capital, Austin, didn't want to change its NPA code, therefore, the
larger town, San Antonio had to change to 210. And more recently, 210
has gone thru a THREE-way split - two new NPAs split from 210 just
earlier this month.
Continuing on from the N1N total pulses chart, (and I'm going to count
the middle digit of '1' with one pulse)
Total pulses of 9:
216 Cleveland OH
315 Syracuse NY
414 Milwaukee WI
513 Cincinnati OH
612 Minneapolis MN
Total pulses of 10 have six possible N1N format NPA's, but only the
following seem to include rather important urban/metro areas (in 1947
and even today):
415 San Francisco CA
514 Montreal PQ
613 Ottawa ON
And total pulses of 11 have seven possible N1N format NPA's, but only
the following seem to include rather important urban/metro areas
(in 1947 and even today):
416 Toronto ON
614 Columbua OH
713 Houston TX
The other N1N format of NPAs in 1947 and today, with 10 or 11 total
dial pulses are located in 'less' populated areas.
And, in 1947, the entire range of 12 total-dialpulse N1N form NPAs was
NOT assigned. The _first_few_ NPAs assigned _after_ 1947 came from
this particular range, and by the late 1950's all were finally
assigned, although not necessarily to major urban/metro areas or their
suburbs:
219, 318, 417, 516, 615, 714, 813, 912
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:50:22 -0400
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@ICBTOLLFREE.com>
Reply-To: joppenheimer@ICBTOLLFREE.com
Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting
Subject: 888 Auction
Earlier this month both Senate and House versions of the balanced
budget bill were passed, and neither contained any provision for toll
free auctions. The matter is now in conference and toll free auctions
are not part of it. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that toll free
auctions will resurface as part of the conference process.
So, is the toll free auction issue dead? It is probably dangerous to
speculate that anything is ever dead on Capitol Hill. It does appear,
however, to be comatose. Although toll free auctions are thus
apparently beyond the reach of the balanced budget legislation, that
does not mean it might not resurface in some later budget
proposals. Also, Congress will continue to address spectrum auction
legislation. That would be a natural place for proponents to seek to
revive the toll free auction issue.
Judith Oppenheimer
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com
800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com/icbinfo2.html
800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com/expert2.html
1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 10:23:21 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: 412/724 Split Official
The following came to me from David ("Diamond-Dave") Perrussel
<dmine@monumental.com>. He emailed this to me from the terminal
at a Pittsburgh area library, his home town, where he is visiting
family:
> Officially announced on Tuesday 7-22-97, Bell Atlantic has now
> confirmed the 724 NPA split from 412 (Pittsburgh / SW Pennsylvania)
> The permissive dialing starts Feb 1, 1998 and ends on May 1, 1998
> (a whopping 90 days). For 75 days after that, they will have a
> recording referring you to the new area code. After that, they'll
> start assinging new NXXs.
> The info came from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette .newspaper
> Dave
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
From: a15283@axionet.com (Dennis Wong)
Subject: BRI -ISDN Key System or PBX Available in North America?
Date: 25 Jul 1997 05:22:25 GMT
Organization: Axion InterNet Inc.
Does anyone know of a Key Telephone system, or a small PBX (about 24
extensions) that could plug directly into a BRI ISDN line (2B+1D)
without the use of a adapter?
All the PBXs and KSUs in North America that I looked at can only
support T1 (23B+1D), why is that? In Australia, and Europe I had seen
systems that support BRI ISDN.
What I am really looking for is the following:
1. Telephone system plugs into BRI ISDN lines
2. Telephone system has ISDN line cards that allow devices such as
Motorola's Bitsufer to plug in.
3. ISDN service between extensions (networking within the house).
4. An "All digital" connection from my home to ISP.
etc. etc.
If you know of such a system, please let me know.
Dennis Wong
a15283@axionet.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:00:19 -0400
From: Lord Somnolent <sleepy@os.com>
Organization: KoB
Subject: Re: 617/508 Split - Nine Years Later
Bob Goudreau wrote:
> I seem to remember reading many years ago in the Digest that there was
> a reason for MA's curious area code configuration way back then. It
> was something along the lines of 413 being a test area for the
> original
> use of area codes by telco operators in routing calls, before they
> were
> available for direct-dial customer use. The boundary was drawn where
> it was in order to keep the test area to a manageably small size and
> population -- NPA 413 covers only a small geographic portion of the
> state (perhaps a third or a fourth of the land area), and an even
> tinier share of the population (~10 percent). Does this ring a bell
> with anyone who can provide more details?
I have come across that in the back issues. It is a good theory, but I'm
not convinced. If I get a chance, I may look through news archives in
that part of the state to see what's up.
> Linc Madison's Telecom Page <http://www.best.com/~eureka/telecom/>
> does
> show that in the original area code plan, the 413 area in fact covered
> almost all of the state outside the Boston metro area, but the
> boundary
> line appears to have been moved sometime around 1960.
Looking at the office code listings, a good chunk of the present area
code 508 can go into 413 without having to change office codes. This
substantiates any 1960 realignment.
But aside from the direct dial testing theory, I'd like to put another
idea on the table: that Central Massachusetts wanted to call Boston
easily, but Western Massachusetts tends to keep to itself (its almost
like two separate states, its amazing).
> If the original
> boundary had been kept, the Boston-area NPA could have stayed
> unchanged
> until the present era (the original plan's 617 zone seems to be a
> close
> match to the current post-508-split 617 zone), and the 1980s split
> that
> gave birth to 508 would have affected 413 instead (and would probably
> have come a bit earlier in the decade).
Understand that today's 413 has under 175 office codes in use. For
almost every other area code, there is a rough prediction on a split
date. Hell will freeze, thaw, and freeze again before 413 needs a split.
So figuring that 508 is getting split shortly, I would say that if 413
included today's 508, it would have split last year.
> Supposedly, this is also connected with the reason that MA's two
> original NPAs were assigned in the opposite manner in which one would
> expect. The NPA with the Boston metro area (in the top 5 or 6 in the
> country by population at the time) got 617 (a total of 14 "pulls" on a
> rotary dial), while the rural western end of the state got the coveted
> 413 (which at only 8 "pulls", is tied for the seventh-shortest code in
> the NANP). If it weren't for the test phase involving western MA, the
> code assignments would have been reversed, or so I remember reading.
Considering Buffalo got 716 and Syracuse got 315 and no mention has been
made of Syracuse testing, I would not take the reversed 413-617 as a
positive indication that testing was the reason.
Also remember that San Francisco got 318 for its testing phase, instead
of 415, so in Bell's eyes its not vital to have a low-pull area code for
testing.
I'm not saying there never was testing out in 413, but more information
is needed.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 18:02:38 -0400
From: bleyton@aol.com (Brian Leyton)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: ACD and General Phone Switch Query
In article <telecom17.190.4@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, rupa@rupa.com (Rupa
Schomaker) writes:
> I'm currently evaluating two telephone switch vendors and their
> product line. We needs a relatively small phone installation and call
> center -- on the order of 60+ telephones and 15 agents on the ACD.
> The ACD should have support for real time statistics both for the
> supervisor and for the individual agents (so they know how well they
> are performing, how many calls are in the queue, etc).
> The two vendors we have been evaluating are Lucent's Compact Call
> Center (Based on the Definity platform) and Executone's IDS
> (Integrated Digital System).
> Executone has been very easy to work with -- they seem to genuinely
> want our business. We've been able to get great product demos and at
> this point I'm comfortable with them as a vendor. However, they don't
> seem to be quite as well-known as Lucent (who isn't). Is there anyone
> out there that can give me good/bad experiences with the IDS? If you
> are just a user of the executone system your feedback would be
> appreciated. Any feedback on the usability and manageablility of the
> switch, as well as teh ACD, would be appreciated.
Well, I worked for five years for a company that has an Executone
(back then it was an Isoetec) System 108. It's probably about seven
years old now, though I believe that it's still the same basic system
as the IDS. It actually was not a bad system - It's reasonably simple
to manage, everything basically works. My biggest complaint is that
if you're not happy with Executone, then you're stuck. The LCR tables
can ONLY be programmed by them (and they screwed it up enough times
that I really wanted to be able to do it myself). There is only a
very small secondary market for equipment, there are very few vendors
besides Executone who can service this system, and upgrades and
maintenance are extremely expensive.
That company has just decided to purchase a Toshiba DK424 system.
They needed some ACD-like features (actually the UCD - Uniform Call
Distribution feature is perfect for them) & wanted to add a T1 card.
They decided that given the high cost of upgrading and maintaining the
Executone system, it's actually more cost effective to replace it with
a Toshiba.
Brian Leyton
MIS Manager, Commercial Petroleum Equipment
------------------------------
From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State
Date: 24 Jul 1997 11:41:03 -0400
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
In article <telecom17.191.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu>,
Trever Miller <trever@cyberdex.geniers.cuug.ab.ca> wrote:
> Erhm, what's wrong with land legal designations? ie: range, township,
> section, etc?
[...]
> I _know_ you have a similar land-designation down in the states,
> similar to Canada's except the ordering of the sections within the
> township are (I think) reversed.
This is only true in those parts of the country which have been
settled in the last 200 years. Earlier settlements used the
metes-and-bounds survey system (where boundaries are marked by natural
objects like stone outcroppings, rivers, and trees), except those
which were originally settled by the French, which use the French
long-lot system (where a lot consists of so many feet of frontage
along a river and land extending back a specified distance).
In Vermont, they simply gave names to all the rural roads, including
some private ones. (I used to know someone whose shared driveway was
turned into a named road.)
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #192
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Jul 25 09:19:47 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA03602; Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707251319.JAA03602@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #193
TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Jul 97 09:19:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 193
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: Anti-Spam Technology (Jim Youll)
Re: Anti-Spam Technology (Zoltan The Magnificent)
Re: Anti-Spam Technology (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
Re: Anti-Spam Technology (Eric Florack)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Art Kamlet)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Gordon S. Hlavenka)
Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure (Lee Winson)
Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates (Nils Andersson)
Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates (John R. Levine)
Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State (Hudson Leighton)
Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State (Brian Elfert)
Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State (Nils Andersson)
Re: Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island (Henry Baker)
Re: Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island (Ed Ellers)
Re: Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island (Leonid A. Broukhis)
Re: Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island (oldbear@arctos.com)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll)
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Technology
Date: 25 Jul 1997 03:08:14 GMT
Organization: New Media Group, Inc.
<ray.normandeau@factory.com> wrote:
> I would like to report the following anti-UCE (Unsolicited Commercial
> Email/spam) activities on my part that has brought me a little bit of
> satisfaction.
[some instructions omitted]
> TECHNIQUE #2
> I started over a month ago to DAILY re-send UCE to sender AND
> to: postmaster@
> with
> "I received the quoted unwanted spamed advertisement (UCE) bearing your
> Email address or your domain name. This spam was sent collect as I am
> charged for every piece. On CompuServe, I pay by the minute. On
> Invention Factory, time spent is debited from my daily allowance at the
> end of which I am denied access to the system until the next day.
[etcetera]
PLEASE do not do this. I (and MANY others) have been victims of
attacks in which OUR e-mail addresses appeared in the TO: lines of
fraudulent e-mail messages sent via Cyber Promotions and CTE
(nevwest.com) computers. I was attacked because I have opposed junk
e-mail, and others have been attacked for that reason, or because they
have had some role in terminating the accounts of harassers, abusers
and junk mailers who won't leave people alone.
If someone sends you junk and you can confirm an e-mail address
attached to that person (confirm that what they are "selling" is
indeed advertised on their website, first of all) and that they did
send the message out, then write to complain. But please do not attack
without doing homework first -- if you attack an innocent person (as I
and others were attacked) then you are HELPING the spammers and
harassers and hurting innocent people. I know that's the last thing
anybody wants. Please just realize that this has become a VERY common
technique and with present technology there is no adequate defense
against it ... the resultant mailstorms are very damaging.
------------------------------
From: Zoltan The Magnificent <jhenshaw@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Technology
Date: 24 Jul 1997 16:18:51 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
hillary gorman <hillary@hillary.net> wrote:
> What I suggest that people do
> (and what we do at netaxs) is to refuse mail which has a From line
> containing a non-resolvable hostname.
Is there a way for individual customers of an ISP whose mail is handled
by procmail to do this?
Jeff Henshaw
"But what would you DO with a brain if you had one?"
Dorothy's question of the Scarecrow in _The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz_
------------------------------
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka <gordon@crashelex.com>
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Technology
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:42:43 -0500
Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc.
Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com
hillary gorman wrote:
> Forward and reverse DNS don't
> have to match - you just have to be able to resolve the hostname. This
> way, you reject the mail from the forging spammers, who not only don't
> have REVERSE dns, but they don't have forward DNS either; and you
> accept the mail from sites with overworked or underclued DNS
> administrators :)
This also allows you to accept mail from me; I use a forwarding
service. My "real" address is at "worldnet.att.net" but the one I
give out to people (and put in my headers) is at "crashelex.com" and
will not change even if I change email providers.
Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com
Grammar and spelling flames welcome.
Some of us still think it's important.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 05:37:01 PDT
From: Eric Florack <Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Technology
Several folks have written to explain how they avoid SPAM. I've hit on
an interesting idea, for nailing spam-bots, and it appears to work.
Here's part of my new tagline on my USENET reader:
For the benefit of Spambots everywhere:
webmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@localhost
I'm told it works like a charm, too.
/E
------------------------------
From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: 24 Jul 1997 00:46:52 -0400
Organization: InfiNet
Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com
In article <telecom17.188.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mike Parker
<mike_parker@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 'Location Routing Number' where essentially each switch in the network
> is now identified by a ten-digit LRN (NPA-NXX-XXXX)
Are you sure this is NPA-NXX-NXXX? I thought the ten digit
identification is more flexible than that?
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com
------------------------------
From: Gordon S. Hlavenka <gordon@crashelex.com>
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:37:08 -0500
Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc.
Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com
bowenb@best.com wrote:
> You can't beat those old ones for reliability OR audio quality.
Roy Smith wrote:
> The standard for phone set quality back in those days was that if you
> pushed the telephone off of edge of the desk by accident, the floor
> would sustain more damage than the phone.
I remember a TV advertisement from right around breakup-time -- a
woman is talking to someone and knocks the phone to the floor. We
don't hear the other party but they obviously ask what the noise was,
and she nonchalantly replies, "It's OK, I just dropped the phone."
The point, of course, was to tout the ruggedness and reliability of
"Genuine Bell" equipment. There was another ad in the series which
showed the "other" phones going to pieces under various circumstances.
The jingle was something about "throwaway phones" to the tune of
"Secondhand Rose" and now I can't get that chorus out of my head,
thankyouverymuch.
Strange that I haven't seen those ads lately :-)
Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com
Grammar and spelling flames welcome.
Some of us still think it's important.
------------------------------
From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: 1960s Bell System Brochure
Date: 24 Jul 1997 23:47:44 GMT
Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS
Regarding the "5302" (half 300/half 500 set phones) ...
As previously reported, these phones were an attempt by the Bell
System to give customers a "modern" phone while utilizing the
components of the 302 set.
I believe they had a special handset that appeared to be the more
modern "G" style, but actually was designed for the "F" components,
which are larger than the "G" items.
I doubt customers would have noticed the difference. The voice
quality of a 302 and 500 set are very slight (I use a 302 at work today
and no one notices the difference.)
In the 1950s the Bell System had severe shortages in some places where
the postwar building boom was going on. Some new housing districts
had to settle for party-line service, or no service at all. In the
new community of Levittown, PA they had clusters of phone booths set
up until service was ready*.
* The WIndsor exchange occupied four floors of a new building. When
the No. 5 Crossbar was converted to ESS, the new switch took up one-half
of one floor. The rest of the building is empty, to be used for other
purposes.
A small chain of pharmacies in lower Bucks County used exchange
names as the store's name. The Levittown store was Windsor, Bristol
was Sterling, and Yardley was Hyatt. The Hyatt pharmacy remains in
business, I don't know about the others. As Yardley went to ANC in
1963 (now 215-493), very few people know the origin of the store's
name.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:10:20 -0400
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates
In article <telecom17.190.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, loucoles@mindspring.com
(Lou Coles) writes:
> Oh I like this idea, everyone paying the true cost of what it takes to
> provide the product/service, plus markup one would hope.
I DO like the idea, without sarcasm.
> Food products in NYC might still be a bit less than in Hawaii, but
> both would soar.
Oh, dear. I do not want to get into a general discussion about the
state of the union and the world, but will make a few specific points
to your post.
Why would food prices go up? A lot of US agricultural policy is geared to
keeping food prices UP, not down. Deregulation would bring a lot of them
down. Conspicuous examples are peanuts, dairy products and sugar.
> Then there is the logical end to this train of thought that
> politicans are bound to see, true voting rights, why should the rest
> of the country subsidize the New England region in the Senate, it's
> not right that NY and VT have equal votes.
As a California resident, I am presumably a citizen of the state most
severely discrimated against in this respect. I will refrain from
having a stab at rewriting the US constitution (nobody would want to
listen to either of us, I presume) and getting a new "constitution"
thread going. This is the wrong forum for that, and I assume the
moderator would kick us both out, rightly so.
However, your argument has two fundamental flaws:
1) You say that just because there are some inequities between states,
this justifies more of it. Are you advocating some kind of balance???
2) The two-senators-per-state rule favors states with small populations.
So does subsidies to rural areas. BTW so does US farm policy. So you are
using two existing subsidies to rural areas to justify a third one.
Curious logic, if you are interested in some kind of equitable treatment.
(Obviously, most states have both metropolitan and rural areas but the
correlation would be as stated.)
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jul 1997 02:55:48 -0000
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
Subject: Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates
Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y.
> Why shouldn't [rural areas] pay the costs of their communication
> needs? Should they have government-subsidised fuel too, so that they
> can drive to the nearest city as cheaply as residents of its own
> suburbs? Should those rural residents pay a subsidy to help city
> residents afford their ever-increasing rents? Of course not. It's
> just something that makes up the cost of living where they chose to
> live.
In the U.S. we have a long standing public policy endorsing universal
telephone service, on the theory that telephones are more useful to
everyone the more complete the telephone penetration. Local service
prices are set based on the number of phones in your local calling
area, so that rural local service prices tend to be lower than urban,
since rural users tend to have higher toll bills. (I sure do, though
I must admit that the majority of my toll calls are to places hundreds
or thousands of miles away.) Rural service rates do depend somewhat
on how long your line is; the phone at my cottage which is just over
the line into the next county costs a few dollars more than the lines
at my house which is three blocks from the CO.
