From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Nov 4 20:07:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA21706; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:07:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:07:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711050107.UAA21706@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #301 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Nov 97 20:07:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 301 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "DNS and BIND" by Albitz/Liu (Rob Slade) Re: Sausage Making, SS7 and Protocols (Jay R. Ashworth) Uruguay Numbering Plan Changes (egoni@zfm.com) Phase-out of 10XXX Codes? (Linc Madison) UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Coommunications" (Bill Goodin) Re: NPA for Windows Update (Paul Cook) Book Review: "The VRML Sourcebook" by Ames/Nadeau/Moreland (Rob Slade) Re: Switch Information Requested (Mark J. Cuccia) Sprint Tops in Customer Satisfaction (Chuck Tyrrell) Canadian Area Codes (S. Hayman) 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@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 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, 04 Nov 1997 10:23:30 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "DNS and BIND" by Albitz/Liu BKDNSBND.RVW 970705 "DNS and BIND", Paul Albitz/Cricket Liu, 1996, 1-56592-236-0 %A Paul Albitz %A Cricket Liu %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1996 %G 1-56592-236-0 %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 438 %T "DNS and BIND", 2nd ed. Of the millions of users on the Internet, almost all are blissfully unaware of the complexity and magnitude of the task of network routing. How does the network know where to deliver a piece of email? In fact, given the packet nature of all Internet traffic, how do telnet or ftp packets get, reliably and generally quickly, to their destination? Few even recognize the term DNS, the Domain Name Service, which handles the problem. Administrators may have used BIND, the Berkeley Internet Name Domain program, to manage DNS, but may not fully understand the importance, use or finer aspects of it. This book gives both background and operational details. Given the nature of the network routing problem, a full understanding of DNS likely requires actual hands-on work. Albitz and Liu have, however, put together clear, straightforward, and sometimes even lighthearted text to make the learning process as painless as possible. The book also covers more advanced topics than straightforward routing administration. This new edition deals in fair depth with Windows NT, rapidly rising in importance to internetwork operation. Bind 4.8.3 is the basic version for the book, but there is complete coverage of Bind 4.9.4 as well. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995, 1997 BKDNSBND.RVW 970705 ====================== 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: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:28:07 -0500 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Sausage making, SS7 and protocols Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA On Tue, Nov 04, 1997 at 07:12:27AM -0600, on the North American Network Operators Group mailing list, Sean Donelan wrote: >> In a world where the internet industry is becoming more and more >> like the telecoms industry, the necessity of users to have protocol >> level access to the network is diminishing, and the dangers of doing >> so are becoming greater. Which telcos will blithely hand out SS7 >> interconnects to users? Without (routable) IP access, there would be >> no SYN floods of distant networks, no source spoofing, less hacking, >> easier traceability, and the BGP table need only be OTO 1 entry per >> non-leaf node on a provider interconnection graph. > Strange how people in the telecom industry think they need to > become more like the internet industry, and people in the internet > industry think they need to become more like the telecom industry. > If you want to see some sausage being made, take a look at the > "Advance Intelligent Network" and the Internet interface working > group PINT. As someone who's spent extensive time in the past ten years following both industries, I'm going to have fun with this one ... To respond first to the original poster's question: "Which telco's will hand out SS7 connections to users", I pose the analogous question: "Which ISP's will hand out BGP4 connections to users?" > In the US, with telecom deregulation, the distinction between 'users' > and 'telephone companies' is becoming less distinct. When an insurance > company, an university, or an ISP files the paperwork to become a CLEC, > are they a 'user' or a 'telco?' What telco would refuse SS7 interconnects > to a CLEC? The trust model in SS7 makes rlogin look like a high-security > protocol. SS7 was developed in an environment where there would be a > few trusted 'users.' As the number of 'telco'-like entities explodes, > you might see some interesting security issues showing up with SS7. There > is some 'screening' between networks, but gateway STP nodes have many of > the same problems as Internet firewalls. Precisely. All an STP (Signal Transfer Point, for the non telco people) is, is an SS7 router. SS7 is, of course, the protocol used on the networks whereby switches tell each other about, and what to do about, calls. As Sean notes, this has been a tightly closed network to date, and whether sufficient engineering has been done to determine how scalable the administrative protocols surrounding it are is unknown. It's been noted that when you scale a problem up by an order of magnitude, it's no longer the same problem. Let's hope they don't blow this on SS7. > Internet providers give both less and more access to their networks than > telcos. Generally ISPs don't give other ISPs more access to their networks > than any other untrusted user. Even read-only SNMP between providers is > almost non-existant. Most ISPs would probally consider giving SS7 level > access into their network to another ISP a huge security hole. In some > sense, interconnecting ISPs is easier than telcos because the security > risk of connecting to another ISP is the same as connecting to a user. > Today's SS7 network is far more risky than anything Capt. Crunch could > do with his whistle. Perfectly correct. See, Sean? We do agree on some things. :-) > On the other hand, it seems like many ISPs don't consider it a duty to > screen or filter their customer's ingress or their own egress. While > telco's almost always screen information such as directory numbers when > they originate from a customer PBX. Yeah, but they didn't think it up until _afterwards_. It is to this day possible to spoof ANI/CNID with certain PRI connected PBXs on certain models of switch. > This has less to do with the SS7 > protocol, than the trust relationship between telcos. Telcos trust > other telcos to only send SS7 packets with screened customer phone > numbers. This 'trust' is formalized into extremely complicated > agreements between telcos, especially who is liable when the trust is > broken. ISPs have very simple 'trust' relationships (i.e. trust no one), > and correspondingly simple agreements between them. Excellent capsulization of the situation. > Since there is a much lower trust relationship between ISPs, tracing > malicious behavior is much more difficult. At a simple level, look how > caller-id information is treated between telcos. Telcos pass caller-id > information, more or less, on an end-to-end basis through the SS7 network > 'sharing' it with all the telco's along the way. However, telcos don't > pass the caller-id information to the 'user' if the presentation-restricted > flag is set. ISPs don't normally provide any more information to another > ISP than they do to an user. Which model causes less problems when the > CLEC turns out to be an private investigative company, or a university. Indeed. In the environment we're transitioning into, the ISP model will likely turn out to be more popular, for precisely that reason. Whether the LECs and IXCs can adapt is another question entirely. > It will be interesting to see which trust model works better as the > number of CLECs grows or the number of ISPs shrinks, depending on > which consulting group you want to believe. Will ISPs start trusting > each other more, or will telcos start trusting each other less? At > some companies, the Internet connection is the most secure outside > communications connection they have. Wow. That's a scary thought. I personally am disinclined to false senses of security, myself, so I prefer the latter. Lends an interesting tenor to the national security communications backbone topic, though, doesn't it? [ Cross posted from NANOG to comp.dcom.telecom, for comment. ] Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:48:23 -0300 From: Enrique Subject: Uruguay Numbering Plan Changes There has been some changes in the numbers of Uruguay this year. From October 26, all of the numbers from Montevideo got an extra digit, and also some of the nearby cities were aggregated to the same area code 2. Full info can be seen at http://www.7cifras.com.uy/7c_eng.htm I am also sending an updated list of city codes of Uruguay, complete as far as I know. Montevideo is the capital city, and I do not include the neighborhoods. Nevertheless, I do list some of the surrounding cities that also begin with 2 as city code. To dial a number in Uruguay from abroad, you'd dial +598-CityCode-Number To dial it from within Uruguay, you'd dial 0-CityCode-Number (if you're not in the same city you're calling to), or just Number, if you're in the same city. Uruguay Country Code : +598 City Codes : 2 Montevideo 2362 La Paz 2364 Las Piedras 2367 Melilla 2368 Progreso 2682 San Jose de Carrasco 2695 Solymar 2696 Solymar 2698 El Pinar 2292 Pando 2293 Totoral 2294 Sauce 2295 Empalme Olmos 2296 Toledo 2297 Surez 2298 Barros Blancos 338 25 de Agosto 3392 25 de Mayo 3398 Cardal 33950 Mendoza 33951 Mendoza Chico 3102 San Ramn (Ruralcel) 3103 Santa Rosa (Ruralcel) 3105 Tala (Ruralcel) 3109 Chamizo (Ruralcel) 3112 Casup 3116 Fray Marcos 3118 Pueblo Bolvar 3119 Reboledo 312 San Ramn 3132 Santa Rosa 3136 San Bautista 3139 San Antonio 315 Tala 3172 Migues 3175 Montes 318 Cerro Colorado 319 Chamizo 3308 25 de Agosto (Ruralcel) 3309 25 de Mayo (Ruralcel) 332 Canelones 334 Santa Luca 335 Joanic 336 Los Cerrillos 3402 San Jose (Ruralcel) 3405 Libertad (Ruralcel) 3406 Rafael Perazza (Ruralcel) 3407 Autdromo (Ruralcel) 3408 Rodriguez (Ruralcel) 342 San Jose 345 Libertad 3459 Puntas de Valdez 346 Rafael Perazza 2347 Autdromo (San Jose) 348 Rodriguez 349 Ecilda Paullier 3502 Florida (Ruralcel) 3504 Sarand Grande (Ruralcel) 352 Florida 354 Sarand Grande 3602 Durazno (Ruralcel) 3604 Trinidad (Ruralcel) 362 Durazno 363 Sarand del Y 364 Trinidad 365 Carmen 366 Paso de los Toros 368 Molles 369 San Gregorio de Polanco (Tacuaremb) 3702 Atlantida (Ruralcel) 3708 La Tuna (Ruralcel) 372 Atlantida 373 La Floresta 374 Soca 375 Parque del Plata 376 Salinas 377 Piedras de Afilar 378 La Tuna 379 Soles de Mataojo 3902 Pando (Ruralcel) 3909 San Jacinto (Ruralcel) 3992 San Jacinto 3999 Tapia 4102 Maldonado (Ruralcel) 422 Maldonado 423 Maldonado 424 Punta del Este 426 San Carlos 4270 La Barra de Maldonado 4271 La Barra de Maldonado 4278 Portezuelo 4279 Portezuelo 428 Punta del Este 429 Punta del Este 432 Piripolis 434 Pan de Azcar 438 Jaureguiberry / Balneario Soles 439 Gregorio Aznrez 442 Minas 444 Aigu 447 Batlle y Ord Fez 447 Zapicn 449 Mariscala 452 Treinta y Tres 453 Santa Clara de Olimar 454 Cerro Chato 455 Jose Pedro Varela 456 Lascano 457 Velazquez 458 Vergara 459 Cebollat 472 Rocha 473 La Paloma 474 Chuy 475 Castillos 47620 Punta del Diablo 47621 Santa Teresa 47627 La Coronilla 47628 La Coronilla 47629 La Coronilla 4806 Faro Jose Ignacio (Ruralcel) 486 Faro Jose Ignacio 4902 Piripolis (Ruralcel) 5202 Colonia (Ruralcel) 5204 Tarariras (Ruralcel) 5205 Colonia Miguelete (Ruralcel) 522 Colonia 574 Tarariras 575 Colonia Miguelete 576 Ombes de Lavalle 577 Conchillas 5302 Mercedes (Ruralcel) 5304 Dolores (Ruralcel) 5306 Cardona (Ruralcel) 5307 Palmitas (Ruralcel) 5308 Jose Rod (Ruralcel) 5309 Ismael Cortinas (Ruralcel) 532 Mercedes 534 Dolores 536 Cardona 537 Palmitas 538 Jose Rod 539 Ismael Cortinas 542 Carmelo 544 Nueva Palmira 5502 Rosario (Ruralcel) 5506 Juan Lacaze (Ruralcel) 5507 Playa Fomento (Ruralcel) 552 Rosario 554 Nueva Helvecia 558 Colonia Valdense 586 Juan Lacaze 587 Playa Fomento 5602 Fray Bentos (Ruralcel) 5607 Young (Ruralcel) 5608 Nuevo Berln (Ruralcel) 5609 San Javier (Ruralcel) 562 Fray Bentos 567 Young 568 Nuevo Berln 569 San Javier 6202 Rivera (Ruralcel) 622 Rivera 624 Vichadero 626 Tranqueras 628 Minas de Corrales 632 Tacuaremb 6382 Tambores 64 Melo 675 Ro Branco 679 Lago Mern 688 Fraile Muerto 7202 Paysand (Ruralcel) 722 Paysand 73 Salto 7302 Salto (Ruralcel) 7407 Piedras Coloradas (Ruralcel) 742 Guichn 7504 Quebracho (Ruralcel) 754 Quebracho 764 Constitucion 766 Beln 772 Artigas 776 Baltasar Brum 777 Toms Gomensoro 778 Mones Quintela 779 Bella Unin 94 Movicom (Celular) 982 Zona Franca de Montevideo 996 Ancel (Celular) ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 13:30:08 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". Background: Long-distance companies and other companies have been assigned five-digit prefix codes 10XXX to allow the caller to specify the carrier on a per-call basis. We're running out of 10XXX codes, though, so we're switching to 101XXXX codes. All existing codes are expanded to 1010XXX with the same last three digits. New codes are being assigned in the 1015XXX range, with other ranges to be opened after 10XXX codes are discontinued. Also, after the discontinuation of 10XXX, will all codes be 101XXXX, or will they at some point generalize to 10XXXXX? (Where do I sign up for my own code, so my friends can dial 10XXXXX-0-# if they don't want to bother with my 800 number? ;-P ;-b ;-P ) ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu (Bill Goodin) Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications" Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 18:37:55 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles On January 26-30, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Commercial Satellite Communications: Systems and Applications" on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bruce R. Elbert, Hughes Space & Communications, David A. Baylor, DirecTV, and David Bell, NCP Computers. Each participant receives the course textbook, "The Satellite Communication Applications Handbook", B. Elbert (Artech House, 1997), and extensive course notes. This course provides a state-of-the-art review of satellite communications technologies from a system perspective. Intended for practicing engineers in the satellite communications industry as well as major private and governmental users of satellite and terrestrial telecommunications services, it covers all aspects of the design, operation and use of satellite networks, with a heavy emphasis on commercial applications. The latter include television transmission and broadcasting (distribution and direct-to-home), voice and data networks using Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSATs), mobile satellite services, and advanced broadband capabilities of satellites under development. Each of the five days is broken down into a major segment to provide background in the engineering fundamentals, a detailed review of the current applications and implementations, and evolution of the technology and use of satellite systems in the coming millennium. Course topics include: Evolution of Satellite Technology and Applications Satellite Links and Access Methods The Range of Television Applications Interactive Voice and Networks Telephone Services by Satellite Mobile Satellite Communications--GEO and Non-GEO Broadband and Multimedia Systems How to Stay Abreast and Valued in the Satcom Industry The course fee is $1495, which includes the course text and extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For a more 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. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Paul Cook Subject: Re: NPA for Windows Update Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:32:29 -0800 I wrote: > The latest release for the highly useful shareware, NPA for Windows is > out. This is the 11 Oct 97 version, with many new prefixes and area > codes since the July version. > Download it from http://www.pcconsultant.com/~robert/pcc > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For newer readers or for old-timers > who do not remember much about him, Paul Cook has been a regular > participant here for several years. His scripts are trustworthy and > and quite useful. The best part is the price! PAT] I've been participating here from one address or another for over a decade, but if you're referring to the program NPA for Windows, its not mine. I'm just an enthusiastic user. It is shareware written and distributed by Robert Ricketts. Or perhaps by scripts PAT meant the text I submit to TELECOM Digest! Paul Cook * pcook@proctorinc.com ph: 425-881-7000 Proctor & Associates, Redmond, WA fax: 425-885-3282 http://www.proctorinc.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry, I thought you wrote the script you were recommending. Apologies to the original author are extended. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 10:44:29 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The VRML Sourcebook" by Ames/Nadeau/Moreland BKVRMLSB.RVW 970623 "The VRML 2.0 Sourcebook", Ames/Nadeau/Moreland, 1997, 0-471-16507-7, U$49.95/C$69.95 %A Andrea L. Ames andrea@sdsc.edu %A David R. Nadeau nadeau@sdsc.edu %A John L. Moreland moreland@sdsc.edu %C 22 Worchester Road, Rexdale, Ontario M9W 9Z9 %D 1997 %G 0-471-16507-7 %I Wiley %O U$49.95/C$69.95 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 800-263-1590 800-567-4797 %P 654 %T "The VRML 2.0 Sourcebook" The Virtual Reality Modeling Language, or VRML, is a "space description" language. It can be used as a standard for creating "3-space" artificial reality scenes. VRML also has the hypertext "linking" capability of HTML, the basis of the World Wide Web, and so, with an appropriate browser, can be used to create three dimensional extensions to the Web. This book provides a good introductory tutorial to the Virtual Reality Modeling Language for basic right up to expert usage. Within the limits of the printed page, the authors have provided a clear and solid introduction. Creating, rotating and moving simple and even complex shapes is given lucid and step-by-step explanations. With the inclusion of the CD-ROM the "sourcebook" becomes even more useful since it provides several VRML browsers that the reader can use, or at least try out. Even the simplest discussion of shapes and rotations can boggle the mind's eye when constrained to "dead trees": VRML is definitely a "hands-on" type of activity. This book will give you a firm grasp of the essentials and syntax of VRML. With the extensions to 2.0 the pace is much faster than it was in the original. Grasp of the concepts may require a bit more dedication, but the quality and clarity of the first edition is still much in evidence. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996, 1997 BKVRMLSB.RVW 970623 ====================== Please note the Peterson story - http://www.freivald.org/~padgett/trial.htm Genesis 4:9/Proverbs 24: 11,12 - your choice ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 10:49:23 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Switch Information Requested In TELECOM Digest, PB Schechter wrote: > Colorado is currently looking for ways to "conserve" numbers in the > 303 area code. One idea that has come up is the possibility of > turning Central Office Codes from NXXs to XXXs. This would add about > two million numbers, and is possible because Colorado is going to use > an overlay in the 303 area, so ten digits will need to be dialed for > all local calls. (Just to be perfectly clear: currently, a CO code > can't begin with 0 or 1 because those initial digits are used to > indicate operator and long distance calls, respectively. However, if > local calls are all prefaced with the area code, the initial digit of > a call to a number with a CO code beginning with 0 or 1 *will not be 0 > or 1.*) > Some people have claimed that this might "break" some switches > (particularly, outside of the North American Numbering Plan). It > seems to me that, once a switch sees that a call is going "somewhere > else" (i.e., to a different area code), it won't even look at the > remaining digits (or, if it does, it won't care what they are). > However, I am not a switch expert. > So, the request: (1) Does anyone know if there are any switches that > would complain about a CO code beginning with a 0 or a 1, even if they > dialed digit string does *not* begin with a 0 or a 1? (2) Does anyone > know how I can find this out? In an recent post regarding non-customer-dialable remote/rural locations (which can only be reached via a local telco or AT&T operator), the billing identification information is presently of the format 88X-XXX. Some of these locations have billing info of the form 88X-0xx-xxxx or 88X-1xx-xxxx, in addition to the form 88X-NXX-xxxx. _Even_if_ customers were able to 'dial' the billing code to call the remote/rural location, many NANP switches wouldn't be able to handle customer dialable strings of the format (1/0)+NXX-0XX-xxxx or (1/0)+NXX-1XX-xxxx. Other problems with 303-0XX and 303-1XX formats being used for central office codes for 'regular' customer-dialable numbers: There are other billing-codes, such as RAO-based calling-card numbers. An RAO is a "revenue-accounting-office". For about twenty years, there have been fourteen-digit calling-cards of the format NXX-0XX-xxxx+ PIN(nxxx) and NXX-1XX-xxxx+PIN(nxxx). The first three digits NXX are the digits of the RAO-code that the calling-card number is associated with. These are 'special-billing' calling cards. The NXX digits of the RAO are _NOT_ the area code. Offhand, I don't know where RAO #303 happens to be in the NANP. But if there are special-billing calling cards assigned off of RAO #303, they would be of the format 303-0XX-xxxx-nxxx and 303-1XX-xxxx-nxxx. If Colorado were to adopt 'regular' telephone numbers of the form 303-0XX-xxxx and 303-1XX-xxxx, those customers would want to be assigned line-number based calling cards, but they couldn't be, since the number-forat would conflict with 'special' calling cards and other special billing codes. ALSO, codes of the form NPA+0XX+ and NPA+1XX+ are used by operators and the automated network itself, for reaching other operators, for selecting specific trunks, for automated controls of portions of the network, for plant-testing, etc. There _are_ discussions in various "ATIS" and NANP telephone industry forums (such as the INC, OBF, NIIF, etc) as to how to expand the capacity of the NANP ten-digit number, or to increase the number of digits in a telephone number to more-than-ten. I don't think that any location would be able to adopt NPA-0XX/1XX format central-office-codes for regular numbers, "on its own". Before any such 'regular' numbers would be assigned, there would have to be various policies adopted at a higher level, such as Bellcore, NANPA (soon to be Lockheed-Martin), the ATIS forums, the NANC (North American Numbering Council), etc., to see if there are any conflicts in any possible proposals. As for when an originating switch sees that a call goes "somewhere else", the toll-switch of the long-distance carrier needs to do six-digit translation of the NPA-NXX to determine the route, and also the billing equipment presently determines the rate. The local originating telco's switch of the calling customer might not need to worry about the fourth/fifth/sixth digits, unless the call is 'nearby'. Also, most originating local telco switches _BLOCK_ customer dialing of a fourth-digit of 0/1 in a dialed string NXX-XXX-xxxx. _IF_ any NPA (area code) or SAC (Special Area Code) were to have regular customer-dialable central-office codes of the 0XX/1XX format, _EVERY_ switch in the NANP will have to be so noted that such would now exist. In some forms of equipment, this might only need to be a software update. But some types of equipment are _hard-coded_ to prohibit customer-dialing of a 0/1 in the 'D' digit. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) 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: Chuck Tyrrell Subject: Sprint Tops in Customer Satisfaction Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:25:28 -0500 I found this press release interesting and thought that I would pass it along. None of the carriers met even a 70% approval rating from their customers, yet Sprint is referred to as a "premier" service provider. With scores such as these can't you just wait for them to provide local service as well? Chuck Tyrrell ---------------------- Monday November 3 7:59 AM EST Company Press Release Sprint Tops in Customer Satisfaction for Fourth Straight Year, Yankee Group Survey Finds BOSTON, Nov. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumers who use Sprint as their long-distance telephone company say they are happier with the service they receive than their counterparts who use either AT&T or MCI. That's the conclusion of a new survey from the Yankee Group, a Boston-based market research firm. According to the Yankee Group's recently completed 1997 Technologically Advanced Family (TAF) survey, Sprint residential customers gave the company the highest ratings for quality of service in eight key areas. In fact, 1997 marked the fourth consecutive year in which Sprint led the long-distance market in quality of service, and the third year in which it was ranked first in all eight of the service categories measured by the Yankee Group. ``Sprint has done an outstanding job in maintaining its position as a premier service provider to its residential customers,'' says Brian Adamik, vice president of consumer communications research at the Yankee Group. ``In addition to leading its rivals in the long-distance market, Sprint's record for customer service will help the company compete with the Baby Bells for customers in the local exchange market,'' he adds. The 1997 TAF survey asked over 1,900 consumers to evaluate various aspects of their local and long-distance telephone company's service. The long-distance portion of the survey produced the following results: Quality of Service Sprint AT&T MCI (Percentage of customers answering excellent or good) Professional, Courteous, Knowledgeable Personnel 62.3 60.5 53.9 Accurate and Easy-to-Understand Bills 66.0 61.1 53.8 Timely Resolution of Problems 56.1 54.2 43.5 Quick Access to Customer Service 55.9 52.7 44.0 Value for the Money 62.6 45.5 45.4 Provides High-Quality Transmission 67.3 60.3 54.1 Trustworthiness 58.6 56.4 42.2 Deserving of My Loyalty 57.2 53.9 35.3 Working in conjunction with Market Facts, Inc., the world's leading supplier of mail panel consumer research, the Yankee Group has constantly refined and upgraded the TAF survey over its 12-year history. Unlike other consumer studies now flooding the communications and computing industries, TAF offers marketers two critical advantages: a proven scheme for consumer segmentation and a broader array of products and services covered. Since 1986, the Yankee Group has used the TAF survey to measure consumer interest, attitudes, and demand regarding a broad assortment of communications products and services. These range from basic communications services such as local and long-distance telephony to advanced technologies in personal computing and home entertainment. The 1997 survey's results were drawn from a 32-page questionnaire mailed to a representative sample of U.S. and Canadian households. In addition to its North American coverage, TAF has recently been expanded to include separate survey's of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. SOURCE The Yankee Group ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 09:21:29 -0500 From: S Hayman Reply-To: srhayman@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca Organization: University of Waterloo Subject: canadian area codes Hello: I was browsing through your site, but was unable to find the information I was seeking. Could you please help me out by letting me know which region in Canada was first served by an area code without a middle digit of 0 or 1? Sorry for any inconvenience, but I hope you can help me out. Thanks, Steve ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #301 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Nov 4 20:44:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA24689; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:44:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:44:08 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711050144.UAA24689@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #302 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Nov 97 20:44:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 302 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California (Mark J. Cuccia) AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule (pheel@sprynet.com) Pac*Bell Payphones Going Up, Too (Linc Madison) Intl. Client Needs Management of Switch; Addl. Eqt. (jim@mast-ent.com) Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (J. Oppenheimer) Good Book Still Available (Jim Haynes) 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@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 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, 04 Nov 1997 15:31:21 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California I finally placed a call to a non-customer-dialable location. Recently, I received some information from one of my Canadian telephone history contacts, which included a photocopy of a small advertisement from a 1997 tourism/travel brochure. The advertisement was for the Drakesbad Guest Ranch, in northern California, an old and rustic 'out-of-the-way' resort, with no electricity. From what I also found out, you can only reach Drakesbad via a dirt road in the Lassen National Forest. The advertisement did state a way to call them: "For reservations, call Drakesbad No.2 via Susanville CA Operator" I did place a call to Pacific Bell's Directory Operator in the 916 area code. At the time I called Directory, area code 530 hadn't yet been activated in Sprint's long-distance network, although the new area code had been activated in AT&T's network. However, I wanted to find out from genuine Pacific Bell Directory as to what listing they had for the Drakesbad Guest Ranch. If I had called via AT&T, I would _NOT_ have routed to Pacific Bell Directory, but rather "Excell Agency" 'pseudo' directory. So, I dialed 101-0333-1+916-KL.5-1212. The Pac*Bell Directory operator answered "Directory, what city?" When I told her "Drakesbad", she told me to hold the line while she checked her bulletin. Then she asked me who or what listing in Drakesbad I was looking for. When I told that I wanted the number for the Drakesbad Guest Ranch, she told me that I needed to call my long-distance operator and ask for Drakesbad No.2 California via the Susanville California Inward Operator. She told me that Drakesbad listings aren't customer dialable. I checked with the AT&T operator for rates. The first minute for a call to Drakesbad ringdowns are billed at rather expensive operator _HANDLED_ rates (most likely the same as "person" rates). The additional minutes were a bit higher than a direct-dialed call would have been, but not overly expensive. Billed at V&H-based distances from my area (New Orleans ratecenter), I was quoted the following: Day: $4.03 first minute, 41-cents each additional minute Evening/Holiday: $3.95 first minute, 34-cents each additional minute Nite/Weekend: $3.93 first minute, 29-cents each additional minute I also checked with the MCI and Sprint operators to see if they had any rates or service for such a ringdown or toll-station. The MCI operator (and her supervisor) had absolutely _NO_ idea of what a ringdown or toll-station was, nor even what an inward operator was. When I asked her what she would do if a customer needed to have her do a "busy-line-verification" or "emergency-interrupt" on a distant number (which requires reaching a local Bell or independent telco inward operator on the far-end to actually do the BLV or interrupt), she told me that she tells the customer to hang-up and then to dial 10288-0, i.e. that they would need to call AT&T. (I would hope that they will begin to state 1010288-0, since the expanded CIC/CAC dialing procedure becomes mandatory in January 1998) The Sprint-LD operator likewise didn't know what a ringdown point was but was familiar with "inward" LEC operators. But she didn't want to seem to look up billing (nor routing) information for a ringdown. She did tell me that they do call far-end LEC inward operators for BLV and to break-in (emergency-interrupt) assistance, but would only call distant inward if I had a full 7/10 digit number. On Monday night, I finally decided to attempt a call to Drakesbad No.2 via the AT&T Operator. I had the "mark-sense" billing information from Bellcore-TRA Rating documents I have purchased from time-to-time, and it was the same 887-439 code as AT&T Long-Lines had in a 1981 Rating document. The routing information to reach Susanville Ca's Inward was indicated as 916+028+ in both old AT&T and more recent Bellcore-TRA Routing documents. The actual local telco for Susanville CA is not Pacific Bell but rather an independent, Citizens' Utilities. But the Bellcore-TRA Rating documents indicated Drakesbad itself as being served by Pacific Bell. So, I dialed *70 (1170) first, as I didn't want anyone who might have been calling me at that moment to "Call-Waiting" beep my line while my call to Drakesbad was being set up or while I would actually be on the line with Drakesbad. Then I dialed '00' for my primary LD-carrier's operator. AT&T is the only inTER-LATA carrier in the US to assist in reaching such locations, and they are my primary inTER-LATA carrier, so I didn't have to dial 10(10)288+ first. During the AT&T voice-prompts for alternate services (grrrrr), I entered '0#' to cut-through direct to a live human operator. Of course, I did initially hear the pre-recorded voice "AT&T- How may I help you?" (again, GRRRR), while the live operator was coming on the line. I told her that I needed to call Drakesbad No.2 California, via Susanville California Inward. She asked me if this was "one of those ringdown toll stations". Of course, it was. I had the mark-sense billing information and operator's routing information to give her, but she still needed to look it up on her OSPS terminal. She didn't need to write-out a manual toll-ticket, since everything can now be keyed into the OSPS computer terminal. I could hear her clicking away on the keyboard. But the Kp+916+028+121+St inward operator routing seemed to give a reorder. I told her to try Kp+530+028+121+St, since that part of northern California is now changing over from NPA 916 to NPA 530. That code worked. We heard ringing and then "Susanville Inward" answered. The AT&T Operator asked the Susanville Inward Operator for "Drakesbad Number Two", to which the Susanville Opeartor answered "Thank you, ringing Drakesbad Number Two". I don't know if Susanville actually entered a non-published seven-digit number, or entered a three-digit trunk or routing code (0XX/1XX), or pressed a single "Drakesbad 2" button, into her TOPS terminal. According to the most recent Bellcore TRA Rating documents I've seen, there are several Drakesbad ringdown subscribers in that area, all with one or two digits after the name "Drakesbad". We heard standard "ESS" ringing indication tone, at the standard pace and cadence, although slightly 'clipped', similar to when dialing into a PBX. I assume that the ringing-indication tone was provided at the Nortel DMS-200 TOPS switch in Susanville. The line continued ringing with no answer, for almost one minute, and then we decided to abandon the attempt, and that I would call back later on. About an hour later, I went through the same process, and when Susanville Inward attempted to call Drakesbad No.2, we heard a busy signal, the standard "ESS" type busy signal, again somewhat 'clipped', similar to what is returned from many PBX systems. The particular Susanville Operator on this attempt kept trying to 'ring' Drakesbad No.2 and mentioned that she hadn't 'heard from them' in over a week. She did mention that maybe the Guest Ranch had closed for the winter, or that with the snow, that maybe the lines were 'down'. But she did tell us to try back later on. About a half-hour after that, I called '00' again to attempt to reach Drakesbad No.2. After all of the billing set-up and routing to Susanville Inward, there was an answer after about three rings. The line was answered by a man as "Drakesbad Guest Ranch". I asked if I had reached "Drakesbad Number Two", and the man at the other end, in a German accent answered that I did. I asked if the AT&T Operator was still on the line, and she said that she would now press 'start-timing' for billing. She told me that when I was finished with the call to simply hang-up -- that it was _not_ really necessary for me to 'flash' her back onto the line. I spoke with the man at Drakesbad No.2 for a few minutes, and asked him about what type of phone service the place had. He told me that all outgoing calls had to be placed through the Susanville CA Operator. He told me that his phone did have a dial (actually a touchtone keypad), and that when going offhook to place an outgoing call, he does receive a dialtone. _But_ when any (single) digit, other than zero, is dialed, he gets a busy signal. He didn't state if it were a 'fast' busy or a 'line' busy, but I assume that the busy was a reorder or fast busy. Dialing the single digit '0' does route him to the Susanville CA operator, who places all outgoing calls for him, including any calls to toll-free 800/888 numbers. His monthly bill comes from Citizens Utilities in Susanville, _not_ Pacific*Bell. Since he has a touchtone phone on his line, whenever he has a call placed to a service with voice/touchtone menus, he is able to enter the digits needed by the voice/menu system. But as for their telephone service itself, he did say that the Drakesbad Guest Ranch is considering leasing and installing a satellite mobile telephone setup, where dialable two-way calling can be provided. The audio quality of the connection was fine. I did _not_ detect any "old-style" transmission loss or 'hiss' on the connection. There was _no_ echo nor delay, neither. When I finished the call and hung up, since I had placed the call to the AT&T Operator on a 0/0+ type trunk, and since the operator had to manually enter the billing information and 'start-timing', it did take a few seconds for my central-office to completely release the trunk to AT&T's OSPS switch. I had picked up the phone about five seconds after hanging up from the call to Drakesbad, and I 're-rang' myself into an AT&T OSPS operator. I told her that I was trying to release my line from an earlier call, so she simply pressed "release-back", causing a 'forced-disconnect' from the OSPS trunk into my own originating local central-office switch. From what I understand, my AT&T 40%-off domestic discount plan applies _only_ to customer-dialed 1+ domestic calls (from home), and to domestic calling-card calls. The 40%-off discount might not necessarily apply to operator-handled calls to non-customer-dialable ringdown locations. When this call to Drakesbad No.2 California eventually shows up on the AT&T portion of my local monthly BellSouth billing, I will prepare a post as to how the call showed up, and what the final total charges were. I don't know if other Ringdown non-customer-dialable toll stations are set up in the same way as Drakesbad No.2 California. It might be that some don't have a dial or touchtone phone on the line, or if they do, it might be that they don't get a dialtone that they have to dial '0'. Some might still be 'manual common-battery' where they get the local operator right away when going offhook to place an outgoing call. Some might be magneto, with several other parties on the line, each able to call each other by cranking out coded rings, but cranking out a single _long_ ring to signal the local operator for calls going to the outside world. But since the rates are a bit more expensive than 'regular' dialable calls, I don't think that I will be calling many more such places for some time. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) 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: As always Mark, thanks for a very interesting and detailed report. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pheel@sprynet.com Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:40:31 -0500 Subject: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule Company Press Release AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 4, 1997--In response to customer calls for simplicity and the success of its One Rate calling plan, AT&T today announced several changes to its basic interstate schedule for residential direct-dialed calls. The company will replace its domestic basic schedule's day, evening and night/weekend time periods with peak, off-peak and weekend time periods and will eliminate all mileage bands. Calls will be priced at a single rate during each time period, regardless of distance. The new time periods are as follows: Peak 7 a.m. - 6:59 p.m. Monday - Friday Off-Peak 7 p.m. - 6:59 a.m. Monday - Friday Weekend All day Saturday and Sunday Rates for the peak, off-peak and weekend time periods are 28 cents, 16 cents and 13 cents per minute, respectively. With the elimination of mileage bands and changes in time periods, many customers will see lower prices, depending on when they make their calls. For example, calls placed Sunday evening will be priced up to 25 percent lower than the current rate. ``With millions of customers enrolled in its first year, the success of the AT&T One Rate calling plan has proved that customers want plans and services that offer competitive rates and are easy to understand,'' said Jack McMaster, AT&T vice president, Consumer Markets Division. ``With today's change, all consumers will find it easier to understand our basic rates and many customers will pay lower rates, depending on their calling patterns. In fact, for most residential direct-dialed interstate calls, AT&T's basic rates are actually the lowest among the top three long distance companies.'' The price changes become effective on Nov. 8, 1997, and do not affect AT&T customers who are enrolled in a calling plan. These changes apply only to AT&T's basic interstate residential direct-dialed rates, and do not affect the company's in-state calling plans. Contact: Mark Siegel Lee Ann Kuster 908-221-8422 (office) 602-482-0108 (office) 973-989-1101 (home) 602-482-1600 (home) INTERNET masiegel@attmail.com INTERNET lkuster@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac*Bell Payphones Going Up, Too Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:31:56 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM I posted last month about a local COCOT that raised its local-call rate from the state-mandated $0.20 to $0.35. This Sunday, I saw my first Pacific Bell payphone at 35 cents, in the middle of Golden Gate Park. So much for the benefits to the consumer of payphone deregulation. Higher prices for mostly much lower-quality service, with no meaningful competition. Merchants like PAT's friend, who has programmed the phone to be (*gasp*) useful at a fair price, are incredibly rare. I'm also very disappointed that the FCC remains hell-bent on setting an exorbitant per-call fee on 800/888 calls from payphones. Their original proposal of 35 cents per call was deemed excessive, so they changed it to 28 cents per call. That is still excessive! Further, it makes far more sense to make the charge based on time. I think a penny a minute is about right, or perhaps five cents for the first minute and a penny each additional, and that's making the assumption that ANY payment is warranted. Why are we giving an enormous WINDFALL with absolutely NOTHING in return?? ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: admin@mast-ent.com Subject: Intl. Client Needs Management of Switch + Additional Equipment Organization: LineX Communications (415) 455-1650 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:02:35 GMT We have a international long distance company as a client in Taipei, Taiwan which provides essentially a intl. call through service for its client overseas. NEEDS - They are looking for a hardware expert in the U.S., located in the Los Angeles area, capable of handling upgrading & management of both their existing switch equipment and the new equipment they wish to install. As they detail in the client's below email excerpt we have included in the bottom half of this message. ================================================= If you have the capabilities and knowhow to manage the equipment listed in the client's below description and have recommendations on new equipment the client could use in upgrading, OR You know someone in the L.A. area who you could refer us to: PLEASE CONTACT: JIM @ Association of Independent Telecommunications Managers. 425-702-9151 (Off.) PLEASE REVIEW ENTIRE EMAIL BEFORE 425-702-8758 (Fax) CONTACTING US!! 888-218-5601 (Toll Free to Off.) jim@mast-ent.com Email ================================================ APPLICATION - Clients overseas place a call into their Taipei switch. pOnce the call is determined to be a international destination, their switch in Taiwan routes the call across their private line to their Los Angeles switch, which is co-located at the current carrier they are using in Rosemead, CA (L.A. suburb). Their switch in Los Angeles then routes the call as a U.S. originated international call out on their current international carrier under their wholesale intl. rates. They want their new equipment to be able to "Least cost route" calls to different international carriers they will be using, depending on which country the call will terminate to. Their business has expanded 6x in the past year. We are replacing their 192k current circuit with a 384k Private Line between their Switch in Taipei and the Los Angeles area. They currently operate a 192k Private line with another carrier and their current switch is in Rosemead, CA (L.A. suburb), which they are going to disconnect when we have the new setup installed. They need to purchase the new upgrade equipment right now, but they will be very flexible in where they locate it, based on either co-locating their switch in their chosen long distance carrier's POP, or renting space as close to the chosen POP as they can. When they choose the new Private Line and the carrier options, out of 3 - 4 different quotes we have arranged for them, we will know where exactly they will wish to locate their new equipment, but MOST LIKELY IN OR AROUND THE 1 Wilshire Blvd. complex where we are finding most intl. carriers have their POP's located. =================================================== We have provided below excerpts from one of our email messages with the client, which will give you the details on thier current equipment and needs. As you can tell, the client has quite a bit of broken English, but gets her point across enough to understand their needs and equipment specs. =================================================== (Beginning of client Email details) As I mention through the phone that we do not have our engineer in US but we had a partner which we can place our hardware equipment to co-locations but his international outbound rates are too high, so we might need to relocation our equipment to minimize our cost. ( We need 24 phone lines to connect our switch to the international carrier.) Here are the equipment is our both locations US - Rosemead and Taiwan - Taipei. PBX - Fujitsu # E -650 Multiplexer - Northern Telecom - Magellan Passport #NTEP39. ( This multiplexer does not have fax service function; therefore, even though that our individual line is 12kb but still have difficult time to complete facsimile. Therefore, we need to re-structure entire new system to replace the current system to generate minutes' usage but the new system must able to use in "Frame Relay's structure". Currently, our engineers in Taiwan are developing the voice card to replace current PBX, but we would also like to hear your option by either install the PBX or voice card is better for us. Understand that there is no one carrier has lowest cost overall rates to all countries, so for the new system that we must have "least cost routing". Please list the price quotation for our new frame relay system and with PBX please include software. Will call you today for future detail for update status. Thanks and Best Regards, Cheryl ================================================ If you have the capabilities and knowhow to manage the equipment listed in the client's above description and have recommendations on new equipment the client could use in upgrading, OR You know someone in the L.A. area who you could refer us to: PLEASE CONTACT: JIM @ Association of Independent Telecommunications Managers 425-702-9151 (Off.) PLEASE REVIEW ENTIRE EMAIL BEFORE 425-702-8758 (Fax) CONTACTING US!! 888-218-5601 (Toll Free to Off.) jim@mast-ent.com Email ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 18:24:25 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant August, 1997 Federal appeals court decision regarding 1-800-FOR LEASE. This case involved a finding by the jury that the number wrongfully denied the plaintiff by WorldCom was, in and of itself, worth $50K to the plaintiff. --------------- New York, NY November 5, 1997 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) The August, 1997 appellate court decision regarding WorldCom/Play Time (located in ICB TOLL FREE NEWS' Regulatory Reading Room, or email joppenheimer@ icbtollfree.com for a copy) is, at first glance, a fairly straight- forward ruling on a matter of contract law and civil litigation procedures. The court ruled, in essence, that WorldCom blew it by not keeping their right hand informed of what a left hand was doing, and that they breached a contractual obligation as a result. The court also upheld the trial court's method of handling the matter, including allowing the jury to decide the value of the number at issue, and the method of valuation chosen. In those respects the opinion is unremarkable, just like any other breach of contract litigation, except this one involved an 800 number rather than a car, or a business, or a book deal, etc. In the process of making its ruling, however, the court touched on two issues that are extremely important vis-a-vis the toll free issues 800 marketers are currently dealing with at the FCC. These come under the headings of (1) the inherent value of vanity numbers, and (2) the prohibition on transfers. Inherent Value of Vanity Numbers Both the trial court judge and the appellate court panel had no difficulty with the concept that there is an inherent value to a toll free vanity number. The number had value to the plaintiff solely by reason of his intended but not yet implemented business plan. The jury, hearing evidence from both sides, determined that the number was worth $50,000 to the plaintiff. This was obviously not value resulting from years of use and public familiarity. It was an inherent value, created solely by the plaintiff's intellectual exercise of recognizing the vanity pneumonic and developing a business plan to exploit it. If were true that numbers have no inherent value, the plaintiff would not have suffered any monetary damage. But the jury found convincing evidence of monetary damage to the tune of $50K. It is important to understand the subtle nuance here. This was not a jury finding that the plaintiff had lost $50K in profits or business because he did not have the number -- it is possible for my loss of something that has no inherent value in and of itself, to nonetheless cause me to lose money. But that is not what this case was about, or at least not the basis on which it was decided and the damages awarded. Rather, this case involved a finding by the jury that the number wrongfully denied the plaintiff by WorldCom was, in and of itself, worth $50K to the plaintiff. The jury was asked to determine the "fair market value" of the number. In so doing, they applied a "willing-transferor-willing-transfer" standard. This means that they assumed there were two parties, one willing to buy and one willing to sell the number. They further assumed that these hypothetical parties would negotiate an agreement that was mutually acceptable to both of them - the "ideal" compromise, as it were. Their task was to decide, based on all the evidence they heard at the hearing, what the dollar figure was at which these two hypothetical parties would agree. They ruled it was $50K, and that was based, at least in part, on evidence that the plaintiff had almost agreed to pay $50K to a third party (the one to whom WorldCom improperly transferred the number), a deal which fell apart not because of the purchase price, but because of an inability to agree on a nonrefundable deposit. Prohibition on Transfers WorldCom argued "that the Number had no market value because its sale, brokering, barter, or release for a consideration was prohibited." This did not sway the appellate court. The court correctly noted that, lack of "ownership rights" and "prohibitions on transfers" notwithstanding, an end user still has the right to control its 800 service, including ultimate right to direct the status (reserved, active, or assigned) to its own toll free number. It was this right that WorldCom deprived the plaintiff of when is mis-assigned his promised number, and the court had not problem with basing a $50,000 judgment on the value of the lost number. This case thus supports what toll-free advocates have argued to the FCC, namely, that the oft-stated policy that numbers are a public resource and that users do not obtain "ownership" rights in them, is not really relevant to the issue of the commercial transfer of numbers. You can legislate, regulate, and pontificate away all the "property" and "ownership" rights you wish, but at the end of the day, toll free customers still have a number of rights and benefits associated with the particular toll free number assigned (or to be assigned) to them, and that bundle of rights can often be quite valuable in a monetary sense. The appellate court recognized this (though it didn't say it in quite those words) and was therefore not blinded by the prohibition on transfers. Impact on FCC Proceedings This opinion will not necessarily be binding on the FCC. The case does not turn on an interpretation of any federal communications law or FCC rule or policy. But, even though it is not absolutely binding on the FCC, it is nonetheless a very useful precedent. It can't hurt, and it may help advance the cause of toll-free users. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - http://www.icbtollfree.com Mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com with your name, company name and title to activate 15-day FREE Online trial subscription. Incl. fax number (U.S. only) for FREE Fax Edition trial subscription. FREE GIFT OFFER: mailto:freegift@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:34:24 -0800 Subject: Good Book Still Available I discovered the other day, browsing the U.C. Press web page http://www-ucpress.berkeley.edu that the following book is still available in paperback only. Claude S. Fischer America Calling - a social history of the telephone to 1940. ISBN 0-520-08647-3, published in 1992. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #302 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 5 09:28:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA00796; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:28:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:28:31 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711051428.JAA00796@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #303 TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Nov 97 09:28:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 303 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FTC Announces Refunds in That Moldava s-x/Modem/Dialing Scam (D. Burstein) Alternic Founder Arrested? (Babu Mengelepouti) AOL Wins Restraining Order Against Spammer (Eric Florack) Voice Mail for Macrotel MT-16H (Bruce Wilson) Re: Switch Information Requested (Al Varney) 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@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 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, 5 Nov 1997 01:48:23 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: FTC Announces Refunds in That Moldava s-x/Modem/Dialing Scam Background: earlier this year a s-x promotion on the internet asked people to download a special viewer. When they clicked it on, it disconnected the computer from the phone line, silenced the modem, and outdialed an international number in Moldava (formerly of the USSR). So people were hit with international calling costs on this. Also, the connection was _not_ broken when people were finished, so the clock kept running. Take special note of the FTC statement that these calls did _not_ actually complete to Moldava, but rather were terminated in Canada. Which is somewhat fascinating to think about ... FOR RELEASE: NOVEMBER 4, 1997 ___________________________________ VICTIMS OF MOLDOVAN MODEM "HIJACKING" SCHEME TO GET FULL REDRESS UNDER FTC SETTLEMENTS More than 38,000 consumers will get full credits totaling over $2.74 million for telephone charges they unknowingly incurred when their computer modems allegedly were hijacked and re-routed to expensive, international numbers, the Federal Trade Commission announced today. The refunds are included in settlements the FTC has reached with several firms and individuals charged by the agency with running the high-tech Internet scam, which used a purported "viewer" software program to disconnect consumers from their local Internet service providers and reconnect them to international numbers assigned to the country of Moldova. The FTC alleged that the defendants enticed consumers who visited their websites on the Internet to download the "viewer" software in order to access computer-stored images for free. Once the consumer downloaded and activated this software, the FTC alleged, it automatically disconnected consumers' modems from their local Internet service providers, turned off the speakers on the consumers' modems, and silently dialed international telephone numbers to reconnect consumers to the Internet through an expensive long distance telephone call. Once hijacked in this fashion, consumers' modems remained connected to those international tele phone numbers even when consumers left the defendants’ websites or left the Internet entirely to do word processing, spreadsheet or other computer work. As a result, many consumers received phone bills with international call charges totaling several hundred or several thousand dollars. The FTC received valuable assistance from AT&T's office of Network Security in spotting and investigating this alleged scam. The settlements are with defendants named in the case at the time it was filed in February 1997, as well as additional responsible parties the FTC has identified in its continuing investiga tion since that time. The first settlement, which requires the court's approval to become binding, is with original defendants Audiotex Connection, Inc., of Rockville Centre, New York; Promo Line, Inc., of Dix Hills, New York; William Gannon, an officer and owner of Audiotex Con nection and Promo Line, Inc.; and David Zeng, a computer programmer; as well as newly-named defendant Internet Girls, Inc., another corporation of William Gannon located in Rockville Centre, New York. All of these defendants, except David Zeng, did business as Electronic Forms Management. David Zeng did business as DaveZ@aol.com. The FTC asked the court to dismiss charges against Anna M. Grella, an original defendant, following the further investigation. The second settlement, being announced today for a public comment period before the Commission determines whether to make it final and binding, is with other newly-named respondents: Beylen Telecom, Ltd., of Grand Cayman in the Cayman Islands; NiteLine Media, Inc., of Brooklyn New York; and Ron Tan (also known as Roeun Tan), an officer of NiteLine Media. According to the FTC's complaints detailing the charges against the defendants and the respondents, consumers who were surfing the Internet and stopped to visit one of the defendants' or respondents' websites for "free" computer images -- including sites named www.beavisbutthead.com, www.sexygirls.com, www.1adult.com, and www.erotic2000.com -- first had to download a special "viewer" program called "david.exe." Before allowing consumers to visit a selected site, this program surreptitiously disconnected them from the local telephone number of their chosen Internet service provider and reconnected their computer modems to the Internet through an international telephone call, all without their knowledge because the program also turned off their modem speakers so that they could not hear the disconnect or the dialing of the international number. Moreover, the FTC alleged, the calls never were connected to Moldova, but rather terminated in Canada, even though consumers still received telephone bills for higher- priced Moldovan calls. Initially, the FTC alleged, although the defendants advertised their websites as free, consumers racked up international calling charges of more than $2 per minute until they turned off their computers. Later in the life of the scheme, the defendants added some disclosures to their websites, but still failed to disclose that the calls would terminate in Canada or that consumers would continue to incur the Moldovan rates even after they exited the relevant websites, the FTC charged. The proposed settlements would require the defendants to redress consumer victims by paying funds to AT&T and MCI, which will issue credits to their customers who were billed for the calls, and to the FTC, which will issue refunds to customers of other long-distance carriers who were billed for the calls. In addition, the settlements would prohibit the defendants from: * misrepresenting that consumers can use a software program to view computer images for free when there are costs associated with downloading, installing, activating or using the program; * using any download program to generate modem calls on the Internet without clearly and conspicuously disclosing: 1) that the program will terminate the consumer’s local Internet connection; 2) that the program will dial an international telephone number and connect them to a location outside the United States; 3) that the international call will cost a stated amount per minute; and 4) that the consumer’s computer will remain connected to the international number for a certain period of time or until the consumer takes some action; * causing consumers to be charged for destinations that their calls never actually reach; and * distributing any program similar to "david.exe" to third parties. The settlements also would require the defendants to obtain written assurances from any billing entity that telephone bills consumers receive for the defendants’ services reflect where the international calls actually go. The settlements also contain various record keeping and reporting provisions that would assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants’ compliance. The Commission vote to accept the settlements was 4-0. The settlement with Audiotex Connection, Promo Line, Internet Girls, Gannon and Zeng was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in Uniondale, this morning. A summary of the settlement with Beylen Telecom, NiteLine Media and Tan is being published in today’s Federal Register and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will determine whether to make it final and binding. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. NOTE: These agreements are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission of law violations by the defendants. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000. Court-filed consent decrees also have the force of law when signed by the judge. ___________________________________ Copies of the settlements and complaints in these cases are available from the FTC’s web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. Consent agreements subject to public comment also are available by calling 202-326-3627. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. MEDIA CONTACT: Victoria Streitfeld or Bonnie Jansen, Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2718 or 202-326-2161 STAFF CONTACT: Paul Luehr, Bureau of Consumer Protection 202-326-2236 Audiotex: FTC File No. X970021; Civil Action No. CV-97-0726 (DRH) Beylen: FTC File No. 972 3128 (audiot-2) _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:48:25 -0500 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Alternic Founder Arrested? This came off the dc-stuff mailing list, and I use alternic's public DNS service so this may or may not be true. Take with a grain of salt ... By Janet Kornblum November 3, 1997, 1:30 p.m. PT update An FBI official confirmed today that AlterNIC founder Eugene Kashpureff was arrested Friday in Toronto on U.S. charges related to wire fraud. In July, Kashpureff hijacked InterNIC's URL, sending surfers trying to get to "www.internic.net" to his own site at "www.alternic.net" in what he called a "protest." Almost immediately, he knew he could be facing federal computer crime charges for his actions, he said. Authorities arrested Kashpureff after weeks of investigation, said Joe Valiquette, a spokesman for the FBI in New York. He did not immediately have more information. Marc Hurst, a spokesman for the AlterNIC, said Kashpureff was scheduled for a deportation hearing today. Hurst said he had been contacted a few weeks ago by Canadian immigration authorities who were looking for Kashpureff because he was wanted by the FBI on warrants for several counts of wire fraud. Network Solutions (NSI), which runs the InterNIC registry that Kashpureff was protesting, had taken Kashpureff to court, but the case was settled. Kashpureff apologized to the Internet community and tried to help inform it how to fix a program that would prevent someone else from perpetrating the same kind of domain name hijacking. But apparently his troubles did not end in August with the court settlement. Along with taking Kashpureff to civil court, Network Solutions had contacted law enforcement officials who were investigating whether Kashpureff had broken federal computer crime laws. A spokesman said at the time that Network Solutions originally had not been planning to file charges against Kashpureff. Kashpureff originally started rerouting pages on July 11. He stopped on July 14; but then he got angry and did it again on July 18. That's when officials from Network Solutions decided to take him to court, an official said. "What Kashpureff did was attack the Net," a Network Solutions official stated today in an email message. "He directly polluted cache in local servers that did not have an updated version of BIND." BIND is a program that controls the Internet's Domain Name System protocol. Alerts have since been issued to encourage system administrators to update their copies of BIND. Hurst said today that although he doesn't condone any alleged crime that Kashpureff may have committed, he was surprised by the vehemence with which he said Kashpureff was pursued. Hurst said he was originally contacted several weeks ago by immigration authorities looking for Kashpureff. When Kashpureff, a father of four, perpetrated the hack, he said he was angry and hadn't thought about the ramifications. Some in the Internet community applauded his actions, saying they were needed to draw attention to what they saw as Network Solutions' monopoly on the domain naming system. Others criticized Kashpureff, saying that he acted rashly, hurt the cause, and deserved punishment. But both Hurst and Richard Sexton, who also worked with Kashpureff on the AlterNIC, said that even those who disagreed with Kashpureff would likely find the charges to be outrageous. "The most you could have lost is two seconds and one mouse-click," Sexton said. "It is fraud, but the fiscal damage amounts to zero. He should be found guilty and fined a dollar." "I was surprised by the seriousness with which this was treated," Hurst said. "He's a computer guy. He's not a serial killer. He didn't cause any airports to black out. He didn't cause a blackout in a hospital. He redirected some Web pages." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:43:11 PST From: Eric Florack Subject: AOL Wins Restraining Order Against Spammer AOL Wins Restraining Order Against Spammer by Brian McWilliams, PC World Radio November 4, 1997 America Online today said it won round one in its battle against Over the Air Equipment, a firm that provides striptease shows over the Internet. AOL said a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order last Friday prohibiting Over the Air from sending bulk e-mail to AOL members. In a suit filed last month, AOL accused Over the Air of using deceptive practices, including falsifying e-mail transmission data, to avoid AOL's mail controls and to repeatedly transmit vast quantities of unsolicited e-mail to AOL members. But Over the Air's president Rick Lee told PC World News Radio today that while AOL may claim to have won round one, his company will be the victor at the final bell. Lee doesn't deny sending unsolicited e-mail to AOL members, but he said the judge didn't look closely at the details of the case. "We've always deleted members who requested to be deleted, [and] we have a delete list that's larger than our customer base list. So if we have a delete list somewhere in the area of 3 million people, you tell me that I'm not acting responsibly." Lee said Over the Air intends to appeal the ruling, and he vowed that when all the facts are out, AOL will be sorry it chose to make an example of his company to score public relations points in its fight against spam. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:50:14 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Voice Mail for Macrotel MT-16H I'm hoping the knowledgable people frequenting this newsgroup can give me some help and guidance with respect to an ongoing problem. I'm the assistant director of a small inner-city IRS 501(c)(3) human service agency in Des Moines, Iowa. Our phone system is a paid-for Macrotel (MT-16H KSU) with 4 incoming lines, equipped for 10 key sets and 2 single-line phones, with space in the KSU for the addition of 4 more ports which could be either key sets or SLTs. We've got an ongoing problem in getting appropriate voice mail service. We tried a used Natural Microsystems Watson on one of the SLT ports, with the KSU programmed to ring that extension on all incoming calls, but found programming the Watson to be a daunting task and ultimately that it wouldn't do what we wanted it to do, so we've been paying through the nose (about $200/month) for US West's Business Voice Messaging, which still doesn't really meet our needs (and which is a PITA to reconfigure remotely). Another disadvantage to using the Watson was that it'd only handle one incoming call at a time, so second and third callers would get ring, no answer, while it was busy with the first call. (The other existing SLT port's used for a "public" phone in the reception area.) With the Watson's "card system" of announcements, I could make our outgoing announcement in 3 parts, determine how they'd play, and edit only the part which needed to be changed. For example: 1001 "Thank-you for calling ... closed Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays." jump to 1003 1002 "Unfortunately no one is available ..." record 1003 "... will be closed for the ... holiday." jump to 1002 If no holiday was impending, all I had to do was change the "jump" instruction with card 1001 to go to 1002 instead of 1003; and all I had to change for each holiday was the announcement associated with 1003. The only way to do this with US West's voice messaging is to re-record the entire announcement at the router. US West voice mail boxes are limited to one main mail box and 3 "guest" mail boxes, but we've got one program with over a dozen employees (seemingly subject to change from week to week as people come and go). We need to have unlimited branching from the main selections, so the "organizational chart" of the voice mail system can approximate that of the organization: General greeting and list of programs. Agency Administration Director Assistant Director Etc. Program 1 Staff 1 Staff 2 Staff 3 Staff 4 Etc. Program 2 Staff 1 Staff 2 Staff 3 Staff 4 Etc. Etc. (A bonus would be the ability to look up names if the caller weren't sure which program it is with which the person being called is associated.) Of course it's got to be possible for someone to call in from outside and retrieve his or her messages; and it'd be a bonus if messages could be forwarded from one mail box to another if employee A determined a message should go to employee B. It would also be a bonus if the system could be programmed to call a pager after recording an incoming message. In presenting this to various local vendors, we've been told our only option is to replace the phone system, for a lot more money than we're prepared or willing to spend. (Remember I said it's paid for; and it meets our needs except for the voice mail aspect.) The most I could justify spending would be in the $2,000-$4,000 range (a year or two of the anticipated savings from dumping the US West voice messaging); and it'd take us a while to figure out where we were going to get even that (grants or other fundraising). What I'm envisioning would be something PC-based (DOS or Windows 3.1) with up to 4 ports that could be connected to up to 4 SLT ports on the MT-16H which can be easily configured or reconfigured at the console. Used/refurb is just fine! It's the result (and cost) which counts. :-) Bruce Wilson Urban Dreams 1400 Sixth Avenue Des Moines, IA 50314 (515) 288-4742 [10 AM - 6 PM, Central, M-F] (515) 284-5886 [24-Hour Fax] ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Switch Information Requested Date: 4 Nov 1997 21:18:38 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , PB Schechter wrote: > Colorado is currently looking for ways to "conserve" numbers in the 303 > area code. One idea that has come up is the possibility of turning > Central Office Codes from NXXs to XXXs. This would add about two million > numbers, and is possible because Colorado is going to use an overlay in > the 303 area, so ten digits will need to be dialed for all local calls. So, the first question is: Why go to XXX CO codes, if you have a new overlay available? > Some people have claimed that this might "break" some switches > (particularly, outside of the North American Numbering Plan). It seems > to me that, once a switch sees that a call is going "somewhere else" > (i.e., to a different area code), it won't even look at the remaining > digits (or, if it does, it won't care what they are). However, I am > not a switch expert. Switches care very much about every digit you dial. Dialing an area code doesn't mean the call isn't local, or even intra-switch. While a Colorado switch may only use the first 3 digits to route calls to Chicago's 312 area code, it certainly knows which other digits are valid and how many must be dialed before sending the call towards Illinois. If the switch is sitting about half-way between Colorado Springs and Denver, it may even have some 303, 970 and 719 lines within the same switch, and thus need to examine far more than 3 digits. > So, the request: (1) Does anyone know if there are any switches that > would complain about a CO code beginning with a 0 or a 1, even if they > dialed digit string does *not* begin with a 0 or a 1? (2) Does anyone > know how I can find this out? When USTA asked us this question in 1994 (regarding the expansion from 800-NXX-XXXX to 800-XXX-XXXX, as a means of deferring the 888 NPA), we looked at several of the road-blocks involved in "D-digit unblocking", the industry term for removing the current restriction on the 4th digit of NANP telephone numbers. But we only examined those issues with regard to Toll-Free numbers. Unblocking the "D" digit for geographic numbers will impact areas we did not examine. (For example, there are no line-test systems for Toll-Free numbers. But real lines have test-support systems that are likely to reject 7-digit line numbers beginning with 0/1.) The following is a modified version of our response to USTA, just to give you an idea of the impact. To get a more complete answer, should you wish, the usual means is to request the PUC to ask service providers to determine the impact on THEM, which will then result in questions to the appropriate vendors. However, you should also contact the North American Numbering Council (NANC) to get their perspective, since only they have the ability to permit allocation of such office codes. I suspect a letter from the Colorado PUC to NANC would be appropriate. Letters can be addressed to: Alan C. Hasselwander Chairman North American Numbering Council 4140 Clover Street Honeoye Falls, N.Y. 14472-9323 The NANC Web site is at: http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/Nanc and the latest (from this summer) report to the NANC by the Carrier Liaison Committee regarding NXX Exhaust alternatives is at: ftp://ftp.atis.org/pub/clc/clc/adhoc.doc The report does not mention D-digit unblocking because, I understand, it is not considered a viable short-term answer. But read the following first. I personally believe the effort needed would take far longer (and cost far more) than just turning up your overlay NPA, which you'll need eventually anyway. ---------------------- IMPACT ON THE ENTIRE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN REGION A. D-digit unblocking affects every switch inside the NANP, including Canada and many Carribean islands. (This assumes you want folks in Toronto to be able to dial 303-1XX-XXXX, for example.) Many switches would require development to both remove craft input restrictions on 0/1XX office codes and add the ability to route/screen numbers with those office codes. C. Inter-exchange carriers (MCI, etc.) will require modification to their switches, support systems and billing systems in order to route calls to and correctly bill calls from the new office codes. Some real-time database changes would be required if 0/1XX-XXXX lines are to be allowed to have 900, 800, 888, 700 or 500 NPA calls terminate to them. D. PBX owners and cellular mobile carriers through-out the NANP would require changes to their equipment and support systems. Some of the protocols supporting cellular roaming may need enhancements. E. Billing agents (LEC, IXC and AOS providers) and systems (Bellcore LERG, etc.) must support rating of calls to 0/1XX office codes. Also, since such "pseudo-codes" are used today as a means of assigning 10-digit "line-based" calling cards by some IXCs, all such calling cards beginning with 303 must be recalled and re-assigned. (Card-holders of these numbers are spread out over the entire country, not just in the 303 NPA.) F. Operator systems would need modifications to support receipt of 7-digit ANI (of the I+0/1XX-XXXX form) over CAMA facilities. Changes would also be needed to support LIDB access for line-based services, such as 3-party billing verification, collect call acceptance, etc. Directory Assistance systems will likely need changes to permit such numbers into their databases. G. Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) that stores, transmits or uses NANP numbers might be affected. This could include Caller ID units, ISDN devices, Enhanced Service Provider systems using ISDN or ANI-based interfaces, private customer-owned coin telephones and alarm systems. ----- IMPACT ON THE 303 NPA AND NEAR-BY AREAS H. All the support systems used to provision, administer and test customer lines on 303 NPA switches must be altered to recognize the new CO codes. This effort and time is likely to take longer than item A. above. (In some cases, a 0/1XX code is recognized as a test code either between switches or from test systems to a single switch. Changes in the protocol exchanged from switch-to-switch or switch-to-test-system would be required, as well as coordination of the installation of those changes.) ----- This is not an exhaustive list of the impact, but gives you an idea of the wide-spread impact of the change. If the introduction of Interchangable NPAs can be used as a measure of the effort and impact, it took 5 years to introduce, and several more years before CPE/PBX equipment was changed to allow dialing of NPAs like 970. The local switch effort for D-digit unblocking will likely be more substantial than the Interchangable NPA effort. Al Varney - not speaking officially for Lucent Technologies ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #303 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 6 21:31:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA14753; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:31:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:31:32 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711070231.VAA14753@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #304 TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Nov 97 21:31:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 304 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Slams Dad of [Texas] PUC Chairman (Jack Perdue) Book Review: "sendmail" by Costales/Allman (Rob Slade) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Al Varney) Speaking of Customer Service (Corky Sarvis) Call for Papers (David Loomis) Risks is Alive and Well (TELECOM Digest Editor) Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs (phs3@watvm.uwaterloo.edu) 900 Number Help (Steven Gaunt) RFD: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel (ghtrout@mail.execpc.com) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Al Varney) 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@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 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: jkp2866@unix.NOSPAM.tamu.edu (Jack Perdue) Subject: AT&T Slams Dad of [Texas] PUC Chairman Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 22:54:37 GMT Organization: Silicon Slick's Software, Supplies and Support Services This was so dang funny I just had to share it with the Digest. I especially like the part where the head of the PUC gets the runaround -- just like the rest of us. ;) jack jkp2866@cs.tamu.edu ------------------- From the November 5th, 1997 {Houston Chronicle} AT&T slams dad of PUC chairman Service switch draws attention to problem By POLLY ROSS HUGHES Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau AUSTIN -- Telephone slamming victims, take heart. Even the father of Texas Public Utility Commission Chairman Pat Wood III is not immune. Long-distance giant AT&T, it turns out, slammed Port Arthur businessman Pat Wood Jr., who discovered last month that six of his nine business lines had been switched to a more expensive AT&T long-distance service. The practice, known as "slamming," is illegal and happens to be regulated by the PUC. But, for all his clout, Wood said, his personal efforts on behalf of his father led to two hours of frustrating runarounds that yielded few answers about what happened. "If the chairman of a state commission has this much difficulty with the world of `customer service,' how in hell can we expect the customers to navigate this maze?" Wood asked in a memo to PUC Commissioner Judy Walsh and other agency officials. "I had hoped that a competitive marketplace in long distance would've resulted in more high-quality customer service by now." AT&T also doesn't know how it could have surreptitiously switched the senior Wood's lines to more expensive AT&T services, said company spokesman Jim Van Orden. "We are investigating this case cited by PUC Chairman Wood," he said. "AT&T believes that even one accusation that we may have unintentionally slammed a customer is a concern." Van Orden said AT&T has the lowest slamming rate of residential customers tracked by the Federal Communications Commission in 1996, but he did not have comparable rankings for slamming of business customers. A new state law that went into effect Sept. 1 requires companies found guilty of slamming to pay the cost of switching customers back to original providers and to refund charges resulting from slamming. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:59:03 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "sendmail" by Costales/Allman BKSNDMAL.RVW 970705 "sendmail", Bryan Costales/Eric Allman, 1997, 1-56592-222-0, U$39.95/C$56.95 %A Bryan Costales bcx@bcx.com %A Eric Allman eric@cs.berkeley.edu %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-222-0 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$39.95/C$56.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 1050 %T "sendmail", 2nd ed. Sendmail might not be the heart of UNIX mail and communications services, but it certainly is a good portion of the autonomic nervous system. Although considered venerable by some, it is also extremely widely used. This book hopes to make sendmail administration not only easy, but fun. Quite a task. Part one of the book is tutorial in nature, starting with background information in chapter one. We are given a brief history and philosophy of sendmail, plus some description of the component parts, and the related Internet RFCs (Request For Comment) and technologies. (RFCs, the name to the contrary, are the descriptions of how Internet functions should work. In a sense, they are the standards of the Internet.) The tutorial covers the invocation and switches, the configuration file, mail delivery agents, macros, rules, rules and more rules, class macros, options, headers, and miscellaneous topics. Part two deals with administration and management, and runs you through the process of configuring, compiling and installing sendmail. It also has specifics of V8 as well as DNS (Domain Name Server). More advanced topics, such as security, the queue, aliases, mailing lists, forwarding, logging and statistics are now in a new part three. Part four is the reference, and chapters list the options for delivery agents; defined, class and database macros; options, headers, the command line and debugging. There are appendices and a bibliography. Because of the nature of the book, you will find a fair amount of material duplicated (for example between the tutorial on delivery agents, and the reference sections). However, the duplicated material, and the short chaptering make this an excellent reference work overall. The material is generally clear and well laid out. The tutorial section is definitely for the technically advanced: I suspect the authors have a ways to go before many people find sendmail "fun". copyright Robert M. Slade, 1993, 1997 BKSNDMAL.RVW 970705 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: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant Date: 6 Nov 1997 15:22:27 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > New York, NY November 5, 1997 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) In August, 1997, > the Federal Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a district court > judgement between Playtime, Inc. and Worldcom, Inc., regarding the > toll-free number 1-800-FOR LEASE. > .... Rather, this case involved a finding by the jury that the > number wrongfully denied the plaintiff by WorldCom was, in and of > itself, worth $50K to the plaintiff. The jury was asked to determine the > "fair market value" of the number. > This case thus supports what toll-free advocates have argued to the FCC, > namely, that the oft-stated policy that numbers are a public resource > and that users do not obtain "ownership" rights in them, is not really > relevant to the issue of the commercial transfer of numbers. You can > legislate, regulate, and pontificate away all the "property" and > "ownership" rights you wish, but at the end of the day, toll free > customers still have a number of rights and benefits associated with the > particular toll free number assigned (or to be assigned) to them, and > that bundle of rights can often be quite valuable in a monetary sense. Judith, I can understand your basic argument, but have problems with some of the logical extensions of them. It would seem a property right in numbers similar to a TV station broadcast frequency license might be a reasonable claim. But to claim an ownership/right to a number that was never used in trade seems a stretch. If I "find" an 800 number with some alphabetic or even numeric attractiveness, have I established some right to that number at the moment of "discovery"? If I apply for that number through a RespOrg, do I have a right established at that point, even if the RespOrg (and indeed, the entire world) is unaware of my "discovery" of the number's value? [I'm not expecting an answer to each question -- they're just a means of exploring the problem domain. - ALV] Or do I have to apply for trademark protection of the "discovery" in order to claim it has a value? If I trademark something like 800-FOR-LEASE, but haven't applied to a RespOrg in order to become the assignee, do I have a right established at that point? What if the number is already in use (as 800-DMS-LEASE, perhaps by NorTel?). Do I still have a right associated with the NUMBER? Or just the 800-FOR-LEASE string? If I ask a RespOrg to assign me the number if/when NorTel releases it, and the number is grabbed by another RespOrg upon release, do I have a valid claim of damages? What if two RespOrgs are asked by two entities desiring the number (the Wyoming Department of Natural Resources wants 800-DNR-LEASE for an upcoming auction of grazing rights, and Playtime wants 800-FOR-LEASE). Does the industry need to establish a queue of potential assignees? If so, doesn't that mean that THOSE numbers have value while they are in the pool, and thus the FCC (and the taxpayers) should receive payment when assigning those numbers to customers? So, two basic questions: WHEN does an entity have a claim of ownership or "rights" in a TollFree number? And are there any circumstances under which the "public" would receive payment for use of this "public resource" (TollFree numbers) -- or is it only the assignees/buyers that financially benefit, and their brokers? If 800-FOR-LEASE is valuable to Playtime, why isn't it an asset of the FCC or the 800 number administrator or the RespOrg? Shouldn't Playtime have to "buy" the number, or is its value just created from thin air by the "discovery" of it's previously-untrademarked mnemonic or numerological (800-666-FACT) attributes? If "customers" can sell a number, could a RespOrg "buy" them? If so, would the RespOrg now be able to "sell" the number they previously had to "give away"? If a RespOrg purchases a number, but doesn't use it, does it then have to be returned to the pool? If the NANC decides expansion of the NANP requires expanding the 800 number format to more than 10 digits, can the entity with "rights" to 800-FLOWERS claim damages from the FCC, because it would be losing that "number"? Or would you argue that the entity is entitled to "protect" its interests by having first chance to be assigned the whole 800F-LOWE-RSxx range? Or would you argue the NANC has no legal right to expand the 800-number format, because some companies have "discovered" an eternal right to the current format? And the ultimate question: Do you feel comfortable having various courts answer these questions, or would you prefer that the FCC establish the rules? --------------- By the way, the FCC recently re-affirmed the "public resource" concept regarding numbers. On Oct. 20, 1997, regarding something AT&T might value more than any 800 number, (the 10288 carrier access code), the FCC stated: 58. Second, we find that VarTec's service mark argument fails. While we agree with VarTec that trademarks and service marks are property rights, we find that because CICs and CACs are telephone numbers and, therefore, a public resource, there can be no private ownership of them. We specifically reject VarTec's assertion that there is a lack of legal authority to support the propositions that NANP codes are a public resource, and that use of such codes does not confer ownership. (From Order extending deadline for 7-digit Carrier Access Codes, and effectively removes the 5-digit 10XXX Carrier Access Code from the NANP mid-1998. VarTec argued that existing 10XXX numbers should be grand-fathered and remain in the dialing plan, along with 1010XXXX codes. Two arguments against elimination of 10XXX were: - [it] takes VarTec's private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment and - [it] violates VarTec's commercial free speech rights under the First Amendment; These sound like arguments against format expansion of 800-numbers ... See http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97386.txt) Al Varney - just my (automatically copyrighted) opinion ------------------------------ From: Corky Sarvis Organization: Our Lady of the Lake University Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:51:12 CDT Subject: Speaking of Customer Service Pat, I thought that I would write this short article to (a.) document what has been happening with my MCI connection and (b.) to see if anyone else have been having the same "challenges". Last Tuesday (28 October 1997), I noticed a marked lack of numeric pages being received by my Nationwide Pager provided by MCI. I usually receive 10-15 calls per day on it. I found some time late that morning and called the 1-800 number for Customer Service. About a month ago, we changed telephone numbers at home. I told the MCI representative at that time that we were changing numbers and that I wanted my pager, 800 and 500 service, as well as my long-distance service to follow from the old number to the new number. He said, "No problem! I can take care of that for you." Well, take care of it, he did! My long-distance at the new home number is working and is through MCI. (I verified it through the 1-700 number.) However, the pager, 800 and 500 numbers didn't make the jump. As I said, I called the 1-800 number for Customer Service. They fiddle- faddled around and kept me on-hold for quite some time. Finally, the representative came back on and told me, rather snipily, actually, that since I had terminated service with them that it would be three to four business days to switch the pager, 800 and 500 numbers back on. I asked her if this time delay could be shortened. More snipily, she said that "no", nothing could be done. I went back to my planner and told her the day, date, time and person that I spoke with and what this chap said that he could do by " ... taking care of me." Again, almost rudely now, she said no such help. Still, my fault. So, being the patient sort of person that I am, I waited. Today is the 5th of November. It has been a bit longer than the three to four business days. The 800 number and 500 number are back alive. They need to be programmed correctly. However, the digital, nationwide pager is still dead as a doornail. I called the techno-geeks this morning and got told that they could see the order to "reinstate your service" in the computer but couldn't tell me when it would be reinstated. I called the customer representatives and had a very nice conversation with a lady who took all of my information all over again. She said that she, too, could see the original order from the 28th of October. However, she was going to put a double-rush on the reinstatement and that I should have my Nationwide pager back-on sometime later this week or maybe the next. Has anyone else observed or experienced such cavalier behaviour on the part of an otherwise, formally top-drawer company? Talking to the droids at MCI is like talking to the IRS. Information, if provided, when provided, may or may not be correct and certainly won't be in a timely manner or even accurate. Comments? Corky Sarvis, Director Weekend College and Special Programs Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, Texas, USA ...................................................................... Robert J. "Corky" Sarvis, M.B.A. Weekend College & Special Programs Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. ...................."I Can! I Will! I Shall!........................ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:01:24 -0600 From: David Loomis Subject: Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS 16th Annual INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FORECASTING CONFERENCE Demand Analysis and Technology Forecasting in the Information Age June 9-12, 1998 Hyatt Regency at Union Station St. Louis, Missouri U.S.A. Hosted by Illinois State University 16th Annual International Communications Forecasting Conference http://www.econ.ilstu.edu/icfc/home.htm The International Communications Forecasting Conference (ICFC) is a professional forum for forecasters, demand analysts, market researchers, product managers, statisticians, academics, and consultants within, or interested in, the communications industry. The ICFC provides insight into and analysis of existing and emerging issues as they pertain to communications forecasting, planning, demand analysis, market research and cost analysis. The theme of the 1998 conference is "Demand Analysis and Technology Forecasting in the Information Age." Advances in technology, intensifying competition, and the evolving regulatory framework create opportunities and risks for all the industry participants. The evolving global communications industry affords unprecedented international competition and cooperation. Convergence has erased industry lines between communications, information and entertainment providers, and technology is eliminating distinctions between wireline, wireless, and satellite services. The conference will include plenary sessions, concurrent sessions and tutorials. Professionals and academics with expertise in telecommunications demand, market analysis, forecasting, product management, industry competition, technology and related fields are strongly invited to submit papers for the concurrent sessions on areas of interest as listed below. Please submit abstracts of 200 words or less by mail, fax or e-mail on or BEFORE MARCH 2, 1998 to: (preferred mode is e-mail) ... David G. Loomis Tel: 309-438-7979 Illinois State University Fax: 309-438-5228 Department of Economics e-mail: dloomis@ilstu.edu Campus Box 4200 Normal IL 61790-4200 Abstracts will be reviewed by the Conference Planning Committee and notification of acceptance will be given by March 31, 1998. Presentations should be about 20 minutes followed by a brief discussion. If more time is required for your proposed presentation or you have any special audio-visual or computer requirements, please indicate so in your abstract. All presenters are required to register for the conference under the early registration fee. A limited number of registration scholarships may be available to academic and government presenters. Papers presented at the conference are also eligible to be included in a conference publication. Organized by Representatives from: AT&T Ameritech Bell Atlantic Bell Canada Bellcore Bell South Cincinnati Bell GTE ICG Telecom Group Lucent Technologies MCI Nokia SBC Communications SNET Sprint Telstra (Australia) US West WIK (Germany) **************************************** David G. Loomis Email: dloomis@ilstu.edu Illinois State University Voice: (309) 438-7979 Department of Economics FAX: (309) 438-5228 Campus Box 4200 Normal, IL 61790-4200 Web Site: http://odin.cmp.ilstu.edu/~dloomis/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 20:16:16 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Risks is Alive and Well I suppose I have received at least three dozen replies in the past several days responidng to Rick DeMattia's inquiry regarding RISKS. In every case the respondent said RISKS is indeed alive and wll, and being published regularly. Several respondents did say that Usenet propogation of RISKS is not that great; I would say the same about this Digest. Anyway, I hope that answers the question. PAT ------------------------------ From: p.h.s.3.@watvm.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:54:16 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services Our office is considering Fujitsu and Lucent ACDs/PBXs to replace an ancient ROLM (the cream-colored phones, *not* a 9751; I'm not even sure what vintage it is). I'm sure either would be better than this 1980s technology, but does anyone have any good/bad experiences with either to suggest? TIA ..phsiii Remove dots from userid portion of From: to reply. ------------------------------ From: Steven Gaunt Subject: 900 Number Help Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:19:24 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Is there anyway to fight the charges for a 900 Call? I had notified BellSouth about two years ago that I wanted 900/976 blocking. Two months ago, a $75 charge showed up. Upon some checking, it seems my 11 year old had dialed a Physic 800 number that rolled to a 900 number. I called BellSouth and they essentially said to bad! I needed to call the carrier of that call. So I finally got through to ATT's 900 complaint line and the end result with them was tough. I had to pay the charge. Well, I still have not paid the charge, but I am getting hounded by ATT to do so. Any suggestions? Will a state's PSC do anything or will I end up paying the charge. Thanks in advance, Steve Gaunt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Absolutely do NOT pay the charge. Quite simply, your local carrier and AT&T violated their own rules by charging you for the call. You already were on record with both (they subscribe to and use the same common database as does MCI and Sprint and all local telcos) as a subscriber who requested no 900/976 charges, nor the essence of same. It is unreasonable for any telco to assume an eleven year old child is sophisticated enough to understand that a traditionally 'toll- free' number can be converted, and although I am not certain what the latest rules are, my belief is that it is illegal for carriers to convert the charges in the way this was done. Are you otherwise a subscriber of AT&T? If so, this might be a perfect reason to simply take all your long distance business elsewhere. As unlikely as it is that their corporate left hand will know what their right hand is doing, chances are in a month or three, they'll be sending you a hundred dollar bribery payment to get you back as a customer anyway, and if you wish just use that check to pay off the psychic charge if they have not already written it off by then. If they choose to give you the 'access to the AT&T network is denied' routine, well that will really be a big loss for you won't it ... ... I know when they ran an Ameritech billing tape twice and double billed me then refused for months to correct it and finally cut me off, I was terribly upset about it ... I just tossed a couple more of my lines over to Frontier and kissed AT&T goodbye. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ghtrout@mail.execpc.com Subject: RFD: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:20:39 -0600 Organization: Exec-PC BBS Internet - Milwaukee, WI REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) Unmoderated group - comp.dcom.telecom.nortel This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below. NEWSGROUP LINE: - comp.dcom.telecom.nortel - Technical discussions of Nortel telecommunications products and systems. RATIONALE: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel Nortel (previously Northern Telecom) telecommunications equipment is installed in more businesses than any other manufacturer. Having a Usenet newsgroup for Nortel system owners, technicians and administrators will provide an excellent forum to ask questions and obtain answers about Nortel equipment. Nortel designs, manufactures, and supplies a breadth of products for digital networks of all kinds, but is most commonly known as the manufacturer of the Meridian, Norstar and DMS line of business telephone systems. Customers are typically local and long-distance telecommunications companies, cellular mobile radio and personal communications services providers, businesses, universities, governments, cable television companies, competitive local access providers, and other network operators around the world. CHARTER: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel This group would encourage posting of material relating to the installation, administration, maintenance and new technologies relevant in the Nortel line of business telecommunications equipment. Posts might include questions and answers about system programming, hardware setup, product capabilities, sources for third party add-ons, vendor recommendations, user group meetings, product bulletins, and similar posts. The group would be unmoderated. Suppliers, as well as end-users of the equipment would be invited, as this would offer the widest range of talent and information for the reader. Binaries, spam, scams, flames, libel; etc. would be discouraged and should not be posted in this newsgroup. PROCEDURE: This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.dcom.telecom comp.dcom.telecom comp.dcom.telecom.tech news.announce.newgroups news.groups Proponent: Gene T. ghtrout@mail.execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~ghtrout/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This was posted as a courtesy here since many readers may enjoy such a forum; however please conduct the requisite discussion in the unmoderated groups noted above. PAT] ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Linc Madison wrote: > Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing > 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing > from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed > that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". You'll find this at: The answer is: June 30, 1998 > Also, after the discontinuation of 10XXX, will all codes be 101XXXX, or > will they at some point generalize to 10XXXXX? > (Where do I sign up for my own code, so my friends can dial 10XXXXX-0-# > if they don't want to bother with my 800 number? ;-P ;-b ;-P ) The document also addresses these issues. The NANC and INC have rules that probably preclude low-usage XXXXX assignment, unless you can demonstrate significant calling traffic. You're better off trying to get your own 950-XXXX number -- and the FG-B tariff is usually cheaper than FG-D. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #304 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Nov 7 22:01:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA15651; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:01:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:01:31 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711080301.WAA15651@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #305 TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Nov 97 22:01:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 305 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Local MCI Service Difficulty Switching LD Provider (Jim Lawson) "Local Long Distance" Slammers (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule (Lisa Hancock) Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule (Adam Gaffin) How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Roy Smith) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Ed Ellers) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (B. Wilson) Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California (Lee Winson) Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California (Adam H. Kerman) Employment Opportunity: Systems Engineer Needed (dje@dmc22.com) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: WECO 500 Schematic (Lee Winson) Re: 900 Number Help (Michelle Durbin) Re: 900 Number Help (Eli Mantel) Re: Risks is Alive and Well (Pete Weiss) 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@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 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: jcl@earthling.net (Jim Lawson) Subject: Local MCI Service Difficulty Switching LD Provider Date: 7 Nov 1997 14:13:16 GMT Organization: Home I currently have MCI as my local phone service provider (no price difference from GTE, I just wanted off GTE). This past September I recieved an offer from AT&T for $100 if I switched to their LD service. I rang them and asked to be switched. A couple of weeks later I rang the 700-555-4141 and learned that I had not been switched. I called MCI and they said the number sometimes lagged and their computers said I was switched. I waited a week longer and there was no change. After calling AT&T and confirming my account was active and the request had been made to MCI to switch me I called MCI and told them to do so. Assuming they could handle that I left it alone till I got a postcard from AT&T stating they were having difficulty assuming my LD service. So I called them up and together we sat on hold with MCI for about an hour and finally spoke to a MCI rep. That rep stated that at first they had attempted to switch my local service to AT&T and since that wasn't a option where I live had switched me back to them. I then asked AT&T to put another service switch request into MCI and the MCI rep said it would take maybe five days. Two weeks pass and I'm still hearing the 700 number say MCI and AT&T has not recieved any of my toll calls. I call MCI and they say I was switched, I call AT&T and they say they aren't seeing any calls yet. I'm now waiting for a MCI supervisor to call me back. I'm now tempted to switch back to GTE who could at least handle switching of my LD carrier. I'm also concerned that any internaional and toll calls made during this period are not being carried at MCI's international rate since their computer thinks I'm not with them. :-( Jim Lawson jcl@earthling.net http://www.concentric.net/~jcl666 mst3k#3801 Kilgore Trout: "The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest." ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: "Local Long Distance" Slammers Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:20:59 -0600 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Today I got a call from an Ameritech representative. Apparently, there's a federally mandated surcharge on my phone bill which I could eliminate if I make a "minor change" to my "Local Long Distance" billing arrangements. We conversed for about five minutes, with me becoming more suspicious all along. Was this going to change my Long Distance carrier? No, just the way my local long distance was billed. What about my inbound 800 service? That would still be billed seperately by my LD carrier, however my "local long distance" would now appear right on my Ameritech bill, and this federally-mandated surcharge would be reduced or eliminated. The flags really started to wave when I discovered that she didn't know about my second line, and needed my full name and street address "for verification" (although she was typing furiously in the background). The jig was up when she announced that she was now going to transfer me to a "verification operator" to complete the billing change. Sure enough, the verification operator started reading off what my new rates were going to be (25 cents per minute for most calls) and when I asked if I was about to change my LD carrier she said yes. So of course, I said I was NOT going to authorize any such change, then hung up and immediately called Ameritech to make sure both of my lines are PIC'ed to the correct carrier and locked down. An AltaVista search for "Local Long Distance" (the name of the company I was about to switch to) turned up: Daniel Coleman President Coleman Enterprises, Inc. dba Local Long Distance 28 West Fifth Street Suite 480 St. Paul, MN 55102 As a LD reseller in Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Nebraska. The Rhode Island PUC is kind enough to divulge full contact info on this company at: http://www.ripuc.org/rec00001/r0000219.htm Point is, I've been reading c.d.t for over five years. I'm no genius, but I'd put myself in the 90th percentile WRT telecom literacy, and these goofs almost got me. I shudder to think what the average telecom consumer would suffer at their hands. The IL Atty. General's office said they were not interested unless I was actually switched, which (so far) has not happened. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Some of us still think it's important. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This reminds me of the joker here in Chicago who opened a business several years ago called 'Telephone Company Repair Service' ... that was the legal name of his company. He then had telemarketers phone everyone they could find telling them about his repair service and how they could pay a 'small premium' each month, billed separately from their phone bill of course, to have unlimited repairs made to their phones and lines as needed. He even stumbled upon a loophole which was that Ameritech did not have (nor any other Bell Company) a copyright on the 'walking fingers' emblem and he used that on his bills which he sent out monthly. The Illinois Attorney General's office finally closed him down but they were only able to do it when one of the telemarketers slipped up when asked, 'Are you part of Illinois Bell?' and said yes ... to an IBT employee called at home. If not for that little accident by his telemarketers he had stayed *barely* within the law. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule Date: 6 Nov 1997 01:06:17 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS > [AT&T] will replace its domestic basic schedule's day, evening and > night/weekend time periods with peak, off-peak and weekend time periods > and will eliminate all mileage bands. Calls will be priced at a single > rate during each time period, regardless of distance. I wonder how well this will be publicized. For some people, their phone bills will jump significantly: * Many people wait until 5pm for Evening rate to kick in. They will have to wait until 7pm with this change. * Many people wait until 11pm for the Night-Wkd rate to kick in. They will have to wait for the weekend to get the maximum discount. On the other hand, many people call Sunday night thinking weekend rate is still in effect. They'll save money now. I suspect increased use of automated computer dialing is partly responsible for this. When the old rate schedule was established about 20-25 years ago, most data transmissions were set up by a person, and there was nowhere near the volume of them. Personal facsimile was off in the future. Now many people have automated fax and computers programmed to transmit overnight. I still think rates should have some mileage basis. Living near several LATA boundaries, a five mile call for me goes over AT&T, and I pay far more for that than an equivalent local call. My local Bell company remains NOT allowed to carry such calls, even though now AT&T can carry regional toll calls in competition to it. I also wonder how this change will affect Calling Card and Credit Card calls from coin and non-coin phones. The "surcharges" put on such calls makes rate calculation really confusing. Frankly, I believe they're doing that intentionally, a confused consumer will end up paying more. ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:15:41 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com From Network World Fusion today: "AT&T is raising prices on all of its key data and voice services today. The move is likely to boost costs even for AT&T users on term contracts, most of whom do not have protection against price hikes because of the telecom industry's unique tariffing system." Increases range from 3.9% to 10% depending on service. You can get the complete story at: http: //www.nwfusion.com/news/1105att.html If you're not already an NWFusion user, you'll have to register first (it's free, at least). A dialog box'll pop up, hit Cancel to get to our registration page (unfortunately, when done, you'll be put onto our home page instead of the above - we recently move to a new server and still have some work to do). Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:07:00 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing No, I'm not talking about cable TV. I'm talking about the old cable message system. Our letterhead says "Cable Address: NYUMEDIC". What exactly is one supposed to do with that piece of information if they wanted to send me a message by cable? Can I just walk into a PTT in Mongolia and tell the clerk "I want to send this to Roy Smith, at NYUMEDIC", and he'll do something magic? Who runs this? Is it some separate physical network? Does it still actually exist in any useful way, or is the address on our letterhead just an anachronism left over from long ago, since gone the way of the telegram? Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In brief, a 'cable address' was simply a short form or abbreviated form of a longer telex/TWX number much like 'Enterprise' was a short form of a business telephone number. Unlike 'Enterprise', cable addresses did not automatically signify the message could be sent collect however. It was up to each subscriber with a cable address to make that decision. You rarely see cable addresses any longer for the simple reason you rarely see telex/TWX/telegram messages any longer. Consider them if you will as simply an alias address used for business purposes to make the recipient easier to remember/correspond with. Lots and lots of business places had cable addresses when telegraphy was a common method of communication. Strictly speaking, 'telegrams' were domestic, intra-USA only messages through the Western Union monopoly. 'Cablegrams' were messages to or from the United States going overseas to other countries, however the term 'cable address' was used in both services. Cable addresses were maintained by whatever international organization coordinated telegraph services. Offhand I remember a few from long ago: BEACON HILL was an organization in Massachusetts; SYMPHONY was the Chicago Symphony Orchestra; FBI was the Federal Bureau of Investigation; HOUSEREPS, WHITEHOUSE, and CAPITOLHILL should be obvious. Then there was FINEART for radio station WFMT in Chicago. When I worked in the phone room at the University of Chicago, the telex machine located there was UNIVCHGO. All could be reached with a numerical address as well. Yes, you should be able to go to any PTT and send a cablegram to a cable address in lieu of the corresponding numerical address if indeed the location still is using a telex machine. For that matter if Western Union still accepts telegrams via their 800 number in St. Louis (no longer billable to your phone and no longer deliverable by a young boy on a bicycle who rides up to your house with a piece of paper in one hand while his other palm is outstretched waiting for a monetary gift or tip) you can send telegrams to cable addresses as well. The response from the message-taker would probably be very similar to that of an AT&T operator asked to establish a connection with a toll-station; i.e. a bit of head scratching and denial at first, but it can be done. Are you sure you are not using some *very old* stationary? Do you still have telex service there at your school? Honestly I am not sure cable addresses still exist, even if some modicum of telex/TWX service is still around. If they do, that's how they work. WUTCO used to charge their hardwired customers (those with telegraph equipment on their premises) about one or two dollars per month to maintain the 'address' in their database. It could also be flagged to indicate whether or not 'automatic reverse charge' (collect) telegrams were acceptable or not. I hope that answers your question. Oh, before I forget: guess which entity had the cable address TITANIC nearly a century ago? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:19:26 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Al Varney wrote: "It would seem a property right in numbers similar to a TV station broadcast frequency license might be a reasonable claim." FWIW, broadcasters do *not* have a property right in the normal sense in their licenses; when a station is sold the seller has to apply to the FCC to transfer the license to the buyer, and the Commission can deny that transfer if it sees a problem with the buyer. The FCC, of course, can also revoke a license at any time under its regulations, which must comply with the Communications Act. Among other things, the FCC usually doesn't allow a broadcast license to be sold separately from the real and other property of the station in question, so someone who has just obtained a license can't just turn around and sell it; s/he has to actually put the station on the air, somehow, and then sell the operating station. (One Louisville FM station licensee got around that a few years ago by renting a spare transmitter from Clear Channel Communications, which operated two stations here and has more now. Clear Channel downlinked a satellite-fed country music service, put it on the new licensee's frequency with its spare transmitter, and signed the new call letters as required. This went on for several months, during which the licensee found a buyer and made a deal to sell the station; this complied with the letter of the FCC rules since the station was in operation, but no physical assets were sold -- the guy didn't own any to sell!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:50:13 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant In article , Judith Oppenheimer writes: > This opinion will not necessarily be binding on the FCC. The case does > not turn on an interpretation of any federal communications law or FCC > rule or policy. But, even though it is not absolutely binding on the > FCC, it is nonetheless a very useful precedent. It can't hurt, and it > may help advance the cause of toll-free users. Nowhere in all this verbiage was it said which appellate court this was or a cite to a published or slip opinion given, which makes it almost impossible to assess the potential significance of this opinion, nor is anything said as to whether Worldcom asserted lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was exclusively within that of the FCC and how that issue was disposed of (if it was raised) or whether the FCC may have "participated" by way of an amicus brief and how the issues raised in its brief (if there were one) were disposed of. In general terms, decisions aren't binding on anyone not a party to the litigation; and a Federal appellate court decision has precedential value only within the appellate jurisdiction (i.e., a Second Circuit decision is only precedent within the Second Circuit, for example). Although another Circuit Court of Appeals or a District Court within another circuit might find it persuasive, it's free to reach a contrary decision; and it's only decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court which establish precedent binding on all of the circuits and trial courts within them. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California Date: 5 Nov 1997 04:42:25 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Mark, thanks for the interesting report. Some questions I'd like to share with the newsgroup ... 1) I'm curious as to if the AT&T operators would know how to connect you if you did NOT give them the operator dialing code -- just said "Drakesbad Number 2 in Susanville California". Normally, that's all you would know. [When I've used Enterprise numbers in recent years, the typical AT&T operator has no idea what I'm talking about and refuses to do anything until I provide a proper number. One even cut me off. I have to ask them to get a supervisor to explain how to look it up. (Several AT&T operators referred me back to the local Bell operator, who then referred me back to AT&T.) One time the AT&T operator placed the call as collect, but asked the called party if they'd accept it -- on an Enterprise call, that's supposed to be a given.] 