That said, it seems to me that there's something screwy with the way
that the universal service fund (USF) money in the U.S. is
administered. An article in the {New York Times} a few months ago on
rural phone service featured a small telco in Vermont run by relatives
of mine, and much though I love them, I was absolutely astounded at
the amount of money they made. It looks to me like the payments are
skewed too much in favor of the smallest telcos.
The whole USF business is up in the air, with both the source of the
money (currently from the per-line access charge) and the uses up for
grabs.
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
------------------------------
From: hudsonl@skypoint.com (Hudson Leighton)
Subject: Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 08:35:37 -0500
Organization: Minnesota Railroad Research Project
In article <telecom17.187.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, macwhiz@phoebe.accinet.net
(Rob Levandowski) wrote:
> In article <telecom17.174.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, The Old Bear
> <oldbear@arctos.com> wrote:
>> When the tiny town of Mt. Chase (population 254) implements its
>> changes, addresses such as RR 1, Box 164, Patten, 04765 will become 22
>> Owlsboro Road, Mt. Chase, 04765. Most -- but not all -- rural route
>> addresses in Maine will be replaced with street names. Streets,
>> location numbers and even delivery routes will be changed so that
>> dispatchers can find people and an entire town can be served out of
>> one post office.
Having spent a fair amount of time driving around the back roads of
Northern Iowa, a friend and I started keeping a list of the E911 street
name series.
Some common ones we found were:
Birds
Elements
Flowers
Minerals
Clark Kent
1234 Kryonite Road
Yourtown, IA 55XXX
Mike Tyson
1234 Pansy Road
Yourtown, IA 55XXX
Rue Paul
1234 Peacock Road
Yourtown, IA 55XXX
In the area Arizona where my uncle lived, they had a major problem
with street names when E911 was installed, seems that the Developers
would steal street names from other nearby developements, so they had
in one case 10 different streets which the same name. They ended up
renaming about 60% of the streets.
------------------------------
From: belfert@citilink.com (Brian Elfert)
Subject: Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State
Date: 24 Jul 97 14:25:11 GMT
macwhiz@phoebe.accinet.net (Rob Levandowski) writes:
> In article <telecom17.174.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, The Old Bear
> <oldbear@arctos.com> wrote:
> My parents have a house in rural New Hampshire, which only recently
> got E911. I don't know how they show my parent's address -- they
> don't receive mail there -- but here's how we give it to Federal
> Express:
Most counties assign names to every street, and assign every building a
numeric when E911 is installed. They have to be able to locate the
building on a map somehow to dispatch help.
This does sometimes get taken to extremes. Our local state
fairgrounds (Home of the 3rd largest state fair in the country)
recently had to assign a number to every building on the fairgrounds,
even though it's private property, and E911 had already been installed
for more than a decade. They spent thousands of dollars on signs and
labor to install them. They also had to mark each payphone with an
address.
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:10:23 -0400
From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State
In article <telecom17.191.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, TELECOM Digest Editor
noted:
> the way directory assistance is going
> these days, it may not be long until the operators require the full
> legal land designation to be able to look up the number of the person
> there! :) PAT]
I think you are optimistic. They'll want date of birth, social
security number and state ID/Driver's License number too. Lucky as
long as they don't need the phone number.
In article <telecom17.174.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, The Old Bear
<oldbear@arctos.com> writes:
> The Stockholm Road in Conner was changed because
> it no longer goes to Stockholm
Being born in Stockholm, I find the fact that a road in Maine does not
go there unsurprising. It is also irrelevant. In my current residence,
Thousand Oaks, Thousand Oaks boulevard goes THROUGH Thousand Oaks, not
TO it (although it goes a bit into adjoining Westlake Village and
Agoura).
And in the San Fernando Valley (northern part of the city of LA),
nobody expects Oxnard boulevard to go to Oxnard, (40 miles to the
West) or White Oak Boulevard to go to Albaquerque, 500 miles to the
East.
On a more serious note, I find this surprising. Would it not be possible,
cheaper and safer to give the emergency crews GPS units. Then the phones
could be mapped to Lat and Long and that would be the end of it.
Regards,
Nils Andersson
------------------------------
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 14:31:25 GMT
In article <telecom17.189.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Mark J. Cuccia
<mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> wrote:
> Of course, this was fiction. If a real undersea intercontinental
> telephone cable washed ashore, even back then, a simple handset, or
> receiver and microphone wouldn't be able to communicate, even in
> analog.
You'd have considerably bigger problems than this! According to a
recent IEEE journal, the _voltage_ to power the amplifiers in a modern
cable is several thousand volts.
------------------------------
From: Ed Ellers <kd4awq@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 09:34:58 -0400
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
Tapping an undersea cable was also featured in the 1961 movie version
of "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea;" in this story the Van Allen
radiation belt had caught fire, threatening the Earth, and Admiral
Nelson needed to get permission from the President to fire an ICBM
into the belt to blow it away. The burning belt messed up all sorts
of radio communications (including satellite), so they had to tap into
a trans-Atlantic cable (from London to Rio de Janeiro) to try to
contact Washington; they were able to reach an international operator,
but the London operator couldn't get a call through to New York or
Washington.
The reason that Admiral Nelson needed to do this is that he had barely
gotten back to the Seaview from a Security Council meeting, just a few
steps ahead of UN police officers who had been ordered to arrest him
to prevent his planned missile launch. At another point in the movie
the UN sends another submarine (nationality not known) to sink the
Seaview, but it is crushed while trying to chase Admiral Nelson's
boat. Sounds like just the sort of thing the "militiamen" have been
warning us about. :-)
------------------------------
From: leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island
Date: 24 Jul 1997 09:14:47 -0700
Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> writes:
> As for signaling the called number, most inter-office trunks don't use
> dialpulses. And international or overseas trunks most certainly don't
> use dialpulse. Most likely, there was SF 2400/2600-Hz supervisory
> tones, and CCITT #5 address signaling, which was an extension of
> existing Bell-System 'domestic' signaling, using all fifteen possible
> MF tone-pair combinations.
Aren't there 16 MF tone-pair combinations? 0-9, #, *, A-D?
DTW, I had a modem that would produce A-D tones (as in ATDTABCD), but
the they were ignored by the telco.
Leo
------------------------------
From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear)
Subject: Re: Last Laugh: The Telephone on Gilligan's Island
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 13:28:28 -0400
Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos
Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> writes ...
> The television situation commedy series, "Gilligan's Island",
> originally ran from 1964-67 . . .
> 'The Professor' built (out of raw materials found on the island) a
> receiver to connect to the various wires. Later, he built a transmitter
> (microphone), and finally, out of the rubber from the trees on the
> island, a rotary dial ...
Russell Johnson, who played 'The Professor', was guest of honor at the
satirical 'Ignobel Prize' award ceremonies held at M.I.T. several
years ago.
He was asked by a member of the audience, why, as a purported graduate
of M.I.T., The Professor could build fully-working electronic devices
out of indigenous island materials like palm fronds and shells, but
could not get the castaways off of the island.
His response: "The reason that The Professor, as a graduate of M.I.T.
could build such amazing devices but not be able to get the castaways
off the island, is obvious: The Professor was a graduate of M.I.T."
This was met with applause and knowing laughter from the audience.
Cheers,
The Old Bear
(MIT '69)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #193
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jul 28 09:32:09 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA03639; Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:32:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:32:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707281332.JAA03639@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #194
TELECOM Digest Mon, 28 Jul 97 09:24:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 194
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
MAJOR Loophole in Cyberpromo's Voicemail! (Evan Platt)
AOL Backs Down, Privacy and Contracts Online (Monty Solomon)
Re: AOL to Sell Customer's Phone Numbers (Brian Gordon)
Internet Slowdowns: Overgrazing the Commons (Tad Cook)
MF-KP vs. DTMF (was Telephone / Gilligan) (Mark J. Cuccia)
911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect? (Bradley W. Allen)
Possible Last Two Miles T1 Airborne? (Irwin Wilson)
Free Calls in Seattle Area (Babu Mengelepouti)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 01:09:39 EDT
From: jamie@comet.net (jamie)
Subject: MAJOR Loophole in Cyberpromo's Voicemail!
Found this on the SPAM-L list.
jamie jamie@comet.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:01:15 -0700
From: Evan Platt <eplatt@WCO.COM>
To: SPAM-L@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: MAJOR loophole in Cyberpromo's voicemail!
Not sure if someone's already reported this, but upon leaving a
message on all of cyberpromo's boxes telling them what to do with
their spam, Technical support's v/m said press # when done. So I
did. And it said press 1 to send your message now. So I did. Then it
said press 2 to send urgent. So I did. It then says If you know your
parties extension, enter it now. Or, press * for a directory. It then
prompts you to enter the last 3 letters of the parties name. Forget
that, hit *. You then get a list name by name, press 1 to accept name,
2 for next name. After a few calls, I have a complete list of
names. Enjoy, and tell em I sent you! Correction: As soon as "Thank
you for calling Cyberpromo..Hit * to get the directory. ENJOY!
Kristin - 10
Lisa Wallace - 12 !!He sleeps with a female? EWW!
April Bennet - 13
Brian S? 14
Jason Krull? 15 jason@cyberpromo.com!
Eddie Russ - 16
Dannie Freddrichs - 17
Myra - 18 ? Says Alex
Alex Something - 21
Sanford Wallace - 36
Add/Remove - 37
Employment? - 55
Operator - 888
PS: If this helps anyone, PLEASE let me know!!
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The above was printed as a public
service so that people who know how these systems work can counsel
with Spamford about getting it fixed so as to maintain the privacy
and sanity of people in his office who get a lot of voicemail each
day. I sure hope that hackers and phreaks do not take this message
as some sort of encouragement to start acting out, but I guess that
is a chance I have to take. Remember, harassment on the phone is
illegal, as is breaking into voicemail systems, messing up the
greetings and reading the messages, etc. Let's have none of that! PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 03:34:34 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.COM>
Subject: AOL Backs Down, Privacy and Contracts Online
Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 15:35:21 -0400
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: FC: AOL backs down, privacy and contracts online
[AP and CNBC are reporting that AOL has backed down. The company has
decided not to proceed with its telemarketing plan that would include
selling members' telephone numbers. I've attached below some recent
discussions about the AOL case, and privacy online and contracts in
general. --Declan]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Much has been omitted here. Over the
weekend the newspapers here also reported that AOL had decided against
going ahead with their plan. Good! PAT]
------------------------------
From: briang@netcom.com (Brian Gordon)
Subject: Re: AOL to Sell Customer's Phone Numbers
Organization: Netcom
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 22:59:49 GMT
In article <telecom17.192.1@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.COM> wrote:
> <http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,12703,00.html>
> AOL to give out phone numbers
> By Janet Kornblum
> July 22, 1997, 5:05 p.m. PT
> On July 31, America Online (AOL) will start making its members'
> telephone numbers available to telemarketers who do business with the
> online giant.
According to local media reports, AOL chickened out on July 24, after
numerous messages from angry subscribers, and their stock taking a big
hit.
Brian Gordon -->briang@netcom.com<-- bgordon@isi.com AOL: BGordon |
------------------------------
Subject: Internet Slowdowns: Overgrazing the Commons
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:02:31 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Internet slowdowns: The modern equivalent of overgrazing the commons
BY ELIZABETH WEISE
AP Cyberspace Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The Internet gridlock that seems to come out of
nowhere and disappears almost as quickly could be the result of our
failure to learn what they tried to teach us back in kindergarten: How
to share.
Researchers have come up with an intriguing explanation for online
congestion and have proposed what's likely to be an unpopular solution.
In an article in today's edition of the journal Science, physicist
Bernardo Huberman and his student Rajan Lukose see Internet congestion
as an example of the classic sociological problem of "the tragedy of
the commons."
Given a finite communal resource, individuals will seek to maximize
their own gain. If there is no outside force keeping them in line,
they will eventually destroy the resource for all.
It applies to sheep grazing, and it works for Internet surfing as
well, Huberman said. Because users can't see how their use of the
finite pipelines that carry data online affects others, they have no
incentive to use less so that there's enough to go around.
To study the problem, Huberman developed a statistical model of Internet
usage at Xerox' Palo Alto Research Center in California.
Rather than following a simple Bell curve with gradual increases and
decreases, Internet use, they found, is fairly steady most of the time
but is randomly hit with sudden, steep increases in traffic followed
by a less steep declines.
The statistical model they created explains how this happens. When enough
people come online, things begin to slow down. But everyone keeps surfing,
despite the increasing lag times.
At a certain point -- which appears to be totally random -- suddenly
enough people are shipping around data that the pipelines start to
fill up, and everything comes to a near halt.
"It's like lightning when it hits," Huberman said.
What he finds even more fascinating is that the millions of
individuals who are surfing the Net suddenly decide almost
collectively when enough is enough, and they all log off, in the hope
that things will be less congested when they come back.
While normal congestion online tends to follow the ebb and flow of the
day -- dinner time on the East Coast means lots of people online and
slow surfing -- these Net "storms" come at random times. They
generally happen during a peak usage period, but not every peak usage
period, their very unpredictability making them an interesting
statistical problem.
To watch the growth and dissipation of Internet storms, the
researchers measured the time it took a "ping," or test message, to
travel round trip from Stanford University to Britain.
The pathway those "pings" had to take, over the trans-Atlantic cable,
is one of the most congested in the world. Similar tests along several
other routes confirmed their findings.
Fixing the problem, which is a direct result of users treating the
Internet as an unlimited resource, is easy, Huberman said: Simply
charge individuals in proportion to their consumption, just as toll
roads charge users per mile.
Not everyone agrees. First off, it's too easy to charge the wrong
person, said Peter Neumann, a principal scientist at the computer
science laboratory of SRI International in Menlo Park, Calif.
"Suppose I'm using Netscape and I go to somebody's Web page and
they've got tons and tons of graphics," he said. "Just by going there
it starts downloading those images. I may not even want to see it, but
I'm going to get charged for it."
Others believe that building the capacity of the network, as numerous
companies are working feverishly to do, will do the trick. They cite
other examples, such as local telephone service, where having enough
capacity overcomes the problems inherent in a flat-rate system.
"We hope to get to a point where surges in user behavior don't result
in peaks," said John Curran, chief technical officer for BBN Planet of
Cambridge, Mass., one of the major Internet backbone providers in the
United States.
It's this point -- that capacity can expand -- that disproves the "tragedy
of the commons" theory, said Internet demographer John Quarterman.
"With the Internet, grazing more cattle causes more grass to grow. It's
not a zero-sum situation," he said from Austin, Texas.
A popular solution in Internet circles would be to offer various qualities
of service, including "best effort" delivery and "special delivery."
"I think that we need to move the Internet to an environment where some
users are given a way by which, if they pay more money, they will get
better service," said Scott Brander, a senior technical consultant at
Harvard University.
The Internet Engineering Task Force, which oversees the underlying
functioning of the Internet, meets in Germany next month to discuss
various models for doing just that.
Huberman, despite his call for by-the-bit payment in the Science article,
predicted that some Internet service providers will begin offering better
service -- for a price -- which will in effect institute quality of
service.
"The Internet is considered by most people to be a right, an entitlement.
I think it would be incredibly unpopular to institute charges," he said.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 19:06:34 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: MF-KP vs. DTMF (was Telephone / Gilligan)
Leonid A. Broukhis wrote:
> Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> writes:
>> As for signaling the called number, most inter-office trunks don't
>> use dialpulses. And international or overseas trunks most certainly
>> don't use dialpulse. Most likely, there was SF 2400/2600-Hz
>> supervisory tones, and CCITT #5 address signaling, which was an
>> extension of existing Bell-System 'domestic' signaling, using all
>> fifteen possible MF tone-pair combinations.
> Aren't there 16 MF tone-pair combinations? 0-9, #, *, A-D?
> DTW, I had a modem that would produce A-D tones (as in ATDTABCD), but
> the they were ignored by the telco.
There are indeed sixteen DT-MF (Dual-Tone Multi-Frequency) pairs:
1 2 3 A (697 Hz)
4 5 6 B (770 Hz)
7 8 9 C (852 Hz)
* 0 # D (941 Hz)
Column-1 (1,4,7,*) is 1209 Hz
Column-2 (2,5,8,0) is 1336 Hz
Column-3 (3,6,9,#) is 1477 Hz
Column-4 (A,B,C,D) is 1633 Hz
But that is 'touchtone', a 4x4 arrangement of four 'high' frequncies
(columns) and four 'low' frequencies (rows). A 'digit' is a pair of
one of the 'low' and one of the 'high'.
Touchtone/DTMF is sometimes used on interoffice trunks, but mostly is
for customer loop signaling, and customer-produced 'end-to-end'
signaling, such as entering your calling-card number, credit-card
number, etc. ad-nauseum.
In the original article, what I was referring to by "MF" was
"Multi-frequency Keypulsing", which was developed by the Bell System
as early as 1939 or 1940 (one of the first locations for its use was
between #1XB offices in Baltimore), and eventually used for most all
interoffice/toll signaling in the later 1950's all the way through the
1980's. There are six distinct frequencies (700 Hz, 900 Hz, 1100 Hz,
1300 Hz, 1500 Hz, 1700 Hz) for MF. Each tone-pair is two of these six
frequencies in combination, and you get fifteen tone-pair
possibilites.
For most NANP/DDD/Bell-System 'domestic' toll addressing applications,
only '1' thru '9', '0', 'Kp', and 'St' were used. But on
international/overseas trunks (CCITT #5), there was also 'Kp-1' (which
was NANP/DDD 'Kp'), 'Kp-2', 'Code-11', and 'Code-12', in addition to
the twelve NANP/DDD domestic MF-tones.
In the later 1970's, some of the other frequency pairs used on CCITT #5
were also used domestically, for various TSPS signaling applications.
One of the earliest (1948) experimental pushbutton tone-dialing phones
is pictured in Bell's magazines and the book "History of Engineering &
Science in the Bell System, Switching Technology, 1925-75" (authored by
Amos E. Joel, Jr, of Bell Labs). There was an experiment with such
pushbutton tone-dialing in Pennsylvania (the town of "Media", IIRC), at
an early #5XB central office. The phones were standard WECO model 302
phones, but instead of a rotary dial, there were two horizontal rows of
buttons. The first row was numbered '1' thru '5', from left to right,
and the second row was numbered '6' thru '9', '0', from left to right.
The interesting thing about this phone was that "MF-KP" frequncies
were used (numerical digits only - there was no 'Kp' nor 'St'), and
_NOT_ the frequencies of "Touchtone" (DTMF) which was being developed
in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Also, the frequencies were
produced by 'plucking metal reeds', and not electronically. While the
transistor was just being invented at that time (by Bell Labs),
_vacuum-tubes_ were still the order of the day for electronics. And
having residential and commercial telephone dialsets using vacuum
tubes and external continuous power (to heat the tubes) was considered
too costly and cumbersome! Of course, people had been using radios,
phonograph players, etc. (and soon televisions) home-entertainment
devices with tube amplifiers for years, but Bell didn't seem to want
vacuum-tubes in telephones used by the general public, thus the
'plucked reed' method of tone-generation!
Widespread use of MF-KP was being replaced with CCIS#6 beginning in
the mid-1970's, and by SS7 in the late-1980's and onward. CCIS#6 and
SS7 are 'out-of-voiceband' signaling, while MF-KP was in the voicepath
(similar to touchtone/DTMF).
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Subject: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect?
From: Bradley Ward Allen <ulmo@Q.Net>
Date: 27 Jul 1997 02:51:17 -0400
How much would it take to program the relevant systems so that when a
cellular phone user dials 911, the dispatcher knows the triangulation
of the cell phone much as they would know the address of a stationary
telephone? I am thinking specifically of New York City (8M people?),
but it is obviously a question where people from many locations would
have information and be interested.
Here are the details as I know it:
* An acquaintance of mine, almost a year ago, related a story to
me how he called 611 on his AT&T Wireless telephone here in NYC
(downtown, somewhere near his school in the Wall St. area), and he
made some sort of inquiry/request regarding his account. The lady
then proceeded to have him describe his exact location. I think
then what happened is that she interjected "The southeast corner?"
and he said, "uh, yes, how did you know?" and she explained that she
has triangulation data on him on her screen and she would have the
user describe their location in order to see whether it was the
correct user; I'm not quite sure of the details. Anyway, it became
apparent that they have triangulation that will pinpoint a cellular
user.
* My BANM has Caller ID in & out; I can press *67 or *82 depending
on the defaults of the system. Not sure if this has any relevance
at all.
* I have called 911 twice in the last week, both times a group of
four men tried to mug me (they did not succeed either time). Both
times, I called from my BANM cell-phone. Both times, I got hold of
a 911 operator who needed me to tell them what Boron I was in. Both
times, we spent about thirty seconds extra, precious time in
possibly apprehending these people, or whatever else the 911 call
could possibly be for. In both situations, putting on the report my
triangulated location would have been entirely sufficient. Both
times, the narrowing of location for the operator would have been
highly sufficient to make the verbal part of the address giving
much, much more productive, perhaps take half or a third as long
(especially if they were to get a map of area streets when the
person called, but that wouldn't be quite necessary; even a list
would do). Whether the triangulation is precise to the foot, small
block, or large block, it would still be useful; of course, the
more precise, the more useful. (How precise are they in NYC?)
Definitely, when I say "I'm at 10th Ave & 27th St", if they knew
which boro, that would save, oh, 15 seconds right there; that
at *least* has got to help. Sure, on some borderline areas it might
be a *little* confusing, but how many borderline areas can there
possibly be?!?! This isn't Los Angeles.
* 911 systems already have special programming and special lines for
the 911 info. Cellular systems already have special programming for
the location stuff. Finally, legally, having location information
for 911 calls is already well established as a legal practice for
stationary phones; certainly, that would extend to cellular service.
So, it goes to follow that there would be a large incentive to program
the cellular and 911 systems in NYC to correctly pass all the
triangulation data, including location and current margin of error.
This information could be transmitted continuously to monitor the
location of the cell phone, however just the original location would
be of benefit if that is all that could be transmitted. In my
situation, both times, the attempted criminals were running away in
some certain direction that I could say, and I said "they are running
east/west/north/whatever", and that information would have been
immediately more useful to a 911 operator if they already had an
approximate location for me; they could send cruisers to a fairly
precise trajectory.
Other ideas for 911 operators that are not relevant to comp.dcom.telecom
as much:
* Take courses in those machines that court recorders use -- and then
install one for each operator for when the callers call -- how much
would this cost?
* Ok, if that costs too much, then perhaps record the voice of the
caller and send that to police operators? Nahh ... text messages
probably help them a lot. But ... "They're going towards
St. Vincent's", a phrase I repeated about 20 times, probably didn't
even get written down by the 911 operator, even though it was
imminently and immensely useful! The NYPD went everyplace but
St. Vincent's, to try to find the people. How stupid! I told them
6th Ave but they insisted on 7th Ave. I should have insisted on 6th
Ave and pointed out to them they didn't seem like gay people, so
that was my fault. The NYPD was very, very helpful though once they
got to it. If anybody was incompetent, it would have been:
911 operator (I've had about a dozen bad experiences with them);
me (I cannot identify someone if my life depended on it).
They did say they could not get fingerprints from a knife (?).
Perhaps too hard to use as evidence.
* It would be nice if they knew that Charles St & 7th Avenue crossed
(stupid me calls in a report of shooting on July 4th at 12:30AM.
Well, it never crossed my mind someone might be celebrating
Independence Day that way, even though I had numerous ways to
celebrate the occasion myself.) How could they not know that they
do? That's pretty ridiculous. I ought to be able to say "Charles &
7th" and them bring up the intersection immediately. This was
calling from my home phone -- apparently they are not using E911 yet
for NYNEX home phones in West Village, Manhattan. Or does this only
happen if the user does not say something?
Confused,
Bradley Allen
P.S., just heard a tire screech. They're on a call right now. Wonder
if they're catching the suspects. Not that they committed the world's
biggest crime, but things just get worse and escalate, robbery is not
something I brush off as "acceptable", especially with my income level
(very, very low) and how much I work for it (very, very hard).
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One day my cellphone was not working
very well (always getting cut off after a second or two by this one
tower here locally) and when I called to report it, Ameritech said
they wanted to 'fingerprint' that unit in order to fix things so it
would work all the time. The lady had me dial FCN-2539-FCN (that
exact combination) from my cell phone. I did so and the phone started
saying 'no service' but I stayed on the line as she requested. In
a minute or so she told me within fifty feet or so where I was
standing (or rather sitting) at the time she was talking to me. She
then told me to power off the phone and power it back on right away.
I did that and the phone rang immediatly. It was her again and she
told me henceforth I should have no trouble making calls. PAT]
------------------------------
From: iwilson@mindspring.com (irwin wilson)
Subject: Possible Last Two Miles T1 Airborne?
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 18:46:34 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: iwilson@mindspring.com
Is it possible for T1 to be terminated by telco and then sent another
mile or two wireless before splitting into stations?
Irv
iwilson@mindspring.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:24:02 -0400
From: Babu Mengelepouti <dialtone@vcn.bc.ca>
Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca
Organization: US Secret Service
Subject: Free Calls in Seattle Area
A very unusual new service has surfaced in the Seattle area, which is
fully described at http://www.sendhelp.com. It allows free calls to
the entire Seattle local calling area from other Puget Sound cities
(up to sixty miles away) that are ordinarily long distance. This does
not as yet work both ways (free calls TO Seattle may be placed, but
free calls TO Olympia, for instance, cannot); however, it is a useful
service nonetheless. I suspect that they're using foreign exchange
circuits, but the company is mum on exactly how they are providing the
free service.
The catch? You have to listen to a 15 second advertisement for their
software before your free call will go through. A small price to pay
when intralata toll rates are often in excess of thirty cents per
minute!
dialtone@vcn.bc.ca
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #194
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jul 29 08:48:06 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA21722; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:48:06 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:48:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707291248.IAA21722@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #195
TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Jul 97 08:48:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 195
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Telephone Service on Pitcairn Island (Mark J. Cuccia)
$37/minute Phone Calls (Tad Cook)
Premature Rejoicing (AOL to Sell Customers' Phone Numbers) (Stan Brown)
Billing Reconciliation (mamata@infozech.com)
Telco vs. "Mains" Power, was Re: MF-KP vs. DTMF, was Gilligan (D. Burstein)
Pointer to Oscilloscope.FAQ (John D. Seney)
Way to Find Terminating Number of 800 Number? (Michael S. Rosen)
Sprint Jacks Up Rates, Doesn't Tell Customers (Charles L. Earley)
Bell Atlantic Stupidity (Dave Levenson)
NJ Escort Services Complain Lawyer Calls Hurt Business (Alan Boritz)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:30:01 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Telephone Service on Pitcairn Island
Pitcairn Island, is a tiny south Pacific island, located southeast of
French Polynesia (Tahiti), and south-southwest of San Francisco. This
island was first settled in 1790, by the mutineers from the HMS
Bounty, along with several Tahitian women who sailed with them. The
current inhabitants, now about 50 in number, are the descendents of
the original settlers. There are a few other islands which are
associated with "The Pitcairn Islands", and all are mostly
uninhabited. These include Oeno (about 80 miles to the northwest),
Henderson (about 100 miles to the northeast), and Ducie (about 300
miles to the east). While uninhabited, these other islands are
occasionally visited by the Pitcairn residents, for various resources.
According to the 1975 edition of the informational booklet "Calling
the World" (printed by AT&T Long-Lines Overseas Administration - this
annual booklet would profile the historical development of telephone
systems in various countries around the world), telephone service in
Pitcairn first began in 1954, with two magneto party-lines -- one with
six stations for the local government offices, the other with five
stations for the residents. As of 1975, the government magneto
party-line had 20 stations, and the residential magneto party-line had
10 stations. I understand that these two magneto party-lines still
exist and are in use, probably with more stations on each line. And
there is always the possibility that Pitcairn will eventually be able
to upgrade their local system to one which is more modern.
For a number of years, electronic communications between Pitcairn and
the rest of the world has been handled by HF-Radio, by "official"
channels, and also by individually-owned amateur radio equipment.
For calls to Pitcairn from the US, the AT&T '00' operator (OSPS) must
be called. She hands the call over to the AT&T (IOC) international/
overseas (cordboard) operator/center in Pittsburgh PA. The AT&T "IOC"
operator then 'rings-forward', probably first via New Zealand (which
has handled the external political administration of Pitcairn for many
decades), and then on to Pitcairn probably via HF-Radio. I _think_
that this type of AT&T-provided manual operator connection can be
patched into the magneto party-lines by the Pitcairn radiotelephone
operator, on their end.
While I don't know if Pitcairn has actually been assigned an ITU
Country Code, I've only heard _rumors_, all still unconfirmed, that a
country code _might_ already be reserved for them, be reserved for
them, eventually to be +693 or +698.
But, for a few years now, Pitcairn _CAN_ be customer-dialed direct
(!), via the InMarSat country-code for the Pacific Ocean (+872). There
_is_now_ a satellite Earth-Station terminal on Pitcairn. Via this
setup, the radiocommunications building on Pitcairn has _TWO_
'worldwide' telephone numbers:
+872-144-5372, Telephone
+872-144-5373, Fax
The two telephone numbers via InMarSat ring and are answered only at a
dedicated terminal in the radio communications building on the island --
this setup cannot be patched into the local magneto party-line circuits.
Both the HF-Radio communications system and the InMarSat satellite
connection are available only between 1800 and 0530 GMT (11-and-a-half
hours), six-days a week. Since the residents are all _devout_
religious Seventh-Day Adventists, there is probably no service on
Saturdays (local Pitcairn time), as Saturday is the day they observe
their Sabbath. Also, the island's electrical generator (mains) system
is shut down for the overnight period. Battery power for the radio and
satellite equipment is not used during this period, so as to preserve
it for use during an emergency if the generator/mains might not be
working.
Local Pitcairn time is about 30 minutes (or 1-hour 30-min) after San
Francisco time. I don't think that Pitcairn observes any daylight
time, but if they do, it would be during the months that Australia and
New Zealand do, as they are all _south_ of the Equator.
Please note that placing telephone calls to Pitcairn can be _quite_
expensive. The _approximate_ rate quoted to me by the AT&T operator
for AT&T "IOC" Pittsburgh manual connection (Station-to-Station) is
(US)$10.00 for the first minute and (US)$5.00 for each additional
minute.
The InMarSat direct dialed service is _approximately_ (US)$5.00 for
the first 30-seconds, and (US)$1.00 for each additional
six-seconds. This averages out to (US)$10.00 per-minute. I recently
did place a _very_brief_ (about one minute) telephone call via the
InMarSat number, and while there was a noticeable satellite
echo/delay, the audio quality was _excellent_. IDB, the satellite
provider (based in Canada), does provide proper answer supervision for
billing. Busy or unanswered calls did _NOT_ return any 'off-hook'
billing answer-supervision back to my own originating central office
switch.
While I couldn't find out if there was an active application to the
ITU for a telephone country code, I was told by Pitcairn that there
might be some plans to modernize the local telephone service. Also,
Pitcairn is trying to get the extension '.pn' reserved/registered as
their Internet country or top-level domain extension. Using the
satellite system, Pitcairn is planning to eventually have an email
connection with the outside world.
Postal mail service to/from Pitcairn is _truly_ snail-mail! :)
They are not visited by regular trade-ships (they are not directly
near any trade-routes), and the island is too small for an
airstrip. Pitcairn is only 'officially' visited every few months,
about three or four times a year, for mail delivery and other official
business. However, private boats and yachts sometimes do pass by
Pitcairn, sometimes by mistake or by a boating accident.
I did some websurfing/searches on Pitcairn, and found a site (based in
Minnesota) with a lot of information on Pitcairn, the HMS-Bounty,
Norfolk Island, etc. http://www.wavefront.com/~pjlareau/pitc1.html
-------------
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060-T" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Subject: $37/minute Phone Calls
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:55:44 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Feds to probe complaints of high phones rates in calls to United States
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Federal officials have begun investigating
complaints that some U.S. companies with telephone booths in Mexico
are charging unwitting customers exorbitant rates for collect or
credit-card calls to the United States.
The {San Francisco Examiner} reported Monday that tourists and
Californians with family in Mexico have submitted hundreds of
complaints to the nonprofit group Consumer Action and to federal
officials.
Some of these firms, called operator service companies, charged rates
as high as $37 a minute -- far higher than rates charged by AT&T and
other large long-distance carriers, according to Nelson Santiago of
Consumer Action in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Santiago told the Examiner that he has received complaints that one
operator service company with booths in Mexico -- Capital Network of
Austin, Texas -- charges up to $98 for a 15-minute collect call from
Tijuana to Los Angeles.
The same call would cost only $6.90 using Sprint, $18.12 with AT&T,
and $19.71 with MCI, Santiago told the Federal Communications
Commission, which is investigating the rates.
"These are American companies taking advantage of American consumers,"
Leslie Bryne, director of the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs, said of
the disparity. Her agency is also investigating the claims.
But Kevin Griffo, president of Capital Network, says his company's
rates -- while higher than what a consumer using a calling card would
pay -- are legal and comparable to what hotel operators charge in
Mexico.
"The pricing practice of the company is line with what a hotel in
Mexico would charge. It's similar to fees charged by hotels in the
U.S. if you used their lines to make a call," he said.
Rate information is clearly posted and consumers can ask an operator
for a quote prior to making a call, he said.
Still, Bryne said she believes the rates are excessive.
"I just don't think that's a valid excuse to charge those kinds of
rates," she said. "Consumers understand that hotels charge high rates
on phone calls, so they try to use another service to get around that
and end up getting hammered with the same high charges."
Santiago said one consumer, Evangelina Hernandez of Lynwood, received
a bill of $552 for collect calls from Mexico. The cheapest call -- a
"discount" rate -- was $20 for three minutes.
Another consumer, Manuel Bullman of Garden Grove in Orange County, was
charged almost $800 for 10 collect calls his brother-in-law made from
Tijuana.
"I accepted those calls without thinking they'd be that much," Bullman
said.
Officials at Pacific Bell said they have gotten so many complaints
that they have issued warnings about the rates and mediated some of
the cases.
"If customers cannot resolve the issue with the company who carried
their call, they can call us and we will intervene on their behalf,"
said regulatory manager Sandy McGreevy in a statement released by
Pacific Bell.
"When we bill on behalf of long-distance carriers, we become the
consumer's advocate. We urge consumers to check their long-distance
charges carefully and call Pacific Bell if anything unusual appears,"
she said.
------------------------------
From: Brownsta@concentric.net (Stan Brown)
Subject: Premature Rejoicing (AOL to Sell Customers' Phone Numbers)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 22:48:47 EDT
Amid general rejoicing because AOL has "backed down", I feel I must
sound a sour note.
As reported in the {Wall Street Journal} last Friday (25 July), AOL
has not backed down in any meaningful way. AOL customers will still
get telemarketing calls on behalf of other companies, just because
they are AOL customers. The only change from AOL's previous
announcement is that the calls will be made by AOL telemarketers, for
companies that conclude agreements with AOL. (The article didn't say
whether the calls would be made by employees of outside contractors.)
So how exactly is this any kind of victory for consumers? Seems to me
if you're getting telemarketing calls on behalf of non-AOL companies,
just because you're an AOL customer, it doesn't matter who makes the
calls. And since you have a business relationship with AOL, I believe
you can't even ask to be put on their do-not-call list.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/~Brownsta/
------------------------------
From: mamata@infozech.com
Subject: Billing Reconciliation
Date: 28 Jul 1997 13:11:43 GMT
Organization: Reference.Com Posting Service
I am writing this to find out from companies, telecom consultants,
reconciliation organizations as to their precise needs for billing
reconciliation.
My questions for you are:
1. What is the type of reconciliation service you use:
a. In -house analysis manually
b. In -house analysis using some tools
c. Outside service is used for reconciliation
2. What is the approximate percentage of savings from reconciliation
services?
3. What is the cost you pay for reconciliation?
4. What are the issues you need to consider during reconciliation
-- what are the points of error?
5. Your role: Does your organization use these services or do you
provide them?