2) When AT&T first began giving discounts for dialed direct calls (1970s?) there were a few places that still didn't have DDD service. For those places, or for when a customer had trouble making the call, AT&T always charged the dialed-direct rate even if the operator placed the call. I don't know what today's rate plans are, but by that tradition you should be billed the dialed direct rate. Also, I thought on operator-handled rates that the operator surcharge is only on the first minute and that subsequent minutes are the same as dialed direct. Further, aren't there now two classes of operator handled -- one sort of an "self-serve" type-dial 0+ and enter your calling card, and the other a "full serve"? Regardless of how they bill you, it might be interesting to call them and ask for an explanation when you get the bill. I'll bet their customer service people won't have a clue on it! ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California Date: 5 Nov 1997 00:14:50 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote about tol-stations. Mark, that was a terrific article, as always. BTW, when I call the AT&T operator, I just flash after I hear the two-tone bong; I never dial 0#. Does this work universally? ------------------------------ From: dje@dmc22.com Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:03:00 CST Subject: Employment Opportunity: Systems Engineer Needed I am looking to hire a Systems Engineer to provide Pre-Sales technical support, perform product technical presentations and demonstrations for networking software installed on Unix, Novell and Windows NT platforms. The requirements include: Knowlege of one or more of the previously mentioned platforms, strong communication skills, and the ability to get people excited about new technologies. We're one of the largest software companies in the world. Candidate can report to any one of three offices in New Jersey (southern, central and northern). Compensation 50,000 - $90,000, outstanding benefits (including company paid medical and dental). Company that has been consistantly rated one of the best companies to work for in North America. If you know someone that would be interested I can be contacted at: Dave Eide Voice: (609) 584-9000 ext 273 Fax (609) 584-9575 Email dje@dmc22.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 7 Nov 1997 16:42:07 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT, Al Varney wrote: > In article , Linc Madison > wrote: >> Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing >> 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing >> from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed >> that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". > You'll find this at: > > The answer is: June 30, 1998 Well, as I noted in a post that PAT apparently ditched because I cross-posted it to .tech, my latest Nortel News says that the end of permissive is 31 Dec 97. Alas, the post didn't make it into .tech either, for some reason, so here it is again. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that it did not make it into the .tech group either implies perhaps it never got to either place; that perhaps it got lost leaving your machine for some reason. There are times I will cross-post here from .tech; no hard rule about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: WECO 500 Schematic Date: 6 Nov 1997 00:22:15 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per the question about wiring older telephone sets ... A book has been published for telephone collectors explaining wiring: "Old Time Telephones! Technology restoration and repair" by Ralph O. Meyer, published by TAB Books (div of McGraw Hill), (c) 1996. Tab Books--Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17294-0850 It is schematics and explanations for a large variety of older telephone instruments and components. [I would suggest not mixing components from a 500 set with a 300 set because of incompatibility in the internal set network and handsets.] ------------------------------ From: Michelle Durbin Subject: Re: 900 Number Help Date: 7 Nov 1997 16:09:47 GMT Organization: West Coast Online's News Server - Not responsible for content I had over $200 in calls on my phone bill for some 900 number calls, and I didn't have 900/976 call blocking at the time. But once I assured the AT&T rep that the calls were made without my permission/ knowledge, they agreed to remove the charges. They told me that by law they have to do this the first time that you request them to do so. The next time you will be charged regardless. It was at that point that I requested that all 900 or 976 number be blocked. However, even this will not protect you fully. Weeks later a charge of about $30 appeared for a long distance number (212-something). I asked the phone co if there was any way to block these non-900/976 calls, and they say there was no way they could block them. Yet I was charged much more than the regular long distance rate for that area code - The call lasted less than 10 minutes. The phone co told me to call the company that billed me. I did and they were totally uncooperative. I demanded that they remove the charges, but the best I could get was for him to offer a 50% discount. A discount?!?!? Like a fool I refused the discount, thinking I would be able to get the charges taken off. But I didn't get around to doing research into what my rights are in this case, and I ended up paying for the call. Does anyone know about how to block calls, or get charges removed for calls which are not 900/976 numbers, but bill at a higher rate than standard long distance rates? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ask your local telco and/or your long distance carrier (if one of the big three) to add you to the 'billed number screening' database. All the reputable carriers dip this same common database before allowing certain kinds of billing to your number to occur. Once listed there, 'collect' calls to your number will be denied by the carrier originating the call; they will not even bother to ask your permission, but instead advise their (originating call) customer that 'the number you are calling does not allow collect calls'. Likewise, third- party pay calls will be rejected at the source with similar advice given to the caller. Taking that step will eliminate most hassles with unauthorized charges. The reason it will not work in all cases is because not all of the long distance carriers and/or information provider billing services such as Integratel, Pilgrim Telephone and a few others use the database. Integratel does have its own similar database but you need to call them direct to be included on theirs. I do not know what Pilgrim does; and it might not hurt to list your number(s) also with IDS (?) and with Opticom, out of Carmel, IN. Both are big COCOT/AOS services. But if you get listed by the big three along with Integratel and your local carrier, you'll have covered about 95 percent of the territory. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: 900 Number Help Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:45:33 PST Steven Gaunt wrote: > I called BellSouth and they essentially said too bad! I needed to > call the carrier of that call. So I finally got through to ATT's > 900 complaint line and the end result with them was tough. I had > to pay the charge. In our moderator's zeal to assert the righteousness of your position, he failed to mention that on top of everything else, your local phone service cannot be terminated for failure to pay such unregulated charges. I believe the proper protocol is to notify the local phone company that you dispute the charge. As an unregulated charge, it will be removed immediately and the information provider will be so notified. If you assert to the local phone company that you refuse to pay for 900/976 charges under any circumstances, they may be obliged to block such calls. (Of course, you can say "Thank you very much. That's what I already asked for.") The information provider has the right to pursue legal remedies through other channels, such as small claims court. There is the potential for reporting your non-payment to a credit bureau, but I believe there are special rules that apply to reporting non-payment of 900/976 calls. Since it seems that AT&T is acting as the agent of the information provider, they might choose to cut off your long distance service. Since there seem to be plenty of other companies who would appreciate your business, that shouldn't be much of a problem. Eli Mantel aka the Cagey Consumer ------------------------------ From: Pete-Weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Re: Risks is Alive and Well Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 10:12:45 -0500 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems When in doubt, check the WEB site: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks /Pete Weiss at Penn State ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #305 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Nov 8 21:52:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA27999; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:52:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:52:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711090252.VAA27999@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #306 TELECOM Digest Sat, 8 Nov 97 21:52:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 306 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Random Thoughts on Payphone Deregulation (Dave Levenson) Ameritech ISDN Warning (Kyler Laird) New Brunswick, Canada Toll-Free Directories on Web (Nigel Allen) Wireless Quiz & Information (David Crowe) Telco Racks (Adept Care) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Al Varney) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Brett Frankenberger) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Tom Watson) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Jack Hamilton) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Roy Smith) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (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@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 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: Random Thoughts on Payphone Deregulation Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 21:39:45 EST From: Dave Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. Reply-To: dave@westmark.com By way of introduction, I own a small business which operates approximately 50 payphones in urban northeastern New Jersey. Our payphones still charge 20 cents for local calls, as they did in the days of state regulation. They sell long distance calls to any point in the continental U.S. for $0.25 per minute. Zero-plus calls, by default, go to Bell Atlantic for intraLATA, or AT&T for interLATA and interstate destinations. We do not ask either of these carriers to impose any surcharge on these calls, though AT&T has recently announced a 35-cent surcharge on calls from payphones. On October 7, the New Jersey BPU no longer regulated the prices we charge for local calls. (They never regulated non-local calls.) The press covered this change in regulation, and mentioned that some telephone companies had already increased the price of local calls; the number 35 cents was mentioned. Over the last three or four weeks, as I have made my rounds cleaning, collecting, and repairing our payphones, I have been asked (by passers-by, and by the proprietors of several small businesses where our phones are located) when our price would go up to 35 cents. My answer is that we have no plans, at present, to increase prices. The public seems to like this answer. The proprietors (who receive a commission from us, based upon the operating profit of the phone) sometimes don't. When asked by proprietors, I usually ask them something like: "If you increased the price of that can of beans from $0.79 to $1.40, would you make more money or less money?" Their answer is always that they would make less money -- because there is another grocer only a block away. "There's another payphone, even closer!" is my reply. The real answer, of course, is more complex. There are other payphones. There are also wireless phones. In the past, state-imposed rate regulations were based upon a subsidy which was paid to the local exchange carrier by all telephone service subscribers, and subsidized the carrier's payphones. By law, that subsidy ended last April. (Your local telephone service cost has gone down, now that your're no longer subsidizing your carrier's payphones, hasn't it? No? Well isn't that interesting!) We don't subsidize carrier-owned payphones, or COCOTs, or cellular service; this is a level playing field and we are all competing with each other. If our costs for the service we sell via payphones are increased, we'll probably have to increase our prices...but we're beginning to be able to shop around for that in a competitive market, also. If our location-providers ask us to increase prices, we may be forced to comply. On the other hand, we used to be forced to use the revenues from local coin calls to subsidize the provision of 800 calls from our payphones, but now we're entitled to share in the carrier's revenue for those calls. They make up about 25% of the total traffic from all of the payphones, and over 90% at one or two phones. We plan to stay below the price of cellular, and below or equal to the price of coin calls from Bell Atlantic payphones. We're above the price of calls from most residential phones -- but if you have a residential phone, then you pay a fixed monthly charge in addition to the per-call price. You pay this charge even if you only call 800 numbers (which means that those calls are not `free' from home, either). ------------------------------ From: laird@freedom.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) Subject: Ameritech ISDN Warning Date: 8 Nov 1997 18:24:36 GMT Organization: Purdue University My wife is back in school at IU and I'm still at Purdue, so she has a townhouse in Bloomington, Indiana. I've finally gotten her hooked on using e-mail and she uses it at work, so I decided to get a SS10 for her townhouse (so I can have something nice to work on when I'm there, too). ISDN is the only way to go in Bloomington. CDPD isn't available (RAM is, but...), the cable co. hasn't yet discovered the Internet and the telco doesn't appear to have any other xDSL plans. (I did investigate an "alarm circuit" with HDSL modems, but it just got too difficult.) So ... I signed up with the only reasonable ISDN provider in town, BlueMarble.net, and they helped me order my ISDN line. Just ordering it was an ordeal. The woman who took the order (with the ISP and me both on the line) was a moron. She had great difficulty and let someone else just take care of it. Later that week, I received a call from Ameritech with the details. It would take over three weeks to install. My wife was getting anxious, but this gave me time to get the computer purchased and set up. The line was installed when promised, Oct. 24. Unfortunately, no one was home, so the installer decided not to connect the line to the inside wires. I spent the evening on the (cellular) phone with my wife trying to figure out why she couldn't get a signal. So ... she called back to get the wires connected since I wasn't going to be down there for over a week. Eventually the installer showed up again. This time, however, he told her that she could not use ISDN at all unless she had RJ-45 jacks installed at every existing jack. She was tired of waiting, so she believed this idiot and he proceeded to *stick* RJ-45 jacks on the freshly-painted walls. Unfortunately I wasn't available when this was happening, but I went ballistic when I heard. Now I'm down in Bloomington learning the fine art of drywall repair and painting because this jerk coerced my wife into letting him install jacks that we did not want or need. (I have no use for any RJ-45 jacks except for Ethernet and I'll take care of that later -- and not with stick-on jacks.) I'm waiting to see if we get billed for this fiasco. I'm tempted to bill Ameritech for my time and materials to repair the damage. Enough venting for now ... My advice: 1. Don't let an Ameritech phone installer inside your house. 2. Don't leave your wife alone with an Ameritech phone installer. 3. Do everything you can yourself if you want it done correctly. --kyler ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:13:18 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: New Brunswick, Canada Toll-Free Directories on Web You may already be aware of the Canadian directory assistance listings available free of charge at http://canada411.sympatico.ca/ These listings are provided by the participating telephone companies, but may be out of date and incomplete. (I couldn't find a listing for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, for example.) The New Brunswick Telephone Company recently announced that it will be providing its own free directory database at http://www.nbtel.nb.ca/powerpages The NBTel service appears to be more current than the Canada411 service. As well, some Canadian toll-free (800 and 888) listings are available at http://canadatollfree.sympatico.ca/ Some, but not all, Canadian toll-free numbers can be reached from the U.S. Nigel Allen, 8 Silver Ave., Toronto, Ontario M6R 1X8, Canada ndallen@interlog.com http://www.ndallen.com/ ------------------------------ Subject: Wireless Quiz & Information From: crowed@cnp-wireless.com (David Crowe) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:17:21 -0500 Organization: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cadvision.com/) Cellular Networking Perspectives is a monthly standards and technology bulletin. Our quiz for November is available at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/quiz.html Prizes include T-Shirts, Standards "Trading Cards" and free back issues! Articles in this month's issue of the newsletter are on CALEA, Calling Party Pays, IS-136 TDMA ("Digital PCS") features and a list of TR-45.5 CDMA standards, published and under development. The titles and a short description of all issues are listed at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/backissue.html For more information or a free sample, please reply to this posting or fill out a request at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/order.html David Crowe, Editor ------------------------------ From: *NOSPAM*adept@aspi.net*NOSPAM* (Adept Care) Subject: Telco Racks Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:32:42 GMT Organization: The Destek Group, Inc. Reply-To: *NOSPAM*adept@aspi.net*NOSPAM* Can anyone point me to a manufacturer of 19" telco racks in the New England area? If replying by e-mail remove the *NOSPAM* Thanks, Noel ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 8 Nov 1997 06:16:39 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On 7 Nov 1997 16:42:07 GMT, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > On 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT, Al Varney wrote: >> In article , Linc Madison >> wrote: >>> Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing >>> 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing >>> from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed >>> that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". >> You'll find this at: >> >> The answer is: June 30, 1998 > Well, as I noted in a post that PAT apparently ditched because I > cross-posted it to .tech, my latest Nortel News says that the end of > permissive is 31 Dec 97. > Alas, the post didn't make it into .tech either, for some reason, so > here it is again. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that it did not make it into > the .tech group either implies perhaps it never got to either place; > that perhaps it got lost leaving your machine for some reason. There > are times I will cross-post here from .tech; no hard rule about it. PAT] I so assumed ... and I'm not sure the problem wasn't just that my newsfeed didn't get it _back_; in any event, it seems Al was correct in the first place ... I didn't check his source, and it was dated later than mine. Well, if you're gonna look foolish, do it for the widest possible audience, and get it over with ... and piss off the host in the process. Sorry all. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 8 Nov 1997 15:28:07 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > On 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT, Al Varney wrote: >> The answer is: June 30, 1998 > Well, as I noted in a post that PAT apparently ditched because I > cross-posted it to .tech, my latest Nortel News says that the end of > permissive is 31 Dec 97. Nortel News is one day off on the original end date. The FCC originally, in an Order dated April 11, 1997, stated the "end of permissive dialing" date as Jan 1, 1998. They changed their mind in the above-referenced Order, released on Oct. 22, 1997. Nortel News probably has a couple of weeks lag between writing articles and delivery. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Organization: Netcom On-Line Services In article , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > Well, as I noted in a post that PAT apparently ditched because I > cross-posted it to .tech, my latest Nortel News says that the end of > permissive is 31 Dec 97. > Alas, the post didn't make it into .tech either, for some reason, so > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that it did not make it into > the .tech group either implies perhaps it never got to either place; > that perhaps it got lost leaving your machine for some reason. There > are times I will cross-post here from .tech; no hard rule about it. PAT] Cross-posts between a moderated and unmoderated group do not "automatically" appear in the unmoderated group. The "design" of Usenet is that when an article is cross-posted to two groups, it travels around the 'Net as one article with two lines in the newsgroups line. So if you cross-post to a moderated and unmoderated gorup, the message is only mailed to the moderator of the moderated group -- it does not appear in the unmoderated group. If the moderator approves of the post, he can then post it in both the moderated and unmoderated group, so it remains one article. If the posting machine split the article into two -- one to send to the moderator and one to put in the unmoderated groups, then, should the moderator approve the post, there would be two copies out in Usenet, taking up twice as much disk space, and appearing twice in the newsreaders of people who subscribed to both groups. (Obviously, this gets interesting if a post is to multiple moderated groups. I don't have personal knowledge how that works.) Brett (brettf@netcom.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as *any* moderated group is shown in the newsgroups line, then the moderator of the moderated group controls the message. If more than one moderated newsgroup is shown then the first moderated group's moderator is the controlling party. Because the volume of mail coming to this Digest is such that I rarely get to deal with more than twenty or thirty percent of it, I discourage having general posts to Usenet come through with comp. dcom.telecom in the newsgroups line since there is a very likely chance the message will never make it further. It is far better, at least in the case of this Digest, to handle it as two separate postings; one for Usenet in general except c.d.t. and one for the Digest, c.d.t. and the website bulletin board 'TELECOM_Digest_Online'. This reminds me to advise all readers that if you do not like or wish to receive the Digest for whatever reason, yet at the same time you are not fond of Usenet or get poor propogation, there is a third alternative: http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online provides message-by-message reading just like Usenet, but without, let's say, the mess that so much of Usenet has become in recent years. Messages go there at the very same instant that Usenet prop- ogation begins on each (parsed single message style) issue of the Digest, and is available even before email reaches most users. You might want to check it out. Of course, there is also the telecom chat area, a webchat interface available for posting short questions and comments and hopefully receiving responses to same without waiting for the Digest itself to include your message. To use this feature: http://telecom-digest.org/chat ... and the times you will most likely find other users on line is around 10-11 pm Eastern USA Time most nights. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 20:49:13 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote: > No, I'm not talking about cable TV. I'm talking about the old cable > message system. > Our letterhead says "Cable Address: NYUMEDIC". <<>> The reason for a "cable address" was that unlike domestic telegrams, international telegrams had the words in the address billed. If you sent a cable to "John Smith MACONSULT" (similar? to a cable address I know), it was charged as only TWO words. The full address which may be many words cost considerably more. This was in the days when the "art" of short cables was in full bloom. In the 40's a cable could be just the "word" DEAL. Everyone knew what it meant, and that is all that was needed. At international costs of upward to $1.00 per word, and no transatlantic telephone cable (that happened in the 50's) this was a VERY common method of doing things. Remember, credit cards weren't around then, and every carried local currency. Even more of a bother. I suspect a message like "SENDBUX" would have been even more common, who knows. Fast forward to the 90's. Now we have domain names that are registered with Internic. Nobody likes raw IP addresses, but they too work. The concept is VERY similar. I don't know the cost for maintaining a "cable address" but it probably isn't that much (in today's terms). Now I suspect it is a prestige thing, and if you ever get to some out of the way third world country that only has a telegraph office, you are in luck. tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ From: jfh@alumni.stanford.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 04:00:03 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1997 by Jack Hamilton On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:07:00 -0500, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith): > Are you sure you are not using some *very old* stationary? Do you > still have telex service there at your school? Honestly I am not sure > cable addresses still exist, even if some modicum of telex/TWX service > is still around. They certainly did ten years ago. At that time, I worked for a large defense and medical equipment company with civilian and military customers all over the world. I wrote an interface between the old Telex system and our then-new PROFS electronic mail system from IBM. We sent dozens of telexes every day. Fax would have been faster, and probably cheaper, but a telex had the advantage of providing legal proof of receipt. PROFS' moment of fame came during the Nixon/Watergate days, when some incriminating email memos were found in the White House PROFS system. I haven't heard anything about PROFS recently; I don't know whether IBM dropped it, or just renamed it to something sexier. Jack Hamilton PGP ID: 79E07035 jfh @ alumni . stanford . org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 07:53:17 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Organization: New York University School of Medicine TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > Are you sure you are not using some *very old* stationary? The stationary is new. But, given the way things work around here, it's entirely likely that nobody else has had a clue for decades what this was all about, so every time the stationary was reprinted, it was just carried along. "Hey, Bob, do we still need the cable address on the letterhead?", "Beats me, it's always been there, I have no idea why, but we might get in trouble if we drop it." > Do you still have telex service there at your school? Well, we've still got lots of KSR-33's all over the place, but they are just hooked up to old pieces of lab equipment. It's anybody's guess what goes in the administrative offices :-) > WUTCO used to charge their hardwired customers (those with telegraph > equipment on their premises) about one or two dollars per month to > maintain the 'address' in their database. Sort of like being charged $100/year to maintain a DNS entry today, no? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very, very similar to DNS entries. PAT] ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:31:36 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In brief, a 'cable address' was simply > a short form or abbreviated form of a longer telex/TWX number much > like 'Enterprise' was a short form of a business telephone number. > You rarely see cable addresses any longer for the simple reason you > rarely see telex/TWX/telegram messages any longer. Consider them if > you will as simply an alias address used for business purposes to > make the recipient easier to remember/correspond with. Lots and lots > of business places had cable addresses when telegraphy was a common > method of communication. As I recall, the "cable address" was a carryover from the days of telegraphy when time and economics dictated that the number of telegraphic characters transmitted be minimized. I seem to recall that there was a slightly lower charge for international messages to registered cable addresses because all messages were charged by the word ... including the address. Hence the run-together cable addresses like westmoco or beaconhill. Along the same lines (no pun intended), is a favorite trivia question of mine: Q. What actor played a the character of the frontier west known for his pioneering use of electronic mail? A. Richard Boone, who played Paladin in the TV series "Have Gun - Will Travel" -- and who, as hired gun, would give his clients a business card reading with the image of a chessman and the words "WIRE: PALADIN - SAN FRANCISCO" That was a "cable address." Cheers, The Old Bear [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So many people are simply amazed to find out that indeed 'email' -- although that term itself is relatively new -- has been around more than a century. It is just that now-days everyone is his own telegrapher. Fifty or a hundred years ago that was not the case; we went to a central location and handed over scraps of paper with messages to be sent to someone somewhere. The community telegrapher then tapped it out over the wire much like we do today. Certainly there were not as many long- winded and frivilous messages as now, and as was pointed out many messages consisted of just a few words, sent at considerable ex- pense. Regarding Paladin and his business card which allegedly said, "Have gun, will travel ... wire Paladin, San Francisco" there is an obscene joke which I dare not repeat *completely* in this family-oriented Digest but it went something like this: You have to fill in the missing word .... "Have cr___, will shack, 'til Paladin gets back -- wire Mrs. Paladin, San Francisco." Well, I thought it was funny, albiet a bit crude and out of style for here. Have a nice weekend! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #306 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 9 16:56:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA24846; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:07 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711092156.QAA24846@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #307 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Nov 97 16:56:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 307 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Turning Away Telemarketers (Tad Cook) Global TLD Net Access Status (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) V.34 Modems, Call Waiting With Caller ID :-( (Bret A. Schuhmacher) Unregulated LD From Canadian Hotels (Paul Lantz) CallerID Info Needed (Steve Pershing) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (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: * telecom-request@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 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: Turning Away Telemarketers Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:48:13 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Florida Telephone Service Prevents Telemarketers from Calling Subscribers By L.A. Newkirk, Tallahassee Democrat, Fla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Nov. 7--Michael Aylin sleeps during the day because he works at night. If the phone rings, it had better be important. And he says telemarketers aren't important. "They say `We would like you to donate ...' The only thing they're going to get donated from me is a dial tone," he said. "I'm not really pleasant when I get woken up." Aylin is one of only 55,000 telephone subscribers in Florida who have signed up for a service that protects them from telemarketers. There is a total of 14 million telephone subscribers. The "No Sales" list has been available for the last seven years, but not many are aware of it. "It's a surprise to a lot of people," said Geoff Luebkemann, chief of the state Bureau of Consumer Protection. The bureau is working on a flashy flier that will regularly be included in phone bills. Under a 1990 state law, telemarketers are banned from calling anyone who has paid to be on the consumer bureau's list. Only 32 businesses have been fined for violations, but the bureau is operating under a new policy to open investigations of telemarketers that have accumulated ten consumer complaints against them. There are currently 70 cases, said Melissa Meffert, bureau regulatory consultant. The law protects you from telemarketers selling goods and services but not from charities seeking donations or companies that you've recently done business with -- such as a long-distance company you have dropped. Luebkemann said the bureau is working to amend the law by reducing the length of time that a company can still call you to no more than three years. Consumers pay $10 each year per phone number for the service and $5 to renew. Residential numbers and noncommercial pagers and cell phones can also be protected from unwanted solicitations. The fees pay to maintain the data base and other administrative costs, but Luebkemann said the bureau is seeking an increase since the current fees are seven years old. While charities are exempt from the ban, they must first register with the bureau before they can call you, Luebkemann said. The list is updated and sold to telemarketers quarterly. The deadline to be on the next list is Dec. 1; the new list comes out Jan. 1. The quarterly list costs telemarketers $100 per area code, or $300 for the whole state. More than 500 telemarketers buy it, though it's not required. But they are required to comply with the law and may not call any names on the list. If you sign up for the list and still get calls, you must complain in writing. The bureau sends you pre-printed postcards when you sign up for the service. An investigation is opened after ten complaints are filed against a telemarketer. Aylin said he used to get at least three telemarketing calls each month, so he signed up for the service last spring. "Everybody's trying to get a piece of business. Everybody wants a bigger business. Just don't bother me at the house," Aylin said. He wants to choose the businesses and charities he deals with -- not let them choose him. He said the list works. "I haven't really noticed any more (calls). They've pretty much disappeared," Aylin said Wednesday. And he's received only one charity call in that time. Aylin said the cost of the program is reasonable. "Oh, yeah. Ten dollars a year? You're talking about less than a dollar a month to get rid of the pesky phone calls. What a bargain! You'll spend a dollar a month on junk, on bubble gum." ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Global TLD Net Access Status Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:56:26 GMT Tom Watson wrote (re cable addresses): > if you ever get to some out of the way third world > country that only has a telegraph office, you are in luck. Not many of those left. FYI, here is a sorted list of countries with net access, based on data from the e-mail country codes FAQ. Impressively, of 244 national top-level domains (many of which represent territories or colonies, not countries) 187 have FULL net access. rishab ---------- National TLD net access status as of 9/97 Full internet 187 Email only 12 No access or provisional/unknown 45 Total 244 Source e-mail country-codes FAQ Copyright (c)1997 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh **********national TLDs with full internet as of 9/97********** AD Andorra FI * AE United Arab Emirates FI * AG Antigua and Barbuda FI * AI Anguilla FI * AL Albania FI * AM Armenia FI * Ex-USSR AN Netherland Antilles FI * AO Angola (Republic of) FI * AQ Antarctica FI * intermittent luxor.cc.waikato.ac.nz AR Argentina FI * AT Austria FI B * AU Australia FI * AW Aruba FI * AZ Azerbaijan FI B * Ex-USSR BA Bosnia-Herzegovina FI * BB Barbados FI * BD Bangladesh FI * BE Belgium FI * BF Burkina Faso FI * BG Bulgaria FI B * BH Bahrain FI B * BI Burundi FI * BJ Benin FI * BM Bermuda FI * BN Brunei Darussalam FI * BO Bolivia FI * BR Brazil FI B * BS Bahamas FI * BW Botswana FI * BY Belarus FI B * Ex-USSR BZ Belize FI * CA Canada FI B * CF Central African Rep. FI * CH Switzerland FI * CI Ivory Coast FI * CL Chile FI B * CM Cameroon FI * CN China FI * CO Colombia FI * CR Costa Rica FI * CU Cuba FI * CY Cyprus FI * CZ Czech Republic FI * DE Germany FI B * DJ Djibouti FI * DK Denmark FI * DM Dominica FI * DO Dominican Republic FI * DZ Algeria FI * EC Ecuador FI * EE Estonia FI * EG Egypt FI B * ES Spain FI B * ET Ethiopia FI * FI Finland FI B * FJ Fiji FI * FM Micronesia FI * FO Faroe Islands FI * FR France FI B * GA Gabon FI * GB Great Britain (UK) FI B * X.400 & IP ns1.cs.ucl.ac.uk GD Grenada FI * GE Georgia FI * Ex-USSR GF Guiana (Fr.) FI * GG Guernsey (Ch. Isl) FI * GH Ghana FI * GI Gibraltar FI * GL Greenland FI * GP Guadeloupe (Fr.) FI * GQ Equatorial Guinea FI * GR Greece FI * GT Guatemala FI * GU Guam (US) FI * in US domains GW Guinea Bissau FI * GY Guyana FI * HK Hong Kong FI * HN Honduras FI * HR Croatia FI B * HT Haiti FI * HU Hungary FI B * ID Indonesia FI * IE Ireland FI * IL Israel FI B * IN India FI B * IM Isle of Man FI * IR Iran FI B * IS Iceland FI B * IT Italy FI B * JE Jersey (Ch. Isl.) FI * JM Jamaica FI * JO Jordan FI * JP Japan FI B * KE Kenya FI * KG Kyrgyz Republic FI * Ex-USSR (in .su domain) KH Cambodia FI * KR Korea (South) FI * KW Kuwait FI * No BITNET KY Cayman Islands FI * KZ Kazakstan FI * Ex-USSR LB Lebanon FI * LC Saint Lucia FI * LI Liechtenstein FI * LK Sri Lanka FI * LS Lesotho FI * LT Lithuania FI * Ex-USSR LU Luxembourg FI * LV Latvia FI * Ex-USSR MA Morocco FI * MC Monaco FI * MD Moldova FI * Ex-USSR MG Madagascar FI * MK Macedonia (former Yug.)FI * ML Mali FI * MN Mongolia FI * MO Macau FI * MP Northern Mariana Isl. FI * MT Malta FI * MU Mauritius FI * MV Maldives FI * MW Malawi FI * MX Mexico FI * MY Malaysia FI * MZ Mozambique FI * NA Namibia FI * NC New Caledonia (Fr.) FI * NE Niger FI * NG Nigeria FI F NI Nicaragua FI * NL Netherlands FI B * NO Norway FI B * NP Nepal FI * NZ New Zealand FI * OM Oman FI * PA Panama FI B * PE Peru FI * PF Polynesia (Fr.) FI * PG Papua New Guinea FI * PH Philippines FI * PK Pakistan FI * PL Poland FI B * PR Puerto Rico (US) FI B * PT Portugal FI * PY Paraguay FI * QA Qatar FI * RE Reunion (Fr.) FI * In .fr domain RO Romania FI B * RU Russian Federation FI B * Ex-USSR SA Saudi Arabia FI B * dial-ip SB Solomon Islands FI * SC Seychelles FI * SD Sudan FI * SE Sweden FI B * SG Singapore FI * SI Slovenia FI * SJ Svalbard & Jan Mayen IsFI * in .no domain SK Slovakia (Slovak Rep) FI * SM San Marino FI * SN Senegal FI * SR Suriname FI * SU Soviet Union FI B * Still used. SV El Salvador FI * SZ Swaziland FI * TG Togo FI * TH Thailand FI * TM Turkmenistan FI * Ex-USSR TN Tunisia FI * TO Tonga FI * TR Turkey FI B * TT Trinidad & Tobago FI * TW Taiwan FI * TZ Tanzania FI * UA Ukraine FI * UG Uganda FI * UK United Kingdom FI B * ISO 3166 is GB US United States FI * see note (4) UY Uruguay FI * UZ Uzbekistan FI * Ex-USSR VA Vatican City State FI * VE Venezuela FI * VI Virgin Islands (US) FI * VU Vanuatu FI * WS Western Samoa FI * YE Yemen FI * YU Yugoslavia FI * ZA South Africa FI * ZM Zambia FI * intermittent ZW Zimbabwe FI * **********national TLDs with only e-mail as of 9/97********** CD Dem. Repub. of Congo PFI * formerly ZR Zaire CG Congo * CK Cook Islands * ER Eritrea * GM Gambia * GN Guinea PFI * dial-IP LR Liberia * MR Mauritania * SL Sierra Leone * TD Chad * TJ Tadjikistan * Ex-USSR VN Vietnam * **********national TLDs with no or provisional access as of 9/97********** AF Afghanistan(Islamic St.) AS American Samoa BT Bhutan BV Bouvet Island CC Cocos (Keeling) Isl. CV Cape Verde CX Christmas Island EH Western Sahara FK Falkland Isl.(Malvinas) FX France (European Ter.) France Metropolitaine GS South Georgia and HM Heard & McDonald Isl. IO British Indian O. Terr. IQ Iraq KI Kiribati KM Comoros KN St.Kitts Nevis Anguilla P KP Korea (North) P LA Laos LY Libya MH Marshall Islands MM Myanmar MQ Martinique (Fr.) MS Montserrat NF Norfolk Island NR Nauru NU Niue PM St. Pierre & Miquelon PN Pitcairn PW Palau RW Rwanda F currently cut SH St. Helena SO Somalia ST St. Tome and Principe SY Syria TC Turks & Caicos Islands TF French Southern Terr. TK Tokelau TP East Timor TV Tuvalu UM US Minor outlying Isl. VC St.Vincent & Grenadines P VG Virgin Islands (British) WF Wallis & Futuna Islands YT Mayotte ------------------------------ From: bas@cascade.healthcare.com (Bret A. Schuhmacher) Subject: V.34 Modems, Call Waiting With Caller ID :-( Date: 09 Nov 1997 15:54:17 -0700 Organization: Healthcare Communications, Inc. OK, I just got call waiting with Caller ID service from USWORST. The idea was that when I'm on line, I'd know when someone was trying to reach me and I'd have the option of manually disconnecting the data call. However, I don't get any signal! I know it works with voice calls because I tested it while talking to a USWASTE representative (he called me back on his other line and I was able to see the incoming call info). I've tried the following setups, but it doesn't seem to matter: wall -> CID box -> modem -> phone wall -> modem -> CID box -> phone I'm using a USR Sportster 33.6 w/voice. FWIW, I have call forward on no answer and call forward on busy features with this line. I originally thought the call forward on busy was the problem, but then the USWURST guy proved it wasn't. The modem has to have something to do with it (is the V.34 protocol still getting in the way somehow?). And no, I don't have call waiting disabled, I checked that. Is anyone using call waiting id for this purpose? What'd you do to get it to work? Thanks for any pointers! Regards, Bret A day without sunshine is like night. ------------------------------ From: Paul Lantz Subject: Unregulated LD From Canadian hotels Date: 9 Nov 1997 20:59:30 GMT Organization: Ontario Northland--ONLink Recently I stayed in a hotel in Toronto. The telephone information sheet stated that long distance services were provided by US Telephone (or something) which was an unregulated service. I wondered if this would affect the price of telephone calls (visions of having long distance calls diverted through some offshore company at astronomical cost). Does anyone have information on this? I made long distance calls but they went through Bell; I didn't try any calls to the US. Are there are any risks for people using these services? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are sufficient risks in using hotel/motel phone systems for long distance (sometimes even local!) calls that one should always read carefully any literature placed by the phone in the room, and question front desk personnel for details before using the room telephone to any extent. Some of them are frankly outrageous. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Pershing Subject: CallerID Info Needed Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 13:04:38 -0800 Organization: Questor Technologies Inc. I am looking for information on what can be transmitted in the callerID data burst, which is sent by the telephone switch between the first and second rings. The purpose is so that modem software can be programmed to act on the incoming data to answer the phone in different ways, depending on the data. I know that there are bits indicating: "privacy, long-distance, message-waiting", etc, but I am looking for a more-or-less complete list of available data. If anyone has this info or ideas where to find it, please drop me a note. Thanks in advance for any help. Steve Pershing ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:19:02 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant In TELECOM Digest, Vol 17 # 305, Ed Ellers wrote: > Among other things, the FCC usually doesn't allow a broadcast license > to be sold separately from the real and other property of the station > in question, so someone who has just obtained a license can't just > turn around and sell it; s/he has to actually put the station on the > air, somehow, and then sell the operating station. Yeah, BUT ... First, as you note, parties do find ways around this. And the ways around it are even more common in some other services than in broadcast. For example, most licenses that have been obtained by auction are subject to no such restrictions whatsoever (provided that the parities comply with "unjust enrichment" rules so that I can not, for example, take advantage of a small business bidding credit and installment payment plan and then turn around and sell to AT&T and have AT&T take the license on the same terms). Even apart from auctions, in many non-broadcast services the only requirement *is* that the facilities be timely constructed, and in a few service not even that is required. Also, in cellular the Commission created an exception to the construction requirement that permitted licensees to acquire unconstructed authorizations for other markets. The theory of the exception was that some smaller were not viable unless operated as part of the adjacent larger market. The seller is required to execute a sworn statement that it intended to construct and operate the system when it filed its application (yeah, right ) but the unforeseeable changed circumstances now dictated incorporation of the market into a larger system. I am aware of no case, after this exception was established, in which the Commission ever challenged one of these showings. My point is, whatever goes on in the broadcast services notwithstanding, the so-called anti-trafficking and holding period rules have been substantially eroded in the past 10 to 15 years. Second, as far as the fiction that the license is being sold ancillary to the sale of other property, e.g., the tower, the transmitters, the studio, etc., let's not kid ourselves -- and I'm sure the Commission is not kidding itself when it approves these transactions. The fact of the matter is that, no matter how the bean counters may show it on the books, that piece of paper from the FCC is what makes these multi-million (and sometimes billion or more) dollar deals. All of the other property put together is typically worth only a small fraction of the value of the license. In TELECOM Digest, Vol 17 # 305, Bruce Wilson wrote: > Nowhere in all this verbiage was it said which appellate court this > was or a cite to a published or slip opinion given, which makes it > almost impossible to assess the potential significance of this > opinion, This was the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Case No. 96-2066, Play Time, Inc. v. LDDS Metromedia Communications, Inc. (12 August 1997). It was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. There is probably an official citation for the opinion by now, but I don't have it handy. > nor is anything said as to whether Worldcom asserted lack of > subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was exclusively within > that of the FCC and how that issue was disposed of (if it was raised) > or whether the FCC may have "participated" by way of an amicus brief > and how the issues raised in its brief (if there were one) were > disposed of. There is no indication that the FCC participated. Nor is there any indication in the opinion that WorldCom asserted, as you put it "lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was exclusively within that of the FCC." Such an argument, at least worded that way, would have failed, because it is questionable whether the FCC has *any* jurisdiction over a contract dispute simply because it involves a telephone number or telephone service, and the FCC *certainly* does not have *exclusive* jurisdiction. What sometimes happens, if a particular issue in a case turns on some point of FCC regulation or policy, is the court might certify that question to the FCC. But more often than not, the court will decide the issue of FCC regulation or policy just as a federal court decides issues of state law, or one state court may be called upon to interpret another state's laws. It is really no big deal, and it happens every day. WorldCom *did* assert the policy against brokering numbers (then an informal and voluntary industry policy, because the facts of this dispute arose before the FCC's anti-brokering rules in CC Docket No. 95-155) based on the FCC policy that numbers are a public resource and are not privately owned. However, this was offered, at least at the appellate level, not as a matter of jurisdiction, but rather as an attack on trying to set damages based on a monetary "value" of the number. The Court rejected that argument. > In general terms, decisions aren't binding on anyone not a party to > the litigation; and a Federal appellate court decision has > precedential value only within the appellate jurisdiction (i.e., a > Second Circuit decision is only precedent within the Second Circuit, > for example). Although another Circuit Court of Appeals or a District > Court within another circuit might find it persuasive, it's free to > reach a contrary decision; and it's only decisions of the U.S. Supreme > Court which establish precedent binding on all of the circuits and > trial courts within them. Yeah, so what. The "persuasive" value of an opinion from another circuit is nonetheless of much greater value than your statement implies. If I were going into the Second Circuit to argue a case, absent a Second Circuit precedent against me, I'd sure feel a whole lot better it there were a First Circuit opinion in my favor than if there were no relevant opinions at all. Moreover, the vast majority of issues never make it to the Supremes. Thus, what the various circuit appellate courts have to say about issues is of significance. This may be one of the first appellate court decisions to address the issue of the value of a vanity number to a user before the number is actually assigned to and used by that user, and it is certainly the first such decision since the FCC adopted its anti-brokering rules in CC Docket No. 95-155. For that reason alone, it is an important decision worthy of commentary. Bob Keller (KY3R) rjk@telcomlaw.com www.his.com/~rjk/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #307 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 9 17:46:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA28950; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:46:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:46:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711092246.RAA28950@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #308 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Nov 97 17:46:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 308 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Bob Keller) Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning (Kevin R. Ray) Re: Risks is Alive and Well (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Blake Droke) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Ed Ellers) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Bill Ranck) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Jeremy Rogers) Data Recording - Real-Time Digital Comms (Edwin Kayes) Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape (Monty Solomon) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Matthew Black) 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@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 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, 08 Nov 1997 23:09:53 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant In TELECOM Digest, Vol 17 #304, Al Varney , in response to Judith Oppenheimer , wrote: > Judith, I can understand your basic argument, but have problems > with some of the logical extensions of them. It would seem a property > right in numbers similar to a TV station broadcast frequency license > might be a reasonable claim. As one who as represents Judith and ICB on these issues before the FCC, let me jump in and offer few observations. I think there are, indeed, some useful analogies (and some differences) to be drawn between the "public resource" concept of both the electromagnetic spectrum and telephone numbers. The key trick in both is not to forget that the "public" are the citizens, including the citizens who own and operate businesses, and that the government serves the public, not the other way around. > But to claim an ownership/right to a number that was never used in > trade seems a stretch. "Ownership" and "property rights" are, IMO, red herrings that divert us from the basic issues. Just as I can have rights to do things with portions of the radio spectrum without "owning" it, the fact that I may not "own" my telephone number is not a basis for denying that the number has an inherent "value" or denying me the right to transfer it to someone else, and even to be compensated for it. > If I "find" an 800 number with some alphabetic or even numeric > attractiveness, have I established some right to that number at the > moment of "discovery"? There is a significant distinction between rights in the number itself versus any intellectual property rights that may arise by virtue of discovering a corresponding pneumonic or other unique characteristic or use of a particular number. Dreaming up the idea of 1-800-WIDGETS does not confer any rights in 1-800-943-4387, although I may have the right to prevent someone else from using the number in a manner that infringes my IP rights. An analogy: I am probably free to use the image of Jersey cow in any number of ways; but if I start using it to market computers, I'll probably be hearing from Gateway's attorneys in short order. The "right" in a number flows not from the "discovery" but rather from being the assigned user of the number. Whatever your views respecting property interests or ownership in numbers, it must be conceded that, when a number is assigned, the designated user has certain rights in that number as against the rest of the world. And, IMO, that right has a certain value. The value may be great as to some numbers and nil as to others. And, even as to a given number, the value may vary from user to user. But there is a value in a number, even if it is nothing more than the longevity of the number assignment. My mother has had WHitehall 5-xxxx for 50 years. I'm sure that number has a certain intangible value to her that would be appreciated by virtually no one else. The number 1-800-FLOWERS, on the other hand, has a very tangible and vary large value that is appreciated by many (i.e., it would probably bring a "pretty penny" on the open market). So, an assigned user clearly has *some* kind of rights in the assigned number. And third parties may place a value on (covet?) the number. The policy question, of course, is whether or not economic nature should be permitted to follow its course. > If I apply for that number through a RespOrg, do I have a right > established at that point, even if the RespOrg (and indeed, the entire > world) is unaware of my "discovery" of the number's value? The "right" you have, or "should" have, is to have the RespOrg take reasonable steps to reserve the number for your use at your direction. If a RespOrg confirms the availability of a particular number and agrees to reserve the number for me, the RespOrg has a contractual obligation to take all reasonable steps to do so. The "discovery" associated with the number is largely irrelevant, although it may, if disclosed, place the RespOrg on notice of the possible greater value to me of that particular number (and the corresponding greater exposure to liability if it fails to meet its contractual obligation). In the WorldCom case, it was not a "right" to "1 800 FOR LEASE" that was really at issue, rather it was the right to have WorldCom honor an agreement. The number might just as well have been any seven digit 800 number. Play Time wanted that particular 800 number (the reason why the customer wants a particular number should be of no consequence to the carrier or the RespOrg unless the customer chooses to disclose it), and WorldCom contractually agreed to reserve the number for Play Time. Then WorldCom screwed up and gave the number to someone else. The correspondence of the number with "1 800 FOR LEASE" did, however, come into play as to the "value" of the number and, hence, the amount of damages to which Play Time was entitled. But that's true in any case involving liability. If I go down the street indiscriminately lobbing grenades at garages, when I am later sued I am going to owe greater damages to the gal with the BMW than I will to the guy with the Honda. This might have been just any old number that WorldCom screwed up on for a new business, and the fix might have been as easy as getting the customer a new number and paying for new stationery and business cards. But because it was "1 800 FOR LEASE", the screw-up ended up costing WorldCom $150,000 (the $50K value of the number, trebled) plus attorneys fees and court costs. > Or do I have to apply for trademark protection of the "discovery" > in order to claim it has a value? You would apply for a trademark to protect your IP rights and to prevent others from using it. That may or may not give you rights to the number. Again, your "rights" to the number come from properly getting the number assigned to you ... or entering into a binding contractual obligation to have the number assigned to you. If I get a trademark for "1-800-WIDGETS" that, in and of itself, does not give me rights to 1-800-943-4387. If someone else has and is using that number, I can not necessarily pry it away solely because of my trademark. The current user might, after all, be using the number as "1-800 YID ID UP" because she is a therapist specializing in helping Gentiles to elevate their social consciousness, (Sorry, I couldn't resist. ) What I *can* do, is prevent someone else from using the number in a way that interferes with my trademark. Thus, I could probably stop a competing widget vendor from getting the number and using it to market its product in competition with me. While they become intertwined at times, intellectual property rights in a vanity number as a brand, logo, trademark, etc., is something separate and distinct from an assigned user's "rights" in a particular telephone number. > If I trademark something like 800-FOR-LEASE, but haven't applied to > a RespOrg in order to become the assignee, do I have a right > established at that point? Vis-a-vis the RespOrg as to the number? No, IMO. As to third parties who might obtain and use the number? Only, IMO, if their use violates your trademark and/or constitutes an unlawful business practice on some other grounds. > What if the number is already in use (as 800-DMS-LEASE, perhaps by > NorTel?). Do I still have a right associated with the NUMBER? Not beyond those mentioned above, IMO. > Or just the 800-FOR-LEASE string? You do not get a trademark in the number itself, anymore than Gateway Computer has a trademark on the Jersey cow you drive past on a country road. You do not even get a trademark in the *telephone* number as such, any more than Gateway has a trademark in each and every *picture* of a Jersey cow. But, nonetheless, the number has an inherent value to you and is, in fact, more valuable to you than other numbers, because it corresponds to the string. So, let us assume that some little old European lady discovers in her attic a long forgotten Rembrandt painting of a Jersey cow. The art critics consider it of inferior quality, and it is of very little value to art collectors. It may, nonetheless, be of very great value to Gateway because of its value as an advertising tool. But, Gateway would have no "rights" in that painting (notwithstanding its IP rights in the use of the Jersey cow image to market computers) unless and until it made a deal with that little old lady. Likewise, my "discovery" of a vanity number, and even my "trademarking" of the vanity string, does not give me a "right" in the number until I get the number "assigned" to me. > If I ask a RespOrg to assign me the number if/when NorTel releases > it, and the number is grabbed by another RespOrg upon release, do I > have a valid claim of damages? That is a question of contract law. It will turn on (a) whether you and the RespOrg entered into a legally binding contract and, (b) whether the RespOrg took all reasonably necessary actions to discharge its duty to you. As a practical matter, I don't think there is any (legal) way the RespOrg can absolutely guarantee that the number won't be grabbed by someone else. But lets look at this question as it played out in the WorldCom case. WorldCom agreed to give the number to one customer, and then turned around and gave it to another customer. That's a no-brainer. It's called breach of contract. > What if two RespOrgs are asked by two entities desiring the number > (the Wyoming Department of Natural Resources wants 800-DNR-LEASE for > an upcoming auction of grazing rights, and Playtime wants 800-FOR-LEASE). To the best of my knowledge, the RespOrg that is quickest on the draw will win out. The losing customer will have a case against its RespOrg only if there was intentional wrong-doing or negligence. My under- standing of the procedures, however, is that the RespOrg could do everything it is supposed to do and still lose out to someone else. > Does the industry need to establish a queue of potential assignees? It might not be a bad idea to have some sort of waiting list system for priority to currently used numbers when they become available. That would remove a lot of uncertainty ... and business people hate uncertainty. > If so, doesn't that mean that THOSE numbers have value while they are > in the pool, and thus the FCC (and the taxpayers) should receive > payment when assigning those numbers to customers? Value is in the wallet of the beholder. What is an extremely valuable number to me may be just another number to you. There is no workable way to set the value in that context. Even auctions are not workable. In spectrum auctions the licenses have a more or less absolute value (although different bidders have different ideas of what that value is). The type of value we are talking about with numbers is neither absolute nor is it set in time. 1 800 FLOWERS was just a number until someone got the idea. How do you hold an auction today that fairly values what the number might be worth to a particular theoretical user tomorrow? That aside, I'm not in favor of a system that would have the govern- ment attempt to extract the monetary value of a number simply for assigning the number. This is a foreign concept to some, but here goes ... there just may be some private commercial transactions from which it is not necessary for Uncle Sam to extract a pound of flesh! I say let users buy and sell numbers if they want, and let the capital gains tax law take care of the rest. Besides, the "public resource" idea of numbers has been, I believe, distorted. The concept originally arose in the context of establishing that the local exchange carriers do not "own" telephone numbers even though they were, by fiat, responsible for administering them. Somehow we jumped from that to a policy says that the users ought not be allowed to exchange money for transferring rights in assigned numbers. Now we are going a step further and saying that the Government, by Golly, *should* be allowed to charge money for numbers. > So, two basic questions: WHEN does an entity have a claim of > ownership or "rights" in a TollFree number? I don't like to call it "ownership". I'm more comfortable, and feel it is more logically and philosophically correct, to call it "rights" in numbers. I think those rights arise and vest when the number is validly assigned to me. My rights are to use the number in connection with my service, subject to the law and the terms and conditions of my service. I believe those rights should also include the right to transfer my use of and rights in the number to another user. > And are there any circumstances under which the "public" would > receive payment for use of this "public resource" (TollFree numbers) > -- or is it only the assignees/buyers that financially benefit, and > their brokers? This is not like radio spectrum which is a real, physical resource that is used to the exclusion of others. The kind of value that prompts someone to pay for a number is generally unique to that user or a small class of users. For example, 1 800 FLOWERS is extremely valuable to a florist, but is probably just another number to an oil refiner. There is no public loss of value if the oil refiner agrees to accept money to transfer its right in the number to the florist. To the extent one profits on the sale of a number, the government will get any taxes to which it is entitled. Brokers will financially benefit only to the extent that the parties to the transaction value their contribution and facilitation. The "public" has no basis for jealousy in this regard. > If 800-FOR-LEASE is valuable to Playtime, why isn't it an asset of > the FCC or the 800 number administrator or the RespOrg? Shouldn't > Playtime have to "buy" the number, or is its value just created from > thin air by the "discovery" of it's previously-untrademarked mnemonic > or numerological (800-666-FACT) attributes? Why oh why oh why has our government become so damned greedy. YES ... the number has a certain value to that particular user because that user thought of an idea. If the government will just stay the hell out of the way and let the user exploit the idea, there just might be a stimulation to the economy. There just might be some additional jobs created. There just might be some capital gains tax revenue if the entrepreneur buys the number from another user. There just might be some income tax revenue generated from the success of the business enterprise (on both the profits of the business and the salaries of the employees). Is it *really* necessary for the government either to (a) prevent that, or (b) allow it but only if it can also get a cut up front? > If "customers" can sell a number, could a RespOrg "buy" them? If so, > would the RespOrg now be able to "sell" the number they previously had > to "give away"? If a RespOrg purchases a number, but doesn't use it, > does it then have to be returned to the pool? Probably a conflict of interest, especially given the fact that most RespOrgs are also IXCs. If I were King we would get rid of the RespOrg system altogether and allow users to have direct access to the database. > If the NANC decides expansion of the NANP requires expanding the > 800 number format to more than 10 digits, can the entity with "rights" > to 800-FLOWERS claim damages from the FCC, because it would be losing > that "number"? I seriously doubt it. The value of 800-FLOWERS was built on the structure of the NPA-NXX-xxxx system, but there were no guarantees that the system would continue. Parties like 800-FLOWERS may have equitable, policy, and social arguments that might convince the government to protect that value, but I can't see it rising to the level of a "right" or "entitlement". Even if there were such private "rights" against the government in this context, they would have to be weighed against the public need for a more efficient numbering system. A prudent businessman will simply have to plan for this possibility down the road. As you may have noted from my rampage above, I am very much in favor of keeping government out of the hair of business to the greatest extent possible. But it is a two-way street. The flip side of that coin is that business should not expect government to protect it from every little pot hole in the road, perhaps not even when some of those pot holes turn out to be potentially fatal chasms. > Or would you argue that the entity is entitled to "protect" its > interests by having first chance to be assigned the whole > 800F-LOWE-RSxx range? Sounds like a good argument for domain partitioning to me! > Or would you argue the NANC has no legal right to expand the > 800-number format, because some companies have "discovered" an eternal > right to the current format? To nit pick, NANC has no legal right to do anything other than make recommendations to the FCC. The FCC has the legal right and public interest duty to do what it needs to do with numbers in general and with the NANP in particular in order to maintain an efficient and equitable numbering system. I submit that the public interest probably requires the Commission to *consider* the effect of any changes to the numbering plan on such "values" in numbers, and especially to consider any ripple effect this may have on the economy as a whole ... and I would urge the Commission to accommodate those concerns to the extent possible. But the reality of the situation is that some day in the next century we may well evolve(?) beyond one plus ten digit dialing, and the plight of vanity numbers will not (and probably should not) be the overriding regulatory policy consideration in that process. [DISCLAIMER: I reserve the right to advocate, on behalf of any paying client, a different position in any formal proceedings at that time. ] > And the ultimate question: Do you feel comfortable having various > courts answer these questions, or would you prefer that the FCC > establish the rules? I think the courts should decide disputes that arise involving the transfer of numbers, just as they resolve disputes that arise involving the transfer of automobiles, businesses, body parts, houses, or anything else. WorldCom was, in the end analysis, a contract dispute. A guy had a business plan. A key part of that business plan was getting a particular number. He arranged with WorldCom to get the number for him, and WorldCom agreed to do so. Then WorldCom dropped the ball and, to add injury to insult, handled the aftermath of the screw-up rather badly. So, the guy sued WorldCom. Quite frankly, I don't think this is a matter the FCC should be involved it at all. It is a court matter, and the court handled it just fine. > By the way, the FCC recently re-affirmed the "public resource" > concept regarding numbers. On Oct. 20, 1997, regarding something AT&T > might value more than any 800 number, (the 10288 carrier access code), > the FCC stated: > 58. Second, we find that VarTec's service mark argument fails. > While we agree with VarTec that trademarks and service marks > are property rights, we find that because CICs and CACs are > telephone numbers and, therefore, a public resource, there > can be no private ownership of them. We specifically reject > VarTec's assertion that there is a lack of legal authority to > support the propositions that NANP codes are a public resource, > and that use of such codes does not confer ownership. Confirms my view that rights in the mark do not translate into rights in the number. Beyond that, however, I still see this "property" interest thing as a non sequitur or, at best, a red herring. Except insofar as it might affect certain "takings" arguments (and I see that VarTec did advance a 5th Amendment "takings" argument), whether or not you call it a property right or not, and whether or not you acknowledge ownership are irrelevant. The FCC (in the vanity number context) jumps from the irrelevant premise that number are a "public resource", to the questionable mid-point that users do now "own" their numbers, and on to the illogical conclusion that there must be no pecuniary gain for transferring assignment of a number. (But, let Congress mandate auctions of numbers, and just watch how quickly the FCC trips over itself to start raking in money for numbers!) If the Commission's logic is correct, and IMO it patently is not, then Disney should have to give back ABC, AT&T should have to give back McCaw Cellular, etc., etc., etc. Because as to radio these issues are not even arguable. By statute the spectrum is a public resource, and by statute licensees gain no ownership in the spectrum (merely a license to use it). And yet, huge gobs of money are exchanged for radio licenses every day with the FCC's full blessing. Let's be intellectually honest. Perhaps there is a valid legal or policy reason to prohibit the purchase and sale of numbers, but the ostensible lack of ownership interest ain't it. But, I digress ... this order (the 10xxx => 10xxxx order) had to do not with buying and selling but with changing the architecture ... > (From Order extending deadline for 7-digit Carrier Access Codes, > and effectively removes the 5-digit 10XXX Carrier Access Code > from the NANP mid-1998. VarTec argued that existing 10XXX > numbers should be grand-fathered and remain in the dialing plan, > along with 1010XXXX codes. Two arguments against elimination of > 10XXX were: > - [it] takes VarTec's private property without just compensation > in violation of the Fifth Amendment and > - [it] violates VarTec's commercial free speech rights under the > First Amendment; > These sound like arguments against format expansion of 800-numbers ... Which gets back to my statements regarding possible future moves beyond ten-digit dialing. The collateral effect on private users is one of many public interest considerations, but probably not dispositive or even overriding. I haven't checked, but similar issues may have been litigated in the context of area code splits and overlays. Bob Keller (KY3R) rjk@telcomlaw.com www.his.com/~rjk/ ------------------------------ From: Kevin R. Ray Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning Date: 9 Nov 1997 04:24:29 GMT Organization: The Windy City Kyler Laird wrote: > So ... I signed up with the only reasonable ISDN provider in town, > BlueMarble.net, and they helped me order my ISDN line. > Just ordering it was an ordeal. The woman who took the order (with > the ISP and me both on the line) was a moron. She had great > difficulty and let someone else just take care of it. I skipped the ISP/USRobotics help to getting my ISDN line. I called 1-800-TEAM-DATA directly. All they wanted was some equipment code that I didn't know -- telling them "Courier I-Modem" was enough. Ironically after the installation and playing with it I tried switching the Courier from using Nation ISDN-1 protocol to Nation ISDN-2, AT&T 5ESS, Northern Telecom DMS-100 ... they *ALL* worked. > Later that week, I received a call from Ameritech with the details. > It would take over three weeks to install. My wife was getting anxious, > but this gave me time to get the computer purchased and set up. I too received a call back from Ameritech confirming the installation. It too took about three weeks from the initial phone call. Typical from what I've heard. > The line was installed when promised, Oct. 24. Unfortunately, no one > was home, so the installer decided not to connect the line to the > inside wires. I spent the evening on the (cellular) phone with my > wife trying to figure out why she couldn't get a signal. You knew the installation date. Why was no one there or re-schedule it for a good time? If I was the installer (which I'm not a phone guy :) I too would have terminated at the POP box and left. It would be *possible* to fry phone equipment by simply hooking it up to a ISDN line. The installer had no idea where those pairs went inside the house. > So ... she called back to get the wires connected since I wasn't going > to be down there for over a week. Eventually the installer showed up > again. Probably not the original installer who knew about ISDN, et al... > This time, however, he told her that she could not use ISDN at all > unless she had RJ-45 jacks installed at every existing jack. She was > tired of waiting, so she believed this idiot and he proceeded to > *stick* RJ-45 jacks on the freshly-painted walls. Probably because it was a installer not familiar w/ ISDN. Why he (or anyone) would think you need RJ-45 jacks at every existing jack location is beyond me ... > Enough venting for now ... My advice: > 1. Don't let an Ameritech phone > installer inside your house. My installation went flawlessly. From start to finish. And the same Ameritech installer helped me a week before (knowing that I was getting ISDN in a week) with solving a modem problem on the same number. Couldn't keep a connection. Even brought over his laptop to determine it was the line and not my equipment (for his peace of mind). Turned out to be a bad T-1 card somewhere on the line ... > 2. Don't leave your wife alone with > an Ameritech phone installer. Or don't get married. :) > 3. Do everything you can yourself > if you want it done correctly. That I can agree with ... My experience with getting ISDN installed with Ameritech was next to perfect. Believe me, from past experience with dealing with Ameritech programming screw ups on the line, I have *NOT* been a Ameritech "fan" in the past. I will say that in the last year their response time and knowledge has been wonderful! It took them *hours* to resolve a "911" problem at the office that I discovered (right address, wrong name being delivered to dispatch). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:31:29 -0500 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Risks is Alive and Well Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA Here is another web interface to RISKS for interested people: For Lindsay Marshall's web interface to the digest, which I'd had to go hand copy into the messane ... http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/bin/risksindex/ Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Blake Droke Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 00:17:31 -0600 Reply-To: bdroke@sprintmail.com Bill Levant wrote: > We had some trouble in my office this week with inTRA-LATA toll > calls. > We just switched from ATX (10008) to Worldcom (10555) and calls to > certain nearby toll points were being misrouted by Bell Atlantic > (which SWORE that our PIC codes were all correct; they weren't, but > THAT's another story ...) preventing us from completing those calls, > except by using an IXC, at ungenerous rates). > At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code > 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works > just like (700) 555-4141. > I've never seen that mentioned here; does it work anywhere else? > BTW, if you're lucky (?) enough to have BA inTRA-LATA toll, dialing > 700-4141 gets you the dulcet tones of James Earl Jones thanking you > for using CNN, er ... BA. It's ALMOST worth switching to BA just for > that ;-). > By the way, Worldcom offers UNTIMED calling to the entire metro > Philadelphia area at about .07/call; BA charges (at best) .04/minute > during the day. How does Worldcom do this and not go broke (I assume > that they **don't** re-sell BA). I tried 700-4141 here in Memphis, I basically got nothing, sort of a where's the rest of the number type of response. At 1-901-700-4141, I got a message stating "Thank you for choosing BellSouth. We're here to meet your communications needs." Strange, since you can't pick your own intra-LATA carrier in Tennessee yet (unfortunately). (But you can override via a PIC code, ie. 10333, 10222, 10288, etc.) ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:38:23 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Jack Hamilton wrote: > PROFS' moment of fame came during the Nixon/Watergate days, when some > incriminating email memos were found in the White House PROFS system. That's not the only bit of high tech that was used in the White House during the Nixon Administration. For a while they had Xerox Alto workstations, which were the first practical GUI implementation ever to be used outside the lab; Alto was the real inspiration for the Lisa and Macintosh. Getting back to telecom stuff, C&P Telephone installed Picturephones in the White House to link key officials, though I don't know how many had the system or if one was installed in the Oval Office (Nixon may have had his in the smaller adjoining office). Reportedly this was on a trial basis, and when C&P wanted to start charging for the service the White House had the Picturephones taken out. ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: 9 Nov 1997 13:17:37 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Jack Hamilton (jfh@alumni.stanford.org) wrote: > PROFS' moment of fame came during the Nixon/Watergate days, when some > incriminating email memos were found in the White House PROFS system. > I haven't heard anything about PROFS recently; I don't know whether > IBM dropped it, or just renamed it to something sexier. Actually, it was Reagan/Iran-Contra days. PROFS was not around in 1972. IBM no longer supports PROFS, and it is not year 2000 compliant, so anyone (like us) who still has it running will stop using it in a couple years. ;-) Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Rogers Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:32 GMT [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... > Certainly there were not as many long-winded and frivilous messages > as now, and as was pointed out many messages consisted of just a few > words, sent at considerable ex-pense. My favourite set of cable exchanges was that related by the novelist Evelyn Waugh between himself and the {Daily Mail} newspaper, who were employing him as a war correspondent in Abyssinia, but were concerned that they weren't getting any reports. Daily Mail: WHY UNNEWS Waugh: UNNEWS GOODNEWS Daily Mail: UNNEWS UNJOB Waugh: UPSTICK JOB ASSWISE Jez ------------------------------ From: Edwin Kayes Subject: Data Recording - Real-Time Digital Comms Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 14:47:27 +0100 (BST) Organization: Somerdata Reply-To: edwin.kayes@somerdata.com I am interested in making contact with anyone who has an interest in recording comms signals such as E-1 G.703 Level 1 and above. Specifically, I am looking for feedback to identify user hardware, interfacing and software requirements which will help future product development of real-time record-to-disk systems. Thanks, Edwin Kayes Somerdata Limited Wells England edwin.kayes@somerdata.com http://www.somerdata.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:48:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:58:03 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape edited by Philip E. Agre University of California, San Diego Marc Rotenberg Electronic Privacy Information Center MIT Press, 1997 Hardcover ISBN: 0-262-01162-X $25.00 Available through the EPIC Bookstore: http://www.epic.org/bookstore/ Excerpts from the introduction can be found at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/landscape.html MIT Press Web site: http://mitpress.mit.edu/ Privacy is the capacity to negotiate social relationships by controlling access to personal information. As laws, policies, and technological design increasingly structure people's relationships with social institutions, individual privacy faces new threats and new opportunities. Over the last several years, the realm of technology and privacy has been transformed, creating a landscape that is both dangerous and encouraging. Significant changes include large increases in communications bandwidths; the widespread adoption of computer networking and public-key cryptography; mathematical innovations that promise a vast family of protocols for protecting identity in complex transactions; new digital media that support a wide range of social relationships; a new generation of technologically sophisticated privacy activists; a massive body of practical experience in the development and application of data-protection laws; and the rapid globalization of manufacturing, culture, and policy making. The essays in this book provide a new conceptual framework for the analysis and debate of privacy policy and for the design and development of information systems. The authors are international experts in the technical, economic, and political aspects of privacy; the book's strength is its synthesis of the three. The book provides equally strong analyses of privacy issues in the United States, Canada, and Europe. ------------------------------ Contributors: Philip E. Agre Beyond the mirror world: Privacy and the representational practices of computing Victoria Bellotti Design for privacy in multimedia computing and communications environments Colin J. Bennett Convergence revisited: Towards a global policy for personal data protection Herbert Burkert Privacy enhancing technologies: Typology, vision, critique Simon G. Davies Re-engineering the privacy right: How privacy has been transformed from a right to a commodity David H. Flaherty Controlling surveillance: Can privacy protection be made effective? Robert Gellman Does privacy law work? Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger Generational development of data protection in Europe David J. Phillips Cryptography, secrets, and the structuring of trust Rohan Samarajiva Interactivity as though privacy mattered ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.SPAMFORD-WALLACE.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: 6 Nov 1997 15:31:54 GMT Organization: California State University, Long Beach In article , Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC. MIL says: [message edited for brevity --matt] > "In a letter to all customers of its wire-maintenance plans, > Bell Atlantic said the plans will no longer cover > ''malfunctions in the dial tone resulting from the use of > voice-grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which > exceed the operating capabilities of the line.'' In effect, > the Bell Atlantic policy means subscribers to the optional > wire-maintenance plans will not be covered for service calls > that involve problems resulting from modem use on a standard > voice line. Simple solution: unplug your modem BEFORE calling for repair service. If a telephone works on the line, the problem is probably with the modem/computer. > According to Bell Atlantic, ''a service charge may apply when a > repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the > transmission or receipt of data or signals which are beyond the > operating capabilities of the dial-tone line.'' ". I can see why Smell Atlantic wants to charge for service calls completely unrelated to dial-tone service. I support remote access users for my organization and most problems are caused by the customers/users. One of our users, for example, added a second phone line for his modem. When moving his modem to the new phone line, the computer could no longer connect. After an hour, we finally isolated the problem to his software: his computer dialed *70 to cancel call waiting and the new line didn't have this feature. GTE charges $1.00/month for the cancel call waiting. Under this scenario, GTE (or Smell Atlantic) should charge the full cost of any service call since the problem was not related to the dial tone. [To reply via e-mail, remove obvious component from reply-to address] matthew black | the opinions expressed herein are mine and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer. california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black@csulb.edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 98 4E DF BE 49 A8 DF 99 long beach, ca 90840 | 6A 7A 1B F1 3E 50 E5 D2 =============================(c) 1997 by Matthew Black, all rights reserved= ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #308 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Nov 10 21:51:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA10807; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:51:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:51:24 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711110251.VAA10807@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #309 TELECOM Digest Mon, 10 Nov 97 21:51:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 309 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Operators and Rates (was Re: Drakesbad No.2 Ringdown) (Mark Cuccia) 704/828 Schedule Change (John Cropper) 408 to Split Yet Again in 1999! (John Cropper) Last Laugh! Re: Where is Dust Coming From (Richard Redmond) 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@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 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, 10 Nov 1997 16:31:15 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: AT&T Operators and Rates (was Re: Drakesbad No.2 Ringdown) Lee Winson wrote: > Mark, thanks for the interesting report. Some questions I'd like to > share with the newsgroup ... > 1) I'm curious as to if the AT&T operators would know how to connect > you if you did NOT give them the operator dialing code -- just > said "Drakesbad Number 2 in Susanville California". Normally, > that's all you would know. > [When I've used Enterprise numbers in recent years, the typical > AT&T operator has no idea what I'm talking about and refuses to > do anything until I provide a proper number. One even cut me off. > I have to ask them to get a supervisor to explain how to look it > up. (Several AT&T operators referred me back to the local Bell > operator, who then referred me back to AT&T.) One time the AT&T > operator placed the call as collect, but asked the called party > if they'd accept it -- on an Enterprise call, that's supposed to > be a given.] I happened to have the Inward Operator's Routing Code (916+028+121, now 530+028+121) from some old AT&T documents (1981), which was the same as what is shown in current Bellcore documents. But the travel advertisement indicated to call Drakesbad No.2 CA via Susanville CA Operator. Even though most AT&T operators would have such a request maybe once a month (if that often), they are trained to know that such a request is for a call to a "Ringdown" or "Toll-Station", etc., which _MUST_ be handled by the (LEC/AT&T) Operator(s). And had I not know the operator's route code (530+028+) or mark-sense billing ID code (887-439), the operator simply looks it up from an informational and instructions database that her OSPS terminal dips into. These days, AT&T operators don't really need to go to the "Rate and Route" operator anymore. I didn't mention in my original post that on one of my attempts to call Drakesbad No.2, that the AT&T operator disconnected. Whether she did this deliberately, or accidently (when I told her that I needed to place a call to Drakesbad No.2 California via Susanville CA Inward, she told me to hold the line, but I was disconnected), I don't know. About ten years ago, I needed directory assistance for a number in a small village in India (+91). I did have the city-code, and the small village was customer IDDD-able from the US, but I didn't have the subscriber's number. It so happened that I was requesting directory assistance during the Christmas/New-Years' Holiday Season. Traffic was _QUITE_ heavy during that time. When the originating AT&T TSPS Operator (and at that time, they still had a TSPS switch and operator-team in New Orleans, NWORLAMA1UD) would attempt to use operators' routing for inward or directory for whatever town in India, their PTT's heavily accented recording kept repeating _OVER-and-OVER_, "Please wait for operator to answer, your call is in queue", with little-to-no pausing. Since the recorded announcement didn't "supe", after two-minutes of the recording endlessly repeating itself, the connection timed out, "Your AT&T International call did not go through in the country you have dialed. Please try your call again. 504-2T". On some attempts, the AT&T operator would let the recording play a few times, but tell me that I should call back later on. On one attempt, when I requested directory for whatever village in India, the AT&T operator simply disconnected. I did call back and tell a supervisor about this. And while I knew that the originating AT&T operator 'could' have passed me to AT&T's IOC in Pittsburgh, which had the cordboard for particular international locations (Kp+160+910+St, for the positions handling calls to India), I was told that IOC Operator Assistance was for customers _paying_ for calls to non-dialable locations in foreign countries, or calls to non-dialable countries, or other special assistance. Directory requests for numbers in dialable countries didn't seem to merit my attempts being handled by the 160+910 operator. Incidently, directory assistance requests in countries outside of the NANP (i.e. international/overseas) were still FREE at that time, and _only_ AT&T operators (when calling from the US) could handle such requests. Sprint and MCI (etc) operators had always told me to call 10288-0 for such assistance! Even today, you occasionally get a _RUDE_ AT&T operator who will disconnect on you. Sometimes, on such out-of-the-ordinary assistance or requests (in these days and times), it might be necessary to ask for a supervisor right away. The supervisors have _always_ apologized for the rudeness of some operators, and ask if you had just had the trouble, and if you were calling from the same number. Maybe they have a way to track complaints about operators. I don't know if AT&T still has "AWT" for their operator teams. AWT stands for "Average Work Time", and I'll let some former operators who participate in the Digest explain what that was all about. > 2) When AT&T first began giving discounts for dialed direct calls > (1970s?) there were a few places that still didn't have DDD > service. For those places, or for when a customer had trouble > making the call, AT&T always charged the dialed-direct rate even > if the operator placed the call. I don't know what today's > rate plans are, but by that tradition you should be billed the > dialed direct rate. > Also, I thought on operator-handled rates that the operator > surcharge is only on the first minute and that subsequent > minutes are the same as dialed direct. Further, aren't there > now two classes of operator handled -- one sort of a "self-serve" > type--dial 0+ and enter your calling card, and the other a > "full serve"? > Regardless of how they bill you, it might be interesting to > call them and ask for an explanation when you get the bill. > I'll bet their customer service people won't have a clue on it! I don't know the exact date or year, but sometime around 1992 or 1993, AT&T operators would _RARELY_ complete a call for you and bill you at the direct-dialed rate or customer-card or even customer-station rate, even if you indicated trouble in completion when you tried to dial the call yourself, or if the location wasn't (yet) customer-dialable. On wrong-number reports, the Operators will tell you that they did key-in a credit, but then tell you that you can hang-up and redial, or that they can place the call at operator _HANDLED_ rates. It used to be that on wrong-number reports, the operator would ask you what number you really intended to call, credit you, and that _THEY_ would dial the (intended) number, at the cheaper rate depending on the class of the call. Similarly, on reports to the operator that you were 'cut-off', the operator would credit you for two or three minutes, and then dial the number _for_ you at the original rate. A few years back, I can remember that many sleazeball COCOTs not allowing me to dial 10(10)288+0/01+, and 0+ would cause the COCOT to send me off to some AOSlime. But when I tried to dial 1-800-CALL-ATT or 1-800-3210-ATT, the COCOT would cut-off its touchtone keypad. I was unable to DTMF-enter the destination number (not to mention my calling-card number). Use of an acoustic DTMF tone-generator would cause the COCOT to shut-off its mouthpiece voice-path, or even disconnect me! :( If I told the AT&T operator that I was having _trouble_ with the call, they would usually give me the customer-card rate rather than operator-handled rate. But not anymore. I _assume_ that the rationale is that so many people who usually use MCI, Sprint, etc., but _rarely_ ever use AT&T, were placing the occasional call via AT&T, at the cheper rates. But I've been told that for cases where the operator bills you Operator-Handled rates on such trouble conditions, AT&T's customer service is frequently helpful in reducing the charge or giving you a credit (if you are noted as a 'regular' customer of AT&T). But the originating operator on the initial call doesn't seem to be authorized to give one the 'cheaper' rates, _UNLESS_ there is previous notification from higher-up, such as Network Management. i.e., NM knows that a switch or trunk is down, and alerts all OSPS chief-operators or supervisors to tell the individual operators to give the customer the cheaper rate, _IF_ the customer indicates a trouble condition. As for initial and addition minute rate structures themselves, with all of the various recent changes in AT&T's rates or package plans or discount programs, it is more and more difficult to get a clear answer as to what one might be charged. Incidently, I've been told that AT&T's '0+' card-billing is more expensive than 800- access for card-billing. And even if you have _dialed_ the destination number as (10(10)288)+0+, but are calling from a rotary dial telephone, I've been told that the rates are _higher_ for the operator to key-in your AT&T (or LEC) card number rather than when you key it in yourself from a DTMF telephone. Maybe it is better to have a battery-powered (Radio Shack) touchtone (DTMF) generator, and even from rotary-dial phones, at least you could rotary-dial the 800- access number (if the _line_ has DTMF subscribed service from the local telco, you could even acoustically DTMF _that_) and then acoustically DTMF-enter the destination number and card number at the "bong" and AT&T "sparkle" jingle, and as such you would be billed the least expensive AT&T card rate. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) 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: Your comment about the call to India and the crude 'on hold' device they used to keep you waiting struck a very sympathetic chord with me. I'll tell you who else used to be (still is?) simply awful: try reaching an inward operator in France very late Sunday night in the USA when it is Monday morning and the start of the work week in Paris. An AT&T operator in the Pittsburgh IOC who usually works night shift says Sunday night into early Monday morning here is pure hell as far as a shift to work. They are extremely busy with calls going to businesses in Europe and trying to reach directory inquiry operators in France and a couple other European countries. Pittsburgh is swamped all night long and my contact says one of the most annoying parts of it are what she termed the 'absolutely damnable wait-your-turn machines' used in France. In about a fifteen second cycle, a man with a very crisp British accent says, "We are trying to extend your call, please stand by", followed by three or four bars of some bit of music. This is then repeated, and repeated, and repeated with the very short two or three second at best intervals between the man's request for patience, and the same music. If your operator remains on hold three minutes for a response from *their* operator, she and you will hear that message and music repeated a dozen times. And to quote her, "whoever sold that piece of junk to the France telecom found another sucker in Singapore; check them out Sunday about noon in the USA as they are getting all fired up and starting work on Monday morning there." I tried; sure enough, same man's voice urging the Americans to show patience while attempts were made to extend the call; same three or four bars of the idiotic music. It would appear in many parts of the world, the telecom administration is simply not geared up to handle nearly the volume of traffic they should be able to handle. I suspect the telecom revolution in the USA and the amount of international calling being done these days caught many of them by surprise. But which would you prefer? In the 'olden days' (make that how many years ago you feel like) the routine was the AT&T operator would try to call the other country and it would simply ring, and ring, endlessly, unceasingly. The AT&T operators in White Plains, NY (when much of the IOC was located there) would matter-of-factly tell the American caller they would wait up to five minutes for an answer and no longer. Then after, say, forty or fifty rings, when Paris or New Delhi finally answered (almost resentfully it seemed) and your operator asked for a directory listing there, the distant operator would go away and be gone up to five minutes or so before coming back on the line with the requested number, or to say she could not find it at all. My contact in Pittsburgh said she believes AT&T encouraged the telecom admins in those places to install 'wait-your-turn' machines mainly to placate USA operators/users so that at least it could be detirmined if the connection got through or not at all ... in the past did the 'open ring' mean the distant point was very busy or did it mean the circuit was out of order and not getting through at all? Well, the crude 'on hold' things they use now at least confirm the connection is part-way there. :) An American in Cuba; circa 1950-55, before the borders closed: a reader pointed out to me he tried to call 'back home' to the USA one day. Normally operators in Havana connected to AT&T's Inter- national Operating Center in Miami for call completion. This day though it rang and rang and rang, maybe three dozen times or so, and finally the Cuban operator in Havana advised our reader, "I am sorry sir, the United States is not answering the phone today." And she said it in dead seriousness. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 704/828 Schedule Change Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:10:06 -0500 From BellSouth: November 10, 1997 CHARLOTTE -- North Carolina's telephone companies will implement the new 828 area code for the western part of the state 10 weeks sooner than originally announced, moving the schedule in line with the plans for the other two new area codes -- 336 and 252. The new implementation date of March 22, 1998, will mean customers will have six months of "permissive dialing" during which they may use either the new 828 code or the old 704 code in completing calls that require an area code. The original schedule allowed only four months of permissive dialing. In addition, some cellular companies throughout the state will be taking an additional 18 months of permissive dialing to complete the conversion to the data chips inside their customers' telephones, as ordered by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. "When we originally announced the schedule last month we said the date for the 828 implementation was tentative," said Chuck Reiley, Regional Director of Corporate & External Affairs for BellSouth. "We are pleased that we were able to advance the schedule so customers will have the same time in which to adjust to the new 828 code as they do to the new 336 and 252 codes." The final implementation schedule for the state's new area codes are: 336 will split from 910 to serve the Triad area beginning Dec. 15, 1997, with mandatory dialing beginning June 15, 1998; 252 will split from 919 to serve the northeastern section of the state beginning March 22, 1998, with mandatory dialing beginning Sept. 21, 1998; and 828 will split from 704 to serve the western section of the state beginning March 22, 1998, with mandatory dialing beginning Oct. 5, 1998. During permissive dialing, calls which require an area code may be dialed using either the new code or the original code. At the end of the permissive period, the new area code must be used to complete the call. Calls within the basic local calling area that are currently dialed using seven digits are not affected by the area code change and will continue to be dialed using only seven digits. "Permissive dialing gives customers time to notify others of the change, make whatever changes to their telephone equipment or services that are needed, and become accustomed to the new code," Reiley said. "During this time, BellSouth will be completing the conversion of our switching equipment and our billing and records systems -- everything from displaying the proper number by Caller ID and to assuring that the correct number is billed for a call." The Commission granted an extension of permissive dialing for some cellular customers because of the logistics requirements for cellular providers to actually convert chips inside each phone. Reiley said that during this extended permissive period, BellSouth customers will be able to call cellular customers using the same dialing pattern they use today. Cellular providers will furnish their customers with information regarding dialing patterns and procedures for converting to the new area codes. Reiley said that some BellSouth customers, who live close to a new area code boundary, may experience a change in the dialing patterns for some calls. If a customer is now using seven digits to place calls to an Expanded Local Calling Plan area which will be in a different area code, the customer will need to use 10 digits after the new code is introduced. He said BellSouth will send detailed information directly to affected customers. ### For more information, contact: Chuck Reiley 704-258-7005 ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 408 to Split Yet Again in 1999! Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:32:53 -0500 408/831 isn't going to solve things ... from PacBell: November 10, 1997 408 Area Code to Split Again in 1999 Demand for Additional Phone Numbers Rapidly Growing SAN FRANCISCO -- Due to increased demand for telephone numbers, an additional new area code will be introduced in portions of the South Bay Area Peninsula and Central Coast areas of California that now use the 408 area code. The new area code is expected to be in use as early as November 1999. This area code introduction will occur just 16 months after the 831 area code splits off from the 408 area code in July 1998 and more than one year earlier than previous projections due to unprecedented number demand. "The good news is that not everyone will have to change their area code in 1999," said California Code Administrator Doug Hescox, who coordinates area code relief planning statewide for the telecommunications industry. "Only those customers who kept their 408 area code last time will be affected this time around. Customers with the 831 area code will not have to change their area code." The 408 area code currently serves the majority of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties and very small portions of Alameda, Merced, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo and Stanislaus counties. As proposed, on July 11, 1998 the new 831 area code will begin serving most of Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties and very small portions of Merced, San Luis Obispo and San Mateo counties. Originally the 408 area code was not expected to split again until the year 2001. "However, the demand for telecommunications services far exceeded the industry's expectations, so we've had to move the next area code introduction date up," Hescox explained. Hescox said the skyrocketing demand for new phone numbers is being seen not only in the South Bay and Central Coast areas, but across the state. California now has 18 area codes - more than any other state - and will need to add another five by the end of 1998 to keep pace with demand. Two primary factors driving that demand are the high technology explosion and local telephone service competition. "The rising demand for additional phone numbers is caused by the increased use of fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access and data communications networks like ATMs and pay point services, all of which require phone lines. Further, with the onset of widespread competition in California's local telephone market in 1996, each new provider requires its own supply of phone numbers. In California, we have more companies entering local telephone competition than any other state," Hescox continued. Under California law, public participation and comment is obtained before the industry submits an area code relief plan to the California Public Utilities Commission. Hescox explained that a series of meetings will be held before May 1998 to seek public comment and input on potential options for the 408 area code. Locations, dates and times of the public meetings will be announced at a later time. Boundaries for the new area code, as well as the actual three-digit number, will be announced in late 1998. Area code relief plans are collectively developed by a telecommunications industry group composed of more than 30 companies, including AT&T, AT&T Wireless, AirTouch, the California Cable Television Association, Cox California PCS, Cox Communications, GTE, ICG Telecom Group, L.A. Cellular, MCI, Mobilemedia Communications, Pacific Bell, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, PageNet, Preferred Networks, Sprint and The Telephone Connection. California Code Administration is an independent planning group that coordinates area code relief planning and administers numbering resources on behalf of the California telecommunications industry. Final decisions on area code issues are made by the California Public Utilities Commission. ------------------------------ From: Richard Redmond Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Where is Dust Coming From Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 20:06:15 -0600 Organization: Ethos Communications [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually I save this sort of message for around April 1 each year, but what the heck; this one is a bit more elaborate than the usual 'blow dust out of the lines' messages which appear in April, and I thought you might get a laugh from it. So here goes ... PAT] Vicki Blier wrote: > In article <63kvhj$1cgk$2@news.rchland.ibm.com>, > seurer@nordruth.rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) wrote: >> A lot of dust comes from the phones when the phone company cleans the >> lines. Around here they warn us to put plastic bags over the phones. >> Strangely they usually do this operation right at the beginning of >> April. >>:-) > Telephone wires are like heater ducts, little empty tubes that carry > your voice's vibrations to the person you're calling. When the phone > company cleans them, they send little cockroaches through them with > feather dusters attached to their backs. The dust that is not picked > up by the feather dusters is stirred up and comes out the little holes > in the mouthpiece. Please don't take this issue lightly! Before you allow the telephone company (telco) to clean out your phone lines ... The following is taken from a Telephone New Subscriber Phamplet dated November 1, 1997. There is a serious side-effect to having the phone company blow or clean out your lines. If there is a weak spot in the insulation anywhere between the central office and your phone, it can cause an insulation break in your phone line. Through this break, solder ants can enter thus causing an infestation, especially when the insulation break is close to your house. For the uninformed, solder ants, a close cousin to the leaf-cutter ant, crawl through the phone lines and attack the soldered connections in phone equipment, answering machines, telephones, modems, digital satellite receivers (plugged into a phone jack) and home computers, especially those using an internal modem. They eat the solder off of joints causing cold solder joints and opens. Symptoms of a solder ant infestation are the crackling and popping sounds heard on your phone, spurious reboots on your computer and wrong numbers/incomplete calls on your phone. Remember the electrical outage that affected nearly the entire western United States several years ago? It was caused by solder ants. Three ways to combat this pest are as follows ... 1. Cracks in your phone line insulation, the cause of solder ant infestations, are caused by excess slack in cables between the central office and your home. This slack causes excessive bending of the insulation on your phone lines thus causing cracks thus allowing solder ants to enter. In order to correct this, insist that the phone company pull all the slack out of your lines from the central office end. This is not widely known, but the telcos must do this at no charge to the subscriber requesting it. Lobbying by the telcos prevented them from having to do this automatically. 2. Four to six inches from the device (phone, modem, etc.) tie a tight knot in the phone cord to prevent solder ants from exiting to your equipment (Make sure you loosen the knot when the lines are blown out!). This also has the added benefit of preventing lightning from destroying your equipment. It is a known fact that lightning must travel in a straight line and it cannot make it around the bends of a tight knot tied in your phone cord. This is a little known fact that companies such as APC, who make surge suppression equipment, do not want you to know. 3. Insist that the phone company flush your lines instead of blow them out. Chemicals contained in the flushing solution ward off solder ants and are just as effective in cleaning out your lines. The only problem is that once notified that your lines are to be flushed, you have the responsibilty of unplugging all telecom devices and leaving the phone cord ends extended in to some type of bucket to capture the flushing solution. Otherwise the solution will drain all over your equipment and require professional cleaning. An environmental note: Smaller, less well-financed telcos use cheaper, older, more dangerous flushing solutions. The residue left from line flushing must be dealt with the same way you would deal with any petroleum based solvent. The easiest way to get around this is to insist that your telco use environmentally friendly subscriber line flushing solvents. Warning: Do not attempt to blow out the lines yourself or try to look into a line that is being blown clean. You could destroy your phone equipment or injure yourself. It is best left to the experts. I have been in the telephone business for twenty-two years. I know what I am talking about! ;^) ----------- Spammers: Welcome to my kill file! | Everyone else: Drop the underscores. Richard Redmond | r_redmond@plan_o.net | "Another Rich Republican Wanna-Be" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And you, sir, are a charlatan! Solder ants, indeed! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #309 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Nov 11 00:23:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA20270; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:23:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:23:26 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711110523.AAA20270@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #310 TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Nov 97 00:23:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 310 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson UCLA Short Course: Internet Multicast and Multimedia Technology (B Goodin) Re: Switch Information Requested (Blake Droke) Electrical Design Engineers Needed (lmc@dmc22.com) Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning (Dan J. Declerck) Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning (Bill Cornett) Customer DDD is 46 Years Old (Monday) (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Customer DDD is 46 Years Old (Monday) (Ryan Michael Landry) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Eric W. Burger) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Tom) Re: Unregulated LD From Canadian Hotels (Brian F. G. Bidulock) 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@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 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 Subject: UCLA Short Course: Internet Multicast and Multimedia Technology Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 17:18:41 -0800 On February 9-10, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Internet Multicast and Multimedia Technologies: The MBone, Multicast Routing, RTP, and RSVP", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Lixia Zhang, PhD, Associate Professor, Computer Science Department, UCLA; Steve Deering, PhD, Technical Leader, Cisco Systems; and Deborah Estrin, PhD, Associate Professor, Computer Science Department, University of Southern California. IP multicast delivery has been the key enabler for the development of a wide variety of multimedia applications on the Internet. This course describes the creation and operation of the MBone, the Multicast Backbone of the Internet, and its most widely used applications: vat (packet voice), vic (packet video), wb (distributed whiteboard), and csdr (conference session directory), for interactive remote participation in real time. The course also presents underlying protocol technologies, including the IP multicast service model, DistanceVector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP), and Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP), and scalable, reliable multicast delivery algorithms. The course also presents some of the tools available for monitoring and diagnosing multicast routing and delivery problems, such as mtrace and RTPmon. Because the rapid growth of the MBone is driving further evolution of existing protocol technologies, the second half of the course focuses on enhancement of Internet architecture and protocols to better support multicast and multimedia applications. This includes a detailed description of the RSVP resource reservation protocol and the PIM multicast routing protocol. The course is intended for Internet protocol implementors, Internet service providers, managers and planners of enterprise networks, and anyone wishing to learn how MBone works, and how IP multicast protocols and applications are evolving. The course fee is $795, 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: Blake Droke Subject: Re: Switch Information Requested Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:36:48 -0600 Reply-To: bdroke@sprintmail.com PB Schechter wrote: > Colorado is currently looking for ways to "conserve" numbers in the > 303 area code. One idea that has come up is the possibility of > turning Central Office Codes from NXXs to XXXs. This would add about > two million numbers, and is possible because Colorado is going to use > an overlay in the 303 area, so ten digits will need to be dialed for > all local calls. > (Just to be perfectly clear: currently, a CO code can't begin with 0 > or 1 because those initial digits are used to indicate operator and > long distance calls, respectively. However, if local calls are all > prefaced with the area code, the initial digit of a call to a number > with a CO code beginning with 0 or 1 *will not be 0 or 1.