We provides solutions for settlement and reconciliation of bills
between two or more switches. Our solutions assist in matching calls
based on date, start time, duration and called number. Besides it
looks for other problems like incorrect rates used to calculate
bills. We provide solutions to assist clients manage their telecom
bills better and also eliminate over-charging.
We want to know more issues about billing reconciliation and how we
can improve our solutions. So please help us.
I will appreciate if you could provide detailed answers to the above.
I will then be happy to discuss my findings with you after we
assimilate all results.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Ankur Lal
President
INFOZECH Innovative Software Solutions
D-30 Press Enclave, Saket, New Delhi 110017, India
Tel: 91-11-6856452, Fax: 91-11-6852552, email: ankur@infozech.com
in US Contact: 303-499-6306, 703 Ithaca Drive, Boulder, CO-80303
http://www.infozech.com
*****Solution Provider for Telecom and Internet*****
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein)
Subject: Telco vs. "Mains" pPwer, was Re: MF-KP vs. DTMF, was: Gilligan
Date: 28 Jul 1997 09:46:51 -0400
Organization: mostly unorganized
In <telecom17.194.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu> Mark J. Cuccia
<mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu> writes:
> Also, the frequencies were produced by 'plucking metal reeds', and not
> electronically. While the transistor was just being invented at that
> time (by Bell Labs), _vacuum-tubes_ were still the order of the day
> for electronics. And having residential and commercial telephone
> dialsets using vacuum tubes and external continuous power (to heat the
> tubes) was considered too costly and cumbersome! Of course, people had
> been using radios, phonograph players, etc. (and soon televisions)
> home-entertainment devices with tube amplifiers for years, but Bell
> didn't seem to want vacuum-tubes in telephones used by the general
> public, thus the 'plucked reed' method of tone-generation!
A key reason, perhaps _the_ key reason, for wanting the lower powered
units (the reeds) was very simply the Bell System axiom that a loss of
commercial power should have _no_ effect on (at least the basic)
telephony functions. Ancillary services such as, for example, the
lighted dials in the 1960s and early 1970s, could use wall power
becuase they weren't necessary for primary functioning. But to require
utility power to maintain regular dialing would have had Bell Labs
engineers screaming to the ends of the earth.
danny 'very pleased that his phones worked in both the 1965 and 1977
blackouts) burstein
dannyb@panix.com
------------------------------
From: john@wd1v.mv.com (John D. Seney)
Subject: Pointer to Oscilloscope.FAQ
Organization: WD1V
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 13:01:33 GMT
Oscilloscope.FAQ Main Menu
(in order of appearance)
* WELCOME! This FAQ Welcomes YOU
* DSO INDUSTRY TRENDS Whats happening in DSO technology this year?
* DSO FUNDAMENTALS - A TUTORIAL and Keywords List - What are the current
buzzwords?
* DSO FORM FACTORS What types of DSOs are there?
* PRIMARY DSO FUNCTIONS What can DSOs actually do?
* COMMON MISTAKES How can I really mess it up with a DSO?
* COMPARISONS How can I best compare various models?
* DSO APPLICATIONS What are the most common DSO applications?
* ADCs What speed do I really need on each channel?
* BANDWIDTH & TRIGGER What numbers & functions are right?
* ARCHIVAL & MEMORY How fast, how deep, & can I get more?
* DISPLAYS What am I really looking at?
* MEASUREMENTS How much is my signal changing over time?
* DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING How can I obtain more useful data?
* DEMOS & PURCHASING How can I see & get the DSO I really need?
IF ... you want the complete version of this Oscilloscope.FAQ file
sent to you automatically as an ATTACHED TEXT FILE <50 k TEXT File>.
send me (john@wd1v.mv.com).........
an EMAIL where the subject contains
the text "subscribe scope.faq".....
or
go to my Home Page.
Best regards,
John D. Seney
http://www.mv.com/ipusers/wd1v
------------------------------
From: mrosen@clark.net (Michael S. Rosen)
Subject: Way to Find Terminating Number of 800 Number?
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:37:06 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc.
Is there any way to determine the terminating phone number for a
published 800 number? I'd like to find out the local phone number.
Thanks,
Mike
------------------------------
From: Charles L. Earley <chucke1@flash.net>
Subject: Sprint Jacks Up Rates, Doesn't Tell Customers
Date: 26 Jul 1997 16:45:40 GMT
Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net
Sprint raised the cost of using their phone cards from .25/min. to
.30/min and did not tell their customers. I discovered this when I
got my bill this month. When I called, I was told that Sprint is not
required to tell customers when they raise their rates. That is fine,
but what about common courtesy or customer service? They also
informed me of a new surcharge of .30/call to be added to the cost of
using a Sprint phone card.
CONSUMERS BEWARE OF SPRINT!
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you don't mind, I would like to
have *new* and *original* commentaries for this Digest. There is
nothing new or original about telling people to beware of Sprint.
So what else is old? <grin> PAT]
------------------------------
Subject: Bell Atlantic Stupidity
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 21:23:47 EDT
From: Dave Levenson <dave@westmark.westmark.com>
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Reply-To: dave@westmark.com
Here in Morris County, New Jersey, we just got the new Bell Atlantic
directory -- covering the interval July 1997 through June 1998. On
the cover, it boldly announces the arrival of New Jersey's New Area
Codes, one of which covers almost all of Morris County.
USE THEM NOW! says the dart on the cover.
But when we open the book, we find that in both the white and yellow
pages, all of the listings in the county are still shown with area
code 201. Permissive dialing of 973 for this area began June 1, a
full month before this directory became effective. Mandatory use of
973 will become effective approximately six months before the end of
the interval covered by this directory. This is, at best, misleading.
At worst, it will be a current directory full of mis-information for
about six months.
Yes, Bell Atlantic, USE THEM NOW -- you too!
Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc. Voice: 908 647 0900 Web: http://www.westmark.com
Stirling, NJ, USA Fax: 908 647 6857
------------------------------
From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz)
Subject: NJ Escort Services Complain Lawyer Calls Hurt Business
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:33:51 -0400
Seems that the latest Bell Atlantic telephone directories covering the
Morris County area in New Jersey have a curious error. The telephone
numbers for about a dozen (?) law offices were somehow switched with
the same number of escort services. The escort services (on local
broadcast media) have complained that it's hurting their business.
[Insert obilgatory demeaning lawyer joke here.] <g>
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now there is a new and original idea:
Jokes about lawyers ... I don't think anyone has ever thought of
that idea before have they? Let's see ... did you hear the one about
the three guys traveling across country when a very bad storm comes
up and they have to stay overnight at the farmer's house? One was
a Hindu, one was a Jew and the third one was lawyer.
The farmer says there is just enough room for two of them to stay
in the house overnight and the third one will have to sleep in the
barn. The Hindu guy agrees to do this so he goes out to the barn,
and the farmer along with the other two go to their bedrooms and
retire for the night. A few minutes later there is a knock at the
door. They all go to see who it is, and the Hindu guy is standing
there. He says he won't sleep in the barn because there is a cow
there. He points out that cows are very sacred to him and it is
against his beliefs to share a sleeping place with one.
Well, this being National Brotherhood Week (as Tom Lehrer called
it, 'National Smile at One Another-Hood Week') the Jew decides to
show his good will and agrees to change places with the Hindu. He
gets his pillow and blanket and goes out to the barn. The Hindu,
the lawyer and the farmer all go back to their rooms and go to bed.
Within a few minutes, there is a knock at the door and they all get
up and go to the door only to find the Jew standing there. He has
a serious complaint: there is a pig in the barn, and in his religion
he is forbidden to have anything at all to do with pork. He refuses
to sleep in the same place as a pig.
The lawyer is not pleased with this latest turn of events but after
some discussion agrees to go sleep in the barn in the place of the
Jew. He picks up his pillow and blanket and goes to the barn. The
Hindu, the Jew and the farmer all go to their rooms and try to go
back to sleep. You guessed it! Within a couple minutes there is a
knock at the door. For the third time -- poor farmer! -- they all
jump out of bed and go to answer the door. But this time when they
open the door, standing there is -- the cow and the pig.
You may laugh now. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #195
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jul 29 09:19:09 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA23340; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:19:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 09:19:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707291319.JAA23340@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #196
TELECOM Digest Tue, 29 Jul 97 09:19:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 196
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect? (Seymour Dupa)
Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect? (Jeff Wolfe)
Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect? (B. Pennypacker)
Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State (Trever Miller)
Re: BRI -ISDN Key System or PBX Available in North America? (Dan Rudiak)
Re: BRI -ISDN Key System or PBX Available in North America? (Bob Evans)
Re: BRI -ISDN Key System or PBX Available in North America? (Chris Boone)
The USF, was Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates (Danny Burstein)
Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates (Adam H. Kerman)
Re: ACD and General Phone Switch Query (E.E. Hollings)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa)
Subject: Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect?
Date: 28 Jul 1997 15:48:10 GMT
Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc.
GPS (Global Positioning System) is a system of satellites which
broadcast special signals which received by a GPS receiver will
indicate the lattitude/longitude of the receiver.
This lat/lon data could be encoded on the voice channel, extracted on
the receiving end, fed to a desktop mapping system, and the caller's
location indicated on a map.
FYI, this system already exsists - several luxury cars have them.
Some systems have a 'panic' button - press the button and a 'I need
help' message (along with your location) is sent - you don't have to
say a word.. One company is thinking about wiring the button to the
airbag trigger - help would be on the way even if you were unconcious.
John
------------------------------
From: wolfe@ems.psu.edu (Jeff Wolfe)
Subject: Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect?
Date: 28 Jul 1997 11:37:58 -0400
Organization: Penn State - College of Earth and Mineral Science
In article <telecom17.194.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Bradley Ward Allen
<ulmo@Q.Net> wrote:
[info on cellular triangulation and location snipped]
> So, it goes to follow that there would be a large incentive to program
> the cellular and 911 systems in NYC to correctly pass all the
> triangulation data, including location and current margin of error.
> This information could be transmitted continuously to monitor the
> location of the cell phone, however just the original location would
> be of benefit if that is all that could be transmitted. In my
> situation, both times, the attempted criminals were running away in
> some certain direction that I could say, and I said "they are running
> east/west/north/whatever", and that information would have been
> immediately more useful to a 911 operator if they already had an
> approximate location for me; they could send cruisers to a fairly
> precise trajectory.
In a previous life, I spent time working on various sorts of GIS
systems as part my coursework. It was my impression that most E911
systems were GIS based, at least in part to provide location
information to EMS services based on the caller's phone number. Given
that a GIS already exists, the only hard part would be working out a
protocol for delivering and reprojecting the Cell systems'
co-ordinates into the GIS. For locations where a high confidence in
the Cell location was available, the system could provide a small dot
on the operator's map display and a 'nearest street' location, similar
to the way it would locate houses with landline connections. If you
were in a low-confidence area (edge of cell, etc..) a larger CEP style
'footprint' could be presented, providing the E911 operator with at
least a general area to work from.
So, to sum up, the only real technological hurdle would be getting
real-world coordinates from the Cell system to the E911 system with
the Cell call. I leave political issues as an exercise to the reader.
Jeff Wolfe College of Earth and Mineral Science - Penn State
------------------------------
From: Bruce Pennypacker <pennypacker@altech.com.nospam>
Subject: Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect?
Date: 28 Jul 1997 16:22:55 GMT
Organization: Applied Language Technologies
Bradley Ward Allen <ulmo@Q.Net> wrote in article
<telecom17.194.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>:
> * An acquaintance of mine, almost a year ago, related a story to
> me how he called 611 on his AT&T Wireless telephone here in NYC
> (downtown, somewhere near his school in the Wall St. area), and he
> made some sort of inquiry/request regarding his account. The lady
> then proceeded to have him describe his exact location. I think
> then what happened is that she interjected "The southeast corner?"
> and he said, "uh, yes, how did you know?" and she explained that she
> has triangulation data on him on her screen and she would have the
> user describe their location in order to see whether it was the
> correct user; I'm not quite sure of the details. Anyway, it became
> apparent that they have triangulation that will pinpoint a cellular
> user.
<SNIP>
Being in the Coast Guard Auxiliary in Boston I have a few contacts in
the Coast Guard district office. Well over a year ago I heard a
report that the Coast Guard had been working closely with the FCC (?)
to create triangulation technology for cellular phones. From what I
understand, the volume of emergencies that the Coast Guard was
receiving via cellular phone was increasing fairly significantly (in
the New England area you can now dial *CG on a cellular phone to reach
them). In the 'old' days a Coast Guard search & rescue crew could
triangulate on the VHF radio of a vessel in distress. They needed to
be able to do the same thing with cellular phones since more and more
pleasure boaters are now relying on them as their primary means of
communication.
I never heard anything more than this one report, but seeing that it
was over a year ago I wouldn't be surprized if they had completed the
project. I'm just surprized that 911 services wouldn't be taking
advantage of it.
Bruce
------------------------------
From: trever@cyberdex.geniers.cuug.ab.ca (Trever Miller)
Subject: Re: Implementing 911 in a Rural State
Date: 28 Jul 1997 21:14:10 -0600
Organization: Cyberdex Systems
Trever Miller (trever@cyberdex.geniers.cuug.ab.ca) wrote:
> Erhm, what's wrong with land legal designations? ie: range, township,
> section, etc?
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The legal land designations here are
> very technical and confusing. The legal name for the land will usually
[snip]
Yes, I just did a few web searches and came across some doozies.
However, http://well.water.ca.gov/pls.htm, helps to explain what I was
getting at.
Using the range-township-section-tract method, you are able to indicate
a chunk of land 1/4 mile by 1/4 mile (roughly 400 meters on a side).
If you're out in the sticks with one unnamed road coming to your
house ...
Up here we've taken the definition one step further, cuttng the tracts
into even smaller units. I forget if it was 8 or 4 units, but that
would be 1/8 of a mile or 1/16 of a mile squares. (200 or 100 meters
per side)
Close 'nuff for sniffing out a fire. Maybe not close 'nuff when
dealing with joe farmer stuck under a tractor calling from his cell
phone.
trever @ cyberdex.geniers.cuug.ab.ca Alberta Babylon 5 Mailing List Admin
http://www.nucleus.com/~millertr/ab-b5/
Only 889 days left to stock up on canned goods, fuel & ammo before 2000/1/1
------------------------------
From: Dan Rudiak <Dan.Rudiak.drudiak@nt.com>
Subject: Re: BRI -ISDN Key System or PBX Available in North America?
Date: 28 Jul 1997 17:31:45 GMT
Organization: Nortern Telecom
Dennis Wong <a15283@axionet.com> wrote in article
<telecom17.192.6@massis.lcs.mit.edu>:
> Does anyone know of a Key Telephone system, or a small PBX (about 24
> extensions) that could plug directly into a BRI ISDN line (2B+1D)
> without the use of a adapter?
> All the PBXs and KSUs in North America that I looked at can only
> support T1 (23B+1D), why is that? In Australia, and Europe I had seen
> systems that support BRI ISDN.
Norstar Plus Compact & Modular ICS will both have this functionality
later this year.
Dan J. Rudiak
System Specialist
ITAS Technical Services
Northern Telecom
EN Calgary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:33:57 -0400
From: bevansitt@aol.com (Bob Evans)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: BRI -ISDN Key System or PBX Available in North America?
Dennis,
The Lucent Merlin Legend system (R4.0) supports National ISDN-1 BRI
trunks. The Legend system is designed for systems of about 10-75
users.
Bob Evans
ITT Marketing (Auth. Dealer Lucent Tech)
800-488-1026
------------------------------
From: Christopher W. Boone <cboone@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: BRI -ISDN Key System or PBX Available in North America?
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 10:16:47 -0500
Organization: ABC Radio Networks Engineering Dept - Dallas, Texas
Reply-To: cboone@earthlink.net
Dennis Wong wrote:
> Does anyone know of a Key Telephone system, or a small PBX (about 24
> extensions) that could plug directly into a BRI ISDN line (2B+1D)
> without the use of a adapter?
> All the PBXs and KSUs in North America that I looked at can only
> support T1 (23B+1D), why is that? In Australia, and Europe I had seen
> systems that support BRI ISDN.
> What I am really looking for is the following:
> 1. Telephone system plugs into BRI ISDN lines
> 2. Telephone system has ISDN line cards that allow devices such as
> Motorola's Bitsufer to plug in.
> 3. ISDN service between extensions (networking within the house).
> 4. An "All digital" connection from my home to ISP.
Check the Siemens-ROLM Office Point system
Http://www.rolm.com is the URL..look for the Office Point link.
Uses 1 or 2 BRIs directly.
Chris
------------------------------
From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein)
Subject: The USF, was Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates
Date: 28 Jul 1997 12:56:04 -0400
Organization: mostly unorganized
(USF = universal service fund. This is the "FCC fee" that gets added
to your bill, which is then put into a big pot and..:)
In <telecom17.193.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu> johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine)
writes:
> That said, it seems to me that there's something screwy with the way
> that the universal service fund (USF) money in the U.S. is
> administered.
> The whole USF business is up in the air, with both the source of the
> money (currently from the per-line access charge) and the uses up for
> grabs.
Supposedly this money is used for subsidizing the expensive-to-reach
(i.e. rural) areas. Which, while a bit arguable, does have a lot of
historical precedence and makes a modicum of sense, even in this
deregulated age.
However, I'd love to see an actual breakdown of where this money is
really going. My understanding is that the local telcos submit
applications to [mumble] in which they describe their "excess" costs
in providing service, and then get their share of the pie.
Accordingly, just like with other gov't "entitlement" progrmas (like,
for example, "special education [1]", there is a powerful incentive
for the telcos to move as many of their regular costs as possible into
this group.
I'm told, but have no idea where to look for this, that groups such as
Ny**x have managed to shift enough of their _urban_ costs to this fund
that they actually make money on it.
Can anyone point me to a) what group physically hands out this money,
and b) where I can find a breakdown of which recipients got how much?
Thanks muchly.
[1] "special education" is the term used for school-age children who
need additional assitance above and beyond regular schooling. Since
federal money is available for this group, not only for teaching but
also ancillary services such as transit, there is _powerful_ incentive
for local school boards to label more and more of their pupils with
this term, thus enabling them (the school district) to reduce their
direct costs.
Periodic audits show huge numbers of "excess" students pushed into
these programs ...
danny 'all my classmates were above average' burstein
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 14:01:33 CDT
From: Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.chinet.com>
To: TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: East Subsidizes West on Telephone Rates
Nils Andersson <nilsphone@aol.com> wrote:
> In <telecom17.184.2@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) writes:
>> [Burgess] likened it to charging residents of Wyoming 72 cents for a postage
>> stamp and New Yorkers 11 cents to reflect the true cost of providing postal
>> service, he said.
> One reason this is not done is that the costs to administer it are signifi-
> cant. For the rest, what would be wrong about having different postal rates?
> Parcels do, by the way, based on distance. more or less.
Zone-rated charges for parcel post, priority mail, etc., only cover
the difference in transportation costs over distance between postal
processing plants. They don't apply to the costs of transporting the
mail between these plants and the local post office, or the carrier's
cost.
Remember, there shouldn't be higher avoidable costs to send mail from
Wyoming to New York, than in the other direction.
I agree it would be impractical to collect varying amounts of postage
based on local costs. Nevertheless, it is wrong from postage
ratepayers in general to subsidize rural free delivery.
Let those who benefit from such services pay for them. The
beneficiaries are the local landowners. Their land is more valuable
because it has postal service. A small locally collected and
administered tax on the value of land (exempting buildings) could do
the trick.
I would also suggest this as a replacement for supplemental line
charges and high termination fees that long distance carriers pay and
other hidden subsidies, with respect to operating telephone service in
rural areas.
Generally, it is a mistake to subsidize land use in rural areas. It's
always cheaper to bring people to the resources, rather than the
resources to the people.
------------------------------
From: E.E. Holling <holling@intech-group.com>
Subject: Re: ACD and General Phone Switch Query
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 09:29:35 -0400
Organization: The InTech Group, Inc.
Executone support may often be market dependent. In some areas they
maintain their own equipment and in others they have distributors.
How critical is the ACD function in your company? You've left quite a
few ACD players out of this search -- Mitel, Nortel, Siemens, Toshiba,
etc.
Ernie Holling Mailto:Holling@Intech-Group.com
The InTech Group, Inc.
(610)-524-8400
Consultants and Analysts
FAX:(610)-524-8440
305 Exton Commons, Exton, PA 19341
A Member of The Society of Telecommunications Consultants
The Eastern Technology Council
MultiMedia Telecommunications Association
Building Industry Consulting Service International
To receive Telecommunications FYIs send e-mail to listserv@intech-group.com
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #196
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jul 30 08:46:33 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id IAA10999; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:46:33 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 08:46:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707301246.IAA10999@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #197
TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jul 97 08:46:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 197
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Telephone Firm Accused of Fraud (Tad Cook)
NYPSC Announces 347 for Four Boroughs (John Cropper)
351 a Possible NPA for 504 Relief (John Cropper)
Trinidad: +296 vs. +1-809-6nx; Guam/CNMI (Mark J. Cuccia)
Book Review: "Intranet Resource Kit" by Ambegaonkar (Rob Slade)
CNET AT&T/800 Scam Article - and ICB Two Cents, of Course (J. Oppenheimer)
New Calling Card Surcharges? (Stan Schwartz)
The Next New Scam? (Ron Kritzman)
Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone? (Lawrence Rachman)
Unit to Connect Two Pots Lines (Joe Plescia)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Telephone Firm Accused of Fraud
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 21:54:58 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Former Houston Communications Firm Accused of Fraud in SEC Civil Action
BY PAMELA YIP, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
Jul. 30--The Securities and Exchange Commission has sued a former
Houston company, its executives and associates, accusing them of
defrauding investors of at least $4.8 million through the sale of
unregistered investments.
Proceeds from the promissory notes issued by Insnet World
Communications, now of Las Vegas, were supposed to be used for buying
long-distance telephone time and distributing phone calling cards,
according to a lawsuit filed in Houston federal court.
Named in the suit with Insnet are SCB Resources of Laguna
Hills,Calif., which allegedly offered and sold the promissory notes;
Frank Bravo Jr., 42, of Santa Ana, Calif., whom the SEC said
"exercises control over the operations of Insnet, including raising
funds from investors"; Jose Manuel Diaz-Salin, 55, Insnet president
and owner; and Scofield C. Berthelot Jr., 40, of Westminster, Calif.,
SCB president and owner.
Named as "defendant solely for purposes of equitable relief" but not
accused of fraudulent activity is Eduardo "Eddie" Grijalva of Santa
Ana., Bravo's nephew.
"We are not alleging that this individual was necessarily involved (in
the operation)," said Harold E. Degenhardt, SEC district administrator
in Fort Worth. "What we know is money went to this individual."
None of the men could be reached for comment, and SEC officials said
they don't know of attorneys representing them because the defendants
have refused to comply with subpoenas for testimony and documents
concerning their business activities.
The defendants since October 1985 fraudulently raised at least $4.8
million from at least 216 investors in about 38 states, the SEC said
in the suit.
Many of the investors are retirees and one is an elderly woman who is
legally blind, Degenhardt said.
Instead of using investors' money to buy long-distance phone time in
bulk from major satellite suppliers and distributing prepaid telephone
calling cards to the public, at least $2.8 million of the funds have
been paid to the individual defendants or companies that they control,
the SEC said.
The lawsuit also accuses the defendants of operating a Ponzi scheme
where money from later investors was used to make quarterly interest
payments and to repay earlier investors when their notes matured.
"There's only one thing that's going to stop them," Degenhardt said.
"It's the fear of the SEC actually taking final action against them and
shutting them down."
Referring to Bravo, he said, "We're going to get his attention one way or
another."
The SEC is seeking a permanent injunction to prohibit Insnet, Bravo, Salin,
Berthelot and SCB from future violations of securities laws.
The agency wants the defendants to disgorge all ill-gotten gains, including
interest, civil money penalties and more than $694,000 Grijalva allegedly
received from Insnet.
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt granted a temporary restraining order
prohibiting Insnet, SCB, Bravo, Salin and Berthelot from ongoing violations
of law and also freezing the assets of the men, including Grijalva's,
Degenhardt said.
A hearing on a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Aug. 7.
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <jcropper@lincs.net>
Subject: NYPSC Announces 347 for Four Boroughs
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 17:51:20 -0400
The NYPSC will hold public hearings concerning the assignment of 646
for Manhattan (split @ 23rd St, N-646, S-212 VS overlay), and the
newly announced 347 for the other four boroughs as relief for 718
(split Queens & Bronx-718, Brooklyn & Staten Island-347 VS overlay).
Hearing schedule is as follows:
INFORMATION SESSIONS WILL BE HELD ONE HOUR PRIOR TO EACH PUBLIC
STATEMENT HEARING
STATEN ISLAND
Wednesday, July 23, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Staten Island Institute of Arts &
Sciences, 75 Stuyvesant Place
THE BRONX
Thursday, July 24, 1997, 1:00 p.m., Bronx Borough Hall, 851 Grand
Concourse
BROOKLYN
Tuesday, July 29, 1997, 1:00 p.m., Brooklyn Borough Hall (CourtRoom),
209 Joralemon Street
MANHATTAN
Tuesday, July 29, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Mount Sinai Medical Center
(Guggenheim Pavilion, Hatch Auditorium), Madison Avenue between 99th
and 100th Streets
MANHATTAN
Wednesday, July 30, 1997, 1:00 p.m., offices of the Commission, One
Penn Plaza (34th Street between 7th and 8th Avenues), 8th floor
QUEENS
Wednesday, July 30, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Queensborough Public Library,
8911 Merrick Blvd, Jamaica
NYNEX, as well as Commission members are reported to overwhelmingly
favor the overlay, since over 30% of all calls in the NYC metro area
used 11D dialing.
------------------------------
From: John Cropper <jcropper@lincs.net>
Subject: 351 a Possible NPA for 504 Relief
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:03:42 -0400
504's relief code may have slipped out, thanks to the former research
arm of Bell.
Lucent lists 351 as a possible relief NPA for Louisiana in some of
their reference materials concerning dialing and routing, as a relief
code for 504, which we already know to be a LATA split, with (90%
chance of) New Orleans LATA retaining 504.
The only possible snag:
504-351 is already assigned (my records show New Orleans, but Mark
Cuccia verified it was Hammond, as a cellular prefix), and also
permits 7D dialing across the LATA boundary into the Baton Rouge LATA.
BellSouth (per Mark) is investigating this, and may eventually change
this (similar to the 850 situation in 1995, which was later changed to
352).
We will see how this develops. :)
John Cropper voice: 888.76.LINCS
LINCS fax: 888.57.LINCS
P.O. Box 277 mailto:jcropper@lincs.net
Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 http://www.lincs.net/
Great LD rates: http://www.lincs.net/longdistance/
FREE areacode info: http://www.lincs.net/areacode/
and now, the LOWEST PRICE, no-surcharge flat-rate internet
access from ANY POINT in the United States AND Canada:
http://www.lincs.net/internet/flat1995.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 19:08:18 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: Trinidad: +296 vs. +1-809-6nx; Guam/CNMI
Trinidad & Tobago, of course, now has its own new NPA code within the
NANP. Its new NPA is 868, which went into permissive dialing on
1-June-1997, and becomes mandatory a year later. This is just another
one of the splitting up of the 809 NPA code, which was
assigned/reserved to (most) Caribbean islands (under the NANP aka WZ-1
aka country-code +1) in 1958.
But to many long-time readers of TELECOM Digest or those who have been
studying telephone numbering/dialing (particularly international
country-codes) for some time might remember that Trinidad & Tobago was
listed as country-code +296 in some ITU listings in the late 1980's
and early 1990's.
I don't know if anyone posted anything in the Digest on 'why' such was
the case, but on Tuesday, I found out from one of my Bell-Labs retiree
friends (who worked in numbering and switching, particularly in the
US<->International arena) why this happened.
There are two telecom entities for Trinidad & Tobago --
TSTT (Telecom Services of Trinidad & Tobago) is the local telco.
Textel (Trinidad & Tobago External Telecommunications) handles the
external telecom services.
Of course, Cable & Wireless is involved in Trinidad & Tobago, and I
think there is an associationship between C&W and one or both of the
Trinidad-based telecom entites.
One of the two telecom entities wanted to remain within country-code
+1 aka WZ-1 aka the NANP, under NPA 809 (although now NPA 868), while
the other telecom entity wanted a unique country-code. They requested
that the ITU assign them one, therefore +296 was listed (on paper) as
the 'reserved' future country-code for Trinidad & Tobago. However,
AT&T and other NANP entities informed Trinidad that they couldn't have
it both ways - either remain part of +1 and release +296 back to the
ITU, or completely withdraw from +1 (probably with a permissive
period) and become _exclusively_ +296.
Country-code +296 was never really activated in any switches
throughout the world for dialing/routing/etc., but it was a 'paper'
assignment/reservation. Present ITU listings (since about 1995) do
_not_ list +296 as Trinidad & Tobago.
Present NPA guidelines of the NANP's INC (Industry Numbering
Committee) indicate that if a country/region desires to join the NANP,
and if approved, they have a full calendar year (twelve months) of
permissive dialing under +1-npa- and their old country-code. BUT,
after that year, they _must_ release their old country-code back to
the ITU for the pool of available/unassigned country-codes.
Guam (+671 => +1-671) and CNMI (+670 => +1-670) are presently in a
permissive period of either the old country-code as well as their NPA
under the NANP, +1. But come 1-July-1998, the year of permissive
dialing is to be over, and they are both to return their old
country-codes back to the ITU.
However, within a week after permissive use of either +670/671 and
+1-670/671 began on 1-July-1997, Sprint (from the US) began to intercept
calls dialed to CNMI or Guam under their 'international' method,
01(1)+670/671-etc, with the recordings:
"To call Guam, please dial '1', plus the area code, and the number"
"To call 'see-enn-emm-eye', please dial '1', plus the area code, and
the number"
There is no mention about 'what' the area code is to be, even though
you would think that most people who frequenty call Guam or the
Northern Mariana Islands should already be aware of the new
numbering/dialing. But reference to CNMI in the recording might be
confusing to some customers.
About a week ago, AT&T began to intercept calls dialed to CNMI or Guam
under the 'international' format, as 01(1)+670/671-etc, with the
recordings:
<SIT-tones boo-dee-doop> "Due to area code introduction, it is necessary
to dial 1-671, and the number, to complete your call to Guam. 081-T"
<SIT-tones boo-dee-doop> "Due to area code introduction, it is necessary
to dial 1-670, and the number, to complete your call to The Mariana
Islands. 081-T"
At least AT&T gives the area codes. And for CNMI/670, it indicates "The
Mariana Islands", rather than 'see-enn-emm-eye'.
But both Sprint and AT&T have no provisions for calls dialed under
'special-billing' (i.e. collect/card/third-pty/etc.). Those calls would
have come in as 01+670/671, and are now dialed as _0_+670/671!
And didn't Bellcore, (GTE's) Micronesia Telecommunications Corp for
CNMI, and Guam Telephone Authority, and others indicate that there would
be a _full_year_ of permissively dialing Guam/CNMI as both NANP (+1)
calls _and_ as 'international' dialed calls under their ITU-assigned
country-codes?
----------------------
NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x)
NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll "060-T" 504-2T)
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:11:28 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "Intranet Resource Kit" by Ambegaonkar
BKITRNRK.RVW 970223
"Intranet Resource Kit", Prakesh Ambegaonkar, 1997, 0-07-882262-9,
U$39.99/C$57.95
%E Prakesh Ambegaonkar
%C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6
%D 1997
%G 0-07-882262-9
%I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne
%O U$39.99/C$57.95 800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca
%P 498
%T "Intranet Resource Kit"
Given that almost everyone on the team works for Frontier, and given
that a copy of "Intranet Genie Lite" is included with the package, the
authors are remarkably restrained in their pushing of Genie as a
product. The book does deal generically with the issue of intranet
creation, as long as you limit your definition of an intranet to an
in-house LAN using Internet applications.
That said, while it is a reasonable job, it is not an outstanding one.
The flaws in the coverage of viruses jumped out at me, of course.
Chapter two stresses the danger of boot sector infectors (which cannot
spread over a network), don't mention macro viruses, JavaScript, or
ActiveX at all, and recommend two widely sold but poorly performing
products (misspelling the name of one). Chapter nine identifies
"variants" as a type of virus. The technical quality of other topics
is better, but the overall insight provided is nothing to get excited
about.
In regard to the software provided, while the book covers a broad
array of applications, the CD-ROM only gives you a three-machine
license set of Web tools for Windows NT. Explanations of email (the
"first tool to implement", according to page nine) and other groupware
is left as an exercise to the reader.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKITRNRK.RVW 970223
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
Ceterum censeo CNA Financial Services delendam esse
Please note the Peterson story - http://www2.gdi.net/~padgett/trial.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 22:11:16 -0400
From: Judith Oppenheimer <joppenheimer@ICBTOLLFREE.com>
Reply-To: joppenheimer@ICBTOLLFREE.com
Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news..commentary..consulting
Subject: CNET AT&T/800 Scam Article - and ICB Two Cents, of Course
You might remember some discussion of this back in February/March on
TELECOM Digest...
The appeal of the virtual ISP - no POPs required - was intoxicating
for many small and wannabe internet service providers. To low-budget
due diligence, the contracts looked sound; the offer of unlimited
toll-free dial-in, an easy sell to an uninformed, eager public.
Finally, here was a way for small ISPs to compete with AOL.
Unlimited, toll-free dial-in internet for a flat of $19.95 per month.
A new industry was being born.
Or so it seemed. ICB has been fielding inquiries from burned ISP's
since last February regarding the validity, or lack thereof, of
unlimited toll-free internet dial-in service. Irate, frustrated and
cash-depleted ISP victims reported to us that as early as March --
almost six months ago -- they'd written to AT&T of this scam, supplied
with AT&T 800 and 888 service, yet the long distance giant did nothing
to aid them, nor stem the scam tide.
Our own repeated queries to AT&T produced only feigned ignorance.
Corporate investigative requirements, whatever they might be not
withstanding, we wonder why AT&T didn't act sooner to counter
widespread scam advertising with its own public service information,
particularly as its own competitive interests a la AT&T Worldnet
Service could conceivably be called into question.
Judith Oppenheimer
----------------------------
AT&T alleges reselling scam
By Jane Black
July 29, 1997, 11:05 a.m. PT
AT&T (T) has filed suit for $7 million against several California
companies, alleging that they have committed fraud by reselling the
telephone giant's toll-free service to Internet service providers.
The suit, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, also alleges that Riverside, California-based
Connect America, its parent ICB Telecommunications, and its affiliates
defrauded AT&T of millions of dollars in unpaid charges for toll-free
service by setting up fictitious accounts and reselling the service
for profit to ISPs.
"They would call AT&T to arrange toll free service using fraudulent
information, they would then resell that service to their customers,"
an AT&T spokeswoman said. "The customers paid Connect America, but
Connect America was not paying AT&T.
"We don't know what the impact will be. The services were fraudulently
obtained by Connect America, and we hope that innocent customers were
not harmed," she added.
The suit also names a number of other companies, including toll-free
service provider One Source.
Connect America could not be reached by press time for comment.
According to AT&T, when the company restricted Connect America's
accounts, the group established additional fraudulent accounts. AT&T
says it discovered the alleged scam through telecommunications systems
monitoring and investigative work.
AT&T is seeking an injunction and an attachment of the defendants'
assets as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
CNET, Inc.
ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com
800/888 PROBLEMS? http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com/icbinfo2.html
800/888 QUESTIONS? http://www.ICBTOLLFREE.com/expert2.html
1 800 THE EXPERT ph +1 212 684-7210, fx +1 212 684-2714
------------------------------
From: Stan Schwartz <bigstan@bigfoot.com>
Subject: New Calling Card Surcharges?
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 01:29:09 -0000
Because of some very attractive pricing, I use MCI for long distance
service on one of my lines. During a recent conversation with a
customer service drone there, the subject of a calling card came up.
I asked if he was able to offer me a surcharge-free calling card. He
said that he couldn't. He asked where I was able to get such a deal.
I told him that there are a number of companies that advertise in most
in-flight magazines, and I currently use a card that offers a
.175/minute rate, 24-hours a day, with no-surcharge and 6-second
billing (after the first minute). He told me that he had never heard
of such a thing and besides, "Starting next week, all calling card
calls made from a pay phone will be billed an extra 30 to 35 cent
surcharge, no matter which company you get your calling card from.