*) > Some people have claimed that this might "break" some switches > (particularly, outside of the North American Numbering Plan). It > seems to me that, once a switch sees that a call is going "somewhere > else" (i.e., to a different area code), it won't even look at the > remaining digits (or, if it does, it won't care what they are). > However, I am not a switch expert. Other replies have indicated that there would be problems with various IXC and LEC switches, but this would only be the beginning. PBXs everywhere would have to be checked for any possible problems. (At my office, the PBX would have to have minor re-programming). But even minor re-programming when spread out over 1000s of PBXs in the NANP would be quite an undertaking (and quite an expense). What about computer programs and databases which have been programmed to recognize 0xx-xxxx and 1xx-xxx numbers as invalid? How many of these are there out there? Another computer problem (especially with IBM midrange and mainframe systems) is some times the phone or fax number is stored as one field for the NPA code, and another 7 digit numeric field for the phone number. It is a common practice on these systems to display the phone number with an "Edit word". This will cause data such as 5551212 to be displayed or printed as 555-1212, but data such as 053-1234 will be displayed/printed as 53-1234. If you saw a number like that what would you think? (Probably where's the rest of the number.) Speaking of what would you think, how are you going to re-program people's brains? When we switched away from 0 or 1 as second digit in NPAs, the average person couldn't have cared less. He/she most likely never knew that restriction existed to begin with. A number beginning with 0 or 1 will probably raise quite a few more eyebrows. ("This number can't be right"). I'm sure there'd be virtually no public education. Untold hundreds of thousands still don't know that 888 is toll free. If I ran a business in Denver, I would most certainly NOT want a number beginning with 0 or 1. (For residential, it might be a plus, it might confuse the telemarketers.) In my humble opinion (and it is very humble indeed) is that the NANP should not be tampered with on a local level. It is unfair to shift the expense of incorporating this change throughout North America, simply to prevent someone in Denver from having an area code they don't like. There has already been far too many local changes made to the NANP. Some places require 7 digits for local calls, some 10, some 11. Some have 7 digit dialing for some long distance calls, some don't. This is another local twist which is not needed. Changes like this should be considered at the NANP level (or whoever is in charge of it now.) And while they're at it, maybe they could fix the other dialing messes, like making 10 local dialing the preferred method, with 7 digit permitted where possible, and 1+10 digits premitted on all calls everywhere, or something like that. (So no matter where you were in North America, you'd at least know how to dial the phone.) Just my two cents worth, as an information systems manager in Tennessee with dozens of programs and 2 PBXs that would require changing, if Colorado proceeded with this plan. ------------------------------ From: lmc@dmc22.com Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:41:46 CST Subject: Employment Opportunity: Electrical Design Engineers Needed We are a market leader in the manufacture and sale of clinical diagnostic equipment and are seeking engineers for our South East and Mid West facilities, individuals that can design and integrate electronic circuitry for diagnostic and patient monitoring equipment. These positions reports to the Director of Research and Development. A BS degree in Electrical Engineering is essential. Experience with embedded real-time systems, an ability to work in a team environment and a minimum of 2 years' experience in the medical diagnostics industry is required. I can offer competitive compensation ($90,000) and comprehensive company-paid benefits. If you know someone that would be interested I can be contacted at: Larry Chiaravallo Voice: (609) 584-9000 ext 216 Fax (609) 584-9575 Email lmc@dmc22.com ------------------------------ From: Dan J. Declerck Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:42:22 -0600 Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group Kevin R. Ray wrote: > Kyler Laird wrote: >> So ... I signed up with the only reasonable ISDN provider in town, >> BlueMarble.net, and they helped me order my ISDN line. >> Just ordering it was an ordeal. The woman who took the order (with >> the ISP and me both on the line) was a moron. She had great >> difficulty and let someone else just take care of it. > I skipped the ISP/USRobotics help to getting my ISDN line. I called > 1-800-TEAM-DATA directly. All they wanted was some equipment code that > I didn't know -- telling them "Courier I-Modem" was enough. > Ironically after the installation and playing with it I tried > switching the Courier from using Nation ISDN-1 protocol to Nation > ISDN-2, AT&T 5ESS, Northern Telecom DMS-100 ... they *ALL* worked. >> Later that week, I received a call from Ameritech with the details. >> It would take over three weeks to install. My wife was getting anxious, >> but this gave me time to get the computer purchased and set up. > I too received a call back from Ameritech confirming the installation. > It too took about three weeks from the initial phone call. Typical > from what I've heard. I had an additional line installed in May ... I never got a confirmation date for the install. The guy came out when I wasn't home. Instead of getting an additional line installed, I got all lines disconnected! (I said "number_of_lines++" and got " lines = 0") It took them TWO days to come out and repair the problem ... >> The line was installed when promised, Oct. 24. Unfortunately, no one >> was home, so the installer decided not to connect the line to the >> inside wires. I spent the evening on the (cellular) phone with my >> wife trying to figure out why she couldn't get a signal. > You knew the installation date. Why was no one there or re-schedule it > for a good time? If I was the installer (which I'm not a phone guy :) > I too would have terminated at the POP box and left. It would be > *possible* to fry phone equipment by simply hooking it up to a ISDN > line. The installer had no idea where those pairs went inside the > house. >> So ... she called back to get the wires connected since I wasn't going >> to be down there for over a week. Eventually the installer showed up >> again. > Probably not the original installer who knew about ISDN, et al... When Ameritech started offering Ameritech.net internet service, I went to their webpage to check things out ... I sent e-mail off asking questions about pricing, local numbers, etc. It took no less than SIX weeks to get a reply. I replied that my present ISP had normal daytime hours, and typical response time was less than 24 hours for e-mail. The mere fact that it took them six weeks to respond to a simple e-mail (no technical content) was reason enough for me not to consider their service. I'd hope that they've improved this since then. After all, the costs of abndoning ameritech.net will probably be borne out on the landline voice customers, should this data venture fail. Today, there is almost no way to avoid the baby bells when data service is required. => Dan DeClerck | EMAIL: declrckd@cig.mot.com <= [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That has been a rather consistent complaint about many/most of the large corporations which have jumped on the WWW bandwagon in the past couple years hasn't it? They put up nice, sometimes very fancy web pages with all their products and services on display, then assign no one to answer email inquiries. PAT] ------------------------------ From: systech@sprynet.com (Bill Cornett) Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:17:42 GMT Organization: Sprynet News Service I feel certain that if you had taken this up with a supervisor at Ameritech, they would have paid to have your drywall professionally repaired. If a first level doesn't give you satisfaction, take it up the line. Now that you have repaired it yourself, it's too late. I'm familiar with the jacks you are talking about, the sticky backing rips the outer layer off the drywall when it is removed. For that reason I use screws and plastic anchors instead. The holes are easily filled. As you pointed out, they should never have been changed. Assuming you didn't call to complain, this installer will probably do the same thing over again somewhere else. Bill Cornett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:44:09 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Customer DDD is 46 Years Old (Monday) It was on 10-November-1951, 46 years ago today (Monday), that Customer DDD (Direct Distance Dialing) began, from the #5XB Office in Englewood/Teaneck NJ, to about 15 or so selected metro areas across the (continental) USA. The term "DDD" wasn't really used at that time, but rather (customer) Long Distance Dialing. An inaugural call was placed (by _dialing_ ten-digits), by the mayor of Englewood NJ to the mayor of Alameda CA. I think that the Englewood NJ mayor also dialed calls to mayors of other cities then customer-dialable from Englewood NJ, as well. A text-based transcription of the customer-instruction booklet "How to Use Long Distance Dialing" is available from the TELECOM Digest Archives in the "History" section: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/history/ NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) 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: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:03:34 -0600 (CST) From: Ryan Michael Landry Subject: Re: Customer DDD is 46 Years Old (Monday) We ought to have DDD Day instead of some of these assinine holidays of late (UN Day, World Peace Day, MLK Day, etc.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I disagree strongly. I have very little disagreement with the United Nations, and in fact one of their agencies known as the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) has been a sponsor of this Digest for several years. Their financial support has been invaluable where keeping this Digest flowing from day to day is concerned. I happen to also think that world peace is a good idea even if a bit far-fetched as it seems at times, this being the eve of what may be still another in the long series of ugly conflicts between the USA and Mr. Hussain; I'd like to see every day be World Peace Day in reality, but I'll grant you it probably will never happen and I would never agree to live under the terms which some governments would impose on you and I to make it happen. Through a bit of extremely good luck, I was fortunate to be at a private dinner (eight persons total) with Martin and Coretta King in 1964. Although he was the speaker on a few occassions in Chicago during the early 1960's at the Chicago Sunday Evening Club services at Orchestra Hall (the same place where Hillary Clinton's young people's group heard him speak on one of the same Sunday evenings), I had never really met him personally until that time. My roomate at the time was the organist for Sunday Evening Club; after the service that night -- the night teenager Hillary Clinton was there -- the president of CSEC and his wife, a Trustee of CSEC and his wife, and Dr. and Mrs. King went around the corner to Miller's Pub for dinner and drinks. Someone invited Roy (organist) and he asked them if I could join the group. At 22 years of age, and already in the habit of writing Editor's Notes on every subject under the sun I was, frankly, thrilled. Here you see, less than an hour before he had been addressing two thousand plus people at Orchestra Hall; now he was looking at *me* and talking to *me*. The others present at the table all chatted; to me it seemed prudent for once in my life to keep my damn mouth shut and just listen. Two hours passed quickly, and as midnight approached he and Mrs. King said they simply had to leave. The others had their own cars but Roy and I did not. I recall ordering a taxi; Roy and I dropped off Dr. and Mrs. King at the hotel where they were staying then Roy and I kept the same cab and went back home. That was the last time he was invited to speak at CSEC; when the trustees were preparing the list of speakers for the next year they did not invite MLK back. 'Too controversial for our taste' was their excuse. Now based on that experience, perhaps I am biased, but I consider MLK to be a saint. Frankly Ryan, I found your message offensive. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:38:38 EST From: Eric William Burger Forwarded message from Robert J. Perillo: > Actually, the problem isn't ... This decision is seen as a marketing > move to stimulate demand for ISDN lines, and assymetrical digital > subscriber line service (ADSL) when it becomes available next year. > It's really ... the limitations of Bell Atlantic's voice-grade > circuits, he said. Standard voice lines operate at 300 to 3,000 hertz, > but a 28.8 modem requires a range of 465 to 3,520 hertz, he said." Especially in residential suburbs, Bell Atlantic is heavily relying on SLC96's (compression). That's not good for modems, but ok for voice. BA's not likely to "fix" a signficant cost reduction for themselves. ------------------------------ From: Tom Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 22:33:50 -0500 Organization: Magic Carpet Inc Reply-To: trbarton@galaxy.net >> According to Bell Atlantic, ''a service charge may apply when a >> repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the >> transmission or receipt of data or signals which are beyond the >> operating capabilities of the dial-tone line.'' ". Here's a part that you might have missed ... One of my customers uses a fax and modem on a pots line. The cable in the area is really old and most pairs are suspect. He was complaining of modem drop outs. I have a pretty keen ear for noisy lines, surprisingly :-) better than most NYNEX repairmen, but knowing I needed better info than "just sounds bad", I carry a "Side Kick" meter with me; it shows line problems like leakage, cross, grounds, and noisy splices. Well, as you can already guess, the NYNEX guy was less than impressed, said that the line "sounded OK", and that he had never seen a meter that could "Show Noise", but he changed the pair anyway -- to a WORSE pair, and left. A long argument insued with management, and finally they sent over a repairman who found a good pair, and ended the story. Well, what I see from the Bell Atlantic story here, it is obvious that they are going in the direction of a company policy of "sounds OK for voice, and that's all we guarentee ..." no matter how badly the line hums or crackles. Too bad, as it really is not that hard to clean up noisy cables, and in the end, an afternoon spent by a cable crew doing just that, will reduce over all service calls, and save the company countless repair hours "changing pairs" ------------------------------ From: Brian F.G. Bidulock Subject: Re: Unregulated LD From Canadian hotels Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 03:11:20 -0700 Organization: Brian F.G. Bidulock Paul Lantz wrote: > Recently I stayed in a hotel in Toronto. > The telephone information sheet stated that long distance services > were provided by US Telephone (or something) which was an unregulated > service. I wondered if this would affect the price of telephone calls > (visions of having long distance calls diverted through some offshore > company at astronomical cost). It looks like the long distance services were actually provided by a reseller and not a full carrier such as AT&T Canada or Sprint Canada. > Does anyone have information on this? I made long distance calls but > they went through Bell; I didn't try any calls to the US. Are there > are any risks for people using these services? The fact that the calls went through Bell reaffirms the possibility that long distance services were provided by a reseller. If you are confused about long distance rates from motels or hotels in Canada and carry a calling card from your Long Distance carrier which has an 800 access number (such as Bell's calling card using their 800-555-1111 dial around number), you can make a calling card call from the hotel or motel without operator surcharges. Many hotels or motels charge CDN$0.50 or so for making an 800 call, but it is against CRTC ruling for a hotel or motel to block access to any 800/888 number. If you want to avoid a hotel surcharge on 800/888 numbers where the hotel or motel surcharges, you might use the payphone in the lobby, where 800/888 surcharges are prohibited. Calling cards are easy to acquire from all long distance carriers in Canada and the bill for calls can normally be reported and paid on your normal home or business long distance bill. Hope this helps. Brian ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #310 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 12 22:05:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA13884; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:05:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:05:13 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711130305.WAA13884@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #311 TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Nov 97 22:05:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 311 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pager Firm's House of Cards (Tad Cook) Rate Center Divided by Area Code Split (Linc Madison) Rockwell Sues Bay Networks Over K56flex Modem Technology (Eric Florack) CFP: 2nd Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia (Argi Krikelis) Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted (Kevin Mocklin) Using Mobile Phones to Pay for Cola, Juke-box (Monty Solomon) http://www.areacode-info.com/ (John Cropper) 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@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 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: Pager Firm's House of Cards Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:12:50 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Published Wednesday, November 12, 1997, in the San Jose Mercury News Pager firm's wrong number Why EconoPage rose and fell By Jon Healey Mercury News Staff Writer In a mere 2 1/2 years, Aaron R. Arnott and Michael R. Adams parlayed two briefcases, an answering machine, a motorcycle and a little money into one of the country's largest paging resale operations. The company they founded -- EconoPage Inc. of San Jose -- ultimately became a cash factory, producing half-million-dollar salaries for Arnott and Adams and making even store clerks feel rich. As the business expanded into nearby states, the two young entrepreneurs spun dreams of peddling low-cost pagers nationwide -- or cashing out as millionaires. But EconoPage crashed even more quickly than it rose, in a spectacular October explosion that left behind more than 200,000 prepaid customers and up to $16 million in debts. As law-enforcement investigators and plaintiffs attorneys poke through the company's ruins, one thing has become abundantly clear: The imposing EconoPage structure rose from a foundation that was too fragile to support its weight. Selling pagers is a business rife with marginal operators, attracted by the industry's rapid growth and low entry costs. Arnott and Adams, new to the communications industry, made a series of mistakes: They spent too much, grew too fast, cut their profit margins too thin, and shackled themselves to lengthy service contracts that generated plenty of cash up-front but only expense down the line. But if there is a lesson in the EconoPage experience for entrepreneurs, there is also one for consumers considering prepaid service contracts or memberships of any kind. Those who try to save money by paying in advance are gambling that the seller will outlive the contract. David Benoit, a paramedical examiner based in San Jose, was one of the many Bay Area residents who found out just how bad a gamble that can be. In 1996, he paid EconoPage $378 for a five-year contract, including two years of toll-free service. He then put the number on more than $2,000 worth of business cards, fliers and promotional materials. EconoPage collapsed a little more than one year later. Arnott and Adams, for their part, continue to defend the EconoPage model. As they tell it, greedy suppliers pushed them over the edge in a scheme to pirate their customer base. Indeed, the competition for former EconoPage customers is now running hot. But some paging industry veterans worry about the competition, and they question whether anyone has learned from EconoPage's demise. "There are too many EconoPages out there," said Danny Lee, chief operating officer at Future Paging and Cellular of San Francisco. "Maybe the majority of the paging resellers do not have a good, solid accounting background and reserve to cover (the prepaid contracts). That is the danger." The paging business comprises two kinds of companies: carriers and resellers. Carriers are the companies with the wireless networks that transmit signals from telephones to pagers. They sell directly to the public, but they also sell pagers and service (called "airtime") in bulk to resellers, who act as middlemen. Industry officials say that resellers go belly up all the time, foundering in the face of fierce competition. What's unusual about EconoPage isn't that it failed, they say, but that it was so successful. "This is the biggest reseller I've ever heard of," said Mitchell Sacks, president of TSR Paging, the nation's seventh-largest paging company. The venture began modestly, with a phone call from Adams to Arnott one day early in 1994. Adams reported that an acquaintance was making a comfortable living in Los Angeles as a paging reseller, a business that required little investment and no specialized knowledge. Arnott was 31 at the time, working as the manager of a rent-to-own store. Adams was 32, working in computer sales. Together they came up with $20,000 to $25,000 to get the business started, using Arnott's home as their base. They ran a small advertisement in the Mercury News and set up an answering machine in Arnott's house to take orders. When Arnott got off work, he would hop on his motorcycle with a briefcase of sample pagers to show the people who had responded to the ad. EconoPage's strategy was to offer lower prices and longer contract terms than its competitors, a formula that quickly paid off. "The bigger we got, the more pagers we could buy, the better price we could get," Arnott said. Because of the fierce competition among paging carriers, "they were coming to you every week with a better and better deal." The final offer Eventually, the company settled on this offer: a new pager and one year of airtime for $89.99, two years for $119.99, and three years for $139.99, with an additional year free if the customer turned in an old pager. By contrast, a new pager and a year of airtime in pre-EconoPage days would have cost upward of $120. EconoPage's competitors responded by dropping their prices and offering longer contracts, establishing the one-year prepaid deal -- which had been a rarity -- as the new standard. From three stores in 1995, EconoPage went to 21 in 1996 and 35 in 1997. The sales grew quickly too, rising to $3.1 million per month at the end of 1996, but money seemed to fly out the door just as fast. In particular, the company spent lavishly on advertising, with its budget for newspaper and radio ads climbing to half a million dollars per month, and on payroll. Boosted by daily incentive bonuses, store managers averaged almost $70,000 in yearly pay in 1996. Company investors and top management collected $1.4 million, including payments to ten positions "held by family members or friends," company documents report. Arnott defended the salaries and bonuses, saying, "When you have a company that grows this quickly ... you have to develop some type of performance-based remuneration." Company officials also gained a reputation for flashy spending -- expensive suits, Rolex watches, fancy cars. They made notable contributions to civic causes, too, such as a $9,000 donation to help buy bulletproof vests for the police. The success was intoxicating. Arnott and Adams wanted EconoPage to be nothing less than the nation's largest paging reseller, and they developed a plan to open three stores in each of 10 major cities. The owners also began working in the fall of 1996 on plan B: to sell EconoPage to the highest bidder. Arnott believed he and Adams could reap $5 million to $8 million each in capital gains. They began distributing a prospectus in early 1997, and a number of companies expressed interest right away. Beneath the glittering EconoPage edifice, however, lay some deep and threatening fissures. The company was reporting razor-thin profit margins -- less than $1.50 for every $100 in sales in 1995 and 1996, according to unaudited company documents -- and that was without factoring in the cost of fulfilling its prepaid contracts. EconoPage was also putting off the more lucrative contract renewals -- the lifeblood of most paging companies -- with its long-term contracts and trade-in deals. And it was spending aggressively on growth instead of setting money aside to cover the obligations it was incurring. Meanwhile the two main carriers that supplied EconoPage -- Paging Network Inc. and PageMart Inc., both of Dallas -- encouraged its aggressive growth. They supplied pagers and airtime at discounts that often rose with each new customer recruited, and they sent letters applauding the company's go-go tactics even after EconoPage fell behind on its bills. As Arnott and Adams saw it, PageNet and PageMart provided EconoPage what amounted to a $1 million credit line by allowing EconoPage to run 60 to 90 days behind on its airtime bills and, in PageNet's case, letting EconoPage pay for pagers with company checks that the local PageNet office did not cash for three weeks. This cushion, or "float," was standard industry practice, they said. "That part of the equation," said Sacks of TSR Paging, another one of EconoPage's carriers, "allowed EconoPage to really price their sale of equipment to the consumer below what a reasonable business person would charge." Spokesmen for PageNet and PageMart insisted that their companies did not extend credit to EconoPage or give preferential treatment. Other resellers stayed healthy, said PageNet vice president Stas Wolk, because they took a more cautious approach to growth. In spring 1997, PageNet and PageMart suddenly pulled EconoPage's long financial leash taut. They demanded that the company pay all its overdue bills and current charges and they placed new strictures on the supply of pagers. Arnott and Adams say that the move was purely malicious; spokesmen for PageNet and PageMart said they acted only after EconoPage bounced checks or fell far behind on its payments. The strictures, particularly PageNet's requirement that EconoPage pay cash on delivery for pagers, hurt badly. EconoPage's financial model depended on growth -- in particular, the flow of money that new pager sales produced. Now it had fewer pagers to sell and, as a consequence, fewer new customers. Over the summer, EconoPage struggled to make ends meet. The company laid off 30 percent to 40 percent of its workers, eliminated all perks, pared its advertising, hired an expert in corporate turnarounds and cut salaries, Arnott said. By August, EconoPage officials were telling the carriers they'd found a way to make everyone happy: by selling the company to Source One Wireless Inc. of Chicago, a midsize paging carrier. But as the promised deal dragged on and EconoPage again fell behind on its payments, PageMart decided to cut its losses. In September, PageMart started shutting off hundreds of toll-free pager numbers, the services that cost PageMart the most to provide. Desperate, Arnott said he and Adams offered to sell the company to Source One essentially for nothing. Neither Source One nor any other carrier however, decided EconoPage was worth saving. It wasn't just the bad publicity caused by the PageMart disconnections, industry officials said; it also was EconoPage's balance sheet, which showed $12 million worth of airtime owed to customers. "He had no business to buy," Sacks said. The bleak assessment of EconoPage evidently was shared by Rick Redett, a consultant EconoPage hired to help it work out its troubles. In a September report to PageNet and other carriers, Wolk said, Redett offered this analysis: EconoPage had grown too fast, hired too many people, spent too much on advertising, paid excessive salaries and other perks, and benefited from too little financial expertise. Deal all but dead On Oct. 22, Arnott told the company's creditors that the Source One deal was all but dead. "We called the stores and had them all chained up." Looking back, Arnott and Adams say it's clear to them that PageNet and PageMart deliberately ruined their business. The motive, they said, was to keep Source One from taking over EconoPage's customer base and becoming the dominant paging carrier in Northern California. The accusation is absurd, officials at PageNet and PageMart say. "We would have loved for them to be able to sell this thing to Source One so that we would have gotten paid all the money we were due and have not been paid," said Fred G. Anderson, PageMart's general counsel. Whatever the outcome, the company's saga provides a powerful cautionary tale for all consumers. Some paging competitors, however, argue that the company's heavy advertising so "brainwashed" consumers that they still believe cheap, long-term contracts are a realistic deal. "They want to know why I won't do it (match EconoPage's deals)," said Richard Aal, general manager of American Telecom in San Jose. "I just look at them and say, `They're out of business. That's what put them out of business.' They just don't get it." ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Rate Center Divided by Area Code Split Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:15:25 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In the recent 415/650 area code split here in northern California, one of the interesting features is that the "San Francisco 3" rate center, which covers roughly the southern third of the city, plus a significant portion of the adjacent suburbs, is now split between the two area codes. Clearly there is a wire center boundary in there somewhere, but it is still a bit unusual to have a single rate center spanning two area codes. San Francisco 3 serves the following prefixes: 415: 239 330 333 334 337 338 405 406 452 466 467 468 469 582 584 585 586 587 656 657 715 799 840 841 994 650: 301 746 755 756 757 758 761 985 991 992 993 997 All but a tiny portion of the area served by the wire center that is now in area code 650 is outside the city limits of San Francisco, mostly in the suburbs of Colma and Daly City. (The area of San Francisco that is now in area code 650 is literally a few city blocks.) The new San Francisco directory (cover date: Sept. 1997-98) still lists these prefixes as "San Francisco 3," although it reflects the area code split. That seems to indicate that there is no plan to divide the rate center along area code lines. Of course, if we ever do get overlays in California, we'll quickly become accustomed to having rate centers with multiple area codes, but for now it's a little ahead of its time. As an aside, I've recently updated my web pages at their new address, < http://www.lincmad.com >, and added a couple of new features, such as a thorough listing of towns and area codes. I am also testing a page which allows you to quickly find out where a given area code is located. Try < http://www.lincmad.com/cityjump.html#415 >, but be aware of two things. First of all, this page is not yet listed on my index page, since it is experimental. Second, the page contains over 300 "anchor points" (e.g., "#415"), which may overwhelm some browsers. With those caveats, you can jump down the table by adding any valid area code or two-letter postal abbreviation after the main URL. I'm adding other features, including a publication-quality map, in the next few weeks. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:07:41 PST From: Eric Florack Subject: Rockwell Sues Bay Networks Over K56flex Modem Technology Rockwell Sues Bay Networks Over K56flex Modem Technology by Elinor Mills, IDG News Service November 11, 1997 Rockwell Semiconductor Systems today announced it has filed a lawsuit against Bay Networks for allegedly breaching its K56flex modem technology licensing agreement with Rockwell. Bay Networks' "current business practices violate its K56flex licensing agreement with Rockwell and its actions competitively disadvantage K56flex licensees," a Rockwell statement said. The statement did not specify exactly how Bay is breaching its licensing agreement and officials at Rockwell did not return calls seeking more information. Bay Networks, whose access controller module supports the K56flex modem technology, also did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Dwight Decker, president of Rockwell, said in the statement that the company had tried to resolve the issue with Bay Networks without success, and that litigation could delay deployment and approval of a global 56-kilobits-per-second modem standard. Rockwell and Lucent Technologies developed the K56flex technology that many modem makers and Internet access providers are backing for analog modems that run at up to 56 kbps. Meanwhile 3Com subsidiary U.S. Robotics is pushing an incompatible x2 specification. ------------------------------ From: Argi Krikelis Subject: CFP: 2nd Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:37:36 +0000 Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK 2nd Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia Orland, Florida - Monday, March 30, 1998 Preliminary Call for Participation The Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia will be held in Orlando, Florida on March 30, 1998. The workshop, second in the series, is part of the 12th International Parallel Processing Symposium (IPPS '98) which is sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Parallel Processing and is held in cooperation with ACM SIGARCH. In the recent years multimedia technology has emerged as a key technology, mainly, because of its ability to represent information in disparate forms as a bit-stream. This enables, everything from text to video and sound to be stored, processed and delivered in digital form. A great part of the current research community effort has emphasized the delivery of the data as an important issue of multimedia technology. However, the creation, processing and management of multimedia forms are the issues most likely to dominate the scientific interest in the long run. The focus of the activity will be how multimedia technology deals with information, which is in general task-dependent and is extracted from data in a particular context by exercising knowledge. The desire to deal with information from forms such as video, text and sound will result in a data explosion. This [requirement to store, process and manage large data sets] naturally leads to the consideration of programmable parallel processing systems as strong candidates in supporting and enabling multimedia technology. The workshop aims to act as a platform where topics related, but not limited, to * parallel architectures for multimedia * parallel multimedia computing servers * mapping multimedia applications to parallel architectures * system interfaces and programming tools to support multimedia applications on parallel processing systems * multimedia content creation, processing and management using parallel architectures * parallel processing architectures of multimedia set-top boxes * multimedia agent technology and parallel processing * `proof of concept' implementations and case studies. Workshop plans include a keynote address andsubmitted papers, and a panel discussion. Submitting Papers & Publication Details Authors are invited to submit manuscripts reporting original unpublished research and recent developments in the topics related to the workshop. The language of the workshop is English. All manuscripts will be peer-reviewed. Submissions should be in uuencoded, gzipped, postscript form and e-mailed to Argy.Krikelis@aspex.co.uk. In cases where electronic submission is not possible, send 4 copies to the Workshop Organiser. Manuscripts must be received by November 12, 1997. The manuscript should not exceed 15 double-spaced (i.e. point size 12), single-sided A4 size page, with a 250-word abstract. The corresponding author is requested to include in the cover letter: 1. complete postal address 2. e-mail address 3. phone number 4. fax number 5. key phrases that characterize the paper's topic. Receipt of submissions will be promptly acknowledged by e-mail. Notification of review decisions will be e-mailed by January 10, 1998. Camera-ready papers will be due by January 30, 1998. Proceedings of all IPPS '98 workshop papers will be available. However, there are efforts for the workshops papers to appear in a book on their own, or as a special issue of a scientific paper. Last year's workshop's papers will appear in a special issue of the "Parallel Computing" Journal. Workshop Organiser Argy Krikelis Aspex Microsystems Ltd. Brunel University Uxbridge, UB8 3PH United Kingdom Tel: + 44 1895 203184 Fax: + 44 1895 203185 E-mail: Argy.Krikelis@aspex.co.uk Programme Committee Edward J. Delp, Purdue University Divyesh Jadav, IBM Research Center, Almaden Martin Goebel, GMD, Germany Argy Krikelis, Aspex Microsystems Ltd., UK Tosiyasu L. Kunii, The University of Aizu, Japan Vasily Moshnyaga, Kyoto University, Japan Eythymios D. Providas, University of Thessaly, Greece Registration: This workshop is being held as part of IPPS. The usual IEEE Computer Society guidelines apply wrt registration; the workshop is open to IPPS registrants and separate registration for the workshop is not needed. Information about IPPS can be obtained over the Web at the following URL: http://www.ippsxx.org ------------------------------ From: Kevin Mocklin Subject: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:51:31 -0500 Hello, First, I'd like to say thank you for the Digest and associated Web pages, they are a great resource! I am not currently a subscriber to the list, but a few years back I followed for a while, and obtained a nice text list of area codes which also included a breakdown for each area code similiar to the following: 314 Saint Louis and Columbia, (Eastern) Missouri The file also had a bunch of other general information in it. The closing note in the file is as follows: Closing note: The information in this [Guide to North American Area Codes] first appeared in various parts in TELECOM Digest Volume 9, issues 2 and 15; January 3 and January 15, 1989. [Note: Various updates made throughout 1992 and 1993 by Carl Moore, others.] -------------------- Now I am simply looking for an updated list that includes all the recent splits and changes. Bellcore's Web page only indicates State, and after doing some poking around on your web site, I've found pieces here and there, but no single basic text file with all the codes and a description of the area they cover. Is such a file maintained and available in one nice package? I like to be able to simply grep for an area code. Thanks for any help. Cheers, Kevin IntraServer Technology, Inc. 508.429.0425 x 241 mocklin@intraserver.com http://www.intraserver.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is indeed one area of the archives which needs much updating. There are several areas of the archives which need to be brought up to date but I just do not have the time or resources for it at present. Can anyone help with a current copy of the script in question? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:27:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Using Mobile Phones to Pay For Cola, Juke-box HELSINKI (Reuters) - Technology-crazed Finns can now play their favorite tune on a juke-box or buy a bottle of coke from a vending machine using mobile phones instead of coins. Telecom Finland, launching the service on Wednesday, said one of Helsinki's restaurants had already fitted a juke-box with a digital device which directly debited callers' telephone accounts when they selected a tune. Similar devices have been installed in two Coca-Cola vending machines, the telephone company said. Finland has the world's highest penetration of mobile phones at more than 40 per 100 inhabitants. It is home to Nokia, one of leading producers of mobile phones. ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: http://www.areacode-info.com/ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:02:54 -0500 Finally up and running! :-) We've given our popular area code section its own home site! http://www.areacode-info.com/ John Cropper LINCS http://www.lincs.net/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #311 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 12 22:52:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA16914; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:52:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:52:21 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711130352.WAA16914@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #312 TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Nov 97 22:52:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 312 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Monty Solomon) No-PC Internet Phone in Japan (Collin Park) More on Massachusetts Fiber Sabotage (oldbear@arctos.com) Bell Atlantic Boosts Pay Phone Rates (Monty Solomon) Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland (Kimmo Ketolainen) Re: New York Times on Net Day (Derek Uttley) Re: Telco Racks (Don Ritchie) 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@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 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, 11 Nov 1997 23:24:42 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:38:25 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: the Internet will swallow the phone system [Forwarded by permission. Gary's right: the Internet's going to swallow the phone system. Informed people disagree mightily about whether the Internet can provide the same functionality as the phone system for much cheaper, but that's not really the point. The point is that connection- oriented voice is just one tiny specialized case of the vast range of possible functionalities that the Internet can provide. It won't be easy, since the Internet architects will have to get quality-of-service differentiation, a reservation protocol, and a decentralized bandwidth market all going at the same time. The people who think they can make this work, like David Clark at MIT (architect) and Jeff McKie-Mason at Michigan (economist) etc etc, are very smart, however, so just give them a few years. In the meantime, please have a talk with your phone company. Explain the Internet Way to them. If you explain it very slowly then they might get it just before they go out of business.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:26:54 -0600 From: Gary Chapman To: chapman@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu Subject: L.A. Times column, 11/10/97 Appearing below is my Los Angeles Times column for today, November 10, 1997. Please feel free to pass this on, but please retain the copyright notice. If you have received this message from anyone other than me, Gary Chapman, you might be interested in the Internet listserv that sends my columns and articles out to subscribers. Information about how to subscribe to the listserv is at the end of this message. On the other hand, if you did receive this message from me, you are subscribed to the listserv and need not pay attention to the subscription information. Thanks for signing up. -- Gary Gary Chapman Director The 21st Century Project LBJ School of Public Affairs Drawer Y University Station University of Texas Austin, TX 78713 (512) 471-8326 (512) 471-1835 (fax) gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/21cp Monday, November 10, 1997 DIGITAL NATION You Thought Ma Bell's Demise Was Big? By Gary Chapman Copyright 1997, The Los Angeles Times The telecommunications business, MCI founder Bill McGowan used to say, is "just like any other business, only with a lot more zeros." That's still true, and there are even more zeros now. But these days people in the telecommunications field seem to wake up every day to face a new world. There are new regulations and legislation, court decisions that overturn legislation, big and small mergers and acquisitions, and, of course, new technologies that threaten to turn everything upside-down. Even people in the industry, which is notorious for its jargon and acronym-packed vernacular, have a hard time following what's happening from day to day. So it's nearly impossible for the public to grasp what's going on. But there are some big trends emerging that point to a profound shift in telecommunications in the United States and elsewhere -- and for reasons not yet widely covered in the media. We may be on the leading edge of a paradigm change as significant as the breakup of AT&T in the early 1980s. So far, public attention to this industry has tended to focus on the new environment of deregulation introduced by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and on the subsequent wave of mergers, such as the marriage of Pacific Telesis and SBC Communications, or that of Bell Atlantic and Nynex, all formerly regional Bell corporations. The Telecom Act was supposed to foster competition in services, but the mergers and the legalistic stonewalling of the Bell companies have alarmed critics who think that competition in local markets is being forestalled. This has produced countless droning editorials about the need to speed up the process of competition in telephone service. But meanwhile, in the background and beneath the radar of most editorial writers, new companies and new technologies are emerging that are likely to be the most important players in any future arrangement of telecommunications. In fact, the larger and more well-known companies, particularly AT&T, are beginning to look somewhat desperate in the face of competition from new names that most of the general public has never heard of. The paradigmatic example is WorldCom, a company based in an unlikely location for the headquarters of a telecom empire: Jackson, Miss. WorldCom was pretty much unknown to most people outside the industry until it stunned everyone by offering $29.4 billion in stock to buy MCI, which everyone has heard of. (GTE promptly matched that offer, but with cash.) WorldCom was in the news briefly before the MCI bid when it bought out CompuServe, handed that service's customers to America Online and then kept CompuServe's networking facilities. WorldCom is now the largest Internet service provider in the world. WorldCom President John Sidgmore was a featured speaker at the Technology Summit, a Wall Street Journal-sponsored conference I attended recently in New York. "Where is telecom headed?" Sidgmore was asked. His reply: "Internet, Internet, Internet." Sidgmore pointed out that Internet traffic is growing at about 1,000% a year, while voice traffic is growing at only 10% a year, a figure that hasn't changed in decades. Sidgmore then surprised the audience with this prediction: "In 10 years," he said, "when you look at what's being carried by telecom lines, you won't even know voice is in there." Consider the fact that the U.S. market for voice-based services is $125 billion a year now, and his prediction takes your breath away. Sidgmore believes that the telecom industry will be a trillion-dollar industry early in the next century worldwide and that all the signs point to the Internet as the key to its expansion. Sidgmore noted, for example, that more than half of all international calls are faxes, and once Internet-based faxing becomes widespread, which should happen soon, that will punch a huge hole in the market of conventional telecom carriers. So will Internet telephony. The capability of the Internet to carry voice phone calls is limited now but likely to improve dramatically in the near term. New Internet telephony companies are springing up all over, mostly to capture the new business model of using corporate intranets to replace voicemail systems and PBX switchboards. Reed Hundt, who recently stepped down as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, believes that "there will be a war between the circuit-switch business and the packet-switch businesses," as he told Red Herring magazine recently. Circuit switches are what telephone companies use; packet switching, a different technology, is what Internet companies use. The outcome of this war "will make or break numerous fortune seekers," Hundt said. The older telecom companies are saddled with a large number of liabilities: dated technology; corporate cultures far slower than the entrepreneurial cultures of the upstarts; and an investor base that depends on safe, reliable growth instead of the hell-bent riskiness of the newer ventures. The older giants have tended to focus their strategies for protecting market share on the techniques they know best, such as fighting in the courts and lobbying legislators. But the new companies, such as WorldCom, Qwest, Frontier, Brooks Fiber (recently purchased by WorldCom) and perhaps a reoriented MCI, will be big challengers -- and not chiefly because of changes in regulation but because of immense changes in technology. If the Internet paradigm wins out, if packet-switched networks begin to succeed the circuit- switched infrastructure of the telephone network, then we may see several very familiar names become extinct. And several new names will be part of our household conversations. Gary Chapman is director of The 21st Century Project at the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu. ----------------------------------------------- Listserv Subscription Information To subscribe to a listserv that forwards the text of and pointers to articles by Gary Chapman, including his column Digital Nation in The Los Angeles Times, follow these instructions: Send mail to listproc@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu Leave the subject line blank. In the first line of the message, put: Subscribe Chapman [First name] [Last name] Leave out the brackets, just put your name after Chapman. Send this message. You'll get a confirmation message back, reporting your subscription, and this message will have some boilerplate text in it about passwords, which you should IGNORE. Passwords will not be required for this listserv. To get off the list, send mail to the same address, with the same message except with the word Unsubscribe substituted for Subscribe. You should get something two or three times a month. I'll occasionally mail out either text or pointers to other articles I have written, besides my column, but I have promised list subscribers that I won't use this list for any other purpose, so traffic should be low. Feel free to pass this listserv subscription information on to anyone else you feel might be interested in subscribing. ------------------------------ From: cpark@gol.com (Collin Park) Subject: No-PC Internet Phone in Japan Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:45:40 +0900 Recently AT&T JENS have been advertising their "@phone" service here, and I thought I'd tell you about it. You apply by fax, giving a credit card number (!). Billing is in 1-minute increments, but a detailed statement costs 1000 yen (about $8.00 US) per month. (I guess AT&T JENS took a page from NTT's and KDD's playbook.) The rates are attractive: 24 yen per minute (like 19 cents?) to the US, and similar discounts to other countries. They're also apparently cheaper *within* Japan (like Tokyo-Osaka, maybe 30% cheaper than local carriers, I don't remember rates). My only gripe is with the 4-digit password. The pre-assigned one is "one of the first passwords that any self-respecting hacker would try" and it cannot be changed! The nice lady on the phone guaranteed me that nobody else had the same password, but if anybody gets hold of my access code, then guessing the password would mean free calls (untraceable since I'm so far unwilling to spring for the monthly detailed statement). Anybody else signed up with these guys? Do you have a "hacker's dream" password as well? collin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:46:11 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: More on Massachusetts Fiber Sabotage This from Marty Hannigan at XCOM: From: hannigan@xcom.net (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:37:57 GMT Organization: XCOM Technologies - Data Engineering Reply-To: hannigan@xcom.net Considering I've gotten about 2 hours of sleep in the past 24 hours, plus the flu, I can attest to the massive outage caused by an apparent disgruntled employee. 1200 strands, 3 OC48's and multiple OC10s taken out with cutters, deliberately and maliciously. On the OC48 they took out the primary AND the protect ring dissolving their redundancy. And they did cut in multiple locations. Everyone has at least one single point of failure that can cause a massive outage. :) Whether you've identified it or not, it's there. Regards, Martin Hannigan hannigan@xcom.net Director - Data Networks V:617.500.0108 XCOM Technologies, INC. F:617.500.0002 ------------------------ Then, this report from the newspapers Wednesday: Excerpted from {The Boston Globe}, Nov. 12, 1997, page B3... Vandalism disrupts phones, cable TV: Lines are severed in several towns by Joann Muller, Globe Staff About 40,000 Greater Boston homeowners lost their cable TV service and 350 businesses lost telephone service over parts of three days after an apparent rash of vandalism that began Saturday. Media One, the region's largest cable operator, and Teleport Communications Group, a long-distance phone company, said their services were disrupted Saturday night, early Sunday, and Monday evening after vandals apparently climbed at least eight utility poles and cut the companies' one-inch-thick fiber cables. The two companies, whose cables share a fiber optic conduit, offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the vandals. Media One spokesman Rick Jenkinson said he believes his company was the target of the sabotage, because many of the incidents occurred near Media One buildings or facilities. The sabotage began at about 9:30 p.m. Saturday when someone climbed a pole in Woburn and cut a bundle of fiber cables, Jenkinson said. Customers in surrounding communities were affected, he said, but service was restored within an hour and 15 minutes. About six hours later, similar incidents occurred in Needham and Newton, he said. Then, at about 5:30 p.m. Monday, five more cables were cut in Natick, Dedham, and Needham. About 26,000 Media One customers were affected over the weekend, he said, and another 18,000 on Monday evening. All cable customers received a one-day credit for the lost service. Teleport's phone customers weren't affected much, said spokeswoman Donna Suky, because the outages occurred over the weekend or after hours when most of the businesses were closed. The phone lines were back on before most customers even knew there was a problem, she said. Both companies said they have extensive backup systems that enabled them to restore service quickly. The companies have set up a toll-free, confidential hot line (800-298-9790, ext. 8120) for tips about the vandalism. State and local police from several communities are investigating. Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:26:51 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Bell Atlantic Boosts Pay Phone Rates MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Bell Atlantic Corp. said Wednesday it is raising the price of a local call from its pay phones in eight states and Washington, D.C., to 35 cents from 25 cents, citing pressure from competitors. The Northeastern local telephone provider said rates will go up in New Hampshire, West Virginia, Virginia, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Vermont. The new rate will begin Nov. 19. It will take about three months to adjust all the pay phones to the new rate, the company said. Bell Atlantic said Congress last year confirmed that the pay telephone business is competitive, ordered it deregulated and required that all direct and indirect subsidies of the service be eliminated. Bell Atlantic said it must pay competitive commissions for property owners to place its pay phones in their businesses and must charge a competitive price to users of those phones. "Like any competitive business, we need to respond to market conditions," said Lorraine Chickering, president of Bell Atlantic Public Communications. ------------------------------ From: kk@sci.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen +358 40 55555 08) Subject: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland Date: 12 Nov 1997 06:58:27 GMT Organization: Sirius Cybernetics Inc Finland According to the Ministry of Transport and Communications report this week, the number of mobile phones in the country exceeded two million in the beginning of November. This means that 39 Finns out of 100 are now carrying around a mobile phone. 50,000 new subscriptions are signed every month. Very close behind come the other Nordic countries - Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Denmark. The Finnish mobile phone market is heavily dominated by the local producer Nokia. Several local GSM 1800 networks are being launched in major towns to provide competition against the analog NMT 450/900 and the digital GSM 900 networks of Telecom Finland and Radiolinja. At the moment, the most inexpensive subscriptions for a mobile phone cost 50 mk (10 USD) to open and require 20 mk (4 USD) as the monthly fee. MTC: www.vn.fi/lm | Nokia: www.nokia.com | Telecom Finland: www.tele.fi Radiolinja: www.radiolinja.fi Kimmo Ketolainen * kk@sci.fi * http://iki.fi/kk/ * +358 40 55555 08 mail2sms: sms@kk.iki.fi * sms2mail: +358 50 582 7229/"kk message.." ------------------------------ From: Derek Uttley Subject: Re: New York Times on Net Day Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:43:06 -0500 Organization: Newbridge Networks Corporation Reply-To: duttley@spamnewbridge.com Dave Hughes wrote: > I'll tell you here and now, any English teacher can and could, with a > combination of classroom computers and links to the Internet impart > more ENGLISH language literacy to a group of students, than the same > teacher with pencils, paper, and books over the same period of > time. And, at the same time, develop facility with forms of English > used online (which differs, when done well, as much from paper-written > forms as does the spoken word from the written text) > I proved that 14 years ago with Radio Shack and Osborne computers > accounts on the Source, and modem access to bulletin-boards. And some > college freshman instructors who took my course in 'Electronic > English' (and I don't mean word processing) demonstrated the same > thing. > That does not mean that all, or many, English teachers know how to > teach English using computers and networks. But give me 30 students in > a classroom with 15 networked computers with software of my choice, > you take 30 in a classroom with pencils, paper, and books of your > choice and after a school year, my students will wipe the floor with > your paper crowd, in spelling, grammar, puncutation, composition, > and general English Language literacy. But ... will they be able to write (i.e. use a pen/pencil in a way that can be deciphered by others?), or are you saying that cursive writing will not be required in the future? > They will also be far more prepared to graduate to higher and more > subtle levels of computer and network use for further education or > movement directly into the workforce. > It is beyond me why the myth persists that reading and writing using > computers, and communicating via the Internet in written forms, is not > itself the use of the English language in ways so much more efficient > in the use of time, and the skills (or lack thereof, as in typing > skill) used in writing well, than relying on traditional paper and > pencils. When there is a power failure, or an equipment failure, one may have to rely on traditional methods. ------------------------------ From: Don Ritchie Subject: Re: Telco Racks Date: 12 Nov 1997 06:00:07 GMT Organization: New Age Consulting Service Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA Adept Care <*NOSPAM*adept@aspi.net*NOSPAM*> wrote: > Can anyone point me to a manufacturer of 19" telco racks in the New > England area? GrayBar or Alltel can sell you a Chatworth rack 7' 19" rack should cost around 150 bux Don Ritchie Century Communications Euclid, Ohio dritchie@nacs.net - k8zgw@hac.org - don@hamnet.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #312 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 13 20:09:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA04343; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:09:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:09:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711140109.UAA04343@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #313 TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Nov 97 20:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 313 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Splitting Exchange Designations: Feasible? (Lee Winson) Siemens Euroset 221 S IWV / MWV (Translation) (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Phase Out of 10XXX Codes (Jeff Vinocur) 10XXX/101XXX Codes in Canada (Sebastien Kingsley) Re: MCI Cuts of 2/3 of ISPs Phone Lines (Scott A. Miller) Confidential? 800 Numbers? was Re: More on Fiber Sabatage (D. Burstein) Re: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted (Linc Madison) Books on Intelligent Networks (Robin E. Haberman) Re: New Brunswick, Canada Toll-Free Directories on Web (David Fraser) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (John McHarry) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Thor L. Simon) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Chris Zguris) Re: CallerID Info Needed (Rich Courtney) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (John R. Levine) 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@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 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: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Splitting Exchange Designations: Feasible? Date: 13 Nov 1997 04:28:22 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS A major reason North America is running out of telephone exchanges is competition by new local companies. At present, each new local company must be assigned a full exchange code in each area served, giving it 10,000 numbers per area. The problem is many new carriers won't need anywhere need that many numbers, so numbers are wasted. Would it be _feasible_ and _practical_ to change this so exchange codes could be split between carriers per geographic area? (Codes would NOT cover multiple geographic areas.) That is, say 215 548-1xxxx would be assigned to Bell Telephone, 548-2xxxx would be assigned to Comcast, 548-3xxx would be assigned to AT&T-Local, etc. There are two obvious issues: 1) Will the telephone companies accept this? I suspect the existing Bell companies won't while the new competitors would not. A lot of long time exchange codes have a certain "status" in some neighborhoods, for instance, in the Chesnut Hill section of Philadelphia (an affluent area), the 242, 247, 248 codes have a certain tradition/"class" associated with them and merchants want them. Likewise in suburban Moorestown NJ, where merchants seek 235 (BElmont). Those long-time codes tell consumers that a store is in a nice area. Where it comes to marketing strategies, these guys go for blood. 2) The second is technical. Can the tandem and long distance routing switches be programmed inexpensively to split up calls by this scheme? I suspect since they're gonna have to reprogram switches to route calls to the new competitors anyway it wouldn't be too hard. By the way, who is paying for connecting up the new companies -- the new ones or the existing Bell companies? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:39:07 CST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Siemens Euroset 221 S IWV / MWV (Translation) I had asked for some help translating a message here recently, and the several replies I received are summarized below. > Ich habe folgendes Problem : Wie kann ich das oben genannte Telefon > fest von Impulswahl auf Mehrfrequenzwahl umstellen ?? Und auch wieder > zurck. Temporr ist bekannt ... :-)) The translators say he is asking: "I have the following problem: How can I permanently set the above mentioned telephone from pulse to tone dialing? And back again. I know to temporarily make the change." The same translators more or less all agreed on this answer: There is a whole era of telephones in Germany from the mid eighties that were pulse dialing phones, but could, on a per call basis, be switched to tone. Tone dialing is about 5 years old in Germany, so the purpose was to be able to use phone banking, etc. after the connection was made, just like many phones here, when in pulse mode, can be set to tone by pressing a dedicated key, or * for the duration of the call. Upon hanging up reverting back to pulse. More than likely this person does NOT have the option to permanently set his phone to tone. This is common in Austria where, for the last 15 years, the Austrian Post Office has been installing Austrian-Made Kapsch brand telephones with 16 buttons. 12 dialing keys, Redial, Store, Memory and "K", which allows outpulsing tones for the duration of the call. For some incredibly stupid reason, you are limited to 16 tone digits after pressing "K" making non-operator assisted calls via USA Direct impossible. Grrr. -------------- Thanks to those who responded with assistance. PAT ------------------------------ From: chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:24:00 GMT Organization: WWWHHS Reply-To: chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 13:30:08 -0800, Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote: > Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing > 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing > from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed > that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". That reminds me -- I was using a pay phone last night (at a high school in a somewhat rural area). I can't recall the carrier, I am vaguely thinking Universal Telecom or something similar. Anyway, I was trying to call home (we have an 888 number for such situations), and it rejected it. I first thought perhaps my dad had restricted the calling area, so I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to use the calling card instead. Same thing. It simply didn't like toll-free calls. I've never seen this before, has anyone else? I realized after a couple seconds that I could use 10ATT, which worked -- although their phone tree didn't like me and I ended up having to recite numbers to an operator. Speaking of phone trees, I've got a PBX question. My school's phone tree (new, so I haven't had a chance to find out specs) prompts first "If you know your extension...", but certain extensions for some reason require an operator intermediary. Is there any way around this? The operator has rather minimal hours and we'll end up in a room with a perfectly good phone but no way to receive calls. Jeff Vinocur chip76@ix.netcom.com http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3768/ ------------------------------ From: miind@hotmail.cam (Sebastien Kingsley) Subject: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:04:02 GMT Organization: Xenon Technologies Group Ok, first of all, I KNOW what a PIC (primary interstate carrier) code is (10xxx/101xxx), and what they are used for, but my question is, how are they used in Canada? The reason I ask this is because it was my understanding that they WEREN'T used in Canada. But, I recently obtained a document from Industry Canada, that contains PIC codes for many Canadian RBOCs and other long distance carriers. Here are a few of them: BC Tel - 10323 Bell Canada - 10363 Fonorola - 10507 London Telecom - 10960 Likewise, it was my understanding that the use of the special 950 exchange WASN'T used in Canada. However, this same document lists 950-xxxx dialups for Canadian companies too!?! Here are a few of them: BC Tel - 950-5226 BC Tel - 950-5322 Fonorola - 950-5507 Canadian Tire - 950-5303 Vancouver TE - 950-5826 Could someone PLEASE enlighten me on this subject? If they aren't used here, then why do Canadian companies have them assigned to them? And if they ARE used here, are they used in the same manner as in the USA? Here in BC Tel country, dialing 10xxx will result in an intercept message. Dialing a 950 dialup results in a similar fashion. People at the telco tell me that they aren't used, but they cannot explain why BC Tel are assigned a 10xxx code, and a 950 dialup. TIA for any help on this puzzling subject. ------------------------------ From: samiller@BIX.com (Scott A. Miller) Subject: Re: MCI Cuts Off 2/3 of ISP's Phone Lines Date: 12 Nov 1997 14:07:34 GMT Organization: Galahad On Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:58:32 -0600 sewilco of TELECOM Digest wrote this re MCI Cuts Off 2/3 of ISP's Phone Lines: > At 7 p.m. Wednesday, MCI told US Internet that it could not handle > the volume and duration of Internet connections made by US Internet's > customers Does US Internet have the legal resources to test the "circumstances beyond control" contract boilerplate that MCI is undoubtedly using as a legal band-aid? Scott A. Miller samiller@bix.com samiller@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Confidential? 800 Numbers? was: Re: More on Mass Fiber Sabotage Date: 13 Nov 1997 01:49:46 -0500 Organization: mostly unorganized In The Old Bear writes: [lots of good stuff about apparent vandalism disrupting telco, cable tv, and other services in Boston area] [snip] > The two companies, whose cables share a fiber optic conduit, > offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and > conviction of the vandals. [snip] > The companies have set up a toll-free, confidential hot line > (800-298-9790, ext. 8120) for tips about the vandalism. State and ^^^ > local police from several communities are investigating. Confidential, (secret) and 1-800 do _not_ go hand in hand. danny 'then again, this is a telco we're talking about' burstein dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:27:28 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , Kevin Mocklin wrote: > First, I'd like to say thank you for the Digest and associated Web > pages, they are a great resource! > I am not currently a subscriber to the list, but a few years back I > followed for a while, and obtained a nice text list of area codes > which also included a breakdown for each area code similiar to the > following: > 314 Saint Louis and Columbia, (Eastern) Missouri > The file also had a bunch of other general information in it. I don't have a shell script to do this, but I have a couple of static area code lists on my web pages. < http://www.lincmad.com/cities.html > lists the area codes by state and then by number, with a detailed list of cities and towns in each code, including many upcoming splits. It includes the entire NANP. < http://www.lincmad.com/cityjump.html > is the same list, but has the added feature that you can add an area code or two-letter state/province abbreviation and jump to that area; e.g., "cityjump.html#415" or "cityjump.html#CA" I am currently testing this page, since I am a little bit concerned that some browsers may choke loading a page with over 300 "anchor points" in it. If you test out this page, please let me know if it works for you or if you have any problems. I ultimately plan to replace "cities.html" with this list, if everything works smoothly. < http://www.lincmad.com/locator.html > is a streamlined list ordered numerically by area code. It gives the state and a couple of major cities for each area code. Of course, you can then flip back to the other pages if you need a more detailed listing. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: robineh@ibm.net (Robin E. Haberman) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 97 21:03:06 Reply-To: robineh@ibm.net Subject: Books on Intelligent Networks The following is a list of books on Intelligent Networks, protocols, signaling and their evolution. Engineering Networks for Synchronization, CCS 7 and ISDN: Standards, Protocols, Planning, and Testing, by P.K. Bhatnagar, IEEE Telecommunications handbook Series, 488 pages, 1997, ISBN 0-7803-1158-2, $79.00 http://www.ieee.org/ Intelligent Network, by Jan Thorner, Artech House, July 1994, 200 pages, ISBN 0-89006-706-6, $40.00, Ph: 1-800-225-9977 (for orders) Intelligent Network, by Thomas Magedanz & Rudu Popescu-Zeletin, Internationl Thomson Computer Pree , 1996, 222 pages, ISBN 1-85032-293-7, $29.95 http://www.thomson.com./itcp.html Signaling in Telecommunication Network, by John G. Van Bosse, Wiley Series in Telecommunications & Signal Processing, $74.95 (ordering information unk) Signaling System 7, Travis Russell, McGraw Hill, 1995, 470 pages, ISBN 0070549915, $65.00 Telecommunications Protocols, by Trvis Russell, McGraw Hill, page 409, 1997, ISBN 0-07-057695-5, $ 44.95 http://wwwcomputing.mcgraw-hill.com The New Telecommunications, a political economy of network evolution. By Mansell, Robin. Sage Publications, London - Thousand Oaks - New Delhi, pages 260. 1993 from the table of contents page of New Telecommunications: Acknowledgements viii Introduction ix 1 The Biased Structuring of Telecommunication Networks 1 2 The Intelligent Network - Changing Technologies and Institutions 15 3 Early Network Transformations - the US Experience 46 4 Latecomers or Innovators? The European Policy Challenge 69 5 The Intelligent Network in the United Kingdom 110 6 The Intelligent Network in France 125 7 The Intelligent Network in Germany 136 8 The Intelligent Network in Sweden 148 9 Collaborating with Rivals in Telecommunication 159 10 Intelligence for Flexibility for Whom? 192 11 Challenges for Policy and Regulation 215 Glossary 233 Bibliography 239 Index 254 Ph: 1-805-499-9774 (for orders), http://www.sagepub.com Robin E. Haberman ------------------------------ From: jdfraser@nbtel.nb.ca (David Fraser) Subject: Re: New Brunswick, Canada Toll-Free Directories on Web Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:58:18 GMT Organization: NBTel Internet On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:13:18 EST, Nigel Allen wrote: > The New Brunswick Telephone Company recently announced that it will be > providing its own free directory database at > http://www.nbtel.nb.ca/powerpages As project manager for PowerPages, I had thought of posting an announcement about this to various newsgroups, but didn't want to seem to be *advertising*. However, now that someone else has mentioned it, I can chime in...:-) > The NBTel service appears to be more current than the Canada411 service. Yes it is. PowerPages is updated twice daily from our customer information system. We would have liked to do it more often, but that would taken some major reworking in said cust info sys. As well as white pages listings for residence and business, it has the blue pages listings for the provincial government (federal coming real soon now) and reverse directory. Extra listings that customers put in the phone book are also in PowerPages (e.g. fax, e-mail, web, etc.). Regards, Dave Fraser (jdfraser@nbtel.nb.ca) ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:52:25 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:38:38 EST, Eric William Burger wrote: > Especially in residential suburbs, Bell Atlantic is heavily relying on > SLC96's (compression). That's not good for modems, but ok for voice. > BA's not likely to "fix" a signficant cost reduction for themselves. This is not correct. Some SLC96s concentrate, that is they have fewer DS0s to the CO than they have lines subtending. The lines contend for the available bandwidth (DS0s). Others simply digitize the lines onto DS0s. (Both handle signalling, ringing, test, and other functions as well.) Compression would be to encode the signal to less than a DS0. It may be that there is a compression option on the SLC5, SLC96's successor, but I am not aware of it, and doubt that it would make economic sense in the US. I am not too familiar with the codecs used in SLC96, but I have never heard that they are any better or worse than those on CO line cards. It does use robbed bit signaling, but that is probably de minimus. There are, however, two ways a SLC96, or other digital loop gain device could degrade modem signals. The first, and probably the worse, is if an integrated SLC does not have its remote terminal properly configured to clock off the T1s. This will cause a lot of slips, and these are well known to trash data. The second is if the SLC is run in the 'universal" congfiguration. This adds another digital to analog conversion to the system and introduces some additional degradation. I hope this helps, but telco residential service folk would likely not understand a word of it. ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: 12 Nov 1997 16:51:03 -0500 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Eric William Burger wrote: > Forwarded message from Robert J. Perillo: >> Actually, the problem isn't ... This decision is seen as a marketing >> move to stimulate demand for ISDN lines, and assymetrical digital >> subscriber line service (ADSL) when it becomes available next year. >> It's really ... the limitations of Bell Atlantic's voice-grade >> circuits, he said. Standard voice lines operate at 300 to 3,000 hertz, >> but a 28.8 modem requires a range of 465 to 3,520 hertz, he said." > Especially in residential suburbs, Bell Atlantic is heavily relying on > SLC96's (compression). That's not good for modems, but ok for voice. > BA's not likely to "fix" a signficant cost reduction for themselves. Wrong. The SLC96 does not, as usually installed, "compress". The specific problem with many of the SLC96, SLC Series 5, and similar systems which Bell Atlantic inherited from NYNEX is that they were wired back-to-back instead of integrated. This leads to unnecessary digital-analog-digital conversions and is responsible for the high-frequency roll-off and distortion which limits modem performance through such units. This is basically just NYNEX idiocy which Bell Atlantic is trying to sleaze its way out of instead of actually tackling the underlying technical problem. Considering that there are NYNEX central offices whose main frames haven't been cleaned in at least 20 years, this is not surprising. Wiring SLC -- particularly larger units like the Series 5 -- back-to-back instead of integrated creates a huge cable mess and typically a *very* nasty splice, requires two units instead of one, which obviously costs twice as much, presents at least twice the possiblity for human error (and these are NYNEX installers we're talking about here -- likely the worst in the industry) and causes the performance problem for modems that we're discussing. It's been standard NYNEX engineering practice for years. Somehow, this fails to surprise me ... Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: czguris@interport.net (Christopher Zguris) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:01:20 GMT Reply-To: czguris@interport.net Tom wrote: > Here's a part that you might have missed ... One of my customers uses > a fax and modem on a pots line. The cable in the area is really old > and most pairs are suspect. He was complaining of modem drop outs. > I have a pretty keen ear for noisy lines, surprisingly :-) better than > most NYNEX repairmen, but knowing I needed better info than "just > sounds bad", I carry a "Side Kick" meter with me; it shows line > problems like leakage, cross, grounds, and noisy splices. > Well, as you can already guess, the NYNEX guy was less than impressed, > said that the line "sounded OK", and that he had never seen a meter > that could "Show Noise", but he changed the pair anyway -- to a WORSE > pair, and left. > A long argument insued with management, and finally they sent over a > repairman who found a good pair, and ended the story. I remember reading - in this digest, I believe - that the phone co. is _required_ to give you a line up to the spec in the tarriff. If a line is so bad that won't run fax, the line can't be up to spec. So, if a repairman simply says "it sounds good to me" can't you call them on the line _not_ being up to tarriff regardless? Christopher Zguris, czguris@interport.net http://www.users.interport.net/~czguris ------------------------------ From: Rich Courtney Subject: Re: CallerID Info Needed Date: 11 Nov 1997 15:35:47 GMT Organization: Norand Corporation Steve Pershing wrote in article ... > I am looking for information on what can be transmitted in the callerID > data burst, which is sent by the telephone switch between the first and > second rings. Just about any ASCII text! > The purpose is so that modem software can be programmed to act on the > incoming data to answer the phone in different ways, depending on the > data. Is the data to be generated by your own "switch"? Otherwise look at the originating number sent. IE: Only answer from list of employees only. > I know that there are bits indicating: "privacy, long-distance, > message-waiting", etc, but I am looking for a more-or-less complete list > of available data. Can you write computer code in C? I have a program that will generate data. > If anyone has this info or ideas where to find it, please drop me a > note. Check the Mitel Semiconductor web site. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1997 02:03:32 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. >> At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code >> 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works >> just like (700) 555-4141. I tried it here in upstate N.Y. and got a recording from my inter-LATA IXC. But they're not my intra-LATA toll carrier. My intra-LATA IXC is New Yo, er, Nyn, er, Bell whoever they are, who happen to have decent rates for intra-LATA toll with one of their calling plans. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #313 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 13 22:15:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA13961; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:15:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:15:21 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711140315.WAA13961@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #314 TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Nov 97 22:15:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 314 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 (Jurgen Morhofer) Re: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 (Romain Fournols) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Lee Winson) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Dan Seyb) New Book: MS Active Platform Sourcebook (John Burke) Re: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted (Thomas Peter Carr) Re: New York Times on Net Day (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: CallerID Info Needed (Rich Courtney) How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Peter Capek) Re: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS (Richard W. Museums) 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@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 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, 13 Nov 1997 06:01:45 +0100 From: Jurgen Morhofer Subject: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site: http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html kindly supplied by Jutta Degener. Since the introduction of Dual-Band GSM phones it makes sense for the first time to add DCS 1800/1900 operators too as the original purpose of this list was meant to be a roaming guide. (Changes in the list marked by "*") Date 11-08-1997. Country Operator name Network code Tel to customer service ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------- Albania AMC 276 01 Andorra STA-Mobiland 213 03 Int + 376 824 115 Argentina Armenia Armentel Australia Optus 505 02 Int + 61 2 9342 6000 Telecom/Telstra 505 01 Int + 61 18 01 8287 Vodafone 505 03 Int + 61 2 9415 7236 Austria Mobilkom Austria 232 01 Int + 43 664 1661 max.mobil. 232 03 Int + 43 676 2000 * Connect Austria Int + 43 1 58187300 Azerbaidjan Azercell 400 01 Int + 994 12 98 28 23 * JV Bakcell Bahrain Batelco 426 01 Int + 973 885557 Bangladesh Grameen Phone Ltd ??? ?? * TM International Belgium Proximus 206 01 Int + 32 2205 4912 Mobistar 206 10 Bosnia Cronet 218 01 PTT Bosnia 218 19 Botswana Brunei DSTCom 528 11 Jabatan Telekom 528 01 Bulgaria Citron 284 01 Int + 359 88 500031 Burkina Faso OnaTel Canada * Microcell 302 37 Cambodia CamGSM Cameroon PTT Cameroon Cellnet 624 01 Chile China Guangdong MCC 460 00 Beijing Wireless China Unicom 460 01 Zhuhai Comms DGT MPT Jiaxing PTT Tjianjin Toll Congo African Telecoms Croatia HR Cronet 219 01 Int + 385 14550772 Cyprus CYTA 280 01 Int + 357 2 310588 Czech Rep. Eurotel Praha 230 02 Int + 42 2 6701 6701 Radio Mobil 230 01 Int + 42 603 603 603 Denmark Sonofon 238 02 Int + 45 8020 2100 Tele Danmark Mobil 238 01 Int + 45 8020 2020 Egypt * Arento 602 01 Estonia EMT 248 01 Int + 372 6 397130 Radiolinja Eesti 248 02 Int + 372 6 399966 Ritabell Ethiopia ETA 636 01 Fiji Vodafone 542 01 Int + 679 312000 Finland Radiolinja 244 05 Int + 358 800 95050 Telecom 244 91 Int + 358 800 17000 Alands Mobil 244 05 Telivo Ltd. * Finnet 244 09 Int + 358 800 94000 France Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 * Bouygues Telekom 208 20 Fr.Polynesia Tikiphone 547 20 Fr.W.Indies Ameris 340 01 Georgia Superphone Geocell 282 01 Magticom 282 02 Germany D1, DeTeMobil 262 01 Int + 49 511 288 0171 D2, Mannesmann 262 02 Int + 49 172 1212 Ghana Franci Walker Ltd ScanCom 620 01 Gibraltar GibTel 266 01 Int + 350 58 102 000 G Britain Cellnet 234 10 Int + 44 753 504548 Vodafone 234 15 Int + 44 836 1191 Jersey Telecom 234 50 Int + 44 1534 882 512 Guernsey Telecom 234 55 Manx Telecom 234 58 Int + 44 1624 636613 Greece Panafon 202 05 Int + 30 94 400 122 STET 202 10 Int + 30 93 333 333 Guinea Int'l Wireless Spacetel * Sotelgui Hong Kong HK Hutchison 454 04 SmarTone 454 06 Int + 852 2880 2688 Telecom CSL 454 00 Int + 852 2888 1010 Hungary Pannon GSM 216 01 Int + 36 1 270 4120 Westel 900 216 30 Int + 36 30 303 100 Iceland Post & Simi 274 01 Int + 354 800 6330 India Airtel 404 10 Int + 91 10 012345 Essar 404 11 Int + 91 11 098110 Maxtouch 404 20 BPL Mobile 404 21 Command 404 30 Mobilenet 404 31 Skycell 404 40 Int + 91 44 8222939 RPG MAA 404 41 Usha Martin Modi Telstra Sterling Cellular Mobile Telecom Airtouch BPL USWest Koshiki Bharti Telenet Birla Comm Cellular Comms TATA Escotel JT Mobiles Indonesia TELKOMSEL 510 10 Int=A0+ 62 21 8282811 PT Satelit Palapa 510 01 Int + 62 21 533 1881 PT Kartika Excelcom 510 11 Iraq Iraq Telecom 418 ?? Iran T.C.I. 432 11 Int + 98 2 18706341 Celcom Kish Free Zone Ireland Eircell 272 01 Int + 353 42 38888 Digifone 272 02 Int + 353 61 203 501 Italy Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Ivory Coast Ivoiris 612 03 Int + 225 23 90 00 Comstar 612 01 Int + 225 21 51 51 * Loteny Telecom 612 05 Int + 225 32 32 32 Japan Jordan JMTS 416 01 Kenya Kenya Telecom Kuwait MTCNet 419 02 Int + 965 484 2000 La Reunion SRR 647 10 Laos Lao Shinawatra 457 01 Latvia LMT 247 01 Int + 371 256 2191 Lebanon Libancell 415 03 Cellis 415 01 Lesotho Vodacom 651 01 Liechtenstein Natel-D 228 01 Lithuania Omnitel 246 01 Bite GSM 246 02 Int + 370 2 232323 Luxembourg P&T LUXGSM 270 01 Int + 352 4088 7088 Lybia Orbit Macao CTM 455 01 Int + 853 8913912 Macedonia PTT Makedonija 294 01 Madagascar Sacel * Madacom Malawi TNL 650 01 Malaysia Celcom 502 19 Maxis 502 12 Malta Telecell 278 01 Marocco O.N.P.T. 604 01 Int + 212 220 2828 Mauritius Cellplus 617 01 Int + 230 4335100 Monaco Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Office des Telephones Mongolia MobiCom Mozambique Telecom de Mocambique Namibia MTC 649 01 Int + 264 81 121212 Netherlands PTT Netherlands 204 08 Int + 31 6 0106 Libertel 204 04 Int + 31 6 54 500100 New Caledonia Mobilis 546 01 New Zealand Bell South 530 01 Int + 64 9 357 5100 Nigeria EMIS Norway NetCom 242 02 Int + 47 92 00 01 68 TeleNor Mobil 242 01 Int + 47 22 78 15 00 Oman General Telecoms 422 02 Pakistan Mobilink 410 01 Int + 92 51 273971-7 Papua * Pacific 310 01 Philippines Globe Telecom 515 02 Int + 63 2 813 7720 Islacom 515 01 Int + 63 2 813 8618 Poland Plus GSM 260 01 Int + 48 22 607 16 01 ERA GSM 260 02 Portugal Telecel 268 01 Int + 351 931 1212 TMN 268 06 Int + 351 1 791 4474 Qatar Q-Net 427 01 Int +974-325333/400620 Romania MobiFon 226 01 Int + 40013022222 MobilRom 226 10 Int + 40012033333 Russia Mobile Tele... Moscow 250 01 Int + 7 095 915-7734 United Telecom Moscow NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02 Int + 7 812 528 4747 Dontelekom 250 ?? KB Impuls 250 ?? * JSC Siberian Cellular 250 ?? San Marino Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 SaudiArabia Al Jawal 420 01 EAE 420 07 Senegal Sonatel 608 01 Seychelles SEZ SEYCEL 633 01 Serbia Singapore Singapore Telecom 525 01 Int + 65 738 0123 MobileOne 525 03 Slovak Rep Eurotel 231 02 Int + 421=20903 903 903 Globtel 231 01 Int + 421 905 905 905 Slovenia Mobitel 293 41 Int + 386 61 131 30 33 South Africa MTN 655 10 Int + 27 11 301 6000 Vodacom 655 01 Int + 27 82 111 Sri Lanka MTN Networks Pvt Ltd 413 02 Spain Airtel 214 01 Int + 34 07 123000 Telefonica Spain 214 07 Int + 34 09 100909 Sudan * Mobitel 634 01 Swaziland Sweden Comviq 240 07 Int + 46 586 686 10 Europolitan 240 08 Int + 46 708 22 22 22 Telia 240 01 Int + 46 771 91 03 50 Switzerland PTT Switzerland 228 01 Int + 41 46 05 64 64 Syria SYR MOBILE 417 09 Taiwan LDTA 466 92 Int + 886 2 321 1962 * Mobitai * TransAsia Tanzania Tritel 640 01 Thailand TH AIS GSM 520 01 Int + 66 2 299 6440 Total Access Comms 520 18 Tunisia Tunisian PTT Turkey Telsim 286 02 Int + 90 212 288 7850 Turkcell 286 01 Int + 90 800 211 0211 UAE UAE ETISALAT-G1 424 01 UAE ETISALAT-G2 424 02 Int + 971 4004 101 Uganda Celtel Cellular 641 01 Ukraine Mobile comms 255 01 Golden Telecom 255 05 Radio Systems Kyivstar JSC USA * Bell South 310 15 * Sprint Spectrum 310 02 * Voice Stream 310 26 * Aerial Comms. 310 31 * Omnipoint 310 16 * Powertel 310 27 * Wireless 2000 310 11 Uzbekistan * Daewoo GSM 434 04 * Coscom 434 05 Vatican Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Vietnam MTSC 452 01 DGPT 452 02 Yugoslavia * Mobile Telekom 220 01 Pro Monte Zaire African Telecom Net Zimbabwe NET*ONE 648 01 * Telecel Zimbabwe ------------------------------ From: Romain Fournols Subject: RE: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:48:03 -0000 Dear Jurgen, Please note some mistakes in your list: Ivory Coast Ivoiris 612 03 Int + 225 23 90 00 Comstar 612 01 Int + 225 21 51 51 * Loteny Telecom 612 05 Int + 225 32 32 32 The network name of Loteny is Telecel. Customer care phone numbers: Belgium - Mobistar is +32 95 95 95 00 Lebanon - Cellis is +961 3 391 111 Fr.W.Indies Ameris is +590 93 27 47 Regards, Romain FOURNOLS Societe Ivoirienne de mobiles 11 BP 202, Abidjan 11, Cote d'Ivoire TEL (+225) 23 90 15 / GSM (+225) 07 90 15 FAX (+225) 23 90 11 Email : romain.fournols@fcr.france-telecom.fr ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 14 Nov 1997 00:14:24 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Well, this article boiled down to one key sentence: > So will Internet telephony. The capability of the Internet to carry > voice phone calls is limited now but likely to improve dramatically in > the near term. The author did not explain how this "capability" will improve. IMHO, the Internet can be described in terms of "store and forward", not direct connect. That is, your message is stored by your ISP, then packaged and routed. This can appear to be instantaneous, or as Dave Barry said, at the speed of the Division of Motor Vehicles. That won't work in voice communication. Also, the article said nothing about how individuals will connect to the Internet in the first place, and how ISPs will connect to each other. I don't see any substitute for providing the local loop plant and the basic switching infrastructure to support it. (And IMHO the problem in establishing local competition is not the existing Bell companies, but rather the demands of the new companies to be exempt in paying for the massive RBOC infrastructure, both hardware and software*.) For all the brave talk the new carriers claim, I really question if they'll have the capacity and business ability to truly handle EVERYTHING a telephone company must deal with. Will a new company want its service reps spending hours chasing down bad debts from customers the PUCs order them to have? To spend hours on the phone with confused Aunt Mabel over a 23c toll charge? Some of this talk, frankly, sounds to me like inexperienced computer engineers who have yet to experience the challenges of both maintaining a service network, under fire, in the face of changing conditions. Building a network on your own terms is relatively easy compared to running it smoothly. * My analogy to competition is this: Suppose you own a 7-11 convenience store. They'll tell you that a competitor is to open next door to you. You are told to let the new store use your driveway and parking lot. You are still responsible to light, maintain, and shovel snow from this parking lot. The new store doesn't have to worry about this, you do. Is this truly fair competition? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thoughts on reading the original article was that the author was saying Internet would eventually absorb most or all of the long distance side of the telecom business. That is, after all, the most profitable part of it. Yes, there would still be the local loops, but companies like AT&T -- to name just an example -- would suffer financially quite a bit after the Internet as a voice carrier comes into wide use. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Reply-To: d.seyb@telesciences.com Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:15:27 -0500 From: Dan Seyb > In the meantime, please have a talk with your phone company. > Explain the Internet Way to them. If you explain it very slowly then > they might get it just before they go out of business.] This of course assumes you WANT your local phone monopoly to survive :) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am pretty sure the local monopoly will stay intact, even if not always a monopoly. Where the damage will be most obvious is in the long distance arena. I still say that some day in the future we are going to see news headlines saying AT&T has filed bankruptcy, and the pitiful little shell which remains is going out of business. You say that is unthinkable? Well, please recall that in the 1930-60 era no one ever dreamed Western Union would be virtually defunct by 1990. Most of us here, myself included, are too young to remember the *real* glory days of Western Union, when the company's name was on everyone's lips for one reason or another almost every day. By the time I was in my early twenties, WUTCO was already on a downward spiral. To their credit, like AT&T, they had **so much money** and so many resources they just kept holding on another quarter-century or so before finally dying. May I respectfully suggest that AT&T's downward spiral has begun ... their money, their name and their resources will keep them on the scene several more years before they finally reach the end. Just as WUTCO's demise came about in large part because it did not occur to them that everyone could be their own telegrapher; I suggest AT&T still refuses to believe that every ISP around today can be a long distance telephone company, and an inexpensive one at that. Now, no one is going to go around digging up the streets and laying cable as Bell did early this century and since they still own the local loop they'll be pretty safe even if not as complacent as in the past. No, it is AT&T/Sprint/MCI I fear for over the next couple decades as Internet phone becomes more and more common. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Burke Subject: New Book: MS Active Platform Sourcebook Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:56:31 -0500 Organization: Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions Reply-To: jcburke@bellatlantic.net Wiley Computer Publishing has just published the book "Microsoft Active Platfrom Sourcebook", which is a good introduction to all of the Active Platform elements. It includes a chapter on DCOM. You can find more information, the Table of Contents, and an excerpt at: http://www.smartbooks.com/bw711msactvplatfm.htm I hope this is helpful. John Burke ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted From: carr@tbolt.si.com (Thomas Peter Carr) Date: 13 Nov 97 17:28:04 GMT Organization: Smiths Industries The web page that I have been using to get this information is at: http://www.thedirectory.org/pref/ I can't remember where I got the link from, but it seems to be fairly up to date on the "splits". Thomas Peter Carr | I have a dream, ... carr_tom@si.com (Internet) | M L King Jr 08/28/63 616-241-8846 / 616-241-7533 FAX (Telephone) | Smiths Industries, MS 214; 4141 Eastern Avenue SE; Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: New York Times on Net Day Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:02:02 +-5-30 Derek Uttley wrote: > When there is a power failure, or an equipment failure, one may have to > rely on traditional methods. [i.e. pen and paper instead of computers, no matter how good your computer-aided english language learning experience; dave hughes' original comment elided] Perhaps Dave's students will write slowly in unclear block letters. But how good is _your_ italic caligraphy, anyway? I haven't seen too many people who can write anywhere near as beautifully as people did a century ago. but then, in 19th century London or Paris, there were several postal deliveries _daily_, and you did write a lot by hand. That's less necessary now, so you write less - or less carefully - and it looks worse. Similarly, handwriting will undoubtedly be even less useful a few decades from now, and under forced conditions people's writing will look even worse. If that sounds bad, you should advocate caligraphic italics today... I do, but i don' t have the time to practise, so there. rishab [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When people today sometimes complain that students are not learning certain skills as in the past because some computer process has taken over the task instead, a common response by others is to say well, so what. These days we do not learn lots of the skills taught in the past because they are obsolete. Quite often the business of 'shoeing' horses is given as an example. Since we seldom have any need for horses these days in large urban areas, there is no reason to teach the trade of horseshoeing. All that is very fine, but my concern is that if no one knows how to do certain mathematical processes any longer because the computer now does all that for us, then what happens when some charlatan comes along and deliberatly corrupts the computer for whatver agenda of his own? Then what? Now there is no one left to prove whatever the computer is telling us is wrong because *no one knows it is wrong*. I see some very grave dangers in allowing the use of computers and calculators in school for anything other than helpful tools *once the lessons have been learned.* I certainly would not ban their use, but I would control their use. The students would learn to write, learn at least arithmetic if not some degree of higher mathematics. They would learn to build their vocabulary, how to spell and how to identify the way in which words are constructed and sentences are created. Then when I was assured the students were capable of thinking and reasoning on their own I would present them with the computer and carefully explain the computer's purpose: it is to be an extension of their brain; a tool to help them process their thoughts and information presented to them more rapidly and effeciently. An extension of their brain, not a replacement for it. Unfortunatly we seem to be headed in this latter direction. The risk involved in leaving the computer in charge of everything that we used to have to spend our time thinking about is that the computer has no way of knowing what is right and what is wrong. It accepts whatever it is told. If it is told that two plus two equals five it goes quite merrily on its way and parrots that answer each time it is asked. You or I upon hearing such a thing would scream loudly and say STOP! THAT IS WRONG! So what happens a century from now when the people on Earth at that time no longer know how to think for themselves because the computer does all of it for them? If you think there won't be a computer programmer or two along the way who deliberatly screws things up just for a big laugh or some other malicious reasons you are sadly mistaken. Maybe computers, like alcohol and cigarettes ought to be age-restricted to adults; people who are old enough they have been forced to think and use their brains at least a few times in their lives. Is there anything more pathetic than to go into an office full of people where the computer happens to be 'down' at the moment and all of them are just sitting there in a trance; no idea how to complete any of their work; no idea how to find answers to anything. Very, very sad. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rich Courtney Subject: Re: CallerID Info Needed Date: 12 Nov 1997 23:19:33 GMT Organization: Norand Corporation The information that your modem presents may not contain the raw data sent by your telco. The fields normally sent include: date,time,number,name of caller. There are certain flag bytes that tell if private info is blocked. Most modem users will look at the number of caller and determine if to answer or not for security. If you need further info contact me. I will not have info on your modem so try their website first. I do have a program to generate callerid tones (scratchy data bursts) playable as a SoundBlaster WAV file. You may also check: http:www.semicon.mitel.com and look for app notes on the MT8841 chip. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1997 23:32:29 EST From: (Peter Capek) Subject: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? I recently tried using 1-700-555-4141 to determine the long distance company associated with a phone line, but the number seems to be invalid. The LEC's operator supervisor couldn't explain why -- she thought it should work -- but referred me to the business office. Did I miss something? Has this capability gone away or become obsolete, perhaps as side effect of local deregulation? Peter Capek [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It should work; it is the number of record for that purpose on a national basis. I cannot say why it does not but I can tell you a work-around that you might try. On the line in question just dial 00 (double zero) and let it time out to a live operator. Ask her what company she with. Ask her what is the number for the business office of that company. That should get you a reliable answer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:06:00 GMT kk@sci.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen +358 40 55555 08) wrote: > At the moment, the most inexpensive subscriptions for a mobile phone > cost 50 mk (10 USD) to open and require 20 mk (4 USD) as the monthly > fee. Is that flat-rate for unlimited usage? If not, what's the per-minute airtime usage charge? Incoming/Outgoing? -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 11 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ From: Richard W. Museums Subject: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:30:56 -0800 Organization: Erol's Internet Services I saw that Metropolitan Fiber System is laying colored tubes along the West bound side of RT 87 in Rockland, does this mean Fiber is going to the suburbs now too? Richard ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #314 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Nov 14 21:39:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA08673; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:39:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:39:36 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711150239.VAA08673@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #315 TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Nov 97 21:38:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 315 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Craig Milo Rogers) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Roger Conlin) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Dave Stott) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Tony Pelliccio) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Scott A. Miller) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (David Esan) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Bill Sohl) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Garrett Wollman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Thomas A. Horsley) 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@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 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: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:24:10 PST From: Craig Milo Rogers Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System In article , Lee Winson wrote: >> So will Internet telephony. The capability of the Internet to carry >> voice phone calls is limited now but likely to improve dramatically in >> the near term. > The author did not explain how this "capability" will improve. > IMHO, the Internet can be described in terms of "store and forward", > not direct connect. That is, your message is stored by your ISP, then > packaged and routed. This can appear to be instantaneous, or as Dave > Barry said, at the speed of the Division of Motor Vehicles. That won't > work in voice communication. The term "store-and-forward" carries baggage. The Internet's predecessor, the ARPANet, was described as "packet-switched" to differentiate it from earlier store-and-forward text messaging systems (uh, TWX?). The discriminating factors are: the ARPANet forwarded parts of messages (packets) instead of entire user-level messages, it forwarded them faster, and it didn't store copies in the intermediary switching nodes for an appreciable time. Packet-switched telephony research has been going on since before the Internet itself was created. There have been some false starts, in part because the complexity of the problem being addressed (ranging from compressed voice through HDTV), and in part because demand for service, among researchers alone, usually surpassed the available bandwidth. The solutions under review involve separating Internet traffic and reserving resources (link bandwidth, CPU bandwidth, buffer space) for stream traffic, such as Internet telephony. In some ways, these are the same issues that ATM addresses, but Internet streams use Internet packets rather than ATM cells as the low-level unit of traffic. Because of the (relatively) high resource consumption of Internet voice (much less video!) and the particular complexity (and volatility!) of the stream reservation and processing procedures, economics more-or-less dictated that Internet telephony was not supported by most Internet backbones; in particular, the special software needed *for optimal operation* simply hasn't been available on popular IP routers. In spite of these constraints, the ever-increasing capacity of the Internet backbones and the ever-increasing amounts of non-voice traffic lead to the assertion that the marginal cost for carrying voice-grade traffic on the Internet backbones will be relatively small (assuming that the special resource reservation and routing protocols are stable). At this point, given the present demonstrated demand for service, it will be in the economic interests of the IP switch manufacturers and backbone carriers to support Internet telephony. When this economic watershed will take place has always been a matter of speculation ... most of which has been disproven by time. Nonetheless, it still seems imminent. > Also, the article said nothing about how individuals will connect to the > Internet in the first place, and how ISPs will connect to each other. > I don't see any substitute for providing the local loop plant and the > basic switching infrastructure to support it. (And IMHO the problem in > establishing local competition is not the existing Bell companies, but > rather the demands of the new companies to be exempt in paying for the > massive RBOC infrastructure, both hardware and software*.) Easy problem first: the long-distance switching fabric will be paid for by the Internet backbone carriers. Schools, offices, and some factories are already being rewired for Internet connections. Unidirectional sound is standard on PCs now. True bidirectional sound hardware and real-time operating system support has been lagging, but newer hardware (e.g, Ensoniq AudioPCI) and software {uh, WindowsNT :-} have (or are promised to have) the necessary features. The direct connection of digital cellphone systems to the Internet is not technologically unreasonable. Cellphones with data support are now (or soon to be ) available, I believe. Under this model, cellphone systems could offer portable Internet "phone numbers" (eg: ) for voice calls to/from the Internet switching backbone. SS7 and the FCC portability database become irrelevant, their functions absorbed by DNS and maybe LDAP. Internet email, paging, and fax services to cellphone terminals follow in the same fashion. Home connectivity and rural connectivity remain big problems. ISDN, two-way cable, and the various DSL technologies *might* provide the necessary infrastructure, but, as you point out, it's not clear who wants to pay for them. If the US repeats the scandinavian experience, the digital cellphone system alone could be sufficient to handle most home Internet telephone in urban areas. Ultimately, the market foundation may rest upon something too sleazy to be included in current projections prepared for public policy. Consider the potential market for 976 services translated to interactive VR HDTV ... sin sells, and sin without local regulation sells very well indeed. > For all the brave talk the new carriers claim, I really question if > they'll have the capacity and business ability to truly handle > EVERYTHING a telephone company must deal with. Will a new company > want its service reps spending hours chasing down bad debts from > customers the PUCs order them to have? To spend hours on the phone > with confused Aunt Mabel over a 23c toll charge? The pager business and the long-distance telephone business, and, to some extent, the Internet service providers, have migrated to a two-tier model. There is an under-stratum of connectivity companies that own the transmission facilities and switches, and an overburden of marketing companies that sell access and service. The connectivity companies focus on running reliable transport services. The marketing companies focus on salespeople and service reps. The former are objects of corporate acquisition, while the latter have a higher tendency to collapse; caveat emptor. > Some of this talk, frankly, sounds to me like inexperienced computer > engineers who have yet to experience the challenges of both > maintaining a service network, under fire, in the face of changing > conditions. Building a network on your own terms is relatively easy > compared to running it smoothly. Another factor is that telephone deregulation has encouraged great reductions in expectations for the service quality of the telephone infrastructure. ;-) I can assure you that Internet ISP and backbone engineers do, indeed, experience the challenges to which you allude. > * My analogy to competition is this: Suppose you own a 7-11 convenience > store. They'll tell you that a competitor is to open next door to you. > You are told to let the new store use your driveway and parking lot. You > are still responsible to light, maintain, and shovel snow from this > parking lot. The new store doesn't have to worry about this, you do. > Is this truly fair competition? No, but that's not the right analogy. :-) Instead, consider a "typical" small-town shopping area: narrow streets, small stores, needless exposure to the weather while shopping, high city taxes to support crumbling infrastructures. Suddenly, a Net*Mart appears just outside the town boundaries. Good parking, wide selection, air conditioning, no city taxes ... that's the brave new world we're building! Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ From: roger.conlin@erols.com (Roger Conlin) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 00:34:42 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: roger.conlin@erols.com Monty Solomon wrote: > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:38:25 -0800 (PST) > From: Phil Agre > Subject: the Internet will swallow the phone system > [Forwarded by permission. Gary's right: the Internet's going to > swallow the phone system. Informed people disagree mightily about > whether the Internet can provide the same functionality as the phone > system for much cheaper, but that's not really the point. The point > is that connection- oriented voice is just one tiny specialized case > of the vast range of possible functionalities that the Internet can > provide. It won't be easy, since the Internet architects will have to > get quality-of-service differentiation, a reservation protocol, and a > decentralized bandwidth market all going at the same time. The people > who think they can make this work, like David Clark at MIT (architect) > and Jeff McKie-Mason at Michigan (economist) etc etc, are very smart, > however, so just give them a few years. In the meantime, please have > a talk with your phone company. Explain the Internet Way to them. If > you explain it very slowly then they might get it just before they go > out of business.] Very amusing. After you wake from this fantasy, remind yourself who it is that carries the Internet. Voice traffic will change, merge, etc., but let's not spout off about phone companies going out of business because of the Net. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:56:00 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System In Telecom Digest #314, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)wrote: > Also, the article said nothing about how individuals will connect to the > Internet in the first place, and how ISPs will connect to each other. > I don't see any substitute for providing the local loop plant and the > basic switching infrastructure to support it. The BOC's loop is one way for consumers and businesses to connect to their ISPs, but there are others: wireless and microwave, for instance, are in use today. WinStar has an entire line of microwave-based services for high-speed data connections that use WinStar links from the customer premises to WinStar switches. They never hit the BOC network unless they also have WinStar local service, which means interconnection to the PSTN at the "out" side of the WinStar switch. ISPs will connect to each other the same way they do today - through high-speed lines supplied by internet backbone providers. That may or may not include the BOCs; there are plenty of other options available. > (And IMHO the problem in establishing local competition is not the existing > Bell companies, but rather the demands of the new companies to be exempt > in paying for the massive RBOC infrastructure, both hardware and software*.) That's certainly one opinion. Others feel that telephone customers have had no choice in where their money went prior to today, and the dollars they have invested in telephone service (because all dollars are ultimately supplied by the customers) is a "public investment" in a private company. If Ford had a government protected monopoly on automobile sales in the US, what kind of car would _you_ drive? When GM came to town, Ford could argue that the existing roads should be used exclusively for Fords, since only Fords had been used on them up to now. Should GM build all new roads? Or should they be allowed to use the roads that were built for Fords? Would it matter if the roads had been built _by_ Ford? Would GM then have to build new roads for their cars? > For all the brave talk the new carriers claim, I really question if > they'll have the capacity and business ability to truly handle > EVERYTHING a telephone company must deal with. Some will, some won't. Some of the ones that don't have those skills in-house will contract with people who do have the skills and have opened up new companies to serve the industry. In the early days of any competitive industry you find newcomers with more money than know-how, but if they pay attention to basic rules of business, they can become real players. Just ask Bernie Ebbers over at WorldCom. > Will a new company want its service reps spending hours chasing down > bad debts from customers the PUCs order them to have? To spend hours > on the phone with confused Aunt Mabel over a 23c toll charge? Probably not. But do the BOCs like that either? (Which, if I guess correctly, is the underlying point here.) From experience working with the Collections group at U S WEST, I can say that that company, at least, would much prefer that people paid their bills on time. As for the "hours on the phone" over "a 23c toll charge," some companies will accept that their employees' time is worth more than that and write the charge off, just as U S WEST does. > Some of this talk, frankly, sounds to me like inexperienced computer > engineers who have yet to experience the challenges of both > maintaining a service network, under fire, in the face of changing > conditions. Building a network on your own terms is relatively easy > compared to running it smoothly. A key point that investors look at in determining whether or not to fund a startup. Not many people are wealthy enough to start their own phone company, so if the experience running a network isn't there, neither will the funds be there. That's exactly the value of a market driven economy - better ideas drive out poor ones. > * My analogy to competition is this: Suppose you own a 7-11 convenience > store. They'll tell you that a competitor is to open next door to you. > You are told to let the new store use your driveway and parking lot. You > are still responsible to light, maintain, and shovel snow from this > parking lot. The new store doesn't have to worry about this, you do. > Is this truly fair competition? No, it isn't. That said, it _is_ the way the government has decreed that competition shall evolve, and we can either sit and moan about it, get new people elected to change the law, or take the actions that best suit our needs to make the most of a bad situation. If I ran your 7-11, I'd do those things necessary to make me more competitive than my new neighbor and keep some customers coming in my door. The fact is, you're store is going to lose business (as are the BOCs). That fact should not be in question, and nobody ought to waste their time discussing it. Both the 7-11 and the BOCs would be better served to discuss which customers they are willing to lose, and how they will keep the ones they aren't willing to lose. It also raises an interesting question - if your store goes broke, where will people park to shop at the new store? By extension, if the BOCs go broke (and I agree with Pat that they won't) who will maintain their OSP? Any business that depends on it's competitor(s) for its products lives a very frightening existance. (Imagine if Ford dealers had to compete with the factory to sell cars.) The BOCs will survive, but they won't look the same in ten years. My guess is that they will have a network arm which sells access and switching services to all comers on non-preferential terms, and a marketing arm which will purchase products from the network arm at non-preferential prices. This is what Rochester telephone did, and now Frontier is the fifth largest LD company in the US. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: tonypo@ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:00:19 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: > Now, no one is going to go around digging up the streets and laying > cable as Bell did early this century and since they still own the > local loop they'll be pretty safe even if not as complacent as in > the past. No, it is AT&T/Sprint/MCI I fear for over the next couple > decades as Internet phone becomes more and more common. PAT] Actually I believe that Sprint and MCI will survive since they carry a pretty big chunk of the Internets backbone traffic. AT&T goofed when it came to that. Tony ------------------------------ From: samiller@BIX.com (Scott A. Miller) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 14 Nov 1997 13:48:28 GMT Organization: Galahad On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:24:42 -0500 Monty Solomon of TELECOM Digest wrote this re The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System: > please have a talk with your phone company. Explain the Internet > Way to them. If you explain it very slowly then they might get it > just before they go out of business. Please explain why in the H*** I would want to save my phone company from going out of business. Think of it as evolution in action ;>) Scott A. Miller samiller@bix.com samiller@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ From: David Esan Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 14 Nov 1997 15:19:14 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am pretty sure the local monopoly > will stay intact, even if not always a monopoly. Where the damage will > be most obvious is in the long distance arena. I still say that some > day in the future we are going to see news headlines saying AT&T has > filed bankruptcy, and the pitiful little shell which remains is going > out of business. Perhaps I don't understand the Internet well enough, but aren't the various existing Long Distance companies supplying the lines that connect the various backbone sites? And aren't they getting paid for that? True the number of Long Distance calls using AT&T as its carrier will decrease, but the number on the various ISP will increase. Volume over the network will not be affected. Profits for AT&T will be reduced because they will not be able to soak the poor consumer as they have in the past, but they will still make profits leasing lines to the ISPs, who will pass the costs on to the poor consumers who will still get shafted. Wasn't the strategy of WorldCom in buying MCI to increase their internet participaton? Won't they need lines to do that? Isn't there a profit in owning the lines? ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:32:43 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thoughts on reading the original > article was that the author was saying Internet would eventually > absorb most or all of the long distance side of the telecom business. > That is, after all, the most profitable part of it. Yes, there would > still be the local loops, but companies like AT&T -- to name just an > example -- would suffer financially quite a bit after the Internet as > a voice carrier comes into wide use. PAT] The problem today and for the forseable future is that internet phone is not reliable. As a business user, I can not afford the hit or miss aspect of internet phone when dealing with clients. I suspect I-phone will augment recreational/family voice services, but I see little liklihood that it will kill AT&T, MCI, etc. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 13 Nov 1997 23:37:45 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Lee Winson wrote: > The author did not explain how this "capability" will improve. Pity. That's OK, I can. Point 1: As the original article described (which is backed up in many industry publications), the market for data service is growing much faster than the demand for voice. In fact, the total capacity of the data networks is expected to cross over that of the voice networks in the not-too-distance future. The practical upshot of this is that the available bandwidth will be effectively limited only by the hardware and software technology inside the networks. Technology is now being developed and deployed which will give service provides the opportunity to provide substantially different levels of service to different customers, thus providing a market mechanism where increased bandwidth can be paid for as demand warrants. Point 2: Statistical multiplexing, which arises out of the observation that not everybody wants to talk at once, applies to data networks as well -- indeed, it is even more effective, since a packet transmission dedicates a far smaller fraction of the total transmission resource than a telephone circuit represents. To translate this into the circuit domain, it's as if you and I could share the telephone line by allowing me to say something whenever you take a breath. Point 3: There are essentially three types of data services: elastic, adaptive, and isochronous. Elastic services are insensitive to short-term delays in the network; they will use up as much bandwidth is available, but in the presence of other users will back off until an equilibrium is reached where each user (connection, really) shares the channel equally. (Not quite true; as I mentioned above, there are things service providers can do to make some users more equal than others.) Isochronous services are at the exact opposite end of the spectrum: they depend on traffic reliably getting through the network at a constant rate, with packets arriving neither too soon nor too late. For a very long time, telephony-type applications were thought to fall into this category, but it's now understood by networking researchers that they are, in actuality, adaptive services, the third major type. An adaptive service is one which can operate under widely differing network conditions, and provides some amount of buffering at the receiving end which can be adjusted to provide as good a service as the delays in the network allow. The prototypical ``Internet Telephony'' application, Van Jacobson's research vehicle `vat', was the first major application to develop this service model. Just what the bounds of acceptable performance are for the specific application of telephony is an open research question, although it clearly depends to a great deal on the nature of the users (consider the potential differences between computer geeks, CEOs, tightwads, and Soccer Moms). Last I heard, a group called the ``Internet Telephony Consortium'' was sponsoring research on actual human subjects to help determine what these parameters are. (This actually provides sort of a ``poor man's admission control'' -- once the quality degrades past the level of acceptability, people will become discouraged and stop, thus removing their traffic from the network.) Point 4: These three types of services interact in an interesting way. Specifically, services which inject their data into the network at a constant rate, or effectively so, will always win a battle for bandwidth against elastic services like TCP. This has two salutary benefits: first, and most immediately, people will actually be able to use the service, at least so long as the network isn't totally saturated. Second, in the long run, users will eventually notice that their network performance is getting sluggish, at which point some fraction of them will purchase a higher level of service, again providing an additional economic incentive to expand the capacity of the network. > Also, the article said nothing about how individuals will connect to the > Internet in the first place Same way they do now: either by one of the wires going into their home, or over radio waves. The technology is there to get far more than enough bandwidth with either mechanism (the cable company already has a 3 Gbit/s pipe into my home, which they currently use to distibute analog video, how passe). 