This is to cover costs that were previously absorbed by the phone
company. (of course MCI already has this built into their rate, so
there will be no additional charges from us...)"
Has this guy been smoking his tarriffs? Did someone at MCI
mis-interpret a change in an FCC ruling, or will I get a whopping
calling card bill?
Confused and concerned ...
- Stan
Does anyone honestly think I'm going to buy something from a junk e-mail
solicitation? Please save me and your ISP the trouble. Thank you.
------------------------------
From: Ron Kritzman <ronk@ais.net>
Subject: The Next New Scam?
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:30:26 -0500
Organization: Kritzman Communications
I got a call at work today from a guy who wanted an unlimited time 800
number for $19.95 / mo. Of course I laughed and said that I'd like
one of those too, does he know where I can get it? He then told me
"They have it for Internet, so why can't you do it for voice?" I told
him to read the fine print, and that there has to be a catch
somewhere. You can't sell untimed 800 if you can't BUY untimed 800,
and there's noplace to buy it.
The next day he faxed me an 800 number which he says appeared in _USA
Today_ in an ad claiming unlimited net acccess for $19.95/mo. Of
course I called the number to check it out. What I heard was a lengthy
sales pitch about how you can get rich by selling unlimited 800
Internet service and even richer by signing up other people to sell
it. ==> But not one word about the service itself. <==
Is this the beginnings of the latest scam? Anybody know anything
about this?
Ron
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please read the item submitted by
Judith Oppenheimer earlier in this same issue of the Digest. It now
appears the whole thing is indeed a scam. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:56:57 -0400
From: Lawrence Rachman <lr@compuserve.com>
Subject: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone?
I've been told recently that the retractable antenna on my Motorola
MicroTac flip phone is a placebo; that it has no electrical function
at all. A bit of emperical research indicated the signal strength
meter never seems to change when the antenna is collapsed or
extended.
I opened the phone, and found the collar that the antenna collapses
into to consist of a gold-plated wire helix, sort of like the guts
of a rubber-duck antenna. The collapsable antenna slides through the
plastic frame holding the helix.
Now maybe the plastic antenna contains a wire with a coil on the
bottom, making a coupling transformer when its extended to the point
that the bottom is inside the helix.
Or, maybe its just a piece of plastic, to pacify the unwashed masses.
I could cut it open and find out. But then my phone would have no
"antenna".
Does anyone reading this know for sure?
Larry Rachman
------------------------------
From: Joe Plescia <jplescia@plescia.com>
Subject: Unit to Connect Two POTS Lines
Date: 29 Jul 1997 06:19:21 GMT
Organization: The Plescia Companies
Reply-To: jplescia@plescia.com
Anyone know of a unit that will allow me to connect a ringing line to
another line so a user can call one number and then get a dialtone
from the second line to redial out?
return Personal EMAIL TO jplescia@plescia.com
Return Business EMAIL To plescia@plescia.com
Visit our WWW SITE http://www.plescia.com
Joseph P Plescia-Plescia Photo
201.868.0065 201.868.0475fax
Photofinishing, Studio, Imaging
Paging, Beepers, Cellular Phones
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: These devices have been around for
years and used to be commonly known as 'WATS Extenders' because
they allowed precisely what you are seeking. A person could call
a local number terminating in their office and then make outgoing
calls on an inexpensive long distance line. Because phone charges
in general have become much less expensive than years ago, these
devices have not been as popular as in the past, and when security
considerations are taken into account, not a lot of people bother
with them. There were the kind which would dial a preset number
and were mostly used as rudimentary call-forwarding devices, and
there were others which were open ended; i.e. they gave dialtone
to the caller and where you called was unlimited. ** The phreaks
liked that kind best ** as you might imagine.
You can get these at telephone supply companies but a word of
warning is very important here. If you choose to install one, be
aware that in a short period of time at least one or more phreaks
will have discovered the associated lines. The word will spread,
and unless you have the whole thing very well passcoded, expect
to see a hellish, humongous long distance bill real soon. Telco
will give you absolutely no relief whatsoever against fraud; the
theory being you should have known what to expect leaving a wide-
open dial tone within easy reach of whoever discovered it.
Assuming you are desiring this for cost-effeciency purposes and
not planning some sort of scam yourself (!) I'd be interested in
knowing what sort of configuration or traffic patterns you have
which would allow two calls (one in and one out) to be less
expensive than a simple direct dialed call, at least in these
days of pennies per minute, six-second billing via many carriers
along with numerous other inexpensive schemes with 800 numbers,
remote call forwarding, etc. Probably the main reason so few
'WATS Extenders' are seen these days is because telco has so
many options which are just as inexpensive or more so and which
don't have all the fraud potential the old-style line patches
carried with them. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #197
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jul 30 09:21:13 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA13126; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:21:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 09:21:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199707301321.JAA13126@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #198
TELECOM Digest Wed, 30 Jul 97 09:20:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 198
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Re: NJ Escort Services Complain Lawyer Calls Hurt Business (Mark)
Re: Premature Rejoicing (AOL to Sell Customers' Phone Numbers) (B Margolin)
Re: Area Code Splits: Long Term Solution? (Gail M. Hall)
Re: ACD and General Phone Switch Query (Rob Robinson)
Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation (Paul Cook)
Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation (John Marshall)
Re: Anti-Spam Technology (Kriston J. Rehberg)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Walter Dnes)
Re: Free Calls in Seattle Area (Orin Eman)
Re: Free Calls in Seattle Area (Afshin David Youssefyeh)
Is VAT Included in Interconnect Access Charges? (Rudy Torres)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark.NAFTEL@is.belgacom.be
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 97 10:30:26 CDT
Subject: Re: NJ Escort Services Complain Lawyer Calls Hurt Business
This posting reminded me of when I worked (as a lawyer) in the
Tennessee office of South Central Bell and part of my duties were to
handle telephone number disputes. We once had a case where a number
had been "reserved" for an escort service by a Yellow Pages salesman
and was subsequently assigned to a Baptist preacher before the book
came out. When the Yellow Pages came out, the preacher received some
interesting calls; he complained, and I got involved.
I thought about just telling the preacher that he should look at this
as a wonderful opportunity to save sinners, but I did not think he
would appreciate that. We offered to change his number, but he
refused - business cards and stationary had been printed and
distributed. BTW, preachers received a discount on their telephone
service in Tennessee, but that is another story.
The owner of the escort service, who lived in Arizona, also refused to
accept a new number and was very rude to the service representatives
and me - unusual as the proprietors of these types of business were
usually very polite and among our best customers, given their
dependence on telephone service. We ended up giving both customers
new numbers and imposing a split intercept. When a call was made to
the disputed number, a live operator would come on the line and
inquire "who are you calling, please?" The appropriate new number
would then be given.
We managed to keep the story out of the papers and we did not get
sued. We only did split intercept under exceptional circumstances,
preferring to use recorded messages with the new numbers. Resolving
number disputes took a large part of my time, and I feel sorry for
whoever Bell Atlantic has got working on this. Doctors and lawyers
were the worst to deal with. Their partnerships would split and each
group would claim the phone number. I had a set response. South
Central Bell owned the telephone numbers - we had a tariff to that
effect; tariffs had the force of law in Tennessee; South Central Bell
would not become involved in the dispute between the parties (also in
the tariffs), but if we could be shown a court order directing that
one party had the right to be the customer for the number, we would
follow that order.
It was a position of unshakeable strength; we were never successfully
sued, although once a lawyer got a temporary federal injunction
directing us to give a listing for a disputed number in the Yellow
Pages (right before the book closed) to his client. After the book
closed, he dismissed the suit, wisely, as I was filing for sanctions
against him. Sometimes I would have to examine partnerships
agreements and contracts, but usually I relied on our billing records
to determine who was listed as the "change order customer", who paid
the phone bill, who moved when the split occurred, etc. With number
portability all that will change. I wonder if the new number
administrations have any idea what they will be in for and how they
will handle number disputes.
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Premature Rejoicing (AOL to Sell Customers' Phone Numbers)
Date: 30 Jul 1997 00:35:54 -0400
Organization: BBN Planet, Cambridge, MA
In article <telecom17.195.3@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, Stan Brown
<Brownsta@concentric.net> wrote:
> So how exactly is this any kind of victory for consumers? Seems to me
> if you're getting telemarketing calls on behalf of non-AOL companies,
> just because you're an AOL customer, it doesn't matter who makes the
> calls. And since you have a business relationship with AOL, I believe
> you can't even ask to be put on their do-not-call list.
It's a victory for privacy, because these other companies don't know
who is being called. They can't correlate the AOL list against other
lists they have, to generate demographic profiles of you. And if AOL
decides to discontinue the practice, you don't have the problem of all
the lists that have already been sold.
What AOL is doing is similar to a common practice of many companies
with mailing lists. Many companies that won't sell their mailing list
will instead sell a mailing service -- a client provides them a piece
of mail and perhaps some recipient criteria, and the company sends the
mail to all their customers who meet the criteria. The client gets
his junk mail sent, but he still doesn't have the company's customer
list.
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
BBN Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Support the anti-spam movement; see <http://www.cauce.org/>
------------------------------
From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall)
Subject: Re: Area Code Splits: Long Term Solution?
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:58:03 GMT
Organization: APK Net, Ltd.
I'm just an ordinary phone user, and I am wondering about why we have
to have "splits" in the first place. Why can't they just assign two
codes to the same area so existing numbers can stay the same and only
new numbers would be assigned to the new area code.
The main reason people are protesting splits so much is the cost of
informing everyone they want to call them that they have a new number.
This includes costs of stationery and advertising for businesses.
Here there are several towns going to court to fight having their
towns split up with different area codes within the towns. Why they
split up several communities instead of just changing some communities
is a mystery.
Frankly, I don't see why this should be necessary. The people who
already have area code 216 could stay the same and only new phone
lines would need to be given the new area code, in my opinion. Then
the cost would be minimized because any time someone gets a new phone
line they would inform whoever they want to know it about the new
number regardless of the area code. They did this with telephone
exchanges within towns, so it makes sense to do it with area codes.
When some 216 numbers were switched over to 330, we were told they
would still be "local" numbers as far as charges go, but we were
supposed to still dial the 1 before the 330. Now I hear that there
are some places where people can skip the 1 and just dial the new area
codes plus the number if they are local calls. If that's the case,
then my idea of assigning two numbers to the SAME area would make
sense.
On 09 Jul 1997 15:47:57 -0500, j-grout@glhpx2.cen.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout)
wrote:
> jfmezei <jfmezei@videotron.ca[nospam]> writes:
>> Assuming that the growth projections at the time the 0-1 limitation
>> was removed are now completely way off, would it have been better **
>> IN HINDSIGHT ** to have gone to 8 digit telephone numbers right away?
It's interesting to learn that some people have even considered using
8-digit phone numbers.
> From a user interface standpoint, I would prefer to see longer local
> phone numbers than mandatory 10 digit dialing, but our PUC (in
> California) has already said we'll have the latter before general
> overlays are permitted, and it looks as if they'll be needed before
> long.
As a person getting older and more forgetful, it is easier for me to
remember 8 numbers than 10. <g>
I remember in the 1940s being places where there were 4- and 5-digit
phone numbers. My parents even had a number with a letter in it. It
was 2 digits, an F, and 2 more digits. It was called a "farmers'
line." (Anybody remember those?)
In the 50's everyone changed to 7-digit numbers looking toward
national direct dialing. I remember being *thrilled* the first time I
could dial direct to my family a couple thousand miles away. :-)
But now when even local numbers are 10 digits plus the first 1 in some
places, we almost need automatic dialing to survive!
Numbers are getting so long that the next features in phones could
very well be voice recognition software built inside the phones so you
can pick up the phone and on getting the dialtone, you will say "call
Mom" and it will dial her number automagically.
Gail M. Hall
gmhall@apk.net
------------------------------
From: cbeast@texas.net (Rob Robinson)
Subject: Re: ACD and General Phone Switch Query
Date: 29 Jul 1997 15:23:44 GMT
Organization: Texas Networking
In my experience, the smaller systems just don't implement ACD
features well at all. I've some limited experience with the Executone
system. It is easy to configure, but it is a 2-pair system (you may
not have enough cable in the building to support it), I don't know how
well their ACD add on works. You may want to (and I'm loath to say
this ...) look at Centrex. Your LEC may offer ACD functionality on
top of Centrex. I'm also very familiar with a PC based ACD product
that works well in a DMS-100 centrex environment, and it's
specifically designed for the small call center (>20 agents). Product
name is called Mediator, made by the Dees company. Good product,
IMHO. Feel free to contact me with further questions
Rob Robinson
Chief of Telecommunications
Texas Worker's Compensation Commission
512.912.2609
cbeast@texas.net
------------------------------
Reply-To: <pcook@proctorinc.com>
From: Paul Cook <pcook@proctorinc.com>
Subject: Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 08:40:03 -0700
Bradley Ward Allen <ulmo@Q.Net> wrote:
> How much would it take to program the relevant systems so that when a
> cellular phone user dials 911, the dispatcher knows the triangulation
> of the cell phone much as they would know the address of a stationary
> telephone? I am thinking specifically of New York City (8M people?),
> but it is obviously a question where people from many locations would
> have information and be interested.
There are several add-on systems out there which can do this with
varying degrees of accuracy, but the ones which give an exact location
are quite expensive, and the cost that system operators or
municipalities are willing to pay has to be factored in when a
manufacturer is going to bring something like this to market.
Proctor & Associates makes one which tells the 911 operator which cell
site the call came from and which face of the site the caller is on.
With cell sites getting smaller and smaller, this can get the location
down to a pretty small area. The Proctor Cell Link system also
forward's the caller's telephone number, so the 911 operator can call
back if needed. This is an improvement over the current way that 911
calls are handled from cellular, where the only ANI they get is the
identification of the trunk from the cellular system.
You can check out some details on the Cell Link system at
http://www.proctorinc.com.
Paul Cook * pcook@proctorinc.com ph: 425-881-7000
Proctor & Associates, Redmond, WA fax: 425-885-3282
http://www.proctorinc.com
------------------------------
From: John P. Marshall <jpm@isassoc.com>
Subject: Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect?
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 14:01:29 -0400
Organization: I.S. Associates
Bradley Ward Allen wrote:
> * I have called 911 twice in the last week, both times a group of
> four men tried to mug me (they did not succeed either time). Both
> times, I called from my BANM cell-phone. Both times, I got hold of
> a 911 operator who needed me to tell them what Boron I was in. Both
> times, we spent about thirty seconds extra, precious time in
> possibly apprehending these people, or whatever else the 911 call
> could possibly be for. In both situations, putting on the report my
> triangulated location would have been entirely sufficient. Both
> times, the narrowing of location for the operator would have been
> highly sufficient to make the verbal part of the address giving
> much, much more productive, perhaps take half or a third as long
> (especially if they were to get a map of area streets when the
> person called, but that wouldn't be quite necessary; even a list
> would do). Whether the triangulation is precise to the foot, small
> block, or large block, it would still be useful; of course, the
> more precise, the more useful. (How precise are they in NYC?)
> Definitely, when I say "I'm at 10th Ave & 27th St", if they knew
> which boro, that would save, oh, 15 seconds right there; that
> at *least* has got to help. Sure, on some borderline areas it might
> be a *little* confusing, but how many borderline areas can there
> possibly be?!?! This isn't Los Angeles.[snip]
Interesting idea ... not too many months ago there was a story on the
news of a guy who called 911 from his parked car to indicate he was
having chest pains. He was able to indicate one street but not the
cross street before he passed out. Luckily the cell phone was still
on, the police went up and down the one street that was stated in the
call and the 911 operator assisted police in finding him based upon
how loud the police sirens were over the cell phone call. It saved
his life. Surely a cell phone triangulation system could save many
more.
John
------------------------------
From: kriston@ibm.net (Kriston J. Rehberg)
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Technology
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 18:46:21 GMT
Eric Florack <Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com> wrote:
> For the benefit of Spambots everywhere:
> webmaster@localhost
> abuse@localhost
> postmaster@localhost
> I'm told it works like a charm, too.
And it will work until the next release of the spambot software.
Don't you believe that spambots already filter out these kinds of
obviously bogus emails?
And don't they already filter "NOSPAM" and translate "user at blah dot
com" from email addresses, too? Isn't this a trivial change, indeed?
I use various UNIXes as well as Windows. Of course, procmail works
great on UNIX. On Windows, Forte (www.forteinc.com) has just released
version 1.5 of Agent, which has a plain language *AND* a regular
expression filter for incoming email. Individual filters can be
applied to any header field in the message, the message body, and the
entire raw unformatted message as a whole. The filter creation dialog
is straightforward and easy to understand.
Sure, you still have to download the SPAM from your ISP, but Agent
does a fine job of zapping the spam as it arrives. This is
light-years ahead of Microsoft's "Rules Wizard" which I had been
previously using. You first set all incoming messages to arrive in an
"Unsorted" folder. Then, as you read messages that come into the
"Unsorted" folder, you type "CTRL-K" to bring up a kill filter to
either delete or forward to a "Trash me" folder, or you may type
"CTRL-W" to bring up a watch filter to send it to the "Inbox" or any
folder you desire (such as a "listserv" or "friends" folder). Of
course, each filter can be either plain language or regexp, and the
priority of the filter can be set from 0 to 1000, so you can still
have your listserv messages arrive in a "Listserv" folder, while still
filtering SPAM that has "Please type REMOVE" in the message! To
improve performance (though I haven't noticed any real delays), you
may combine many filters into one at any time.
It's effective, and works extremely well! You still have to download
the SPAM, however. If and when SPAMMERS are required to include the
word "ADVERTISEMENT" or "UCE" in their subjects, your ISP can do the
initial filtering at your option, and then the stragglers can be
zapped by Agent.
Kriston J. Rehberg
kriston@ibm.net
http://www.nyx.net/~krehberg/
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only problem with including those
strings in the subject is that there can be legitimate email with
the string 'uce' or 'advertisment' in the subject line. You would
need to fine-tune it just a bit more. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Walter Dnes <waltdnes@interlog.com>
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:38:10 -0400
Ideas for conservation of phone numbers and area codes.
Phone numbers (1) - can large office buildings be equipped with PBX's
so that everybody's line is xxx-yyyy extension zzz# (where the sharp
sign signifies end-of-number. This allows an arbitrary number of
digits to be used). And do this *WITHOUT* giving everybody a direct
7-digit inbound number? This would make rotary phones obsolete but
otherwise would work within the bounds of existing technology. Allow
businesses 2 inbound numbers at base rates (1 main PBX, and 1 FAX) and
make them pay through the nose for extra inbound numbers. Extending
this idea to residences could also work. A residence should be
allowed at most one 7-digit inbound number at standard rates, and have
to pay extra for additional inbound 7-digit numbers. That's the
stick. As a carrot, offer the option of allowing residences to have
only a 7+4 inbound number, at reduced monthly rates.
If every tenth physical phone number has a 4-digit extension hung
off it, we would increase phone-number space by a factor of 1000
*USING CURRENT TECHNOLOGY*.
Phone numbers (1) - There is also no reason why an ISP needs 1,000
inbound numbers for 1,000 modems. That's what hunting technology is
for. In a worst case, modems can be set to dial a 7-digit number,
wait for a second dialtone, and dial additional numbers.
Area codes - Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed that every
oversized sandbar in the Carribean is getting its own area code, even
if it has just a few exchanges ? At the rate things are going, one of
these days the NANP (North American Numbering Plan) will start running
out of area codes. Area codes should have to meet a minimum utilization
rate to justify their existance. At the very least, current usage plus
5 years of projected growth.
While we're at it, how about kicking out of NANP rogue companies,
like 809, that don't agree to reasonable pricing? This would have two
positive effects towards conserving phonenumber space...
a) free up an area codes
b) small Carribean islands that do comply, might find that there is
a sudden drop in demand for their phone numbers as the scammers
can no longer get rip-off commissions from those bases. This
would delay the need for area-code splits.
Walter Dnes
<waltdnes@interlog.com>
------------------------------
From: orin@wolfenet.COM (Orin Eman)
Subject: Re: Free Calls in Seattle Area
Date: 28 Jul 1997 18:15:48 GMT
Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C
Babu Mengelepouti <dialtone@vcn.bc.ca> writes:
> A very unusual new service has surfaced in the Seattle area, which is
> fully described at http://www.sendhelp.com. It allows free calls to
> the entire Seattle local calling area from other Puget Sound cities
> (up to sixty miles away) that are ordinarily long distance. This does
> not as yet work both ways (free calls TO Seattle may be placed, but
> free calls TO Olympia, for instance, cannot); however, it is a useful
> service nonetheless. I suspect that they're using foreign exchange
> circuits, but the company is mum on exactly how they are providing the
> free service.
> The catch? You have to listen to a 15 second advertisement for their
> software before your free call will go through. A small price to pay
> when intralata toll rates are often in excess of thirty cents per
> minute!
I live in Everett WA and yes, some calls to Seattle were 30 cents per
minute ... but I'm on the AT&T 10c per minute plan so 10ATT fixed that
at some slight inconvenience. I then asked AT&T if they could carry
all my long distance ... 'yes we can, would you like that?'. Needless
to say, I switched.
It's interesting to note that GTE included a note in a recent bill
saying they had applied for a 10c a minute rate.
Orin.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But ten cents per minute is still
more than 'free'. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Afshin David Youssefyeh <kashi@ibm.net>
Reply-To: kashi@ibm.net
Subject: Re: Free Calls in Seattle Area
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 17:34:21 -0700
There is a similar service in Europe whereby listening to an
advertisement every 3 minutes, your phone call is free. The service
makes its money from the ads.
------------------------------
From: Rudy Torres <Rto@gd2.swissptt.ch>
Subject: Is VAT Included in Interconnect Access Charges?
Date: 30 Jul 1997 06:00:56 GMT
Organization: Swiss Telecom
Reply-To: Rudy Torres <Rudy.Torres2@gd2.swissptt.ch>
Hello to everyone out there,
I have a simple question regarding interconnect access charges and VAT
taxes, and I was wondering what other telco providers do regarding
this question.
If a network carrier (A) charges an interconnect access charge to a
service provider (B) to complete a call for a customer of that service
provider (B), is it usual for the interconnect access charge to
contain VAT (Value Added Taxes/Sales Tax) when charging the service
provider (B)? Even though the over-all charges for the call to the
customer by the Service Provider (B) also contains VAT?
Or is the VAT on the over-all charges for the call proportionately
distributed between the service provider (B) and the network carrier
(A)?
How does this system of VAT applied to the sale of wholesale access to
many services providers (B) by a network carrier (A)? And the sale of
those services by the service providers (B) to an additional tier of
service providers (C)?
Your comments/answers to these questions are greatly appreciated.
Please send comments/answers either via e-mail (please remove
anti-spam measure from address in auto-reply) or by posting to this
USENET post.
Thanks in advance!
Best Regards,
Rudy Torres
Swiss Telecom PTT
Mobilcom MC-MV-4/5
Ostermundigen - Bern, Switzerland
(E-mail address included in auto-reply)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #198
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Aug 1 09:22:21 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA21158; Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:22:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 09:22:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199708011322.JAA21158@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #199
TELECOM Digest Fri, 1 Aug 97 09:22:08 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 199
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Book Review: "CyberLaw: The Law of the Internet" by Rosenoer (Rob Slade)
351 as Relief NPA for 504 Could be in Conflict (Mark J. Cuccia)
South Florida Gets Overlay NPA (Tad Cook)
Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect? (Jay R. Ashworth)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Jay R. Ashworth)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 10:33:46 EST
From: Rob Slade <roberts@decus.ca>
Subject: Book Review: "CyberLaw: The Law of the Internet" by Rosenoer
BKCYBRLW.RVW 970302
"CyberLaw: The Law of the Internet", Jonathan Rosenoer, 1997, 0-387-94832-5,
U$34.95
%A Jonathan Rosenoer
%C 175 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10010
%D 1997
%G 0-387-94832-5
%I Springer-Verlag
%O U$34.95 800-777-4643 fax: 201-348-4505 wborden@springer-ny.com
%P 362
%T "CyberLaw: The Law of the Internet"
Unlike "NetLaw" (cf. BKNETLAW.RVW), which was written for sysops and
users, "CyberLaw" is written for lawyers. It is liberally supplied
with footnote references to case studies and decisions dealing with
the topics discussed. (Because of this, "CyberLaw", more than any
other computer law book I have reviewed, is pertinent *only* to the
United States.)
Unlike "Net Law" (cf. BKNLHLUI.RVW), which looks at legal practice,
"CyberLaw" deals strictly with points of law. Topics covered include
copyright, trademark, defamation, privacy, duty of care, criminal
liability, procedural issues, electronic contracts, misappropriation
of information, civil rights, tax, and evidence. (One chapter which
does *not* deal with the law is entitled "Ethics".) As noted, there
are extensive footnote references to case law, as well as reprints of
relevant issues of the author's "CyberLaw" column.
For those outside the legal profession, the book is reasonably clear
on the major issues. Its real value, however, would be to lawyers
looking for a quick introduction to US law in respect to information
technology. For this purpose, it is ideal.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKCYBRLW.RVW 970302
roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." - Edmund Burke http://www2.gdi.net/~padgett/trial.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 19:05:44 -0500
From: Mark J. Cuccia <mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu>
Subject: 351 as Relief NPA for 504 Could be in Conflict
Per John Cropper's earlier posting ...
Yes, 351 is indicated as a Louisiana relief code in a AT&T/Lucent list
of NPA's for 1997. I checked with the AT&T operator for a nameplace on
318-351 and 504-351.
318-351 is indicated as Opelousas LA
504-351 is indicated as Hammond LA
It is expected that 504 will need relief prior to 318. And the relief
of 504 is expected to be a split, along the boundary dividing the New
Orleans LATA from the Baton Rouge LATA, with the New Orleans side
keeping 504 and the Baton Rouge side getting a new NPA code. Of
course, there are some extensions from the Jackson MS LATA into
Louisiana, with those Louisiana ratecenters presently under NPA
504. For those ratecenters in Louisiana, but served out of the Jackson
MS LATA and from adjacent Mississippi wirecenters, if they are also
adjacent to the Baton Rouge LATA, they will get the new "Baton Rouge"
NPA, but those Louisiana ratecetners served from Mississippi
wirecenters and the Jackson MS LATA which also border the New Orelans
LATA would keep NPA 504.
_IF_ BellSouth had 351 as its favorite for the Baton Rouge area's new
NPA, there could be a code conflict, as John mentioned.
Hammond LA (with a 504-351 prefix, amongst several others) is north of
the lake, and in the New Orleans LATA, but right next door to the Baton
Rouge LATA.
In the New Orleans LATA in that area are Independence LA, Hammond LA,
Ponchatula LA. In that area in the Baton Rouge LATA are Albany LA and
Springfield LA. There is cross-LATA _LOCAL/EAS_ 7-digit dialing, which
was probably grandfathered-in at divestiture.
Albany and Springfield can call each other locally.
Independence and Hammond are local, Hammond and Ponchatula are local.
(But Independence and Ponchatula are intra-LATA toll).
ALSO, the cross-LATA lcoal (7D) is Hammond/Ponchatula with
Albany/Springfield, and also Independence with Albany.
I have reported this possible code-conflict to some BellSouth people I
know in Birmingham and Atlanta, and they are going to look into it.
Therefore, a-la-850 or 352, I think that the original favorite of 351
for Baton Rouge might have to be changed to something else. This time,
however, BellSouth and Bellcore-NANPA hadn't released anything on 351
... except that the AT&T/Lucent 1997 area code list indicated 351 for
Louisiana, and of course, my curiousity was peaked! :)
As for the 850 vs. 352 situation ...
In 1995, for the split of Florida's 904 NPA, BellSouth had originally
planned on 850 for the Daytona LATA. Then, for some reason, they changed
their minds on the split region/boundaries. It was revamped to be the
Gainesville LATA. However, there are some areas in the Gainesville LATA
close to the 407 NPA (Orlando area), which had local 7-digit dialing
with these 407 NPA regions. And, one of the 407-NXX codes which had 7D
local dialing was 407-850! Almost at the last minute, BellSouth had to
change the 850 as originally planned to 352 (which spells out FLA).
This year, NPA 850 has become an additional relief NPA for the 904 NPA
(Florida panhandle this time), with the western part getting 850
(Pensacola, Panama-City, and Sprint-Centel's Tallahassee LATAs), and the
Daytona and Jacksonville LATAs keeping 904.
Of course, if overlays and mandatory ten-digit dialing became universal,
code-conflicts would become _meaningless_!
MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497
WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497)
Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to
Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail-
------------------------------
Subject: South Florida Gets Overlay NPA
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 22:05:36 PDT
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Dade County, Florida Keys Getting New Area Code, 10-Digit Dialing
BY STEVE BOUSQUET, THE MIAMI HERALD
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
MIAMI--Jul. 31--Dade County's numbers are just about up.
The explosion in cellular phones, fax machines and home-computer modems
means the 305 area code is running out of numbers faster than
expected -- and Dade and the Keys will need another area code next
year.
But instead of splitting Dade by geography, telephone industry experts
have decided on a first-come, first-serve approach: Old phones keep
the old area code and numbers, and lines ordered after July 1, 1998,
get a new -- and as-yet unknown -- area code.
The biggest change for consumers will be having to punch in 10 digits
-- area code and numbers -- even for a call across the street. Some
homes and businesses will have phones in two area codes, and some
people will have a home phone in one area code and a pager or cell
phone in another. But businesses won't have to redo their signs,
stationery and calling cards, as they did when Broward County switched
to the 954 area code last year.
"We are moving from seven-digit dialing to 10-digit dialing," said Spero
Canton, a BellSouth spokesman. "The area code will become part of
your phone number."
Ten-digit dialing on local calls is in place in Houston, New York and
some other major cities, and experts say it's only a matter of time
before Florida cities have it, too.
"Death, taxes and 10-digit dialing," said Braulio Baez, a spokesman for
Public Service Commissioner Joe Garcia of Miami.
Dade and Monroe counties would be the only places in Florida with what
is known as an overlay relief plan, with two area codes in one place.
"It's going to be a little confusing, but obviously we need more
numbers," said Paul Klugerman, general manager of ABC Paging in Miami,
one of many services that have sprung up in recent years to respond to
the technology revolution. "I guess that's the price we pay for growth
and progress."
The change will affect about 2.5 million Floridians who live south of
the Dade-Broward line, and countless thousands more who work
there. But it could happen without any public input or regulatory
approvals.
That's because FCC rules allow a plan to take effect if the industry
has reached a consensus, and if no one challenges it. The deadline for
filing a challenge with the Public Service Commission in Tallahassee
is Tuesday.
A group of competing telecommunications industry representatives,
meeting in Miami last month, decided an overlay plan was better than
the alternative, a geographic split that would have assigned a new
area code to parts of Dade. By a 5-2 vote, the industry panel approved
the overlay idea June 30.
As a BellSouth executive, Nancy Sims, told the Public Service Commission:
"The recommended dialing plan ... is that all local calls be dialed as 10
digits, whether between or within area codes."
Two BellSouth rivals, AT&T Long Distance and AT&T Wireless, voted against
the overlay relief plan.
Company representatives did not return calls seeking comment. But an
internal Public Service Commission memo cited the possibility that
customers who change local phone carriers might be forced to get
different numbers. That could put BellSouth's rivals at a competitive
disadvantage.
The plan filed with the commission calls for a six-month period
starting Jan. 1, during which time Dade and Monroe customers can get
accustomed to the changeover. The change would become mandatory July
1.
Dade and Monroe would join Broward and Palm Beach counties in making
the adjustment to a different dialing system. The 954 area code in
Broward, and 561 for Palm Beach and the Treasure Coast, went into
operation last year.
When Broward needed a new area code, the phone companies could not
come to an agreement on the solution. So the Public Service
Commission, after debate and criticism from businesses, voted 3-2 to
assign 954 to Broward. Some business and political leaders had urged
an overlay plan for Broward, but customers adjusted.
In Dade and the Keys, it makes sense to switch to an overlay plan,
BellSouth spokesman Canton says, because it's only a matter of time
before another area code will be needed, and South Floridians might as
well get used to 10-digit dialing on local calls.
Calls within the 305 area code that are now considered long-distance,
like those between North Miami and Homestead, will require dialing a 1
before the 10 digits. That includes so-called local long-distance
calls, in which customers pay 25 cents a call and can talk as long as
they want.
The new Dade-Monroe county area code will be the 10th area code in
Florida -- the fourth-largest state, with almost 14 million
residents. As recently as 1988, the state had only three area
codes. The ninth code, 850, went into effect last month in an area
stretching from Tallahassee to Pensacola and North Florida residents
have already begun making the adjustment.
"There are too many people and the numbers are going to run out in
1998," said Beverlee DeMello, consumer affairs director for the Public
Service Commission. "What are we going to do? Everybody wants to
communicate."
------------------------------
From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth)
Subject: Re: 911 & Cell Phone Triangulation: How Much To Connect?
Date: 31 Jul 1997 00:39:33 GMT
Organization: Ashworth & Associates
On 28 Jul 1997 15:48:10 GMT, Seymour Dupa <grumpy@en.com> wrote:
> GPS (Global Positioning System) is a system of satellites which
> broadcast special signals which received by a GPS receiver will
> indicate the lattitude/longitude of the receiver.
Yup.
> This lat/lon data could be encoded on the voice channel, extracted on
> the receiving end, fed to a desktop mapping system, and the caller's
> location indicated on a map.
Yup II - The Terror Continues.
> FYI, this system already exsists - several luxury cars have them.
> Some systems have a 'panic' button - press the button and a 'I need
> help' message (along with your location) is sent - you don't have to
> say a word.. One company is thinking about wiring the button to the
> airbag trigger - help would be on the way even if you were unconcious.
Alas, there's a two word problem with this idea:
Installed Base.
This has been proposed and thrown out for about 40 million reasons.
Cheers,
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology
Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592
------------------------------
From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: 31 Jul 1997 00:46:00 GMT
Organization: Ashworth & Associates
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 15:38:10 -0400, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@interlog.
com> wrote:
> Phone numbers (1) - can large office buildings be equipped with PBX's
> so that everybody's line is xxx-yyyy extension zzz# (where the sharp
> sign signifies end-of-number. This allows an arbitrary number of
> digits to be used). And do this *WITHOUT* giving everybody a direct
> 7-digit inbound number? This would make rotary phones obsolete but
Answer: yes. ISDN supports this; it's called "subaddressing". I
think the hangup on this idea is mostly the originating switches which
don't know how to capture the numbers ... or that they _need_ to. It
causes nsaty timeout problems on the originate end for people who want
the switchboard and don't know the protocol.
> Phone numbers (1) - There is also no reason why an ISP needs 1,000
> inbound numbers for 1,000 modems. That's what hunting technology is
> for. In a worst case, modems can be set to dial a 7-digit number,
> wait for a second dialtone, and dial additional numbers.
You're talking about giving hunt groups non-dialable circuit numbers
for their upper lines. This is a great idea, but AFAIK, most LEC's
seem unable to do it except on digital trunks like PIR's and T-1's. Of
course, some LEC's charge more to do it that way... but this shouldn't
be a surprise. It Always Costs More To Do It Right when dealing with
telco's.
> Area codes - Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed that every
> oversized sandbar in the Carribean is getting its own area code, even
> if it has just a few exchanges ? At the rate things are going, one of
> these days the NANP (North American Numbering Plan) will start running
> out of area codes. Area codes should have to meet a minimum utilization
> rate to justify their existance. At the very least, current usage plus
> 5 years of projected growth.
Yeah, but the Carribbean basin isn't the thing to fix.
> While we're at it, how about kicking out of NANP rogue companies,
> like 809, that don't agree to reasonable pricing? This would have two
> positive effects towards conserving phonenumber space...
809's not a company, and they aren't even really breaking any laws.
This has been covered in the past; see the archives.