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 ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 00:43:11 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On 14 Nov 1997 00:14:24 GMT, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Lee Winson: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thoughts on reading the original > article was that the author was saying Internet would eventually > absorb most or all of the long distance side of the telecom business. > That is, after all, the most profitable part of it. Yes, there would > still be the local loops, but companies like AT&T -- to name just an > example -- would suffer financially quite a bit after the Internet as > a voice carrier comes into wide use. PAT] Long distance *has* been the most profitable part of telecom in the past, but given the level of competition it is no longer the most profitable. Check out the earnings reports. AT&T thought it was shedding the deadweight when it spun off the local telcos, but it bought the right to have its customers stolen by MCI et al., while leaving the bread and butter behind. And the profitability of the local telcos, which has been substantial for the last few years, will soon be undercut by local telco competition. And, Pat, you err when you suggest that AT&T has local loops as a significant part of its business. AT&T shed these on 1/1/84. The only local loops AT&T has now are its CLEC loops (resale and/or unbundled) and its wireless (cellular and PCS) "loops". TELECOM Digest Editor noted further: > I suggest AT&T still refuses to believe that > every ISP around today can be a long distance telephone company, and > an inexpensive one at that. > Now, no one is going to go around digging up the streets and laying > cable as Bell did early this century and since they still own the > local loop they'll be pretty safe even if not as complacent as in > the past. No, it is AT&T/Sprint/MCI I fear for over the next couple > decades as Internet phone becomes more and more common. How do the ISPs route traffic to the NAP? How does the backbone transport traffic after it reaches the NAP? By and large, using facilities provided by AT&T, Sprint, or MCI as an underlying carrier. MCI is one of the largest players in internet intrastructure. It's also about to become a subsidiary of Worldcom/UUNet. I don't think you have to lose sleep over them. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I did not mean to imply tha AT&T was in the local loop business to any extent. I meant to say that as I-phone develops and becomes more used, more and more of AT&T's core business will drift away toward I-phone. Yes, ISPs will continue to use AT&T and the other major carriers but they will be paying a lot less than the aggregate total that AT&T lost everytime Mom and Dad and Uncle Pat and whoever made a toll call. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 13 Nov 1997 22:26:21 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > Now, no one is going to go around digging up the streets and laying > cable as Bell did early this century and since they still own the > local loop they'll be pretty safe even if not as complacent as in > the past. Well, the cable companies already did the equivalent of "digging up the streets" to get their cables to homes, and with the advent of cablemodems (and many cable companies upgrading their lines and equipment to handle two-way cablemodems), there is no real reason the cable companies couldn't replace the local loop as well. The only wires left would be the ones inside your house, which get their phone signal from a little box plugged into your cable (the same box, in fact, that your computer gets its ethernet connection from). So I'm not all that certain the local loop is really safe from competition either ... The *Best* political site URL: http://www.vote-smart.org/ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL Free Software and Politics ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #315 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Nov 14 22:17:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA11192; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:17:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:17:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711150317.WAA11192@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #316 TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Nov 97 22:17:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 316 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson California GTE Payphones Go to 35 Cents (Tad Cook) Help! Grounding! (Howard Eisenhauer) Book Review: "Web Client Programming with Perl" by Wong (Rob Slade) BellSouth Retains Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing (Stan Schwartz) Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Timothy A. Deem) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Bill Levant) Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Fred McClintic) Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Rich Courtney) Re: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS (John Stahl) Re: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS (Steve Sokal) Re: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) 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@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 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 GTE Payphones Go to 35 Cents Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:18:57 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) GTE to Raise Local Pay-Phone Rate; 911, Toll-Free and Calling-Card Calls Are Still Free Business & News Editors/Telecommunications Writers THOUSAND OAKS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 14, 1997--GTE Friday announced that it is raising the rate for local calls on public pay phones to 35 cents throughout California. Calls to 911, 1-800 or 1-888 and calling-card calls remain free to pay-phone users. GTE's local pay-phone rate has not risen since 1984, when it increased from a dime to 20 cents. GTE operates more than 40,000 pay phones in California and 120,000 nationwide. "We know that consumers want easily available, high-quality pay phones," said Don Wood, GTE's area public communications manager. "A modest price increase helps ensure the wide availability of pay phones in both high-traffic and out-of-the-way but necessary locations." Since their invention in 1889, public pay phones have been owned and operated exclusively by local telephone companies. In 1984, the Federal Communications Commission allowed other companies to offer pay-phone service. Consequently, the number of businesses operating pay phones since 1984 has grown significantly. In addition, all pay-phone providers face increasing competition from the explosive growth of new technologies such as cellular services, paging and public Internet terminals. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the pay-phone business, allowing market-based rates. Prior to Oct. 7, state regulatory commissions set pay-phone rates without regard to the actual cost of providing the service. Additionally, the act requires that pay-phone businesses like GTE's be self-sustaining and eliminates intercompany subsidies. GTE California serves more than 4.8 million customer lines in California and portions of Nevada and Arizona. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of GTE Corp., one of the nation's largest telecommunications companies and an industry leader in providing customers with one-stop shopping for Internet access and local, regional and long-distance voice, video and data services. http://www.businesswire.com ------------------------------ From: aa988@chebucto.ns.ca (Howard Eisenhauer) Subject: Help! Grounding! Date: 14 Nov 1997 23:46:58 GMT Organization: Chebucto Community Net I'm in need of some advice on grounding matters. I work for a company installing PCS equipment and some issues have been raised about reference grounds for the radio and transmission equipment. Issue #1: When an insulated ground lead (1/0 Cu. to be specific) is run through a metallic conduit(11/2"-2" EMT) should the conduit be bonded to the ground lead: a.-where the lead enters and exits the conduit b.-at one end only c.-not at all Issue #2: Is it permissable to secure the ground lead to walls, ceilings, cable racks, slow moving installers or whatever with: a.-mettalic clamps that encircle the lead b.-mettalic clamps that don't encircle the the wire c.-non-mettalic clamps only Please note that in most cases a seperate lightening protection system will be in place for the outside plant structures/equipment although in my experience lightning goes pretty much where it wants so the possibility exists to have surge current on the reference ground. If anyone can point me to some references to make the arguments one way or another I would very much appreciate it. Thanks a lot, Howard Eisenhauer on ***************************************** Chebucto Community Network *Switching is a science, Radio is an art* Halifax Nova Scotia * Grounding is Black Magic * aa988@ccn.cs.dal.ca ***************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:10:37 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Web Client Programming with Perl" by Wong BKWBCLPR.RVW 970507 "Web Client Programming with Perl", Clinton Wong, 1997, 1-56592-214-X, U$24.95/C$42.95 %A Clinton Wong %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-214-X %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$42.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 228 %T "Web Client Programming with Perl" I admit it, I did not pay enough attention to the title. I assumed this had something to do with forms or other Web *server* programming. But the title is correct: this book teaches you how to write *clients* for the Web. What, program your own browser? Well, maybe. What the author concentrates on, though, is development of small, specialty utilities. Why fire up a browser, and navigate menus and screens, when what you really want is simple confirmation of package delivery? You don't actually want to read http://www.av.ibm.com/Update.html everyday -- only when a new version comes out and the page changes. Or, perhaps, you are simply obsessive and want to check AltaVista every morning to see if anyone has put up a Web page about you overnight. All of this is much simpler and quicker with a utility than a full browser. (Besides, a utility can work in the background.) After an introduction, chapters two and three cover HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol). In and of itself, this is worth the book, since so few HTML (HyperText Markup Language) and even CGI (Common Gateway Interface) texts do a decent job of it. Wong then goes on to cover sockets programming aspects of Perl and the LWP (Library for WWW access in Perl). Chapter six has sample LWP programs, while seven shows graphical interfaces with Tk. Appendices list HTTP headers, reference tables, and the Robot Exclusion Standard. Overall, a useful book in many ways, and readable as well. The book may be of particular interest to those dealing with intranet application development. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKWBCLPR.RVW 970507 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: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:12:22 PST From: Stan Schwartz Reply-To: stannc*no*spam@yahoo.com Subject: BellSouth Retains Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing From the BellSouth Corporate web site, this is in conjunction with the upcoming North Carolina NPA splits. Aren't "protected exchanges" such as these what contribute to chewing up existing NPA's?? ------------- Existing seven-digit cross-NPA EAS routes which will retain their seven-digit dialing -- Existing seven-digit EAS routes that will become cross-NPA and will retain their existing seven-digit dialing when new NPA boundaries are implemented -- Existing seven-digit cross-NPA EAS routes which will retain their seven-digit dialing -- Anderson to Mebane Belmont to Mill Creek, SC Bessemer City to Mill Creek, SC Burlington to Mebane Charlotte to Lake Wylie, SC Dillon to Dillon, SC Lake View, SC Latta, SC Fairmont to Rowland, SC Gastonia to Clover, SC Mill Creek, SC Lake Wylie, SC Lake Wylie West, SC Gatewood to Danville, VA Gibson to Newtonville, SC Grover to Antioch, SC Blacksburg, SC Kings Mountain to Antioch, SC Mill Creek, SC Laurinburg to Newtonville, SC Liberty to Benton, TN Blue Ridge, GA Copper Basin, TN Dial, GA Lakewood, GA McCaysville, GA Lowell to Mill Creek, SC Lumberton to Rowland, SC Milton to Danville, VA Mt. Holly to Mill Creek, SC Pembroke to Rowland, SC Rowland to Rowland, SC Saxapahaw to Mebane Shelby to Antioch, SC S. Crowders Creek to Clover, SC Lake Wylie, SC Lake Wylie West, SC Mill Creek, SC York, SC Stanley to Mill Creek, SC Waterville to Newport, TN Existing seven-digit EAS routes that will become cross-NPA and will retain their existing seven-digit dialing when new NPA boundaries are implemented: Denver to Maiden Newton Sherrills Ford Goldsboro to LaGrange Moss Hill Lincolnton to Maiden Maiden to Denver Lincolnton Newton to Denver Stony Point to Taylorsville Taylorsville to Stony Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:41:15 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? Sebastien Kingsley wrote: > Ok, first of all, I KNOW what a PIC (primary interstate carrier) code > is (10xxx/101xxx), and what they are used for, but my question is, how > are they used in Canada? > The reason I ask this is because it was my understanding that they > WEREN'T used in Canada. > But, I recently obtained a document from Industry Canada, that > contains PIC codes for many Canadian RBOCs and other long distance > carriers. > Here are a few of them: > BC Tel - 10323 > Bell Canada - 10363 > Fonorola - 10507 > London Telecom - 10960 > Likewise, it was my understanding that the use of the special 950 > exchange WASN'T used in Canada. However, this same document lists > 950-xxxx dialups for Canadian companies too!?! > Here are a few of them: > BC Tel - 950-5226 > BC Tel - 950-5322 > Fonorola - 950-5507 > Canadian Tire - 950-5303 > Vancouver TE - 950-5826 > Could someone PLEASE enlighten me on this subject? If they aren't > used here, then why do Canadian companies have them assigned to them? > And if they ARE used here, are they used in the same manner as in the > USA? > Here in BC Tel country, dialing 10xxx will result in an intercept > message. Dialing a 950 dialup results in a similar fashion. People > at the telco tell me that they aren't used, but they cannot explain > why BC Tel are assigned a 10xxx code, and a 950 dialup. > TIA for any help on this puzzling subject. First, some definitions ... PIC = Primary InterExchange Carrier CIC = Carrier Identification Code XXX (except 10X, 15X, 16X), in permissive expansion to 0XXX; also 5XXX, 6XXX; and after mid-1998, possible to be any XXXX CAC = Carrier Access Code (10-XXX, 101-XXXX) i.e., 10 + a three-digit "CIC", and 101 + a four-digit "CIC" fgB = Feautre-Group "B", where 950-xxxx numbers are dialed fgD = Feature-Group "D", where a "CAC" is dialed LATA = Local Access and Transport Area In the US, Equal Access and dialing to alternate carriers has been around for over ten years, but originating use is still not universally available (such as from some independent or rural area). Canada does now have Equal Access or dialing through an alternate carrier, but similarly, originating use is not available from all areas. It is possible that your _particular_ area of British Columbia doesn't yet have originating Equal Access. In the US, 950-xxxx numbers pre-dated the use of 10[1X]XXX+ codes and choosing a primary carrier. Similarly in Canada, where originating access was made available, use of 950-xxxx access pre-dates 10[1X]XXX+ access or choosing a primary carrier. Since 950-xxxx numbers are _supposed_ to be coin-free and toll-free to the originating end-user, another use of 950-xxxx numbers has been for a 'universal' toll-free seven-digit number, similar to 800/888-nxx-xxxx numbers. There have been 950-xxxx numbers assigned to Pizza Hut, banks, credit-card companies, etc. for voice services, or for modem/data functions) There have been many postings to TELECOM Digest over the years regarding Equal Access, 950-xxxx numbers (fg.B) and 10[1X]XXX+ service (fg.D). Also, Bellcore/AT&T/Lucent/Nortel/etc. have published many documents since the 1980's regarding such, including Bellcore's "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks" (1983, 1986), "BOC Notes on the LEC Networks" (1990, 1994, 1996). As for LATAs, when the Bell System broke-up in the 1980's, the US was divided into "LATAs". For the most part, (toll) calls placed within a LATA are supposed to be carried by the toll functions of your local telco, while inTER-LATA calls are to be carried by your chosen long-distance company. In some states, you can even choose a primary carrier for toll calls within your LATA, and that carrier can be different from your chosen primary inTER-LATA carrier. But in either case (except from areas where Equal Access and fg.D originating hasn't yet been implemented), you can place calls via a different carrier on a per-call basis, by dialing the 10[1X]XXX+ "CAC" code before dialing the number, so long as that LD-carrier desires to carry your call. Some of them will accept 'casual-use' calls dialed with a "CAC", _only_ if you have previously set up an account with them. Canada hasn't adopted the "LATA" concept. Where Equal Access and fg.D originating has been implemented in Canada, it is supposed to be where _toll_ calls to the US and Canada (even toll within your province) is to be routed (and billed) on the carrier that you chose as your primary. And use of a 10[1X]XXX+ CAC is to route/bill such toll calls on a 'per-call' basis (casual use) via the dialed alternate carrier. Therefore, if you choose fONOROLA as your primary (US/Canada) toll carrier, you _don't_ have to dial 10[10]507+ prior to the number. But if you want to use the toll services of BC-Tel on a casual-use per-call basis, you would dial 10[10]323+ first. But with inTRA-LATA toll competition in the US, as well as competition between local telcos (which is also coming to Canada), it could possibly happen in the next several years that LATAs as we have known them will eventually vanish. Since I don't actually live in Canada, I couldn't say how certain ideosynchosies and inconsistancies exist, such as calling the operator or operator/card services, non-US international, etc. It has been that Teleglobe is the protected monopoly for calling non-US internatinal locations, and such calls have been placed as before, through your Canadian local telco's services. I don't know what happens if you dial a 10[1X]XXX+ "CAC" first, then 011+. Nor do I know how (straight) 011+ calls would be handled if your primary toll carrier were _not_ the toll services of "your local telephone company". However, I understand that Teleglobe is soon supposed to be losing its protected monopoly status if it hasn't lost it already. It could also be that other carriers allow you to use them for 011+ calls, but they are simply _reselling_ Teleglobe. Even where Equal Access and fg.D origination has been implemented in Canada (_and_ in the US), various inconsistancies will abound. 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: Timothy A. Deem Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:46:12 -0600 Organization: ComSource, Inc >> At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code >> 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works >> just like (700) 555-4141. > I tried it here in upstate N.Y. and got a recording from my inter-LATA > IXC. But they're not my intra-LATA toll carrier. My intra-LATA IXC > is New Yo, er, Nyn, er, Bell whoever they are, who happen to have > decent rates for intra-LATA toll with one of their calling plans. It appears you have to dial the following based upon which you want: IntraLATA provider: 1-(your area code)-700-4141 LD provider: 1-700-555-4141 Hope that helps ... ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:34:55 EST Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification >> At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code >> (610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works >> just like (700) 555-4141. > I tried it here in upstate N.Y. and got a recording from my inter-LATA > IXC. But they're not my intra-LATA toll carrier. My intra-LATA IXC > is New Yo, er, Nyn, er, Bell whoever they are, who happen to have > decent rates for intra-LATA toll with one of their calling plans. Sounds like Brandex (er, Bell Whatsis) screwed up the translation. Surprise. Bill ------------------------------ From: Fred McClintic Subject: Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:45:33 -0600 Peter Capek wrote: > I recently tried using 1-700-555-4141 to determine the long distance > company associated with a phone line, but the number seems to be > invalid. The LEC's operator supervisor couldn't explain why -- she > thought it should work -- but referred me to the business office. > Did I miss something? Has this capability gone away or become > obsolete, perhaps as side effect of local deregulation? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It should work; it is the number of > record for that purpose on a national basis. I cannot say why it > does not but I can tell you a work-around that you might try. On > the line in question just dial 00 (double zero) and let it time out > to a live operator. Ask her what company she with. Ask her what is > the number for the business office of that company. That should get > you a reliable answer. PAT] I've used that number in the past here, so I tried to dial it just to see what would happen. I got a bad number recording "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please, check the number and dial again. 21K" We are in the middle of changing from AT&T to MCI, so I wasn't sure what I *should* be getting at this particular moment. I then grabbed a line from our other GTE location and checked from one of their trunks. Same thing. Next I grabbed a line from our SWB location. There I got the AT&T jingle. Next I went out locally and dialed 00. I got the MCI jingle. Ah, looks like a carrier problem ... I then asked the MCI operator why I couldn't dial 700-555-4141. She wasn't aware of the number and asked her supervisor. Her supervisor was aware of the number, but wasn't sure why it didn't work. She offered to transfer me to customer service, which I agreed to. (after waiting on hold for five minutes...) I asked the customer service person the same question. She took our phone number and verified that we had 30 lines on this account, but wasn't aware of the 700-555-4141 number. She, like all of the people I had been talking to from MCI kept asking "well, does double-zero work?" Of course it does, but that isn't the issue ... I had her ask her supervisor who told her "that number has been taken down on a national level". Funny, when you dial 10+CIC+1-700-555-4141, it works fine for AT&T, Sprint, LDDS (err.. LDDS/WorldCom err.. MCI/WorldCom or whatever...), and all the companies that I've been slammed to in the past.... grrr ... Finally, I called our MCI rep. She had never heard of the number, but called back after asking one of her technical consultants, who suggested that maybe 700-555-4141 was for dedicated service and that 700-555-4242 was for switched service. I'd not heard of this anywhere before, but tested the new number -- same recording. I then sent her a copy of this email which I was ready to send. That was the last I've heard of her for about six hours now. That's our results here in northeast Missouri ... Fred ------------------------------ From: Rich Courtney Subject: Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? Date: 14 Nov 1997 18:19:11 GMT Organization: Norand Corporation We have MCI and I get a recording. Using 10228+ AT&T responds correctly. Iowa location. ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) Subject: Re: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:36:19 +0000 Richard W. Museums said: > I saw that Metropolitan Fiber System is laying colored tubes along the > West bound side of RT 87 in Rockland, does this mean Fiber is going to > the suburbs now too? MFS has a contract with the NYS Thruway Authority to put in a fiber-optic "superhighway" across the length and breadth of the 641 mile Thruway system in New York State. The Thruway Authority not only has the Thruway (I90) but also has authority and control for many of the ancillary roads connecting to I90. These include I84, the Cross Westchester Expressway, some of the Interstate roads around Buffalo and part of the Thruway connecting CT to NYC on the west shore of the LI Sound. I remember when the Authority went out for bid on this project back in 1994/95, hearing them at several bidders conferences discussing the advantages the "system" offered any would-be successful bidder. Their routes from west to east, north to south cover most of the major transportation corridors and major population areas of NY. From PA to CT, from Canadian border to New York City, MFS has a complete fiber route for them selves. They are installing a conduit system for who knows how many fibers. The Authority is to get some number of "dark" fibers and drop-off at each of their facilities along the routes - toll booths, offices, maintenance areas, etc. Now that WorldCom, parent of MFS, has their sights on MCI, all of these companies including Compuserve and the other publicized companies that WorldCom has purchased so far, sure seem to be helping to make them a giant among telecommunications companies! John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications, Data and Internet Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 16:28:00 EST From: Steve Sokal Subject: Re: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS The fiber optic cable being placed by MFS is part of the New York State NYT Project. A complete description may be found in the RFP referenced at http://www.irm.state.ny.us/nyt/nyt.htm ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:00:36 +-5-30 Kimmo Ketolainen (kk@sci.fi) wrote: > We don't yet have flat-rate cellular service. For the subscription > quoted above, the per-minute fee is 1.92 FIM (0.37 USD) during > Mon-Fri working hours and 0.99 FIM (0.19 USD) at all other times. Thanks. I was curious because the other figures were almost exactly the same as the rates in India - or at least in Delhi, where the two private operators seem to have formed a cartel. The exception being that if you pay Rs 299 (USD 8) per month, you get charged Rs 3/Rs 6/Rs 9 per minute for off-peak/standard/peak hours. Peak hours are four hours during weekdays; off-peak is all Sunday; standard is everything else. which means that you pay on average Rs 7 (USD 0.13) per minute. > (Local, regional and long distance calls are all charged at this same > rate as it is done in most European cellular networks. Nothing is > charged for receiving incoming calls.) Isn't that because landline users are charged extra to call mobile phones? In India landline users pay the same to call a mobile phone as to call another landline, so mobile users have to pay for incoming calls too, about 60% of the rate for outgoing calls. rishab ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #316 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 16 17:53:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA29233; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:53:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:53:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711162253.RAA29233@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #317 TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Nov 97 17:53:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 317 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (John R. Levine) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Lee Winson) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Bruce Lucas) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Eric Edwards) Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes in Canada (Eric Blondin) Re: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) 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@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 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: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 16 Nov 1997 03:39:13 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , wollman@khavrinen.lcs. mit.edu says... >> The author did not explain how this "capability" will improve. > Pity. That's OK, I can. But the argument is refutable. Indeed, the whole "Internet will swallow" thread seems to me to be amazing hubris amonst those on the Internet side who simply don't understand the complexities of the phone network. Carrying CB-radio-quality voice, or even sunny-weather hi-fi audio across the Internet is (literally) childs' play. It's only a teensy fraction of what the telcos have to worry about, and usually do. I started off on the "voice" side in the '70s, and was Telecom Mgr. here at BBN in the late '70s, doing PBX stuff when the ARPAnet NCC (NOC) was ours, and with my desktop VT-52 connected to host computers via a Pluribus TIP. Now I'm quite conversant on Internet, packet and ATM matters, and speak both languages. I do however see a failure to communicate. > Point 2: Statistical multiplexing, which arises out of the observation > that not everybody wants to talk at once, applies to data networks ... Of course. It's natural there. > Point 3: There are essentially three types of data services: elastic, > adaptive, and isochronous. Elastic services are insensitive to > short-term delays in the network ... > Isochronous services are at the exact opposite end of the spectrum: > they depend on traffic reliably getting through the network at a > constant rate, with packets arriving neither too soon nor too late. > For a very long time, telephony-type applications were thought to fall > into this category, but it's now understood by networking researchers > that they are, in actuality, adaptive services, the third major type. ... > An adaptive service is one which can operate under widely differing > network conditions, and provides some amount of buffering at the > receiving end which can be adjusted to provide as good a service as > the delays in the network allow. The prototypical ``Internet > Telephony'' application, Van Jacobson's research vehicle `vat', was > the first major application to develop this service model. Ah yes, the Nineteenth Coming of Etherphone! Indeed the idea that voice is elastic is not new. Undersea cables in the '70s used it to conserve costly (analog!) channels. Voice was stored in little bursts. Silent bursts were discarded and good ones were shoved onto available channels, preceded by tone bursts (to identify the original channel). I went to work at DEC in 1980 just as they were installing a TASI system, STC's COM-II, which could compress 31 channels onto 16, all analog tie lines. I think its packet size was 39 milliseconds. It was supposed to save money, but in practice it was a horror show. Then in 1986, StrataCom brought out their digital TASI, the IPX, which used somewhat shorter packets and was somewhat less horrible, but not without pain. All in the meantime, the REAL cost of bandwidth was plummeting. In 1980, a domestic US toll call probably cost Mother (AT&T Long Lines) about 15c/minute (call it my educated guess), exclusive of the share paid via Separations to the BOCs. Then the glass began to go in. Nowadays, after some inflation to devalue the cent, the call probably costs more like two cents. The Dime Lady costs more? She's still paying a nickel or more per minute to the LECs at each end of the call. Big users connect directly to their IXC and don't pay the "originating" half, and "virtual private network" calls with no Bell switches involved are routinely sold at well under a nickel a minute, depending on volume. It's pretty hard to shave much off of two cents. So why does Internet telephony look so good? Because nobody sees the two cents. They see the retail price, which includes billing, marketing (you think the Dime Lady works cheap?), and huge "access" charge payments to the local telcos. It's cutthroat and not very profitable, but very little of the cost is for bandwidth. Internet Telephony bypasses the billing system, so it looks cheap. Legally (in the USA), IF you carry voice across state lines and feed it INTO the local exchange (NOT into an ISP as a packet stream but as a pure voice call into the LEC), then you ARE a long distance carrier. Sticking a Cisco router in the middle and running newfangled forms of TASI doesn't change things. If you only use the local exchange to call up an ISP as a data call, then of course the per-minute access charges do NOT apply, and that leaves Internet telephony a big niche market for recreational chatting amongst computer hackers. But if it rings a real phone line, Long Distance is Long Distance. And frankly over the past 20 years the quality of LD has improved astonishingly. A call from Boston to New York in 1977 was hissy at best, that "Long Distance" sound, and transcontinental calls were half-duplex too due to echo suppressors. Today a call between the USA and Australia sounds almost local. Internet telephony, with its long packetization delays and low-bit-rate voice, with its dropouts and "adaptive" (that's a euphemism) quality, harkens back to the bad old days. Sure, an LD company could offer it, but why, when fiber optic 64000 bps channels are cheap enough? > Point 4: These three types of services interact in an interesting > way. Specifically, services which inject their data into the network > at a constant rate, or effectively so, will always win a battle for > bandwidth against elastic services like TCP. This has two salutary > benefits: first, and most immediately, people will actually be able to > use the service, at least so long as the network isn't totally > saturated. That's salutary in the Swiftian "modest proposal" way. Translated: Voice is anti-social and drives data off of the Internet. TCP follows the Van Jacobson Slow-Start and backoff rules (if it conforms to spec). Voice-on-net doesn't. That's why VON is worse for the Internet itself than it is for the telephone industry! I'm concerned that too much VON will degrade the Internet's data performance, causing too much congestion. The phone companies will fend for themselves. Or at least the smart ones will -- telcos who cry that the Internet are "ruining" the phone network are missing the boat too. (ooooh, the temptation to say "Bell Titanic" here is too great, but I will try to resist that mixed metaphor ...) > Second, in the long run, users will eventually notice that > their network performance is getting sluggish, at which point some > fraction of them will purchase a higher level of service, again > providing an additional economic incentive to expand the capacity of > the network. By which point, data is clobbered, and doesn't have the option of just picking up a normal phone! Voice-on-net is a cute hack. It's potentially useful for "intranets" where there is private bandwidth, and for some discount long-distance services (especially overseas), where its low bit rates might be economical compared to the older gear telcos use. But a well-engineered circuit-switched telephone network is a thing of beauty, not much appreciated by many Internet wonks but beloved of millions of subscribers. That market's not about to disappear. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at" bbn.com +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 1997 04:56:43 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. Before we write off the telcos in favor of the Internet, can we meditate on the topic of access charges for a minute? Every long distance carrier (IXC) in the U.S. pays a substantial amount of its revenue, like about half, to LECs in the form of access charges, typically two to three cents per minute per end of each call. Internet providers (ISPs) don't pay that fee. Both the 1987 "modem tax" brouhaha and some skirmishes earlier this year were on the exact issue of charging ISPs the same per-minute fees that IXCs pay. Both in 1987 and 1997, the regulators decided that ISPs don't need to pay because they're not in the long distance business, they're in the Internet business. But if Internet telephony ever becomes more than a gimmick, this will change, and ISPs will pay the same amount that IXCs do. (The amount charged to IXCs is in fact dropping, but what's important is that they'll be equal.) Given a choice between paying 10 cents a minute for phone calls versus all you can stand for $20/month, the ISP looks pretty attractive. But equalize the access charges to, say, 1 cent/min per end, and the IXC will charge about 5 cents/minute, while the ISP will charge $20/mo plus 2 cents/minute. You'd have to make 11 hours of Internet phone calls per month before you come out ahead, and for the forseeable future, Internet telephony will sound a lot worse than real phone calls. (As someone else noted, telcos are hidebound but not totally stupid, and they can packet switch phone calls just like ISPs do if that's an effective way to get the connections they need, which will make the costs of providing similar service from the ISP or IXC about the same.) I certainly agree that telcos will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and the ones who insist that they're only in the business of providing circuit switched connections over copper pairs for large per-minute charges will probably die. But it's way premature to think that Internet telephony will take away their market, since the cost advantage is due largely to a regulatory quirk. One thing that Internet phone does tell us is that there's a market for inferior phone service at a lower price than for high quality phone service, but it doesn't tell us what the most effective way to provide that lower level service is. 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: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 16 Nov 1997 02:30:39 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Some more comments on economic competition and telephone service ... Someone said the cable TV companies have already dug up the streets and put in a "local loop" plant. Well, yes and no. Yes, we have cable TV service and a lot of people have fiber optic. But is the existing plant INDIVIUALLY ADDRESSABLE for two-way conversations? My local cable is but one "pipe" emanating from their HQ. Can that handle the equivalent of 120,000 lines PLUS all the private and high speed data links the phone company has in this area? Further, cable lines are installed with a lower physical standard and are less reliable than phone lines. > The BOC's loop is one way for consumers and businesses to connect to > their ISPs, but there are others: wireless and microwave, for > instance, are in use today. Is wireless and microwave appropriate and cheap enough for individual POTS subscribers? > That's certainly one opinion. Others feel that telephone customers > have had no choice in where their money went prior to today, and the > dollars they have invested in telephone service (because all dollars > are ultimately supplied by the customers) is a "public investment" in > a private company. Consumers received a service for their payments all this years. The network was not built by tax dollars, but rather by subscribers who were getting telephone service. Indeed, the smallest subscribers were subsidized by the heavier business, premium service, and long distance users. > When GM came to town, Ford could argue that the existing roads should be > used exclusively for Fords, since only Fords had been used on them up > to now. Should GM build all new roads? Well, your argument falls flat since Ford didn't build the roads in your story. The Bell System designed and built the network privately. It also must be remembered that Bell System stockholders gave up many rights that a private company normally has. They could not get rich the way Microsoft and Intel stockholders are. The rate of return was sharply limited by state PUCs and the FCC. Further, the pricing of service was controlled by the government. The phone company is also mandated to serve unprofitable/undesirable customers. There are often articles in the newspaper complaining about corporations avoiding poor or ghetto areas, however, that is generally fully legal. The phone company must offer full services everywhere, to everyone, with appeal rights to the PUC. And that is costly. The phone company isn't allowed to tack on price premiums. For example, if you visit a resort town, you'll find most prices more expensive than back at home. Phone service will be exactly the same. If the phone company was private, it'd charge a premium just as the ice cream man and suntan lotion store. [I paid double for suntan lotion this summer at the beach because I forgot the bottle at home.] > A key point that investors look at in determining whether or not to > fund a startup. Not many people are wealthy enough to start their own > phone company, so if the experience running a network isn't there, > neither will the funds be there. That's exactly the value of a market > driven economy - better ideas drive out poor ones. While the above is generally true, there are two very important exceptions that people forget about: First, investors are by no means always shewd and rational. There are empty brand new shopping centers near me. The investors who built them lost money. I never understood why they were built in the first place as I saw no retail demand for that location. Someone obviously convinced investors otherwise. You're gonna see plenty of startups fail. Secondly, better ideas don't always "drive out bad ones". That only happens in the "pure competition" economic model where everyone has full knowledge and equal opportunity to enter the marketplace. Once a company gets entrenched, it won't be go away so easily, even if it provides _bad service_. It boils down to _service_. Someone else posted that our expectations have dropped to service quality. I agree, quite regretfully. From my own perspective, I could care less if someone invests and makes a killing or loses his shirt in the telephone service business. What I fear is, as a consumer, being stuck and dependent on lousy service because a variety of marketplace conditions dumped that on me. I don't want to get fleeced paying high rates as I'm forced to at COCOTS or to use cellular as a substitute. Telephone service is a critical public utility. Years and years ago society recognized its value and destructiveness of competitition in this particular industry and established sensible controls. Competition IS the American Way. But I don't see the evolving industry as competition in the sense of a Norman Rockwell painting. Rather, I see it as the Trusts and new unfettered monopolies that Pres Theo. Roosevelt had to break up. Why re-create something we know from history was a failure? ------------------------------ From: Bruce Lucas Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 23:38:48 -0500 Garrett Wollman wrote: > (This actually provides sort of a ``poor man's > admission control'' -- once the quality degrades past the level of > acceptability, people will become discouraged and stop, thus removing > their traffic from the network.) Yeah, that really sounds like my idea of high-quality phone service - hovering on borderline of acceptability, with a guarantee that some percentage of the time you pick up the phone get such a poor connection that you just hang up instead. Yeah. ------------------------------ From: ese002@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 16 Nov 1997 09:33:42 GMT Organization: Engineers in Exile On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:24:10 PST, Craig Milo Rogers wrote: > No, but that's not the right analogy. :-) Instead, consider a > "typical" small-town shopping area: narrow streets, small stores, > needless exposure to the weather while shopping, high city taxes to > support crumbling infrastructures. Suddenly, a Net*Mart appears just > outside the town boundaries. Good parking, wide selection, air > conditioning, no city taxes ... that's the brave new world we're > building! So competive local carriers encourage the electronic equivilient of urban sprawl. Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:37:50 -0500 From: Eric Blondin Subject: Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes in Canada miind@hotmail.cam (Sebastien Kingsley) wrote: > Ok, first of all, I KNOW what a PIC (primary interstate carrier) code > is (10xxx/101xxx), and what they are used for, but my question is, how > are they used in Canada? > The reason I ask this is because it was my understanding that they > WEREN'T used in Canada. > But, I recently obtained a document from Industry Canada, that > contains PIC codes for many Canadian RBOCs and other long distance > carriers. > Here are a few of them: > BC Tel - 10323 > Bell Canada - 10363 > Fonorola - 10507 > London Telecom - 10960 Yes those codes are used in Canada, a bit differently (and limited) compared to the U.S. though. First of all, I`ll take Fonorola as an example: a new customer subscribes to the service, so the number is entered in the switch, afterward the number is PICed, this takes a few days, so the customer is told that if they want to use our service right away, he must use the 10507 CIC for a few days until service is setup on equal access. Another use would be for customers who would like to be on casual calling (not all carriers offer this though) and for this to work they would need to have opened an account with us (except for a few like PRONTO (I think that's the name) who offers service in the Montreal area and offers only casual calling, which is billed by Bell Canada at PRONTO rates). Finally, I know that our Cust. Serv. Reps give the 10323 CIC to our customers when we have connection problems to certain countries and STENTOR seems to work and the call is really urgent (10323 IS assigned to BC Tel, but works from all over the STENTOR networks). Of what I heard, those codes work from payphones in the U.S., they don`t in Canada though (at least for now). Hope that`s precise enough. Eric Blondin The International Dialing Resource Center: http://www.geocities.com/~dialworld ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:06:14 +-5-30 Dear Jurgen, I'll try and post a list of Indian GSM cellular operators' contact numbers soon, but for the moment here are the correct numbers for the two operators in Delhi. Jurgen Morhofer wrote: > India Airtel 404 10 Int + 91 10 012345 > Essar 404 11 Int + 91 11 098110 Airtel Int + 91 9810 012345 Essar Int + 91 9811 098110 FYI India has more GSM ops than any other country in the world, and has therefore become the only country with a GSM MoU Interest Group of its own (instead of being part of GSM-MoU's Asia Regional Interest Group). India will shortly become the world's only country to hit a million mobile subscribers within 30 months from the start of service (currently it's approx. 700,000, growing at >280% p.a; the first GSM network here started in end-1995). -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 11 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #317 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Nov 17 20:33:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA06372; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:33:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:33:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711180133.UAA06372@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #318 TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Nov 97 20:33:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 318 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (Monty Solomon) Call for Papers, IDMS '98 (Ketil Lund) Book Review: "Great American Websites" by Renehan (Rob Slade) Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! (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@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 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: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 09:04:14 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Sunday, November 16, 1997 Cell Phones, 'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Safety: Woman shot during carjacking sues service provider because 911 calls would not go through. By MICHAEL A. HILTZIK, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer There could hardly have been a worse time for Marcia Spielholz's cellular phone to fail her. It was a Sunday night in December, and the 37-year-old lawyer was on her way home to Beverly Hills from a Christmas shopping trip to Culver City. Along the way, it was clear, her BMW had attracted the attention of a pair of carjackers. For 10 terrifying minutes she played cat-and-mouse with a black sedan along National Boulevard and up Castle Heights Avenue, one hand on the wheel, the other frantically tapping 911 onto the keypad of her cellular phone. The call would not go through; she would dial again. Again, the rapid busy signal that meant no connection. Another try, another sickening busy. Finally her time ran out. The black sedan cut off her escape on Castle Heights. A man approached her car with a gun drawn. Spielholz held the useless phone to her face as if to suggest that she had reached police, hoping she might scare off an attack. The man didn't seem to be fooled. He thrust a .38 up to the window. "I said, 'Please don't do this,' and turned my head away," she recalled in an interview with The Times. The bullet blew off a part of her right lower face and came to rest just above the carotid artery delivering blood to her brain. The blast drove the phone into her face, shattering her jaw -- and more. She recently underwent her 11th reconstructive operation, raising her medical bills to more than $250,000. The time she has needed to devote to recuperation and physical therapy after the 1994 shooting forced her long ago to give up her job as a lawyer for MGM Studios. The assailants, who fled after the gunshot, have never been caught. Spielholz today is haunted by the thought of what might have been, had her cellular phone accomplished what she had always regarded as one of its fundamental purposes: to summon help. "The police told me later they were blocks away," she said. "They could have been there in minutes. The [911] dispatcher could have told me what they tell all carjacking victims -- to abandon the car. But I never got that far." *** Consumer advocates and cellular industry critics say Spielholz's ordeal, although exceptionally tragic, is not entirely the product of bad luck. Among the contributing factors, they argue, are federal regulatory policies and industry practices that have systematically undermined the quality and accessibility of 911 service for cellular phone customers. Users of conventional phones have long become accustomed to free 911 access as a public right. In most communities, the emergency number can be reached from a pay phone without dropping a coin, and in some communities the service is so efficient that emergency equipment can be dispatched before a caller completes the connection. That is not true in the cellular world. Although public safety agencies across most of the country are equipped to receive 911 calls from cellular phones, no state or local regulators oversee the quality or availability of 911 service to cellular users. (In this state, all cellular calls are fielded first by the California Highway Patrol, which passes them on if necessary to local police or fire agencies.) The cellular industry has also fought and delayed federal rules aimed at broadening access to 911 for all cellular customers. These include a proposal that would ensure that all cellular 911 calls be automatically transmitted on the strongest compatible radio signal available at the moment the call is made. *** Spielholz says that this regulation might have saved her if it were in effect at the time of her assault. One technical study she commissioned for a lawsuit that she filed against L.A. Cellular, her service provider, indicates that the company's signal is still too weak to carry a 911 call in the area of National and Castle Heights -- unlike that of AirTouch Communications, the rival cellular carrier in Los Angeles. (Because signal strength tends to fluctuate, L.A. Cellular's signal might be stronger than AirTouch's at other points or at other times of day.) In other words, under the so-called strongest compatible signal standard, Spielholz's 911 call would have automatically shifted to AirTouch's line and her chances of summoning help would almost certainly have improved. But that is only part of the problem with cellular 911, critics say. The cellular industry has never shown the same commitment to easy access for all callers demonstrated by conventional -- or land-line -- phone companies, which are regulated by state authorities and routinely provide free 911 access from private and pay phones alike. Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called non-initialized phones). "I believe access to 911, no matter how you get there, is an obligation and a public service," said James Conran, a former member of the California Public Utilities Commission whose San Francisco consumer group, Consumers First, has pressed for broader cellular 911 service. "The industry is doing everything it can behind the scenes to kill" FCC rules aimed at widening cellular 911 access, he said. That's an important issue, because a large number of the 55 million cellular phones in operation nationwide are used by their owners primarily as emergency devices. Industry studies show that as many as 20% of all users pay low monthly fees for service -- $9.95 to $19.95 in most cases -- but never record even a single minute of elective use. Industry experts believe that such a pattern is characteristic of customers purchasing the service simply for the privilege of reaching help in a tight spot. Cellular companies have long treasured this so-called safety and security market as a wellspring of low-cost subscribers. *** Spielholz argues in court papers that L.A. Cellular promoted the security function of its service in advertising and customer mailings -- proclaiming that cellular phones are "becoming the crime fighters of the '90s." The company also said that two-thirds of cellular subscribers surveyed nationwide cited personal safety as their primary motivation for signing up -- without stressing the downside that cellular service can be spotty and unreliable. That was especially true on the Westside, according to a deposition given in her Los Angeles federal court lawsuit by former L.A. Cellular President Michael Heil, who said that during his tenure the company chronically struggled to keep up with capacity demands in the "core," the West Los Angeles-Beverly Hills-Culver City area. Those problems, he said, were manifested in a large number of dropped, or uncompleted, calls and complaints from customers unable to make connections. L.A. Cellular (a partnership of AT&T Wireless and BellSouth) contends that customers are explicitly cautioned on their service invoice that cellular service can be affected by many factors, including terrain, foliage and weather. *** The company also said in its response to Spielholz's lawsuit and a related class-action complaint that its customer contracts specifically disclaim any responsibility for a subscriber's incidental losses or damages stemming from service problems. The company further says that it does not market phones explicitly as safety devices. "We market the convenience" of cellular service, said Steven C. Crosby, the company's vice president for external affairs. "We do not emphasize or exploit the 'fear factor' " in marketing or advertising. Representatives for the cellular industry say that they support, in principle, efforts to broaden 911 access for cellular users, but that many proposals involve troublesome technical obstacles. Industry representatives argue, for example, that with the advent of digital cellular phones, a number of incompatible systems will be in use for wireless communications, hampering efforts to standardize access. Ensuring that law enforcement agencies' own systems are compatible with those of wireless service companies will also take time, they say. *** But consumer advocates say those technical problems are exaggerated. They say what the industry really fears is that more customers might discover that most cellular phones are capable of placing 911 calls regardless of whether a user has signed up for service -- but only if the local cellular companies are willing to transmit the call. "That's the biggest scam of the cellular companies," said Mark Hiepler, Spielholz's attorney. "You don't have to sign up to get through." In California, all cellular carriers now pass all 911 calls to emergency agencies regardless of their source, but there is as yet no law or regulation requiring them to do so. The implementation date of an FCC regulation requiring such access was recently deferred from Oct. 1 to the end of this month, and industry critics fear further delays. Industry spokesmen argue that encouraging widespread use of unconnected phones would lead to mischief and abuse. "We don't want people making prank calls from phones they buy at swap meets," said L.A. Cellular's Crosby. Law enforcement officials say that's not a significant problem, especially compared with the benefits of broader 911 access. "The more cell phones on which you can make 911 calls, the better," said California Highway Patrol Commissioner Dwight Helmick. Cellular representatives also contend that because free 911 service is financed in part by state taxes on subscribers, nonsubscribers should not get unrestricted access to 911. "It's a fairness issue," said Steve Carlson, executive director of the Cellular Carriers Assn. of California. "People pay for cell service and part of what they pay for is 911 access. If all you need to do is buy the phone, then you wouldn't pay the fees and 911 taxes" that finance 911 service. As for the "strongest compatible signal" standard, "our position is this is a solution in search of a problem," said Michael F. Altschul, general counsel for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assn. He noted that all cellular phones are manufactured with two radio bands built in, corresponding to the two carriers licensed by the FCC to operate in each metropolitan area. "All cell phones allow the customer to roam on the other band if the preferred carrier doesn't have a serviceable signal," Altschul said. "The user could be educated to know how to flip to the other band." But critics say that manually reprogramming a cellular phone is a laborious procedure that is almost impossible for the average consumer, especially in a crisis. Critics argue that even making such a suggestion shows how well the industry understands that it has oversold the reliability of cellular phones as safety devices. When Hiepler asked former L.A. Cellular President Heil in a deposition whether having a cellular phone handy in an emergency would give him "peace of mind" -- a phrase drawn from a 1994 L.A. Cellular ad campaign -- the executive replied: "Yeah, if a criminal were chasing me and I were to be able to place a call ... and if my phone were working, if the battery were in proper working order and if I had dialed correctly ... and if ... that call were then routed to the California Highway Patrol ... and if those people were to be able to respond correctly. I'm sure [there are] a few if's I left out. Then I might have some peace of mind." Copyright Los Angeles Times ------------------------------ From: Ketil Lund Subject: Call for Papers, IDMS '98 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:56:17 +0100 Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway Dear Collegues, 5th International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services 8. - 11. September 1998, Oslo, Norway Online information for IDMS'98 (including the CfP) can be found at: http://www.unik.no/~idms98 You will be doing us a great favor if you disseminate the this Call for papers among your interested colleagues. Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this announcement. Best regards, Ketil Lund | Organization Committee IDMS'98 | | 5th International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia | Systems and Telecommunication Services | Oslo, Norway, 1998 | | UniK - Center for Technology at Kjeller | University of Oslo | P.O. Box 70, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway | | e-mail: idms98@unik.no | WWW: http://www.unik.no/~idms98 Call for Papers IDMS'98 5th International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services 8. - 11. September 1998, Oslo, Norway The Fifth International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services follows the successful IDMS workshops held 1997 in Darmstadt and 1996 in Berlin. The purpose of this workshop is to bring together researchers, developers, and practitioners from academia and industry. The workshop serves as a forum for discussion, presentation, and exploration of technologies and their advances in the broad field of interactive distributed multimedia systems and telecommunication services -- ranging from basic system technologies such as networking and operating system support to all kinds of teleservices and distributed multimedia applications. Case studies and papers describing experimental work are especially welcome. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to: High-speed/ATM networks Mobile multimedia systems Multimedia over sattelite Multimedia middelware Quality of service issues Media scaling Resource management Protocol design and implementation Distributed multimedia database systems Development tools for distributed multimedia applications Multimedia-specific intelligent agents Computer supported collaborative work Distributed virtual reality systems Distance education Conferencing Digital libraries Interactive television Video-on-demand systems Compression algorithms IDMS'98 will consist of a three day technical program, a full day of tutorials, and demonstrations during the workshop. In order to keep the flavour of a workshop, the number of participants will be restricted. Furthermore, we encurage contributions in form of full papers and position papers. Full papers are expected to describe innovative and significant work. The purpose of position papers is to provide a seed for debate and discussion. Position papers enable researchers to present exciting ongoing work in early stages, suggestions for future directions, and concerns about current developments. Both types of papers will be reviewed by the program committee and printed in the workshop proceedings. The proceedings will be published in the Springer LNCS series and will be available during the workshop. It is intended to forward selected papers to a special issue of the "Computer Communications" Journal. Information for authors: Authors are invited to submit full papers and position papers for review. Submitted manuscripts must describe original work (not submitted or published elsewhere). Full papers must not be longer than 20 double spaced pages and position papers must not be longer than 8 double spaced pages. Both types of papers should contain an abstract of approximately 300 words, and include title, authors and affiliations. The submission process of papers will be handled electronically. Detailed description of the electronic submission procedures is available on the IDMS'98 web page: http://www.unik.no/~idms98. Authors without web access may send mail to idms98@unik.no requesting electronic submission information. Authors unable to submit electronically are invited to send 5 copies of their contribution to one of the workshops chairs ATTN: IDMS'98. Important dates: Submission due: February 1, 1998 Notification of acceptance: April 15, 1998 Camera ready version: May 15, 1998 Workshop: September 9 - 11, 1998 Program co-chairs: Vera Goebel and Thomas Plagemann UniK - Center for Technology at Kjeller, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 70, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway Email: {goebel; plageman}@unik.no, Phone: +47/63.81.45.70, Fax: +47/63.81.81.46 Program Committee: F. A. Aagesen, NTNU Trondheim, Norway H. Affifi, ENST Bretagne, France E. Biersack, Institut Euricom, France G. Bochmann, University of Montreal, Canada B. Butscher, DeTeBerkom, Germany A. T. Campbell, Columbia University, USA S. Chanson, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology, HK L. Delgrossi, University Cattolica Piacenza, Italy M. Diaz, LAAS-CNRS, France F. Eliassen, University of Tromsx, Norway W. Effelsberg, University Mannheim, Germany D. Ferrari, University Cattolica Piacenza, Italy J.-P. Hubaux, EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland D. Hutchison, Lancaster University, UK W. Kalfa, TU Chemnitz, Germany T. D. C. Little, Boston University, USA E. Moeller, GMD FOKUS, Germany K. Nahrstedt, University of Illinois, USA G. Parulkar, Washington University St. louis, USA B. Pehrson, KTH Stockholm, Sweden S. Pink, SICS, Sweden B. Plattner, ETH Zurich, Switzerland H. Scholten, University of Twente, Netherlands R. Steinmetz, GMD, Germany H. Tokuda, Keio University, Japan L. Wolf, TH Darmstadt, Germany M. Zitterbart, TU Braunschweig, Germany ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 17:30:05 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Great American Websites" by Renehan BKGRAMWS.RVW 970713 "Great American Websites", Edward J. Renehan Jr., 1997, 0-07-882304-8, U$24.99/C$34.99 %A Edward J. Renehan Jr. ejren@ids.net %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-882304-8 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$24.99/C$34.99 905-430-5000 800-565-5758 905-430-5134 fax: 905-430-5020 %P 640 %T "Great American Websites: An Online Discovery of a Hidden America" The Web sites are listed alphabetically by topic under the categories of United States sports, architecture, crime, food, the great outdoors, patriots, history, individuals, kitsch, law, literature, local history, products, maps, music, festivals, politics, popular culture, religion, science, and art. Each section is introduced with a sort of multi-part essay. You can see this book as a compendium of essential American information, with notes by a noted historian. Alternatively, you can see it as a random collection of sites, described more by the author's self-indulgent idea of what *should* have been said about the topic than by a description of what is actually there. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKGRAMWS.RVW 970713 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 ------------------------------ From: aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) Subject: Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:42:05 -0500 Think you're interested in buying a new Ericsson digital TDMA phone for your carrier's digital service? Think again. After a month of poor service and mostly badly distorted connections (at least 2/3 of all mobile calls) on AT&T's cellular system in New York, I finally had to return the phone (an Ericsson DH368) for factory service. Ericsson took two days to issue a return authorization, and that was only when they intended to mail it (the customer service rep apparently lost my fax number). AT&T did not want to issue a loaner unit, but finally relented when I explained that it would be cheaper for me to toss the useless Ericsson phone in the garbage and start a new account with the competition. Seems that I spoke too soon, since the refurbished Ericsson TDMA phone started acting up barely before I got a chance to take off the plastic wrapping. The "new" DH368 is now alternately blanking the digital display, ignoring commands to answer an incoming call or place an outgoing call, disabling the alpha keys when recalling speed dial locations, and dialing the wrong numbers (had to double-check that last one, after it happening too many times, and the last-number-redialed memory matched the digits I was dialing again). To add to disappointment, I found that the great digital messaging built into this phone won't work outside of the NYC metro area (my voice mail was happily announcing to leave a numeric message that I wouldn't see for another three days, while out of town on business). I also found that even while in range of the system, digital messaging has been extremely slow (last night I got a voicemail alert two hours after returning to the area, and an hour after a two-day-old text message finally reached me). This time, Ericsson's return authorization still isn't here three days later (after promising to "expedite" it), and AT&T doesn't want to hear about loaner phones while waiting for Ericsson to get off their collective butts. Perhaps Ericsson's unpublicized high turnover in their networking groups may be the cause. In any event, this is a great opportunity for the competition to be selling the reliability of CDMA and analog products (shouldn't be difficult to grab customers away from an arrogant cellular carrier who sells defective equipment and then refuses to make good). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #318 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Nov 18 20:33:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA06378; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:33:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 20:33:33 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711190133.UAA06378@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #319 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Nov 97 20:33:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 319 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (Mark J. Cuccia) OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) (Robert Gutierrez) AT&T Hike Dims Deregulation Promises (Monty Solomon) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Garrett Wollman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (joeav@callnet.com) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Dave Stott) Re: Blocking/Charging for 800/888 (was Phase-Out of 10XXX) (Stanley Cline) The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? (Tony Harminc) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (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@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 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, 17 Nov 1997 16:06:27 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward In "Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System", Craig Milo Rogers wrote: > Lee Winson wrote: >> IMHO, the Internet can be described in terms of "store and forward", >> not direct connect. That is, your message is stored by your ISP, >> then packaged and routed. This can appear to be instantaneous, or as >> Dave Barry said, at the speed of the Division of Motor Vehicles. >> That won't work in voice communication. > The term "store-and-forward" carries baggage. The Internet's > predecessor, the ARPANet, was described as "packet-switched" to > differentiate it from earlier store-and-forward text messaging systems > (uh, TWX?). The discriminating factors are: the ARPANet forwarded ^^^ > parts of messages (packets) instead of entire user-level messages, it > forwarded them faster, and it didn't store copies in the intermediary > switching nodes for an appreciable time. TWX and Telex were actually _realtime_ _circuit-switched_ _terminal-to- terminal_ services. Within the _worldwide_ telex network (after all countries were fully connected with each other for circuit-switched connections), you dialed another Telex machine from your own Telex machine, and you had a live realtime connection, and could even do 'chats' back and forth by text-typing. However, on most international Telex connections (as compared to those connections within your Telex carrier's network), you first needed to 'dialup' (or in some cases, 'type') the Telex number of an IRC (International Record Carrier), such as RCA, ITT, WUI/MCI, TRT, etc. That IRC's switch answered and auto-responded with a typed answerback. You then _typed_ (not dialed) the international Telex country-code of the country you wanted to communicate with, followed by the domestic number of your desired Telex party. The above on Overseas/International Telex similar to 'dialing-up' a telephone call via a long-distance carrier's access numbers under fg.A (POTS/local numbers), fg.B (950-xxxx), or 800/888/etc. type numbers. The access number can be touchtone-entered or even rotary/pulse-dialed, but when the long-distance or calling-card service 'answers' with its 'dialtone', voice-prompts, or musical-jingles, you then must enter the desired number by DTMF/touchtone. Even using online, information, or bulletin-board services 'dialup' service is similar in that you dial a 'regular' telephone number (standard DTMF or pulse), but then you switch to data/modem mode for the actual data communiation. Within the old Bell System TWX network in the US/Canada, you also had realtime circuit-switched connections, TTY-to-TTY, with full two-way communication. However, just as with Telex, both ends really shouldn't be _simultaneously_ typing. During the actual dialed-up connection, one should send a brief message in realtime, wait a moment, and then see if the other end responds. When a TWX customer needed to call a Telex subscriber in another country, similar to Telex, they first needed to dialup a 'TWX' number of an IRC's Telex gateway switch, NPA-NNX-XXXX or N10-NNX-XXXX. Some of these numbers were designed to be "TWX toll-free" to the originating TWX customer. And when the IRC's gateway answered and responded in text with its answerback, the TWX customer then 'typed' the necessary instructions, such as the number of the desired Telex number in the foreign country. In the 1960's (when AT&T still completely owned and operated the TWX network in the US), there was _NO_ 'direct' interfacing between AT&T's TWX network and Western Union's (WUTCO) Telex network. However, in the mid-1960's, WUTCO did introduce a service where a WUTCO Telex subscriber could send a message to AT&T TWX subscribers, in a NON 'high-tech' way. The Telex customer would place a 'telex' call to a WUTCO center, type their message (or transmit their pre-punched papertape message), along with the headers that the message is intended for a TWX. WUTCO personnel would be receiving the 5-level Baudot punched papertape on their end, and at the conclusion of the message, the WUTCO attendant would tear off the papertape, place it in the tape-feeder of a (leased) Bell System 3-Row TWX machine, and dial-out over telco's TWX network to the actual desired customer, and then send the punched papertape message. WUTCO's own Telex network in the US (and I would assume the Telex networks in other countries, along with the IRC services for country-to-country) also began to introduce an _electronic_ store-and-forward 'one-way' service, in the mid-1960's. This electronic stor-and-forward was for Telex-to-Telex connections. The rates for such 'delayed' one-way messages were probably less expensive than for realtime TTY-to-TTY connections. When WUTCO took over the 'marketing' of (US) TWX from AT&T circa 1970/71 (AT&T/Bell still continued to maintain the routing and switching of US TWX until circa 1981/82, when US TWX switching was finally taken over by WUTCO; _all_ Canadian TWX operations _always_ remained the domain of the Canadian telephone companies rather than CNCP Telex), WUTCO began to introduce the electronic store-and-forward message capabilities to US TWX subscribers, as well as for TWX-to-Telex store-and-forward message and vice-versa. However, realtime two-way TTY-to-TTY connections were still available for TWX-to-TWX and Telex-to-Telex connections, but at different rates. And WUTCO also introduced electronic realtime two-way TTY-to-TTY connections _between_ TWX and Telex subscribers in the 1970's, but for the first several years of realtime TWX-to-Telex or Telex-to-TWX, you had to first place a call to the WUTCO "Infomaster" Center, and then 'type' your desired party's number. Later on in the 1980's (after US TWX switching and routing was fully handled by WUTCO), you could _dial_ special 'access' codes (similar to 10XXX/101XXXX+ telephone carrier codes) followed by the called party's number for realtime 2-way connections between TWX and Telex customers. WUTCO, the IRCs and other countries' (usually PTT-owned) Telex companies also had ways to send telegrams, cablegrams, radiograms, etc. directly from a Telex terminal. This, too, was a store-and-forward 'one-way' transmission on a 'delayed' delivery basis. But 'basic' TWX and Telex, as well as other 'private' TTY networks were mostly circuit-switched realtime terminal-to-terminal connections. Throughout the 1960's, AT&T (and WUTCO) had always wanted to enter into the field of "value-added" data _processing_ services. However, there were various tariff restrictions against such. WECO, Bell Labs and Teletype Corporation (all part of AT&T) did develope technologies for such, many of which was applied to the field of data _communications_, which was something a common-carrier could do under tariff. AT&T's Dataphone service (particularly their wideband/highspeed Dataphone-50) was for _realtime_ data communication over ordinary telephone lines and trunks, but AT&T wanted to begin to offer some store-and-forward data services. The data messages would be electronically stored in enhanced #5XB offices or later ESS offices. However, I don't think that AT&T could get regulatory approval. Even Dataphone-50 (introduced in the later 1960s) only had one customer, "the telephone company itself", until the mid-1970's, when other (non-telco) customers were able to subscribe to this data service's wideband trunks and CPE (modems) from telco. (Since the late 1960's, AT&T and its Bell Telephone Companies had used Dataphone-50 Switeched Digital Service, to exhange collect/card/3d.party-billed revenue and billing information, with each other, exchanging this information each day in the overnight period.) In the early 1980's, some of the local Bell telcos experimented temporarily with central-office switch-based (electronic) voicemail services. But telco had trouble getting regulatory approval when they wanted to make voicemail service a regular permanent offering. Since AT&T/Bell (and WUTCO) had been more-or-less monopolies (and in some ways AT&T and Bell/LEC still are), they were barred from entering into providing these and various other "enhanced", "value-added" and "information processing" services. They were supposed to be regulated only as _common-carriers_ for 'basic' telecommunication services, as well as manufacturing and leasing out the necessary CPE to provide such 'basic' services. Many of these restrictions have since been lifted over the past several years, due to divestiture, and changes in the regulatory climate. Some even claim that AT&T itself _wanted_ divestiture, so it wouldn't have the burdon of the local monopoly (some forms of intercity carrier competition had been around for several years by 1982) nor much of the regulatory restrictions. They could be free to enter new service offerings in a more competitive environment. 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: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:33:43 PST From: Robert M. Gutierrez Subject: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) Has anybody been able to provision a PRI with a LEC, CLEC or IXC that will or can pass OLS digits from their switch? There are usually 2 OLS digits that are usually prefixed on the ANI. So for FGB or FGB inband signalling, you would get 12 digits, the first 2 being the OLS digits, and the other 10 being the ANI of the call. OLS digits can define the type of originating service, like public coin, hotel, hospital, prison (!), and also flag ANI failures and customer provided ANI digits. Yes, we are set up to use this information. Unfortunately, I have not looked at the Q.931 document from the ITU to see if there is a digit length in the called number field. I would assume not for international and future portability (god forbid that I think U.S. centric!). So with that in mind, is there any options in the DMS-100 or 5ESS generic that provide passing of the OLS digits in the Q.931 message. No, I'm not about to order a FGD trunk with a SS-7 link. My CPE can't handle that :( rob gutierrez / WebTV Networks ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Hike Dims Deregulation Promises Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 20:23:43 -0500 From: Monty Solomon AT&T hike dims deregulation promises By John Rendleman, PC Week Online 11.17.97 10:00 a.m. ET In a move that spells higher WAN costs for many corporate customers, AT&T Corp. has quietly hiked rates for most of its business voice and data services by as much as 10 percent. AT&T's latest rate increase is particularly troubling for corporate IT managers, since MCI Communications Corp. and Sprint Corp. typically follow rate changes made by market leader AT&T with changes of their own. The AT&T rate increases, which took effect Nov. 5, cover the entire range of AT&T telecommunications offerings, including data services such as frame relay, ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) and private lines, as well as the gamut of its inbound and outbound voice services. With the latest hikes, "there were some services that weren't affected, but the actions we took do have an impact on the majority of our customers," said Steve Sobolevitch, director of strategic pricing for business services at AT&T, in Basking Ridge, N.J. Such a move spells bad news for corporate customers looking to competition in the telecommunications market to bring lower prices for voice and data services. "I certainly hate to see long distance rates and our costs rise," said one AT&T customer who requested anonymity. The double-digit growth in AT&T's overall traffic and the triple-digit growth in frame relay traffic, in particular, led to the company's decision to raise prices, according to Sobolevitch. In any price change, "we look at the growth parameters of each service, and we have strong demand for our services," he said. "That's one of the factors that goes into how we price the service." That explanation angered business customers, even though most said they comprehend the company's decision to price its services at the highest level the market will bear. "I understand it, but I don't like it," said one AT&T customer who requested anonymity. "I have a problem with anybody that prices anything for as much as they think they can get for it." Among the RBOCs (Regional Bell Operating Companies), BellSouth Corp. attacked AT&T's rate action. Officials at the Atlanta-based RBOC have in the past accused the three long distance providers of raising rates together. Whether rate hikes from the other two companies would follow is unclear. Last week, representatives at MCI and Sprint said their companies were still evaluating AT&T's rate increases before deciding whether or how to respond. ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 16 Nov 1997 23:25:06 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Bruce Lucas wrote: > Yeah, that really sounds like my idea of high-quality phone service - > hovering on borderline of acceptability, with a guarantee that some > percentage of the time you pick up the phone get such a poor > connection that you just hang up instead. Yeah. Not at all. If you want guarantees, you can (or rather, will be able to) pay for them. If you're cheap and don't care (or you're rich and have already paid for oceans of bandwidth, mostly unused), there's no need. Think of it as ``unbundling''. Or consider the question from another angle ... say you're in Europe, calling someone who uses a mobile phone. Chances are, the guy at the other end has a crappy 13-kbit/s GSM codec. Why should you pay for a 64-kbit/s A-law path between you and his MTSO when 13 would give you all the voice quality his phone is capable of delivering? (Of course, the telephone company can make this optimization too, provided it has enough information about the endpoints AND a flexible- or old-enough network.) 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 ------------------------------ From: joeav@callnet.com Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:27:48 GMT Organization: Futuris/Callnet I fail to undestand how anyone can over look the e-commerce aspect of all this. The local telco's are the only that could provide a secure network that is all ready in place down to the local loop. Sure the cable compaines have a shot it but, the race is on ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:51:04 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System In TELECOM Digest #317, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)wrote: > Some more comments on economic competition and telephone service ... >> The BOC's loop is one way for consumers and businesses to connect to >> their ISPs, but there are others: wireless and microwave, for >> instance, are in use today. > Is wireless and microwave appropriate and cheap enough for individual > POTS subscribers? Not today, but there is a huge economic incentive for the PCS and WCS auction winners, and the CLECs and ALTs to continue to refine the technology. When new entrants can offer wireless local loops and bypass the LECs' plant, they have succeeded in denying the LEC any share of the customer's local service bill (not including calls to the LEC's customers which will be paid by interconnect fees). Depending on whose side you're on that is bad or that is good, but it surely _is_ and the LEC has lost a revenue source, the new entrant has reduced its reliance on its competitor, and the bulk of the money flows to the actual provider. >> That's certainly one opinion. Others feel that telephone customers >> have had no choice in where their money went prior to today, and the >> dollars they have invested in telephone service (because all dollars >> are ultimately supplied by the customers) is a "public investment" in >> a private company. > Consumers received a service for their payments all this years. > The network was not built by tax dollars, but rather by subscribers > who were getting telephone service. Indeed, the smallest subscribers > were subsidized by the heavier business, premium service, and long > distance users. Yes they were. And while the funds to build the system were not explicitly tax dollars, it could be argued that they were selectively applied implicit tax dollars. The Federal Government decided that the Bell System (and other LECs) would be a monopoly and we had no choice about who received our telephone dollars. The government-protected LEC always got your money. >> When GM came to town, Ford could argue that the existing roads should be >> used exclusively for Fords, since only Fords had been used on them up >> to now. Should GM build all new roads? > Well, your argument falls flat since Ford didn't build the roads in > your story. The Bell System designed and built the network privately. 'Privately' doesn't work here. They were protected by the government and no one was allowed to build a competing network. What's the difference between the Bell System and a government agency? The Bell System actually made money. Remember that _before_ the Bell System, there were competing local companies, and the Feds decided that a 'natural monopoly' was in the country's best interest. The Feds actually nationalized the Bell System for a short time, but that didn't work, so the 'natural monopoly' argument took precedence. Otherwise, we might have had the US Postal & Telephone Department. > Further, the pricing of service was controlled by the government. Yikes! Sounds like the USPS, not a 'private' company. > The phone company is also mandated to serve unprofitable/undesirable > customers. There are often articles in the newspaper complaining > about corporations avoiding poor or ghetto areas, however, that is > generally fully legal. The phone company must offer full services > everywhere, to everyone, with appeal rights to the PUC. And that is > costly. > The phone company isn't allowed to tack on price premiums. For > example, if you visit a resort town, you'll find most prices more > expensive than back at home. Phone service will be exactly the same. > If the phone company was private, it'd charge a premium just as the > ice cream man and suntan lotion store. [I paid double for suntan > lotion this summer at the beach because I forgot the bottle at home.] Sounds again like the Post Office. My point is that the infrastructure was built with captive dollars. Whether they were _tax_ dollars or government directed consumer dollars really isn't the issue. I've paid my money for 20 years to the LEC because I wanted a phone, and the government told me who I could buy that service from. They didn't give me a choice, and my 'investment' for basic service during that time surely paid for the local loop. The stockholders don't pay for it. Just the ratepayers do. > Secondly, better ideas don't always "drive out bad ones". That only > happens in the "pure competition" economic model where everyone has > full knowledge and equal opportunity to enter the marketplace. Once a > company gets entrenched, it won't be go away so easily, even if it > provides _bad service_. You mean like the BOCs or the USPS? The good news is that poorly run new entrants aren't likely to become entrenched. Look at the cellular vs PCS market wars - the cellular companies are rushing to upgrade their networks to compete with the new entrants, now that their government- mandated duopoly is gone. If the new PCS companies don't get it right, they won't survive. Same for the incumbants. > Why re-create something we know from history was a failure? I agree. Let's not perpetuate another USPS. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com Helping you profit from changes in the telecommunications industry ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Blocking/Charging for 800/888 (was Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes?) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 03:53:58 GMT Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:24:00 GMT, chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) wrote: > high school in a somewhat rural area). I can't recall the carrier, I > am vaguely thinking Universal Telecom or something similar. Anyway, I > was trying to call home (we have an 888 number for such situations), > and it rejected it. I first thought perhaps my dad had restricted the > calling area, so I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to use the calling card > instead. Same thing. It simply didn't like toll-free calls. I've > never seen this before, has anyone else? Yes. This sounds like a private payphone (COCOT) that was programmed specifically to block access to 800/888 numbers. It's possible that the COCOT owner blocked access to 1-800-CALL-ATT and to all 888 numbers -- I've seen sleazy things like this before. Other COCOTs charge for calls to 888 -- but not 800 -- numbers, thinking that 888 is a toll NPA; others charge for 800-555-xxxx and/or 888-555-xxxx thinking that there is a charge for calling the numbers, as with NPA (other than 800/888)-555-1212. With COCOTs, anything can happen. :( Since you were trying to dial 1-800-CALL-ATT, the COCOT is clearly in violation of state and Federal regulations barring COCOT owners from blocking -- or (in most states) charging for -- calls to 800/888 numbers or 10[1x]xxx carrier codes. You should complain to the Public Service/Utility Commission in the state in which the phone was located, as well as to the FCC. Usually, this will get the phone owner's attention. =20 (Unfortunately, a few COCOT owners, including Peoples Telephone Company of Miami and several small Atlanta companies, are "habitual offenders" -- PTC continues to overcharge on local calls and disallow 101-5xxx/6xxx carrier access codes, and two small companies here in Atlanta block or charge for 888, arguing with me that 888 is not toll-free, even though 888 has been in existence for nearly two years. All this is even after repeated complaints to them and to the FCC, Georgia PSC, and Tennessee regulators. The problem is NOT with the regulators -- Georgia in particular is very good about policing problem payphones -- it's the sleazy COCOT companies themselves.) > I realized after a couple seconds that I could use 10ATT, > which worked -- although their phone tree didn't like me and I ended > up having to recite numbers to an operator. Speaking of phone trees, A note on AT&T tariffs -- Calls placed through 10ATT now cost more than calls placed via 1-800-CALL-ATT/1-800-321-0288, except for calls from AT&T's cardphones. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ what's up with payphones?.......see http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here!....help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: 16 Nov 1997 00:45:05 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:00:36 GMT, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: >> (Local, regional and long distance calls are all charged at this same >> rate as it is done in most European cellular networks. Nothing is >> charged for receiving incoming calls.) > Isn't that because landline users are charged extra to call mobile > phones? In India landline users pay the same to call a mobile phone as > to call another landline, so mobile users have to pay for incoming > calls too, about 60% of the rate for outgoing calls. I've heard, although not recently, arguments for both caller-pays and callee-pays approaches to cellular billing. I've never, however, heard anyone mention what _I_ consider to be the obvious reason why it ought to be the cellular sub who pays for the airtime part of the call: They're the one getting the convenience of the wireless service, why oughtn't _they_ be the one to pay for it? If I see fit to give out my cellular number to unsuspecting people, why should it be either that they should pay for my convenience, or even more importantly from a personal privacy standpoint, that I should even have to tell them it's a cellphone at _all_? I've given out my pager number for years now, without the messageon my voice mailbox saying anything more than "Sorry I can't take your call right now, leave a message"... and the only people the wiser are the ones I _tell_ ... which is as it should be. (Ok, the people who understand DID groups occasionally figure it out, too ... :-) Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 Crack. It does a body good. +1 813 790 7592 jra@baylink.com http://rc5.distributed.net NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ From: tzha0@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Tony Harminc) Subject: Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? Reply-To: tzha0@juts.ccc.amdahl.com Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA USA Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 22:38:41 GMT Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > Since I don't actually live in Canada, I couldn't say how certain > ideosynchosies and inconsistancies exist, such as calling the operator > or operator/card services, non-US international, etc. Generally the "00" code has not been implemented in Canada. The local telcos (through their Stentor alliance) maintained a monopoly on calling card calls handled via 0+ dialling, and the competitors were left to manage their own calling card systems accessed through 800 numbers. I believe the CRTC ordered the Stentor companies to accept other carriers' calling cards a year or so ago, but I don't know what's happened to the implementation. > It has been thatTeleglobe is the protected monopoly for calling > non-US internatinal locations, and such calls have been placed as before, > through your Canadian local telco's services. I don't know what happens if > you dial a 10[1X]XXX+ "CAC" first, then 011+. Nor do I know how > (straight) 011+ >calls would be handled if your primary toll carrier > were _not_ the toll services of "your local telephone company". > However, I understand that Teleglobe is soon supposed to be losing its > protected monopoly status if it hasn't lost it already. It could also > be that other carriers allow you to use them for 011+ calls, but they > are simply _reselling_ Teleglobe. Consumers have never dealt directly with Teleglobe; they dealt initially with the local monopoly carrier, and more recently with the LD carrier of their choice. The LD carrier sets the overseas rates and Teleglobe carries the call. (Actually Teleglobe did have some sort of business direct service a few years ago. Businesses with sufficient overseas volume could get a T1 directly to a Teleglobe POP, but that service went away as part of some agreement between Teleglobe and Stentor, I think.) Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:03:12 -0500 In article , chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) wrote: > On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 13:30:08 -0800, Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc > Madison) wrote: >> Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing >> 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing >> from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed >> that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". > That reminds me -- I was using a pay phone last night (at a > high school in a somewhat rural area). I can't recall the carrier, I > am vaguely thinking Universal Telecom or something similar. Anyway, I > was trying to call home (we have an 888 number for such situations), > and it rejected it. I first thought perhaps my dad had restricted the > calling area, so I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to use the calling card > instead. Same thing. It simply didn't like toll-free calls. I've > never seen this before, has anyone else? I have, more than once. There's a shopping mall in Bethpage, New York, suburb of New York City, that not only won't allow 800 calls, but also won't call 911 without a cash deposit. Same thing happened while using a pay phone in Chandler, Arizona. Couldn't use a 10XXX code, and couldn't reach AT&T via a toll-free number. Happened again with one of the few pay phones in Oradell, New Jersey (which is not rural at all). Couldn't use a 10XXX code and 800 calls were blocked. It's a common practice, even if illegal in some states. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #319 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Nov 18 22:21:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA14989; Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:21:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:21:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711190321.WAA14989@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #320 TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Nov 97 22:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 320 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bulletproof 888 Number? (Derek Balling) UCLA Short Course on "Reed-Solomon Codes and Applications" (Bill Goodin) Cableco Franchise Renewal (Allison Hift) Comparing Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs (Richard Simpson) Availability of Wireless Service Quality Info (force010@ix.netcom.com) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (A. Green) Re: Help! Grounding! (Carl Zwanzig) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Scott A. Miller) Re: Splitting Exchange Designations: Feasible? (Al Varney) Re: Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! (Alan Boritz) Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Matthew Black) Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Fred McClintic) Re: Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing (Neal McLain) 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@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 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, 17 Nov 1997 20:48:14 -0600 From: Derek Balling Subject: Bulletproof 888 Number? I recently received the following junk mail in my mailbox ... the useless drivel has, of course, been removed, but they had something called a "bulletproof 888 number"? You may want to call them and ask them about it. Being a telecommunications professional, I'd never heard about it, so I made sure to ask them about it. Of course I never write stuff down and my memory fails me every so often, so I may have had to ask a couple times. ;) --- Semi Processed Antiseptic Meats follow --- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Our toll-free number is a BULLETPROOF # and we will have the name, address, and telephone # of anyone who calls! So only SERIOUS INQUIRES are invited to respond! All others looking to waste our time and money through any means of sabotage will be dealt with LEGALLY or by way of EXTREME RETALIATION! >>> If you choose further information options other than our Toll-Free number then remember to print or write down the telephone number for future contact. This is only until our Site is back up. Thank You! CALL FOR OUR FAX ON DEMAND INFORMATION! YOU CAN ALSO TUNE IN TO OUR NATIONWIDE CONFERENCE CALLS EVERY TUES AND THURS 7pm (PACIFIC STANDARD TIME) DIAL 10333 THEN 1-801-345-0605 OR CALL NOW TOLL-FREE FOR MORE INFO. OR TO RESERVE YOUR POSITION! 1-888-809-2578 24HRS. WRITE DOWN THIS # IF YOU CHOOSE AN OPTION ABOVE! --- end of the meat --- Derek J. Balling | J: "You ARE Aware Elvis is dead, right?" dredd@megacity.org | K: "Elvis isn't dead, son he just went http://www.megacity.org/ | home!" - Men In Black [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All he is trying to say is that they receive ANI (Automatic Number Identification) on all incoming calls and that they (at least claim to) research this listing carefully to see who has been making a nuisance of themselves or otherwise making mischief. ANI is nothing new; I doubt that he is getting it in real- time (that is, the number shown as each call is recieved) but he might be. That is why when from time to time here I invite readers to call the spammers to learn about the wonderful and wacky products and services they are offering, I remind everyone to call from a pay phone, a one-way outgoing line, or from behind a PBX/Centrex with a bunch of DID numbers, an outgoing only WATS line with no dialable number assigned to it, etc, so as to render the ANI results useless for the threats given by the spammer. One other point: he refers to a 'nationwide conference' every Thursday night at 7 pm Pacific time, and he instructs callers to dial into it using 10333 plus the number. It sounds to me like our boy has a T-1 into his premises from Sprint; wouldn't you agree? Chances are that dialing the number without that 10333 won't get you in. Very likely Sprint intercepts it and puts it on his T-1. It might be fun to hack around with that for awhile and see what happens, but of course you do not want to do anything that is illegal, unlawful, unethical, immoral or fattening. I wonder if anyone has ever gotten the idea of pirating that bridge for other purposes, or perhaps simply called up at the appointed time and completely abused and misused the conference itself. Nah, readers of this Digest are not that malcious but I wouldn't put it past the readers of that other newsgroup. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Reed-Solomon Codes and Applications" Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 18:32:26 -0800 On February 11-13, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Reed-Solomon Codes and Applications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructor is Behnam Kamali, PhD, PE, Associate Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Mercer University, Macon, GA. Reed-Solomon (RS) codes may be the most widely applied error control coding schemes in use today. The wide acceptance of RS codes can be attributed to their unique suitability for random and burst error corrections in a wide spectrum of applications, including satellite and space communications; digital and high-definition TV (DTV, HDTV) as well as other broadcast systems; CD digital audio and CD ROM; digital magnetic storage systems; and more recently, wireless mobile networks. Potential new applications include future wireless and PCS networks, wireless and wireline optical communication systems, and future optical and magnetic mass storage systems. This course covers the theory and applications of RS codes with a simplified mathematical approach, in which the only required background is elementary arithmetic and algebra. The focus is on a subclass of RS codes -- linear cyclic codes -- constructed over the extensions of the binary field. This subclass contains the overwhelming majority of practical RS codes. Course objectives are to enable participants to understand RS codes, to design systems with RS codes, and to select a proper RS code/codec for a given set of system characteristics and user requirements. Various implementations of encoder/decoder (codec) circuits, using dedicated VLSI circuits, microprocessors, DSP chips, and ASICs are discussed. Present and potential future applications of RS codes are emphasized. Several step-by-step design examples of RS coded systems are presented at the conclusion of the course. Major topic areas include: o Simple language description of algebraic structure of RS codes o RS codes various encoding/decoding techniques, hardware versus software decoding o How to implement RS codecs using various VLSI technologies o How to select RS codes for random and burst error correction o RS coded system design for single, double, triple burst error correction o RS coded design, given a set of system constraints o How to select a proper RS code for system robustness against errors and erasures o RS coded design to cope with multipath fading, jamming, shot noise, and media defect in storage devices The course fee is $1295, 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. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:07:01 EST From: Alliso Hift Subject: Cableco Franchise Renewal I have come across an interesting issue and I wonder if any readers have comments. Hypothesis: A newly formed governmental entity -- a township -- (local franchising authority) granted a cable television franchise to a cable operator for twenty years. During that time, the governmental entity has changed and the area has matured and expanded and the local franchising authority is now a city (rather than a township). The cable operator claims it has a renewal expectancy. The City claims the cable operator has to apply for an initial franchise. From the City's perspective, if this is a renewal proceeding, the City can only deny renewal based on factors set forth in Federal law. On the other hand, if this is an initial franchise proceeding, the City has much more leverage. Comments? Allison K. Hift, Bar Admission Pending Leibowitz & Associates, P.A. 1 Southeast Third Ave. Suite 1450 Miami, Florida 33131-1715 Voice (305) 530-1322 Fax (305) 530-9417 http://www.library.law.miami.edu/~hift hift@cobra.law.miami.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the government entity is out of luck on this, and they will have to follow renewal guidelines whether they like it or not. The reason is, all that has changed is the government's status. In a private business, if I have contractual obligations of one sort or another and I sell my business to some other party without making diclosure of the business' liabilities (which would certainly include a contract to which the business was bound) then I have committed fraud. That is assuming I sell both my assets and my liabilities. I know of a landlord in Chicago who sold an apartment building once to another company and claimed in doing so that all the tenants in the building were only 'month-by-month' renters. Imagine what happened when the new owners discovered about 80 percent of the tenants had leases over a period of several months to two years! They rightfully sued the former landlord to get an adjustment in the sale. Now in your instance, if the 'old' government was dissolved as a simultaneous thing with the 'new' government being established (let us assume it was established via an act of the state legislature) then the 'old' government passed its assets and liabilities to the 'new' government. If it did not do so -- that is, if it simply repudiated all its obligations and went out of business as it were -- then that would be a different story. But I have never heard of a government doing this, and there would be a god-awful stink from the other creditors in the process if it happened, lawsuits a-plenty, etc. It is far more likely the new government opened with the debts and assets of the old government on its books. As a result, whatever 'credit' or status the cableco had built up or obtained as a result of its relationship with the old government is now available to it with the new government. If in fact there was no change in governments and the same government is in place now that was in place before, then the same thing is true: cableco is dealing with the same entity regardless of what the government chooses to call itself, and cableco is entitled to whatever rights it has under the circumstances. Do cableco/telco franchise agreements ever discuss something like this in their contract? I don't think I have ever seen it mentioned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Richard Simpson Subject: Comparing Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:58:43 -0800 Thoughts about choosing between two of the best ACD/PBX combos on the market: Lucent will typically be 30 -200% higher priced than a Fujitsu solution. Size of the ACD is a significant consideration for which product not to choose. Lucent is in a position to be all things to all people. Fujitsu has a narrower focus on ACD. Fujitsu performs best in a 10 - 100 person call center. Upper end limitations for Fujitsu are around 300 agents. Fujitsu customers that have expanded beyond 300 agents move to a more ACD centric product like Aspect or Rockwell rather than Lucent due to the requirements that no PBX vendor can give. Fujitsu offers a client/server architecture for their ACD. A client supervisor has full control of the ACD to Administer, view real time activity and manage reports. All call statistics are stored on an Oracle database that is open to the customer. PBX vendors are moving away from the proprietary world and into on open standards world. Fujitsu also offers a serial connection to the server that gives detailed information about a call that is ringing on an agents phone (phone extension, DNIS, ANI...) this information is useful for Computer Telephony Integrations. This same information is also available through a streaming telnet session to the server. The server connects to an IP network for network printing and LAN/WAN connected supervisors. 1st quarter '98 Fujitsu will also be releasing a client for the ACD agents. This client will allow information classically displayed on sign boards but will also include pull down wrap up codes sign in/sign out etc. This client application will also grow into a at home ACD agent optionally integrating voice over IP. Both are quality products. Richard Simpson CTI Design Engineer ------------------------------ From: force010@ix.netcom.com Subject: Availability of Wireless Service Quality Info Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:26:16 -0800 Organization: Netcom Reply-To: force010@ix.netcom.com As I watch the introduction of several new digital and/or PCS service providers into my area, I find I'm at a loss about how to find out certain critical information. Before I'd commit my business handphone users to a new service, I'd want to know about the quality of service offered by each of the contenders. I'd want to know: 1. "grade of service"; i.e., probability of getting blocking on a call made at the busiest time in the busiest area. 2. area penetration; i.e., some measure of how well the service fills in its nominal service area (the extent to which canyons, mountain shadows, etc., degrade the service). 3. growth headroom; i.e., how well the service is keeping its facilities ahead of its sales force. I would expect that industry-standard methods of measuring such service criteria would be specified by the local state agency (PUC) and would be available for inspection by potential customers. Can anyone provide information on how I can get this information or bring about its availability by the PUC? Dave ------------------------------ From: Andrew Green Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 09:25:10 -0600 Monty Solomon quotes MICHAEL A. HILTZIK, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer > There could hardly have been a worse time for Marcia Spielholz's > cellular phone to fail her. [...] > For 10 terrifying minutes she played cat-and-mouse with a black > sedan along National Boulevard and up Castle Heights Avenue, one hand > on the wheel, the other frantically tapping 911 onto the keypad of her > cellular phone. [...] > Another try, another sickening busy. Finally her time ran out. Oh, stop. While I am certainly sympathetic to Ms. Spielholz, there are some factors here that don't seem to add up. First, the article states she was receiving rapid busy signals. It's unclear to me whether this refers to an all-circuits-are-busy signal from the CO or an out-of-range signal from the phone itself; I own two different cellphones, a car-mounted and an analog portable, and have heard both such warnings from both phones occasionally under various circumstances over the years. If it was an all-circuits-are-busy for 9-1-1, I cannot imagine, even in her understandable panic, that over the course of ten minutes worth of dialing and driving, she didn't try calling someone -- anyone -- other than 9-1-1. The Operator comes to mind. I have called in numerous emergencies over the years, and always done it by calling the Operator and requesting "(town name here) Police Emergency." My call is always transferred promptly. Even if I don't know my exact location and possibly get connected to the wrong town's Police Department, at least I've reached someone. But in a somewhat contradictory followup paragraph, it says that a study she commissioned showed that her 9-1-1 call should have been routed via another provider, since her carrier's signal was "too weak" to carry a 9-1-1 call in that area. But I thought the problem was a rapid-busy, as in all-circuits-are-busy, which doesn't seem to be a signal-strength issue at all as her call had already reached the land-line network. And if the "rapid busy" was in fact an out-of-range signal, then the phone was out of range, period. The number being dialed would be irrelevant. If Ms. Spielholz had configured her phone to switch to the alternate carrier or roam, either manually or automatically, perhaps she would then have been able to reach someone. Again, I have the utmost sympathy for Ms. Spielholz but this story seems inconsistent. Perhaps certain facts have been muddied in its path through the media. Andrew C. Green (312) 853-8331 Datalogics, Inc. email: acg@datalogics.com 101 N. Wacker, Ste. 1800 http://www.datalogics.com Chicago, IL 60606-7301 Fax: (312) 853-8282 ------------------------------ From: cpz@intertrust.com (Carl Zwanzig) Subject: Re: Help! Grounding! Date: 18 Nov 1997 11:55:53 -0800 Organization: InterTrust Technologies Corp. In article Howard Eisenhauer wrote: > I'm in need of some advice on grounding matters. > I work for a company installing PCS equipment and some issues have been > raised about reference grounds for the radio and transmission equipment. > Issue #1: When an insulated ground lead (1/0 Cu. to be specific) is run > through a metallic conduit(11/2"-2" EMT) should the conduit be bonded to > the ground lead: > a.-where the lead enters and exits the conduit > b.-at one end only > c.-not at all By my recollection, the pipe should be bonded to the "safety" ground, not necessarily to the radio ground. > Issue #2: Is it permissable to secure the ground lead to walls, ceilings, > cable racks, slow moving installers or whatever with: > a.-mettalic clamps that encircle the lead > b.-mettalic clamps that don't encircle the the wire > c.-non-mettalic clamps only Any of the above should do. Unfortunately, slow-moving installers do eventually settle, so you should leave service loops. :-) > Please note that in most cases a seperate lightening protection system > will be in place for the outside plant structures/equipment although > in my experience lightning goes pretty much where it wants so the > possibility exists to have surge current on the reference ground. > If anyone can point me to some references to make the arguments one > way or another I would very much appreciate it. The first people that I'd be talking to is the RF equipment manufacturers. Follow that by looking at the local electrical codes. Also, even though you're in Canada, try the US National Electrical Code. z! Carl Zwanzig - Network manager & Systems janitor InterTrust Technologies Corp cpz"@"intertrust.com 408.222.6125 "Haven't they learned yet that adding more beer to a full glass just makes the table wetter, it doesn't get you more beer?" Ron Jarrell ------------------------------ From: samiller@BIX.com (Scott A. Miller) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 18 Nov 1997 19:59:48 GMT Organization: Galahad On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:32:43 GMT Bill Sohl of BL Enterprises wrote this re Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System: > internet phone is not reliable. As a business user, I can not > afford the hit or miss aspect of internet phone when dealing with > clients. I suspect I-phone will augment recreational/family voice > services, but I see little liklihood that it will kill AT&T, MCI, etc. Perhaps not kill. However, I'm about to restrict all my teenager's ld calls to Internet phone (the calls are 90% to people he's on chat with, so their connection is little problem). The tolls have been averaging about $100/month. The carrier revenue will drop from that figure to $0. $100/month * number_of_teenagers_in_the_same_boat could = lotsa_bucks ;>) Scott A. Miller samiller@bix.com samiller@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Splitting Exchange Designations: Feasible? Date: 18 Nov 1997 06:53:07 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Lee Winson wrote: > A major reason North America is running out of telephone exchanges is > competition by new local companies. At present, each new local > company must be assigned a full exchange code in each area served, > giving it 10,000 numbers per area. The problem is many new carriers > won't need anywhere need that many numbers, so numbers are wasted. > Would it be _feasible_ and _practical_ to change this so exchange codes > could be split between carriers per geographic area? (Codes would NOT > cover multiple geographic areas.) > There are two obvious issues: There are several non-obvious issues as well, all explored in depth at several Illinois Commerce Commission task force meetings last year and this year, in several other State PUCs workshops, at the ATIS Industry Numbering Committee meetings and in reports to the FCC. This and other ideas regarding "Number Pooling" are summarized in INC's first report on Number Pooling, a link off of: I believe the consensus was 1) it was workable, but costly and would take some time to develop all the support system changes needed and 2) using a slight modification to current Number Portability procedures would be a more efficient, cost-effective and quicker solution. But this was a good suggestion, Lee. It's possible that a solution that is quick, cheap and overlooked exists. If you find it, the industry would be VERY grateful for that knowledge. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 07:24:25 -0500 In article , aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) wrote: > Think you're interested in buying a new Ericsson digital TDMA phone > for your carrier's digital service? Think again. After a month of > poor service and mostly badly distorted connections (at least 2/3 of > all mobile calls) on AT&T's cellular system in New York, I finally had > to return the phone (an Ericsson DH368) for factory service. Ericsson > took two days to issue a return authorization, and that was only when > they intended to mail it (the customer service rep apparently lost my > fax number)... An update on Ericsson Customer Service: five days and still *no* return authorization. I'd sure hate to buy a switch from these people, if they can't handle simple cellphone service. ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.SPAMFORD-WALLACE.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? Date: 17 Nov 1997 15:38:44 GMT Organization: California State University, Long Beach In article , fmcclint@diemakers.com says: > I've used that number in the past here, so I tried to dial it just > to see what would happen. I got a bad number recording "Your call > cannot be completed as dialed. Please, check the number and dial > again. 21K" We are in the middle of changing from AT&T to MCI, so I > wasn't sure what I *should* be getting at this particular moment. I > then grabbed a line from our other GTE location and checked from one > of their trunks. Same thing. Next I grabbed a line from our SWB > location. There I got the AT&T jingle. Next I went out locally and > dialed 00. I got the MCI jingle. Ah, looks like a carrier problem. I get a similar recording when calling 700-555-4x4x ala "...as dialed -- 035T." Funny, but 700-4141 returns Sprint. matt ------------------------------ From: Fred McClintic Subject: Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:26:38 -0600 Addendum: Over the weekend I decided to try the number from my home phone. I have Telecom USA there as the PIC'ed carrier. As has been mentioned somewhere in the Digest prior, they have been acquired by MCI and just kept their brand name. I dial 1-700-555-4141 and what do I get? "Thank you for using MCI" (or words to that effect - I didn't write it down). Interesting ... on one hand, MCI doesn't publicize that Telecom USA is actually MCI service, but tells you when you dial and check. On the other hand, when they proudly sell it as their own service, they won't *let* you dial and check ... hmmm... Fred ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:47:39 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing In Volume 17 Issue 316, Stan Schwartz asked: > From the BellSouth Corporate web site, this is in conjunction > with the upcoming North Carolina NPA splits. Aren't "protected > exchanges" such as these what contribute to chewing up existing > NPA's?? Not necessarily: a cross-NPA-boundary NXX can be "protected" in one part of an NPA and re-used elsewhere within the same NPA if two conditions exist: (a) the local dialing plan requires 1+NPA+ for intra-NPA long-distance, and (b) the two locations are separated by a distance which requires long distance dialing to call from one to the other. An example. Up here in the frozen Midwest, we have the following situation: 608-326-xxxx Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, on the east bank of the Mississippi River, and at the western edge of 608. 319-873-xxxx McGregor, Iowa, on the west bank of the Mississippi River, right across from Prairie du Chien. 608-873-xxxx Stoughton, Wisconsin, over on the eastern side of 608, almost 100 miles from Prairie du Chien. From Prairie du Chien, a caller dials: 873-xxxx to reach McGregor: a cross-NPA local call which can be dialed as 7 digits. 1-608-873-xxxx to reach Stoughton: an intra-NPA long distance which must be dialed as 11 digits. So in this case, 873 is "protected" within the Prairie du Chien local calling area, but it's still used elsewhere within 608. The fact that it's protected does not, in and of itself, prevent its use elsewhere within the NPA. This same technique can be used in North Carolina because North Carolina already requires 1+NPA+ for intra-NPA long distance. Neal McLain nmclain@compuserve.