Cheers,
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology
Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #199
******************************
From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Aug 4 09:09:07 1997
Return-Path: <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S)
id JAA25915; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor)
Message-Id: <199708041309.JAA25915@massis.lcs.mit.edu>
To: ptownson
Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #200
TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Aug 97 09:09:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 200
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
UCLA Short Course: "Turbo Codes" (Bill Goodin)
UCLA Short Course: "Adaptive Filtering in Signal Processing" (Bill Goodin)
Meridian Maintenance Modem (David White)
Re: Unit to Connect Two POTS Lines (Tad Cook)
Re: Unit to Connect Two POTS Lines (Steve Bagdon)
Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone? (DVIEI1@jcpenney.com)
Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone? (Charles B. Wilber)
Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone? (Rob Bristow)
Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone? (Chris Griem)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Mark D. Foster)
Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits (Almeda Eyre-Eagles)
Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone? (Robert Sinclair)
Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone? (Mike Oniffrey)
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
* telecom-request@massis.lcs.mit.edu *
The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax
or phone at:
Post Office Box 4621
Skokie, IL USA 60076
Phone: 847-727-5427
Fax: 773-539-4630
** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu **
Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/
They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp:
ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives
(or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note
to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this
method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom
Archives.
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland *
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) *
* project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU. *
*************************************************************************
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Goodin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA Short Course: "Turbo Codes"
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 14:46:55 -0700
On October 27-31, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Turbo Codes: Principles and Applications", on the UCLA campus in
Los Angeles.
The instructors are Sergio Benedetto, PhD, Politecnico di Torino;
Dariush Divsalar, PhD, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Guido Mortorsi,
Politecnico di Torino; and Fabrizio Pollara, PhD, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory.
Turbo codes were introduced in 1993 and are considered among the most
important developments in coding theory. Researchers around the world
have been able to extend the basic idea to other forms of code
concatenations, with various applications to transmission over fading
channels, band-limited satellite channels, and channels with intersymbol
interference. A turbo code is formed by two simple convolutional codes
separated by an interleaver. The decoder consists of two Soft-Input
Soft-Output (SISO) modules connected by an interleaver and a
deinterleaver.
This course addresses fundamentals of turbo codes; understanding of
the principles governing the code behavior; extension to multiple
turbo codes, and iterative decoding; design of a turbo code for
various throughputs and modulations such as M-PSK, M-QAM;
implementation of a turbo decoder by using the Add-Compare-Select
operations and lookup tables similar to those used in the
implementation of Viterbi decoders; extensions of turbo coding
concepts to other forms of concatenation with interleavers such as
serial and hybrid concatenation; applications to space communications,
digital direct broadcast satellite services, CDMA, and virtually any
data communication system that can tolerate a delay due to an
interleaver size of at least 250 bits (delay is proportional to the
interleaver size divided by the data rate).
This is a new subject area and the potential applications of this new
coding scheme are potentially broad. Engineers working in all aspects
of information transmission technology, as well as research scientists
and academics, should benefit from the material presented in the
course. The analytical details are kept to a minimum and no algebraic
tools are required.
The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials.
These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale.
For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at:
(310) 825-1047
(310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
From: Bill Goodin <bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu>
Subject: UCLA Short Course: "Adaptive Filtering in Signal Processing"
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 14:49:09 -0700
On October 27-31, 1997, UCLA Extension will present the short course,
"Adaptive Filtering in Signal Processing and Communications", on the
UCLA campus in Los Angeles.
The instructors are Ali Sayed, PhD, Associate Professor, Electrical
Engineering Department, UCLA; and Markus Rupp, PhD, MTS,
Lucent Technologies.
Adaptive systems have become an integral part of many modern designs.
By virtue of their structure, these devices adjust themselves to an
ever-changing environment, such that their performance improves
through a continuing interaction with their surroundings. Their
superior performance in non-stationary environments results from their
ability to track slow variations in the statistics of the signals and
to continually seek optimum designs.
Adaptive systems have evolved rapidly over the last three decades as a
result of significant advances in integrated-circuit design and
digital computer technology. Adaptive structures that perform
multiple tasks have become prominent parts of many electronic devices,
ranging from consumer products to advanced military electronics.
Notable applications include the suppression of interference arising
from noisy measurement sensors, the elimination of distortions
introduced when signals travel through transmission channels, and the
recovery of signals embedded in a multitude of echoes created by
multi-path effects in mobile communications.
Adaptive signal processing is the discipline that deals with the
design of adaptive systems for signal processing applications.
Related issues involve control design, where the behavior of a system
is altered, leading to the study of adaptive control strategies where
the main issue is the stability of the system under feedback.
This course provides a complete and up-to-date introduction to the
fundamentals of adaptive filtering, with emphasis on applications in
the fields of signal processing and communications, and on potential
connections with Kalman and H+ filtering methodologies. The
course is designed to satisfy both professionals with no prior
exposure to the field but who are seeking an overview of the
subject, as well as practitioners who would benefit from a
systematic and unifying exposition of the topic.
Emphasis is on fundamental ideas and on potential
applications. Several examples and software demonstrations should
enable participants to practice typical applications in the context of
signal processing and digital communications.
Computer Demonstrations
The course includes computer demonstrations on adaptive filter
analysis and design. It also provides participants with the
opportunity to exercise with typical applications, including acoustic
echo cancellation, decision feedback equalization, and blind
equalization.
The course fee is $1495, which includes course materials. These
materials are for participants only, and are not for sale.
For additional information and a complete course description, please
contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax
mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses/
This course may also be presented on-site at company locations.
------------------------------
From: David White <rdavidwhite@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Meridian Maintenance Modem
Date: 03 Aug 1997 15:34:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
I have an Option 61 and would like to upgrade the maintenance modem
from an ancient 300 baud. I have changed the switches on the SDI card
but cannot get US Robotics modem to work. Does anyone know the correct
initialization string for a US Robotics Courier?
##rdavidwhite@worldnet.att.net
remove the ## above to respond (spam avoidance)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Unit to Connect Two POTS Lines
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 19:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook)
Joe Plescia <jplescia@plescia.com> wrote:
> Anyone know of a unit that will allow me to connect a ringing line to
> another line so a user can call one number and then get a dialtone
> from the second line to redial out?
PAT wrote:
> You can get these at telephone supply companies but a word of
> warning is very important here. If you choose to install one, be
> aware that in a short period of time at least one or more phreaks
> will have discovered the associated lines. The word will spread,
> and unless you have the whole thing very well passcoded, expect
> to see a hellish, humongous long distance bill real soon.
Proctor & Associates has a unit that will do this, but with some very
good security features. The unit is programmable and very flexible.
It's the Secured System Access Line, model 46300. You can check
Proctor's web site, but I'm not sure if this product is on there yet.
Their web address is www.proctorinc.com.
You can reach Proctor at 425-881-7000 or via fax at 425-885-3282,
or via email at solutions@proctorinc.com
Tad Cook tad@ssc.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 14:47:10 -0400
From: Steve Bagdon <bagdon@rust.net>
Subject: Re: Unit to Connect Two POTS Lines
Joe Plescia <jplescia@plescia.com> said:
> Anyone know of a unit that will allow me to connect a ringing line to
> another line so a user can call one number and then get a dialtone
> from the second line to redial out?
And TELECOM Digest Editor <ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu> said:
> There were the kind which would dial a preset number
> and were mostly used as rudimentary call-forwarding devices, and
> there were others which were open ended; i.e. they gave dialtone
> to the caller and where you called was unlimited. ** The phreaks
> liked that kind best ** as you might imagine.
> Assuming you are desiring this for cost-effeciency purposes and
> not planning some sort of scam yourself (!) I'd be interested in
> knowing what sort of configuration or traffic patterns you have
> which would allow two calls (one in and one out) to be less
> expensive than a simple direct dialed call, at least in these
> days of pennies per minute, six-second billing via many carriers
> along with numerous other inexpensive schemes with 800 numbers,
> remote call forwarding, etc.
Talk about bringing back memories! Mitel made a box called the PPP or
CAV box (depending on features), which had all the features that Joe
wants, and all the security that you recommend. You would install the
unit up to a line with 'user transfer' (3-way calling, whatever), call
the unit, get a double beep, enter the phone number you wanted to be
transferred to, another double-beep, enter your passcode, and it would
flash-hook you, dial the number, then hang up. You'd be effectively
transferred, using two local-loop calls to extend a call
geographically.
Unit worked great. We could define all parameters, so we only
permitted 7 digit dialing (no 976) and an exception for 800 numbers
(some 800 numbers are regional only, can't be called from another
state, would call this box then be trasnferred to the 800
number). Something like up to a 7-digit number could be assigned as a
passcode, so we had no concerns about people hacking the box.
One nice feature about using switch-hook as the transfer method
(rather then 2 POTS lines) was that once the person was transferred,
the incoming line was free again (since the transfer took place at the
CO switch). We never discovered a limit of the number of lines that
could be transferred before the CO choked. We finally presumed we were
limited by the total number of incoming/outgoing trunk channels
entering-leaving the CO.
The boxes were basically free, and the local line was about $18 (with
the 3-way feature added), so we figured at $.10/minute, 180 minutes
was all that was needed to break even. With dial-up computer lines
big, 3 hours could be burned through in a night. Calls being
transferred within the same CO had no db loss. Calls leaving the CO
had a small loss. After some extensive testing, we discovered that 4
hops was about as far as we could go (with all those CO hops), but
that sure was a lot of geopraphy that could be covered. Unit could be
programmed remotely using DTMFs, so we could add/subtract passcodes
remotely. And there was a 25pin serial port, for loggin to a printer,
or even attaching a modem (for remote configuration) or packet modem
(for programming/monitoring over packet radio).
Steve B.
------------------------------
From: DVIEI1@jcpenney.com
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 15:00:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone
Larry,
About a month ago I went to a user presentation by Sprint in which
they showed a PCS flip phone (cannot remember if it was a Motorola set
or not) that had a "fake antenna." The explanation was people expect
an antenna. They put a phony one so users can have a security
blanket, therefore "improving" the quality of sound on the user's
imagination by extending the plastic antenna.
I heard once not to ever underestimate the power of media. If people
see something in a commercial or movie, it must be the truth.
Wireless phones are often seen on TV as having an extended antenna
when used, so by Golly, it better have one in real life.
Not the first time technology is adapted to user expectations though.
When Sprint started their long distance services, they had to "add" a
little static to their service: Callers were not used to fiber optic
lines' "cleanliness," so when they heard no sound, or no static, they
would hang up the phone thinking the connection was dead ... or so I
have heard.
Cordially,
Demian Vieira de Souza - Comm Analyst
JCPenney Communications Systems
12700 Park Central Place M/C 6009
Dallas, TX 75252, USA
Office:(972)591-7361 FAX:(972)531-7361/591-6721
Internet: dviei1@jcpenney.com
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jul 97 12:44:10 EDT
From: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber)
Reply-To: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU (Charles B. Wilber)
Subject: Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone
> I've been told recently that the retractable antenna on my Motorola
> MicroTac flip phone is a placebo; that it has no electrical function
> at all. A bit of emperical research indicated the signal strength
> meter never seems to change when the antenna is collapsed or
> extended.
Larry,
The standard Motorola MicroTac antenna is a functionless piece of
plastic. It is for appearances only. It can be replaced with a
functional, non-collapsible antenna, however. Motorola sells them as
do most cellular providers.
Charlie Wilber
Hanover, New Hampshire
------------------------------
From: Rob Bristow <rob.bristow@omc.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone?
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 14:25:50 +0100
Organization: EML
Reply-To: rob.bristow@omc.ericsson.se
Lawrence Rachman wrote:
> I've been told recently that the retractable antenna on my Motorola
> MicroTac flip phone is a placebo; that it has no electrical function
> Does anyone reading this know for sure?
The small helix is a fully functional antenna in its own right, but
it's view of the base station is vulnerable to being obscured by the
user's head.
The retractable part of the antenna acts as a parasitic element - it
is not directly connected to the helix, but is arranged to be near
enough to couple signals to and from it. Therefore, when extended it
will tend to get signals away from the user's head which should
improve performance slightly. The change in gain between retracted and
extended is probably quite small if you don't include the effect of
the user's head.
Rob Bristow
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 09:21:32 -0500
From: Chris Griem <chris.griem@wcom.com>
Subject: Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone?
I manufactured motorola's phones for a short time, and the antennae
are fake.
Motorola found that the antenna needed to be effective would be too
heavy for anything smaller than their "brick" phone, and the customers
either refused to buy a phone without one, or complained of bad
reception.
Motorola's answer is to install a piece of plastic tubing, going
through a coil that actually is the working antenna. The strange part
is that benchmark tests show a slight increase in signal (strength or
quality, I can't recall which) when the antenna is in the "collapsed"
position.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Mark D. Foster <mdfassoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 00:37:30 -0400
Organization: MDF Associates
The Pennsylvania PUC has since ordered thousand-block pooling there
starting immediately under interim number portability (using
RCF-remote call forwarding) until true LNP is deployed starting next
year, to defer exhaust of three areacodes. They have asked NANPA to
assign three phantom areacodes for PA to use temporarily as the
non-pub forward-to numbers for RCF.
Illinois is planning on starting thousand-block pooling starting
1/1/98 using LNP to defer exhaust of 847.
Mark D. Foster | mdfassoc@mindspring.com
MDF Associates | Tel: +1(703) 404-2258
Telecoms Consulting | Fax: +1(703) 404-2591
------------------------------
From: kiskiss@mail.goodnet.com (Almeda Eyre-Eagles)
Subject: Re: Phone Number Pooling - Reducing Area Code Splits
Date: 3 Aug 1997 12:01:24 GMT
Organization: GoodNet
Walter Dnes (waltdnes@interlog.com) wrote:
> businesses 2 inbound numbers at base rates (1 main PBX, and 1 FAX) and
> make them pay through the nose for extra inbound numbers. Extending
> this idea to residences could also work. A residence should be
> allowed at most one 7-digit inbound number at standard rates, and have
> to pay extra for additional inbound 7-digit numbers. That's the
> stick. As a carrot, offer the option of allowing residences to have
> only a 7+4 inbound number, at reduced monthly rates.
I would be more than happy to reduce the number of phone numbers that
I have if USWEST would offer multi-line and series hunting to
residence (and business) for a _reasonable_ rate. Here in AZ, Hunting
is 8.00 per month per line (compared to CA which is 50c/res $1/bus).
I have never got a straight answer out of USW on what justifies such
an inflated price for HTG.
The big eater of telephone numbers is not DID/PBX/Centrex users.
These users account for a small number of new prefixes compared to the
number of prefixes that are being eaten up by WIRELESS PROVIDERS and
CAPs.
I have always suggested that wireless providers be sectioned off into
their own NPA in a major metropolitan area. Unfortunately, all the
wireless companies are screaming "discrimination ... boo hoo!!", I say
that is a pile of bovine excrement! If wireless in LA was moved to
another NPA a long time ago, we would have seen the 818/626 or the
213/323 split. I could even see the 310/562 geographic split saved.
The FCC needs to step in and pre-empt all state laws and decisions
regarding overlays. All new areas that are due for relief should
break off their wireless (tandem prefixes) to a new NPA. Wireline
customers should not have to bear the burden of a split because of the
increasing use of wireless services.
The other problem is that there are so many wireless companies out
there and each one has their own prefix. Tandem prefixes should be
given out in blocks of 1000s. Telcos can route now at the 4th digit
level.
I hope that they consider this for the upcoming 602 split. It would be
nice to split off the wireless services to the new NPA and leave the
wireline code alone.
> Phone numbers (1) - There is also no reason why an ISP needs 1,000
> inbound numbers for 1,000 modems. That's what hunting technology is
> for. In a worst case, modems can be set to dial a 7-digit number,
> wait for a second dialtone, and dial additional numbers.
Many ISPs that are on multi-line hunt groups only have one telephone
number. Especially those who have channelized T-1 access (DSS in USWest,
SuperTrunk in P*B, etc.) use one single telephone number and each "line"
is identified by a terminal number(e.g. 867-5309 Ter. 0, 867-5309 Ter. 1,
867-5309 Ter. 2, etc.)
> Area codes - Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed that every
> oversized sandbar in the Carribean is getting its own area code, even
> if it has just a few exchanges ? At the rate things are going, one of
> these days the NANP (North American Numbering Plan) will start running
> out of area codes. Area codes should have to meet a minimum utilization
> rate to justify their existance. At the very least, current usage plus
> 5 years of projected growth.
Breaking up 809 was a really smart idea. This will take a load off
the 809 code administrator who had over 25 different administrations
that they had to deal with. It also allows these island governments
to be paid off by the audiotex industry to get good prefixes assigned
to their services.
While we are getting rid of the 809 rogue numbers, let's eliminate the
800/888 rogue numbers. While we are at it, let's eliminate 800/888 pager
numbers that DO NOT have a PIN (unlike SKY-PAGE, PAGE-MCI, etc).
What would prevent problems with "rogue" numbers is for LECs to
establish an "International Alert Tone". After a call to any area
code outside the 50 states is dialled, the LEC switch would have a
three-tone burst (440Hz) to warn that the number dialed is not in the
CONUS/AK/HI. The LEC switch also delays the call set-up time by 3
seconds to allow customers to hang up before the call even goes to the
carrier.
With that, LECs will be able to block NANP codes outside the
CONUS/AK/HI. Some states have 011+ blocking and these NANP codes
should be included with this.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 1997 17:48:04 -0700
From: Robert Sinclair <roberts@jps.net>
Reply-To: roberts@jps.net
Organization: Sinclair & Associates
Subject: Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone?
Lawrence Rachman wrote:
> I've been told recently that the retractable antenna on my Motorola
> MicroTac flip phone is a placebo; that it has no electrical function
> at all. A bit of emperical research indicated the signal strength
> meter never seems to change when the antenna is collapsed or
> extended.
> Maybe its just a piece of plastic, to pacify the unwashed masses.
I've been around as few times on this matter. Some Motorola reps claim
the retractable antenna is exactly that, a placebo (during market
trials it's claimed that phones without the antenna were thought to
have lower performance). Other say the antenna has a fine letal wire
in the center and offers slightly better performance when extended. I
have noted a 10% increase in signal strenth with the "antenna"
extended.
------------------------------
From: onif@ga.unc.edu (Mike Oniffrey)
Subject: Re: Phony Antenna on Motorola Flip Phone?
Organization: UNC Center for Public Television
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 04:32:54 GMT
Can't say for sure on the Motorola MicroTac, but the on my
garden-variety Motorola 550, my empirical tests showed the meter to
consistently read about one unit of difference whenever its plastic
(and seemingly useless) antenna was raised and lowered.
I too was suspicious ...
Regards,
Mike Oniffrey
Chapel Hill, North Carolina USA
onif@ga.unc.edu
(919) WAlnut 9-3929
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V17 #200
******************************