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #320 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 20 09:18:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA22552; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:18:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:18:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711201418.JAA22552@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #321 TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Nov 97 09:18:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 321 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "LAN Times Guide to Managing Remote Connectivity" (Rob Slade) COCOTs Misprogrammed (David Perrussel) PBX Prompting Woes (was: Phase Out of 10XXX Codes) (Al Hays) 800/888 Rationing Update (Judith Oppenheimer) SPAM: Usenet Bans CompuServe (Eric Florack) Video Conferencing to a GSM (Koos van den Hout) BCTel and 10xxx Codes (Babu Mengelepouti) SkyTel Blocks Access From Payphones (Bob Snyder) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (L 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: * telecom-request@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 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, 19 Nov 1997 19:33:54 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "LAN Times Guide to Managing Remote Connectivity" BKLTGMRC.RVW 970713 "LAN Times Guide to Managing Remote Connectivity", Salvatore Salamone, 1997, 0-07-882267-X, U$34.99/C$49.99 %A Salvatore Salamone %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-07-882267-X %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$34.99/C$49.99 905-430-5000 800-565-5758 905-430-5134 fax: 905-430-5020 %P 395 %T "LAN Times Guide to Managing Remote Connectivity" I guess the title does say it all, but how to explain what the title means? This is a quick overview of the data communications options and requirements for a remote, or possibly travelling, user, dialing in to a host, LAN, or WAN (wide area network). The emphasis is on breadth of options regarded, rather than specifics of the technology. The advice on management is sometimes hampered by the lack of detail, but is generally practical and helpful. As I read through this book, it appeared to be quite similar to many before it, aimed at the same audience, and to the same purpose. Then, I realized that these books have a short lifetime, given the rapid changes in the technologies. This is, then, a very serviceable successor to those previous, and covers the latest, up to date, possibilities. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKLTGMRC.RVW 970713 ------------------------------ From: David Perrussel Date: Wed, 19 Nov 97 19:38:24 -0500 Reply-To: David Perrussel Subject: COCOTs Misprogrammed >> That reminds me -- I was using a pay phone last night (at a >> high school in a somewhat rural area). I can't recall the carrier, I >> am vaguely thinking Universal Telecom or something similar. Anyway, I >> was trying to call home (we have an 888 number for such situations), >> and it rejected it. I first thought perhaps my dad had restricted the >> calling area, so I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to use the calling card >> instead. Same thing. It simply didn't like toll-free calls. I've >> never seen this before, has anyone else? > I have, more than once. There's a shopping mall in Bethpage, New > York, suburb of New York City, that not only won't allow 800 calls, > but also won't call 911 without a cash deposit. Same thing happened > while using a pay phone in Chandler, Arizona. Couldn't use a 10XXX > code, and couldn't reach AT&T via a toll-free number. Happened again > with one of the few pay phones in Oradell, New Jersey (which is not > rural at all). Couldn't use a 10XXX code and 800 calls were blocked. > It's a common practice, even if illegal in some states. From the sounds of things in both of these posts - I think the COCOTS are either misprogrammed or they "forgot" their programming. I've seen several COCOTs that exhibit these symptoms and came to find out they wouldn't allow ANY toll calls at all. Local calls were only allowed if you deposited a large sum of money (it thinking it was a long distance call within the area code) - and any long distance (including 800/888) were "invalid" according to the COCOT. I've seen where people trying to make a call from a COCOT, wondering why a the pay phone wouldn't work. I told them to find a real telco pay phone. Most of the time I'd use a telco pay phone over a COCOT. The only exception may be a group of pay phones in Chicago outside a particular bus station (yes, this is in reference to Pat.) Dave Perrussel Webmaster - The BBS Corner http://thebbscorner.home.ml.org htttp://www.thedirectory.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well really, I think COCOTS do have the potential of being serious and effective competition to telco if they are maintained properly. I know that Greyhound in Chicago got rid of all the COCOTS and went back to telco after an enormous number of complaints about the rip off phones. But something people do not seem to realize is there is no way *not* to make a good income from payphones -- even when operating them as liberally as you can in the user's favor -- so why not go ahead and make them as user-friendly as possible. Those phones I have referred to a couple of times here are programmed to do everything a genuine Bell phone does, but cheaper. There is no blocking of 800/888 nor any surcharge (losing a small bit of revenue; so what?); no blocking of carrier access codes like 10XXX; and whatever Bell charges, they charge five or ten cents less. For example local calls are 25 cents compared to Bell's 35 cents. Long distance calls are one dollar in coins for three minutes, anywhere in the USA, and I do not know of any Bell phone giving long distance coin paid calls that cheap. The owner of the phones can take certain types of precautions to prevent abuse such as billed number screening on the line and blocking (or actually carefully supervising) area codes like 809 in order to keep the public from ripping him off as well. The thing is, you can almost give the service away and still make huge amounts of money. That is how telephones are, and that is how telcos made so much money over the past century. Revenue (and subsequent commissions) lost from things like 800/888 calls is a very tiny part of it. There are not really that many people who go up to pay phones to call a toll-free number. I would venture to say about 95 percent of the calls on the COCOTS in question are local calls, one quarter after another dropped in the box or calls to Chicago which are fifty cents except for the far north end of 773 which is treated as local in this case. Maybe five percent of the users make a long distance call, and the very inviting one dollar in coins for three minutes to anywhere helps avoid a lot of calling card (which is non-revenue) situations. Now if the phones were consistently (or even quite often) used to call 800/888, 10XXX, and other non-revenue producing stuff I might re-think my position, but the fact is the boxes are full of quarters and the collector comes out once or twice a week to get them. They produce commissions of a few hundred dollars per month with little effort at all, and you do not have to rip off the public to get it. I'll grant you this is a good location, with nine Greyhound busses stopping daily and several local city bus routes pulling in the Greyhound driveway all day and all night, but still, there are three Bell phones just several feet away and a half-dozen more Bell phones at the train station in the same complex several yards away. I wish COCOT owners/managers would realize you do not have to rip off the public on phone service. It makes tons of money whether you like it or not ... so why not be friendly to your customers? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Al Hays Subject: PBX Prompting Woes (was: Phase Out of 10XXX Codes) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:04:41 -0600 On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:24:00, chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) asks: > Speaking of phone trees,I've got a PBX question. My school's phone > tree (new, so I haven't had a chance to find out specs) prompts first > "If you know your extension...", but certain extensions for some > reason require an operator intermediary. This is generally a restriction placed on those "certain extensions" by the system administrator. I don't know what type of switch you have, but in the Lucent Definity G3 such restrictions are controlled by the COR (Class of Restriction). Each and every entity has a COR; Trunk Groups, Extensions, Vector Directory Numbers, Announcements, etc., and every COR can be restricted from calling and/or receiving a call from another COR. For instance, if you and I were on the same PBX and I didn't want any more annoying calls from you I could change your COR (or create a new one) that would disallow you from calling my extension altogether. ;) In the case of prompting, the Trunk Group COR has been restricted from calling the COR of the "certian extensions." So, in the switch's programming, when you enter the extension number of a restricted COR the step that routes the call to that extension fails and falls through to the next step (which in your case routes the call to an operator). > Is there any way around this? The operator has rather minimal hours > and we'll end up in a room with a perfectly good phone but no way to > receive calls. If it is the intent of the administrator to restrict inbound calls to "certain extensions" and he/she's done it properly, then there should be no easy way around it. There are several answers to your problem, however: 1) Talk to the administrator. Perhaps he/she is unaware of the problem. Sometimes Administrators cause these problems inadvertently (myself included) and they won't look for a problem unless someone reports it. 2) Ask the administrator to use time-of-day routing in the switch's programming to redirect the call to another extension that would act as a "night operator" during those hours that the regular operator is gone. Ask him/her how emergency calls are, or should be, handled after hours. Any PBX administrator worth a plugged nickel should at least examine the problem and/or offer you an alternative or an explanation. 3) Finally, if it's the way they want it, you're stuck. Your only other option would be for your callers to dial an extension that _can_ receive direct inbound calls, hope someone answers, and then have them transfer the call to you. This will work until they get annoyed. You should ask them for assistance prior to undertaking this step. regs, .al. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:17:24 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: 800/888 Rationing Update Rationing Update. Toll-free number growth for the week ending November 15 was 52,233 combined 800 and 888 numbers, which under steady conditions (consistent amounts of numbers returned to "spare" -- ie available), should stretch the toll-free resource just long enough to get us to early April, when 877 is scheduled to be introduced. However, the amount of numbers returned to spare last week was down 10,000 from prior weeks for the second week in a row, indicating potential problems prior to April '98. The SNAC (SMS Number Administration Committee) has asked the industry to speed up the introduction of 877 by two months, but is not optimistic about the outcome. Meanwhile, at least one RespOrg seems to be overflowing with 800 numbers. On Tuesday this office received a sales call from Sprint residential service, offering a "free" 800 number for each residential phone line on the premises. No pins, not even the lowly 888's - "free" no-strings-attached, fully portable 800 numbers. Umm. Judith Oppenheimer Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS http://www.icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 05:47:46 PST From: Eric Florack Subject: SPAM: Usenet Bans CompuServe Usenet Bans CompuServe by Stannie Holt, InfoWorld Electric November 18, 1997 Usenet administrators have banned CompuServe, accusing the company of passing along unwanted and abusive bulk e-mail, or "spam," despite repeated requests that it stop the messages. On Monday night, an informal group of Usenet administrators and concerned users shut off all traffic coming from CompuServe servers and individual accounts to Usenet, which provides online discussion groups on thousands of subjects. The "Usenet Death Penalty" (UDP) was last applied in August to Internet service provider UUNet, which the Usenet administrators said was also too tolerant of spam. They subsequently lifted the penalty to negotiate with UUNet. "This is not a step we take lightly," said Usenet news administrator Rick Buchanan, who announced the CompuServe ban Tuesday morning. "CompuServe is not the enemy; spammers are the bad guys here. But inaction makes CompuServe a passive accomplice to the people who are trying to destroy Usenet. "We have made every possible attempt to inform CompuServe about their growing problem, and have repeatedly offered to assist them in dealing with it," Buchanan continued. "Their unresponsiveness has been . . . unprecedented in my experience as a spam fighter. The UDP was our last resort." Buchanan said CompuServe has ignored complaints and e-mail reports from several people for months, and has not taken any action to stop flagrant spammers. Currently, two types of abuse are occurring, Buchanan said. First, a large number of messages have been posted directly to CompuServe news servers from known, persistent, and destructive spammers. Second, and more seriously, a growing number of spammers are using CompuServe dial-up accounts to send unwanted mail to other news servers. Buchanan cited as an example a man calling himself "Sexjunky" who posts pornographic spam to sexual-abuse recovery newsgroups. Another man sends hundreds of forged and fraudulent ads for "business opportunities." Buchanan said the blocking will continue until CompuServe sets firm policies on acceptable usage and starts enforcing them--by responding to complaints sooner and terminating spammers, for example. "We don't set any specific criteria regarding spam volume," Buchanan said. "Even the most conscientious ISP can get flooded by a megaspammer. We just want them to do something." CompuServe officials were not available for comment. The company was sold in October and divided between America Online and WorldCom. AOL received CompuServe's online services, and WorldCom got its networking plumbing. ------------------------------ From: Koos van den Hout Subject: Video Conferencing to a GSM Date: 20 Nov 1997 10:48:53 GMT Organization: BBS Koos z'n Doos (http://koos.cyber.nl) According to my GSM, it is capable of receiving video conferencing calls. Quite.. interesting :) The following happened : I was trying to get our videoconferencing set in working order (which still needs a lot of voodoo to work) and as one of the tests I called my GSM number. It rang, so I answered, and got funny noises on my GSM and a videoconferencing telling me the connection was established and trying to set up a remote image. When I call a normal voice number (either POTS or ISDN) the set will tell me this can't be done. The set is a picturetel, the GSM is a Nokia 1611 on the Dutch libertel network. Koos van den Hout, Internetter, Unix freak, ISFJ and BBS SysOp at large koos@kzdoos.xs4all.nl (Home) BBS Koos z'n Doos (from Jan 21st 1997 : koos@pizza.hvu.nl (Work) <-- finger -l for PGPkey +31-30-2870244) http://www.cetis.hvu.nl/~koos/ Looking for a license plate with "RFC 822" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:06:18 -0500 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: BCTel and 10xxx Codes miind@hotmail.cam (Sebastien Kingsley) wrote: > Here in BC Tel country, dialing 10xxx will result in an intercept > message. Dialing a 950 dialup results in a similar fashion. People > at the telco tell me that they aren't used, but they cannot explain > why BC Tel are assigned a 10xxx code, and a 950 dialup. Unitel (now AT+T Canada I think) had a carrier access code which I used with success, if I remember correctly it is 10869. Dialling 10869+17005554141 got me (in Vancouver BC) and my friend (in Guelph, ON) a recording thanking us for choosing Unitel. There are numerous Canadian carriers which have 10xxx codes; if you call Sprint Canada, Unitel/AT+T/whatever, etc. and ask I'm sure they'll be happy to share them with you. As for the 950's... try 950-1022 and 950-1033; I am curious whether they work. They are MCI and Sprint's calling card 950 numbers, and the MCI one still works in the US. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 11:53:15 -0500 From: Bob Snyder Organization: Advanced Systems Consulting, Inc. Subject: SkyTel Blocks Access From Payphones Saw this on SkyTel's webpage (), and thought it would be interesting to the readers of TELECOM Digest ... Bob -------------- FCC Ruling Affects Pay Phone Users The Telecom Act of 1996 (Docket No. 96-128) has mandated that a fee be paid by phone companies (AT&T, MCI, Sprint) to Pay Phone Service Providers for all non-emergency calls originating from pay phones, effective Nov. 17, 1997. Pay phone service providers and long distance carriers will be charging a combined total $.30* access fee for each call to an 800/888 number made from a pay phone. For calls into the SkyTel system, these access fees will be passed on by the long distance provider and will appear on your monthly SkyTel invoice. *The pay phone service providers are charging $0.284 each, and the long distance carriers are charging an additional $0.016 each, for a combined total of $0.30 for each call. In order to minimize the impact of these new regulations on our customers, we have implemented the following policies for pay phone calls into the SkyTel system. SkyTel General Access Numbers Effective Monday, November 17, 1997, the following numbers will no longer be accessible from pay phones, however, they remain accessible from other telephones: 1-800-SKY8888 (1-800-759-8888) (The One-way SkyTel System for- SkyPager, SkyWord, SkyWord Plus) 1-800-SKYTEL2 (1-800-759-8352) (The Two-way SkyTel System for SkyWriter) Pay phone users can now reach the SkyTel system through the new SkyTel Pay Phone access numbers listed below. SkyTel Pay Phone Access # 601-960-9548 (use instead of 1-800-SKY8888) 601-969-6848 (use instead of 1-800-SKYTEL2) Note: The SkyTel Pay Phone Access numbers are charged to the caller as a normal long distance call if calling from outside the Jackson, MS area. Personal 800/888 Numbers Personal 800/888 numbers are still accessible from pay phones, and the $.30 access fee for each call will appear on your SkyTel invoice. If you do not wish to incur these charges, you may have your Personal 800/888 number blocked from pay phone access by submitting the authorization form or by contacting Customer Service at 1-800-SKYUSER (1-800-759-8737). Your request will be processed within 48 hours. Motorola Pre-Paid Paging numbers will be blocked from pay phone access. Please note that this does not apply to MCI Pre-Paid or Sony Grab 'n Go pre-paid packages. Corporate 800/888 Numbers Corporate 800/888 numbers are still accessible from pay phones, and the $.30 access fee for each call will appear on your SkyTel invoice. If your company does not want to incur these charges, you may block the Corporate 800/888 number from pay phone access by submitting the authorization form or by contacting Customer Service at 1-800-SKYUSER (1-800-759-8737). Your request will be processed within 48 hours. SkyTel Customer Service (SKYUSER) 1-800-SKYUSER (1-800-759-8737) remains available from pay phones. Call this number for service and support as you always have. The send-a-page option is no longer available from this number. SkyTel Offices & Administration 800 numbers to regional sales offices, corporate headquarters, and all 800 numbers in current advertising will remain available from pay phones. Your voice can make a difference. For more information, visit the FCC web site (www.fcc.gov). If you'd like to let the FCC know your opinion on the ruling, please send an email to fccinfo@fcc.gov, call 202-418-0200 or send a letter to: Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street, NW Washington DC 20554 ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa or Jeff) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: 20 Nov 1997 02:58:47 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS The article first said police were only blocks away, but then said calls were routed through the state police. If calls were routed first through the state police, there could've been a delay until help arrived. Centralized dispatching can slow things down, especially if the operator isn't familiar with the area. > One technical study she commissioned for a lawsuit that she filed > against L.A. Cellular, her service provider, indicates that the > company's signal is still too weak to carry a 911 call in the area of > National and Castle Heights -- Oh, I see, a lawsuit. While I'm certainly sorry for what happened, is it really the cellular carrier's fault? The fault was the thieves -- they were the ones who shot the woman. Cellular phones do not always work. In my short experience with them, I've been cut off in mid conversation and have had lots of trouble getting a call through. It's a radio, and radios have dead spots. Is the telephone company ever liable if a call fails to go through in an emergency? Suppose someone can't get a dial tone for whatever reason and time is lost securing an ambulance or fire. Suppose the woman stopped at a conventional pay phone, found it broken, and then was assaulted. Would the phone company be then liable? > Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by > deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers > using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones > that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called > non-initialized phones). Is the above really true? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #321 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Nov 22 21:04:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA01964; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:04:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:04:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711230204.VAA01964@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #322 TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Nov 97 21:03:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 322 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace (B Pennypacker) Tidbits From my Phone Bill (Linc Madison) New Diphone Database and TTS-System for German (ATIP.GbR@t-online.de) Book Review: "Halting the Hacker" by Pipkin (Rob Slade) Southwestern Bell offers ADSL in Austin, Texas (spider@aol.com ) GSM/Net (was Re: Video Conferencing to a GSM) (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) 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@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 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: 21 Nov 1997 19:31:02 GMT From: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace Organization: Applied Language Technologies Well folks, here it is, straight from the mouths of Scamfraud & Picklejar themselves. There's been a lot of discussion about this on news.admin.net-abuse.email, including a lot of speculation as to who the "undisclosed third party is". Stop by nan-ae to catch all the latest. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cyber Promotions/Quantum Communications Press Release Spam Backbone Formed The "Spam King," Sanford Wallace, and Walt Rines Have incorporated their new bulk-email friendly backbone network For Immediate Release: Philadelphia 11/20/97-- Sanford Wallace, Walt Rines and an undisclosed third party have formed Global Technology Marketing, Inc. (GTMI). The new corporation will offer direct, high speed T-1 And T-3 Internet connections to companies that engage in mass commercial email. Currently, there are no other backbone providers that allow customers to send spam. GTMI will be offering connectivity contracts by the beginning of the next week. Sanford Wallace commented: "We are very excited about this new project. For the first time ever, Internet marketers will be encouraged to engage in direct advertising, a practice which is already accepted in the postal world." Walt Rines stated: "Finally, bulk emailers will have an opportunity to legitimize this new industry. We are going to prove that this explosive new market can be self-regulated." Technical Details: GTMI has established a national backbone which operates as a fully-meshed network operating at DS-3 speeds, and interconnecting, or "peering" with several other networks at undisclosed private peering points. Multiple Lucent 5E12 switches, capable of processing data using multiple protocols including Internet (IP) Protocol, will route the traffic through the network. Dr. Robert Elliot, Chief Technology Officer, was quoted as saying, "We are excited about employing the Lucent 5E12 switches in the new network architecture. It just proves that IP telephony is becoming a reality." More detailed information will follow within the week. CONTACT INFO: Sanford Wallace: 215-628-9705 Walter Rines: 603-772-4096 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There's an article on this at http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,16682,00.html which included the following statement from Scamfraud himself: "If this doesn't work, nothing will. If it doesn't go, then that's it for me -- I'm done." In related news, due to the name of the "spambone" (GTMI), a lot of people have started speculating as to who will be providing the network connections. One of the more popular suggestions is a provider in Rhode Island called LOA (Log On America) since a lot of searching various records for GTMI.COM, GTMI.NET, etc. seem to all point in that direction. In response to all the speculation, LOA has put a press release on their web site that emphatically denies they will have anything to do with Scamfraud. Just go to http://www.loa.com and you can't miss it. Bruce Pennypacker Applied Language Technologies Remove .noagis from my address to reply 695 Atlantic Ave. http://www.altech.com Boston, MA 02111 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got another rather lengthy article sent to me yesterday on this very same topic, and within a short time later the person named as the author of the article wrote to me in response to my autoreply saying: "I did not write the article attributed to me; I have checked some of the details and they are false. If possible, please pull the article from the queue and kill it." My response to that would be hmmmm ... I killed the article as he requested and then a few minutes later found the above article from Bruce Pennypacker saying about the same thing, and naming the same LOA outfit as Spamford's confederate. They deny any involvement which is possibly why the other writer (who asked me to kill the thing he 'did not write') asked for it to not be published. I am now wondering if LOA was never involved at all as they claim, or if they were involved originally and now as they see the natives becoming restless, banging their drums, sharpening their knives and preparing for another sacrifice have decided to sing it to different tune. After all it would not be the first time Spamford tried to seduce and lure other legimate businesses into handling his traffic would it ... Word is that LOA is not doing very well financially in their stated business venture, so it would be easy for some weasel like Spamford to get in and endear himself to them with a few Make Money Fast schemes, directly from the prime source of same. Let's hope if this venture fails and/or LOA was not/or now refuses to become involved that the weasel takes his own advice 'that is it for me, I am done.' Ah, we should be so lucky. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:02:13 -0800 From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Tidbits From my Phone Bill Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM Effective January 20, 1998, Pacific Bell is terminating its "pay by phone" arrangement, offering only the automatic debit option. On the "pay by phone" system, you were prompted to enter the amount and date of the payment you wished to make through the system. That made it very easy to withhold payment on a disputed charge. I expect it would be much more difficult to withhold part of the bill on the auto-debit system. There were, in fact, two calls on this month's bill that didn't belong there. The first was a Pacific Bell "local toll" call to Palo Alto. I dialed *82 1-617-xxx-xxxx, but I didn't quite pause long enough, so the stutter dialtone ate the leading 1, causing me to connect to 617-xxxx, a toll call. I put in a trouble ticket this afternoon; ever since we upgraded to the Northern Telecom DMS switch, we can no longer dial through the stutter. My understanding from several people who've posted here and in CDTT is that it's nothing more than a configuration option in the switch generic, to allow or disallow dialing through the stutter. There is absolutely no benefit to disallowing; personally, I don't think it should even be an option. What I particularly don't understand is why anyone would make disallowing the default. I may have to escalate that one to PacBell corporate, though, although the fault lies primarily in a brain-dead design decision by Northern Telecom: "Hey, why don't we design the switch so that users are forced to pause for an arbitrary interval that's just slightly longer than the pause a modem generates with a comma, just so that we can screw up all sorts of auto-dialers and increase wrong-number traffic!" If anyone can give me the details on how to configure a DMS switch to allow dialing through stutter dialtone (after a star code, not just the continuous stutter to indicate voicemail waiting), please e-mail me at Telecom at LincMad dot com. The other number that showed up on this month's bill was a call to the test number for the new 867 area code. Test numbers aren't supposed to supervise or bill, at least within the civilized parts of the NANP (i.e., U.S. and Canada), but this one did, at a whopping $1.00 for one minute, courtesy of the Dime Lady. The customer service rep refused to take the charge off, but said he would refer it to someone or other. I notified Pacific Bell that I am contesting $1.03 of my Sprint bill. Incidentally, the number showed up correctly as 867-669-5448, but the place name shows as YELLOWKNIF AB. Yellowknife is not in Alberta, folks. Surprisingly enough, there were no new area codes in California to announce in an insert. I guess it's been a slow month ... ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: 21 Nov 1997 20:50:46 GMT From: ATIP.GbR@t-online.de Subject: New Diphone Database and TTS-System for German Organization: T-Online ATIP offers a German male diphone database. The version of this database named DE2 is prepared for the use with the MBROLA speech synthesizer. License agreement provided, DE2 and the MBROLA speech can be downloaded freely from http://tcts.fpms.ac.be/synthesis/ PROSER, a front-end for German speech synthesizers, was recently developped by ATIP. PROSER transforms an arbitrary German ASCII-text into a phonetic string with prosodic elements. Further details available at http://home.t-online.de/home/ATIP.GbR To test the performance of PROSER you can send your German text (use Umlauts!) to ATIP.GbR@t-online.de In return you will receive an input file for speech synthesis with the MBROLA synthesizer and the German diphone database. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:21:37 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Halting the Hacker" by Pipkin Organization: TELECOM Digest BKHLTHCK.RVW 970706 "Halting the Hacker", Donald L. Pipkin, 1997, 0-13-243718-X, U$44.95/C$62.95 %A Donald L. Pipkin %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1997 %G 0-13-243718-X %I Prentice Hall %O U$44.95/C$62.95 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 betsy_carey@prenhall.com %P 193 %T "Halting the Hacker: A Practical Guide to Computer Security" This book is a compilation of observations on computer security, particularly on network connected computers, and particularly in regard to outside intruders. What specific system information is included relates to UNIX. Most of the advice is generic. The information is "practical" in that it relates to common, rather than theoretical, attacks. However, the text does not provide practical answers: the defenses are left as an exercise to the reader. There is nothing really wrong with the information provided in the book. (I wasn't too thrilled with the section on viruses, but we'll let that go.) It has all, though, been said before, notably by works such as Spafford and Garfinkel's "Practical UNIX and Internet Security" (cf. BKPRUISC.RVW). In fact, there were passages that I'm quite sure I could have traced as to origin and author. Normally, I don't comment on CD-ROMs unless something unique is available. As with most such disks, this one provides information that is available elsewhere, mostly from COAST. Overall, though, in this case I think the CD-ROM does add some value, holding information such as the "Rainbow series" of security standards, and a list of machine address codes for Internet addressing as assigned to vendors. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHLTHCK.RVW 970706 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:58:33 -0500 From: spider@aol.com Subject: Southwestern Bell offers ADSL in Austin, Texas Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Southwestern Bell Unveils DSL Services In Austin FasTrak DSL Service Marks Next Step In High-Speed Data Communications Austin, Texas, November 13, 1997 To supplement its existing line of broadband services, Southwestern Bell today announced it is introducing high-speed Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) services this month with a limited commercial offering in Austin. FasTrak DSL offers home and business users a dedicated link to their Internet service provider (ISP) or corporate local area network (LAN). At transmission speeds of up to 1.5 megabits per second (mbps) - 50 times faster than an analog modem running at speeds of 28.8 kilobits per second (kbps) - FasTrak DSL presents work-at-home professionals, telecommuters and Internet enthusiasts consistently faster access to graphic, audio/video and data files. It also features an exponential increase in the capacity of computer transmissions and provides an "always-on" connection to the host network. "DSL technology complements our already robust line of broadband services in the Southwest region," said Ron Owens, area manager of marketing, Southwestern Bell. "Our data strategy is to continue to develop a host of transport and access services that give customers a range of choices that best suit their application needs." FasTrak DSL supports two primary applications: dedicated access to a remote corporate network (LAN) and to the Internet. Because FasTrak DSL gives customers a dedicated connection to their corporate LAN or ISP, users receive consistently high access speeds and do not have to wait through long set-up delays associated with dial-up Internet or network access. Southwestern Bell will offer two different service options for this limited commercial offering of FasTrak DSL. The first will feature a downstream speed - from the host site to the user - of up to 384 kilobits-per-second (kbps), and the same speed upstream from the user to the host site. The second offering will feature a downstream speed of up to 1.5 mbps and an upstream speed of up to 384 kbps. Prices for FasTrak DSL fall between the price of ISDN and frame relay connections, and range from $150 per month to $250 per month for unlimited usage. FasTrak DSL is a digital technology that transmits information at high speeds over regular twisted-copper phone wires. The service enables subscribers to talk on the phone and download data simultaneously on the same phone line. During the limited commercial offering, Southwestern Bell will install DSL switches in four central offices in Austin. For FasTrak DSL to perform properly, customers will have to meet certain criteria. For instance, users must be located within a three-mile radius from a DSL-equipped central office. In addition, customers' ISPs and host networks must be connected to Southwestern Bell's Cell Relay Network, an ATM-based backbone that ensures the quality and throughput of FasTrak DSL connections. FasTrak DSL is compatible with both Windows and Macintosh operating systems. Jump Point will provide Internet access for the limited commercial offering in Austin. Pacific Bell and Southwestern Bell are working with other ISPs to provide high-speed Internet connectivity via its DSL service in the future. Customer equipment for FasTrak DSL includes an Alcatel ADSL modem, a "splitter" that divides voice and data, and an Ethernet network interface card to connect the modem and PC. Southwestern Bell can provide customers with this hardware and install it on-site as part of the DSL CPE service package. For more information, Austin residents can call toll-free 1-888-SWB-DSL1. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. is a subsidiary of SBC Communications Inc., a global leader in the telecommunications industry, with more than 32 million access lines and nearly 5 million wireless customers across the United States, as well as investments in telecommunications businesses in 10 countries. Under the Southwestern Bell, Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell and Cellular One brands, the company, through its subsidiaries, offers a wide range of innovative services, including local and long-distance telephone service, wireless communications, paging, Internet access, cable TV and messaging, as well as telecommunications equipment, and directory advertising and publishing. SBC (www.sbc.com) has more than 114,000 employees and reported 1996 revenues of $23.5 billion. SBC's equity market value of $56.5 billion (as of June 30, 1997) ranks it as one of the five largest telecommunications companies in the world ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:05:04 +-5-30 From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: GSM/Net (was Re: Video Conferencing to a GSM) Organization: TELECOM Digest Koos van den Hout writes: > According to my GSM, it is capable of receiving video conferencing > calls. Quite.. interesting :) Plain old GSM, depending on your provider and the instrument, is capable of data traffic up to about 38 kbps. New GSM products, promoted especially by Ericsson, can manage 112 kbps. At that rate you have the same bandwidth as two American ISDN lines and just under the 128k of a twin ISDN line in Europe. Videoconferencing shouldn't be difficult. The thing about data/GSM is that since the interface between your PC and the phone is digital, there's no analogue<->digital interface (except for the vocoder, useless for anything but voice). So when you use a GSM modem off your PC to call a land-line modem, your cellular provider's switch has to emulate a (say) 28.8 kbps modem to convert pure digital into digital-over-analogue-voice. The situation improves if your cellular provider is also your ISP, or has a digital high-speed link into the internet backbone. The same goes for 112kbps GSM, where your cellular provider's switch will have to have an interface for twin ISDN or whatever else you're using for videoconferencing. The cellular provider will have to enable it, and could charge for it. (In India, where the providers are giving for the moment a measly 9.6 kbps data connect for PC/data traffic through GSM handsets - presumably to save costs on their inter-cell backbone - they charge roughly US$ 20/month to interface that to the PSTN. The advantage is that you get three phone numbers for outsiders to dial, so your handset can automatically switch between voice/fax/data). The GSM standard has most of these protocol interfaces (X.??, V.?? etc) defined, and most infrastructure providers support them on their switches -- though it's finally up to the cellular service provider to decide what to give you and for how much. I don't know what the situation is with Qualcomm's CDMA. Would our American friends care to enlighten us? The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 11 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #322 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Nov 22 22:04:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA05732; Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:04:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:04:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711230304.WAA05732@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #323 TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Nov 97 22:04:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 323 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Payphone Operator Compensation for Coinless Calls (Jim Weiss) Toll-Free Pay Phone Access Fees (was: SkyTel Blocks Access) (Adam Kerman) Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California (Doug McMillan) E-Rate Information (Win Himsworth) GTE Directory Fiasco in Sierra Madre (Craig Milo Rogers) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (J Hennigan) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (A Boritz) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (S Cline) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (E Florack) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (S Miller) Re: Mis-Programmed COCOTs (David W. Levenson) Re: Mis-Programmed COCOTs (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@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 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: NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:39:23 EST Subject: Payphone Operator Compensation for Coinless Calls In October the FCC approved a payment of 28.4 cents per call to be paid to payphone operators by the long distance companies for coinless calls (800/888, dial-around, etc). The long distance carriers are apparently going to pass this charge through to their customers by charging them $.30 to $.35 for each 800/888 call received from a payphone. Where do the carriers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, WorldCom, etc.) stand in implementing procedures and notifying their customers of this new call "surcharge?" ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Toll-Free Pay Phone Access Fees (was: SkyTel Blocks Access) Date: 20 Nov 1997 12:11:46 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article this item: > > FCC Ruling Affects Pay Phone Users > The Telecom Act of 1996 (Docket No. 96-128) has mandated that a fee be > paid by phone companies (AT&T, MCI, Sprint) to Pay Phone Service > Providers for all non-emergency calls originating from pay phones, > effective Nov. 17, 1997. Pay phone service providers and long distance > carriers will be charging a combined total $.30* access fee for each > call to an 800/888 number made from a pay phone ... > *The pay phone service providers are charging $0.284 each, and the > long distance carriers are charging an additional $0.016 each, for a > combined total of $0.30 for each call. What is the $0.016 for? Is this what the long distance companies claim that it costs them to pay the fee to pay phone service providers? Isn't this significantly higher than other revenue-sharing arrangements? Congress really had nerve doing this last year. This fee should only have been paid if pay phone service providers met minimum standards, such as: No blocking of any toll-free number, with penalties for doing so. Clearly identifying the pay phone service provider and default interLATA IXC. Clearly identifying the pay phone number. Clearly identifying repair service number. Prompt resolution of repair complaints and billing disputes. (if the caller was unable to complete the call, why should the holder of the toll-free number have to pay the surcharge?) Clearly identifying regulatory bodies. In any event, if the pay phone blocks incoming calls, they should not be able to collect this fee if the purpose of the call to the 800 number is to initiate a callback. Is this possible? Is there a flag within SS7 that identifies that this line blocks incoming calls? What safeguards prevent an unscrupulous PBX owner from routing all calls to toll-free numbers via a line set up with the LEC as working from a COCOT? ------------------------------ Reply-To: mcmillan@malibuonline.com From: Doug McMillan Subject: Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 08:13:41 -0800 I am looking for a service area map of local carrier availability in Southern California. Actually a simple demarcation of Pacific Bell versus GTE would do nicely. Phone companies unwilling to help. Is there anything on the net? Thank you. Douglas McMillan mcmillan@malibuonline.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:21:43 -0500 From: himsworth@aol.com (Win Himsworth) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: E-Rate Information I have not seen any postings re. the new federal telecom discount program for schools (the so-called E-rate program), libraries, and rural health facilities available under the expanded Universal Service Fund. You may be interested in the attached memo summarizing the program from a school's perspective. Win Himsworth -------------------------- The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was the first major rewrite of the nation's communications laws since 1933, included an amendment sponsored by Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Exon, and Kerrey to provide discounted telecommunications rates for K-12 schools and public libraries. The discounts are to be financed out of a portion of the Universal Service Fund into wh ich virtually all telecommunications carriers contribute. Detailed regulations to implement the discount program (often called the 93E-Rate Plan94) were delegated to the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC.20 Initial regulations were released in the form of an FCC Order dated May 7 , 1997, and a subsequent Order on Reconsideration dated July 10, 1997. The regulations will provide schools and libraries with discounts ranging from 20-90% on basic and advanced telecommunications services, Internet services, and internal connections. Discounts may total over $2 billion annually and are set to begin January 1, 1998. This memorandum summarizes many of the key aspects of the telecomm- unicaions service discount program for both schools and libraries, and suggests sev eral strategic issues that should be addressed early on to maximize expected p rogram benefits. Highlights: The FCC Order on Universal Service provides telecommunications service discounts for all public and most private K-12 schools and public libraries. The discounts may be applied to the rates for all commercially available telecommunications services (including local and long distance telephone services), Internet access (but not content), and internal connections required to bring these services into classrooms. The last includes routers, hubs, network file servers, wired or wireless LANs, and related installation and basic maintenance. General computer equipment is not included. An administrative process is being developed requiring schools to submit funding requests on an annual basis (for services provided after January 1, 1998) and to establish a competitive bidding mechanism for telecommunications equipment and service suppliers. Approved services will be billed to the schools at the discounted rate. The Schools and Libraries Corporation will oversee the program and reimburse the suppliers for the discounts through the Universal Service Fund. An annual cap of $2.25 billion has been established for funded discounts. Although the FCC has estimated that this amount will be sufficient for full program funding, rationing provisions are included to deal with annual shortfalls. The level of discounts available to a particular school is to be governed by the affluence of the community as determined by the percentage of its students eligible for the national school lunch program (or an equivalent measure). For libraries, the discount is based on the surrounding school district's rate. The discount schedule is shown below. Students Eligible for Lunch Program Urban Rural < 1 % 20 % 25 % 1-19 % 40 % 50 % 20-34 % 50 % 60 % 35-49 % 60 % 70 % 50-74 % 80 % 80 % 75-100 % 90 % 90 % Timing Issues: Schools and libraries wishing to avail themselves of the maximum funding benefits should consider the following strategies, tactics, and issues: 1. Begin preparing now to submit applications at the earliest possible date (curently scheduled to be no earlier than mid-January). Given the n ormal administrative problems expected in any new organization, and the expected flood of applications, there is likely to be a major advantage to being first in queue. 2. Getting approval for funding early in the year will be particularly important if the FCC has underestimated the demand for discounts. Once funding approvals exceed $2 billion, the $250 million remaining under the annual cap will be rationed and allocated among the less affluent schools. 3. Telecommunications services, particularly the costly installation o f internal communications systems already budgeted for calendar 1997 should be reviewed carefully with consideration being given to deferring formal service origination to 1998 so as to fall under the discount program. Administrative Issues: As with many government programs, there will be certain administrative resources involved in obtaining telecommunications service discounts. Al though many application details are not yet known, the FCC Order identifies the following key administrative requirements: 1. Applications will require a technology inventory and assessment. Specific plans must be identified for using new technologies and for integrating them into the curriculum. Some form of independent approval of the state and/or other agency of an applicant's technology plan will be required. Plan approval in the first year of the program may reflect more flexible standards than in subsequent years. 2. Applications must describe the telecommunications services a school or library seeks to purchase in sufficient detail (up to and including a formal RFP) so that potential suppliers can formulate bids or inquiries. The SLC will post these requirements on an Internet site for review by interested suppliers. 3. Persons submitting applications will be required to certify under oath as to the entity's eligibility, use of services, and available funding for the non-discounted portion of the services purchased. 4. Notice of new or existing contracts must be sent to the SLC for funding and purchase order approval. Notification that a service has been received must also be made to the SLC in order that the supplier can recoup the discount. 5. Appropriate records must be maintained to monitor retroactive discounts for the first quarter of 1998 and to assist in possible SLC or FCC audits. The above administrative requirements suggest the following strategies, tactics, and issues: 1. Initial applications are likely to be time and labor intensive. Simply making an inventory of existing contracts may be time consuming. As previously noted (see Timing Issues above), there are advantages to starting now and to being early in the processing queue. 2. Contracts signed before the FCC92s program administrator is ready to post bids on the web (mid-January or later) are exempt from the competitive bidding requirement. Contracts under negotiation now (for services to be delivered in calendar 1998) should probably be accelerated to avoid transitional delays in the contract 'blackout' period. 3. Particular attention should be paid to the technology plan. It may be advantageous to re-write an existing plan to stress and/or re-categorize telecommunications-related budgetary items. It may also prove beneficial to undertake an audit of current telecommunications services and billings as a part of the required technology inventory and assessment. 4. School and library administrators accustomed to working with state and federal educational agencies will need additional expertise in dealing with various telecommunications agencies including the FCC, state public untility commissions, and the SLC and its subcontractors. This memorandum was prepared by: Educational Telecom Services, A division of Tel/Logic Inc. 51 Shore Drive Plandome, NY 11030 E-mail: himsworth@aol.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Readers would be doing a very good public service to the libraries and schools in their communities by printing out the above and making sure it is placed in the hands of local school and library administrators, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:28:20 PST From: Craig Milo Rogers Subject: GTE Directory Fiasco in Sierra Madre Organization: USC Information Sciences Institute Today's {LA Times} reports that GTE made an unusual blunder when preparing this year's telephone directory for the city of Sierra Madre, a suburb of Los Angeles, CA. GTE included the residents of neighboring communities in the directory, but omitted the residents of Sierra Madre, itself. Kinda gives new meaning to "unlisted number" service. GTE is preparing replacement directories, according to {LA Times}, and it is not necessary to keep the defective ones until they expire. Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: 21 Nov 1997 07:23:48 GMT Organization: West.Net Communications On 20 Nov 1997 02:58:47 GMT, Lisa Hancock wrote: > The article first said police were only blocks away, but then said > calls were routed through the state police. In most (all?) of California, cellular calls are routed to the state Highway Patrol. When cellular first came online, the calls were typically routed to the PSAP (public safety answering position) serving the MTSO (mobile telephone switching office). This caused a number of problems. The local cops quickly learned to stop responding to 9-1-1 hangup calls at that funny phone company building with the big tower. Consider that it's not uncommon for cell sites to be 75 miles away from the serving MTSO. So someone dialing 9-1-1 to report an emergency may be connected to a PSAP in a different county. With a number of geographically small jurisdictions this caused numerous delays in forwarding the call to the correct agency. Shortly after cellular service came online, routing was changed directing 9-1-1 calls to the CHP. Routing to the Highway Patrol made sense. In the early days, most cellular phones were permanently installed in cars. Thus, most cellular calls to 9-1-1 were related to a vehicular problem such as a traffic accident. Also, the CHP dispatch centers cover wide areas, and they deal with mutual aid situations to local police, sheriff, ambulance, and fire agencies regularly. It is still probably the best choice until technology to routinely isolate the call to a very small geographical location becomes commonplace. Although phones are now predominatly worn on the body instead of bolted to the car, the overlapping or remote jurisdiction issue remains a problem. And now, the CHP has ten years experience dealing with cellular 9-1-1 callers and quickly routing the call to the proper agency or providing assistance as appropriate. You think this is fun? Wait for Iridium. News Flash: Microsoft acquires Electrolux, makes extensive design revisions. Finally releases a product that doesn't suck. ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:36:57 -0500 In article , Andrew Green wrote: > Monty Solomon quotes MICHAEL A. HILTZIK, Los > Angeles Times Staff Writer >> There could hardly have been a worse time for Marcia Spielholz's >> cellular phone to fail her. >> For 10 terrifying minutes she played cat-and-mouse with a black >> sedan along National Boulevard and up Castle Heights Avenue, one hand >> on the wheel, the other frantically tapping 911 onto the keypad of her >> cellular phone. >> Another try, another sickening busy. Finally her time ran out. > Oh, stop. While I am certainly sympathetic to Ms. Spielholz, there are > some factors here that don't seem to add up. > First, the article states she was receiving rapid busy signals. It's > unclear to me whether this refers to an all-circuits-are-busy signal > from the CO or an out-of-range signal from the phone itself; I own two > different cellphones, a car-mounted and an analog portable, and have > heard both such warnings from both phones occasionally under various > circumstances over the years. > If it was an all-circuits-are-busy for 9-1-1, I cannot imagine, even in > her understandable panic, that over the course of ten minutes worth of > dialing and driving, she didn't try calling someone -- anyone -- other > than 9-1-1. The Operator comes to mind. Please remember that not everyone who uses mobile phones has the knowlege we have of how they work. People who have been used to using mobile phones for a while (i.e. older cellular, IMTS and MTS) would probably call the operator first, since 911 hasn't been working that long on mobile phone systems. However, recent mobile phone users will probably go for 911 first. Also, someone in a critical situation may not have the presence of mind to call more than one number, or may not be able to dial, at all. Dialing "0" doesn't always do the trick, though. Here in the New York area, you can't even get the mobile operator when you travel north of I287 on the non-wireline side. A non-wireline customer traveling, say on NYS Thruway north of Suffern, may be completely on his own unless he knows how to reconfigure his phone for the alternative carrier in the area. > I have called in numerous emergencies over the years, and always > done it by calling the Operator and requesting "(town name here) > Police Emergency." My call is always transferred promptly. Even if I > don't know my exact location and possibly get connected to the wrong > town's Police Department, at least I've reached someone. I got to try that out a few days ago, after I had been in a car accident in northern New Jersey. The other driver was driving impaired, and I needed to get the police there a.s.a.p. "911" didn't work through AT&T Wireless for one reason or another, so I called the operator. Even though I reached the wrong PD (a town or two over), a cop was on the scene in about a minute. If I can, I'll try 911 first, but I really have little confidence that it's going to work. The cellular systems in the New York area have matured quite a bit over the years, and they do a lot of things today that they couldn't when they first started, but if I have another situation where I need assistance and "911" doesn't work, I won't use it again in ANY market. The same thing goes for horrible Ericsson digital subscriber equipment, if TDMA distortion prevents an emergency call from going through. > And if the "rapid busy" was in fact an out-of-range signal, then the > phone was out of range, period. The number being dialed would be > irrelevant. If Ms. Spielholz had configured her phone to switch to the > alternate carrier or roam, either manually or automatically, perhaps she > would then have been able to reach someone. That's an absolutely nonsensical assumption, Andrew. If the woman can't dial "0," how the hell would you expect her to navigate configuration menus to change her system preferences? Most people who know about that particular feature would normally have their preference set to NOT choose the alternative carrier (to avoid horrendous roaming charges), and probably would NOT have the patience to change it if they were in a similar situation. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:21:56 GMT Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On 20 Nov 1997 02:58:47 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom hancock4@bbs.cpcn. com (Lisa Hancock) wrote: >> Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by >> deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers >> using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones >> that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called >> non-initialized phones). > Is the above really true? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Yes, it *is* true. And as you've stated, "unregistered" phones and cell-site coverage problems are only part of the story. It is not uncommon to see a carrier block calls from customers of the competitor in the area or from roamers from the "other side" [an A-side carrier blocking B-side roamers, or vice-versa] (this is part of what caused the Ocoee, Tennessee Olympic cellular mess, discussed in the Digest at length last year); from roamers whose home carriers don't have agreements with the serving carrier; or from roamers in high-fraud areas. Normally, 911 is not blocked in these cases, although *sometimes* it is. In such a case, where the phone has an otherwise valid account, blocking of 911 calls is absolutely absurd. I've even seen strange cases of where phones *temporarily turned off for nonpayment* could not call anything, including 911 (all calls went to the carrier's customer-service office), while unregistered phones and "unroamable" phones [no agreeement/competitor/etc.] COULD. Simply changing the MIN in the phone to a fake number fixed the 911 problem. Are calls to 911 blocked from payphones, do payphones require 35 :( cents, or do payphones require a valid calling card for 911 calls? Of course not. I don't see any difference at all. The main problem doesn't seem to be revenue, as some carriers claim -- a large part of the problem, especially with blocking competitors and roamers, is the usual politics of cellular roaming. The same carriers who are known as being "roaming problems" tend to be the very ones that block 911 from certain roamers, or customers of the competition! The cellular industry needs to stop feuding, and come up with a total solution to the current roaming mess -- that solution must include a provision to handle 911 calls for all callers, regardless of home carrier -- or lack thereof. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ what's up with payphones?.......see http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here!....help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 13:37:17 PST From: Eric Florack Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) deposed and said for the record: >> One technical study she commissioned for a lawsuit that she filed >> against L.A. Cellular, her service provider, indicates that the >> company's signal is still too weak to carry a 911 call in the area of >> National and Castle Heights -- > Oh, I see, a lawsuit. Of course! Isn't that what everything is driven and decided by any more? > While I'm certainly sorry for what happened, is it really the cellular > carrier's fault? The fault was the thieves -- they were the ones who > shot the woman. Quite. But then again, the criminal doesn't have milllions to snatch by means of judicial fiat. > Cellular phones do not always work. In my short experience with them, > I've been cut off in mid conversation and have had lots of trouble > getting a call through. It's a radio, and radios have dead spots. > Is the telephone company ever liable if a call fails to go through in > an emergency? Suppose someone can't get a dial tone for whatever > reason and time is lost securing an ambulance or fire. > Suppose the woman stopped at a conventional pay phone, found it > broken, and then was assaulted. Would the phone company be then > liable? Morally? No, of course not. But then, law is less than perfect, and is alas, becoming increasingly immoral. > >> Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by >> deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers >> using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones >> that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called >> non-initialized phones). > Is the above really true? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Yes, it does. But it does paint a nasty picture of the evil corporate empire ... exactly the image the legal beagles want you to conjure up. Helps their payoff. /E ------------------------------ From: samiller@BIX.com (Scott A. Miller) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: 21 Nov 1997 21:15:18 GMT Organization: Galahad On 20 Nov 1997 02:58:47 GMT Lisa Hancock of Net Access BBS wrote this: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out: > While I'm certainly sorry for what happened, is it really the cellular > carrier's fault? I think the original poster's point was that if L. A. Cellular marketed their cellular service in such a way as to create the perception in the mind of the subscriber that their service offered security through dependable 911 access, when in fact it did not, then L. A. Cellular shares culpability and liability in this case. I agree with that premise. There may, in fact, be allegations in the lawsuit that do not stand up under close examination, but these IMO do not affect the central premise stated above. Scott A. Miller samiller@bix.com samiller@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:41:27 -0500 From: David W. Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. Subject: Mis-Programmed COCOTs COCOTs (and LEC-owned smart payphones) which block access to 911 or 800 service are operating contrary to regulations. This may be caused by a failure of the equipment, or it may be caused by intentional mis-administration by the owner. As to Pat's statement about 'no way to lose money' I beg to differ. The key to payphone profitability, like any other retail business, is LOCATION. While the phones Pat describes would probably be profitable with almost any pricing scheme; they are in an unusually good location. A typical payphone, particularly under the recently-ended regulated rates imposed by most states, would break even or lose money if it handled only local calls. (The regulated rates were based on subsidies paid by other telephone company subscribers. These subsidies are not available to COCOT owners, and are often paid by those users!) Under the current de-regulation, it will probably be possible to make a reasonable return on investment with local calls...but it still depends upon the traffic mix. It also depends upon how much the LECs charge the COCOT owners for access and usage services. On our payphone route, 25% of the traffic is 800/888. (Most of this is pre-paid debit card calling.) At marginally-profitable or break- even locations, the dial-around compensation makes the difference between keeping the phone in service and moving it. Previously, the only way to make any money at all at these locations was by imposing a surcharge on 0+ calls (which, on our route, make up about 2% of the traffic) and on sent-paid long distance (about 10%). (Our own response to this situation is that we don't operate phones in such locations.) One of our payphones shows over 90% 800 traffic. We would have pulled that one out of service a couple of months ago but for dial-around compensation. At this point, the telco-owned payphones and the COCOTs are faced with similar costs and no subsidies. I would expect the prices (and the location-commissions) to become more equal over the next few years. The unprofitable locations will probably have no public phone service at all. 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: Re: COCOTs Misprogrammed Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:09:22 -0500 In article , David Perrussel wrote: >>> That reminds me -- I was using a pay phone last night (at a >>> high school in a somewhat rural area). I can't recall the carrier, I >>> am vaguely thinking Universal Telecom or something similar. Anyway, I >>> was trying to call home (we have an 888 number for such situations), >>> and it rejected it. I first thought perhaps my dad had restricted the >>> calling area, so I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to use the calling card >>> instead. Same thing. It simply didn't like toll-free calls. I've >>> never seen this before, has anyone else? >> I have, more than once. There's a shopping mall in Bethpage, New >> York, suburb of New York City, that not only won't allow 800 calls, >> but also won't call 911 without a cash deposit. Same thing happened >> while using a pay phone in Chandler, Arizona. Couldn't use a 10XXX >> code, and couldn't reach AT&T via a toll-free number. Happened again >> with one of the few pay phones in Oradell, New Jersey (which is not >> rural at all). Couldn't use a 10XXX code and 800 calls were blocked. >> It's a common practice, even if illegal in some states. > From the sounds of things in both of these posts - I think the COCOTS > are either misprogrammed or they "forgot" their programming. No, David, those COCOT's were intentionally set up to do what they did. The teleslime operator in Arizona told me (literally) that it was tough, and they could basically do what they wanted in that state. The property owner in the NYC suburb didn't care whether customers liked it or not. Same thing with the COCOT operators in Oradell, NJ. I think that with the virtual explosion of portable phones in the marketplace, and the PCS companies starting up to increase competition in that area, we'll see a lot more COCOT abuses with fewer complaints (fewer people using them who would be inclined to file complaints with state regulatory agencies). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #323 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 23 12:45:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA19659; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:45:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:45:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711231745.MAA19659@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #324 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Nov 97 12:45:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 324 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (E. Oliver) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (J Hennigan) Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace (T Horsley) Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace (Ashworth) Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) (Gary Ryman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Tim Gorman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Kevin DeMartino) Scope.FAQ Available (John Seney) Re: Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California (Aryeh Friedman) 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@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 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: eoliver@concentric.net (E. L. Oliver) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:03:06 -0500 Organization: Concentric Networks User In article , roamer1@pobox.com wrote: > The cellular industry needs to stop feuding, and come up with a total > solution to the current roaming mess -- that solution must include a > provision to handle 911 calls for all callers, regardless of home > carrier -- or lack thereof. I just signed up with Omnipoint, a PCS carrier that uses GSM technology. Their brochures prominently state that 911 will work always if the phone has battery power and there is good signal strength. E.g. having an account or a SIM (subscribe identity module which provides account and billing information) they claim is irrelevant. Of course the test would be cancelling my service and trying to call 911 ... or taking the SIM out and trying to call 911. Also the keylock on the phone allows you to dial 911 without having to unlock the keypad. So it looks like at least some carriers are trying to address the 911 issue before the Federal Government does with a broadly worded law. Erik Oliver eoliver@concentric.net ------------------------------ From: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: 23 Nov 1997 16:34:59 GMT Organization: West.Net Communications On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 00:21:56 GMT, Stanley Cline wrote: > Are calls to 911 blocked from payphones, do payphones require 35 :( > cents, or do payphones require a valid calling card for 911 calls? Of > course not. I don't see any difference at all. The main problem > doesn't seem to be revenue, as some carriers claim -- a large part of > the problem, especially with blocking competitors and roamers, is the > usual politics of cellular roaming. The same carriers who are known > as being "roaming problems" tend to be the very ones that block 911 > from certain roamers, or customers of the competition! With cellular, the issue of free 911 calls for all is a major revenue issue, although not in the same manner. There are many thousands of used cellular phones which are not in service. With cellular carriers giving away a free phone for a one-year service commitment, many customers get a new phone every year and the value of used phones has become near-zero. There are also many customers who buy cellular service primarily "for use in emergencies." If carriers universally allow 911 calls to go through for all phones, activated or not, competitor's system or not, paid for or not, then they would stand to lose that segment of their market which only wants the phone "for emergencies", as those people could use any old discarded phone for 911. This is big ongoing monthly revenue for the cellular companies, not the occasional 35 :( cents from a payphone that happens to be located at the scene of an accident. This lawsuit may force the issue. ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace Date: 22 Nov 1997 22:34:18 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > The "Spam King," Sanford Wallace, and Walt Rines > Have incorporated their new bulk-email friendly backbone network But the question still remains: Who on earth will be willing to route traffic either to or from this "spambone"? I mean, won't everyone on the entire planet simply permanently block all packets from any spambone IP addresses? Are the direct email marketers only going to be selling to each other? Certainly if my ISP doesn't block everything from spambone, I'll be looking for another that will ... >>==>> The *Best* political site >>==+ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL | Free Software and Politics <<==+ ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace Date: 23 Nov 1997 17:16:19 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On 21 Nov 1997 19:31:02 GMT, Bruce Pennypacker wrote: > be self-regulated." Technical Details: GTMI has established a > national backbone which operates as a fully-meshed network > operating at DS-3 speeds, and interconnecting, or "peering" with > several other networks at undisclosed private peering points. It has been observed, on the mailing list of the North American Network Operators Group, that they're going to have a _really_ hard time finding people to actually peer with them. Since the operators of most of the backbones in the US are on that list, it may get interesting. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Gary Ryman Subject: Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:06:36 -0600 Organization: Global Customer Service - Training Robert M. Gutierrez wrote: > Has anybody been able to provision a PRI with a LEC, CLEC or IXC that > will or can pass OLS digits from their switch? > There are usually 2 OLS digits that are usually prefixed on the ANI. > So for FGB or FGB inband signalling, you would get 12 digits, the first > 2 being the OLS digits, and the other 10 being the ANI of the call. A minor point here - you normally get a 1 digit OLS and up to 7 ANI digits on a FG-B Direct trunk. You get 2 info digits and 10d ANI on FGD. > OLS digits can define the type of originating service, like public > coin, hotel, hospital, prison (!), and also flag ANI failures > and customer provided ANI digits. > Yes, we are set up to use this information. > Unfortunately, I have not looked at the Q.931 document from the ITU > to see if there is a digit length in the called number field. I > would assume not for international and future portability (god forbid > that I think U.S. centric!). So with that in mind, is there any > options in the DMS-100 or 5ESS generic that provide passing of the > OLS digits in the Q.931 message. You do need to look at the Q.931. The field you are interested in is the Screening Indicator in octet 3 of the Calling Party Number information element. As long as the Presentation Indicator is set to pass the Calling Party address, your carrier ought to be able to provision it. (notice I said "ought", not "will" or "willing" ;^) ). ~ Gary Ryman, Senior Technical Instructor| ~ aka gryman@dsctec01.dsccc.com |"Stoke me a clipper, I'll be ~ DSC Technical Education | back for Christmas..." ~ I get paid to speak BY DSC, NOT | Ace Rimmer, RD VII ~ FOR DSC | ------------------------------ From: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 12:45:21 -0600 In TELECOM Digest #319, dstott@2help.com (Dave Stott) wrote: > In TELECOM Digest #317, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)wrote: >> Some more comments on economic competition and telephone service ... >>> The BOC's loop is one way for consumers and businesses to connect to >>> their ISPs, but there are others: wireless and microwave, for >>> instance, are in use today. >> Is wireless and microwave appropriate and cheap enough for individual >> POTS subscribers? > Not today, but there is a huge economic incentive for the PCS and WCS > auction winners, and the CLECs and ALTs to continue to refine the technology. > When new entrants can offer wireless local loops and bypass the LECs' > plant, they have succeeded in denying the LEC any share of the customer's > local service bill (not including calls to the LEC's customers which will > be paid by interconnect fees). Depending on whose side you're on that is > bad or that is good, but it surely _is_ and the LEC has lost a revenue > source, the new entrant has reduced its reliance on its competitor, and > the bulk of the money flows to the actual provider. This still doesn't answer the question as to whether wireless and microwave will be appropriate and cheap enough for individual POTS subscribers. Since the wireless (non-cellular) market is already quite competitive and is very well refined technology, it should be an indicator of where cellular could eventually go. These phones, while quite common, are far from ubiquitous. The first thing this should call into question is just how big the economic incentive truly is for PCS and others. >>> That's certainly one opinion. Others feel that telephone customers >>> have had no choice in where their money went prior to today, and the >>> dollars they have invested in telephone service (because all dollars >>> are ultimately supplied by the customers) is a "public investment" in >>> a private company. >> Consumers received a service for their payments all this years. >> The network was not built by tax dollars, but rather by subscribers >> who were getting telephone service. Indeed, the smallest subscribers >> were subsidized by the heavier business, premium service, and long >> distance users. > Yes they were. And while the funds to build the system were not explicitly > tax dollars, it could be argued that they were selectively applied implicit > tax dollars. The Federal Government decided that the Bell System (and other > LECs) would be a monopoly and we had no choice about who received our > telephone dollars. The government-protected LEC always got your money. It could be argued that the subscribers money was implicit tax dollars but the argument is certainly not convincing. Government regulated common carrier monopolies are not government entities either in law or in practice. >>> When GM came to town, Ford could argue that the existing roads should be >>> used exclusively for Fords, since only Fords had been used on them up >>> to now. Should GM build all new roads? >> Well, your argument falls flat since Ford didn't build the roads in >> your story. The Bell System designed and built the network privately. > 'Privately' doesn't work here. They were protected by the government > and no one was allowed to build a competing network. What's the > difference between the Bell System and a government agency? The Bell > System actually made money. Remember that _before_ the Bell System, > there were competing local companies, and the Feds decided that a > 'natural monopoly' was in the country's best interest. The Feds > actually nationalized the Bell System for a short time, but that > didn't work, so the 'natural monopoly' argument took precedence. > Otherwise, we might have had the US Postal & Telephone Department. Privately certainly works here. You seem to be forgetting the hundreds of telephone franchises in this nation that were not and are not today part of the "Bell" system in any way. The difference between the Bell System and a government agency is total. The Postal Service is a government operation by law. It is supported by and its losses are guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country. The Bell System was not supported by the government and its losses were not guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country but by the shareholders of the stock. >> Further, the pricing of service was controlled by the government. > Yikes! Sounds like the USPS, not a 'private' company. Yikes! It also sounds like some taxi rates in some airports in this country (i.e. government set pricing of service in order to receive a franchise). Are the taxi rates "implicit taxes" also? How about apartment rents? Those are government regulated in some areas. Do those rents thus become "implicit taxes"? You are trying to make telephone service charges into something they are not. >> The phone company is also mandated to serve unprofitable/undesirable >> customers. There are often articles in the newspaper complaining >> about corporations avoiding poor or ghetto areas, however, that is >> generally fully legal. The phone company must offer full services >> everywhere, to everyone, with appeal rights to the PUC. And that is >> costly. >> The phone company isn't allowed to tack on price premiums. For >> example, if you visit a resort town, you'll find most prices more >> expensive than back at home. Phone service will be exactly the same. >> If the phone company was private, it'd charge a premium just as the >> ice cream man and suntan lotion store. [I paid double for suntan >> lotion this summer at the beach because I forgot the bottle at home.] > Sounds again like the Post Office. My point is that the infrastructure > was built with captive dollars. Whether they were _tax_ dollars or > government directed consumer dollars really isn't the issue. I've > paid my money for 20 years to the LEC because I wanted a phone, and > the government told me who I could buy that service from. They didn't > give me a choice, and my 'investment' for basic service during that > time surely paid for the local loop. The stockholders don't pay for it. > Just the ratepayers do. This is where your comparisons really start to break down. Income is NOT equal to capital. Subscriber dollars are INCOME, not capital. Income is used to pay debt, pay dividends, and pay expenses. Some income may be converted to capital as reinvested earnings but this is a management decision and is not taken lightly. This money usually is better off being paid out as dividends to attract more capital than being used as capital itself. As far as I know in the Bell System, it was NEVER the case that there were ever sufficient earnings to fully finance the capital needs with reinvested earnings. This means that additional investors had to be continually attracted to the company. These investors OWNED the companies and not the government. The stockholders DID pay for the local loop, you did not. You paid the stockholders for providing the loop for you. You received a service. You did not invest in the infrastructure, you only used it. Just like you don't own the taxi you ride in from the airport to downtown when you pay their government fixed rates. You only use the taxi. Tim Gorman tg6124@cjnetworks.com ------------------------------ From: Kevin DeMartino Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:19:26 -0500 It is unlikely that the Internet will swallow the phone system. The Internet depends on the phone system to provide both subscriber access lines and high speed trunks for connecting Internet switches. It is also unlikely that the phone system will swallow up the Internet. It is more likely that the Internet, the phone system, and the cable TV systems will merge to form an integrated network that can handle voice, data, video, multimedia, etc. Currently, we have three groups of communication networks: the telephone networks, primarily for voice; the Internet, primarily for data; and the cable networks, primarily for broadcast video. These groups of networks are not integrated with each other, but are not entirely separate. Although, the telephone networks were designed and optimized for voice, they can also handle data and limited video (e.g., picturephone and video teleconferencing). Similarly, the Internet and cable networks can handle voice, video, and data. Over the long term, it does not make sense to maintain three groups on non-integrated networks. Instead, there should be an integrated network that can handle all communication functions. What will this integrated network look like? Ironically, it is easier to predict the long term future than the short term. Over the long term, twisted pairs and coaxial cables will be replaced by optical fibers. Each subscriber (at a fixed location) will be provided with a fiber connection to the network that can support all communication functions. Fixed subscribers won't need separate twisted pair, coax, and radio frequency links with the outside world. Fiber connections to the network backbone will also be provided for wireless base stations supporting mobile subscribers. The network will be able to seamlessly handle (almost) voice, video, data, etc. Of course this will take a long time (20 years?) and a lot of money (in excess of $100B for the U.S.). The question is how do we get there from here? One way is to upgrade the telephone networks to broadband integrated services digital networks (B-ISDN) standards. B-ISDN provides the high data rates required for full motion video and also provides fast packet switching via asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) for efficiently transmitting bursty data. Thus with B-ISDN, the telephone system will become more like the cable networks and the Internet. Another approach is to upgrade the Internet to better handle voice and video. Higher bandwidth is required, both for subscriber access lines and for the trunks between Internet switches. Faster packet switching is required to handle higher data rates and reduce delays. Guaranteed levels of service are required for real time voice and video. More structure and management is required for the Internet backbone. In other words, the Internet will become more like B-ISDN. A third approach is to evolve the network of the future from the cable networks. Cable will have to evolve from a broadcast medium (primarily) to a system that will support directed communications (video on demand, voice, and data). This implies switching and two-way communications, which will make cable systems look more like the telephone system and the Internet. One option is to use the telephone system for upstream communications and voice, which require relatively low data rates. So which approach will we follow on the road to utopia? Probably all of the above. If we are smart and lucky all three approaches will wind up in approximately the same place and the resulting network segments will be compatible enough to talk to each other. Who swallows whom? Do we call the integrated network B-ISDN or Internet II ? It depends on who takes the lead, the telcos or the ISPs. Kevin DeMartino kdemartino@drc.com ------------------------------ From: john@wd1v.mv.com (John Seney) Subject: Scope.FAQ Available Organization: WD1V Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:05:00 GMT Oscilloscope.FAQ is located on my home page. If you'd like an Email version sent to you as an attached text file (55k), send an Email with SCOPE FAQ on the SUBJECT LINE. Best regards, John Seney http://www.mv.com/ipusers/wd1v ------------------------------ From: Aryeh M. Friedman Subject: Re: Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:33:55 +0000 Organization: The Friedman Group, Consultants in Multimedia Internetworking Doug McMillan wrote: > I am looking for a service area map of local carrier availability in > Southern California. Actually a simple demarcation of Pacific Bell > versus GTE would do nicely. Phone companies unwilling to help. Is > there anything on the net? Thank you. GTE Consumer Relations has one of their area it can safelly be assumed that what is not theirs is Pac Bell. Also CPUC has a CO and LATA map thats shows carriers for the whole state you will need to call the SF office for it though. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #324 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 23 13:32:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA22667; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:32:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:32:16 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711231832.NAA22667@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #325 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Nov 97 13:32:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 325 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FITCE Congress London, 24-28 August 1998 (Dominic Pinto) Re: Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! (Ted Klugman) Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) (F McClintic) Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (John R. Levine) Re: Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing (Linc Madison) Re: Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing (Bill Levant) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (Mike Fox) 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@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 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: Dominic Pinto Subject: FITCE Congress London, 24-28 August 1998 Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:56:00 -0000 37th European Telecommunications Congress 'Diverging Roles in a Converging Marketplace' CALL FOR PAPERS Telecommunications is converging with computing and broadcasting, opening new opportunities both for traditional operators and new arrivals. By the time of the Congress, the European telecommuni- cations market will have been open for nine months to new entrants from all industries. Papers are invited exploring the technical and commercial opportun- ities that this situation offers. Possible topics include, but are not restricted to: The impact of new technology; New roles and challenges for telcos; Differentiation in, and the structure of, the telecommunications business; Life with regulations and the regulator; Working with multiple standards and parallel solutions; Increasing user expectations; Price versus service; Access, interconnection, service and network management in a multi-provider environment; Electronic commerce. Guidelines for submission of papers: Authors are requested to submit an abstract of 200-400 words. Abstracts must be submitted in the English language and should be previously unpublished. Abstracts must be sent by 1 March 1998 to: Paul Nichols, FITCE UK, Room G012, 8-10 Gresham Street, London EC2V 7AG, UK. Telephone: +44 171 356 8022; Facsimile: +44 171 356 7942; e-mail: nicholsp@grsec2.agw.bt.co.uk (plain text only)). Please include your name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers as well as e-mail address, and affiliation. The abstracts will be reviewed by the International Paper Selection Committee for relevance, technical content and originality. Authors will be informed by 31 March 1998 whether their proposed paper has been selected for presentation. The full text is required by 1 June 1998. The Congress Website: http://www1b.btwebworld.com/fitce98/enhome.htm Check there to receive information about submitting papers and attending FITCE+98. You will find details about the congress venue and programme, as well as suggestions for planning your visit to London. The contents include details on how to book your accommodation and advice about travel. Included is a list of key contacts for further information. These pages are also available in Czech, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish. ------------------------------ From: ted_klugman@usa.net.NOSPAM (Ted Klugman) Subject: Re: Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:21:40 GMT Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 08:42:05 -0500, aboritz@cybernex.net (Alan Boritz) wrote: > Think you're interested in buying a new Ericsson digital TDMA phone > for your carrier's digital service? Think again. After a month of > poor service and mostly badly distorted connections (at least 2/3 of > all mobile calls) on AT&T's cellular system in New York, FWIW, it's an IS-136 overlay on their existing 800Mhz analog system. I'm also an AT&T customer in the same area. The difference is that I've got a Nokia 2160. Sure, I've had my share of bad connections, dropped calls, etc. But I've been very satisfied with my service. Personally, I've got three good friends who all work at AT&T RF Engineering (two in Paramus and one who just transferred to Seattle). None of 'em use the Ericsson - they all use the 2160. > To add to disappointment, I found that the great digital messaging > built into this phone won't work outside of the NYC metro area The sales rep should have told you this when you subscribed. Think of it this way -- at least the phone works out of the AT&T PCS area. Some other PCS phones can't roam on analog systems. Supposedly, if you go to another AT&T IS-136 area, your PCS features will probably work. And rumor has it that they'll be setting up an agreement with Comcast Cellular, who covers South Jersey. Comcast already has IS-136 deployed "unofficially" > (my voice mail was happily announcing to leave a numeric message > that I wouldn't see for another three days, while out of town on > business). I also found that even while in range of the system, > digital messaging has been extremely slow (last night I got a > voicemail alert two hours after returning to the area, and an hour > after a two-day-old text message finally reached me). This shouldn't be the case -- but maybe it has something to do with the Ericsson phone. When I travel into the AT&T coverage area I usually get my messages within about ten minutes. ------------------------------ From: Fred McClintic Subject: Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 09:45:28 -0600 Robert M. Gutierrez wrote: > Has anybody been able to provision a PRI with a LEC, CLEC or IXC that > will or can pass OLS digits from their switch? I just went out for bid for a dedicated PRI from the IXCs. They (and Bellcore) refer to the OLS digits you speak of as "Information Indicator" (II) digits. AT&T offers them for sure, and doesn't charge extra for them as long as you pay the penny per call for ANI. MCI talked as though they either offered them or would in the very near future. Sprint, WorldCom, etc I'm not sure of since their mileage charges were outragous compared to AT&T and MCI. I never went any further with them. Since the II digits are part of ANI, I doubt that you could get them (except possibly for terminating toll-free numbers??) from the LECs or CLECs without getting FGD lines. All the LECs will give you for normal lines is CLID, which isn't ANI ... > There are usually 2 OLS digits that are usually prefixed on the ANI. > So for FGB or FGB inband signalling, you would get 12 digits, the first > 2 being the OLS digits, and the other 10 being the ANI of the call. Granted, for inband, that is the case. For D-channel signalling, according to AT&T's PRI specification document (AT&T - not Bellcore - TR 41459), they are transmitted by an Originating Line Information (OLI) information element which is specified as Codeset 6 (Network-specific). MCI could not give me a similar document though they said they "follow all published standards", so I assume that they will follow AT&T's lead on the delivery method. > OLS digits can define the type of originating service, like public > coin, hotel, hospital, prison (!), and also flag ANI failures > and customer provided ANI digits. Yup. The complete list is in the Bellcore Local Exchange Routing Guide. > Yes, we are set up to use this information. Unfortutantely, our switch doesn't recognize OLI IE ... :( > Unfortunately, I have not looked at the Q.931 document from the ITU > to see if there is a digit length in the called number field. I > would assume not for international and future portability (god forbid > that I think U.S. centric!). So with that in mind, is there any > options in the DMS-100 or 5ESS generic that provide passing of the > OLS digits in the Q.931 message. I have a copy of both the ITU (Q.931) and Bellcore (TR-1268) specs. Neither (to my knowledge - almost positive on the Bellcore, fairly sure on the ITU) specifies II digit delivery. From Bellcore's perspective, II is part of ANI, and ANI is a inter-office thing. PRI is a customer to CO type of thing, so from the Bellcore (i.e. LEC) perspective, it isn't something that can be delivered and therefore isn't addressed in TR-1268. From the ITU's perspective, they only standardize things on an international level. I don't think that the II digits are an internationally standardized entity, so therefore the ITU leaves the standards for them up to the individual countries. Putting a PRI to an IXC is sort of crossing boundaries by using what has been standardized by Bellcore and the ITU as a "User to Network" (ie. Customer to LEC) interface (PRI) and sending Network to Network (ie. CO to CO) type information (ANI, II) over it. The only thing that might offer a LEC standard would be if there is a document out there describing FGD access to a LEC via PRI ... I've not seen such a beast. If it exists, perhaps someone else will say what it is?? Cya, Fred ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:41:10 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos Mark J. Cuccia writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 17, Issue 319, Message 1 of 10 > TWX and Telex were actually _realtime_ _circuit-switched_ _terminal-to- > terminal_ services. Within the _worldwide_ telex network (after all > countries were fully connected with each other for circuit-switched > connections), you dialed another Telex machine from your own Telex > machine, and you had a live realtime connection, and could even do > 'chats' back and forth by text-typing. In the early 1980s, I had the pleasure of working with a small investment firm that had installed 'office automation' consisting of an 8-user DEC PDP-8 mini-computer running a text-based word processing system called WPS-8. At the time, we used a lot of international telex to communicate with our overseas investor clients. This was done by having one of our secretaries laboriously typing lengthy messages (many with with a lot of tabular numberic data) into the paper tape punch of a Teletype Model 33 KSR connected to the Western Union TWX network. I decided that it would be nice if we could prepare documents on the word processing system and somehow get them into the TWX/Telex network without this laborious and error-prone re-keyboarding. The solution I cooked up at the time was to acquire an acoustical coupler and a standard Western Electric 500 rotary dial telephone set. The phone set was connected to the incoming TWX line which operated just like a POTS line as far as the phone was concerned. (The KSR 33 remained connected to receive incoming traffic.) I set the serial port on the computer to 110 baud (the data rate used by TWX), and wrote a small script to cause the word processor to recognize the Control-E (enquire) sent by other TWX devices and respond with our "answerback", a series of alphanumeric characters assigned by Western Union. The secretaries were instucted use the rotary dial phone to dial Western Union "Infomaster" or RCA Globecom (store-and-forward services), place the handset into the acoustical coupler, and press send on the word processor keyboard. The word processor software would then do the requisite handshaking and spool out the text at 110 baud. This system had the advantage of handling any issues of speed and code conversion when dealing with the telex network. Unfortunately, the delay in these store-and-forward systems could range from a couple of minutes to several hours. And a message could not be forwarded by Western Union or RCA Globecom until it had been completely received from us -- something which could take as long as a hour in the case of a large financial analysis with many lengthy tables of numbers and paragraphs of text. (These messages cost several hundred dollars to send!) When I attempted to use this approach with some of the real-time "International Record Carriers," I discovered that our computer would quickly overflow the IRC's buffer which handled the conversion from 110-baud ASCII TWX to the 50-baud 5-bit Baudot code of the international telex network. The reason for this overflow problem was that flow control on the TWX network was not handled by xon/xoff (Control-S/Control-Q, DC2/DC4) characters but by imposing a "restraint" signal on the TWX local loop -- something which was not passed to our computer by the jury-rigged telephone/acoustic-coupler connection. Finally, working with a technician from TRT Telecommunications, one of the smaller international record carriers, we discovered that we could pad each carriage-return/line-feed character with a series of NUL (ASCII 00) characters which would be ignored by TRT's ASCII-to-Baudot converter and would slow us down enough (from 110 baud!) to avoid overflowing their buffer. Of course, this was somewhat inefficient because the number of NULs sent was predicated upon a full 60-character wide line of text, but it allowed our sending in real-time, which was important to us on those occassions when we needed to have a foreign client receive the printed analysis at the same time that we were having a telephone conference with him. It's hard to even imagine 50-baud baudot code in this world of instantaneous email and fax, but it was only a few years ago that it was the dominant format for international text communication. Out of curiosity, does anyone have any biographical information about Emile Baudot, the engineer for whom baudot code -- and "baud" -- is named? Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 11:09:54 -0500 (EST) From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > It also must be remembered that Bell System stockholders gave up > many rights that a private company normally has. They could not > get rich the way Microsoft and Intel stockholders are. The rate > of return was sharply limited by state PUCs and the FCC. Further, > the pricing of service was controlled by the government. That's true, but they couldn't go broke the way U.S. Steel stockholders did, either. The government guaranteed a rate of return to telco stockholders which was and is an extremely valuable subsidy. > The phone company is also mandated to serve unprofitable/undesirable > customers. But not at a loss. The high-cost customers are averaged into the rate setting mix along with the low-cost ones. For the really high-cost ones there are very large USF subsidies. > Telephone service is a critical public utility. Years and years ago > society recognized its value and destructiveness of competitition in > this particular industry and established sensible controls. I agree there, the current competition fad is completely forgetting the public service aspects of telephony. I live in a tiny town served by a family owned independent telco, and although I think that the subsidies which let them offer flat rate service at $6.82/mo are a bit much, I'd hate to see them price rural service at cost and make a lot of the marginal farmers lose phone service. 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: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 12:47:47 GMT Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , Neal McLain wrote: > In Volume 17 Issue 316, Stan Schwartz asked: >> From the BellSouth Corporate web site, this is in conjunction >> with the upcoming North Carolina NPA splits. Aren't "protected >> exchanges" such as these what contribute to chewing up existing >> NPA's?? > Not necessarily: a cross-NPA-boundary NXX can be "protected" in one > part of an NPA and re-used elsewhere within the same NPA if two > conditions exist: (a) the local dialing plan requires 1+NPA+ for > intra-NPA long-distance, and (b) the two locations are separated by a > distance which requires long distance dialing to call from one to the > other. > An example. Up here in the frozen Midwest, we have the following > situation: > 608-326-xxxx Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin > 319-873-xxxx McGregor, Iowa -- local to Prairie du Chien > 608-873-xxxx Stoughton, Wisconsin -- long distance from P.d.C. > From Prairie du Chien, a caller dials: > 873-xxxx to reach McGregor > 1-608-873-xxxx to reach Stoughton > So in this case, 873 is "protected" within the Prairie du Chien > local calling area, but it's still used elsewhere within 608. The > fact that it's protected does not, in and of itself, prevent its > use elsewhere within the NPA. True. However, this situation has a high potential for confusion. Suppose I call Aunt Millie in Prairie du Chien and ask her for the number of her local widget dealer. She looks on her phone list and tells me "Oh, it's Acme Widgets at 873-xxxx," and doesn't think to tell me it's on the other side of the river. I know that Aunt Millie is in 608, so I dial 1-608-873-xxxx and expect to reach Acme Widgets. It also must wreak havoc with computer dialing lists (yet another reason that 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX must be allowed permissively on all calls irrespective of local/toll and irrespective of NPA). > This same technique can be used in North Carolina because North > Carolina already requires 1+NPA+ for intra-NPA long distance. The better solution, IMNSHO, is to require NPA+7D (or 1+NPA+7D in areas that don't use 1+ as a toll indicator) for FNPA local calls in such situations. The old seven-digit FNPA local arrangement should only be used in cases where both NPAs are sufficiently free to allow the affected exchanges to be *fully* protected. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 21:46:08 EST Subject: Re: Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing > From Prairie du Chien [which is in NPA 608], a caller dials: > 873-xxxx to reach McGregor: a cross-NPA local call which > can be dialed as 7 digits. > 1-608-873-xxxx to reach Stoughton: an intra-NPA long > distance which must be dialed as 11 digits. No wonder no one knows how to dial calls any more. I bet the folks in McGregor get a fair number of wrong number calls intended for Stoughton. Much has been written here in recent weeks about toll-alerting (1+ *required* on toll calls), permissive 1+ dialing (1+ *always* works, even on a cross-NPA local call, which can be dialed as just ten digits), anal-retentive toll alerting (1+ will not work on a cross-NPA local call; you can't dial 1+ unless you "mean it") and other similar topics, but this is a number IN YOUR OWN AREA CODE that you can't reach EXCEPT with 1+ ten digits, and if you dial it as seven digits it is assumed that you meant to make a cross-NPA call? That's insane. The only thing I've ever seen like it was the arrangement in Washington DC some years ago (also insane) where all of 202, and nearby parts of 301 (Maryland) and 703 (Virginia) were all seven-digits to each other. For example: From 301-571-XXXX (Hyattsville) to 202-466-XXXX (Washington) - seven digits From 301-571-XXXX to 301-466-XXXX (at the time, Baltimore) - 1+ ten digits In order to make this work, NNX codes assigned to 202 could not be reused in the "metro" portions of 301 *or* 703, and an NNX code assigned in the "metro" portion of *either* 301 or 703 could not be reused in the "metro" portion of the *other* NPA, nor in 202 AT ALL. Needless to say, a major waste of numbers. I think this scheme finally collapsed. Before the interchangeable NXX's came into existence, the one, immutable rule of dialing (at least here in what used to be 215-land) was YOU NEVER DIAL YOUR OWN AREA CODE. When 1+ seven digits became unworkable (because of "interchangeable" NXX's), Bell Atlunchtic went to seven digits anywhere in the area code, and for operator-assisted or -handled calls, 0 plus 215 and seven digits. You didn't dial "215" on any station-to-station call anywhere in this area code. You still don't. There always used to be a few places around here where they had cross-NPA local calling back in the days before area code boundaries started being measured in feet, instead of miles. New Hope, PA (215) to Trenton, NJ (609) was one; the Trenton NNX's were "protected" in 215, and vice-versa; the New Hopers dialed Trenton with seven digits only. I think they still have local calling between New Hope (still 215) and Trenton (still 609, at least this week), but now the Trenton NNX's have been assigned in 215, and New Hope dials ten digits (whether 1+ is either permitted or required, I dunno) to call Trenton. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 09:57:43 -0500 From: Mike Fox Reply-To: mikefox@ibm.net Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Lisa Hancock wrote: >> One technical study she commissioned for a lawsuit that she filed >> against L.A. Cellular, her service provider, indicates that the >> company's signal is still too weak to carry a 911 call in the area of >> National and Castle Heights -- > Oh, I see, a lawsuit. > While I'm certainly sorry for what happened, is it really the cellular > carrier's fault? The fault was the thieves -- they were the ones who > shot the woman. > Cellular phones do not always work. In my short experience with them, > I've been cut off in mid conversation and have had lots of trouble > getting a call through. It's a radio, and radios have dead spots. We, the telecom junkies or professionals understand this. But should every cell phone customer who hears an advertisement whose message is "get a cell phone for safety and peace of mind" know that? Cellular phone companies have been advertising their wares as safety devices for years without disclosing their limitations, some of which are intentional and completely within the control of the service providers (i.e., not allowing 911 calls to go through on a competitor's system, not having adequate coverage in dangerous areas where people are more likely to need their cell phones for saftey). In order to sign up paying customers, they led their customers to believe that they could count on their cell phones in an emergency when in fact this isn't true, partly because of business decisions they made, and they knew it. This is the tort they have committed. If they had not run all those ads saying that people should get cellular phones for their own peace of mind and safety, I would have more sympathy for them. However, I have seen several cell phone ads that tout safety and peace of mind. Nowhere did they say "subject to limited availability" or "subject to blocking for economic reasons" or some such. An analogy would be anti-lock brakes. If a car company sells a car without anti-lock brakes and without claiming they had them, they would not be liable for the lack of antilock brakes. But if they sold a car that had anti-lock brakes, and made the added safety a big selling point, but intentionally crippled them in some way without disclosing that fact, and that crippling resulted in a failure to prevent an accident, would they not have committed a tort? > Suppose the woman stopped at a conventional pay phone, found it > broken, and then was assaulted. Would the phone company be then > liable? Only if the pay phone company had aggressively advertised itself as a device for safety and peace of mind, and led the woman to believe she could count on it in an emergency. >> Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by >> deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers >> using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones >> that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called >> non-initialized phones). > Is the above really true? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. And if it is true, then you would agree that there is a basis for the lawsuit? This part that you are calling far fetched is the crux of the lawsuit, I believe (this case was also profiled on Prime Time Live and this was a big part of it). Hmmm, maybe it's not so frivilous after all. Mike ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #325 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 23 21:18:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA23302; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:18:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:18:14 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711240218.VAA23302@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #326 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Nov 97 21:18:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 326 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Help With Mobile Email (Drew Stephens) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (John Hewitt) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Leonard Erickson) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Henrik B|hle) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Earle Robinson) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Christian Weisgerber) Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) (C Weisgerber) Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) (Thor Simon) Re: Video Conferencing to a GSM (Al Varney) Re: Bulletproof 888 Number? (Bob Keller) Re: AT&T Hike Dims Deregulation Promises (Steve Bagdon) Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (Henry Baker) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Henry Baker) Re: 900 Number Help (Gail M. Hall) 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@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 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: Drew Stephens Subject: Help With Mobile Email Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 17:26:47 -0700 Organization: AllPoints GIS Friends, I'm trying to get on the net while on the road -- working from an RV "on tour"... I would really appreciate tips, or pointers to other newsgroups and web pages that might have practical advice/experience in cellular mobile communications. Here is the configuration I'm working with: Nokia 2160 w/extended NiMH battery; USRobotics/Megahertz Nok3 cable (the right one); Megahertz XJ4336 36.6 cellular-ready modem; Dell Latitude PC 133 ... Win95; My TDMA cellular provider (ATT Wireless) uses modem pools. I can dial-up with no problem on a land line. Modem speed 19200. Extra modem settings in the "Configure Modem" window of the Dial-up properties are: AT&F5M1X4Q0V1S0=0&C1&D2F10 per AT&T Wireless help document. Problem: When I dial-up (in analog mode), I do actually hit the provider. I get my Post-dial terminal screen, yet the login prompt and other messages from the provider scroll VERY slowly, then stop. I am disconnected after 120 seconds, as set in the dial-up configuration. Also have fairly poor voice quality on this phone -- AT&T is FedEx'ing a replacement phone under warranty -- should I be looking into CDMA? Thanks for the help in advance. Drew Stephens, AllPoints GIS ------------------------------ From: jhewitt@ctv.es (John Hewitt) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:46:20 GMT Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER Here in Spain the caller pays the cost of the call to the mobile. I suspect that the mobile user kinda like this, and it's good marketing for the mobile service provider. The mobile user doesn't "see" the extra cost that is incurred by the calling party: to the mobile user it's just another call he didn't miss -- at no charge, very acceptable. The service providers like it, because the users like it. Here, the callers cost, to call a mobile, is at least 400% more than a 'local' call to a fixed subscriber. As a result, I'd be charged, usually, about $1 each time I call a mobile user. If I see a tel number that starts with 9XX, ie. a mobile, I don't call. Someday soon everyone's going to learn this, and calls *to* mobiles are going to "dry up". John Hewitt, Malaga Spain jhewitt@ctv.es ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:27:39 PST Organization: Shadownet jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) writes: > I've heard, although not recently, arguments for both caller-pays and > callee-pays approaches to cellular billing. I've never, however, heard > anyone mention what _I_ consider to be the obvious reason why it ought > to be the cellular sub who pays for the airtime part of the call: > They're the one getting the convenience of the wireless service, why > oughtn't _they_ be the one to pay for it? If I see fit to give out my > cellular number to unsuspecting people, why should it be either that > they should pay for my convenience, or even more importantly from a > personal privacy standpoint, that I should even have to tell them it's > a cellphone at _all_? And when telemarketers and survey takers call the cellular owner, should he have to pay for those *unwanted* calls? And what about wrong numbers? There's a reason why the standard rule (before cellular) was that the *caller* always paid any charges unless the callee had consented to pay them (Enterprise & Zenith numbers, 800 numbers, etc). It wasn't carried over to cellular in the US because they thought that it'd make cellular phones less popular if people had to pay to call them. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I don't think it applied on mobile radio phone calls prior to cellular either did it? In the old service called AMPS, weren't the charges always paid by the radiotelephone owner and not the caller? Likewise, the old 'ship to shore' radio service to vessels on the Great Lakes and in rivers, etc. The (landline or wired) caller never paid extra for those. PAT] ------------------------------ From: henrik.bohle@usit.uio.no (Henrik Bohle) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: 22 Nov 1997 17:02:32 GMT Organization: University of Oslo, Norway In article jra@scfn.thpl.lib. fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) writes: > They're the one getting the convenience of the wireless service, why > oughtn't _they_ be the one to pay for it? If I see fit to give out my > cellular number to unsuspecting people, why should it be either that > they should pay for my convenience, or even more importantly from a > personal privacy standpoint, that I should even have to tell them it's > a cellphone at _all_? Unsuspecting? At least here in Norway, there are dedicated number-series for cellular phones. And no charges on the receiving end. The dialer knows he is dialing a cellular number, and expects to pay for it. For the privacy part, you can use call forwarding, or hunting in the PSTN. hbrx. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 13:33:10 GMT From: Earle Robinson Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux Here in France, the caller to a cellular phone pays, 30 cents daytime and half that in the evening and weekends. The advantage to this system is that you need not hide your cellular phone number, and the result is the cellular operators have much higher billing per customer than in the USA. Since a cellular number has a different area code, the same throughout the country by the way, any caller knows in advance that he is calling a cellular user if he dials such a number. I should add the caller pays the same whether the cellular owner is sitting anywhere within France, or he is on a beach in Spain. In the latter case, the cellular owner will pay a roaming charge to receive a call while outside his home country. All this is just like landline calls: You don't pay to receive a call at home or at your office -- unless you have an incoming 800 number. One big reason you see many Americans with both a pager and cell phone is because of the ridiculous method used for call charges in the states. No one with a cell phone here would bother having a pager, too. er ------------------------------ From: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: 23 Nov 1997 15:53:43 +0100 In article , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > I've heard, although not recently, arguments for both caller-pays and > callee-pays approaches to cellular billing. I've never, however, heard > anyone mention what _I_ consider to be the obvious reason why it ought > to be the cellular sub who pays for the airtime part of the call: > They're the one getting the convenience of the wireless service, why > oughtn't _they_ be the one to pay for it? This is really the first argument that comes to mind for the callee-pays scheme, isn't it? Of course the same logic readily applies to regular phone service, too. They're the one getting the convenience of being reachable by phone, so they should pay part of the call, too. Just because we are conditioned that taking a phone call doesn't cost anything does not automatically make the traditional arrangement particular logical. Interestingly enough we already have a well-established "callee pays everything" arrangement, think 0800. The most natural way to handle all this would be to let the market decide. Offer caller pays, callee pays, and split charge service, and see how it develops from there. Assuming that people are egoistical, I would expect this to converge quickly into a general acceptance of "caller pays" with only few exceptions along the lines of current 0800 numbers. > even more importantly from a personal privacy standpoint, that I should > even have to tell them it's a cellphone at _all_? From a privacy standpoint, every call to a cellphone should start out with a message "important notice: this is a call to a wireless service, remember that anybody can listen in". Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de See another pointless homepage at . ------------------------------ From: naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) Date: 23 Nov 1997 16:22:10 +0100 In article , Robert M. Gutierrez wrote: > There are usually 2 OLS digits that are usually prefixed on the ANI. > OLS digits can define the type of originating service, like public > coin, hotel, hospital, prison (!), and also flag ANI failures > and customer provided ANI digits. > Unfortunately, I have not looked at the Q.931 document from the ITU > to see if there is a digit length in the called number field. No, the number length is not explicitly limited. However, your suggestion doesn't go along very well with Q.931. The Calling Party information element provides for these indicators: - type of number (national, international, ...) - numbering plan (E.164 ISDN/telephone, X.121 packet-switched data, F.69 telex, ...) - presentation (allowed, restricted, number not available) - screening (user provided, not screened; user provided, verified and passed user provided, verified and failed; network provided) and of course the number itself. As you can see, information in addition to the plain number is handled by separate indicators. Part of what OLS provides is handled by the screening indicator, but there is no provision for the rest. Piggybacking this by adding special digits to the number would be very much against the spirit of Q.931 signaling. (IMHO it would be a whopping violation of the standard.) Of course, the above may be somewhat moot since Q.931 is just a template for a signaling protocol and actual implementations like NI-1 (-2, -3) or E-DSS1 are more or less different. The above comments still hold true for E-DSS1 -- I've actually worked from ETS 300 102-1, which explicitly marks differences versus Q.931, in writing this -- but I don't dare to speculate what modifications may have been introduced in the country that came up with SPIDs. Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de See another pointless homepage at . ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: OLS (Originating Line Screening) via PRI (Q.931 Message) Date: 23 Nov 1997 06:39:37 -0500 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Robert M. Gutierrez wrote: > Has anybody been able to provision a PRI with a LEC, CLEC or IXC that > will or can pass OLS digits from their switch? > There are usually 2 OLS digits that are usually prefixed on the ANI. > So for FGB or FGB inband signalling, you would get 12 digits, the first > 2 being the OLS digits, and the other 10 being the ANI of the call. > OLS digits can define the type of originating service, like public > coin, hotel, hospital, prison (!), and also flag ANI failures > and customer provided ANI digits. I've never looked at this in detail, but don't you get what AIN calls the "ChargePartyStationType" and ISUP calls the "Calling party's category" parameter over Q.931? Within the PSTN, all kinds of stuff Just Wouldn't Work if this information didn't follow a call around. Hm. I'm looking at my copy of Q.931, and I can't seem to find it anywhere. It looks like a deliberate omission. I wonder why? Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Video Conferencing to a GSM Date: 21 Nov 1997 20:08:50 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Koos van den Hout wrote: > According to my GSM, it is capable of receiving video conferencing > calls. Quite.. interesting :) > The following happened : I was trying to get our videoconferencing set > in working order (which still needs a lot of voodoo to work) and as one > of the tests I called my GSM number. It rang, so I answered, and got > funny noises on my GSM and a videoconferencing telling me the connection > was established and trying to set up a remote image. > When I call a normal voice number (either POTS or ISDN) the set will > tell me this can't be done. Video conferencing on a wireless phone? No problem. According to several articles in the November 1997 issue of {IEEE Communications Magazine}, wireless can handle ATM, and ATM can handle videoconferencing, therefore wireless can handle videoconferencing. :) Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1997 09:27:06 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Bulletproof 888 Number? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All he is trying to say is that they > receive ANI (Automatic Number Identification) on all incoming calls > and that they (at least claim to) research this listing carefully to > see who has been making a nuisance of themselves or otherwise making > mischief. ANI is nothing new; I doubt that he is getting it in real- > time (that is, the number shown as each call is recieved) but he > might be. I think he *is* getting real time ANI. I called out of curiosity and the recording stated that if I was calling to complain because I received an email I should hang up else they would capture my number and feature it at the top of one of their ads as a contact for the company. (Cute.) A Robo-voice then proceeded to read back to me the number from which I had called. I hung up at this point. I presume the calling number was obtained via real-time ANI. It should not have been Caller-ID insofar as I star-sixty-sevened the call. Bob Keller (KY3R) rjk@telcomlaw.com www.his.com/~rjk/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 05:57:53 -0400 From: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) Subject: Re: AT&T Hike Dims Deregulation Promises > In any price change, "we look at the growth parameters of each service, > and we have strong demand for our services," he said. "That's one of the > factors that goes into how we price the service." Interesting wording, but the message is the same -- charge what the market will bear. > That explanation angered business customers, even though most said they > comprehend the company's decision to price its services at the highest > level the market will bear. > "I understand it, but I don't like it," said one AT&T customer who > requested anonymity. "I have a problem with anybody that prices anything > for as much as they think they can get for it." So this AT&T customer gives away their product/service? As if I'm going to go to my supervisor and say 'my hourly rate is too high, I think you should cut my rate'? Steve B. ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:14:59 GMT In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > In "Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System", Craig Milo Rogers > wrote: >> Lee Winson wrote: >>> IMHO, the Internet can be described in terms of "store and forward", >>> not direct connect. That is, your message is stored by your ISP, >>> then packaged and routed. This can appear to be instantaneous, or as >>> Dave Barry said, at the speed of the Division of Motor Vehicles. >>> That won't work in voice communication. >> The term "store-and-forward" carries baggage. > TWX and Telex were actually _realtime_ _circuit-switched_ _terminal-to- > terminal_ services. A Glenayre (paging radio company) salesman told me the following (apparently true) story about the early days of paging. In the 'good ol days', the paging systems were real-time -- i.e., your (voice) message went out onto the air as you spoke. Apparently, crooks used this to tell the drivers of cars dropping off money or goods exactly where to drop, as in 'ok, drop it NOW'. The FBI was watching one of these dropoffs just after the paging system went to store-and-forward, and watched as the crooks dropped off the money or goods about two blocks further than they were supposed to, due to the delay of getting onto the air. It was apparently quite hilarious. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The first pager I had was from Motorola in 1967-68 and it was about the size of a brick, with a clip to hang it on your belt. The person calling you dialed the common number for all pagers and then punched in the number of your particular unit. After a beep tone which followed anywhere from immediatly to five or ten seconds later (which meant someone else was being paged right before you) then the caller would speak a message into the phone which went out as he was speaking. A tone signal turned my beeper's 'squelch' off so I would hear the message. I then had to restore the squelch with a little button on the side of the pager, otherwise it stayed 'open' and all subsequent pages (to whoever) would also be heard. When it got to the point that so many pages were being made that there would always be three or four ahead of you (and by that point in maybe 1970-71 traffic was heavy enough that if you left your unit unsquelched there was constantly one page after another -- one would end, there would be a 'beep' and the next one would start -- from early morning to late evening, and perhaps 'only a couple hundred or so during the night') the system in Chicago changed to store and forward. The caller dialed in on the common number, entered your pager unit number and left his message. Sooner or later, within a minute or two the message would be played over the air to your unit. Suspecting one day that my unit was not working correctly, I put in a test message, just one of those 'testing, testing, one two three four' type things, and sat back to wait for it to come over the air to me. I waited fifteen minutes and was convinced I had some sort of problem. I unsquelched the unit and heard this message, "... the number you have dialed is not in service, please check the number and dial again, this is a recording ...' and that message played over and over, maybe a dozen more times until suddenly it stopped in mid-sentence and a woman's voice came on saying 'Annex Answering Service, are you finished? ... (pause a couple seconds) ... Chicago is clear, this is [call letters] Annex Answering in Chicago' ... and after maybe three seconds the 'busy light' on the switchboards of answering services all over the downtown area went out and the operators at the services started jumping on the air one after another as fast as they could seize the circuit to the transmitter and send out their pages which had been accumulating. People with rotary dial phones had to dial into the answering service (they could not reach the individual pager direct) and recite their message to an operator who then sent it out, as often as not in the abbreviated form 'unit XXX, call your office' which meant call the answering service to get a message. Once the answering service operators started slowing down then the store and forward device kicked in and *it* started passing the stuff it had accumulated for thirty minutes or so, and the dozens of pages which had gotten caught in the logjam all came spilling out one after another. I reported this to the supervisor of the answering service I was with (which also maintained my pager) and her answer was that there were 'just one or two' mobile radio customers who were also assigned on that frequency and 'probably' an operator at Annex Answering had tried to put through a 'patch-call' for one of them, had dialed incorrectly (thus the recorded intercept) and after closing the key had gotten very busy on other calls (or perhaps walked away from the switchboard) and failed to notice that the mobile customer had eventually abandoned the call and left the recording to play for however long. She said that most mobile customers had been 'moved off that frequency to other frequencies' but there were still a couple left. :( "We have told them however they have to limit their calls to five minutes or less on this frequency since it is now used for paging sub- scribers" was the way she put it ... :). It appears though the mobile subscriber was not at fault; the answering service operator had failed to supervise the call and left an intercept message to play over and over for about ten or fifteen minutes. Sure enough, at about thirty minutes after I had stored it, the test message was forwarded over the air, in due course behind the ones ahead of it. Eventually it got ridiculous; ten to fifteen minute delays were the norm before your message got transmitted because the network was so busy; that is when the entire system was changed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:25:02 GMT In article , wollman@khavrinen.lcs. mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) wrote: > Or consider the question from another angle ... say you're in Europe, > calling someone who uses a mobile phone. Chances are, the guy at the > other end has a crappy 13-kbit/s GSM codec. Why should you pay for a > 64-kbit/s A-law path between you and his MTSO when 13 would give you > all the voice quality his phone is capable of delivering? (Of course, > the telephone company can make this optimization too, provided it has > enough information about the endpoints AND a flexible- or old-enough > network.) Re 'crappy ... GSM codec': The newer 'Enhanced Full Rate' GSM vocoders are noticeably superior to the standard 'Full Rate' GSM vocoders, even though they use the same bit rate. These 'EFR' GSM vocoders are now standard on PacBell's GSM systems on the west coast. The newest Nokia phones come with all three codecs: the seriously crappy 'half rate' vocoder, the standard full rate vocoder, and the enhanced full rate vocoder. Re end-to-end quality negotiation: You have a very good point, particularly when you make a cellphone international call to another cellphone. You can possibly go through the transcodings: GSM vocoder -> 64k Alaw -> 16k adpcm -> 64k ulaw -> IS95 codec. Aside from the loss of quality is the end-to-end latency and the inability of some systems to properly handle echos of this latency. Perhaps one of the best results of 'internet telephony' will be the end-to-end negotiation of vocoders so that quality can be maximized and latency minimized, by putting in a single translation to the lowest bit rate, with one translation back to voice. ------------------------------ From: gmhall@apk.net (Gail M. Hall) Subject: Re: 900 Number Help Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 07:15:42 GMT Organization: APK Net, Ltd. On Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:45:33 PST, Eli Mantel wrote: > Steven Gaunt wrote: >> I called BellSouth and they essentially said too bad! I needed to >> call the carrier of that call. So I finally got through to ATT's >> 900 complaint line and the end result with them was tough. I had >> to pay the charge. > In our moderator's zeal to assert the righteousness of your position, > he failed to mention that on top of everything else, your local phone > service cannot be terminated for failure to pay such unregulated > charges. > I believe the proper protocol is to notify the local phone company > that you dispute the charge. As an unregulated charge, it will be > removed immediately and the information provider will be so notified. > If you assert to the local phone company that you refuse to pay for > 900/976 charges under any circumstances, they may be obliged to block > such calls. (Of course, you can say "Thank you very much. That's > what I already asked for.") I agree with this if this pertains to paying the local phone company which is an agent for the other companies listed on the bill. On the phone bill it says that pages from other companies, such as long-distance companies, are billed as a convenience to the customer. A few years ago, actually quite a few years ago, we sent a telegram via Western Union and asked for a particular type of message which was a lower cost than another kind. When we got the bill, we were billed for another type of telegram, which was more expensive. I called the phone company, and they said to just make a note on the bill that this part is disputed and they would send it back to Western Union to rebill us. Then we would deal with Western Union to get that straightened out. It was straightened out without any problems. The point is, we just marked our phone bill and subtracted that amount from the amount we sent in. > The information provider has the right to pursue legal remedies > through other channels, such as small claims court. There is the > potential for reporting your non-payment to a credit bureau, but I > believe there are special rules that apply to reporting non-payment of > 900/976 calls. Once you have told your primary phone company you are disputing the bill, they won't mess with that bill any more. Your dealings will be with the company that originally charged for the service. If AT&T owns that company, then they may be able to force you to pay the bill, but they may be cutting their own head off if their attitude causes them to lose all your other business and maybe even other business because of getting a bad reputation. Personally, I wouldn't want to take the word of a clerk or whatever they call the first level of phone answerer you get for knowing all the company policy about these billing questions. I would want to talk to someone higher up if they gave me a hard time and the bill was wrongly charged in the first place. Gail M. Hall gmhall@apk.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #326 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 23 22:24:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA28048; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:24:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:24:19 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711240324.WAA28048@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #327 TELECOM Digest Sun, 23 Nov 97 22:24:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 327 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Monopolies and Microeconomics (Adam H. Kerman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (John R. Levine) Subsidizing Rural Phone Service (Adam H. Kerman) UCLA Short Course: Project Management Principles and Practice (B. Goodin) UCLA Short Course: HBT IC Technology for Comm. Applications (Bill Goodin) USWest: Continous Redial Now On Demand (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (John R. Levine) Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (John Nagle) Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace (Schumann) Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace (J Levine) Last Laugh! Another Early Computer Telex Story (John R. Levine) 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@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 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: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Monopolies and Microeconomics Date: 23 Nov 1997 16:04:08 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Tim Gorman wrote: > dstott@2help.com (Dave Stott) wrote: >> And while the funds to build the [telephone system infrastructure] >> were not explicitly tax dollars, it could be argued that they were >> selectively applied implicit tax dollars. The Federal Government >> decided that the Bell System ( and other LECs) would be a monopoly and >> we had no choice about who received our telephone dollars. The >> government-protected LEC always got your money. > It could be argued that the subscriber's money was implicit tax > dollars but the argument is certainly not convincing. Government > regulated common carrier monopolies are not government entities either > in law or in practice. In practice, they can exercise governmental functions like eminent domain. But, from an economic standpoint, it is unimportant if the infrastructure is owned directly by the taxpayers or a public corporation. The issue is the monopoly. A monopoly is a privilege granted by government to one person at the expense of another. This privileged person is protected from the non-privileged. It isn't a right he earned. What's wrong with unearned privilege? The costs and benefits are not fairly distributed, which influences the economic decisions that consumers make. And, the incompetent are protected from going out of business. Utility subscribers don't have a choice. The effect on the ratepayers is the same. He has no other choice when it comes to mailing a First-Class letter. He must send it with the government-owned entity. He has no other choice (usually) from whom he rents his local loop. He must use the incumbant Local Exchange Carrier. Even when a competitive LEC exists, more often than not it is only a reseller, not facilities-based. It is irrelevant whether the government reserves the privilege to itself, as in the Postal Express laws, or grants it to another. The economic effect is the same. (All right, I won't speculate if technology wouldn't be in the state it is in today if government had reserved the privilege of provisioning telephone service to itself.) > The difference between the Bell System and a government agency is > total. The Postal Service is a government operation by law. It is > supported by and its losses are guaranteed by the taxpayers of this > country. The Bell System was not supported by the government and its > losses were not guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country but by the > shareholders of the stock. Actually, they function alike. The USPS is supported by fees (for the most part), not taxes. Its losses are distributed among the fees paid by mailers in the various classes of mail, which are defined by law. Furthermore, as a government entity, the USPS is exempt from most taxes and fees that ordinary business pay. In addition, there are certain subclasses of mailers (nonprofit and certain political organizations, veterans groups, fraternal organizations, labor unions, Underwriters Laboratories, certain agricultural organizations) whose reduced mailing fees used to be subsidized directly out of general tax revenues, but are now subsidized by higher fees charged to regular mailers in the Periodicals and Standard Mail classes. And, within Periodicals and Standard Mail (B), there are subclasses with special fees based on the contents and not the marginal cost to the Postal Service. It costs more to deliver and transport mail (some argue) to rural areas, yet they pay the same rates as those who live in cities. Congress itself (and the Vice-President) is a privileged mailer. The Postal Service must deliver franked mail, whether or not Congress has bothered to appropriate enough money to the Postal Service to cover rates and fees. To a lesser extent, the rest of the federal government is, as well. Penalty mail (so-called because of the threat printed on US government stationery) is only billed and paid for at the end of the quarter. No other mailer gets credit! With the case of the Bell System, certain classes of ratepayers benefitted from cross-subsidies paid by other classes of ratepayers. One could argue that there's even more of that going on, today. There are special programs to benefit the handicapped, rural areas, schools and libraries, and 911 emergency service that are paid from higher subscriber line charges. Of course, telephone companies pay ordinary fees and taxes like other businesses. Oh, and the Bell System's losses aren't guaranteed by the taxpayers? Can you say "Conrail"? The point is, what with cross subsidies, the costs and benefits are not distributed fairly. >> My point is that the infrastructure was built with captive >> dollars. Whether they were _tax_ dollars or government directed >> consumer dollars really isn't the issue. I've paid my money for 20 >> years to the LEC because I wanted a phone, and the government told me >> who I could buy that service from. They didn't give me a choice, and >> my 'investment' for basic service during that time surely paid for the >> local loop. The stockholders don't pay for it. Just the ratepayers do. > This is where your comparisons really start to break down. Income is > NOT equal to capital. Subscriber dollars are INCOME, not capital. > Income is used to pay debt, pay dividends, and pay expenses. Some > income may be converted to capital as reinvested earnings but this is > a management decision and is not taken lightly. This money usually is > better off being paid out as dividends to attract more capital than > being used as capital itself. As far as I know in the Bell System, it > was NEVER the case that there were ever sufficient earnings to fully > finance the capital needs with reinvested earnings. This means that > additional investors had to be continually attracted to the > company. These investors OWNED the companies and not the government. But, if the government had not guaranteed a steady, predictable, and growing base of ratepayers, who would have invested? Generally, except in situations with incredibly poor planning or fraud, the purchase of utility securities is relatively low risk. Society, as a whole, absorbed part of the risk. Again, no difference. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1997 22:31:30 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > The difference between the Bell System and a government agency is > total. The Postal Service is a government operation by law. It is > supported by and its losses are guaranteed by the taxpayers of this > country. The Bell System was not supported by the government and its > losses were not guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country but by the > shareholders of the stock. Gee, Tim, a Bell guy like you should know his history better than that. Dating back to the dawn of telco regulation before 1920, regulators set phone rates in cooperation with telcos to set a rate of return on invested capital. If the actual rate of return was lower than it was supposed to be, the telco could go back and get a rate increase. If the return were too high the regulators could (and sometimes did) force a rate decrease. Bell (Vail, really) invented this scheme, but it applied to independents the same way it applied to AT&T and its subsidiaries and affiliates. This worked in practice exactly like it was supposed to -- it guaranteed telephone company profits. That's why AT&T paid its full $8/share dividend every year throughout the depression and WW II, probably the only company in the country not to cut or eliminate dividends. In recent years regulation has changed in many areas from rate of return to price caps, but for upwards of 50 years, the phone system was built using government guaranteed rates of return on investment. That's why telephone bonds paid interest close to that of government bonds, there was close to no risk on them. LEC bonds still get great interest rates, since investors believe (correctly so far) that the change from ROR to price caps was hugely in the telcos' favor since it removed the need to decrease prices when costs drop. 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: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Subsidizing Rural Phone Service Date: 23 Nov 1997 17:38:32 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , John R. Levine wrote: > I live in a tiny town served by a family owned independent telco, > and although I think that the subsidies which let them offer flat rate > service at $6.82/mo are a bit much, I'd hate to see them price rural > service at cost and make a lot of the marginal farmers lose phone > service. But, they wouldn't. If they found it so valuable, they would subsidize it themselves with local land taxes, just like other infrastructure. It is of no personal benefit to me that your land should become more valuable, due to the availability of a local loop. Why should I pay higher line fees myself? The inherent value of land is an unearned benefit to the landowner, because he doesn't create the value. Land has value because of its location. This derives from the improvements that your neighbors made (if you own land next door to a large office building, you could develop one too) or improvements society made (the nearby highway interchange). Land also has value due to natural resources. Is there plenty of rainfall? Good soils? Mineral wealth? The quality of local telephone service, like other utilities and infrastructure, is part of what determines land value. If your rural phone service stinks, you paid less for your land. If you want to improve the service through a subsidy, pay it yourself. You are the direct beneficiary. Why can't a marginal farmer pay to improve his own phone service? Do you suspect that the subsidy he would pay would not sufficiently raise the value of his own land to cover it? That's possible. All that proves is that the project is flawed to begin with. But, that doesn't prove that the cost should be shifted to me. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Adam, what I think you are overlooking here is that telephone service, unlike any other utility service and unlike practically anything else takes two to tango as the saying goes. What you do with your electric service or your natural gas service or where you get your water is of little or no concern to anyone else, nor how you choose to use it, abuse it or waste it. I suppose you could say having everyone connected to a common electrical grid or a common water/sewer distribution system makes for more effecient/inexpensive service for all and that is true, but whether you personally choose to have water/electric in your house has no real bearing on my use of same. Telephones on the other hand require the cooperation of two or more subscribers to make them worth anything. If you and I were the only two people in the world to have a telephone, the chances are very great that we would not bother to have them either. Unlike your electric service where if you choose to use it by watching a tele- vision set or use it by operating a microwave oven -- and have very inefficient appliances, etc, if you choose to have a crappy telephone instrument or connection that in turn decreases the value of *my* instrument and/or connection. I can spend a million dollars per year on my phone bill and instruments, having only the latest and most sophisticated equipment, but what good does it do me when I try to reach you if you have no service or you choose to use some real old broken down equipment? That is part of the universal service argument I find compelling; that all of us receive more value for what we pay when all of us are connected to the network with reasonably equivilent levels of service. Your arguments make sense and are pursuasive at times, but you cannot carry it across to telephone service as you can with other 'improvements' to land or property in every single case. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: Project Management Principles and Practice Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:57:25 -0800 On February 17-20, 1998, 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. This course is for project managers and personnel, functional managers whose staff participate in projects, and executives to whom project managers report. Corporate personnel increasingly work on "one-time" assignments called 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 projects and the tools and techniques needed to manage them. Specific objectives for the course are: o to understand the nature of 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 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. ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: HBT IC Technology for Comm Applications Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:29:03 -0800 On February 18-20, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "HBT IC Technology for Communications Applications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bahram Jalali, PhD, Associate Professor, Electrical Engineering Department, UCLA, and Madjid Hafizi, PhD, Senior Research Staff, Hughes Research Laboratories. This course presents an in-depth treatment of GaAs, InP, and GeSi-based Heterojunction Bipolar Transistor (HBT) technologies and their application in today's growing communication markets. HBT has emerged as a key enabling technology for wireless communications, data conversion, mixed-signal/mixed-mode applications, and high data rate fiber-optic communications. The course begins with a concise review of the physics of HBT devices and a comparison with MESFET and HEMT technologies. This comparison provides a foundation for selecting the right technology for a particular application. Technology performance characteristics such as DC, RF, noise, power amplification, linearity, intermodulation distortion, manufacturability, reliability, yield and cost issues are compared. Modeling of HBT devices for circuit simulation is presented including linear and nonlinear models and thermal modeling. Material issues are covered including epitaxial crystal growth, MBE and MOCVD materials, followed by a look at commercial vendors of epitaxial material and material qualification. Fundamentals of HBT processing including device and IC fabrication, passive components, planarization, heat sink approaches (particularly for power devices), lithography, dry etching, and yield limitations are explored, as are state-of-the-art HBT device performance and reliability issues. The important role of HBT in meeting the requirements of current wireless systems is discussed. Power amplifiers are covered in-depth including such relevant issues as efficiency, linearity, intermodulation distortion, and thermal stability. The course reviews commercially available HBT IC's for wireless markets, and covers Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADC) ranging from ultra-fast flash-type converters to high-resolution delta-sigma modulators and the architectures in between. This involves a review of ADC characteristics such as SNR, SFDR, NPR, differential and integral nonlinearity, effective number of bit, and aperture jitter, in relation to HBT device characteristics. Mixed-mode/mixed-signal applications of the technology such as multiple device integration including HBT/HEMT, HBT/RTD, HBT/PIN-PD, and HBT/MESFET mixed-device techniques are examined. The course shows how these new technologies are applied to mixed/mode systems such as digital receivers (including HEMT or MESFET low-noise amplifier, HBT downconverter and HBT ADC) or to integrated optical receivers (including PIN photodetector, transimpedance and AGC amplifiers). Finally, the course presents ultra-high speed applications of the technology in the emerging market of 40 Gbit/s optical communications, including high-speed digital circuits such as dividers, MUX/DEMUX, and clock/data recovery circuits. The course fee is $1195, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For a more 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: 73115.1041@NOSPAMcompuserve.com Subject: USWest: Continous Redial Now On Demand Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:47:47 GMT Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] US West appears to be proceeding to rollout all the class services on demand, one new one each quarter. Their latest bill insert proclaims that Continous Redial has now been enabled on all lines. What this means is that after two or three busy signals, a voice intercept comes on the line and asks if you'd like to be called back when the line is free. The fine print states the cost is .75 per use, with a $6/month cap. Where this becomes a problem is when you have a modem or fax machine that is looking for a busy signal. The voice intercept may confuse it. As such US West allows that this feature be disabled on a per line basis, or by prefacing the call with *03, on a per call basis. Ken ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1997 22:17:09 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Out of curiosity, does anyone have any biographical information about > Emile Baudot, the engineer for whom baudot code -- and "baud" -- is > named? Bien sur. I sent a note on this very topic to the Digest back in March 1992: > Also, does anyone know what [baud] stands for or its derivation? It's from Emile Baudot, an early digital communication pioneer. In 1874 he introduced one of the first practical printing telegraphs using the five bit code which bears his name. The original version had a five key piano keyboard, on which the operator pressed the appropriate keys for the code for each letter. The system worked synchronously at 30 wpm so the operator had to key each letter at the correct time, clocked by a ticker. The machine sent the five bits serially so his scheme could be used in combination with many of the multiplexing schemes already in use for Morse telegraphy, an important practical advantage. (This info cribbed from my 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica.) Even though 30 wpm is quite slow by later standards, it's still about three characters per second, so I imagine that the combination of having to memorize the letter combinations and operate in precise sync with the clock required highly skilled operators. 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: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 19:19:00 GMT oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) writes: > It's hard to even imagine 50-baud baudot code in this world of > instantaneous email and fax, but it was only a few years ago that it > was the dominant format for international text communication. In the early 1970s, I worked at Sperry Vickers, where we had a UNIVAC 1108 mainframe, which, in addition to its many other duties, ran a message switch over Telex lines. Most lines were 50 baud 5-level, but the dedicated line from Detroit to Austrialia was 16 2/3 baud, one-third of the standard rate. A Teletype (an ASR-35) mechanically geared for 16 2/3 baud was provided for test purposes. This was the slowest printer I have ever seen or heard of. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace Date: 23 Nov 1997 14:38:32 -0500 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site In article , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > On 21 Nov 1997 19:31:02 GMT, Bruce Pennypacker noagis.com> wrote: >> be self-regulated." Technical Details: GTMI has established a >> national backbone which operates as a fully-meshed network >> operating at DS-3 speeds, and interconnecting, or "peering" with >> several other networks at undisclosed private peering points. > It has been observed, on the mailing list of the North American > Network Operators Group, that they're going to have a _really_ hard > time finding people to actually peer with them. Since the operators > of most of the backbones in the US are on that list, it may get > interesting. But why would Spamford care? He doesn't make his money selling spammed products. He makes his money selling spam services. You can just as easily do the latter on a dedicated spambone that goes nowhere. The fools he sells to would never know the difference. Mark W. Schumann | catfood@apk.net Why should I change or hide my return address to deter spammers? I just loop the garbage right back at 'em. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1997 21:59:25 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. >> The "Spam King," Sanford Wallace, and Walt Rines >> Have incorporated their new bulk-email friendly backbone network > ... Are the direct email marketers only going to be selling to each > other? Sure. Remember, the actual business of spamming is in selling spam software, services, and address lists (many if not most of which are obsolete or just plain wrong) to suckers. Whether or not they get delivered is a detail. Indeed, considering how much grief they get from the recipients when the mail really is delivered, a spambone that couldn't deliver to Internet addresses would be less hassle all around. 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 ------------------------------ Date: 23 Nov 1997 22:38:59 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Last Laugh! Another Early Computer Telex Story Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. There was this guy, let's call him Joe, who around 1971 developed some computer trading models for commodities futures. Being kind of a nerdy guy, he lashed up his minicomputer to Telex interfaces so it could read the ticker in real time and send orders to his broker. One day, the computer invested in a thinly traded commodity, lets call them beans. The price went up, it telexed the broker to order more, and repeated that a few times. The next day, Joe got an extremely stern call from the securities regulators. "Hey, pal, what do you think you're doing?" "Huh?" "You just cornered the market in beans. That's illegal. Did you think we wouldn't notice?" "Uh, oh, my computer did it." He made amends, and programmed his computer never to trade beans again. This is a true story, I know Joe personally, and even though he stayed away from beans, he sure made a lot of money trading other stuff. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #327 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Nov 24 20:33:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA01242; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:33:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:33:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711250133.UAA01242@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #328 TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Nov 97 20:33:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 328 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone (Tim Gorman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Richard Shockey) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Henry Baker) Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics (Lee Winson) Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace (H. Anvin) Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace (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@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 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: Tim Gorman Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:11:49 -0600 In Telecom Digest #327, John Levine wrote: >> The difference between the Bell System and a government agency is >> total. The Postal Service is a government operation by law. It is >> supported by and its losses are guaranteed by the taxpayers of this >> country. The Bell System was not supported by the government and its >> losses were not guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country but by the >> shareholders of the stock. > Gee, Tim, a Bell guy like you should know his history better than that. > Dating back to the dawn of telco regulation before 1920, regulators > set phone rates in cooperation with telcos to set a rate of return on > invested capital. If the actual rate of return was lower than it was > supposed to be, the telco could go back and get a rate increase. If > the return were too high the regulators could (and sometimes did) > force a rate decrease. Bell (Vail, really) invented this scheme, but > it applied to independents the same way it applied to AT&T and its > subsidiaries and affiliates. > This worked in practice exactly like it was supposed to -- it > guaranteed telephone company profits. That's why AT&T paid its full > $8/share dividend every year throughout the depression and WW II, > probably the only company in the country not to cut or eliminate > dividends. John, the phone companies were NOT guaranteed profits. Look at what you just stated above: "If the actual rate of return was lower than it was supposed to be". There were a number of years when telephone companies did not earn very well. In fact, there have been years when some smaller telephone companies in the rural areas around here made no money at all. The reason AT&T always paid its dividend was the highly conservative manner it which it was managed, not because it was guaranteed profits. Rates were always set based on past earnings. If those past earnings had been negative, there would have been no going back retroactively to "guarantee profits". And as I remember, there were several large companies which continued their dividends, some of the railroads being among them as well as some of the oil companies. > In recent years regulation has changed in many areas from rate of > return to price caps, but for upwards of 50 years, the phone system > was built using government guaranteed rates of return on investment. > That's why telephone bonds paid interest close to that of government > bonds, there was close to no risk on them. LEC bonds still get great > interest rates, since investors believe (correctly so far) that the > change from ROR to price caps was hugely in the telcos' favor since it > removed the need to decrease prices when costs drop. You still confuse conservative management with "no risk". There were no guaranteed rates of return since going forward rates were based on past performance. For your "guaranteed profit" scenario to be at all viable, the regulators would have had to have working crystal balls with which to forecast future downturns in the economy. Trust me, they didn't exist. Nor were rates ever hiked retroactively in order to guarantee profits. Exclusive franchises with conservative management is why the bond ratings have always been so high. That still doesn't combine to make telephone rates into "implicit taxes". In Telecom Digest #327, Adam Kerman (ahk@chinet.chinet.com) wrote: > In practice, they can exercise governmental functions like eminent > domain. But, from an economic standpoint, it is unimportant if the > infrastructure is owned directly by the taxpayers or a public > corporation. From an economic standpoint it is VERY important if the infrastructure is owned directly by the taxpayers or by a public corporation. It has a significant impact on the expectations of the investors - which, of course, taxpayer owned infrastructures do NOT have! How many highways do you suppose the taxpayers expect to return *anything* on the investment used to build the road? > The issue is the monopoly. A monopoly is a privilege granted by > government to one person at the expense of another. This privileged > person is protected from the non-privileged. It isn't a right he > earned. This lead-in is the tip-off to your whole position. You are not really interested at all in the true picture of the phone system as it was or is today. It is obvious that you are ignoring what the traditional, historic view of a natural monopoly was or how it was operated. For your information, it was estimated in the 60's and 70's that more widows and elderly owned AT&T stock than anyone. Is this your view of who the *privileged* were that were profiting from the expense of the non-privileged? > What's wrong with unearned privilege? The costs and benefits are not > fairly distributed, which influences the economic decisions that > consumers make. And, the incompetent are protected from going out of > business. The problem here is that you haven't *shown* who the privileged and non-privileged you are speaking of were or are today. You segue between speaking of a monopoly, which has to do with the number of competitors, to speaking of the privileged and non-privileged, which I assume has to do with the class conflict between the rich and poor, to the economic choices of consumers, which has to do with the supply/price/demand relationships. You blur them altogether as if they are the same. Are there privileged/non-privileged consumers? If not, then what does this have to do with the costs and benefits which drive economic choices? If there are, then what do privileged/non- privileged consumers have to do with earned/unearned monopolies? Based on this, is the real problem the monopoly or the class warfare between rich and poor? Basically, it just looks to me like you are throwing out emotional pleas that you hope someone will buy. > Utility subscribers don't have a choice. Really? Since when? I have a septic system where I live. I don't pay the city sewer utility a dime. I have two people working for me that have private wells. They don't pay the city water utility a dime. I personally know one family that does not have a phone. They use the pay-phone at the corner. If you need to talk to them you go in person or send a letter. They don't pay the telephone utility a penny for a private phone. This would appear to be just one more emotional argument that has no basis in fact. > The effect on the ratepayers is the same. Since your first premise is misguided, your conclusion is also. > He has no other choice when it comes to mailing a First-Class > letter. He must send it with the government-owned entity. If he wants to *communicate*, he has several choices other than a first-class letter. That is the issue. > He has no other choice (usually) from whom he rents his local > loop. He must use the incumbant Local Exchange Carrier. Even when a > competitive LEC exists, more often than not it is only a reseller, not > facilities-based. So what does this have to do with privileged/non-privileged? What does this have to do with earned/unearned? What does this have to do with the 17 mile loop to the middle of a 35,000 acre ranch? How many facility-based providers are going to buy private right-of-way to put local loops into this rancher? > It is irrelevant whether the government reserves the privilege to > itself, as in the Postal Express laws, or grants it to another. The > economic effect is the same. (All right, I won't speculate if > technology wouldn't be in the state it is in today if government had > reserved the privilege of provisioning telephone service to itself.) Now you are back to making unsupported claims again. What economic effect are you addressing? That there will only be one facility-based provider or that the facility will be priced at something other than just over the incremental cost of providing the loop? >> The difference between the Bell System and a government agency is >> total. The Postal Service is a government operation by law. It is >> supported by and its losses are guaranteed by the taxpayers of this >> country. The Bell System was not supported by the government and its >> losses were not guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country but by the >> shareholders of the stock. > Actually, they function alike. The USPS is supported by fees (for the > most part), not taxes. Its losses are distributed among the fees paid > by mailers in the various classes of mail, which are defined by > law. Losses in a telephone company are not distributed among the fees paid by the subscribers. That is why the telephone companies in the past were called *regulated* monopolies. The regulators set the prices based on a fair price to the user and a fair rate of return to the investor. If the company lost money due to bad investments, it wasn't made up through increased prices to the subscriber but through losses to the investors. > Furthermore, as a government entity, the USPS is exempt from most > taxes and fees that ordinary business pay. Thus this is another difference between the telephone companies and the USPS. The telcos do pay taxes and fees just as a private company does. > In addition, there are certain subclasses of mailers (nonprofit and > certain political organizations, veterans groups, fraternal > organizations, labor unions, Underwriters Laboratories, certain > agricultural organizations) whose reduced mailing fees used to be > subsidized directly out of general tax revenues, but are now > subsidized by higher fees charged to regular mailers in the > Periodicals and Standard Mail classes. Is this part of your privileged versus non-privileged argument? Or is this really just a phenomenon seen time and again in private business, i.e. charge what you can get? > And, within Periodicals and Standard Mail (B), there are subclasses > with special fees based on the contents and not the marginal cost to > the Postal Service. It costs more to deliver and transport mail (some > argue) to rural areas, yet they pay the same rates as those who live > in cities. Really? You think that rural telephone subscribers pay the same rates as those who live in cities? Perhaps you could contrast the rates paid by subscribers in Mound City, Kansas with the rates paid by subscribers in downtown Memphis? Or in Jackson Hole, WY with those in downtown Miami, FL? > With the case of the Bell System, certain classes of ratepayers > benefitted from cross-subsidies paid by other classes of ratepayers. Are rural customers who are subsidized the privileged ones you speak of above? Are the residential customers being subsidized by business customers the privileged ones? > Of course, telephone companies pay ordinary fees and taxes like > other businesses. So they aren't like the USPS. > Oh, and the Bell System's losses aren't guaranteed by the taxpayers? > Can you say "Conrail"? Ummmm, Conrail and AT&T don't seem to be the same letter combination. Is Chrysler a taxpayer supported business? Can you say "PUC directed sale of property"? > The point is, what with cross subsidies, the costs and benefits are not > distributed fairly. And how does that make the subscriber fees into "implicit" taxes? How does it relate to the privileged/non-privileged argument you made above? >> This is where your comparisons really start to break down. Income is >> NOT equal to capital. Subscriber dollars are INCOME, not capital. >> Income is used to pay debt, pay dividends, and pay expenses. Some >> income may be converted to capital as reinvested earnings but this is >> a management decision and is not taken lightly. This money usually is >> better off being paid out as dividends to attract more capital than >> being used as capital itself. As far as I know in the Bell System, it >> was NEVER the case that there were ever sufficient earnings to fully >> finance the capital needs with reinvested earnings. This means that >> additional investors had to be continually attracted to the >> company. These investors OWNED the companies and not the government. > But, if the government had not guaranteed a steady, predictable, and > growing base of ratepayers, who would have invested? Generally, except > in situations with incredibly poor planning or fraud, the purchase of > utility securities is relatively low risk. And now you are off into yet another argument. How does an exclusive franchise relate to the privileged versus non-privileged? You seem to be somewhat unfamilar with the history of the telephone industry in this country. Did you somehow think that the industry did not take off until the government established the practice of exclusive franchises? LOTS of people invested in the telephone company startups in this country. Lots of people invest in them today even with competition growing every day. > Society, as a whole, absorbed part of the risk. Again, no difference. Society absorbed no risk, the investors did. Should a phone company fail, the PUCs would have merely directed the sale of their assets to a different operating company, probably through the bid process. It's happened before, it will happen again. ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:39:53 GMT Organization: Netcom billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) wrote: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thoughts on reading the original >> article was that the author was saying Internet would eventually >> absorb most or all of the long distance side of the telecom business. >> That is, after all, the most profitable part of it. Yes, there would >> still be the local loops, but companies like AT&T -- to name just an >> example -- would suffer financially quite a bit after the Internet as >> a voice carrier comes into wide use. PAT] > The problem today and for the forseable future is that internet phone > is not reliable. As a business user, I can not afford the hit or miss > aspect of internet phone when dealing with clients. I suspect I-phone > will augment recreational/family voice services, but I see little > liklihood that it will kill AT&T, MCI, etc. Some thoughts to consider in this thread. The PSTN long distance is not going to go away, but the capability of skimming off large portions of it are available now. It is not residential customers who are doing it, its business customers. Approximately 40% of Fortune 500 LD calls are within the enterprise, calling one branch or division of a company to another. Companies are spending millions building out their IP networks so it makes sense to optimize the deployment of their internal networks by moving INTERNAL voice and fax traffic across those nets. You can buy products NOW from VocalTec, Lucent, Cisco and others that are IP Telephony gateways that sit behind the PBX and route the calls from your NYC office to your Berlin office over IP, etc. Its transparent. To your switch its just another phone extension. You have one "on ramp gateway" in NYC and a "off ramp gateway" in Berlin. The standards are nearly in place. All you need to do is run the cost-benefit analysis to see if these products meet your needs. In addition, there is a strong move in both the IETF and ITU to create standards for Internet Fax. Fax is perfect for the Internet. It can accept latency, it is unidirectional (push if you wan to call it that), and most of the technology SMTP,MIME,UTP/RTP and H.323 is in place to deploy. At the most basic level you can MIME attach a TIF file to anyname@domain.com and you are done. E-Mail programs will have TIF viewers imbedded in the programs in the future. Panasonic has shipped the first Internet Aware fax machine the FO-770i machine that can send a fax as email. Yes, it has a keyboard! Every other Japanese fax machine vendor is developing products with similar capabilities. Move just 5% of global fax traffic off the PSTN and you have caused major profit headaches for the LD carriers. BTW according to IDC/Davidson Consulting ... we move one billion fax pages a day. Even ATT estimates that 30 % of the calls across the Pacific are fax. This is the real threat to PSTN-LD company profitability. Richard Shockey 8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110 St. Louis, MO 63119 Voice 314.918.9020 FAX 314.918.9015 Internet rshockey@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 25 Nov 1997 00:40:43 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Sun, 23 Nov 1997 15:25:02 GMT, Henry Baker wrote: > Perhaps one of the best results of 'internet telephony' will be the > end-to-end negotiation of vocoders so that quality can be maximized and > latency minimized, by putting in a single translation to the lowest bit > rate, with one translation back to voice. Indeed. It's interesting to note, in this context, that the Telos Zephyr broadcast ISDN codec can negotiate with other units of it's type to choose the best possible encoding and data rate for a given call, in exactly this manner, connecting as it does via an ISDN BRI. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 14:09:17 GMT In article , Tim Gorman wrote: >> Yes they were. And while the funds to build the system were not explicitly >> tax dollars, it could be argued that they were selectively applied implicit >> tax dollars. The Federal Government decided that the Bell System (and other >> LECs) would be a monopoly and we had no choice about who received our >> telephone dollars. The government-protected LEC always got your money. > It could be argued that the subscribers money was implicit tax dollars > but the argument is certainly not convincing. Government regulated > common carrier monopolies are not government entities either in law or > in practice. If it walks like a tax, and talks like a tax, it _is_ a tax. E.g., the 'universal service' tax in the 1996 law. > The difference between the Bell System and a government agency is > total. The Postal Service is a government operation by law. It is > supported by and its losses are guaranteed by the taxpayers of this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > country. The Bell System was not supported by the government and its > losses were not guaranteed by the taxpayers of this country but by the > shareholders of the stock. This is a very bad joke! U.S. utilities are _nominally_ 'private' companies, but when did you _ever_ see a utility shareholder have to guarantee any losses? Just look at the current B.S. going on in California regarding 'stranded' costs, as the utilities are being asked to act like a real private company and actually compete. With the 'revolving door' between these 'private companies' and the regulatory agencies going on for 80+ years, one has to stretch the meaning of ordinary words to the breaking point to conclude that any of these companies are actually 'private'. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics Date: 25 Nov 1997 00:58:34 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per Adam K's post, I take strong exception to it: > The issue is the monopoly. A monopoly is a privilege granted by > government to one person at the expense of another. A monopoly is NOT granted "at the expense of another". If I invent and patent a Widget, and sell them, no one loses anything. If it weren't for me, Widgets wouldn't exist at all. By selling them, people get the benefit of them and I make money. In the case of govt-sanctioned utility monopolies, the government limits the price I can charge and defines the services I must provide. I cannot set the price at whatever the market will bear, rather what the government says. I am by no means protected against loss of my investment. The Penn Central railroad was a public utility, with its rates and services defined by the government, yet investors lost their money. There have been plenty of utility investors who lost money. But there's a more important issue about "competition" in the telephone business. Economically, competition that all players have full knowledge of the marketplace. I say the telephone industry is horrible in this regard, more so than ever. If I buy a quart of milk, the price is clearly marked on the shelf. (Some consumer advocates demand it be marked on each carton!) But how much do telephone calls cost? A pay phone has a sticker 35c for a local call. How long do they give you? How far is "local"? How much for overtime? In the old Bell System days you could dial the Operator and get clear answers to these questions. They published rates in the front of the phone book and mailed out leaflets. No more. Today they tell me one charge if I make an "automated" Operator assisted call, but another if the Operator handles it. Isn't, by definition, an "operator assisted call" one where an operator has to be involved? Today they tell me I'll pay one rate if I use 800 CALL ATT to access their network, but another rate by other means. The above is just AT&T. I've tried getting rate info from MCI and Sprint as well as Alternative Oper Services, and got nowhere but fast busy signals or forgotten on hold. As I said, if I buy a quart of milk, its contents are clearly labled as its price. As a consumer, I can KNOWLEDGEABLY decide whether I want to pay a few cents more at a convenience store or save money at a supermarket. I can NOT make such decisions anymore about telephone service. And I'm convinced the new breed marketing people want it that way. For the moment, "competition" in the phone industry is a joke. You can't choose if you don't know what it's costing you. The people reading this newsgroup generally understand telephone rates. How about John Q. Public? Before the pro-competition folks reply and tell me how evil and unfair the old Bell System was, please consider: Do you really think it's fair for them to understand the difference between 'automated' and 'non-automated' 'Operator Assisted'"? Especially while they're standing in the rain at a pay phone, in the dark, trying to get help for a flat tire? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your final paragraph above is about the most important one in this entire debate. Far too often, discussions in this forum about what is right and what is wrong in the telecom industry centers on relatively sophisticated matters in which the readers of this Digest are quite fluent, but of which the general public is quite ignorant. I think you say quite correctly that at this point in time, telecom competition is a joke. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace Date: 24 Nov 1997 04:24:06 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote in comp.dcom.telecom: > Sure. Remember, the actual business of spamming is in selling spam > software, services, and address lists (many if not most of which are > obsolete or just plain wrong) to suckers. Whether or not they get > delivered is a detail. Indeed, considering how much grief they get > from the recipients when the mail really is delivered, a spambone that > couldn't deliver to Internet addresses would be less hassle all > around. You know, if Spamford actually pulls *this* one off, I have to say he's still scum, but he'd actually be doing the rest of the net a favour ... -hpa PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: "Spambone" Spam Backbone Press Release From Sanford Wallace Date: 25 Nov 1997 00:43:35 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On 23 Nov 1997 14:38:32 -0500, Mark W. Schumann wrote: [ quoting me ] > It has been observed, on the mailing list of the North American > Network Operators Group, that they're going to have a _really_ hard > time finding people to actually peer with them. Since the operators > of most of the backbones in the US are on that list, it may get > interesting. But why would Spamford care? He doesn't make his > money selling spammed products. He makes his money selling spam > services. You can just as easily do the latter on a dedicated > spambone that goes nowhere. The fools he sells to would never know > the difference. They're stupid. They're not _that_ stupid. They're playing the numbers. They spam enough people to get an acceptable hit rate. If they get a _zero_ hit rate, things _will_ change. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #328 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Nov 24 21:20:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA04624; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:20:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 21:20:11 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711250220.VAA04624@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #329 TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Nov 97 21:20:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 329 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (oldbear@arctos.com) Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward (Al Varney) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (Dave Stott) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (Veijalain) Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (Frankenber) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Christopher Zguris) Re: Subsidizing Rural Phone Service (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics (Adam H. Kerman) 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@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 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, 24 Nov 1997 18:32:21 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward In Telecom Digest, John Levine wrote: >> Out of curiosity, does anyone have any biographical information >> about Emile Baudot, the engineer for whom baudot code -- and >> "baud" -- is named? > Bien sur. I sent a note on this very topic to the Digest back in > March 1992: > It's from Emile Baudot, an early digital communication pioneer. In > 1874 he introduced one of the first practical printing telegraphs > using the five bit code which bears his name. The original version > had a five key piano keyboard, on which the operator pressed the > appropriate keys for the code for each letter. The system worked > synchronously at 30 wpm so the operator had to key each letter at the > correct time, clocked by a ticker. The machine sent the five bits > serially so his scheme could be used in combination with many of the > multiplexing schemes already in use for Morse telegraphy, an important > practical advantage. (This info cribbed from my 1910 Encyclopaedia > Britannica.) > Even though 30 wpm is quite slow by later standards, it's still about > three characters per second, so I imagine that the combination of > having to memorize the letter combinations and operate in precise sync > with the clock required highly skilled operators. Two other items concerning Emile Baudot: 1. According to Newton's Telecom Dictionary, Baudot lived from 1845 to 1903. 2. A footnote in James Martin's 1972 book, 'Introduction to Teleprocessing' states, on page 62: The five-bit telegraphy code (CCITT Alphabet No. 2) is commonly referred to as the Baudot code. It was, however, invented by Donald Murray. Baudot's work produced quite a different code structure which resulted in the CCITT Alphabet No. 1. There is little resemblance between the two codes except they both use five bits per character. Martin's book also provides a very interesting chart showing the bit sequence for the characters of the common 5-bit Telex code and showing how they map to the CCITT international keyboard, the US teletype commercial keyboard, the AT&T "fractions keyboard" (used in the stockmarket), and the "weather keyboard" (with symbols for meterology.) Cheers, The Old Bear ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: TWX/Telex, Realtime vs Store/Forward Date: 24 Nov 1997 16:00:58 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , John R. Levine wrote: > It's from Emile Baudot, an early digital communication pioneer. In > 1874 he introduced one of the first practical printing telegraphs > using the five bit code which bears his name. The original version > had a five key piano keyboard, on which the operator pressed the > appropriate keys for the code for each letter. The system worked > synchronously at 30 wpm so the operator had to key each letter at the > correct time, clocked by a ticker. The machine sent the five bits > serially so his scheme could be used in combination with many of the > multiplexing schemes already in use for Morse telegraphy, an important > practical advantage. (This info cribbed from my 1910 Encyclopaedia > Britannica.) Baudot's system was successful for two reasons. One, it PRINTED the received messages on strips of paper. Two, it multiplexed up to six operators onto one telegraph line, using a TDM scheme. The 30 wpm or three 5-bit-characters per second were sent as a 30-bit frame over a 90 bit/second facility. Some synchronization schemes required overhead bits as well. Al Varney ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:20:34 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out 'Complete 911 Emergency Kit' In case you've been wondering where all the old Motorola flip phones have gone, Tiger Direct is selling them for $79.99 as 911 emergency phones. The latest few catalogs have a quarter page ad telling potential buyers that 'cellular phone may not operate in certain geographical areas,' but that this is 'something no family automobile should be without.' 'Emergency calls require NO activation fee and NO monthly fee!' (Their emphasis.) 'Just dial 911 to reach Police, Fire Department or ambulance. Your 911 calls are FREE from anywhere in the United States! No activation fee required for emergency calls! No monthly charges or any additional fees! Makes a great gift for the people you care about! Use it in your car (or your spouse's car), boat, truck, RV ...' The ad does tell you that it may not work, and to Tiger Direct's credit it is worded prominently at the beginning of the ad copy, BUT (my emphasis) the rest of the ad pretty well negates that message. I wonder if they will keep selling them after this episode. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: Juha.Veijalainen@iki.fi (Juha Veijalainen) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 20:35:21 +0200 Organization: Jkarhuritarit E. L. Oliver (eoliver@concentric.net) wrote in : > I just signed up with Omnipoint, a PCS carrier that uses GSM > technology. Their brochures prominently state that 911 will work > always if the phone has battery power and there is good signal > strength. E.g. having an account or a SIM (subscribe identity module > which provides account and billing information) they claim is > irrelevant. Of course the test would be cancelling my service and > trying to call 911 ... or taking the SIM out and trying to call 911. I am glad to see that this feature is also available in the 'US GSM'. As far as I know, on GSM 900 emergency calls to 112 are always available, providing there is a network coverage, regardless of what kind of subscription you have. SIM card is not necessarily needed, but I've heard that some phones might have problems working without SIM inserted. As far as I know, at least some operators use pre-emption - forcefully terminate non-emergency calls in favour of emergency calls in congested areas. Most mobile phones also allow 112 to be dialed even when key lock is on. I wonder if 112 is translated to 911 on US GSM-1900 phones? How would 112/911 be handled on future GSM 900/1900 dual mode phones? Juha Veijalainen, Helsinki, Finland http://www.iki.fi/juhave/ Mielipiteet omiani / Opinions personal, facts suspect ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 03:45:35 GMT In article , Mike Fox wrote: > Lisa Hancock wrote: >>> One technical study she commissioned for a lawsuit that she filed >>> against L.A. Cellular, her service provider, indicates that the >>> company's signal is still too weak to carry a 911 call in the area of >>> National and Castle Heights -- >> Oh, I see, a lawsuit. >> While I'm certainly sorry for what happened, is it really the cellular >> carrier's fault? The fault was the thieves -- they were the ones who >> shot the woman. >> Cellular phones do not always work. In my short experience with them, >> I've been cut off in mid conversation and have had lots of trouble >> getting a call through. It's a radio, and radios have dead spots. > We, the telecom junkies or professionals understand this. But should > every cell phone customer who hears an advertisement whose message is > "get a cell phone for safety and peace of mind" know that? Yes. I don't expect cell customers to know all the gory details of how their cellular technology works. But it's common sense that you might sometimes get out of range. I know this goes against the current trend in tort law, but I think we need some personal responsibility here. If you're stupid enough to think that your cell phone will work 100% of the time, wherever you are, and choose to bet your life on that, then you have noone but yourself to blame when the bet goes sour. (I don't really think the victim in this case is that stupid, though. She's likely just looking for money and figures the telco has lots.) If my hard-wired desk phone fails to work when I unplug it and carry it half a mile from my house, do you think the manufacturer is liable should a 911 call fail? (The advertising is the same -- many land-line phones have visible advertising on the packaging hyping a "emergency" button that will call 911 with the push of just one button.) > Cellular phone companies have been advertising their wares as safety > devices for years without disclosing their limitations, some of which > are intentional and completely within the control of the service > providers (i.e., not allowing 911 calls to go through on a competitor's > system, not having adequate coverage in dangerous areas where people are >more likely to need their cell phones for saftey). No one prevents their customers from making 911 calls on other systems. If I get my phone from company A and roam to company B's area, it is the sole decision of Company B whether or not to accept my call. Certainly cell companies do control where they have coverage, but it's unrealistic to expect otherwise. They put towers where they get revenue. Do you want to impose government regulations that define what areas are dangerous and then regulate signal strength in those areas? Everything has those limitations, though. Run your car out of gas, it stops moving. Tree falls on the wire carrying your POTS service? You can't call 911 on that either. > In order to sign up paying customers, they led their customers to > believe that they could count on their cell phones in an emergency > when in fact this isn't true, partly because of business decisions > they made, and they knew it. This is the tort they have committed. It's actually very true. Many, many thousands of 911 calls are attempted from cell phones, and most go through. Many lives are saved and many emergencies are lessened. (Again, though, in today's everythings-a-tort mentality, it's unacceptable to be anything less than perfect.) They never said the cell phone would work everywhere all the time. And, frankly, anyone of reasonably intelligence should know that. > If they had not run all those ads saying that people should get cellular > phones for their own peace of mind and safety, I would have more > sympathy for them. However, I have seen several cell phone ads that > tout safety and peace of mind. Nowhere did they say "subject to limited > availability" or "subject to blocking for economic reasons" or some > such. Again, the blocking argument is specious. You logic is something along the lines of "Company B refused to accept a 911 call from a Company A subscriber, and since Company A advertised that their phone could be used in an emergency, Company B is liable". > An analogy would be anti-lock brakes. If a car company sells a car > without anti-lock brakes and without claiming they had them, they would > not be liable for the lack of antilock brakes. But if they sold a car > that had anti-lock brakes, and made the added safety a big selling > point, but intentionally crippled them in some way without disclosing > that fact, and that crippling resulted in a failure to prevent an > accident, would they not have committed a tort? That logic doesn't hold. Nothing is being cripplied. In the case of company B not accepting calls from phones registered with company A, company B made no claims whatsoever. And in the case of Company A not having coverage where you think they should, they haven't disabled anything. They merely haven't expanded coverage as rapidly and completely as you would apparently like. A better analogy is a car being sold as having anti-lock brakes, and the customer then suing because the anti-lock brakes won't stop a car that's sliding across a solid sheet of ice. >>> Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by >>> deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers >>> using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones >>> that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called >>> non-initialized phones). >> Is the above really true? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. Yes. Like many businesses, some cell companies choose not to provide service to people who aren't paying customers. Most heart surgeons won't do transplants for free either. And I don't see anything wrong with either. Do you want to require that all cell companies accept 911 calls from all phones? If so, how to you propose to deal with the fact that most people who have cell phones for emergencies only will just cancel their service contract at that time, and just keep their phone as an "unregistered" phone. The land-line carriers won't allow me to call 911 if I don't pay for my land-line service. Why should cellular be any different? Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 03:08:04 +0500 Leonard Erickson wrote: > And when telemarketers and survey takers call the cellular owner, > should he have to pay for those *unwanted* calls? And what about wrong > numbers? In any half-way decent GSM phone (and the thread started with GSM; presumably this works for CDMA and the better analogue handsets too) you have all sorts of sophisticated ways of screening incoming calls - from banning them altogether, diverting them to your voicemail, etc, depending on the calling number. In India, where caller-ID is not available on land-line phones (though all exchanges carry the information) it _is_ available in any call to a GSM phone. Furthermore, in India if you hang up within 10 seconds of receiving a call on your mobile, you're not charged. Presumably that's enough time to identify an unwanted caller, and add the number to your ban list. > It wasn't carried over to cellular in the US because they thought that > it'd make cellular phones less popular if people had to pay to call > them. Exactly. Since one of the major reasons people - at least the business/professional mobile user profile in India - want a cellphone is that they can be contacted while on the move, any deterrent such as caller-pays is bad, and the value of mobility is felt most by the mobile users, in any case. The first case our newly formed regulator had to deal with this year was when the Dept of Telecom (which effectively retains a land-line monopoly until private competitors build their wireline networks next year) decided to charge its users extra for calls to cellphones. The cellphone ops screamed that their customers dropped by 50%. The regulator ruled in their favour. Earle Robinson wrote: > Since a cellular number has a different area code, the same throughout > the country by the way, any caller knows in advance that he is > calling a cellular user if he dials such a number. > I should add the caller pays the same whether the cellular owner is > sitting anywhere within France, or he is on a beach in Spain. In the > latter case, the cellular owner will pay a roaming charge to receive a > call while outside his home country. In India too each GSM network has its own area code, though it's treated as a local number for the "home" region, and long-distance elsewhere. So, my number in Delhi starts with "9811" - it's dialed as a local number from Delhi, but as a (long-distance) Delhi number from Bombay (i.e. "09811"). Landline callers in Bombay or Delhi pay exactly what they'd pay to call a landline Delhi number. The _airtime_ charge is what is paid by the mobile user, the cost of mobility, regardless of where the caller is. Roaming is separate, also billed to the mobile user. So a land-line Delhi caller could make a "local" call to my phone, while I'm in Bombay, without needing to know where I am. Indian cellular licences were auctioned by region, and the situation changes completely when a single operator's network covers two cities - because the "home" region may cover a huge area, and the call is just a local call. Some operators with large licence areas charge long-distance calls made _from_ mobile phones at lower rates than what a _landline_ user pays, because they bypass the landline network. (This is what had the Dept of Telecom all worked up.) -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: 25 Nov 1997 00:35:01 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 20:27:39 PST, Leonard Erickson wrote: > jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) writes: >> They're the one getting the convenience of the wireless service, why >> oughtn't _they_ be the one to pay for it? If I see fit to give out my >> cellular number to unsuspecting people, why should it be either that >> they should pay for my convenience, or even more importantly from a >> personal privacy standpoint, that I should even have to tell them it's >> a cellphone at _all_? Damn, did _I_ start a fluff ... Good. :-) > And when telemarketers and survey takers call the cellular owner, > should he have to pay for those *unwanted* calls? And what about wrong > numbers? That's why I have first minute free. :-) Actually, since my PCS carrier, PrimeCo, offers FMF -- and no-charge inbound voicemail -- I just forward the house phone to the cell, and _leave_ it there. If I want to talk, I know who it is without paying extra for caller ID _service_ (much less a box) at the house, and if it's someone I don't want to talk to, I let VM catch it, saving me paying for an answering machine or telco VM. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I don't think it applied on mobile > radio phone calls prior to cellular either did it? In the old service > called AMPS, weren't the charges always paid by the radiotelephone > owner and not the caller? Likewise, the old 'ship to shore' radio > service to vessels on the Great Lakes and in rivers, etc. The > (landline or wired) caller never paid extra for those. PAT] Indeed, they did not. The US has, to the best of my knowledge, _never_ had caller tolls that depended on the class of service of the called number -- INWATS being an (obvious) exception ... but then, that isn't a toll. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: czguris@interport.net (Christopher Zguris) Subject: Re: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 18:02:30 GMT Reply-To: czguris@interport.net Earle Robinson wrote: > One big reason you see many Americans with both a pager and cell phone > is because of the ridiculous method used for call charges in the > states. No one with a cell phone here would bother having a pager, > too. I suspect a bigger reason is the pager receives signals just about anywhere. Cell phones -- at least here in NYC -- have problems inside buildings, in rural areas, etc. My new PCS does it, my old analog did it, it's a signal problem and it happens to my friends as well. However, aside from tunnels (subway and car), my pager always works. I would never _depend_ on my cell phone for communication. Christopher Zguris, czguris@interport.net http://www.users.interport.net/~czguris ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Subsidizing Rural Phone Service Date: 23 Nov 1997 23:41:20 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Adam H. Kerman wrote: > In article , John R. Levine > wrote: >> I live in a tiny town served by a family owned independent telco, >> and although I think that the subsidies which let them offer flat rate >> service at $6.82/mo are a bit much, I'd hate to see them price rural >> service at cost and make a lot of the marginal farmers lose phone service. > But, they wouldn't. If they found it so valuable, they would subsidize > it themselves with local land taxes, just like other infrastructure. > It is of no personal benefit to me that your land should become more > valuable, due to the availability of a local loop. Why should I pay > higher line fees myself? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Adam, what I think you are overlooking > here is that telephone service, unlike any other utility service and > unlike practically anything else takes two to tango as the saying goes. > That is part of the universal service argument I find compelling; > that all of us receive more value for what we pay when all of us > are connected to the network with reasonably equivilent levels of > service. Your arguments make sense and are pursuasive at times, > but you cannot carry it across to telephone service as you can with > other 'improvements' to land or property in every single case. PAT] You are correct that there is a slight value to those who live in cities to be able to communicate with those who live in rural areas. But, the main beneficiary of all those subsidies is Mr. Levine. Since I help to pay for his telephone service, I expect him to call me now and again. But, such subsidies are inefficient. Sure, farmers, by definition, live and work in rural areas; they should have phones. But, what about people who live in small towns? Subsidies help determine where people live. The trend, over the last 10 years, has been for people more and more people to commute to jobs who live on the fringes of metropolitan areas and in small towns not all that far out anymore. This is a shift: people are moving back into small towns. Is the availability of subsidies to upgrade Central Offices (in some cases, to higher standards than city residents enjoy) in these communities part of the reason for this change? If not for the general existance of subsidies to such areas, would people still be moving into cities where the infrastructure is already in place? Even if I accepts the Universal Service argument, do I benefit to the tune of $3.50 per month? (Aaargh!) I'm not sure I like Mr. Levine that much. Oh, there are those who benefit: businesses that supply rural areas. But, they don't pay a proportionate share representing their higher benefit. You can't make the argument that such subsidies should be from subscriber line charges. If such subsidies are beneficial to all of society, then they should be paid from general federal fund sources. [supported by a tax on land values, of course] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:10:58 CST From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics Linc Madison wrote: > 1. The U.S. Postal Service is *NOT* an agency of the U.S. government. In > some respects, it's a fine or even meaningless distinction, but still > you erred in describing it as such. It was established by Congress as part of the reorganization of the old Post Office Department. Its Postal Inspection Service still has criminal law enforcement responsibility. There are years when the USPS budget is "on budget" to make the deficit look smaller. Its revenues belong to the US Treasury, and are paid into special funds. Until very recently, employees payroll checks said "US Treasury" on them. Stamps are produced by the same people who bring you dollar bills. You are claiming it's a public corporation? It's not. > 2. The U.S. Postal Service is *NOT* supported by *ANY* tax revenue *AT ALL*. > 100.000% of its revenue is from postage, fees, and marketing. Has been > for many years now. There are still federal tax revenues to support the pensions of older employees on Civil Service retirement. (For heaven's sake, I said it's supported by fees for the most part.) > 3. The classes of mail are for the most part NOT defined by law. The only > class of mail defined by law is first class letter mail, to which the > U.S. Postal Service is granted a monopoly. Other classes of mail are > defined by postal regulations, which are not law. Wrong, wrong wrong, wrong, wrong. Why do you think there is a Periodicals class? Why do you think it has five categories of preferred rates? Why do you think that periodicals published weekly (or more often) gets expedited treatment? Why do you think there are preferred rates for nonprofit, Underwriters Laboratories, and the miscellaneous organizations I mentioned? Why do you think there are four subclasses of Standard Mail (B)? Why do you think there is a distinction between parcels sent under Standard Mail (A) and Standard Mail (B)? Why do you think this was all preserved under the supposed "reclassification" that went into effect on July 1, 1996? Some of these classes, particularly Periodicals, are also defined under international law. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #329 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Nov 24 22:10:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA07948; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:10:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:10:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711250310.WAA07948@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #330 TELECOM Digest Mon, 24 Nov 97 22:10:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 330 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Announcing a New Sponsor ... (TELECOM Digest Editor) LEC Emergency-Break Capability (Michael Hayworth) Re: Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! (Alan Boritz) Re: Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California (Anthony Argyriou) Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics (Linc Madison) Digital TV Towers (Roy Smith) Re: Payphone Operator Compensation for Coinless Calls (Stanley Cline) Re: COCOTs Misprogrammed (Stanley Cline) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 24 Nov 1997 21:42:52 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Announcing a New Sponsor ... Actually, he is not new around here; he has been part of the TELECOM Digest for a few years now, and he has had a sponsored link on the Telecom Web Page for awhile also, but he recently made a contribution which enabled me to replace a bit of old obsolete equipment and make production of the Digest run a bit more smoothly. I am referring to Mike Sandman, whose mail order service of telecom- related supplies and parts here in the Chicago area is well known to many of you. Refer to: http://www.sandman.com for more details. He has a fascinating catalog which he will be glad to send to any of you who request it. For those of you who read the Digest version of this newsgroup each day and who read the information in the masthead you will see a new reference there to Mike as one of the people whose financial help has insured the continued publication of this Digest. Mike was a telephone installer/repairman prior to opening his own company a few years ago, and judging from the huge array of stuff he now sells via mail order, I'd say he made a smart choice to get out of installing and repairing on someone else's payroll and into business for himself. Please order a catalog today if you do not have the current one already (many/most readers here may have already received it.) Thanks again Mike! PAT ------------------------------ From: Michael Hayworth Subject: LEC Emergency-Break Capability Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:43:07 -0600 Organization: Innovative TeleSolutions Got an emergency page the other night from the babysitter, and when I called, the line was apparently busy, because it forwarded to our voice mailbox. Tried to get the operator to do an emergency break on the line. After nearly ripping the phone out of the wall because she held me up for ten minutes while I told her that, no, I don't have a Southwestern Bell calling card she could charge it to and I didn't have several dollars worth of change in my pocket to feed the blasted pay phone, she put me on the line with her equally unhelpful supervisor. The supervisor told me that, since we have Call Forward Busy on the line, she couldn't do an emergency break anyway, because she'd just end up forwarded to our second line. Is that an accurate description of how CFB affects the CO's emergency break capability? I've never seen that mentioned before, but with two small children at home, I'm sort of questioning the wisdom of having CFB on my line if it means that I can't have the operator break in on the line in case of emergency. The payment issue is another item, and I'm unbelievably steamed over that, but I want to understand the technology issues first. Thanks, Michael Hayworth ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:30:57 -0500 In article , ted_klugman@usa.net (Ted Klugman) wrote: >> To add to disappointment, I found that the great digital messaging >> built into this phone won't work outside of the NYC metro area > The sales rep should have told you this when you subscribed. I just called AT&T customer service and they repeated the pitch. They say that it should work in Boston, though it doesn't. They say it should work in Philadelphia, though it doesn't. Guess they should not be continuing to repeat this pitch if it's not true. > Think of it this way -- at least the phone works out of the AT&T PCS > area. Some other PCS phones can't roam on analog systems. Think of it this way, a Bell Atlantic CDMA phone works everywhere this one doesn't, and both phones are cellular, not PCS. The system holds the digital message data until you return, but it's fairly useless if you travel out of the area frequently. > And rumor has it that they'll be setting up an agreement with > Comcast Cellular, who covers South Jersey. Comcast already has IS-136 > deployed "unofficially" Customer service is telling customers it's working *now*, not at a future date. >> (my voice mail was happily announcing to leave a numeric message >> that I wouldn't see for another three days, while out of town on >> business). I also found that even while in range of the system, >> digital messaging has been extremely slow (last night I got a >> voicemail alert two hours after returning to the area, and an hour >> after a two-day-old text message finally reached me). > This shouldn't be the case -- but maybe it has something to do with > the Ericsson phone. When I travel into the AT&T coverage area I > usually get my messages within about ten minutes. If it's the phone, then it's *all* the Ericsson phones on the system. A friend with the same model phone is experiencing the same problems, though he doesn't travel outside of the area as much as I do. ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: Re: Service Map of Local Carriers in Southern California Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 05:47:47 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 19:33:55 +0000, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote: > GTE Consumer Relations has one of their area it can safelly be assumed > that what is not theirs is Pac Bell. Also CPUC has a CO and LATA map > that shows carriers for the whole state you will need to call the SF > office for it though. Not quite -- there are other carriers in California. That CPUC map shows about ten different companies, and I think that one is really a loose group of small independents. The first place that comes to mind as neither GTE nor PacBell is Roseville (Placer County) and Citrus Heights (Sacramento County) which have the "Roseville Telephone Company" as their local provider. I don't know LA well enough to tell you where the independents are down there. I would assume that the original poster would like a street-level description of the borders of the service areas -- does the CPUC have such a thing? Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 23:19:33 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) wrote: > [many paragraphs of misinformation about the U.S. Postal Service] 1. The U.S. Postal Service is *NOT* an agency of the U.S. government. In some respects, it's a fine or even meaningless distinction, but still you erred in describing it as such. 2. The U.S. Postal Service is *NOT* supported by *ANY* tax revenue *AT ALL*. 100.000% of its revenue is from postage, fees, and marketing. Has been for many years now. 3. The classes of mail are for the most part NOT defined by law. The only class of mail defined by law is first class letter mail, to which the U.S. Postal Service is granted a monopoly. Other classes of mail are defined by postal regulations, which are not law. There are certainly problems with the USPS, but your argument is diluted by getting fundamental facts wrong. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:47:08 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Digital TV Towers Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing There has been a lot of talk in the aviation mass media about digital TV towers. The problem is that with the advent of digital TV, we are going to see (if you can believe the aviation press) an explosion of new TV transmission towers, and not only that, but taller ones. These towers present a hazard to air safety, especially when built near airports. My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be fairly straight forward to just add additional transmitter antennas to the same tower structures that exist today for conventional TV transmiss- ion, with no net increase in the number of towers (and thus, no net increase in the air navigation hazard). Why would this not be the case? Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Payphone Operator Compensation for Coinless Calls Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:10:36 GMT Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:39:23 EST, in comp.dcom.telecom NBJimWeiss@ aol.com (Jim Weiss) wrote: > In October the FCC approved a payment of 28.4 cents per call to be > paid to payphone operators by the long distance companies for coinless > calls (800/888, dial-around, etc). The long distance carriers are > apparently going to pass this charge through to their customers by > charging them $.30 to $.35 for each 800/888 call received from a > payphone. > Where do the carriers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, WorldCom, etc.) stand in > implementing procedures and notifying their customers of this new call > "surcharge?" AT&T is explicitly surcharging calls from payphones. Specifically, they are adding either 28, 29, or 35 cents (depending on jurisdiction, i.e., state PSC/PUC vs. FCC) for EACH AND EVERY call placed from a payphone -- calling-card, collect, 500, subscriber 800/888, everything. And no, they haven't provided bill notices/inserts, but I called AT&T to question a specific calling card charge, and the rep reminded me about the payphone surcharges. There is ONE exception to the surcharge: Calls from AT&T's own coinless cardphones. According to the FCC, AT&T *is* entitled to compensation for calls placed from its cardphones, but it seems as if they are NOT surcharging calls handled by AT&T, at least not yet. (I don't know if they are requesting compensation for calls handled by other carriers.) I haven't heard much about MCI and Sprint, but it seems as if they are heading the same direction. These explicit pass-along policies are going to result in at least some businesses, especially paging companies (see post about SkyTel earlier this week), blocking their 800/888 numbers from payphones. A better solution, at least for subscriber 800/888 calls, may be to average the compensation into general rates, either increasing rates or decreasing profit slightly. That wouldn't penalize individual calls and would probably ensure universal access to 800/888, but may upset some customers or carriers by causing them to pay for other customers' calls. Nonetheless, I expect to see explicit surcharges on calling-card and collect calls to continue, regardless of what happens with subscriber 800/888. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ what's up with payphones?.......see http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here!....help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: COCOTs Misprogrammed Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 02:10:38 GMT Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 12:09:22 -0500, in comp.dcom.telecom aboritz@ CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: > No, David, those COCOT's were intentionally set up to do what they > did. The teleslime operator in Arizona told me (literally) that it > was tough, and they could basically do what they wanted in that state. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No, they may not. *Federal* regulations bar COCOTs from blocking calls to any number used to access long distance carriers, including 800/888 numbers such as 1-800-CALL-ATT, etc. They may not reroute calls destined for one carrier to another carrier, as has been known to happen as well. A few states, notably Texas and North Carolina, have allowed charges for calls to 800/888 numbers -- but under Federal regs, there can be no more charge for calls to reach other carriers than to reach the COCOT's preferred carrier, so in practice, most phones in those areas didn't charge. If they did, calls to common access numbers such as AT&T's and MCI's would be allowed free -- but users of smaller carriers' services might have problems. As for Arizona allowing COCOT owners to "do what they want" -- I have a feeling it's more a matter of lax enforcement of regulations already on the books, instead of no regulations at all. Tennessee, for one, seems to be excessively lax with policing payphones (they're clueless too -- one TRA bureaucrat sent me an outdated copy of a BellSouth 10xxx list, saying "that's valid"), even though TN's regulations seem fairly strict; Georgia and other states are *much* more vigilant. But even in the "good" states such as Georgia, some companies and phones fall through the cracks. I've talked to the people responsible for COCOT enforcement in several states; as with other state agencies, they tend to be overworked and can't get to everything. Typically, large COCOT companies (Peoples, CCI, etc.), companies that provide service to schools/government buildings/etc., and companies flagrantly and openly violating the regs get the most attention, while small, quiet companies that are in out-of-the-way locations get substantially less attention. > The property owner in the NYC suburb didn't care whether customers > liked it or not. Same thing with the COCOT operators in Oradell, NJ. > I think that with the virtual explosion of portable phones in the > marketplace, and the PCS companies starting up to increase competition > in that area, we'll see a lot more COCOT abuses with fewer complaints Don't forget the payphone local-call deregulation, and other shifts in the telecom environment in general. Payphone owners can now charge what they want -- in "captive audience" situations such as malls and schools, phones may charge *much* more than phones in other locations. The FCC didn't build in safeguards for such environments, which could certainly lead to more and more rate abuse. The push for expansion of local calling areas in some states points to more and more COCOTs charging "toll" for calls that are really local calls (this is already a major problem in Atlanta, Chattanooga, and some other places.) Even more importantly: The increasing demand on numbering resources -- new NPAs, the 101XXXX CIC/CAC format, mandatory 10-digit dialing in some areas, etc. -- will lead to phones unable to reach some areas or carriers, or unable to place local calls at all. I've run across MANY payphones, mostly from one *manufacturer*, that are incapable of 101XXXX, and many others that can't handle 10-digit dialing of local calls (even when Atlanta will go mandatory 10-digit on January 1!), NPA 888 as toll-free, and the like. COCOTs tend to be "behind the times" with numbering -- not necessarily because of old CPE, but often because some COCOT owners are just too cheap and/or lazy to update rate tables for their phones. > (fewer people using them who would be inclined to file complaints > with state regulatory agencies). Most people outside of the telecom biz haven't a clue about filing complaints against payphone companies. (Hence my payphone info web page, see below for URL.) Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ what's up with payphones?.......see http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here!....help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #330 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 26 22:09:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA12140; Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:09:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:09:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711270309.WAA12140@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #331 TELECOM Digest Wed, 26 Nov 97 22:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 331 Inside This Issue: Happy Thanksgiving Day! Book Review: "Apache: The Definitive Guide" by Laurie/Laurie (Rob Slade) FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Jim Weiss) New Area Codes and Cellular Overbilling (Michael Schuster) Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone Start of 720 (Don Heiberg) Teletraffic Seminar Proceedings (Nick Carver) Synchronous RS232 Modem Signalling (Gordon Dracup) Giving Thanks (Judith Oppenheimer) Last Laugh! Humorously Misleading Cell Phone Ad (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 25 Nov 1997 11:05:11 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Apache: The Definitive Guide" by Laurie/Laurie BKAPCHDG.RVW 970507 "Apache: The Definitive Guide", Ben Laurie/Peter Laurie, 1997, 1-56592-250-6, U$34.95/C$49.95 %A Ben Laurie ben@algroup.co.uk %A Peter Laurie %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-250-6 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$34.95/C$49.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 274 %T "Apache: The Definitive Guide" For those who wish to set up their own Web server, Apache has one undisputable advantage: it's free. On the other hand, you can't call up technical support and yell that you aren't getting what you paid for. In fact, you can't call up technical support at all, unless you go to one of the commercial firms that provides it. So, unless you are the type of person who learned UNIX by reading the source code, you probably want some help in getting set up. This book provides detailed, stepwise instructions on getting Apache, installing it, and making it work for you. The authors assume that you have a C compiler, and some familiarity with it, but very little else. Topics include basic introductions, minimal Web sites, CGI (Common Gateway Interface), authentication, content arbitration, indexing, redirection, proxy servers, server-side includes, server status and information, extra modules, the Apache API (application Programming Interface), writing Apache Modules, and security. Appendices list support organizations, compatibility, and the SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) protocol. A wry sense of humour pervades the book, enlivening the text throughout. It is hard to say that the jokes aid in the explanations of esoteric material, but the comedy never gets in the way or degenerates into mere sarcasm. The authors have an abiding concern for security that surfaces again and again in the book. Tips and useful pointers are included in almost every section, and the chapter on security is a fine tutorial on the vulnerabilities and loopholes to which all Internet applications are subject. Most non-specialist works are satisfied with telling you to choose good passwords: Laurie, pere et fils, are willing to go to the trouble of giving the reader solid and complete advice. Overall, this book may be another strong reason to choose Apache. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKAPCHDG.RVW 970507 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: NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:38:54 EST Subject: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges One of my (enterprising) independent contractors, upset over the $.284 charge for coinless payphone calls (actually $.30 surcharge from his long distance carrier), went to a payphone to call the FCC complaint number (1-888-CALL FCC). Below is the response he received from the FCC. Thought some of the readers would be interested in seeing this. Also, I wonder whether the FCC has budgeted for payphone call surcharges to its toll-free number?? ----------------- Subject: FCC National Call Center Response Date: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 The following is the information you requested from the FCC National Call Center. Thank you for your inquiry. CONSUMER INFORMATION Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20554 Calls Made From Payphones The Communications Act requires the FCC to take actions to promote competition among payphone service providers and the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public. The Act also requires the FCC to ensure fair compensation to payphone service providers for each and every call placed from payphones. A payphone service provider is the person or entity who owns the payphone instrument, such as the local telephone company; an independent company; or the owner of the premises where the payphone is located. Payphone service providers are called "PSPs" in this brochure. This brochure explains the actions the FCC has taken to carry out its responsibilities. Are The Coin Rates For Local Calls From Payphones Regulated? No. Effective October 7, 1997, the FCC deregulated coin rates for all local calls made from payphones. Prior to 1996, most payphones were provided by local telephone companies and received indirect subsidies through the rates paid by consumers for other types of services. States regulated the coin rate for a local call. The resulting artificially low prices tended to discourage new companies from entering the payphone market and also limited the number of payphones available for the benefit of the public. In 1996, Congress required that payphones no longer be subsidized in order to encourage competition and the greater availability of payphones. The FCC determined that deregulating local coin rates and allowing the marketplace to set the price of local payphone calls is one of the essential steps needed to achieve the goals set by Congress. Deregulation will allow PSPs to receive fair compensation for their services and will encourage the widespread placement of payphones. Also, the FCC anticipates that Americans will have greater access to emergency and public safety services. States may also choose to place public interest payphones in areas where payphones are necessary for health and safety reasons. The Commission intends to actively monitor the payphone marketplace by regularly meeting with representatives from the states, PSPs, and consumer advocates. Must I Pay For An Emergency Call? No. Calls made to emergency numbers, such as 911, and to the Telecommunications Relay Service, a service of use to people with disabilities, will be provided free of charge from payphones. You can also continue to reach an operator without depositing a coin. Can I Still Make Toll-Free Calls From Payphones Without Depositing A Coin? Yes. However, the Communications Act requires the FCC to establish a per-call compensation plan to ensure that all PSPs are fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and interstate call using their payphone -- except for emergency calls and telecommunications relay service calls for hearing disabled individuals. Prior to 1996, PSPs often received no compensation for completed intrastate and interstate calls -- including completed toll-free calls -- no matter how frequently callers used payphones to originate calls. The FCC carried out its responsibilities by adopting rules that require long distance telephone companies to compensate PSPs 28.4 cents for each call they receive from payphones, except those calls for which the PSPs already collect compensation under a contractual arrangement. Payphone-originated calls that are unlikely to be the subject of a contract with the PSPs include calls to 800 telephone numbers or 10XXX access code calls which connect callers to long distance telephone companies. The 28.4 cents per-call compensation rate is a default rate that can be reduced or increased at any time through an agreement between the long distance company and the PSP. The FCC encouraged long distance companies and PSPs to contract with each other for more economically efficient compensation rates. Some long distance companies are advising consumers that the FCC decided that consumers making calls from payphones should pay a per-call charge to compensate the PSP. The FCC did not make such a decision. Long distance companies have significant leeway on how to compensate PSPs. The FCC left it to each long distance company to determine how it will recover the cost of compensating PSPs. Tips For Consumers Companies compete for your payphone business. Use your buying power wisely and shop around. If you think that the rate for placing a call from a payphone is too high, a less expensive payphone could be around the corner. Also let the PSP know that the rates are too high. It's in their best interest to meet the needs of their customers. Contact your preferred long distance company and ask for instructions for placing calls through that company from a payphone. Also ask what rates or charges apply to calls placed from payphones. Let the company know if you believe their rates are too high. Then call other long distance companies and ask about their rates. ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: New Area Codes and Cellular Overbilling Date: 26 Nov 1997 01:50:29 GMT Organization: panix I live in NYC and originally signed with the then-called Cellular One in part because of its large home area. It included the 908 area code of Middlesex County NJ, where I visit frequently and have family. Since this summer, those parts have been re-allocated to area code 732, and permissive dialing ends next month. Nevertheless I reprogrammed all my 908 numbers to 732 very early on, as soon as I realized calls so dialed would go through. Late in the summer, while reviewing my cellular bills, I discovered that coincident with the creation of 732, AT&T Wireless was charging me LONG DISTANCE for all calls placed to 732 numbers, and for all calls PERIOD while I was travelling through Middlesex County (part of my HOME RATE AREA). And so began a monthly ritual -- upon the receipt of each bill I complained that the calls had been mis-routed. No, this is not an AT&T Long Distance issue sir; this is a cellular switch programming issue and is in YOUR domain, etc. Eventually, after some time on hold while the customer rep spoke to someone who knew the story, I got an apology and a credit applied. They were aware of the problem and it would be fixed soon. Today I got my November cycle bill, and sure enough there were more improper long-distance charges. I called Customer Service and hit the roof; this time, besides crediting me they offered me 30 minutes of free airtime for my trouble. Fine. After I hung up it occurred to me that there must be thousands of people like me out there, who are being overcharged for what should be home-rate calls, but never noticed or complained. I've hesitated to call the Public Service Commission over pennies, but now I wonder if it's a systematic issue totalling much more than my pennies per month. What would you do? Mike Schuster | 70346.1745 at CompuServe dot COM schuster at panix dot com | schuster at pol dot net ------------------------------ From: Donald M. Heiberg Subject: Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone Start of 720 Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:43:02 -0700 Denver, Colorado, "Rocky Mountain News", November 26, 1997 http://insidedenver.com/yourmoney/1126code2.html Local-calling area may expand Plan might postpone start of new area code, would hike phone bills By Rebecca Cantwell Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer Phone calls to far-flung corners of the 303 area code would all be local under a plan that state regulators are mulling. That would mean no more long-distance charges between Denver and places such as Longmont, Bailey, Elizabeth, Nederland and Idaho Springs. But it would mean higher monthly telephone bills for all 303 customers, probably at least 65 a month. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission has launched a formal study of the issue. No decision will be made until next year, and regulators will hold town meetings first to hear from interested people. The idea of making all of 303 a local calling area is tied to debates that have been going on for months about conserving telephone numbers. After heated controversy, the commission decided over the summer to impose a new area code -- expected to be 720 -- on top of the entire 303 territory because numbers are running out. To delay the starting time for the new area code, the commission and various industry groups have been looking at ways to conserve phone numbers. Currently, telecommunications companies must have a prefix (the first three digits of a local number) in each area where they want to provide service. Those areas are tied to rate centers -- the geographic point of measuring and billing long-distance calls. With 42 rate centers in the 303 area code and prefixes assigned in blocks of 10,000 numbers, a new telecommunications company must have 420,000 numbers to provide service throughout the area code even if it has only a few customers. The commission has been looking at reducing the number of rate centers to cut back on the numbers needed by each company. And making all of 303 a local calling area would be a possible solution to changes that would be required as a result. If that's done, the revenue collected on long-distance calls inside 303 would need to come from somewhere else -- probably local bills. "The idea is, can we do this to postpone the hassle of a new area code, and what are the trade-offs associated with it?'' PUC spokesman Terry Bote said. "One is, you have to raise local rates. There will be people who are not happy with that, and we certainly want to hear from them.'' US West Communications, which collects nearly all the money from local calls and long-distance calls inside 303, would expect such a change to be "revenue-neutral,'' spokesman Jerry Brown said. "It's an interesting idea and worth exploring,'' he said. "If it really does simplify the lives of customers and it does delay implementation of a new area code, we think it's worth the commission looking at.'' The current plan is for 10-digit dialing (using 303 for local calls) to start in February and become mandatory in June, officials of the PUC and the OCC said. The PUC has scheduled hearings to start Feb. 11 to take testimony on the local-dialing issue, including the optimal number of rate centers in the 303 area code, the effect on local telephone rates and whether expanding the local calling area is in the public interest. ------------ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The copy I got of this, per the above, seems to have a small but important ommissions. Early in the article it says local bills would increase under the plan, 'probably 65 a month' without indicating *what* there would be 65 of. I would hope they mean 'cents' rather than 'dollars'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Nick Carver <106736.2751@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Teletraffic Seminar Proceedings Wanted Organization: Quotient Communications Ltd Date: 26 Nov 1997 12:18:07 -0500 Having been told by the usual sources (British Library, etc.) that they are out of print, I am turning to the Usenet community to see if anyone can help me trace a couple of articles. I'm happy to cover copying and any other costs involved in gettin them to me. If you know someone who might help (including the authors), please let me know how to contact them. Firstly, we have the 7th ITC Specialist Seminar held in Morristown, NJ in 1990. I'm after the paper by H Ahmadi and R Guerin entitled 'Bandwidth Allocation in High-speed networks based on the concept of Equivalent Capacity' and secondly, the 10th International Teletraffic Congress held in 1982. J.W. Roberts gave a paper called 'Teletraffic models for the Telecom 1 Integrated Services Network'. If anyone can help, I'd appreciate an e-mail in response as I have to confess that I haven't worked out how to get beyond the first article in any thread in a newsgroup. Many thanks, Nick Carver ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:01:01 +0000 From: Gordon Dracup Subject: Synchronous RS232 Modem Signalling Organization: Timesprout I have been trying in vain to use two non-IBM modems (Sonix Volante Centro) to attach two IBM AS/400s over a dial up switched connection using the standard RS232 port on the AS/400s. Both modems support V25bis dialling and use V32terbo to achieve 19200bps. Although the call is dialing out on the first modem and being answered by the second modem, I continue to get line failures, specifically "call cleared, DTR disconnect". If I use an IBM (7852 model 400) modem to initiate the call to the remote non-IBM modem it works. This confirms that my software configuration is correct. The IBM modem has special dip-switch settings which is set to "AS/400 emulation", so I can't find out what this corresponds to in terms of DTR, DSR, RTS, CTS and DCD control. I think the problem may be in the signalling or handshaking, so I would appreciate if there is anyone out there who may be able to tell me how the following should be set : DTR Control (Ignored, controlled by DTE) DSR Control (Forced on, Normal RS232, follows DTR etc) RTS Control (Normal RS232, ignored, controls remote DCD-V.13) CTS Control (force on, normal RS232, turned off, follows DTR) RTS/CTS delay DCD Control (forced on, normal RS232, follows DTR, follows RTS-V.13) Clocking (Internal, external) Any information or suggestions would be much appreciated. Gordon Dracup Cipher Solutions Limited Telephone 0131-477 7717 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 09:15:21 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Giving Thanks Wishing all a warm and plentiful Thanksgiving. Judith Oppenheimer [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Judith, I'll 'second the motion' and hearing no objection from anyone consider it a unanimous thing from all of us to each of us in the Digest reader family. Thursday is Thanksgiving Day in the United States and an opportunity for all of us to meditate on the rich blessings with which we are bestowed. Everyone, please: sometime in the course of the day on Thursday, take a moment to simply pause and count your blessings. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wrfuse@mab.ecse.rpi.NOSPAM.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Subject: Last Laugh! Humorously Misleading Cell Phone Ad Date: 26 Nov 1997 21:31:40 GMT Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA Reply-To: wrfuse@mab.ecse.rpi.NOSPAM.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) One of the cell phone companies has a TV ad saying that their coverage is so extensive that it even works in Sleepy Hollow. (Visions of The Legend etc). Actually Sleepy Hollow, which was called North Tarrytown, NY until last year, is half an hour north of NYC, is on the commuter railway, and is a few miles from the state Thruway. It would be one of the first places to be covered. Score one for a creative ad writer. Wm. Randolph U Franklin, WRFUSE at MAB.ECSE.RPI.DELETETHIS.EDU [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll tell you another bit of creative advertising being done by Cellular One here in the Chicago area. They are now heavily promoting prepaid cellular service which works in the same way as prepaid long distance calls. You can go to a Jewel-Osco store here and get a new cellular phone in a box, already in service with number assigned, etc for $99.95. With the phone comes a certain number of minutes already paid for. You can purchase additional minutes at any time, and if the phone breaks or gets lost or stolen that's fine; just go buy another one. The minutes are quite expensive of course; you'd think prepaying would get the time for less, but it does not work that way with prepaid long distance calls either due to too many middlemen involved in the sale, etc. You can take an existing cellular phone you own to them and get it converted in the same way for $39.95 which includes the same initial package of minutes (I think thirty minutes). And the way they are promoting it is the humorous part: it is intended to save you, their valuable customer, the 'hassle' of having to pay the bill each month and the 'hassle' of having to bother with a credit check and possible deposit requirement. The past couple weeks I have seen numerous people carrying these around; they seem quite popular with the unwashed masses. Now not only Jewel-Osco is selling the prepaid cellular phone; today the newspaper had at least six or eight advertisments from various (I think marginal) business places which specialize in pagers, cell phones, etc. offering the same thing. And the rationale is always the same: your time is far to valuable to have to spend it waiting for a credit check or remembering to pay us each month. That is why we are charging you twice as much as it is worth to convert your existing phone (and don't get any ideas about programing the phone yourselves folks, Cell One requires that it be through a dealer) and a per-minute rate reserved for the worst poss- ible customers. No identification needed when purchasing a new phone or converting an established one ... 'you say your name is John Smith? ... that's great ... here's your new phone Mr. Smith ...' and no names needed to purchase additional minutes from several locations. I see lots of great laughs emerging from this over the next year or two as fraud becomes more prevalent than it is already. But who knows? Prepaid phone cards have been a success in some places, so maybe prepaid cellular will be also. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #331 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 27 13:45:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA04144; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:45:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:45:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711271845.NAA04144@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #332 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Nov 97 13:45:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 332 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Help Needed With Fusitsu of Japan (Tri Nguyen) FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals (Eli Mantel) TIE PBX Help Needed (Jacob Westfall) Sprint Service Level Response Problems (wdg@hal-pc.org) New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 (Robert Casey) Re: Payphone Operator Compensation for Coinless Calls (Ron Kritzman) Re: Bulletproof 888 Number? (Leonard Erickson) Re: Bulletproof 888 Number? (Andrew Olechny) Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics (John R. Levine) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (H. Peter Anvin) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Earle Robinson) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Peter Morgan) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (re-redux?) (Bill Levant) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Scott Robert Dawson) Re: LEC Emergency-Break Capability (Connie Curts) A Funny Thing Happened Calling 1-800-CALL-ATT (Robb Topolski) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: CTY.ASA@bdvn.vnmail.vnd.net (Tri Nguyen) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:05:07 +0700 Subject: Help Needed With Fusitsu of Japan Hello, My name is Nguyen and I am from VietNam. I am very interested in the telecomunication products of Fusitsu Inc., Japan. However, I have not got too much documents about them. I am especially searching for information about them. If anyone can help me, I would be very thankful. Yours, Tri Nguyen Ho Chi Minh City, VietNam Tel 84-8-8458941 ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 23:28:33 PST From the FCC Brochure "Calls Made From Payphones": > Some long distance companies are advising consumers that the > FCC decided that consumers making calls from payphones should > pay a per-call charge to compensate the PSP. The FCC did not > make such a decision. This doublespeak from the FCC is topped only by the ridiculous claim that there is a dearth of payphones that results from inadequate payphone operator compensation, or the suggestion that customers in a mall or an airport will be able to find a cheaper payphone just around the corner. But the whining about this fee (and I'm one of those whiners) is masking the truth as to what this fee is all about: the revenge of the liberals. Deregulation, as we all know, is the darling idea of conservatives, and generally detested by liberals. This plan for compensating payphone providers provides compensation to the payphone operator, but also provides unlimited employment at an hourly rate well above the current minimum wage, for as many people as the payphone operators care to hire. There's no rule that says payphones must actually be public phones. Depending on the state tariffs, you can probably put payphones anywhere you can put regular phones. To simplify things, payphones don't even need to be coin phones. They just have to have a way to pay for non-toll-free calls. As far as I can tell, a payphone operator can install hundreds of payphones in a room and hire people to make calls from his payphones to airlines, hotels, and the many thousands of businesses offering their services via 800/888 numbers. Based on one minute per call, the payphone operator can earn $17 per hour per employee. If he only pays half of that to the employees, they will be getting well over the current minimum wage. Since just about anybody can make phone calls, this will become the de facto minimum wage. To put the icing on the cake for the liberals, it will be primarily the big, bad, businesses who are stuck paying the wages of these employees who are causing the wages of their own minimum-wage employees to be increased. And before long, payphone operators generating income for themselves through this technique will be testifying before the FCC that any changes to the regulations would unfairly impact their industry, an industry which is making very significant contributions to the U.S. economy. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is a very interesting proposal. Anyone want to try installing phones in the manner desribed and see if it actually works? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jacob Westfall Subject: TIE PBX Help Needed Date: 26 Nov 1997 16:36:53 GMT Organization: Electro-Byte Technologies Hi, I have a couple of questions about a TIE VDS PBX and was hoping someone had used this type of system before. First off, a call comes in with the call id or CLID info, and an extension takes the call. When you transfer the call to another extension will the PBX resend the CLID info to that new extension? Will any type of analog PBX work with Call ID (CLID)? Second, if you are using centrex lines as trunk lines into the PBX can you program the PBX to ignore a flash-hook so that you can pass the flash-hook through to the telco's centrex system to perform centrex functions? Ie. to transfer a call off-site using the centrex system and not tie up a PBX trunk? Third, if you are adding an ACD system to the PBX and one of the agents is tele-working and their local extension is call-forwarding to their house, can the ACD detect their line is busy and continue to queue a call for them? Thanks for any help you can provide, jake@ebtech.net ------------------------------ From: wdg@hal-pc.org Subject: Sprint Service Level Response Problems Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 01:57:34 GMT Reply-To: wdg@hal-pc.org How long is too long to wait to have a 12-channel trunk group expanded to 24 channels? What's reasonable and what's unreasonable? Is 23 days unreasonable? I think so. How long does it really take to expand a 12-channel (digital) trunk group to 24 (digital) channels on the DMS-250? Ten minutes maybe? I currently have seven SPRINT channelized voice T1s along with several 'full T1' (non-channelized) spans. I'm nowhere near being a "major" SPRINT account, though my Sprint billings are approaching $80,000 a month. I think that should at least entitle me to a higher level of service than waiting and begging for three weeks to have this trunk group expanded. I think my SPRINT account rep (initials RG) has his head up his ass. He has my order so incredibly FUBAR'd that no one can figure it out. The span is in place. The trunks are there ... 12 channels of the span in question are sitting idle WAITING for SPRINT to begin delivering traffic to them. The other twelve channels of =THAT SPAN= are already in the trunk group I've been fervently trying to get these remaining twelve trunks added to for the last three doggone weeks. Why is this so difficult? This is a no-brainer folks. All I need is for the size of the trunk group to grow from 12 to 24. What is the hold-up? If anyone from SPRINT is following along and can do any arm-twisting, the SPRINT switch number is 130 (Satsuma) and the trunk group is 2376. This is not a FANTM group and I do *not* wish it to become one. Just add 12 more channels configured exactly as the other 12, including inband (DTMF) ANI/DNIS. Deliver these additional 12 to me over the same span as the other 12 are using ... the channel capacity is there, idle and waiting, as it has been for the last 23 days. ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:31:21 GMT Turns out new nanp 646 for New York City is an exchange in immediately adjacent 201's 646 exchange in Hackensack NJ. I thought the phone system wants to avoid using an area code number that is the same as an exchange in the new area code or in immediately adjacent area codes. Of course, maybe no number exists like that in the New York City area. My brother works for the county government of Bergen County, and almost all their office lines are in exchange 646. He wonders how many wrong numbers they're gonna get from people forgetting the leading "1" when dialing New York's new 646 area code. Also means we can't have 1 + 7D dialing for same area code toll calls. ------------------------------ From: Ron Kritzman Subject: Re: Payphone Operator Compensation for Coinless Calls Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 17:09:38 GMT Stanley Cline wrote: > These explicit pass-along policies are going to result in at least > some businesses, especially paging companies (see post about SkyTel > earlier this week), blocking their 800/888 numbers from payphones. Its already started, and its probably going to get worse. A business which recieves a large number of short calls will be massacred by these charges. Take the case of a voicemail or paging provider with an 800 + pin number for system users to check their messages. A 30 second call on a dedicated circuit probably costs them no more than three cents. The 30 cent pay phone fee results in a (pause for gasp) -- thousand percent -- increase in the cost of that call. Of course they will pass this on to their customers, and what was once an economical way to do business (an 800 pager or voicemail) has suddenly turned into a prohibitively expensive one. Sadly, I can envision the day when it becomes nearly impossible to reach an 800 from a pay phone. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: See Eli Mantel's article elsewhere in this issue for an excellent way to make all this painfully obvious to the FCC and others. PAT] ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Bulletproof 888 Number? Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 01:56:40 PST Organization: Shadownet > I think he *is* getting real time ANI. I called out of curiosity and > the recording stated that if I was calling to complain because I > received an email I should hang up else they would capture my number > and feature it at the top of one of their ads as a contact for the > company. (Cute.) Gee. That *threat* may be just what it takes to get him in hot water. I seriously doubt that threatening to do that is legal. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It depends on if you plan to follow up your threat of (legal) action by taking that (legal) action. It is illegal for me to threaten to harrass you because you harassed me, just as it is always illegal to commit the same crime against the offender that the offender committed against you. There certainly is nothing wrong with saying "if you commit a crime against me and hurt me I intend to sue you or ask the government to prosecute you." PAT] ------------------------------ From: ccoprao@acmex.gatech.edu (Andrew Olechny) Subject: Re: Bulletproof 888 Number? Date: 25 Nov 1997 09:57:57 GMT Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Derek Balling (dredd@megacity.org) wrote: > 'Bullet-proof' 800# : > 1-888-809-2578 When I tried this number at 4:30 am, all I could get was the 'all circuits are busy' message, and every fifth time or so a robo-voice saying 'error 53'. I'm curious what error 53 is and where it is generated. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: 25 Nov 1997 03:49:07 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Monopolies and Microeconomics Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > I am by no means protected against loss of my investment. The Penn > Central railroad was a public utility, with its rates and services > defined by the government, yet investors lost their money. There have > been plenty of utility investors who lost money. As I recall, Penn Central collapsed after dereg. And neither the NYC nor the Pennsy was anything like a monopoly except in very small geographic areas. Indeed, for most of the century they were each other's strongest competitors. > If I buy a quart of milk, the price is clearly marked on the shelf. Hey, you want to know about anti-consumer price regulated monopoly, you should learn about dairy price supports. > For the moment, "competition" in the phone industry is a joke. You > can't choose if you don't know what it's costing you. For dial-1 long distance, I think that competition works pretty well, even though an amazing fraction of people go for wierd deals with incomprehensible prices. My IXC charges the same flat rate at all times, anywhere in the U.S., a pricing scheme that is pretty easy to understand. Calling card rates are similarly simple, although starting this month there's a 29 cent/call surcharge for calls from payphones due to the new 800 charge. For pay phones, I agree that dereg has for the most part been a disaster. It's kind of the same as the problem with medical insurance -- the people using the service and paying the bills are different from and often at odds with the ones choosing the providers and negotiating the prices. 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: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: 26 Nov 1997 21:43:22 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote in newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom: > And when telemarketers and survey takers call the cellular owner, > should he have to pay for those *unwanted* calls? And what about wrong > numbers? One thing I like about the Pac*Bell PCS phone I have is that they don't charge for incoming calls which last less than a minute. 60 seconds is plenty of time to get rid of wrong numbers and telemarketers (I have gotten the former, and I'm *STILL* getting wrong numbers for some "Esquio Alvarez" on my land line -- after three years. It is some form of "OUT OF AREA" scum, but they seem more argumentative than most telemarketers -- "I know this is the number, it worked in 1994", so I wonder if it is collection agencies or scammers. My bet is on the latter.) hpa PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key I am Bahai -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ "To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Miserables [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you mention it. I've had some woman call my number for three or four years now, on an average of once or twice a month and ask to speak with 'Cathy'. She does not understand the phrase 'wrong number' -- apparently has no idea what it means. I used to be at least a little gracious about it with her but for the past several months when she calls I've simply just put the receiver back on the hook without saying anything to her. Now and again she calls a second time immediatly following, annoyed that 'someone' hung up on her, and I just hang up a second time. I've not yet had three in a row from her. I've gone from speaking kindly to her to being somewhat abrupt and discourteous to being downright vile; nothing worked so now I just hang up as quickly as I hear her ask for 'Cathy'. Then several years ago (early eighties) I had this dear little old lady call my (wrong) number from a payphone four or five times in a row one day. She called on my modem line and got the expected result when the modem answered. She turned me in to repair service; called them to report she was dialing my (wrong) number, and each time it answered there was 'a lot of noise on the line, and she did not understand what was wrong ...' The repair guy for the central office I was in at the time called to tell me about it and we both had a good laugh. Then as icing on the cake, the lady asked to be notified when the line was 'repaired' and asked the business office to refund the four quarters she had used to try to call me. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 17:14:26 -0500 From: earle robinson Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux >> One big reason you see many Americans with both a pager and cell phone >> is because of the ridiculous method used for call charges in the >> states. No one with a cell phone here would bother having a pager, >> too. > I suspect a bigger reason is the pager receives signals just about > anywhere. Cell phones -- at least here in NYC -- have problems inside > buildings, in rural areas, etc. My new PCS does it, my old analog did > it, it's a signal problem and it happens to my friends as well. > However, aside from tunnels (subway and car), my pager always works. > I would never _depend_ on my cell phone for communication. Here in Paris my GSM works in most buildings, and where it might not, any incoming calls go into the voice mailbox, which is free. So, why have a pager? It also works in tunnels, other than the under the English Channel between France and the UK. We'll have service in the subway next year I am told. I have omnipoint GSM in New York and I find it works in buildings. er ------------------------------ From: Peter Morgan Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:40:00 GMT The message from Rishab Aiyer Ghosh contains these words: > The first case our newly formed regulator had to deal with this year > was when the Dept of Telecom (which effectively retains a land-line > monopoly until private competitors build their wireline networks next > year) decided to charge its users extra for calls to cellphones. The > cellphone ops screamed that their customers dropped by 50%. The > regulator ruled in their favour. As with Norway and some other European countries, it is very much a Caller pays situation. Over the next few years, all mobile/paging/ follow-me [personal number] services will be moving to an 07 prefix. The UK caller pays the same, whether recipient in UK or abroad (when the recipient is stung for the international leg), again like Norway. Essentially there'll be a small number of prefixes which classify all numbers:- 01xxx geographic [by town/city] 02xxx geographic [by region] 05xxx businesses [those with large call-centres, DDI etc whether situated in one place or using some digits to route to regional centres] 07xxx mobile/pager/personal 08xxx special rates [ 0800 - free, 0845 - local, 0870 - national] 09xxx premium services info lines/entertainment [comp./adult] There are a number of different rates which can reach mobile phones, depending on the network being used. At least one network allows a customer to have a geographic type number which reaches their mobile. This means I could have a central London number even though I live 200 miles away, and callers would have no clue that I had no office there ... they'd pay whatever rate they normally paid [local if they were one of the eight million living in the region] and I'd pay some additional setup fee. Other services are offered where the user pays a lower rate than they would to a mobile, and the recipient pays the excess. Of course, I could have an 0800 number routed to my landline, and divert that to my mobile if I was really wanting to pay for their calls :-( I use my 07050 number as a disincentive for certain salespeople -- if they do ring me, I get to see the id, and the call costs up to 9x the rate for a national call. Sometimes their switch will have my code barred anyway :-) Clients get my 0800 number to my landline. Peter Morgan, N Wales, UK. http://www.uk-places.org/07numbers.html [details of UK "follow me" or "personal" numbers, like US 500 ??] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 04:55:04 EST Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument redux (re-redux?) Quoth the Shadow: > There's a reason why the standard rule (before cellular) was that the > *caller* always paid any charges unless the callee had consented to pay > them (Enterprise & Zenith numbers, 800 numbers, etc). > It wasn't carried over to cellular in the US because they thought that > it'd make cellular phones less popular if people had to pay to call > them. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I don't think it applied on mobile > radio phone calls prior to cellular either did it? In the old service > called AMPS, weren't the charges always paid by the radiotelephone > owner and not the caller? Likewise, the old 'ship to shore' radio > service to vessels on the Great Lakes and in rivers, etc. The > (landline or wired) caller never paid extra for those. PAT] I think the *real* reason why US cellular users pay for incoming calls (and the calling parties don't) is that (except perhaps in 917-land, also known as NYC) callers can't tell whether a given number is assigned to a cellular phone or not just by looking at the NPA-NXX combination. As things now stand, you can tell what a call will cost just from knowing its NPA and NXX. Caller-pays cellular would louse up that scheme, because calls to *some* numbers in an NPA would cost more than others. Worse, since cellular prefixes aren't uniformly assigned from one NPA to another, a given NXX might be cellular only in one NPA, landline only in another, and split between the two in a third. How the blazes will IXC's be able to figure out what to charge callers? If memory serves, the old mobile-phones were hooked into plain old POTS lines. Same argument holds; how would you have been able to know you were calling a mobile? I have no problem with "callee pays" billing; to me, it's fairly simple: a) the standard scheme (for better or for worse) in the US is *caller pays*; b) in a "caller pays" world, the caller can price the call from the NPA-NXX; c) cellular is of necessity more expensive per minute than landline; d) I chose the more expensive service for my own convenience; therefore e) in order to keep the cost of a call predictable, any charge over and above standard NPA-NXX rates must be absorbed by the callee. This last is similar to the problem with the old NPA 809 international points. Used to be, you could recognize an international call from the 809 NPA; now, with so many new NPA's in the Caribbean, it's considerably more difficult. The problem arises from people's expectations -- if they dial 1-NPA-NXX-XXXX, then they expect to pay domestic rates. Caller-pays cellular would only aggravate that problem. The *real* solution is cellular-only NPA's, but the FCC's against it, and it would be a tremendous waste of NPA codes. Maybe when we go to 8 digit local numbers (or 4-digit NPA's), the cellular numbers can be segregated. THEN, and ONLY THEN, caller-pays might make sense. Bill ------------------------------ From: sunspace@interlog.com.antispamtext (Scott Robert Dawson) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 03:08:59 GMT Organization: Interlog Internet Services On 23 Nov 1997 15:53:43 +0100, naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote: [discussion of caller-pays cellular snipped] > The most natural way to handle all this would be to let the market > decide. Offer caller pays, callee pays, and split charge service, and > see how it develops from there. Assuming that people are egoistical, I > would expect this to converge quickly into a general acceptance of > "caller pays" with only few exceptions along the lines of current 0800 > numbers. I agree. I suspect that this whole situation developed differently in North America and Europe because of the distances inside the countries, and was only later reflected in different numbering. In North America, because Canada and the USA are large enough to require significant amounts of internal "long-distance" calling, mobile phones are considered to be "based" in a particular location, and are given numbers in the same area code(s) as landlines based in the same location. Other users call the cellphone number as if it was a landline in the same location. (It is 7100 km from Saint John's Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia- the Trans-Canada Highway.) If a mobile user is far from eir home area, ey will pay a long-distance fee for carriage of the call *from* eir home area, just as a caller would pay long-distance on a call *to* that area. This leads to situations where one person calls another over a distance which would be a local call, but the person being called is using a mobile with a number in a far distant city, so the caller pays long-distance to the mobile number, and the callee (with the mobile) pays long-distance on the call as well, because it is coming from the distant city. This is the reason for the North American analog networks' "roamer-access numbers". When a caller knows he is local to the callee's mobile, but the callee's mobile number is a long-distance call, hy will dial a local "roamer-access number" to get into the cellular carrier's network, receive another dial tone, then dial the mobile number. The call is then routed directly to the mobile, avoiding two long-distance hops. Of course, if the mobile is not local to the roamer-access number, the *callee* pays the long-distance charges from the location of the roamer access number. On the other hand, a caller dialing *out* on a North American mobile experiences the same local/long-distance calling patterns as a landline in the same location. In Europe and other locations, I suspect that the countries are small enough that potential long-distance charges to mobiles (incurred by routing calls across the country to mobiles that could be anywhere) could be 'smoothed out' across all the people calling the mobiles, without raising the rates for calls to mobiles to completely-unaffordable levels. This allowed mobiles to be placed in separate easily-recognized area codes covering entire countries, with a fixed rate to call them no matter where they were in the country. (Am I right on this, Europeans? Also, in Europe, is calling a mobile in another country more expensive than calling one in the same country?) When I had my Bell Mobility analogue cellphone, I had two numbers: a regular +1 416 809 XXXX number, and a caller-pays +1 600 245 (I think) XXXX number. The first number was geographically-based (in Toronto), and I paid long-distance on incoming calls to it if I was far enough away from the Toronto area. The second number was not geographically-based and I never paid long-distance for incoming calls no matter where I or the caller was in Canada. Callers to that area code got an intercept that stated that they were calling a mobile number and they would be charged so much a minute (95c, I think, I might be wrong), and were given a chance to hang up. Thanks to the efforts of such luminaries as Mark J. Cuccia and others on this newsgroup, I know that area code 600 is a bit of an anomaly in the North American Numbering Plan (translation: the FCC wouldn't allow it). I know that it couldn't be dialed from the Dallas, Texas area (+1 972 618 XXXX) -- I got my cousin to try it. I'm not sure whether it could be dialed from *Canadian* points outside of Bell Mobility's analogue territory. I must add that I still paid airtime on incoming calls to either number. Of course, now that I have a GSM mobile phone from Fido, there are no roamer access numbers for the GSM net. Not a problem as long as I remain in the Toronto area, but this seems to be GSM's only major billing-type disadvantage. GSM-experts, is there any equivalent to North American "roamer-access numbers" on GSM networks? Then again, in January I'll be getting a dual-mode GSM-1900/AMPS phone that can roam on Bell Mobility's analogue network. I'll have to find out whether I can use Bell Mobility's roamer-access numbers with my Fido phone. Of course, that wouldn't help me if I and my local caller were both in, say, England ... I think North America could use a couple of nation-wide (or even NANP-wide) area codes for mobiles ... let's have a choice. The new competition between the PCS networks in the Toronto area has driven the costs of mobile phones down to the point that they can be almost as cheap as landlines ... as long as you don't talk too much and use up your provided "free" airtime. Long-distance charges are often cheaper than those on the landlines; during business days I pay 15c/minute on Fido and 43 cents/minute on Bell, even including Bell's discount. On the other hand, Bell is cheaper at night. ** PCS= "fancy digital cellphone"; there are four companies competing in Toronto: one using GSM at 1900 MHz, one using TDMA at 800 MHz, and two using CDMA at 1900 MHz. >> even more importantly from a personal privacy standpoint, that I should >> even have to tell them it's a cellphone at _all_? With North American cellular exchanges mixed in among the landline exchanges in each area code, there's no way to tell unless you live in a particular area long enough to start recognizing the exchange numbers. On the other hand, separate nation-wide mobile-only numbering ranges like area code 600 in Canada more-or-less shout, "this is a cellphone!". > From a privacy standpoint, every call to a cellphone should start out > with a message "important notice: this is a call to a wireless service, > remember that anybody can listen in". Analogue: snoopers can listen in with a 150-dollar illegally-modified scanner from Radio Shack. Digital: GSM, TDMA, CDMA: snoopers would need about 100 000 dollars worth of test equipment from Hewlett-Packard just to easily receive the signal, then they'd have to decode it ... Scott Robert Dawson Note: remove the characters .antispamtext from this address to get my real address... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:51:06 CST From: Connie Curts Subject: Re: LEC Emergency-Break Capability LECs have been able to directly access lines on the cable pair since the 1980s when I was still working at the 'phone factory.' However, it is the repair department that used to do this, not the operator assistance group. Perhaps you should call the number to 'report a problem on your line' and ask them if they could do this for you if there is ever another emergency. Connie Curts ccurts@unicom.net ------------------------------ From: Robb Topolski Subject: A Funny Thing Happened Calling 1-800-CALL-ATT Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:15:45 -0800 Calling from the local baby-bell (GTE) owned coin phone in Hillsboro, OR, I was answering a page when I realized I didn't have any coinage to feed it. So I dial 1-800-CALL-ATT except it didn't "feel right." Suspecting that I probably misdialed, I waited to hear what would come up on the line. A close-but-no-cigar female recording came on the line asking for my destination phone number. I hung up. I had apparently dialed 1-800-228-8288 (1-800-CATT-ATT) instead of 1-800-225-5288 (1-800-CALL-ATT). It's an easy misdial. Beware. Robb Topolski rmt@bigfoot.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #332 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 27 14:21:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA06915; Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:21:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 14:21:22 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711271921.OAA06915@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #333 TELECOM Digest Thu, 27 Nov 97 14:21:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 333 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cableco Franchise Renewal (Neal McLain) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Adam H. Kerman) Re: Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone Start of 720 (A. Kerman) Re: Synchronous RS-232 Signalling (Bill Levant) Re: Digital TV Towers (Henry Baker) Re: Digital TV Towers (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: Digital TV Towers (Tony Pelliccio) Last Laugh! Spam Makes the Big Time (Roy Smith) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 26 Nov 1997 04:36:14 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Cableco Franchise Renewal In Volume 17, Issue 320, Allison Hift wrote: > I have come across an interesting issue and I wonder if any > readers have comments. > Hypothesis: A newly formed governmental entity -- a township -- > (local franchising authority) granted a cable television > franchise to a cable operator for twenty years. During that > time, the governmental entity has changed and the area has > matured and expanded and the local franchising authority is now > a city (rather than a township). The cable operator claims it > has a renewal expectancy. The City claims the cable operator > has to apply for an initial franchise. From the City's > perspective, if this is a renewal proceeding, the City can only > deny renewal based on factors set forth in Federal law. On the > other hand, if this is an initial franchise proceeding, the > City has much more leverage. To which PAT responded: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the government entity is > out of luck on this, and they will have to follow renewal > guidelines whether they like it or not. The reason is, all that > has changed is the government's status. I'd like to take a crack at this. But first, a couple of definitions: CONGRESSIONAL TOWNSHIP - A geographic area established under the United States Public Lands Survey (USPLS). The existence of a Congressional Township does not imply any sort of legal government organization; the term is simply a legal description of a parcel of land. The prototypical Congressional Township is 6 miles square, and contains 36 square miles; each square mile is called a "section" and contains about 640 acres. Most of the land in the continental United States (including Florida, from whence this question came) is subdivided into Congressional Townships; the exceptions are the original 13 Colonies and the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. ORGANIZED TOWNSHIP - A legally-organized governmental entity which exists pursuant to applicable state law. Also known by such terms as "Charter Township" (Michigan), "Civil Town" (Wisconsin), "Hundred" (Delaware), or just plain "Town" (New York; New England states). Organized townships usually have fairly limited powers; in many states, they do not enjoy the same "home rule" powers as incorporated cities. Nonetheless, organized townships in many states do have the power to grant and enforce cable television franchises. Organized townships exist in northeastern and Midwestern states; they do not exist in most western and southern states. They do not exist in Florida. With those definitions in mind, I now return to Hift's original question. I will assume that the "township" mentioned in this question is an organized township located in a state which has granted townships the power to administer cable television franchises. In my experience, there are three possible scenarios: SCENARIO #1: If the _entire township_ incorporates as a city, then I agree with Pat: the existing franchise between the township and the cable company would be binding on the city. In this case, the township government has disappeared, and a new city government has taken its place. But in all likelihood, it's still pretty much the same government: same city hall building; same administrative staff; same police department. And (at least until the next election), the new city council is probably composed of the same people how sat on the old township board. In this case, the city government is still obligated by all of the contractual arrangements incurred by the township government. A typical township may have hundreds of such arrangements: charge accounts with vendors; interconnection agreements with water and sewer districts; standing orders with private contractors covering everything from snowplowing and cemetery maintenance to health care and trash collection. And in many cases, it would have contracts with labor unions: the new city government would have a tough time if it tried to claim that the old township union contracts no longer apply. The cable franchise is no different from any other contractual arrangement: it's still an agreement between the cable company and the government. At renewal time, the cable operator would certainly have a renewal expectancy, and I think FCC regulations governing franchise renewal would apply. SCENARIO #2: If a _new_ city is formed _within_ the township, then the new city would be free to negotiate a new cable franchise. In this case, the township government still exists as the governing body for whatever's left of the township outside of the city. The new city has an entirely new governmental structure: new city council; new administrative staff; new police department; maybe even a new city hall. The new city government is pretty much free to negotiate new agreements with vendors and suppliers. It's certainly free to negotiate such things as vendor charge accounts and standing orders with private contractors. And, whether it likes it or not, it's soon likely to find itself facing contract negotiations with labor unions claiming to represent those new employees. The new city government is also free to negotiate a new cable franchise. And, although the cable operator would probably object, it can do so immediately: it doesn't have to wait for renewal. Of course, as a practical matter, the incumbent cable operator would probably be one of the first parties to apply for a franchise, and it most likely would be the only entity capable of providing service immediately. But (at least in my experience) the city is not bound to honor the old township franchise. SCENARIO #3: If an existing city _annexes_ land from a township, then things can get very sticky. Any of several possible sub-scenarios can emerge: - If the city has a cable franchise and the township doesn't, the city's existing franchise would be extended automatically to the new city limits. It's unlikely that the annexation would have any affect on franchise renewal proceedings. - If the city and the township both have franchises with the _same_ cable company, the city might permit the company to continue to operate under the old township franchise until renewal, or it might attempt to impose its own franchise requirements immediately (especially if they're more stringent). Whenever either franchise comes up for renewal, the city is likely to want to negotiate a single franchise covering the entire city. This single franchise would be considered a _renewal_ of an existing franchise, not a new one, and FCC renewal procedures would apply. - If the city and the township have franchises with _different_ cable companies, there's no telling what might happen. One cable company might try to buy out the other's plant in the annexed area. Failing that, the city might issue a second franchise (however, if the requirements aren't identical in both franchises, the city would be leaving itself open to a lawsuit); in this case, each franchise would be subject to renewal, under FCC renewal procedures, at its respective expiration date. It is, of course, also possible that everybody involved could simply get together and negotiate a new arrangement that would satisfy everybody. = Now I have a question of my own about all this: is "A newly formed governmental entity -- a township -- (local franchising authority)" anything more than a theoretical hypothesis? If this question is based on an actual situation, I'd be very curious to find out more details, specifically, where it occurred, how state law affected the negotiations, and the final outcome. What prompts this question is the fact that I've never heard of a new organized township being formed -- at least, not within the past half century or so. It's certainly possible that it could happen, but it just doesn't seem likely. I base this statement on two facts: - First of all, relatively few states even have organized townships. In most southern and western states (including Florida, from whence Hift's message came), organized townships simply don't exist; lands outside of incorporated municipalities are governed by the county. In these states, cable franchises outside of incorporated municipalities are administered by the county government. - Within those states which do have organized townships, virtually all non-incorporated land is already contained within organized townships. To my knowledge, there are only a few unorganized areas; for example, in northern North Dakota. While it's certainly possible that a new township could be organized within, say, Renville County, North Dakota, it doesn't seem likely that it would grow into an incorporated city within twenty years. Just curious. Posted by: Neal McLain Communication Technologies, Inc. Middleton, WI 53562 nmclain@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: 26 Nov 1997 22:50:12 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Jim Weiss wrote: > Also, I wonder whether the FCC has budgeted for payphone call > surcharges to its toll-free number?? Heh. > Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20554 > Calls Made From Payphones > Deregulation will allow PSPs to receive fair compensation for their > services and will encourage the widespread placement of payphones. > Also, the FCC anticipates that Americans will have greater access to > emergency and public safety services. States may also choose to > place public interest payphones in areas where payphones are necessary > for health and safety reasons. What about a widespread practice in Chicago and New York and a few other places whereby the municipality makes it illegal to accept coin calls during certain hours from payphones located on the street or outside of buildings, supposedly to make it impossible for drug dealers to conduct business? Did Congress pre-empt such local laws? Like most people, not all of my emergencies require police intervention, and I might need to make a coin call at night (to someone other than a drug dealer). > Must I Pay For An Emergency Call? > No. Calls made to emergency numbers, such as 911, and to the > Telecommunications Relay Service, a service of use to people with > disabilities, will be provided free of charge from payphones. You > can also continue to reach an operator without depositing a coin. Are some Relay Service numbers non-800 numbers? > Can I Still Make Toll-Free Calls From Payphones Without Depositing A Coin? > Yes. Does this translate into: It is illegal for a payphone to block an 800 number? > Payphone-originated calls that are unlikely to be the subject of a contract > with the PSPs include calls to 800 telephone numbers or 10XXX access code > calls which connect callers to long distance telephone companies. I assume the brochure meant 10(10)XXX. Does this translate into: It is illegal for a payphone to block calls dialed as 10(10)XXX+0+NXX-NXX-XXXX? And, what about calls routed via 950 numbers? ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone Start of 720 Date: 26 Nov 1997 23:02:45 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Donald M. Heiberg wrote: > Denver, Colorado, "Rocky Mountain News", November 26, 1997 > Local-calling area may expand > The idea of making all of 303 a local calling area is tied to debates > that have been going on for months about conserving telephone numbers. > With 42 rate centers in the 303 area code and prefixes assigned in > blocks of 10,000 numbers, a new telecommunications company must have > 420,000 numbers to provide service throughout the area code even if it > has only a few customers. Why must a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier have exchanges with the same boundaries as the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier? > The commission has been looking at reducing the number of rate centers > to cut back on the numbers needed by each company. And making all of 303 > a local calling area would be a possible solution to changes that would > be required as a result. > US West Communications, which collects nearly all the money from local > calls and long-distance calls inside 303, would expect such a change to > be "revenue-neutral,'' spokesman Jerry Brown said. For those of us who don't live in Denver: Are intra-NPA 303 long distance calls intraLATA or interLATA? ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 12:55:26 EST Subject: Re: Synchronous RS-232 Signalling > I think the problem may be in the signalling or handshaking, so I would > appreciate if there is anyone out there who may be able to tell me how > the following should be set: > DTR Control (Ignored, controlled by DTE) > DSR Control (Forced on, Normal RS232, follows DTR etc) > RTS Control (Normal RS232, ignored, controls remote DCD-V.13) > CTS Control (force on, normal RS232, turned off, follows DTR) > RTS/CTS delay > DCD Control (forced on, normal RS232, follows DTR, follows RTS-V.13) > Clocking (Internal, external) > Any information or suggestions would be much appreciated. There is almost certainly one, and maybe two or more wrong settings on the non-IBM modem. I don't know how much you know about RS232 (or how much I remember :) but briefly, here's what the signals you mentioned do: DSR (Data Set Ready) : Controlled by modem; used to tell computer that modem is ready to receive data from distant end; DTR (Data Terminal Ready) : Controlled by computer; confirms to modem that computer is ready to receive data from modem; computer raises DTR in response to DSR from modem; RTS (Ready to Send) : Controlled by computer; used to tell modem that computer is ready to send data to distant end; CTS (Clear to Send) : Controlled by modem; confirms to computer that modem is ready to transmit data; raised by modem in response to RTS from computer; DCD (Data Carrier Detect) : Raised by modem to indicate carrier present; RTS/CTS delay : how long (or whether) the modem waits after seeing computer turn on RTS before responding to computer by turning on CTS. Clocking -- whether modem generates clock signal, or whether it comes in from computer (on one of the RS232 pins, but I forget which). For starters, try setting DTR and RTS to "ignored", and DSR, CTS and DCD to "always on". This should override the RS232 handshaking. It may not make things work perfectly, but if your problem is with RS232 signals, the problem should diminish (you might get garbled data, but it shouldn't disconnect any more). Also, if you're running synchronous, one modem (the slave) *must* take its clocking from the other (the master) , so that they stay in sync. Generally, "external" means that the clock signal comes in on one of the RS232 pins (I forget which one), and "internal" means that the modem generates a clock signal by itself. If the modem manufacturer is using "external" to mean "slave", and "internal" to mean "master", then one modem must be set "external" and the other "internal"; otherwise, there should be *another* setting somewhere to make one of the modems a slave, taking its clock from the incoming line (which the other modem provides). (As an aside, when I used to have RS232 problems with a "dumb" terminal, I would fake out the RS232 interface by tying RTS and CTS together in the data cable, and by tying DSR, CTR and DCD together, too. That would usually let everything talk, though it would prevent the terminal from making the modem disconnect (by dropping DTR) when the terminal was turned off before the modem was.) If the above switch settings help, try changing RTS and CTS both to "normal", or both DTR to "normal", and DSR to "RS232". These settings work in pairs. There's probably someone out there with specific IBM experience (which I admittedly don't have), who will know *exactly* what's wrong, but hopefully, the above discussion will either be helpful, informative, or at least insomnia-curing. Bill ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:23:42 GMT In article , roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote: > There has been a lot of talk in the aviation mass media about digital > TV towers. The problem is that with the advent of digital TV, we are > going to see (if you can believe the aviation press) an explosion of > new TV transmission towers, and not only that, but taller ones. > My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that > requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be fairly > straight forward to just add additional transmitter antennas to the > same tower structures that exist today for conventional TV transmiss- > ion, with no net increase in the number of towers (and thus, no net > increase in the air navigation hazard). Why would this not be the > case? One problem with 'digital' TV has nothing to do with 'digital': the digital broadcasts are going out over UHF rather than VHF frequencies. UHF doesn't have as good propagation characteristics as VHF, and hence requires more towers and more power. Also, the licenses for the new frequencies do not cover the same geographical territory as the old frequencies, although the FCC has gone to some effort to try to make sure that the number of viewers is approximately the same. There is also an argument about what 'coverage' means in the case of 'analog' TV. If you can receive a very snowy picture with severe ghosting, are you in the 'covered' area or not? 'Digital' modulation schemes have a 'cliff' effect: if you can't receive the signal with enough SNR, you get a completely blank screen instead of a very poor picture. ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Tue, 25 Nov 97 01:17:23 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:47:08 -0500, Roy Smith wrote: > My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that > requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be fairly > straight forward to just add additional transmitter antennas to the > same tower structures that exist today for conventional TV transmiss- > ion, with no net increase in the number of towers (and thus, no net > increase in the air navigation hazard). Why would this not be the > case? The stations got new channels for their digital signals, mostly in the UHF band. The move to higher frequencies and the use of digital transmission both cut back on coverage; to keep coverage about the same, stations must use higher power and/or higher antenna towers. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com ------------------------------ From: tonypo@ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 09:02:39 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool In article , roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu spews forth: > My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that > requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be fairly > straight forward to just add additional transmitter antennas to the > same tower structures that exist today for conventional TV transmiss- > ion, with no net increase in the number of towers (and thus, no net > increase in the air navigation hazard). Why would this not be the > case? Higher frequencies. They'll be line of sight, and in line of sight the higher you go, the more folks receive your signal. But some conventional TV towers are already in the 1000 and 2000 foot range. I doubt they'll see anything higher than that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:16:12 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Last Laugh! Spam Makes the Big Time Organization: New York University School of Medicine Yesterday's {New York Times} crossword puzzle had the following clue: 1 Across, a four-letter word for "Junk E-Mail". [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yep, we had the same puzzle in the {Chicago Sun Times} a couple days ago. I was going to report it, but you beat me to it. Also, I know a lot of you follow the 'Dilbert' comic strip in the papers. I assume you all saw the series of strips this past week where Dilbert gets his ISDN phone installed, and the goofy character sent by telco to do the job. Any comments on it? As a closing thought on this holiday, I hope each and every one of you took at least a few minutes to meditate on the several blessings in your lives. I know I did, and even after several minutes of thought I've not begun to tally them all. Have a great holiday weekend! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #333 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 30 09:27:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA07458; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:27:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 09:27:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711301427.JAA07458@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #334 TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Nov 97 09:27:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 334 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Alan Boritz) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Earle Robinson) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (J.F. Mezei) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Louis Raphael) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Christopher Zguris) Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. (Joe J. Harrison) Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals (Dave Stott) Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals (Tom Trotter) Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals (Stanley Cline) Dilbert Gets ISDN (David Richards) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:33:45 -0500 In article , czguris@interport.net (Christopher Zguris) wrote: > Earle Robinson wrote: >> One big reason you see many Americans with both a pager and cell phone >> is because of the ridiculous method used for call charges in the >> states. No one with a cell phone here would bother having a pager, >> too. > I suspect a bigger reason is the pager receives signals just about > anywhere. Cell phones -- at least here in NYC -- have problems inside > buildings, in rural areas, etc. My new PCS does it, my old analog did > it, it's a signal problem and it happens to my friends as well. > However, aside from tunnels (subway and car), my pager always works. I > would never _depend_ on my cell phone for communication. Is your PCS phone TDMA? This seems to be the most common complaint of TDMA cellphone customers with whom I've spoken. In article , hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) wrote: > shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote in newsgroup > comp.dcom.telecom: > One thing I like about the Pac*Bell PCS phone I have is that they > don't charge for incoming calls which last less than a minute. 60 > seconds is plenty of time to get rid of wrong numbers and > telemarketers (I have gotten the former, and I'm *STILL* getting wrong > numbers for some "Esquio Alvarez" on my land line -- after three > years. It is some form of "OUT OF AREA" scum, but they seem more > argumentative than most telemarketers -- "I know this is the number, > it worked in 1994", so I wonder if it is collection agencies or > scammers. My bet is on the latter.) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you mention it. I've had > some woman call my number for three or four years now, on an average > of once or twice a month and ask to speak with 'Cathy'. She does not > understand the phrase 'wrong number' -- apparently has no idea what > it means. I used to be at least a little gracious about it with her > but for the past several months when she calls I've simply just put > the receiver back on the hook without saying anything to her ... A clueless collection agency used to call my last employer's business line looking for someone who may or may not have worked there years ago. We did a good job of tormenting stock brokers and telemarketers there, so finally, after about six months of abuse, the totally frustrated collection agent shouted, "I know she's there, you're keeping me from her!," and we never heard from her again. If the caller for "Esquio Alvarez" won't give you his name, tell the caller that "Esquio" wanted them to know that they can't stand (the caller) and that he specifically asked that they never call again. Substitute a better story if you can think of one. I occasionally get a wrong number on my mobile phone from similarly clueless people trying to reach a restaurant in southern New Jersey (different area code). It was a novelty when it started, but I had to be rude to Dun and Bradstreet, who should have known better. The next time I'll just take their order, be similarly rude, and tell them to buzz off if they don't like it. Dun and Bradstreet may be starting a new file on the restaurant, depending on my mood, if they call again. Maybe I can write another story for Pat. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 00:19:41 -0500 From: Earle Robinson Subject: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. > I suspect that this whole situation developed differently in North > America and Europe because of the distances inside the countries, and > was only later reflected in different numbering. > In North America, because Canada and the USA are large enough to > require significant amounts of internal "long-distance" calling, > mobile phones are considered to be "based" in a particular location, > and are given numbers in the same area code(s) as landlines based in > the same location. Other users call the cellphone number as if it was > a landline in the same location. (It is 7100 km from Saint John's > Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia- the Trans-Canada Highway.) > etc. Yes, I'm afraid that the system in the USA is quite old fashioned. Area codes seem to change almost yearly as the telcos try to meet demand for new numbers. It would be simpler if the USA went to eight (or even nine digit) local numbers, and there were a complete overhaul of the long distance system. Adhering to the ITU mandated system, which most other countries in the world do or will doo, would make all this simpler, too. Of course, separate area codes for cellular phones would simplify matters and allow jettisoning of the present ridiculous system of the callee paying for calls, thus encouraging more use of cellular phones, and people wouldn't have to hide their cellular phone numbers as they now do in the states. Mind you, the direct cost of a call between Los Angeles and New York City is insignificantly larger than the cost of a call within Los Angeles or New York City. It isn't that the USA is larger. After all, there are more people in Europe than in the USA. And, if you extend the concept of Europe to include Russia, the geographical area is no less either. -er ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:12:00 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Canada and Australia being much bigger having a lot of long distance calls, your phone is based in your home city. In Australia, mobile phones are in their own area/city code. So, any call to a cell phone is essentially a long distance. Land line caller pays and incoming calls on a mobile are basically free (from what I have read). ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:56:35 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre We had a similar problem once, with a person who somehow decided that we *must* know the new phone number of someone they wanted to speak to, must know where they were, etc. Also couldn't understand "wrong number ... this is a new number ..." Hard to tell what goes on in the heads of people like that. Finally, we tried another approach -- "Wait a moment ..." and put the phone on the table. Now, we do the same with telemarketers, too. Also had the case of the old lady (felt somewhat sorry for her) who was *convinced* that she was calling the grocery store and that we didn't want to take her order because we didn't like her, or something of that nature. Again, and again, and again ... eventually, my mother took the order (never filled, of course) ... she never called back. Next step was delivering rotten vegetables at inflated prices, I suppose ... :-) We don't get enough of these calls for them to be seriously annoying -- as of now, they're still a source of mean-spirited amusement. Louis ------------------------------ From: czguris@interport.net (Christopher Zguris) Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 06:14:25 GMT Reply-To: czguris@interport.net earle robinson wrote: > Here in Paris my GSM works in most buildings, and where it might not, > any incoming calls go into the voice mailbox, which is free. So, why > have a pager? It also works in tunnels, other than the under the Yes, incoming calls go into my voicemail as well, and I get notification on my phone when the phone's in digital mode. However, in NYC, my phone -- on all day -- frequently switches from digital to analog, when it's in analog I lose voicemail alert until it goes digital again. BTW, the same thing happens to a friend, also on AT&T Wireless, and he uses a different brand of phone. For the cell phone, some buildings cause problems, some don't. As I said, rather than deal with this nonsense, trying to figure out _if_ I've got coverage or not, if the voicemail notification is working or not, I'll take the pager. Christopher Zguris, czguris@interport.net http://www.users.interport.net/~czguris ------------------------------ From: Joe.J.Harrison@bra0130.wins.icl.co.uk (Joe J. Harrison) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:24:47 +0000 Subject: Re: The Old Who Pays Cellular Argument, redux. Scott Robert Dawson said: [why US has callee-pays and other places don't] > In Europe and other locations, I suspect that the countries are small > enough that potential long-distance charges to mobiles (incurred by > routing calls across the country to mobiles that could be anywhere) > could be 'smoothed out' across all the people calling the mobiles, > without raising the rates for calls to mobiles to > completely-unaffordable levels. > This allowed mobiles to be placed in separate easily-recognized area > codes covering entire countries, with a fixed rate to call them no > matter where they were in the country. (Am I right on this, Europeans? Yes you are right. But unfortunately for your argument the same goes for another tiny country by the name of Australia :-) Joe ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 12:39:10 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals In Telecom Digest #332, Eli Mantel wrote: > As far as I can tell, a payphone operator can install hundreds of > payphones in a room and hire people to make calls from his payphones > to airlines, hotels, and the many thousands of businesses offering > their services via 800/888 numbers. Heck, why pay people to do it? Get an old 386 PC with a couple of 16 port serial cards (or whatever it would take) and have it dial 1-800 LD access numbers all day long. You wouldn't have to pay anyone minimum wage, and it could run the program all day and all night unattended. Dave Stott ------------------------------ From: Tom Trotter Subject: Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:00:12 -0500 Actually, this far-fetched scenario may have some life. Why couldn't anyone get their phone classified as a "pay" phone (esp. Hotels, but even businesses, etc.) and collect the 30 cents from ANY 8xx calls. In fact, why shouldn't *everyone* collect it? Higher 800 costs, but now every phone service supplier gets paid, not just pay phone companies. People would be friendlier, "Here, use my phone to call your 800 number." More businesses would make courtesy phones available (toll restricted). No special billing arrangements just for COCOTs. To stop the scenario Eli suggests, first, require a connect, and second, change the rates to 25 cents plus 10 cents per minute after 2 minutes. ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:26:39 GMT Organization: By area code and prefix (NPA-NXX) Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 23:28:33 PST, Eli Mantel wrote: > This doublespeak from the FCC is topped only by the ridiculous claim > that there is a dearth of payphones that results from inadequate > payphone operator compensation, or the suggestion that customers in > a mall or an airport will be able to find a cheaper payphone just > around the corner. The latter is just what the FCC has thought will happen -- that payphone owners will try to compete on price of calls/service, as has happened in the long-distance and (soon) local businesses. It *isn't* going to happen, simply because of the competitive environment that payphones live under. Several LECs and COCOT owners have had to *raise* their local coin rates, even if they don't otherwise want to -- in order to compete for or keep LOCATIONS. In other words, a 25c payphone can't pay as much to the location provider as a 35c payphone, so in order to keep the payphone in the desired location, the payphone owner has had to increase rates. Also, from what I understand, some COCOT owners sign "exclusive" contracts with location providers, preventing the location provider for installing competing phones, even if they want to. The money often doesn't flow to the PAYPHONE OWNER -- it flows to the LOCATION OWNER. I know of only one place where "competing" payphones exist other than by accident: Hartsfield Atlanta Airport -- there, BellSouth, two or three COCOT companies, and AT&T all have payphones (only coinless phones in the case of AT&T.) This ideal just isn't going to happen everywhere. It's not just payphones, though ... The same things -- competition for property rights (not customers) and exclusive contracts -- are also issues in the cable business; various apartment owners and condo associations are bringing in "private cable" companies (most of which, aside from RCN in the Northeast and some RBOC/LEC-owned systems, provide far fewer channels and services than traditional local cable companies or mini-dish services) on exclusive contracts which provide "kickbacks" to the property owner, then preventing residents from obtaining alternative cable service (typically stated as "no dishes, and you must obtain cable service from OUR provider") other than by moving. Even in properties where the local franchised cable company still provides service, such as the complex I live in now, there tend to be exclusive agreements between the property owner and the cable company, and the same "no antennas or dishes" rules. Residents in multi-unit properties must then put up with whatever service the cable (whether local or private) system or rabbit ears provide, with no choice of alternatives. (That's not completely true. Some apartment/condo residents have successfully diguised dishes as planters, BBQ grills, etc., set up "temporary" dishes mounted on freestanding tripods, or managed to get them to work inside pointing out windows. Such installs deal with the aesthetic and property-damage concerns of "dishes everywhere" that most property owners share, but some property owners are even trying to stamp out THOSE practices, largely because they don't want to lose the cable-company "kickback" revenue.) Some pro-competitive forces, and unhappy apartment and condo dwellers, are pushing the FCC to ban exclusive contracts and property owners' "no-antenna" rules, but the property owners' groups are screaming that such actions amount to a "taking" of private property. Never mind that property owners currently have strong financial incentives to deny alternatives. Private payphone owners and location owners, by the same token, have financial incentives to deny alternatives (including competitive payphones, or access to other long distance carriers and to 800/888 numbers). Some locations where payphones are installed have even tried to ban use of wireless phones, simply to increase the payphone revenue. Compensating payphone owners for 800/888/10(1x)xxx calls seems to address part of the problem on the surface, but the fact remains that the public will probably see very little benefit (more payphones, lower local call prices, etc.), and much of the payphone industry will remain as sleazy as ever. Simply put: The FCC and Congress need to get a clue. Competition for property rights, instead of customers, enriches property owners at the expense of the general public. It's already been seen in private cable, and now payphones are headed down the same road. The FCC and Congress need to promote competition for CUSTOMERS, not competition for property rights. > There's no rule that says payphones must actually be public phones. > Depending on the state tariffs, you can probably put payphones > anywhere you can put regular phones. To simplify things, payphones > don't even need to be coin phones. They just have to have a way to > pay for non-toll-free calls. > As far as I can tell, a payphone operator can install hundreds of > payphones in a room and hire people to make calls from his payphones Most public service/utility commissions and telcos would be suspicious of a large number of payphone installs to one location (unless that location is itself large.) Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ what's up with payphones?.......see http://cocot.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here!....help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They could be as suspicious as they like about the large number of pay phone installations, but is there any law against it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dr@ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Dilbert Gets ISDN Date: 29 Nov 1997 19:34:30 GMT Organization: Ripco Internet, Chicago In article , > Also, I know a lot of you follow the 'Dilbert' comic strip in the > papers. I assume you all saw the series of strips this past week > where Dilbert gets his ISDN phone installed, and the goofy character > sent by telco to do the job. Any comments on it? That strip is totally unrealistic -- It took Dilbert only three days to get his ISDN line up and running? Bah Humbug! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #334 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 30 12:37:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA18432; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:37:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:37:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711301737.MAA18432@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #335 TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Nov 97 12:37:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 335 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Digital TV Towers (Greg Monti) Re: Digital TV Towers (Art Walker) Re: Digital TV Towers (Randy Hiser) Re: Digital TV Towers (James Bellaire) Re: Digital TV Towers (Chris Boone) Re: Digital TV Towers (Roy Smith) Re: Digital TV Towers (Ed Ellers) Re: Digital TV Towers (Neal McLain) Re: A Funny Thing Happened Calling 1-800-CALL-ATT (Steven R. Kleinedler) Re: A Funny Thing Happened Calling 1-800-CALL-ATT (Victor Aidis) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 30 Nov 1997 00:07:47 GMT From: Greg Monti Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote: > The problem is that with the advent of digital TV, we are > going to see (if you can believe the aviation press) an explosion of > new TV transmission towers, and not only that, but taller ones. These > towers present a hazard to air safety, especially when built near > airports. All communications towers, whether for radio, TV, cellular, police, paging, or shortwave to Mars, and whether sending digital or analog transmissions must meet FAA filing regulations and restrictions for location, height, painting, lighting and other factors. As long as the FAA keeps the same rules for new towers as it has for existing ones, there will be no greater hazard to air navigation than there is now. All towers will appear on air navigation charts, which all pilots, of course, consult before determining their flight plans. However, an argument could be made that pilots "know" where all the local towers are because they've been at the same locations and heights for 40 or 50 years. Pilots have been lulled into believing that, if they follow their usual routes, everything will be safe. A new tower, especially a tall one of 1,000 or 2,000 feet, would break the lullaby of complacency. > What is do different about digital TV that requires the building of new > towers? I would think it would be fairly straight forward to just add > additional transmitter antennas to the same tower structures that exist > today for conventional TV transmission, with no net increase in the number > of towers ... Most broadcasters long ago discovered that towers are valuable not only for transmitting their own signal, but can be leased out as "vertical real estate" to transmit other people's signals, including those of competitors. Any broadcaster with a decent sized tower in a major or medium market already has it fully loaded with the number and weight of antennas it will support to maximize leasing revenue. It's not unusual for a TV station to have two or three additional TV stations, plus four or five FM stations, a microwave multipoint distribuition service (MMDS) "wireless cable" operator, a cellular or PCS carrier or two, plus the police and fire departments from two counties loaded onto his tower. The new digital TV standard will not be compatible with the existing analog NTSC standard we use today in the U.S. Therefore, there will need to be a long transition period to allow the analog TV sets of today to amortize. The date being talked about now is 2006, when the analog TV stations of today all go off the air and consumers are forced to buy the new digital sets in order to continue watching TV. By definition, this requires both the analog and digital versions of every TV station to be on the air simultaneously for up to eight years. Therefore additional towers are required -- if only to cover the eight-year transition period. Even if a TV station boots off all of the existing analog broadcasters that are leasing space on his tower (in order to make room for his own digital antenna), those analog broadcasters will *still* want to build their own new towers just to stay on the air. One thing's for sure: the number of broadcast towers won't be any fewer than it is today. I can't think of any reason why the new towers would be any taller (or any shorter) than they are today. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have noticed that when any one of the stations sharing tower space needs to do repairs to the antenna that everyone on the tower has to go off the air. There is a large cluster of antennas on the roof of Sears Tower in Chicago; the other night at about midnight several (radio and television) stations all signed off the air saying repairs and adjustments would be done for a couple hours. I guess if the others stayed on the air there would be a hazard to the people on the tower doing repairs to the one station which needed it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: walker@cx60550-a.omhaw1.ne.home.com (Art Walker) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: 28 Nov 1997 06:27:37 GMT Organization: OneSource Technologies - Omaha, NE Reply-To: walker@phantom.onesourcetech.com On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 16:23:42 GMT, Henry Baker wrote: > One problem with 'digital' TV has nothing to do with 'digital': the > digital broadcasts are going out over UHF rather than VHF frequencies. > UHF doesn't have as good propagation characteristics as VHF, and hence > requires more towers and more power. Also, the licenses for the new > frequencies do not cover the same geographical territory as the old > frequencies, although the FCC has gone to some effort to try to make > sure that the number of viewers is approximately the same. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just require all television programming to go direct to cable or direct-broadcast satellite? Then we could free up a big chunk of spectrum for far more constructive purposes. Art Walker | Internet: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com Network Analyst | Snail Mail: 5020 Leavenworth St. OneSource Technologies | Omaha, NE 68106 (402) 575-3400 F:(402) 575-2011 | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course if most television programming was sent to a bit bucket somewhere, then we could free up a big chunk of the cable, to say nothing of freeing up our minds for more construc- tive purposes. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Randy Hiser Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 23:06:42 +0300 Organization: Netcom Roy, I would have to agree with you. The premise here for higher and more dispersed towers across a set region is amiss. I currently manage an MMDS wireless system that covers a radius of 25 miles. Our trans- mission tower is well below 150ft. One reason, however, for increased tower height would be to overcome natural and man-made obstructions (buildings,etc.) specific to that region. Otherwise, the channel separation between those used within Digital TV and those for aviation is typically adequate to prohibit any interference from occuring. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:51:34 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers In article , roy@mchip00.med.nyu. edu (Roy Smith) wrote: > There has been a lot of talk in the aviation mass media about > digital TV towers. The problem is that with the advent of digital TV, > we are going to see (if you can believe the aviation press) an > explosion of new TV transmission towers, and not only that, but taller > ones. > My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that > requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be fairly > straight forward to just add additional transmitter antennas to the > same tower structures that exist today for conventional TV transmiss- > ion, with no net increase in the number of towers (and thus, no net > increase in the air navigation hazard). Why would this not be the > case? One factor that has been mentioned in radio and TV trade papers is the size of the new antennas. There will also be a transition period where the station will broadcast in both forms and need two antennas. Towers can only hold so much weight. The addition of an extra antenna to an existing tower may not be possible, hence the new towers. Some stations will be able to support both a digital and an analog antenna on the same mast, but only if they get rid of a few of their rental customers. For that reason new towers will be needed for some of the FM radio and low power television who rent space from television tower owners. Tall FM towers will be yet another addition to the antenna farms. The shift to digital TV will affect more than just the broadcast industry, wireless providers also rent space from TV stations. Cellular (at least in this area) have been adding towers and lowering their antennas on existing towers. They should not be too affected by being kicked off of a TV tower. Paging companies will probably need to find another tower, either an existing FM tower, a new FM / digital TV tower, or their own new tower. BTW: One of my favorite towers is owned by WMRI Radio and is located just north of Marion, Indiana. It holds an 8-bay FM (50kw ERP) antenna plus two low power TV antennas, plus a cellular array and microwave links, plus several paging, ham radio, and civil defense antennas, as well as an FM translator antenna set. Not bad for a city of 20,000. James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Note new server - old URL should still work * ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 16:08:34 -0600 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering, Dallas Reply-To: cboone@earthlink.net Tony Pelliccio wrote: >> My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that >> requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be fairly >> straight forward to just add additional transmitter antennas to the >> same tower structures that exist today for conventional TV transmiss- >> ion, with no net increase in the number of towers (and thus, no net >> increase in the air navigation hazard). Why would this not be the >> case? Old towers were NOT built for the added windload that DTV will require while TRYING to install a second or more antennas to the current tower. > Higher frequencies. They'll be line of sight, and in line of sight the > higher you go, the more folks receive your signal. But some conventional > TV towers are already in the 1000 and 2000 foot range. I doubt they'll > see anything higher than that. Nope ... that's not the case ... a lot of DTV stations will go to UHF but a lot are staying VHF as well (channels 7-13 will stay active). Those on VHF who go UHF will have power changes to compensate for LOS (Line of Sight at VHF is same as UHF; only the LOSS of the signal strength increases at higher freqs.) Henry Baker wrote: > One problem with 'digital' TV has nothing to do with 'digital': the > digital broadcasts are going out over UHF rather than VHF frequencies. > UHF doesn't have as good propagation characteristics as VHF, and hence > requires more towers and more power. Also, the licenses for the new > frequencies do not cover the same geographical territory as the old > frequencies, although the FCC has gone to some effort to try to make > sure that the number of viewers is approximately the same. Line of Sight VHF to UHF is no different; the RF horizon remains the same; only ERP (Effective Radiated Power) needs to be increased to compensate for LOSS of signal over the same path. HEIGHT has NOTHING to do with the HIGHER freqs (and SOME DTV stations will stay VHF!) Besides, lack of tower space for the added antenna weight (a TV TX antenna weighs as much as 5 TONS!) is the main reason for new towers. The stations must simulcast during the transition and a new tower for the DTV station is required unless their current tower can stand the added load (and most cannot; a lot of current towers are over 20 years old and NOT built for the additional weight.) Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:46:43 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Organization: New York University School of Medicine tonypo@ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) wrote: > some conventional TV towers are already in the 1000 and 2000 foot range. > I doubt they'll see anything higher than that. The reason the aviation people are up in arms is that 1000-2000 foot tall towers are plenty of hazard. Without going into the gory details, some types of approaches require a clear area with a 40:1 slope from the runway, i.e. a 2000 foot tall tower needs to be 40*2000 = 80,000 feet from the runway to allow instrument approaches to that runway. That means a 2000 foot tower could (with the right combination of other factors) shut down an airport as far as 15 miles away. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:22:28 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Michael D. Sullivan (mds@access.digex.net) wrote: > The stations got new channels for their digital signals, mostly in > the UHF band. The move to higher frequencies and the use of digital > transmission both cut back on coverage; to keep coverage about the > same, stations must use higher power and/or higher antenna towers." Actually the 8-VSB transmission system needs *less* power at a given frequency than analog NTSC AM transmission. The only reason you'd need more power is if your transitional digital channel is much higher than your existing channel. I say "transitional" because, if and when NTSC telecasting ends in the 21st century, it's likely that many stations will be able to move their digital service to their older, lower channel. The FCC hasn't decided whether TV will remain on channels 2 through 46 or 7 through 51, but in either case many stations' original channels will be in this "core spectrum," and in many cases stations within that spectrum were deliberately given transitional channels outside it while others now outside that range have been given channels within it. Because of this some stations plan to operate only a medium-power digital transmitter during the transition period, just large enough to cover their community of license as required by the FCC, and then unload or scrap it when they move back to their old channel. There are some cases where this principle has been superseded to give a station a digital channel adjacent to their existing one; for example WBBM-TV, on channel 2 in Chicago, will have its digital service on channel 3 and may be able to use its existing antenna for the new service, but may be forced to move if the FCC decides to drop channels 2 through 6. (I'm betting that they won't -- the political stink would be fierce, not only from the major station groups but also some smaller-market stations that won't be able to match their present low-band coverage on UHF. Take a look at http://www.kyes.com for an example of the latter.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 18:06:52 -0500 From: Neal McLain Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers In Volume 17 Issue 330, Roy Smith wrote: > There has been a lot of talk in the aviation mass media about > digital TV towers. The problem is that with the advent of > digital TV, we are going to see (if you can believe the > aviation press) an explosion of new TV transmission towers, > and not only that, but taller ones. These towers present a > hazard to air safety, especially when built near airports. > My question is why? What is do different about digital TV that > requires the building of new towers? I would think it would be > fairly straight forward to just add additional transmitter > antennas to the same tower structures that exist today for > conventional TV transmission, with no net increase in the > number of towers (and thus, no net increase in the air > navigation hazard). Why would this not be the case? Two reasons: REASON #1: Mechanical loading on the tower. During the so-called "transition" period, each broadcast station has the right to use two channels, one for its new DTV service and one for its current analog service. In most cases, that means it needs two antennas, one for each channel. A typical VHF broadcast antenna is maybe 100 feet long, two or three feet in diameter, and weighs several tons. UHF antennas are smaller (the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength; consequently, the shorter the antenna requirement). But even a UHF antenna adds a big load to a tower. The real problem is dynamic (wind) loading. Tower design codes require that the entire tower structure, including all antennas, withstand various combinations of ice and wind; in northern states, a typical requirement is three inches of radial ice on all surfaces with a 100-mph wind. Most existing towers were originally designed to support one antenna, and cannot safely support the additional load of a second antenna. REASON #2: Pattern distortion. The "pattern" of an antenna is a graph of its signal strength plotted against distance from the antenna. The ideal pattern for an omnidirectional antenna is a circle with the antenna at the center. With careful design, it's possible to intentionally alter the pattern to direct the signal in specific directions; for example, antennas in Chicago are designed with a kidney-shaped pattern to force the signal north, south, and west, but not east (there aren't many viewers out in Lake Michigan). If a broadcast antenna is installed on the side of a tower, the tower itself distorts the pattern. If two or more antennas are installed side-by-side, each antenna distorts the pattern of the others. These types of pattern distortions aren't intentional: they can cause all sorts of undesired anomalies such as ghosts and no-signal gaps. Consequently, every broadcaster wants to have his antenna placed on the top of the tower, with no other antennas anywhere around. The usual result is that each station has its own tower. In many cities, the towers are grouped in the same general geographic area ("antenna farm"), but the individual towers are still several hundred feet apart to minimize pattern distortion. With the advent of DTV, the broadcaster faces a question: where does he put the new DTV antenna? Even if the existing tower can support the mechanical load of a second antenna, it's usually not possible to place it so that the two antennas don't distort each other's patterns. The obvious solution to both of these problems is to build a second tower, as many broadcasters are now attempting to do. But this leads to further problems: - FAA Approval. As Smith noted in his original posting, towers present a hazard to air safety, especially when built near airports. The FAA has an elaborate notification and approval procedure; in theory, if the FAA approves a new tower, it meets all FAA safety requirements and does not pose a hazard to aviation. But getting FAA approval for a new tower near a major city is difficult, and it's becoming more so as air traffic congestion increases. - Local Zoning Approval. Local zoning authorities typically oppose new towers on a variety of grounds including aesthetics, environmental concerns, and RF radiation hazard. - Land Acquisition. When the original analog-TV towers were built 30 or 40 years ago, they were usually placed in rural areas. By now, many of these towers are surrounded by urban sprawl, and land prices have soared. So new antenna farms must be found, often many miles from the original ones. This, of course, exacerbates the FAA and zoning approval problems. One way to alleviate these problems is to construct "community towers". A community tower is single large tower designed from the outset to support multiple antennas. Even broadcasters who compete ferociously for viewers sometimes jointly own community towers. Non-broadcast entities, such as paging, cellular, and PCS companies, also can participate. There are compelling reasons for this: a community tower for all antennas requires less land than multiple towers. The FAA generally encourages community towers as an alternative to multiple single-use towers, especially if it means getting rid of some existing towers. Even local zoning authorities can accept a new community tower on the promise that existing towers will be removed. So how do you put several television broadcast antennas on one tower if everybody wants to be on the top of the tower? One way is vertical stacking: placing one antenna on top of another in a sort of totem pole. Another way is to place the antennas side-by-side, but spaced far enough apart that pattern distortion is negligible. A horizontal spacing of 100 feet is generally accepted as sufficient. By combining these two approaches, it's possible to put a dozen or so antennas on one tower. The end result looks something like this: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | If there are only two antenna stacks, a horizontal support, perhaps 100 to 150 feet long, supports the stacks (for obvious reasons, this is called a "T-top" design). If more antennas are required, a triangular platform can be used ("candelabra" design). Of course, community towers aren't new: residents of San Francisco will recognize this design: | | | | | | | | \ / \ / / \ / \ But the advent of DTV has made this whole issue far more complicated because every television broadcast station is now going to have to find a place for a second antenna. In view of all the problems associated with constructing a second tower for each broadcaster, we're likely to see more community towers in the future. Neal McLain nmclain@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) Subject: Re: A Funny Thing Happened Calling 1-800-CALL-ATT Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 19:39:50 GMT In article , Robb Topolski wrote: > Calling from the local baby-bell (GTE) owned coin phone in Hillsboro, > OR, I was answering a page when I realized I didn't have any coinage > to feed it. So I dial 1-800-CALL-ATT except it didn't "feel right." > Suspecting that I probably misdialed, I waited to hear what would come > up on the line. A close-but-no-cigar female recording came on the > line asking for my destination phone number. I hung up. I had > apparently dialed 1-800-228-8288 (1-800-CATT-ATT) instead of > 1-800-225-5288 (1-800-CALL-ATT). It's an easy misdial. Beware. Apparently whoever owned 1-800-OPERATOR stopped using it because so many people can't spell and a competitor snagged 1-800-OPERATER. If this is an urban legend, please forgive me. Actually, now that I think about it, I probably first heard it here several months ago. Steve Kleinedler ------------------------------ From: Victor Aidis Subject: Re: A Funny Thing Happened Calling 1-800-CALL-ATT Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 08:30:07 -0500 Organization: Erol's Internet Services An easier mistake to make is to dial 1-800-ATT-CALL, which used to connect you to MCI (1-800-COLLECT). I tried it this morning and it now connects you with LDDS/Worldcom, with automated prompts for credit card, calling card, and operator-assisted calls. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #335 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 30 21:47:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA24914; Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:47:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:47:34 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712010247.VAA24914@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #336 TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Nov 97 21:47:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 336 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Toll-Free Service Interruption in Canada (Dave Leibold) Prepaid Cellular Not For Our House (Jonathan I. Kamens) More Thoughts on Prepaid Cellular (Bill Levant) Prepaid GSM Cellular Cards (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Cellular Roaming (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Ericsson: New Reputation For Incompetence? (Alan Boritz) Competition Heats Up in Canada For PCS (J.F. Mezei) Intranet Security (Felix Leung) Re: LEC Emergency-Break Capability (John Rice) Re: Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone 720 (Leonard Erickson) Re: Bellsouth Erroneous Billing (Resolution) (ronnie@twitch.mit.edu) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 29 Nov 1997 23:36:25 EST From: Dave Leibold Reply-To: Dave Leibold Subject: Toll-Free Service Interruption in Canada The following press releases from Stentor (Canadian group of major telcos) indicates an 800/888 service outage on Wednesday, 11-26-97. These are two Stentor press releases on the incident via Canada NewsWire (http://www.newswire.ca): _________________________________________________________________ Attention News/Business/Technology Editors: INTERRUPTION IN CANADIAN TOLL-FREE SERVICE OTTAWA, Nov. 26 /CNW/ - There has been an interruption in Canadian toll-free service which began at approximately 11 am EST today. As of 12:55 pm EST today, service was restored to approximately 80 per cent of toll-free numbers across Canada. Stentor continues working to get the remaining toll-free numbers back on line, and anticipates that the problem will be resolved very shortly. Stentor has traced the interruption to software problems in redundant switches in Calgary and Toronto. Stentor's primary focus right now is on complete service restoration. Once service has been restored, an investigation will begin and measures will be taken to ensure that the problem is not repeated. The Stentor alliance was formed in 1992 by Canada's leading providers of telecommunications services. The alliance works with customers across Cana da to economically deliver leading-edge local, national and international telecommunications services. These companies maintain the world's longest, fully digital fibre-optic network. The members of the alliance are: BC TEL, Bell Canada, Island Tel, Manitoba Telecom Services, Maritime Tel & Tel, NBTel, NewTel Communications, NorthwesTel, QuebecTel, SaskTel and TELUS. For further information: Beth Green, National Media Relations, Stentor Communications, tel: (613) 567-7321, fax: (613) 567-7001, e-mail: greenbb@stentor.ca ------ follow up message later same day ------ Attention News/Business/Technology Editors: SERVICE TO CANADIAN TOLL-FREE NUMBERS WAS RESTORED AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. EST OTTAWA, Nov. 26 /CNW/ - Service to Canadian toll-free numbers was restored at approximately 3:00 p.m. EST after an interruption that began at 11:00 a.m. this morning. Stentor continues to monitor the situation to ensure that the system remains stable. Michael Dunlop, Vice President of Long Distance, says, ``In nearly 30 years of toll-free service, we have never had a complete interruption before. We know that this is a rare event but will be diligent in determining the cause in order to prevent any future problems.'' Stentor has traced the interruption to software problems on redundant switches in Calgary and Toronto. An initial assessment of the cause is underway to make sure that further interruptions can be avoided. After this initial risk assessment, a more detailed analysis will take place over the next week to determine how to prevent similar problems in the future. There are approximately 225,000 toll-free numbers in Canada and slightl= y over one million calls each hour on a normal weekday. The interruption affected the toll-free customers of the Stentor Alliance and also, all other long distance carriers in Canada. The Stentor alliance was formed in 1992 by Canada's leading providers of telecommunications services. The alliance works with customers across Canada to economically deliver leading-edge local, national and international telecommunications services. These companies maintain the world's longest, fully digital fibre-optic network. The members of the alliance are: BC TEL, Bell Canada, Island Tel, Manitoba Telecom Services, Maritime Tel & Tel, NBTel, NewTel Communications, NorthwesTel, QuebecTel, SaskTel and TELUS. ------------------------------ From: jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us (Jonathan I. Kamens) Subject: Prepaid Cellular Not For Our House Date: 28 Nov 1997 19:22:24 GMT Organization: Jik's Linux box Apropos of Pat's comments about the new Cellular One prepaid calling plan ... My wife and I decided recently after finally buying a car that we should have a cellular phone for emergencies (both our own and those of the poor souls stranded on the side of the highway who, in this day in age, it's not safe to stop and help). So, we figured out how much we thought we would be using the phone per month, compared the cost of that usage for the various plans offered by the various companies, and came to the conclusion that in fact, the Cellular One prepaid plan would be the cheapest for us (remember, there's no monthly service charge -- you only pay for what you use, or at least that's what we thought). So, the next day, I went to a local Cellular One deal and told them I wanted to buy a Nokia 638 and sign up for a prepaid plan. No problem. They had me fill out the account application, they programmed the phone, and they had me sign the service agreement. Just as they were about to run my credit card through the computer, they handed me the prepaid calling card, and imagine my surprise when I saw written in small print on the front of it, "This card expires in 60 days." "What does this mean?" I asked with some trepidation. C1: "Well, any minutes on that card that you don't use within sixty days expire and you lose them." ME: "Excuse me, but neither your Web site nor the literature you gave me here mentions that." C1: "It's written on the account agreement you signed." ME: "Really? Show me where." Of course, it wasn't written anywhere on any agreement that I signed. I told them that my wife and I very carefully calculated how much we would be using the phone and how much it would cost, and being required to use it a minimum amount each month did not enter into our calculations, so they could just cancel my application. They tried to convince me to go ahead with it, of course, but in the end, I walked out (and, fortunately, the credit-card statement I received today confirms that although they charged me for the phone, they gave me a credit afterwards to offset the charge). Their slimy advertising prompted us to go with Bell Atlantic Mobile instead, and so far, we've been perfectly happy with them. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I still think the best cellular service anywhere comes from Frontier/Call Home America. They do not sell it as a stand-alone product; you need to otherwise have long distance service from them. (I have an 800 number via Call Home America, but damned if I am going to publish it in print here after all the mean tricks that have been suggested toward spammers and *their* 800 numbers ... grin ... ). Frontier resells the local service provider in various communities and they generally stay on the 'B' (landline) side but there are some exceptions to that. I pay ten dollars per month service charge and about 18 cents per minute with no minimum usage requirements. Here in Chicago they resell Ameritech at the 'corporate/preferred customer' rates of that company, thus a very low rate per minute. Ameritech Cellular is a very progressive comp- any, and very user-friendly on things like roaming, at least within their own five-state territory. There is no roaming fee; the per- minute rates are slightly higher than the local rates, and they automatically locate you in any of their service territories as soon as your phone is turned on (no need to activate 'roaming' or set up call-forwarding, etc.) I can't say everyone will get the same good rates/service from Frontier everywhere since they are at the mercy of whoever they are reselling, and I understand cellular prices in places like New York and Los Angeles are absolutely dreadful. Still, I suggest a look at them as an alternative. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com Bill Levant) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1997 12:55:20 EST Subject: More Thoughts on Prepaid Cellular Our Esteemed Moderator wrote, in ish 331: > No identification needed when purchasing a new phone > or converting an established one ... 'you say your name is John Smith? > ... that's great ... here's your new phone Mr. Smith ...' and no > names needed to purchase additional minutes from several locations. Suppose you are a dealer in one illegal substance or another (drugs, "escorts", cigars from Cuba; whatever ...) and you want to use a cell phone without the local or federal constabulary being able to (easily) listen in. Unlike "regular" cellular, where said gendarmes might be able to find said individual's cellphone number in the cellular company's records with a well-placed search warrant, it could be impossible to do that with "prepaid" cellular if the cell company doesn't have customer records. Replace your phone every few months, and you are probably virtually trace-proof. Bill [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh really? Did you come to that conclusion also? Of course credit card billing will never do ... never, never do ... pay cash each time. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Prepaid GSM Cellular Cards Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 01:39:02 +0530 Pat wrote: > Prepaid phone cards have been a success in some places, so > maybe prepaid cellular will be also. PAT] With GSM, you buy prepaid SIM cards which you insert in any handset where you would put in an ordinary SIM card. In India if you already have a handset -- you may or may not be a subscriber -- you just plug in a prepaid SIM card costing, say, Rs 1000, and you get Rs 1000 worth of calls free. In the "packaged" offers where you just pick up a handset and prepaid card without credit check etc, the price (for the airtime on the card) is the same as normal airtime rates for subscribers, no "anonymity premium." However, you can only get special discounted prices if you are a regular subscriber, which is reasonable. -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Cellular Roaming Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:48:45 +0530 Scott Robert Dawson wrote: > GSM-experts, is there any equivalent to > North American "roamer-access numbers" on GSM networks? If it's a caller-pays system as in Europe you have a separate "area code" for your phone anyway whether you're in the same city as your caller or far away. With callee pays it's more complicated, as your cellular number typically follows a _geographical_ area code, so the _caller_ could be billed long-distance by the wireline telco. In India the numbering plan is unusual in that cellular networks have their own "area" codes, but can also be dialed as local numbers. so you can call me on 98110-14574 in Delhi -- a local number -- or 0119811014574 from Bombay, where 011 is the Delhi LD prefix. Then your wireline op in Bombay will bill you for an LD call. or you could dial 09811014574 (or from abroad, +91 98110 ...) Your wireline bill will depend on the arrangement made by my cellular op in Delhi, a cellular op in Bombay and the wireline op. Typically this would mean that if I'm in Bombay, the caller pays a local call, but if I'm in Delhi it's an LD call to Delhi. The GSM handset is, of course, smart enough to handshake with a friendly roaming network outside your "home" area automatically. The network is smart enough to avoid redundant re-routing of your call, but the operators are smart too, and can try to rip you off by charging the earth for roaming. -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Ericsson: New Reputation For Incompetence? Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 10:37:53 -0500 I'm now on my *fourth* Ericsson DH368 digital cellphone, the last two being exchanged by AT&T Wireless, the first two exchanged by Ericsson. The last one started buzzing in my ear about a half-hour after I picked it up. This fourth one may not last long, though, since the numeric keys are starting to bounce (double digits or double touchtones), and on occasion I can't terminate a call in progress without removing the battery. AT&T Wireless still won't exchange this junk for another manufacturer's product, even though I picked it up at one of their own stores. And the latest word on loaner phones (at the AT&T store, itself) is that AT&T will NOT issue an equivalent loaner for one of these phones (no text display or mail box alerts), and will NOT guarantee that you won't lose your features (like voice mail). This should be comforting to mobile customers who depend upon their voice mail for their businesses. The overwhelming majority of customers and technicians with which I've discussed this Ericsson product are dissatisfied with the quality of the product, and the poor manufacturer's customer service. Ericsson "expedited" my request for a second replacement phone, and five days later I had to call them more than once to get them to fax me the return authorization. "Incompetent" would be the nicest thing I could say about a customer service group like this. They'll need a LOT more slick TV commercials to brainwash potential customers about Ericsson "reliability" in the US. It's great that it comes with a one-year warranty, but of what value is it to have to wait a week or more to get replacement product, and then find that all Ericsson seems to be doing is cleaning up defective phones, putting them in boxes, and sending them out to other customers without repairing them? I think a bigger concern may be for PCS carriers who have purchased, or are committed to purchasing, Ericsson switch and RF equipment. With the turmoil in their US corporate structure and staffing, I don't think I would have much confidence that this once great telecommunications giant can handle multiple PCS system build-outs if they can't handle simple consumer products, and consumer customer service. ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Competition Heats Up in Canada For PCS Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:45:15 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca When Microcell/FIDO introduced their GSM service in the Montreal area in '96 they required no long term contract. When it was time for me to renew my AT&T (formerly Cantel) account in May/June 1997, I was still expected to renew a three year contract, even if moving to their PCS version. Their PCS pricing structure was closer to their old AMPS, even though FIDO had already been around for some time already. (Bell/Mobility still had no PCS product). Then, it was interesting to see ATT/CANTEL acknowledge competition by changing their rate structure. They advertised a 400 minute package similar to FIDO's, however, the small print still required a contract and limited those free minuts to off-peak hours. Now, Bell/Mobility has entered the market with its own ads that are very general (no pricing content) and Clearnet has started to market its own PCS (I beleive that they are the operators of MIKE, aren't they ?) ATT/CANTEL now has a "no contract required" and pricing which is very close to FIDO's. ATT/CANTEL does state that your get the first 100 incoming minutes for free. FIDO doesn't. But in the past, the "billed by the second" had a minimum one minute timer with ATT/CANTEL whereas it was exact seconds with FIDO. I am not sure if ATT/CANTEL still charges a minimum 60 seconds for each call tough. What I find interesting is that ATT/CANTEL stuck to its old costly contracts at first, but has now had to backtrack to slowly match FIDO's rates. Can we assume that ATT/CANTEL lost a lot of market share because of this and have now been forced to take FIDO seriously? ------------------------------ From: Felix Leung Subject: Intranet Security Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:11:47 -0600 Organization: University of Winnipeg I read a book and it mentions some technique that for keeping out some people to accessing the Intranet, the techniques are included: 1)Using non-standard ports. The standard port is 80. Using a different port will make it harder to find. 2) Using hard to guess names. Most companies use WWW for the Web server machine name. Using something different can make it harder to find. 3) Hiding your server's name. This can be done by not listing it in the DNS tables for your site, and not using it to browse the Web, send e-mail, or post to Usenet. However, I am confused on the first one; what is standard port and what is it for? If selecting non-standard ports has the security functions, why not everybody using different port number instead of using standard port 80? For the second one, does the author suggest that I should use www.very_private_name.com insteal of using www.microsoft.com? For the third one, where is the place for keeping the DNS tables? And will someone know the existence of Intranet when browsing the Web, etc? Any suggestions would be very appreciated. Felix Leung University of Winnipeg Business of Computing http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~cleung1 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the very early days of Unix and on through the 1970's certain protocols or standards were agreed to by the sysadmins of those days. In general, if you logged into one Unix machine it looked and acted like every other Unix machine, give or take a few minor variations. One of the standards set was which ports or sockets would be used for what purposes. Mail, the finger daemon, telnet, FTP, other stuff all went between machines according to mutually agreed upon routes. I forget now what all the sockets were used for, but for example if mail was sent between machines on socket 25 then any Unix machine you went to in the early days of the Internet would handle mail on socket 25. Maybe the Unix command rlogin (meaning remote login on some other machine) went via port or socket 17 ... again this is just an example. The more modern program called IRC (Internet Relay Chat) is quite often associated with socket 6666 or 6667. Normally when a user has some business to transact with a computer at some location other than his own, he calls the software intended to do the job. If I send you email, I'd say at my command line prompt, "> mail joeblow@somewhere.com" without the quote marks of course. Now when my letter is prepared and being sent the software and the computer interact and off it goes to the distant computer where some software on that end (assigned let's say to 'watch' at socket 25 for activity) takes over and delivers the letter. What happened however was that as users became more sophisticated, they disovered that it was quite possible to do 'telnet somewhere.com 25' and go direct to the socket on the distant end handling mail. The distant end *assumed* it was talking to another computer and that the computer on your end had done all the necessary checks and balances, etc, i.e. if he says his name is Santa Claus that must be correct; if it were not the software on his end would never have passed the mail to me, yet here it is, it just said HELO to me when I opened the socket window and asked who was calling. He must be calling from who-knows-where.com, after all, it is a computer calling me and that is what it said. So users learned it was quite easy to 'spoof' the mail software into believing whatever it was told; just bypass what little protection the software offered in those early days of very naive, trusting sysadmins by telnetting right to the 'standard' port or socket where everyone handled mail, hand off your forgery to the software at the other end and get away with it ... time after time. But a little hanky-panky and a few anonymous obscene letters in the mail was the least of the problem. There are sockets for a wide variety of rather sensitive applications such as executing a remote shell and other stuff. At one point, everyone knew what everyone else was doing because everyone did it the same way. If I had the ability and knowledge to loot and ransack one computer, I had the ability and knowledge to loot and ransack all of them ... that's how things were in the early days. So what the person is trying to say in what you read is while you can certainly co-operate and work with other sysadmins in the overall management of the Internet, your first responsibility is the protection and well-being of your own site. Don't let your sockets talk to strangers, ... or at least make it more difficult for them to do so. And as far as what people know when browsing the web, start with the assumption that most of them know too much for their own good, and work down from that point. Be *extremely* careful about any sort of interactive stuff you allow website visitors to do. When you stop and think about it, having a website with a hundred thousand visitors a day is about the worst security risk there can be. Don't be so interested in having the most fancy, flashy, interactive web site around that you leave buggy software and holes all over for the pests to climb through. CGI scripts need to be closely examined before allowing a user to install them as part of his pages. Never let a user write directly to cgi-bin. Make him submit the script for approval by one or more admins first. Well, you'll get the idea after your site has been looted and ransacked a couple times. :( PAT] ------------------------------ From: **rice.nospam.ttd.teradyne.com@teradyne.com (John Rice) Subject: Re: LEC Emergency-Break Capability Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:47:05 GMT Organization: Teradyne Telecommunications In article , Connie Curts wrote: > LECs have been able to directly access lines on the cable pair since > the 1980s when I was still working at the 'phone factory.' However, > it is the repair department that used to do this, not the operator > assistance group. Perhaps you should call the number to 'report a > problem on your line' and ask them if they could do this for you if > there is ever another emergency. Not a good idea. Repair centers of today only have access to automated test equipment which can test the line and return a test result to their screen. They have no direct access to the lines and the 'indirect test access is usually through three or more 'layers' of computerized equipment. John Rice __|__ K9IJ | "I speak for myself, not my employer" ________(*)________ | o/ \o | rice(@)ttd.teradyne.com | Miracles,Magic and Sleight-of-hand done here. ------------------------------ From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Denver Local-Calling Area May Expand, Postpone Start of 720 Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:29:00 PST Organization: Shadownet ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) writes: >> With 42 rate centers in the 303 area code and prefixes assigned in >> blocks of 10,000 numbers, a new telecommunications company must have >> 420,000 numbers to provide service throughout the area code even if it >> has only a few customers. > Why must a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier have exchanges with the > same boundaries as the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier? Several reasons. First, if the boundaries are different, it means using seperate entries in the rate center database, which makes it larger and adds to the complexity of billing software. Second, it would mean that switching carriers would change which areas were local/long distance to you. Again, a complication nobody wants. Third, most competetive LECs are actually *renting* the local loop from the *existing* LEC rather than installing their own! They just have their own switching equipment and possibly trunks, co-located with the LEC switches. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu Subject: Re: Bellsouth Erroneous Billing (Resolution) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 01:29:39 EST Reply-To: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu Thanks for all of the responses I got regarding this issue. Since there was so much interest, I thought I would post the resolution. It turns out that even more background information is required to understand the problem. When I initially moved and my ISP started calling me, there was a problem. My provider's Ascend MAX could not call two different phone numbers to bond 128k, and my CiscoPro 750 could not receive two calls on one phone number to get 128k. I called BellSouth to set up a "hunt group" between my two B channels. It took them a month and a half to get this working, during which time, I was forced to have only 64k. Eventually, they got it to work. Now, turns out that what they did was get it to work with some combination of "hunting" and "call-forwarding-busy". Apparently, the "call-forwarding-busy" won out, and ever time my provider bonded the second B channel, there was a call made from my first B channel to my second B channel, which was being charged to me! As of this writing my bill is up to about $1500 which they say they will back out, but they still don't know how to fix it without breaking my 128k back to 64k! I guess not too many people have a BRI line that receives incoming calls? Stay tuned for more. Ron ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #336 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 2 08:23:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA26333; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:23:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:23:14 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712021323.IAA26333@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #337 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Dec 97 08:23:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 337 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Safety, Security Spur Popularity of Wireless Phones (Tad Cook) NPA-NXX Combinations and Dialing Plans (Mark J. Cuccia) Ten Digit Dialing Fracas (Jay R. Ashworth) Combination CDMA/TDMA/Analog Phone? (Bob Millen) Unified Messaging Seminar (Shannon McGinley) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: Safety, Security Spur Popularity of Wireless Phones Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:12:43 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Safety, Security Spur Popularity of Wireless Telephones By Paula Crawford Squires, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Va. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 1--They're one of the most visible symbols of the Information Age, glued to peoples' ears like strange appendages. When people aren't listening to these devices, they're talking into them in cars, restaurants, even hushed movie theaters. Their growth is so explosive an industry source says someone buys one every three seconds. Yet, no agency regulates their pricing plans, which have more mutations than the weather. Welcome to the wireless world of wireless telephones. It's a frenzied place mobile telephone communication. For people and businesses who want to stay in constant touch, the cellular telephone is becoming in the '90s what the television was in the '50s: a must-have convenience. The phones are more addictive than soap operas. Just ask Chesterfield County builder and developer David B. Allen. After eight years of using a cellular phone, Allen says he doesn't know how he would run his business without one. On a typical day, he makes 25 calls from a portable model that follows his movements like a shadow. Family members and business associates know they can reach him in his car or at home construction sites. It's not unusual for Allen to receive 20 calls a day. He says the phone helps him manage a large number of building projects more efficiently. When traveling to one project, he can call and check on another one halfway across the county. Plus, Allen adds, "You can respond more quickly to problems." When a worker was injured on the job, Allen called for help. "I've also called police when I've seen someone suspicious hanging around one of our subdivisions," he says. Safety and security, in fact, are the main reasons consumers are snatching up cellular phones at record rates. In the past, corporations looking for ways to boost productivity supplied the primary market for cell phones. Today the industry enjoys phenomenal growth because They want the ability to make a quick call in case of emergencies. But the task of choosing a wireless phone is tough enough to make some people want to call for help. Cellular companies offer an array of telephone models, features and prices. An ever-changing round of promotions promises everything from free pagers to a Thanksgiving holiday turkeys. Many of the so-called freebies come with strings attached: service plans that lock customers into monthly payments for a year. With all the choices, plus two types of technology, analog and digital, going wireless can be anything but crystal clear. Confusion reigns among many first-time buyers, because the market offers so many choices. There are niches for personal users, business customers and high-tech junkies who prefer cutting-edge technology. Tim Ayers, a spokesman for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association in Washington, says intense competition has produced the segmented market. "It's like anything else. People need to closely look at their needs and how they plan to use the phone," he said. While consumers may be uncertain over which deal is best, there's no uncertainty about the tremendous growth among cellular phone users. Theodore S. Rappaport, a cellular phone expert at Virginia Tech, says the cellular phone business is growing faster than the personal computer industry. In June, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association said more than 10.5 million subscribers signed up for service during the previous 12 months, the greatest increase reported since the industry began collecting data in 1985. Today, 14 years after cellular telephones came on the market, the association estimates there are 51 million users across the United States. The association also reported big increases in capital investments, up 40 percent from the previous year. Altogether, wireless companies have invested more than $37.4 billion in building their infrastructures. According to the association's report, annual revenue from monthly service plans (excluding any long distance charges) reached a new high, $25.5 billion. The only thing going down in the cellular telephone industry is the average monthly bill. The association reported a drop in local monthly bills from $95 in 1988 to $43.86 in 1997. The figures reflect business and personal use. A recent survey shows that the typical business user logs 100 minutes per month, while the personal user is on the phone for 42 minutes or fewer. In the Richmond area, a typical bill for business and personal users ranges from $45 to $55 a month, according to Mike Ritter, director of marketing for the Midwest regional office of GTE Wireless, one of the three wireless companies that serve the Richmond area. The other two companies are 360 Communications and PrimeCo Personal Communications. PrimeCo is the newest player, entering the market a year ago. It's known in the industry as a PCS or provider of personal communication services. Its digital phones operate on a different radio frequency than from analog phones and offer some services such as voice mail as part of its standard service package. Such options usually require additional fees at analog companies. Jim Grady, vice president and general manager for PrimeCo in Virginia, says the company already has more than 10,000 local customers. Officials at GTE and 360 Communications won't disclose numbers of Richmond subscribers. But companywide figures testify to the industry's impressive growth. In 1996, GTE Wireless increased its customer base by a whopping 25 percent, adding 738,000 customers. During the first three quarters of 1997, 360 Communications picked up 310,000 customers, up 32 percent from the same period the year before. What's fueling the growth? According to a recent industry survey, 50 percent of cell phone buyers make the purchase for personal reasons. Nineteen percent plan to use the phone for personal and business reasons; the remaining 31 percent want the phone strictly for business use. That percentage has dropped dramatically since 1984 when business customers represented 90 percent of subscribers. "People want them for protection in the car, in case there's a breakdown, a crime, an attack," Ayers said. Mary Ann Welch, manager for media relations for the mid-Atlantic region of 360 Communications, concurs. "The safety aspect has really played into the increase in sales." Working parents are using cell phones to keep tabs on their children. Ritter points out his company is seeing more women subscribers than men. "The phone gives the mother a way to communicate with her children," he said. Sandy Owens, a Midlothian real estate agent for Napier/Old Colony Realtors, ranks her cell phone right up there with her car as "a necessary part of life." Since 1991, she has equipped her car with a transportable phone. It can be used in and out of the car, a handy feature when showing homes to clients. Frequent callers include her three children, ages 9, 17 and 19. "They call me all the time. They call to see when I'm coming home and what we've having for dinnner," Owens says. On the business side, Owens uses the phone to return calls promptly. "I get my business primarily through referrals. If I'm not there to serve the customer, then someone else will get them first," she says. Owens' monthly cellular telephone bills range from $200 to $300. While she has always valued the phone's convenience, a car accident last summer brought home the advantages from a safety standpoint. The accident left Owens hanging upside down from a seatbelt in her car, so she couldn't get to her phone. Two men showed up at the scene with cell phones and came to her rescue. They helped Owens out of her car and called 911. "If it wasn't for those people, I don't know how long it would have taken to get help," she says. Mary Evans, a spokeswoman for the Virginia State Police, says the volume of telephone calls from citizens to the police is definitely up as a result of the growing use of cellular phones. One day last June, police received 100 calls to 911. Sgt. Wade Millner of the state police says people call about traffic accidents, drunken drivers, animals on the interstate, vehicle and brush fires and crimes in progress. Incidents not handled by the state police are transferred to local police departments. Police welcome the calls. As Millner notes, "It gives us quick and accurate information, because most of the time the cellular caller is right on the scene." The promotional value of safety and security is not lost on cellular companies who that loan lend or donate phones to neighborhood watch groups and domestic-violence safety programs. While cellular phones are frequently associated with increased concerns about safety, there's a flip side of the coin. The use of cell phones has been linked with everything from an increased risk of auto accidents to interference with cardiac pacemakers. Cellular telephone companies and the federal government are investigating how digital telephones can interfere with cardiac pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and hearing aids. At this time, there are no known reports of serious health effects when pacemakers are used in conjunction with digital phones. The Food and Drug Administration, however, advises people with pacemakers to avoid bringing a digital cellular telephone within two inches of the chest. The cellular industry has responded to concerns about the hazards of talking on a cell phone while driving a car. The Cellular Telecommun- ications Industry Association includes safety tips on its Internet Web page and has published a brochure in conjunction with other cellular companies with safety information. It recommends using a handsfree or speaker phone while driving. One of the biggest choices facing companies and consumers is what type of phone to buy: digital or analog. Each technology has pros and cons. Digital phones, for example, cost more up front. PrimeCo sells its model for $199. But, at this stage, coverage is limited primarily to metropolitan areas. For people who travel frequently in rural areas, digital may not be the way to go. "That's a fair criticism," Grady says. "If you're 200 miles outside of Richmond, you can't call someone five minutes away, because there's no signal." Digital offers other options, though, that consumers like. Unlike analog companies, PrimeCo requires no activation fee or 12-month contract. Plus, voice quality is clearer on digital phones. The company's two service plans range from $15.95 with no air time included to $36.95 per month. Air time is the amount of time someone spends on a phone per month. It includes outgoing and incoming calls. The second plan offers 100 minutes of air time a month at a rate of 22 cents per minute on calls made from PrimeCo's service area in metropolitan Richmond and Hampton Roads, to anywhere in the state. Perhaps the greatest advantage of digital is the bundling of many features into one service package at no additional fee. That's possible because digital technology extends the level of service beyond voice calling. PrimeCo's standard service plan includes voice mail, caller identification and call waiting. Allen switched recently from an analog to a digital phone. He figures that, by having voice mail and other functions included at no extra charge in his monthly service plan, he'll save money in the long run on a bill that has fluctuated from $295 to $400 a month. Although analog signals power the majority of U.S. cellular phones, more companies are getting into digital technology, including GTE and 360 Communications. They have rolled out personal communication services in some major cities and plan further expansions. "It's clearly the way the industry is going, but it won't be a revolution; it will be an evolution," predicts Ayers. "There's a lot of life left in analog." Analog phone companies have national networks in place and offer more extensive coverage areas than PCS competitors who are still building their networks. At GTE, phone prices range from as little as $1 for a small portable to $399 for a sleek, top-of-the line model that vibrates rather than rings and can be slipped discreetly into a suit coat pocket. When customers sign a 12-month service contract, GTE is assured of a revenue stream and and can offer phones at low prices. "Typically, if you sign for one year, you would pay $20 for a good-quality phone," Ritter says. GTE's most popular monthly service plan in Richmond costs $19.95 a month and offers tiered per-minute rates. If people talk from one to 30 minutes, the rate is 35 cents a minute; by the 300th minute the rate drops to 24 cents per minute. This example illustrates an important rule of thumb: the more people talk on their cellular phones, the less they pay per minute. Recognizing the need to simplify customer choices, GTE recently decreased its number of monthly service plans from eight to four and made the entire state a local call, with the exception of Northern Virginia. It costs 55 cents a minute for GTE customers to call north of Fredericksburg compared with 35 cents a minute for anywhere in the rest of the state, Ritter said. When people use their phones outside their home calling area, roaming charges (rates charged by outside cellular carriers) increase the cost of using a mobile phone. Typically, the rate is 99 cents a minute plus any applicable long distance charges. Some companies also assess a daily roaming surcharge. To simply simplify roaming rates, the trend today is for companies to offer super regional zones, multistate areas in which the perminute rate is higher, but customers avoid full roaming charges. At PrimeCo, when customers travel to another PrimeCo service market -- the company operates in 17 cities -- they pay the same rate as the home rate offered in their service package. "Generally, when you go outside the local calling area, it's generally more advantageous to use the calling card, if it isn't a critical call," Ritter said. At 360 Communications, people can choose from seven monthly access plans. They range from $16 a month for people who use 30 minutes to $296 for a VIP plan that includes 3,500 minutes of local air time. Account executive Elizabeth Lunato says the best-selling plan is one that costs $28 dollars a month. The per-minute rate is 33 cents for calls in the local coverage area, which includes Richmond, Hampton Roads and 23 southeastern Virginia counties. Again, populous Northern Virginia isn't included; it costs 49 cents a minute to call that part of the state. One of the draws of 360's plan is free, unlimited local weekend use. "You can go to South Hill for the weekend and call your mother in Virginia Beach and it's free," Lunato says. GTE also throws in free weekend use on its consumer plan for an additional $10 a month. This puts the two consumer plans almost neck-and-neck with each other in terms of price, with 360 charging $28 and GTE $29.95 ($19.95 basic rate plus $10 for free weekends). At 360, if it's part of a promotion, a phone can be purchased for as little as $3.60. To buy the same phone outright would cost $163, Welch said. When it comes to saving that much money upfront, customers don't give the company static about yearlong contracts. "We found that a lot of customers prefer to get a nice deal," Welch said. Generally, business customers can negotiate lower rates than those offered on consumer plans, because they usually they need more air time and phone lines. Also, most companies allow business and consumer customers to switch plans at any time at no charge. Alan Wickham, manager of operations in the communications division of the State Corporation Commission, recently purchased a cellular phone. He paid $75 for a flip-top, portable model and signed a 12-month contract. Wickham's reason for buying? Primarily peace of mind, plus, "I use it to call my mother in Roanoke on the weekends," he says. Wickham jumped into the cellular world with more knowledge than the average person, at least when it comes to state oversight of the cellular telephone industry. Basically, there is none because the Virginia General Assembly repealed the state's cellular telephone act in 1995. That move was made shortly after federal legislation preempted state regulation of cellular telephones. Before the repeal, cellular companies were certified as public utilities and had to file rates, terms and conditions for rending rendering service in Virginia. The Federal Communications Commission is the regulatory and licensing agency for wireless telephone communication. The federal agency, however, doesn't regulate rates, which, in theory, remain in check because of intense market competition. When the SCC receives complaints, it refers people to the FCC or the state Office of Consumer Affairs. Still, Wickham offers this advice: "Look at the sales contract and read it very carefully. Don't sign it until you've read the whole thing." The contract discloses fees to turn on the service, including activation or other charges that may show up on a first bill. A thorough reading can prevent sticker shock when the bill arrives. Consumers have complained to the Better Business Bureau of Central Virginia and the Office of Consumer Affairs about cellular telephone bills regarding their accuracy, late fees and the use of free minutes. With the approaching holidays, all three local companies plan new promotions. They're worth checking out, because fees are often waived and phone prices reduced during these specials. The companies also will market one of the latest wrinkles in the cellular industry: prepaid cellular phone plans. These deals, similar to prepaid phone cards, allow people to control costs by paying for everything upfront. "It's great for parents who want to give the phone to a child, but who don't want to get stuck with a $500 bill," Ritter says. With a prepaid plan, people don't sign a 12-month contract. Instead, they buy a phone and increments of air time. Phone prices vary from as little as $50 for a refurbished phone to as much as $149 for new analog phones. At GTE, a $35 card buys 44 minutes, a $50 card buys 63 minutes and a $75 card buys 94 minutes. Welch observes that prepaid plans enable cellular companies to serve customers with bad credit. In the past, they have been turned away or made to pay deposits of as much as $1,000 to get service. "Prepaid cellular is a response to that," Welch says. As cellular telephones continue to evolve, people can expect other developments. David Allen has already witnessed a big change in price. In the 1980s, when he purchased his first phone, "I paid $1,700. Now you can get them for next to nothing," he said. Well, not exactly. As PrimeCo's Grady points out, "Nothing is free." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 17:55:27 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: NPA-NXX Combinations and Dialing Plans In the TELECOM Digest article, "New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201", Robert Casey wrote: > Turns out new nanp 646 for New York City is an exchange in > immediately adjacent 201's 646 exchange in Hackensack NJ. > I thought the phone system wants to avoid using an area code > number that is the same as an exchange in the new area code or > in immediately adjacent area codes. Of course, maybe no number > exists like that in the New York City area. It can get _very_ difficult to 'protect' such NXX code combinations these days, particularly in large/dense urban metro areas, such as NY City metro, Chicago metro, southern California, etc. There are only so many such possible numerical three-digit combinations (NXX) which can be used. Remember that in such metro areas, multiple area codes are simultaneously needing 'relief' -- each of these existing area codes are 'busting at the seams' for available three-digit NXX codes to be used as local central office codes, therefore each of the existing NPAs is needing 'relief' with an NPA split or overlay, all at the same time. Likewise, most other parts of the NANP need NPA relief, all at the same time. Trying to find 'uniqueness' or 'mutually exclusive' NXX combinations becomes impossible. > My brother works for the county government of Bergen County, and > almost all their office lines are in exchange 646. He wonders how > many wrong numbers they're gonna get from people forgetting the > leading "1" when dialing New York's new 646 area code. Also means > we can't have 1 + 7D dialing for same area code toll calls. New Jersey, New York City, and other large urban metro areas in the northeast and midwest never did use 1+7d for "home" NPA toll calling. For the most part, these areas still use _straight_ seven-digit dialing for toll calling within the same area code. :( For those parts of the NANP which did use 1+7d for "home" NPA toll calling prior to 1995 (when 'interchangeable' NPA codes were first activated), there were two possibilities which were implemented during 1994. Most of these areas using 'toll-alerting' of 1+ before all toll calls continued to use a 1+, but "home" NPA toll calling now required dialing the "home" NPA code -- i.e. 1+ten-digits. Louisiana is one such state -- if I am placing a toll call within my own NPA, 504, such as to Baton Rouge or Morgan City, I must dial 1+504+seven-digits. [Please note that 504 is going to be split at some point next year, but the details as to where the split boundary is going to fall, which side keeps 504 and which gets the new NPA code, as well as the numericals of the new NPA code have not yet been finalized by the Louisiana PSC nor Bellcore-NANPA (soon to be Lockheed/Martin NANPA)]. But some parts of the country (parts of Illinois, California, Pennsylvania, etc) have gone the way of Chicago, New York City, New Jersey, etc. :( _ALL_ Home-NPA calls, regardless of local vs. toll, are dialed as 'straight' seven-digits. _ALL_ calls to a different NPA, regardless of local vs. toll status dialed _only_ as 1+ten-digits. I think that home-NPA calls (mostly toll, sometimes including local) are sometimes 'permissively' dialable as 1+ten-digits (the 'home' NPA followed by seven-digits). This type of (wireline) dialing plan makes it a bit difficult to introduce an overlay (with associated ten-digit dialing) since (at least during an interim), all calls would have to be dialed as 1+ten-digits, including home-NPA local calls. But if all local calls were _mandatory_ dialable as full ten-digits, but 'straight' ten-digits (the way Atlanta is going to go, also what Maryland has implemented), and a 1+ before ten-digits is required for _toll_ calls to both 'same' and differing NPA (and IMO, 1+ before ten-digits should _also_ be permissive at the _customer's_ dialing Whim for _LOCAL_ calls), then _all_ such combinations of NPA-NXX would be _possible_: Maryland 301-301- 301-410- 301-443- 301-240- 301-202- 301-703- 301-757- (etc) 410-301- 410-410- 410-443- 410-240- 410-202- 410-703- 410-757- 443-301- 443-410- 443-443- 443-240- 443-202- 443-703- 443-757- 240-301- 240-410- 240-443- 240-240- 240-202- 240-703- 240-757- (etc) Atlanta Metro 404-404- 404-770- 404-678- 404-912- 404-706- 404-205- 404-256- (etc) 770-404- 770-770- 770-678- 770-912- 770-706- 770-205- 770-256- 678-404- 678-770- 678-678- 678-912- 678-706- 678-205- 678-256- (etc) 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: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 17:17:15 -0500 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Ten Digit Dialing Fracas Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA Well, I see good engineering and public distaste are going to war again. GTE announced this week that they will be implementing an overlay plan, allowing more than one area code in a given geographic area, and therefore requiring that all calls be dialed with ten digits, including the area code, even if it is the same as the caller's. The general public, of course, went nonlinear, screaming and yelling to the Public Service Commission, the FCC, and everyone else who would listen. "We can't be forced to dial three more digits for every local call!", they cry. GTE has explained to everyone _why_ this was the plan they decided upon, and their reasons are as good as have been the reasons every _other_ Regional Bell Operating Company has advanced for overlay plans in the past: take the amount it would cost you to reprint EVERY PIECE OF PAPER WITH YOUR PHONE NUMBER ON IT, and multiply that by the thousands of businesses who have phone numbers currently beginning with 813. That's the amount of money it would cost the Tampa Bay area to cope with an area code split, as has been the practice up to now. Alternative complaints include: "Why can't we dial three digits if the other phone number has the same area code?", the answer for which is, of course, "Which area code _is_ that phone you're dialing on _in_?" It's worse: the amount of time gained by area code splits continues to drop, as technologists continue to create more and more things which require phone numbers. Past splits have had borders defined more by politics than phone counts, causing new area codes to need to be split _again_ in periods as short as _six months_. Do you really want to reprint your letterhead and business cards _twice_ in one year? Area code overlays completely avoid this problem: no one's number need be changed. The news coverage on this topic in the past week has been surprisingly even -- technical topics like this often elude general coverage reporters, but everyone seems to have done their homework on this one, so far. In short: I applaud GTE and the Florida Public Service Commission for having the guts to take a correct, but unpopular, stand on an issue which, in the long run, _must_ be decided as an engineering problem, and I hope they both stand their ground. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Bob Millen Subject: Combination CDMA/TDMA/Analog Phone? Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 18:09:00 -0600 Organization: Intecom I'm very close buying my first cell phone. I am strongly leaning toward Sprint PCS -- which appears to have a strong offering in Dallas, Texas, where I live. In addition to Sprint, I got literature from AT&T, Southwestern Bell (both TDMA) and PrimeCo (CDMA, like Sprint). It seems like the PCS world is expected to slowly move toward CDMA in North America. There appear to be some who would dispute this. If I go with one of Sprint's standard offerings it will probably be a CDMA/Analog phone. But I found myself wondering if anyone makes a CDMA/TDMA/Analog phone. My thought is that with such a phone I might be able to use the same phone with different providers. For example, if I got exasperated with Sprint, I could use the same phone in TDMA mode with AT&T or Southwestern Bell. Even if I were to remain a happy Sprint customer, perhaps when I'm traveling I could use TDMA in some part of the country where TDMA is offered but not CDMA. I read one article that says that each cellular service tends to have special firmware in the phone -- implying that such cross system accessing isn't really in the cards. Recently I thought I saw an announcement of a Qualcomm CDMA/TDMA combination phone. If I did see it I sure can't seem to find it today. (?) Any thoughts or councel much appreciated. Bob Millen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 11:49:59 -0800 From: Shannon McGinley Reply-To: shannonm@teledynamic.com Organization: Teledynamic Communications Inc. Subject: Unified Messaging Seminar Teledynamic Communications would like to invite you to join us for an educational seminar on unified messaging. Discover the convenience of a single source message retrieval system for your Email, Fax and Voice Mail. Our seminar features Randy Kremlacek, president of Teledynamic Communications and Glen Cavanaugh, Regional Manager for Applied Voice Technology. Discussions will center around how to build a centralized messaging system and how employees can benefit from using one. Both speakers will also be available after the seminar for any questions you may have about Unified Messaging. Creating an "All-In-One" Messaging System December 11, 1997 8:30 am to noon Commonwealth Club 595 Market St, 2nd Floor San Francisco, California USA You can find more details and registration information at http://www.teledynamic.com/seminars or call 800.400.8184x390 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #337 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 2 08:46:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA27672; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:46:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:46:18 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712021346.IAA27672@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #338 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Dec 97 08:46:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 338 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #110, December 1, 1997 (Telecom Update) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Linc Madison) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Tom Watson) Re: Digital TV Towers (Roy Smith) Re: Digital TV Towers (Curtis Bohl) Re: Digital TV Towers (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Digital TV Towers (Ted Ede) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 01 Dec 1997 11:03:05 -0500 From: Telecom Update Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #110, December 1, 1997 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 110: December 1, 1997 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Canada's Toll-Free System Crashes ** Teleport Buys ACC ** Telesat Gets Two Orbital Slots ** Teleglobe Extends Global Toll-Free ** Distributel Charges Bell With Discrimination ** AT&T Opens Alberta Fiber Link ** BC Tel Bundled Promotion Denied ** CRTC Wants Comments on BC Provincial 911 ** Clearnet Digital Now in Alberta ** Microcell Passes 20,000 Subscribers ** MTS Launches E-Commerce Facilitator ** MT&T ADSL Tariff Approved ** Ottawa Grant Aids Videotron Expansion ** MTS Unites Local, LD Divisions ** Courts Differ on U.S. Satellite Dishes ** 10 MBPS Internet Access in Winnipeg ** Prince Rupert to Provide ADSL From Westell ** Cable Atlantic Offers Time Warner Online Service ** Telemanagement Article-Finder Posted ============================================================ CANADA'S TOLL-FREE SYSTEM CRASHES: Canada's 220,000 toll-free numbers stopped working from 11am to 3pm November 26, as software crashed in Stentor computers in Calgary and Toronto. Stentor administers the toll-free database for its members and alternative carriers. TELEPORT BUYS ACC: Teleport Communications Group, a U.S. alternative local carrier, is buying Rochester, NY-based ACC Corp. for US$1 Billion. ACC Corp. owns ACC Telenterprises, Canada's fourth-largest alternative long distance provider. TELESAT GETS TWO ORBITAL SLOTS: The Federal Government has granted Telesat Canada two orbital slots, to be used for Anik F satellites scheduled for launching by 2000. Two other slots are reserved for future alternative satellite providers. TELEGLOBE EXTENDS GLOBAL TOLL-FREE: Teleglobe Canada has expanded its Globe800 and Globeaccess800 services to cover Spain and Thailand. DISTRIBUTEL CHARGES BELL WITH DISCRIMINATION: Distributel has asked the CRTC to order Bell Canada to tariff and provide Customer Direct Information Delivery (CDID) service, which some large Centrex customers use to monitor trunk usage. Bell says CDID is provided only to customers who lease telco network facilities. AT&T OPENS ALBERTA FIBER LINK: AT&T Canada Long Distance Services has completed a fiber link between Edmonton, Red Deer, and Calgary, Alberta. BC TEL BUNDLED PROMOTION DENIED: CRTC Telecom Order 97-1764 rejects a BC Tel promotion that bundled a business line, Smart Touch services, and long distance calling. The Commission will permit promotions bundling of primary exchange and toll services only when barriers to facilities- based local competition are largely eliminated. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1997/o971764_.txt CRTC WANTS COMMENTS ON BC PROVINCIAL 911: In Public Notice 97-39, the CRTC invites comments, by December 15, on BC Tel's proposal for Provincial 911 service. Call-Net argues that the telco should have first consulted with other members of the CRTC body planning Emergency Services delivery in a competitive local service environment. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/notice/1997/p9739_0.txt CLEARNET DIGITAL NOW IN ALBERTA: Clearnet Communications has launched digital PCS service in Edmonton. Calgary customers can purchase Clearnet's dual-mode phone and use it in analog mode until digital service begins in the spring. MICROCELL PASSES 20,000 SUBSCRIBERS: Microcell's Fido PCS service counted 22,498 subscribers on September 30. Microcell's third-quarter revenue was $8.0 Million; average per-subscriber monthly revenue was $67.33. MTS LAUNCHES E-COMMERCE FACILITATOR: Manitoba's MTS Advanced has launched Ngage Electronic Commerce to provide merchants with secure online transactions, ship their product, and collect payments. MT&T ADSL TARIFF APPROVED: CRTC Telecom Order 97-1692 approves an MT&T tariff for Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line service for ISPs. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/telecom/order/1997/o971692_.txt OTTAWA GRANT AIDS VIDEOTRON EXPANSION: The Federal Government's Transitional Jobs Fund will provide $2.5 Million to assist Videotron Telecom's Montreal-area expansion. MTS UNITES LOCAL, LD DIVISIONS: Manitoba Telecom System has unified MTS Net and MTS Com, the local service and long distance/data/PBX divisions of its MTS NetCom subsidiary. The amalgamated unit will be headed by Bill Baines. COURTS DIFFER ON U.S. SATELLITE DISHES: On November 26, the Federal Court of Appeal upheld Ottawa's ban on U.S. satellite dishes. The same day, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled the dishes legal, calling the ban "incompatible with freedom of speech." 10 MBPS INTERNET ACCESS IN WINNIPEG: MBNet, Manitoba's regional Internet provider, now offers 1 Mpbs dedicated Internet access, using facilities provided by Videon FiberLink, the business telecom division of Videon CableSystems. PRINCE RUPERT TO PROVIDE ADSL FROM WESTELL: City Tel, the municipally owned telco in Prince Rupert, BC, will use ADSL technology from Westell to provide high-speed Internet access. CABLE ATLANTIC OFFERS TIME WARNER ONLINE SERVICE: Beginning December 15, Cable Atlantic of Newfoundland will provide its St. John's Internet subscribers with Road Runner, Time Warner's online content and Internet caching service. TELEMANAGEMENT ARTICLE-FINDER POSTED: Do you need to check the accuracy of Ian and Lis Angus's editorial forecasts for 1997? Want to read a telecom thriller reviewed in Rob Slade's Bookshelf column? Want a lesson from Henry Dortmans in "Defensive Driving in Telecom"? ** These and all other articles in 1997 issues of Telemanagement can be readily located in the 1997 Telemanagement Subject Index, available at: http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tmindx97.html ** The printed index will be mailed with the January issue. To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1997 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 228. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 23:19:27 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) wrote, quoting a complaint response from the FCC: > Tips For Consumers > > Companies compete for your payphone business. Use your buying > power wisely and shop around. No, companies DO NOT compete for my payphone business. They compete for access to the premises they want. That's quite different. In a great many situations, it is not possible to "shop around" because the payphones are single-sourced. > If you think that the rate for placing a call from a payphone is too > high, a less expensive payphone could be around the corner. Also > let the PSP know that the rates are too high. It's in their best > interest to meet the needs of their customers. No, a less expensive payphone is not likely to be around the corner if you are in an airport terminal, in a train or bus station, on the campus of a university, or in an office building. There are just far too many situations where there is no competition whatsoever. It is also categorically NOT in the PSP's interests to meet the needs of the caller. It is in the PSP's interests to set their rates as high as they can, in order to compensate the owner of the premises. The PSP has very little interest in the needs or desires of the end user. > Contact your preferred long distance company and ask for > instructions for placing calls through that company from a > payphone. Also ask what rates or charges apply to calls placed > from payphones. Let the company know if you believe their rates > are too high. Then call other long distance companies and ask > about their rates. The long distance companies aren't the problem. The FCC is the problem. The FCC set an exorbitant "default" rate for these calls. There's just no excuse for this gross malfeasance. The FCC claims that it is acting in the best interests of the consumer, but that is clearly an absolute outright lie. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 12:39:58 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , NBJimWeiss@aol.com (Jim Weiss) wrote: <<>> > The 28.4 cents per-call compensation rate is a default rate that can > be reduced or increased at any time through an agreement between the > long distance company and the PSP. The FCC encouraged long distance > companies and PSPs to contract with each other for more economically > efficient compensation rates. It seems to me that the 800 people should compensate ALL owners of telephones (including me at home) at the rate of 28.4 cents per call. I mean I put my phone in, pay for its monthly service, and provide a housing for it. Sounds logical to me, especially at the 28.4 cents rate. I guess I could understand five cents per call, but 28.4 is a bit much. Perhaps I should have a pay phone at home. Might be 'profitable'. May even be on telemarketers 'don't call' list. Wishful thinking ... (*SIGH*) tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 20:41:47 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Organization: New York University School of Medicine Greg Monti wrote: > All communications towers [...] must meet FAA filing regulations and > restrictions for location, height, painting, lighting and other > factors. The applicable regulation is 14 CFR 77. As far as I can tell, there are requirements to report construction of towers to the FAA, and rules concerning lighting, etc, and a procedure to determine if the proposed tower would constitute a hazard, but it's not clear that the FAA actually has the authority to prohibit such construction. > However, an argument could be made that pilots "know" where all the > local towers are because they've been at the same locations and > heights for 40 or 50 years. Pilots have been lulled into believing > that, if they follow their usual routes, everything will be safe. A > new tower, especially a tall one of 1,000 or 2,000 feet, would break > the lullaby of complacency. Oh, come on. I thought I asked a pretty innocent question as to why more towers would be needed. No need to start hurling insults. Of course we have charts. We even get daily updates and ammendments to long-standing approach procedures to account for such temporary items as construction cranes and the like: !FDC 7/6947 HPN FI/T WESTCHESTER COUNTY, WHITE PLAINS, NY. ILS RWY 16, AMDT 22A.... S-LOC MDA/HAT 980/541 ALL CATS, VIS CAT D RVR 6000. CIRCLING MDA/HAA 980/541 CAT A/B, 1020/581 CAT C/D. 720 MSL TEMP CRANE 1.6 NM FROM RWY 16 THLD, ON CENTERLINE. The real problem is not that pilots will go flying willy-nilly into new towers because they didn't used to be there because they were too lazy to have current charts (although I'm sure it happens). The real problem is when towers show up inside the protected airspace for existing instrument approaches, rendering those approaches unusable. If I were to build a 2000 foot tall tower 1 mile north-northeast of Newark Airport, for example, I would effectively shut down one of the busiest airports in the country. Obviously, nobody would get a permit to do that (although I don't think the FAA itself has the authority to deny the permit, they certainly would make a STRONG case against it), but they might get a permit to do the same thing nearby a smaller local airport. I think that possibility is what's got the aviation folks in such an uproar. ------------------------------ From: Curtis Bohl Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 20:31:38 -0600 Organization: TribNet Reply-To: cbohl@trib.net James Bellaire wrote: > Towers can only hold so much weight. The addition of an extra antenna > to an existing tower may not be possible, hence the new towers. Some > stations will be able to support both a digital and an analog antenna > on the same mast, but only if they get rid of a few of their rental > customers. Remember also, many of the towers in use were built in the 1950s when it probably never was envisioned all of the items that would eventually be hung off of them. The local NBC affiliate KOMU-TV (now the only commercial station owned by a university, used for training future journalists and a big money machine for the university); the station was built in 1953. Now, besides the TV antenna, they also have the university's NPR FM transmitter and its STL, microwave receivers for the WAN connection back to campus and for the remote truck -- according to my sources, its up to its maximum load. Plus, its almost in line with the runway for the regional airport (opened in the late 60s), which will probably eliminate another tower on the site. And this is in a largely rural area -- the station is on the ag school's 600+ acre farm. Imagine an urban station's situation. Also, I have read that another impediment is the lack of large tower builders, some of which are no longer in business due to accidents and liability insurance. A major incident occurred in NE Missouri several years ago with the collapse of a 2000 ft tower beloning to a Kirksville station during tower work, killing 3 workers. Curtis Bohl cbohl@trib.net ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: 2 Dec 1997 07:51:21 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have noticed that when any one of the > stations sharing tower space needs to do repairs to the antenna that > everyone on the tower has to go off the air. There is a large cluster > of antennas on the roof of Sears Tower in Chicago; the other night at > about midnight several (radio and television) stations all signed off > the air saying repairs and adjustments would be done for a couple > hours. I guess if the others stayed on the air there would be a hazard > to the people on the tower doing repairs to the one station which > needed it. PAT] Given that most U.S. broadcast stations, as far as I know, operate around 50 kW peak envelope power (PEP) we're talking about some pretty hefty power there; the voltage is probably in the kV range, and it would give an RF burn like there's no tomorrow. Not to mention that close proximity to that kind of power antennae can produce effects not too different from the one produced by microwave ovens. Fortunately, thanks to 1/r^2, these effects disappear quickly with distance. -hpa PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key ------------------------------ From: ted@ampersand.com (Ted Ede) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: 1 Dec 1997 16:20:17 GMT Organization: Ampersand, Inc. In article , Greg Monti wrote: > However, an argument could be made that pilots "know" where all the > local towers are because they've been at the same locations and > heights for 40 or 50 years. Pilots have been lulled into believing > that, if they follow their usual routes, everything will be safe. A > new tower, especially a tall one of 1,000 or 2,000 feet, would break > the lullaby of complacency. Land-based obstructions are not an issue for the enroute portion of a flight, as most pilot fly well over 1500' agl. In many areas it's required by the FAA. In general, it's just safer to be higher should your engine quit. On a flight to Nantucket this weekend I passed the tower farm in Needham MA, with four 1000+ foot towers. Believe me, it's *very* easy to see a big tower, even on days where the visibility is only five miles. Btw, Norwood and Hascom airports (and a few others) are only ten miles away. No pilot would ever be "lulled" into hitting one of these things. The entire crux of the problem is the instrument approaches to the airports. When flying an approach in "the soup", you need to be guaranteed clearance from obstacles on the ground. The "corridor" for the approach needs to be wide enough to handle instrument inaccuracies and small errors on the pilot's part. When the FAA publishes an approach, they guarantee certain obstacle clearances to the runway, and they also guarantee clearance for the "missed approach", which is a procedure that you follow should you not be able to see the runway at a certain point in the instrument approach procedure. So, when someone needs a new tower, the FAA needs to be consulted to see if it interferes with any of the instrument approaches for the nearby airports. There's not much more to it than that aside from getting NOA to put it on the charts. ted ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #338 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 2 09:28:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA00653; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:28:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:28:42 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712021428.JAA00653@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #339 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Dec 97 09:28:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 339 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals (Nils Andersson) Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals (Mike Fox) Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 (L Madison) Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 (B Goudreau) Re: Digital TV Towers (Art Walker) Re: Digital TV Towers (Chris Farrar) Re: Digital TV Towers (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Intranet Security (Louis Raphael) Re: Intranet Security (Eric Ewanco) Re: Intranet Security (Jeff Vinocur) Re: Competition Heats Up in Canada For PCS (Mike Federchuk) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 1 Dec 1997 15:45:25 -0500 From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals In article , Eli Mantel writes: > the big, bad, businesses who are stuck paying the wages of these > employees who are causing the wages of their own minimum-wage > employees to be increased. > And before long, payphone operators generating income for themselves > through this technique will be testifying before the FCC that any > changes to the regulations would unfairly impact their industry, an > industry which is making very significant contributions to the U.S. > economy. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is a very interesting proposal. > Anyone want to try installing phones in the manner desribed and see if > it actually works? PAT] Actually, this kind of use of an 800 number is quite illegal, in much the same way that robocalling even a spammer is illegal. If it becomes widespread, most 800 numbers will be blocked from payphones, with the probable exception of those that can be billed back, such as the prepaid and long distance company 800 numbers. And a large volume of incomplete calls, i.e. calling the 800 without giving out an account number, will by itself alert the owners of those 800s that something fishy is going on. The loss of 800 service from payphones would be a loss to most people, but most particularly poor people. Liberals or anybody else ought NOT to encourage the above described kind of abuse, which in the long run would harm many and benefit no one. Regards, Nils Andersson [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We know it is illegal to generate traffic just for the sake of generating traffic. There has to be some legitimate and legal reason for the call. Harassment is not a legal reason to call someone. Now on the other hand, if I were conducting surveys ... a different survey question every week with the results reported to the media for publication ... or even a single survey with the questions, "Do you find your 800/888 toll- free service to be useful? What carrier do you use?" I'd have established a legitimate reason to call a few million 800/888 numbers at 30 cents each wouldn't I? Understandably I might have quite a few competitors out there in the survey business also, many of them asking the same questions. :) Or is this simply too transparent; is the BS too thinly-veiled here? I'll bet you though that carefully thought out and planned someone might get away with this, at least for awhile. After all, don't all survey and marketing-inquiry services require their employee survey-takers to use payphones installed at their desks? :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 11:01:10 -0500 From: Mike Fox Reply-To: mikefox@ibm.net Subject: Re: FCC Payphone Surcharge: Revenge of the Liberals Stanley Cline wrote: > Several LECs and COCOT owners have had to *raise* their local coin > rates, even if they don't otherwise want to -- in order to compete for > or keep LOCATIONS. In other words, a 25c payphone can't pay as much > to the location provider as a 35c payphone, so in order to keep the > payphone in the desired location, the payphone owner has had to > increase rates. Also, from what I understand, some COCOT owners sign > "exclusive" contracts with location providers, preventing the location > provider for installing competing phones, even if they want to. The > money often doesn't flow to the PAYPHONE OWNER -- it flows to the > LOCATION OWNER. > [snip] > It's not just payphones, though ... > The same things -- competition for property rights (not customers) and > exclusive contracts -- are also issues in the cable business; various > apartment owners and condo associations are bringing in "private > cable" companies (most of which, aside from RCN in the Northeast and > some RBOC/LEC-owned systems, provide far fewer channels and services > than traditional local cable companies or mini-dish services) on > exclusive contracts which provide "kickbacks" to the property owner, > [snip] > Private payphone owners and location owners, by the same token, have > financial incentives to deny alternatives (including competitive > payphones, or access to other long distance carriers and to 800/888 > numbers). Some locations where payphones are installed have even > tried to ban use of wireless phones, simply to increase the payphone > revenue. Compensating payphone owners for 800/888/10(1x)xxx calls > seems to address part of the problem on the surface, but the fact > remains that the public will probably see very little benefit (more > payphones, lower local call prices, etc.), and much of the payphone > industry will remain as sleazy as ever. > Simply put: The FCC and Congress need to get a clue. Competition for > property rights, instead of customers, enriches property owners at the > expense of the general public. It's already been seen in private > cable, and now payphones are headed down the same road. Very fascinating, and very true. Also, it's spreading beyond telecommunications. I know this is a little off-topic, but the payphone operators pioneered it and now it's spreading to other fields. The latest is ATM machines. Those new "foreign ATM" fees that we all hate are also going the way of private cable and payphone commissions. A recent Wall Street Journal article revealed that property owners hosting ATMs, especially in Malls, Convention Centers, etc., are demanding and getting 20-50% of the ATM fees as commission for allowing the ATMs to be sited on their property. Look for "foreign ATM" fees to quickly rise over the next few years as banks bid higher commissions to malls and other property owners. The basic principle at work here is that the payphone operators, private cable companies, and now ATM owners, have realized that their real customers are not the people who pay for their services, it's the people who own the property. That's who they want and need to please, not the users who pay for the services. Mike, I'm glad I have a cell phone and bank at a credit union :) ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 23:42:03 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote: > Turns out new nanp 646 for New York City is an exchange in immediately > adjacent 201's 646 exchange in Hackensack NJ. I thought the phone > system wants to avoid using an area code number that is the same as an > exchange in the new area code or in immediately adjacent area codes. > Of course, maybe no number exists like that in the New York City area. > My brother works for the county government of Bergen County, and > almost all their office lines are in exchange 646. He wonders how > many wrong numbers they're gonna get from people forgetting the > leading "1" when dialing New York's new 646 area code. Also means we > can't have 1 + 7D dialing for same area code toll calls. You haven't had 1 + 7D for same area code toll calls anywhere in North America since January 1, 1995. It's absolutely prohibited. How many of these exchanges exist in 201? 228 240 242 246 248 250 253 254 264 268 281 284 320 330 334 336 340 345 352 360 423 425 435 440 441 443 473 520 530 540 541 561 562 573 580 626 630 649 650 660 664 670 671 724 732 734 740 757 758 760 765 767 770 773 781 785 787 830 847 850 860 864 867 868 869 870 876 920 931 937 940 941 954 956 970 972 973 978 The existence of ANY ONE of those exchanges makes 1 + 7D impossible, and the list is growing almost every month. Also, you're very unlikely to have any one forgetting to dial the "1+" to area code 646, since it will be required on EVERY call into that area code. In any case, the only problem would be with callers in 201 dialing 646-nxx-xxxx, and they would quite likely realize as soon as the phone began to ring before they finished dialing that something was wrong. On the more general question of avoiding assigning an area code numeric that exists as an exchange code in an adjacent area, that's just not possible in New York City. The adjacent area codes are just too full. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 13:13:27 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote: > Turns out new nanp 646 for New York City is an exchange in immediately > adjacent 201's 646 exchange in Hackensack NJ. I thought the phone > system wants to avoid using an area code number that is the same as an > exchange in the new area code or in immediately adjacent area codes. But that only matters if *local* calls cross that NPA boundary and can be dialed without a leading "1" (i.e., as ten digits, or even as just seven digits). I don't think that NY City or northern New Jersey have any inter-NPA local calls dialable with ten or seven digits. And anyway, is Hackensack-NYC (or vice versa) even a local call? > Of course, maybe no number exists like that in the New York City area. > My brother works for the county government of Bergen County, and > almost all their office lines are in exchange 646. He wonders how > many wrong numbers they're gonna get from people forgetting the > leading "1" when dialing New York's new 646 area code. Also means we > can't have 1 + 7D dialing for same area code toll calls. Um, 'scuse me, but are you claiming that your area still allows 1+7D for intra-NPA toll calls? This dialing plan was supposed to have been eradicated from the NANP almost three years ago (when NNX-style NPAs were introduced), in favor of either 7D or 1+10D dialing. New Jersey apparently accepts both of those forms for any intra-NPA calls (long distance or local). Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: walker@cx60550-a.omhaw1.ne.home.com (Art Walker) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: 30 Nov 1997 20:35:17 GMT Organization: OneSource Technologies - Omaha, NE Reply-To: walker@phantom.onesourcetech.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course if most television programming > was sent to a bit bucket somewhere, then we could free up a big chunk > of the cable, to say nothing of freeing up our minds for more construc- > tive purposes. :) PAT] Not so much to a 'bit bucket', but an alternate distribution medium. Which raises a serious question: What percentage of television viewers receive broadcasts via cable or direct-broadcast satellite compared to 'over-the-air'? If the majority of viewers get their feed via cable, will we see television networks deciding that, rather than spending money for new digital broadcast facilities, it would be cheaper to subsidize 'migrating' the remaining viewers over to cable or DBS? (Especially if it would allow the networks to bypass local affiliates and get a new revenue stream in the process.) Art Walker | Internet: Art.Walker@onesourcetech.com Network Analyst | Snail Mail: 5020 Leavenworth St. OneSource Technologies | Omaha, NE 68106 (402) 575-3400 F:(402) 575-2011 | ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 16:02:03 -0500 Organization: Bell Solutions Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca Art Walker wrote: > Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just require all television > programming to go direct to cable or direct-broadcast satellite? And are you going to legislate that cable companies are required to provide a FREE service with channels that the person could previously receive over the air? Or do you intend to provide DSS "pizza dishes" to every dwelling with a similar free service. Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 ------------------------------ From: nospam.tonypo@nospam.ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Digital TV Towers Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:25:09 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool In article , walker@cx60550- a.omhaw1.ne.home.com spews forth... > Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just require all television > programming to go direct to cable or direct-broadcast satellite? As a radio amateur, it sure would be nice to open up some more spectrum and protect that which we already have. But there's one major problem with your proposal. Everyone would have to subscribe via a cable system or satellite operator. At that point I'd demand commercial free if I have to pay for what should have gone over the airwaves. > Then we could free up a big chunk of spectrum for far more constructive > purposes. I'm curious about what constructive purposes you have in mind. Right now I think there's far too much junk out there. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course if most television programming > was sent to a bit bucket somewhere, then we could free up a big chunk > of the cable, to say nothing of freeing up our minds for more construc- > tive purposes. :) PAT] That's an understatement if I've ever seen one. Tony ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: Intranet Security Date: 1 Dec 1997 15:14:38 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Felix Leung (felixleung@technologist.com) wrote: > However, I am confused on the first one; what is standard port and > what is it for? If selecting non-standard ports has the security > functions, why not everybody using different port number instead of > using standard port 80? By convention, certain ports are used for certain purposes ... for example, sendmail usually listens on port 25, telnet to login is port 23, time server is port 13 (try "telnet willy.cs.mcgill.ca" 13 to get local Montreal time, for example), and so on. So, most hackers will try the default ports. By using a non-standard port, you're unlikely to have a hacker find it. Of course, that will mean having to reconfigure all your local software from the defaults, but it does provide a degree of security through obscurity. Louis ------------------------------ From: Eric Ewanco Subject: Re: Intranet Security Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 13:55:49 -0500 Organization: 3Com Felix Leung wrote: > I read a book and it mentions some technique that for keeping out some > people to accessing the Intranet, the techniques are included: > 1)Using non-standard ports. The standard port is 80. Using a different > port will make it harder to find. > 2) Using hard to guess names. Most companies use WWW for the Web server > machine name. Using something different can make it harder to find. > 3) Hiding your server's name. This can be done by not listing it in the > DNS tables for your site, and not using it to browse the Web, send > e-mail, or post to Usenet. > However, I am confused on the first one; what is standard port and > what is it for? If selecting non-standard ports has the security > functions, why not everybody using different port number instead of > using standard port 80? The purpose of using the well-known (or standard) port number 80 is so that when you want people to find a service, they can easily find it. Without a well-known port number, the port number would have to be included in the web address, which would make it harder to remember. The reason why everyone doesn't use a different port number is because first of all, not everyone wants to hide their servers (most want the general public to easily find their servers), and those that do want to protect their servers, use a much more reliable means called "firewalls". The techniques you listed rely on the concept of security through obscurity; i.e., the less obvious you make something, the harder it will be for people to access it without being told. This is not an effective means of security. It's a bit like protecting your valuables by burying them in a hidden location instead of locking them up. These techniques will work if you are lazy, or don't have a budget, and don't have something really valuable to protect. One problem with these techniques is that all of them can be breached by a sufficiently clever or industrious hacker; another is that once you tell someone the secret of accessing it, you cannot revoke their access, nor can you prevent them from betraying that information to a third party. The best way to protect your intranet is to invest in a firewall. In fact most routers have firewall features built in. A firewall protects your network by allowing internal users to connect outside, but prohibits outside machines from connecting inside. It does this by overseeing every incoming connection, like an eletronic security guard. Or think of a building with with a latching, one-way exit door (i.e. without handles on the outside): occupants can exit through the door, but no one on the outside can successfully enter, because there is no means from the outside of opening the door (ignore the possibility that someone can slip in as someone exits). > For the second one, does the author suggest that I should use > www.very_private_name.com insteal of using www.microsoft.com? No, he's suggesting you use a machine name like obfuscated-name. microsoft.com instead of www.microsoft.com. Again, security through obscurity. > For the third one, where is the place for keeping the DNS tables? And > will someone know the existence of Intranet when browsing the Web, etc? The "DNS tables" refer to your name server. In order to connect your network to the Internet you must have your domain name served by a name server, either one you run or one you pay your ISP to run on your behalf. If you have a UNIX system, or some other way of doing a WHOIS lookup, if you type whois 'dom domain-name.com' where domain-name.com is the domain of interest, it will tell you what machines serve as its domain servers (name servers). As to your second question, "intranet" is an abstraction. It basically refers to the IP network on the customer's side of their Internet connection. You may assume that any customer connected directly to the Internet with more than one machine has an intranet. Whether there's anything interesting (i.e. worth hacking) on it is another question. In any case, it's fairly trivial to determine if a site is a good candidate for having an intranet. All you have to do is poke around the public Internet records and see which machines are listed as mail and DNS servers. Or you can start doing translations on adjacent IP addresses and see if there are other machines in the same domain. ------------------------------ From: chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) Subject: Re: Intranet Security Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 22:24:43 GMT Organization: WWWHHS Reply-To: chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) On Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:11:47 -0600, Felix Leung wrote: > I read a book and it mentions some technique that for keeping out some > people to accessing the Intranet, the techniques are included: > 1)Using non-standard ports. The standard port is 80. Using a different > port will make it harder to find. > 2) Using hard to guess names. Most companies use WWW for the Web server > machine name. Using something different can make it harder to find. > 3) Hiding your server's name. This can be done by not listing it in the > DNS tables for your site, and not using it to browse the Web, send > e-mail, or post to Usenet. Note that this seems to be in regards to keeping a publicly accessible _web_ server from being used much. These are all things that need to be done by the network administrator. No one else can do them. > However, I am confused on the first one; what is standard port and > what is it for? If you type www.microsoft.com into your web browser, it gives back to you whatever is on port 80 (the standard) port, on the maching named www, at microsoft. If you type www.microsoft.com:79, it will give you whatever's on port 79, which is most likely a finger daemon that will confuse your web browser (so don't try it). Since there are tens of thousands of ports, picking one other than 80 for a web server makes it secure. > If selecting non-standard ports has the security > functions, why not everybody using different port number instead of > using standard port 80? Because if you want people to find a server, putting the extra port number on the end (because it is not the standard) is confusing. It's like a password -- if you don't change it, everyone knows it is 80, but if you do, they have to go through all of them one at a time to find it (of course, a computer can do this very quickly, so it's not a very good method of security). > For the second one, does the author suggest that I should use > www.very_private_name.com insteal of using www.microsoft.com? No, he means that if Microsoft had a web site that they only wanted their employees to see and no one else, they could name it 84729475271.microsoft.com instead of www.microsoft.com. Then no one would be able to reach it because they wouldn't know the name of the machine (unless someone told them, or they saw it somewhere else, which leads to #3) ... > For the third one, where is the place for keeping the DNS tables? And > will someone know the existence of Intranet when browsing the Web, etc? It's no good making a hard-to-guess name and location if you go around broadcasting it to people by using it for other stuff. Part 3 just explains this in more detail. The trouble with all of these things is that they just make your system obscure, or hard to find. They actually make it impossible for an outside person to access your web server, just unlikely and difficult. For things like DNS you need to contact your system administrator. Try sending email to root@whatever.com, admin@whatever.com, or sysop@whatever.com. Jeff Vinocur chip76@ix.netcom.com http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3768/ ------------------------------ From: mike.federchuk@merisel.com (Mike Federchuk) Subject: Re: Competition Heats Up in Canada For PCS Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 12:56:16 GMT Organization: Merisel Canada Inc. In article , "[non-spam]jfmezei"@ videotron.ca wrote: > What I find interesting is that ATT/CANTEL stuck to its old > costly contracts at first, but has now had to backtrack to slowly > match FIDO's rates. Can we assume that ATT/CANTEL lost a lot of > market share because of this and have now been forced to take FIDO > seriously? I have no direct evidence, but offer the following > speculation. FIDO/Microcell is offering support for the Nokia 9000i > GSM phone. AT&T Canada cannot. For those of you that haven't seen one, the 9000i is part phone, part personal digital assistant, part web-browser. It was previewed in the movie, "The Saint". The Nokia 9000i would let me replace my cell phone, pager and PC notebook with one, compact device. I suspect that quite a few IS managers, field support managers and disaster recovery co-ordinators are evaluating this new phone. There are some very good reasons to switch. Seemsless remote access to Inter/intra-nets is just one. Besides, the 9000i is just _WAY_ too cool! :) My AT&T rep says that their network will not support Canada-wide GSM until December of 1998. A year is too long to wait. We are considering chaning out 20-30 analog phones for the new 9000i. AT&T will have to be _very_ price competitive to have us stay. Better products from Fido and better pricing may be what is driving AT&T to change their pricing structure. Just a thought, Mike ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #339 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 4 09:32:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA06047; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:32:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:32:45 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712041432.JAA06047@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #340 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Dec 97 09:31:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 340 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Adam H. Kerman) Latest FCC Regs: Cellular Phones Must Handle 911 Calls (Danny Burstein) Cellular Phones to Cease Blocking 911 Calls (Lee Winson) Book Review: "Looking into Intranets & the Internet" by Rosen (Rob Slade) Nortel to Deploy "Internet Call Waiting" (Monty Solomon) Bell Atlantic/NYPSC - Strange Bedfellows (John Stahl) Listing of npa/nxx Codes Wanted (Larry Dalton) CEME '98 Announcement (Soon Y. Choi) Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 (Greg Monti) Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 (L. Finch) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: 2 Dec 1997 12:50:09 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Linc Madison wrote: > No, companies DO NOT compete for my payphone business. They compete for > access to the premises they want. That's quite different. In a great > many situations, it is not possible to "shop around" because the payphones > are single-sourced. > No, a less expensive payphone is not likely to be around the corner if > you are in an airport terminal, in a train or bus station, on the > campus of a university, or in an office building. There are just far > too many situations where there is no competition whatsoever. > It is also categorically NOT in the PSP's interests to meet the needs > of the caller. It is in the PSP's interests to set their rates as > high as they can, in order to compensate the owner of the premises. > The PSP has very little interest in the needs or desires of the end user. I agree with you. Let me take a controversial position here (you knew I would, didn't you?): I see nothing wrong with property owners attempting to maximize the revenues they get from COCOTs. I see nothing wrong with property owners screwing potential users of these phones. A property owner SHOULD be in the business of attempting to earn the highest posssible revenues from his site. What is morally wrong is that our society tends to subsidize inefficient land users. If the property owner annoys too many people with his COCOT policies, his revenues from other uses of his site will decrease. Let the marketplace prove him wrong. (Before anyone blasts me for allowing public facilities, such as airport terminals, set COCOT policies with impugnity, let me remind you that I think ANY landowner, particularly the government, should pay site value taxes.) For all intents and purposes, a landowner has a monopoly on the use of that site. He doesn't have to allow just anyone access to his site, or rent space to anyone, as long as he complies with applicable civil rights laws. He is under no obligation to make life easier for anyone who might need to use a payphone. As a consumer, I can influence those policies. But, the person to complain to is not the FCC, the COCOT operator, or your long distance carrier. Complain to the site manager. I was in a restaurant the other day. The food was decent, it's convenient to me. I attempted to interrogate my answering machine, but the pay phone refused to generate DTMF after the call was placed. I lost 35 cents. I explained to the restaurant manager that I didn't approve of his business practices, and would never return. I would grow old waiting for the FCC to crack down on him, when I can more easily and effectively take matter into my own hands. > The long distance companies aren't the problem. The FCC is the > problem. The FCC set an exorbitant "default" rate for these calls. > There's just no excuse for this gross malfeasance. The FCC is not at fault; Congress is. Any compensation rate set by regulators is fundamentally unfair. It is impossible to know what the marginal costs are to the PSP without examining the situation on a case-by-case basis. Is there a bank of pay phones? Then, numerous toll-free calls will impose a small opportunity cost. Is there only a single phone? Then, a few toll-free calls could result in a higher potential revenue loss. In my view, it is far more serious that pay phones get the compensation despite having to establish that their phones will not block calls routed via the IXC of the customer's choice, using any established dialling method (950-XXXX, 10(10)XXX-0+). On many COCOT's, it is impossible to reach the LEC operator or directory assistance bureau. The providers don't have to prove that their phones can place calls to any toll-free number, accept callbacks, display the telephone's number, or the company that operates the phone. The payphone providers don't even have to establish that the phones are capable of providing a clear connection. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:13:00 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: Latest FCC Regs: Cellular Phones Must Handle 911 Calls Nothing yet on the FCC web site, so here's an AP story. The reporter seems to have mangled some details, but it looks like the FCC is finally pushing through the 911 mandate. (oh, and the "FTC" in the headline is the way it was written...) FTC recommends guaranteed status emergency cellular calls By JEANNINE AVERSA The Associated Press 12/01/97 6:40 PM Eastern WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cellular phone users will be guaranteed that emergency 911 calls will be completed, just as calls made from regular phones are, under action taken by federal regulators Monday. The Federal Communications Commission's action clears the way for key parts of rules adopted in June 1996 to go into effect. The FCC had delayed enforcement of the rules to address industry concerns. Minor changes were made to the rules, which are to take effect in about a week, an FCC spokeswoman said. "When it comes to helping people in emergency situations, we have an obligation to do all that we can to make sure that there are no impediments to their receiving help," said FCC Chairman Bill Kennard. Millions of calls to 911 are made over cellular phones. The FCC's rules would ensure that 911 calls be completed when a cellular customer "roams" into areas in which his or her company does not have an agreement with the local cellular provider to carry the call. For years, those calls typically were not completed. But the FCC now says that the situation is improving and that many cellular companies on their own give special treatment to connecting 911 calls. Also, people whose cellular service had lapsed could call 911 as long as the phone's "mobile identification number" had not changed, the FCC said. The identification number is generally the cellular phone number. The same would apply to cell phone owners who never subscribed to a cellular service but who have an identification number. When a cellular phone does not have a mobile identification number -- usually when a phone has not been activated -- the FCC will require cellular companies to complete emergency calls. Originally, the FCC said it would let local or state governments that run 911 dispatch centers decide whether to require cellular companies to complete these calls. The FCC rules also require cellular companies to upgrade their networks with technology to locate a 911 caller. Unlike 911 calls made from regular phones, the location of a cell phone caller is not automatically sent to emergency dispatchers. Knowing the caller's location is essential for a prompt response, public safety groups say. The FCC will require cellular companies beginning Oct. 1, 2001, to upgrade their networks with technology that tells 911 dispatchers the location of an emergency caller to within a radius of about 125 yards. In the meantime, the FCC is requiring cellular companies as of April 1, 1998, to give 911 dispatchers the capability to call back the person making an emergency call. When a New Jersey commuter train crashed several years ago, some passengers whipped out their cellular phones and called 911, but because they didn't know where the train was, the communications were of little help to rescuers. When people call 911 from regular phones, 911 dispatchers automatically get the number of the caller because it travels with the call over the telephone wire. The phone numbers are instantly matched with addresses on a data base. With cellular phones, the numbers are not linked to a location. _________________________________________________________________ Please send any questions or comments to newsflash@nj..com. Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Cellular Phones to Cease Blocking 911 Calls Date: 2 Dec 1997 23:01:06 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS A brief article appeared in {USA Today} (Tue 12/2/97) saying that the FCC will issue regulations requiring cellular carriers to not block 911 calls from cell phones of competiting companies, and to improve the service quality of 911 responsiveness to wireless customers. For example, the caller's telephone number and approximate location is to be passed to the 911 center. Given the complexity of this issue, it will require close watching and interpretation to laymen's terms. Whether this will include phones not registered to _any_ carrier was not explained. Another issue is what happens if you're near a state border and get a 911 center in a different state -- how will you get transferred to the right location? (Living and working near the Penna-NJ border my cell calls are often shown originating in the state opposite of where I actually am.) ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:09:46 +0000 Subject: "Looking into Intranets & the Internet" by Rosen Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKLIIATI.RVW 970803 "Looking into Intranets & the Internet", Anita Rosen, 1997, 0-8144-7948-0, U$27.95 %A Anita Rosen acrosen@best.com %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1997 %G 0-8144-7948-0 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$27.95 +1-800-565-5758 fax: 905-430-5020 louisea@McGrawHill.ca %P 199 %T "Looking into Intranets & the Internet" Yet another "business on the Internet" book that recycles business advice and doesn't understand the Internet. Since the subtitle makes it clear that this book is for managers, I will accept that a certain level of technical detail is being abandoned. That being the case, I am at a loss to explain the presence of a table comparing ISO, TCP/IP, DECnet, and other network stack layers. There are also lists of cabling media and speeds, as well as some really bizarre "explanations" of how Internet technologies work. What we don't find are clear overviews of TCP/IP protocols and technologies, or any compelling case for their use. Internet applications are pushed because they exist (true), they are cheap (not, perhaps, the best reason in the world), and they are "user-friendly" (a highly questionable assertion). After three chapters outlining the foregoing, we get down to business. The reader is told to create a business case, design the net, develop the application, market the application, and manage the application. In true business literature fashion, the "how" of all of this is left as an exercise to the reader. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKLIIATI.RVW 970803 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 00:32:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nortel to Deploy "Internet Call Waiting" Nortel to Deploy "Internet Call Waiting" [December 2] Nortel (Northern Telecom) introduced today Internet Call Waiting, a service that enables resident telephone users to receive incoming phone calls while they're connected to the Internet. The service, to be available through telephone companies or Internet Service Providers (ISPs), alerts online users of an incoming phone call via a pop-up message that's displayed on the users' computer screens. The message notifies users of the call as well as providing the name and number of the caller (in areas where caller-ID services are available). Users can then choose to receive the call by clicking on an icon. The Internet connection is then terminated and the call is put through to the recipient. Users can also opt to have the call routed to voice mail or another phone number, have a message played to the caller, or simply ignore the call. Nortel plans on offering an additional option in the future, in which users can choose to accept the call using Voice Over IP technology, thereby eliminating the need to terminate the Internet connection. Internet Call Waiting is activated automatically as soon as the user connects to his or her ISP and opens a Web browser. Nortel reports that the service will begin rolling out through two ISPs in Canada by the end of 1997. ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) Subject: Bell Atlantic/NYPSC - Strange Bedfellows Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:14:42 +0000 The following info is part of the formal announcement regarding a new AC for New York City. The interesting point is the request the NYPSC is making to the FCC for exemption of the current federal rules (last paragraph) as they indicate doing so will help new CLEC's to compete in NYC: "The New York Public Service Commission has adopted an overlay plan to relieve phone number exhaustion in the (NYC) 212 area code for Manhattan, and said it will use overlays to provide code relief in the other four boroughs of New York City when they run out of phone numbers in 1999. The new 646 code for Manhattan is to go into effect 4/1/98. The PSC also ordered implementation of "first-come, first-served" number pooling and permanent number portability in Manhattan by the April 1 code startup date, noting that Bell Atlantic New York has committed itself to meeting the target date. The PSC also said it will petition the FCC for an exemption from the FCC rules requiring use of 11-digit local dialing in order to equalize local competition wherever overlay codes are used. The PSC said number pooling and true number portability in New York City will eliminate the competitive disadvantages that overlays could present to new local exchange providers." John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications, Data and Internet Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 23:39:37 -0500 From: Larry Dalton Subject: List of npa/nxx Codes Wanted Where might I find a list of npa/nxx (area code, exchange, city, state) list? Thanks, Larry Dalton ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:57:29 -0500 From: Soon Y. Choi Subject: CEME '98 Announcement Conference on Electronic Marketplace and Economics February 16-17, 1998, Austin, Texas Electronic Commerce has become one of the most talked-about topics in the press, but there is still much uncertainty on how the use of computer and networking technologies will impact business organizations and processes, products and government policies in a broader context of the digital economy. Critically lacking is an integrated perspective that offers a clear picture of the technology's effects on the marketplace. CEME '98, co-sponsored by CREC and IBM's Institute for Advanced Commerce, presents a gathering of academic researchers and industry experts in electronic commerce with its unprecedented focus on the electronic marketplace and the role of economic models. Two-day sessions will examine analytic and experimental issues in production, product choice, pricing and payment systems, intermediation and consumption, and broader issues of market competition and monetary policy. The Conference will provide the first opportunity to question and analyze popular electronic commerce paradigms using economics as a unifying theme, and to survey recent developments in electronic commerce technologies in academia and industries. More information about the conference and registration is available at the CREC's website: http://cism.bus.utexas.edu (see EC News). Center for Research in Electronic Commerce, University of Texas at Austin Emails: soon@mail.utexas.edu or abw@uts.cc.utexas.edu Voice: (512) 471-8879 Fax (512) 471-0587 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 23:27:42 From: Greg Monti Subject: Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 In article , wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote: > Turns out new nanp 646 for New York City is an exchange in immediately > adjacent 201's 646 exchange in Hackensack NJ. A duplicated exchange code is even closer than that. The proposed area code for the split or overlay of 718 (also in New York City), is 347. A 718-347 exchange currently exists. If the 347 exchange happens to be located in the 718 portion of the split, it will be dialed from within 718 as 347-XXXX. To reach the new 347 code, users in 718 will dial 1-347-NXX-XXXX. From the new 347 code, the exchange will be dialed as 1-718-347-XXXX. This is perfectly legal NANP dialing. If 718/347 turns out to be an overlay, 11-digit dialing will become mandatory for all calls, so they will still be distinguishable: 1-718-347-XXXX vs. 1-347-NXX-XXXX. Also, earlier posters were correct: there is no local calling across the boundary between New York and New Jersey. In Maryland, there is a 240 exchange within 301. And the new overlay code is also 240. Since this is an overlay, 7-digit dialing is not allowed and the two are easily distinguishable: 301-240-XXXX vs. 240-NXX-XXXX. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: Larry Finch Subject: Re: New York City's New AC Also an Exchange in Neighboring 201 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:32:27 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Bob Goudreau wrote: > wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) wrote: >> Turns out new nanp 646 for New York City is an exchange in immediately >> adjacent 201's 646 exchange in Hackensack NJ. I thought the phone >> system wants to avoid using an area code number that is the same as an >> exchange in the new area code or in immediately adjacent area codes. > But that only matters if *local* calls cross that NPA boundary and > can be dialed without a leading "1" (i.e., as ten digits, or even as > just seven digits). I don't think that NY City or northern New Jersey > have any inter-NPA local calls dialable with ten or seven digits. And > anyway, is Hackensack-NYC (or vice versa) even a local call? >> Of course, maybe no number exists like that in the New York City area. >> My brother works for the county government of Bergen County, and >> almost all their office lines are in exchange 646. He wonders how >> many wrong numbers they're gonna get from people forgetting the >> leading "1" when dialing New York's new 646 area code. Also means we >> can't have 1 + 7D dialing for same area code toll calls. > Um, 'scuse me, but are you claiming that your area still allows 1+7D > for intra-NPA toll calls? This dialing plan was supposed to have been > eradicated from the NANP almost three years ago (when NNX-style NPAs > were introduced), in favor of either 7D or 1+10D dialing. New Jersey > apparently accepts both of those forms for any intra-NPA calls (long > distance or local). As I have lived in the Hackensack CO coverage area for 25 years I can answer some of these questions. 1. There are no inter-NPA calls that are dialable with 7 or 10 digits. 2. Hackensack-NYC has been an 11 digit call for at least 25 years. It is an interLATA call and is carried by an IXC (although Bell Atlantic is allowed to carry the call from the NJ side if the caller uses an access code). 3. 1+7D calls have not been supported in the Hackensack CO for at least 25 years. Larry LarryFinch@aol.com LarryFinch@worldnet.att.net larry@prolifics.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #340 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Dec 5 22:40:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA28180; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:40:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:40:39 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712060340.WAA28180@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #341 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Dec 97 22:40:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 341 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom on the Toronto Transit Commission (David Leibold) Book Review: "The Internet Strategy Handbook" by Cronin (Rob Slade) UCLA Short Course on "Evolutionary Computation" (Bill Goodin) Speech Enabled Telephone Stock Trading System (Bruce Pennypacker) Winstar Experiences Wanted (Robert L. McMillin) LCI Offers Long-distance Billing by the Second (Keith Knipschild) Radio Modem For WAN and Serial Port Communication (Kurt Miller) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 4 Dec 1997 23:44:01 EST From: David Leibold Reply-To: David Leibold Subject: Telecom on the Toronto Transit Commission A report from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) from its 18th November 1997 meeting (report #15) demonstrates the variety of telecommunications services used in a large transit system. The report (dated 23 October 1997) recommended that the TTC budget $2,519,800 for Bell Canada services in calendar year 1998. Last year the TTC approved $2 524 800 in funds to pay for these services. The TTC relies not only on Centrex services, but also lines for business, data and fax. Special services such as TimeLine and the CIS vehicle contact system also require Bell services. Other telecom activities include telephone moves and installs, changes to phone systems programming, repairs, long distance (with mention of "1-800" service). With its many locations for subway, administrative and operational facilities, the TTC concludes that Centrex is best suited for the backbone of its telecommunications system. TimeLine reads back times of upcoming buses to callers. Each bus stop is assigned a telephone number, usually on the 416-539 NXX (I don't know if any other 416-NXX is used in TimeLine service). +1 416 539 2737 is a good sample number to try for curious callers. As for subway phones, there is a "PAX" system used in the stations which is likely a subset of the TTC's entire Centrex service. Phones are located on ends of the station platforms, normally near the third rail power emergency cutoff switch. The phones can be used for emergencies or staff calls. Some other factoids from the report: * There were 3290 office and subway lines; * ... and 4055 telephone sets; * ... and 255 data lines (admin. and operations computer networking); * 11 additional data lines were budgeted in 1997-8 for new systems such as Sheppard Subway Project or Metro Police Link (costing an extra $20,500 in 1998); * 47 data lines were budgeted in 1998 for subway station "media sales" (tickets, tokens, Metropasses) - no other details were given, though this could be for credit/debit card authorisations or other accounting or staff contact functions; * TimeLine receives 9 million calls/year; a slight cost decrease is expected due to recent voice line rate reductions; * There are 155 fax lines currently; another 4 were budgeted for 1998; * The Justification statement in the report stated: "In order for the Commission to communicate effectively internally and externally, communications in the form of business, computer data, facsimile lines, and special communication services are required to maintain its current operating standard." The main TTC telecom category costs of this year's projections and next year's budget are compared: 1997 projection 1998 budget %change --------------- ----------- ------- Telephone Services $1 616 800 $1 781 300 +10.2% Data Lines 273 300 333 300 +22.0 CIS Lines (except cell) 206 100 187 600 -9.0 TimeLine 69 700 63 600 -8.8 Fax Lines 80 800 89 000 +10.1 Voice Processing Lines 24 100 65 000 +169.7 --------- --------- ------ Total 2 270 800 2 519 800 +11.0 [Voice Processing refers to the OCTEL voice mail system used by TTC. This was upgraded October 1996 with another upgrade scheduled for 1998. The expansion to the Marketing and Public Affairs department is expected in first quarter 1998 - that department is responsible for the TTC's main customer information line (416) 393.4636.] There is also a fully-automated TTC information line at (416) 393.8663 (393.TONE) designed for continuous access to general transit information. Curious long distance callers are cautioned that there is a fairly lengthy opening spiel about Metropass subscription program arrangements before the menu of options. This can be interrupted by keying in a '1' or other digit to get to one of the options. ----------------- Meanwhile in other TTC telecom-related news, Report #25 of that same 18th November meeting deals with plans for "microcell" sites that Cantel/AT&T wants to set up on two TTC sites. One would be at the Yonge/Steeles bus loop and the other would be on the Warden subway station grounds. These are needed to clear up some rough spots in the Cantel/AT&T wireless coverage. A microcell consists of a cabinet for the electronics, a steel monopole antenna, and a microwave antenna. According to blueprints in the report, these consist of a "'REL TEC' DEC70 Radio Cabinet" and a "VMP2-370A Microwave Antenna" (subject to any errors from transcribing the small and fuzzy diagram wording). The plan is for Cantel/AT&T to have a five-year lease on the sites, with option for up to three five-year renewals. The TTC expects to receive $8000 in rent the first year for the two new sites, with rents escalating to accumulate $42 473 for the first five years. Previous microcells have been installed at TTC subway stations (Queen's Park, Davisville, Eglinton West) and at the King/Parliament streetcar loop grounds. -------------------- And finally, there are signs that an official TTC web site may finally spring to life (transit services in many other places have long ago set up their websites). http://www.ttc.on.ca/ currently gives an "under construction" message, though. There are numerous unofficial webpages with Toronto transit data. Meanwhile, the Metro Toronto government, responsible for TTC operations, has some TTC service information on its website (http://www.metrotor.on.ca). David Leibold aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:32:34 +0000 Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Strategy Handbook" by Cronin Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINSTHB.RVW 970803 "The Internet Strategy Handbook", Mary J. Cronin, 1996, 0-87584-720-X, U$29.95 %A Mary J. Cronin cronin@bcvms.bc.edu %C 60 Harvard Way, Boston MA 02163 %D 1996 %G 0-87584-720-X %I Harvard Business School Press %O U$29.95 617-495-6947 smcconville@hbsp.harvard.edu %O www.hbsp.harvard.edu %P 296 %T The Internet Strategy Handbook: Lessons from the New Frontier of Business Cronin's "Doing Business on the Internet" (cf. BKDBSINT.RVW) is one of the leading texts on commercial use of the net. It contains case studies of Internet success stories, how they developed, what worked, and what didn't. It was, however, effective because of the research and editing of Cronin herself, who did not simply ignore inconvenient facts. Success, apparently, breeds contempt. This book is a collection of case studies of business uses of the net. The individual pieces, though, were written by employees of the companies involved. In many cases, by employees from Program Offices, Information Resources, Corporate Communications, Information Specialties, Business Development, and other euphemisms for flack. The results are, unfortunately, predictable. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINSTHB.RVW 970803 ------------------------------ From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Evolutionary Computation" Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:15:38 -0800 On March 4-6, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Evolutionary Computation: Principles and Applications", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Melanie Mitchell, PhD, Research Professor, Santa Fe Institute; Lawrence Davis, PhD, President, Tica Associates; and Una-May O'Reilly, PhD, Research Fellow, AI Laboratory, MIT. Each participant receives a copy of the book, " An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms", M. Mitchell (MIT Press 1996), and extensive course notes. This course introduces engineers, scientists, and other interested participants to the burgeoning field of evolutionary computation. Evolutionary computation -- genetic algorithms, evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, and genetic programming -- is a collection of computational techniques, inspired by biological evolution, to enhance optimization, design, and machine learning. Such techniques are increasingly used to great advantage in applications as diverse as aeronautical design, factory scheduling, bioengineering, electronic circuit design, telecommunications network configuration, and robotic control. Three of the leading experts in this field present the fundamentals of evolutionary computation which should enable participants to write their own evolutionary computation applications. The course includes detailed descriptions of many applications, as well as how to design genetic algorithms and other methods for problems of interest to the participants. Comparisons of genetic algorithms with other search and learning methods are discussed in the context of the example applications. The final day focuses on identifying promising areas for genetic algorithm optimization, and creating a genetic algorithm that performs well on your optimization problems. Course participants who wish to present a problem on the last day are encouraged to contact Dr. Davis (davis@tica.com; phone [617] 864-2292) prior to the course to determine its usefulness as an example. The instructors hope to use two examples to illustrate the points made on the final day. The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For a more 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: Bruce Pennypacker Subject: Speech-Enabled Telephone Stock Trading System Date: 5 Dec 1997 20:39:06 GMT Organization: Applied Language Technologies INTERVOICE AND ALTECH COMBINE TO DEVELOP E*TRADE'S SPEECH-ENABLED TELEPHONE INVESTING SYSTEM - E*TRADE Customers Now Need Only Voice and Telephone to Access Services - DALLAS, December 4, 1997-- Dallas-based InterVoice, Inc. (NASDAQ:INTV), the leading global supplier of call and business process automation solutions, and Boston-based Applied Language Technologies, Inc. (ALTech), the leading provider of speech-activated solutions for transactional telephony applications, announced today the use of their combined technologies to develop and deploy E*TRADE Group Inc.'s (NASDAQ:EGRP) speech-enabled TELE*MASTER investing system. E*TRADE Group Inc., a leading branded provider of online investing services, has completed the nationwide rollout of the industry's first fully speech-enabled, natural language investing services system that goes beyond basic securities quotes to empower customers to place stock orders, get quotes, check account balances and positions and access portfolio information 24 hours a day, seven days a week from any telephone anywhere. By combining state-of-the-art technologies from InterVoice and ALTech, the E*TRADE system understands over 50,000 words, allows callers to interrupt the system's prompts at any time and enables callers to interact using speech or touch tone. The system is sophisticated enough to understand complex voice commands such as "buy 1,350 shares at the market price." "While transaction-based applications have become ubiquitous through the use of IVR, and speech recognition-based applications are slowly being deployed, they have typically been confined to digit recognition or command and control applications," said Nancy Jamison, principal with San Jose, CA-based Dataquest. "E*TRADE's system is the first real speech-enabled natural language application that facilitates transactions that we have seen on this scale for the common user. From an industry perspective, the tight bundling of ALTech's SpeechWorks with InterVoice's InVision graphical application development tool represents a quantum leap forward in terms of the time to market for this type of application." "The proprietary system we have developed with our technology partners, InterVoice, Inc. and Applied Languages Technologies, is simply amazing in its capability to understand exactly what customers are saying. For example, it even knows that "Big Blue" is International Business Machines and will provide the information or place orders as requested," said Christos M. Cotsakos, president and chief operating officer of E*TRADE Group, Inc. "We are proud, and our customers seem quite pleased, that E*TRADE is the first online investing service to offer its customers a fully speech-enabled telephone investing system. The unsolicited feedback we have had from customers is enthusiastic, appreciative and supportive of our efforts to add yet another option for the empowered investor. Their satisfaction is obvious with the number of customers accessing the system and volume of orders increasing daily," he added. Over the past year, E*TRADE purchased and deployed a number of InterVoice systems. At the same time, ALTech integrated its flagship speech recognition engine, SpeechWorks, with InterVoice's OneVoice platform, InterSoft runtime software, and InVision, InterVoice's graphical user interface (GUI)-based application and call flow development environment. "Its been our belief that Internet-enabled and voice-enabled IVR and call center applications will propel the industry's next growth phase," said Mike Barker, InterVoice's president and chief operating officer. "Though we've offered fully integrated speech recognition as an option to our OneVoice Platform for almost ten years, the large E*TRADE implementation, which showcases our most advanced technologies, is the first of what we expect to be many mainstream voice-enabled services." "The E*TRADE system has raised the bar for automated securities systems by making investing possible anytime, anywhere," said Stuart Patterson, president, ALTech. "Our technologies enable TELE*MASTER callers to place orders not just get quotes without talking to a broker. While other companies have talked about speech-enabling business transactions, E*TRADE, InterVoice and ALTech have done it." Applied Language Technologies, Inc. (ALTech) is a leader in the development and implementation of advanced speech recognition and voice processing solutions for the telephony and call center markets. ALTech's SpeechWorks software provides a comprehensive set of features for automating telephone-based transactions and services in industries such as financial services, travel, and telecommunications. ALTech is a privately held corporation based in Boston, Massachusetts. Additional information is available on the Internet at http://www.altech.com. InterVoice, Inc. (NASDAQ:INTV) is the leading global supplier of automated call processing solutions, with an installed base of over 9,100 systems in 49 countries. InterVoice systems are used in inbound and outbound call centers across virtually all industry sectors to increase revenues and customer service levels, while lowering associated costs. With capacities ranging from six to thousands of ports, InterVoice systems integrate with virtually any telephone and IS environment, and are available in both customer premise equipment (CPE) and telco-compliant configurations. InterVoice, an ISO 9001 certified company, is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, USA and has representative offices in Canada, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific. Company information and interactive product demonstrations are available on the World Wide Web at http://www.intervoice.com. --------------- FYI, you can try out part of the stock trading system by calling (888) SAY-DEMO (729-3366) and trying our free stock quote line. Just say the name or ticker symbol of any company listed on any of the US exchanges and you'll get a current quote (20 minutes delayed). We have a second demo, called the Music Mall that you can also call. Full instructions for that one are at http://www.altech.com/demos . Bruce Pennypacker Applied Language Technologies Remove .noagis from my address to reply 695 Atlantic Ave. http://www.altech.com Boston, MA 02111 ------------------------------ From: Robert L. McMillin Subject: Winstar Experiences Wanted Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 09:53:11 -0800 Organization: Syseca, Inc. I would like to hear from anyone currently using Winstar for CLEC services. I am considering recommending them for our company's short-haul communications needs. They have a pretty good story: using point-to-point millimeter wave (38 GHz) or fiber depending on location, they bypass the LECs and their existing, expensive infrastructure to provide T1 and T3 services. This looks like the only real way that competitive LEC service will ever get off the ground, but I still have questions. Is it reliable? Are their directory assistance operators useful? If (heaven forbid) you have a failure, how is it to deal with their technicians? Do they keep their NPA database updated so that routing calls to the one-a-week split NPAs don't fail? What about billing? And so on. Horror stories and happy endings alike are welcome. Robert L. McMillin | Not the voice of Syseca, Inc. | rlm@syseca-us.com Personal: rlm@helen.surfcty.com | rlm@netcom.com Put 'rabbit' in your Subject: or my spam-schnauzer will eat your message. ------------------------------ From: Keith Knipschild Subject: LCI Offers Long-distance Billing by the Second Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:39:31 -0500 LCI International Inc. says it is the first major long-distance company to bill customers for the exact length of a long-distance phone call -- right down to the second. The company said that, according to TeleChoice Inc., a telecom consulting firm, charging by the second can save consumers an average of 10.7 percent over the practice of full-minute rounding for long-distance calls. "We don't charge customers for time they don't use on the phone by rounding their calls up to the next full minute, like most other carriers do," John Taylor, senior vice president of LCI's consumer business unit, said Wednesday. According to Taylor, customers will be charged in single-second increments, after an initial 60 seconds, for all "LCI Difference" calling services, including state-to-state, international, in-state, local toll, residential 800 and calling card calls. A spokeswoman for the company, which is based in McLean, Va., said LCI has been testing exact billing since the end of the summer over its American Communications Network ( ACN ) Enjoy, Keith <=================================================> Keith@unix.asb.com == SLIP-PPP Internet Address Http://www.asb.com/usr/keith == WWW Page URL Address Http://www.asb.com/usr/keith/video == New Release Video Dates N2NJS@amsat.org == HAM Radio AMSAT EMail N2NJS@KC2FD.NY.USA.NA == Ham Radio AX25 Packet <=================================================> ------------------------------ From: millerk@akamail.com (Kurt Miller) Subject: Radio Modem For WAN and Serial Port Communication Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:02:31 +0700 Organization: KJM I am looking for two different products for two different applications: 1. I am looking for a radio link product that can be used to extend a terminal port (low speed serial either 9600 or 19.2K) to a remote location about two miles away. I need the capability of one or several terminal ports. These will be connected to a unix box (probably Sun Ultra) at one end and simple terminals at the other. 2. I am looking for a low to medium speed radio link for a WAN application. I am looking at speeds of 19.2K or slightly faster. I need something that is relatively affordable on a per/port basis and operates in either S-band or L-band. Does anyone have recomendations as to products they have used in the past that are reliable / easy to set up? Please send replys via e-mail to millerk@dnet.net.id Thanks in advance, Kurt Miller millerk@dnet.net.id ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #341 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Dec 7 09:20:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA19997; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 09:20:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 09:20:57 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712071420.JAA19997@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #342 TELECOM Digest Sun, 7 Dec 97 09:20:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 342 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson First Slamming, Now Cramming (Tad Cook) Slamming in Oklahoma (Tad Cook) In Search of Streaming Audio ISPs (Mark Weiss) MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California (Anthony Argyriou) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Linc Madison) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Adam Kerman) AT&T Call Organizer (Tad Cook) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: First Slamming, Now Cramming Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:04:11 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) New Long-Distance Ripoff Plagues Phone Customers By David Hayes, The Kansas City Star, Mo. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 6--Just when regulators thought they had a handle on all the ways that some long-distance telephone companies swindle consumers, a new ripoff has popped up. The latest billing scam, known as cramming, is being used to add charges to telephone bills for services that customers may not receive, according to the Federal Communications Commission and the National Consumers League. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. officials said they were getting an increasing number of calls from consumers who say they are being billed for products and services they never ordered and often never received. It's being called "cramming" because the extra charges are being crammed onto long-distance bills. Consumers are being billed for such services as prepaid calling cards, personal toll-free phone numbers, paging service and voice mail, Southwestern Bell officials said. Often the charges are hidden under innocuous names, such as "enhanced services," that make the charges difficult for customers to detect and decipher. Cramming is only one telephone billing problem facing consumers. Complaints about slamming also are on the rise. Slamming is a technique some long-distance companies use to switch a consumer from one long-distance company to another without the consumer's approval. Slamming complaints have increased this year by 44 percent in Kansas and 34 percent in Missouri, Southwestern Bell said. The problem is worse in other states. In Texas, for instance, complaints are up 136 percent this year. "Unfortunately, without continuing education of consumers and strengthened rules by state and national lawmakers, slamming and cramming will continue to grow as competition increases in the telecommunications industry," said Cliff Eason, president of Southwestern Bell Telephone. Southwestern Bell officials said they would handle more than 550,000 fraudulent billing complaints in the company's five-state service area this year. The company handled 378,000 customer complaints last year. The telephone company, based in St. Louis, bills customers on behalf of long-distance companies and has a responsibility to help resolve complaints. Cramming and slamming are growing problems across the United States, said Linda Golodner, president of the National Consumers League. A Louis Harris and Associates poll conducted in September in four cities -- Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit and Grand Rapids, Mich. -- found that slamming was the No. 1 consumer fraud complaint. About 30 percent of those polled said either they, or someone they knew, had been slammed. Golodner said she was concerned that some long-distance companies were turning to cramming because of the increased public awareness about slamming. "We're hearing from people about all kinds of mysterious phone charges suddenly popping up on bills," Golodner said. "It's not a lot of money and may not be noticed by the consumer at first, but charges can add up." Golodner said the charges can range from $4.95 to $30 a month. ------------------------------ Subject: Slamming in Oklahoma Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:11:54 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Phone Service `Slamming' Not on Hold in Oklahoma By D.R. Stewart, Tulsa World, Okla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 5--Customer complaints about unauthorized switching of long-distance and local telephone service and billing for services not authorized have not abated, say state regulators and telephone company executives. It fact, the abuses could increase in the future, according to the officials. Although the problem of unauthorized billing apparently originated with long-distance service providers, it has spilled over into local telephone service and optional service packages, said a spokesman for Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. In October, Southwestern Bell resolved nearly 57,000 long-distance "slamming" disputes in the company's five-state service area, a slight increase compared with September, said company spokesman Jennifer Merritt. Slamming is the unauthorized changing of a customer's telecommunications provider. "We're not interested in pointing fingers; we're more interested in helping customers protect themselves," Merritt said. "Often, we're competing with these companies, and we can't compete and regulate them at the same time." Industry officials said the chief culprits in the slamming controversy are resellers of long distance service. These small companies buy bulk air time from larger carriers, such as Southwestern Bell, AT&T, MCI and Sprint, and resell it, often at higher rates. In September, Southwestern Bell proposed that the Federal Communications Commission adopt a three-part penalty system that would be enforced whenever more than two percent of a carrier's change-orders for new customers are disputed in a given month. To date, neither the FCC nor the Oklahoma Corporation Commission have adopted Southwestern Bell's proposal. Oklahoma Corporation Commission spokesman Pat Petrie said the commission has heard plenty of "horror stories" about slamming and a new scam, known as "cramming," which is a related problem involving unauthorized billing for products and services not ordered by the customer. "The commission has said it hoped the phone companies would clean up their own act without the commission becoming more involved," Petrie said. "So far, we have adopted no rules or issued any orders." But that could change, said commission chairman Ed Apple. Apple said he recently noticed, ten months after he authorized a long-distance carrier to switch his service from another company, that he was still being billed for long-distance service from his original provider. "Company A started billing me $3 a month for the privilege of not using their long-distance service," Apple said. "I switched long-distance service in November 1996, and I paid $3 a month for Company A's line for ten months." Apple said the dispute eventually was resolved by Company A giving him a refund for the ten months' unused service, but he said it makes him wonder if that would be the treatment afforded an ordinary citizen. "I want every citizen of Oklahoma to have their (telecommunications) problems rectified without resorting to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission," Apple said. Merritt said Southwestern Bell advises phone customers to carefully review their bill each month and question any unusual or unexplained charges. The company also cautions people to read carefully any form or contest entries to make sure they are not authorizing any changes. Cliff Eason, president and chief executive of Southwestern Bell, said in a statement that stronger rules and penalties are needed to punish the few rogue providers who give the entire industry a bad name. "Unfortunately, without continuing education of consumers and strengthened rules by state and national lawmakers, slamming and cramming will continue to grow as competition increases in the telecommunications industry," Eason said. Merritt said Southwestern Bell expects to intervene with regulatory authorities on behalf of nearly 554,000 customers whose local or long-distance service was switched without authorization in 1997. Through October, Southwestern Bell has received 41,635 long-distance slamming complaints in Oklahoma, an 88 percent increase compared with the same period last year. In Texas, the company received 316,505 complaints during the first 10 months of the year, a 136 percent increase. It received 31,937 complaints from Arkansas customers in the January-through-October period this year, an 81 percent increase. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 00:18:25 -0500 From: mweiss7401@aol.com (Mark Weiss) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: In Search of Streaming Audio ISPs Hello everyone, I seek information on service providers that offer low or no-cost streaming audio to the internet. What I wish to do is move a non-comm, non-profit radio station's operation on to the 'net. I have one service in mind, but they cater to disc jockeys for dance music, and as such, I might have to go elsewhere. In that event, I thought it would be prudent to cast my net more widely. I understand that fan out is no longer the problem it used to be, and that I can upload a stream to a provider, where they then provide the fan out to 10,000 or 100,000 streams. I'd like to hear any suggestions regarding the best way to locate a service provider who offers this streaming as a humanitarian/ arts gesture, rather than at a commercial rate. Also, if there is a newsgroup that directly topics this issue, please post the name of it for me. Thanks! Mark SPAM-Pruf http://users.aol.com/amn92/amn.htm ------------------------------ From: anthony@alphageo.com (Anthony Argyriou) Subject: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 08:44:27 GMT Organization: Alpha Geotechnical Reply-To: anthony@alphageo.com MCI Stops Flat-Fee Service 25,000 customers to lose cheap, local calling plan Jonathan Marshall, Chronicle Staff Writer MCI is telling local phone customers in California that, effective January 1, they will no longer enjoy the cheap, flat phone rates that lured many to switch from Pacific Bell. Last fall, MCI began marketing a service plan that let new customers place unlimited calls anywhere within a large region for $24.95 a month. In Northern California, the region extended from Gilroy to the Oregon border. Boasting of the plan's savings and simplicity, the company quickly signed up 25,000 customers statewide before capping the program in the spring. But last month, MCI informed those customers that they will have to accept new pricing in January. Instead of flat rates, customers will pay a basic monthly charge of $10.75 per residential line, which gives them free local calling within a 12-mile radius. Outside of that area, toll charges will apply. MCI never said its flat rate was a limited-time promotion, and some customers feel betrayed. ``I'm up to my ears in aggravation,'' said Rick Ackerman, a Mountain View financial analyst. ``I switched away from Pacific Bell to take advantage of this plan. Now MCI is abandoning it.'' MCI's promotional material promised ``an alternative to Pac Bell's complicated local calling service'' and ``unlimited local and local toll calls for one low monthly charge,'' Ackerman said. Since Ackerman had been paying Pacific Bell about $100 a month in toll calls, he jumped at MCI's offer. Before signing up, though, Ackerman interrogated MCI's sales people to make sure there were no catches or time limits. ``I asked hard questions when I signed up, thinking it was too good to be true,'' he recalled. ``I took the MCI local service knowing flat-rate calling would be a big loser for them, at least on my account.'' Brad Burns, a spokesman for MCI, conceded as much. ``The profitability hasn't been there, and for us to maintain a presence in the marketplace we had to change our pricing,'' he said. Competition for residential customers has not developed as fast as MCI originally expected, he added, so the company feels less pressure to keep rates low. Under MCI's new pricing plan, toll charges for calls outside the 12-mile radius will be 4 cents per minute during off-peak hours -- weekends, evenings after 7 p.m. and mornings before 7 a.m. During business hours, toll rates will be 10 cents a minute, no better than on some long-distance plans. The rates are still slightly better than those offered by Pacific Bell. It charges $11.25 per month for basic residential lines and its average toll rates are 12 percent higher, MCI claims. But MCI admits that some local phone calls will cost more under its new plan. Burns said some of MCI's local customers were signed up on the more traditional toll charge plan. Their rates won't change in January. (submitted by) Anthony Argyriou http://www.alphageo.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 13:38:26 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) wrote: > Let me take a controversial position here (you knew I would, didn't > you?): > I see nothing wrong with property owners attempting to maximize the > revenues they get from COCOTs. I see nothing wrong with property > owners screwing potential users of these phones. I disagree completely with your last statement. > A property owner SHOULD be in the business of attempting to earn the > highest posssible revenues from his site. What is morally wrong is > that our society tends to subsidize inefficient land users. A property owner SHOULD NOT be engaged in business practices that are predatory. Your comment about subsidies to inefficient land users is irrelevant and off-topic, as it does not relate to payphones in any way. > If the property owner annoys too many people with his COCOT policies, > his revenues from other uses of his site will decrease. Let the > marketplace prove him wrong. (Before anyone blasts me for allowing > public facilities, such as airport terminals, set COCOT policies with > impugnity, let me remind you that I think ANY landowner, particularly > the government, should pay site value taxes.) WHAT MARKETPLACE?? The "marketplace" for payphone calls is tiny and well shrouded in mystery. Further, your assumption that there will be a meaningful relationship between the site owner's COCOT policies and his revenues from other uses of the site is questionable at best. The readers of this Digest are among the few who would know or care enough to make a connection there. Furthermore, there is no way to develop a truly open marketplace for payphone calls. It cannot be done, period. Market forces only work well in an open marketplace. > As a consumer, I can influence those policies. But, the person to > complain to is not the FCC, the COCOT operator, or your long distance > carrier. Complain to the site manager. I question your claim that you can influence those policies. > I was in a restaurant the other day. The food was decent, it's > convenient to me. I attempted to interrogate my answering machine, but > the pay phone refused to generate DTMF after the call was placed. I > lost 35 cents. I explained to the restaurant manager that I didn't > approve of his business practices, and would never return. > > I would grow old waiting for the FCC to crack down on him, when I can > more easily and effectively take matter into my own hands. More easily, certainly. More effectively, I seriously doubt it. Do you REALLY think the manager cared in the least about your comment? > In my view, it is far more serious that pay phones get the > compensation despite [NOT] having to establish that their phones will not > block calls routed via the IXC of the customer's choice, using any > established dialling method (950-XXXX, 10(10)XXX-0+). On many COCOT's, > it is impossible to reach the LEC operator or directory assistance > bureau. The providers don't have to prove that their phones can place > calls to any toll-free number, accept callbacks, display the > telephone's number, or the company that operates the phone. There is no requirement that a payphone accept callbacks. There should at least be a requirement that the payphone clearly so indicate if it doesn't accept callbacks. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 16:18:53 CST From: Adam H. Kerman Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges > In article , ahk@chinet.chinet.com > (Adam H. Kerman) wrote: >>I see nothing wrong with property owners attempting to maximize the revenues >>they get from COCOTs. I see nothing wrong with property owners screwing >>potential users of these phones. > I disagree completely with your last statement. >> A property owner SHOULD be in the business of attempting to earn >> the highest posssible revenues from his site. > A property owner SHOULD NOT be engaged in business practices that are > predatory. By definition, all practices of a person who controls a site are predatory; control of a location is a monopoly. He is under no obligation to do business with just anyone as long as he violates no civil rights laws. Let's suppose the developer of a shopping center made a deal with a natural gas transporter to accept gas a wholesale prices and resell it to his retail tenants. A shop owner approaches the developer and attempts to negotiate a lease. The shop owner feels that he can get a better deal from local gas utility than from the developer. Can he demand that developer let him buy his gas from the utility? Of course not. Is it immoral? No. >> If the property owner annoys too many people with his COCOT >> policies, his revenues from other uses of his site will decrease. Let >> the marketplace prove him wrong. > WHAT MARKETPLACE? We agree that someone in control of a site has a monopoly; I am not suggesting that there is payphone rate competition. The marketplace I am speaking of is nearby locations with similar uses. > Further, your assumption that there will be a meaningful > relationship between the site owner's COCOT policies and his revenues > from other uses of the site is questionable at best. COCOT policies are a general reflection of the attitudes of the person in control of the location. It's his reputation at stake. Is the shopping center bright and attractive? Is litter dealt with promptly? Can you find employees to ask questions? Is security fair and efficient? Are the grounds kept planted? I suggest that if the shopping center develop has a broad committment to public service, and attracting customers to his shopping center who will pay more for better treatment, he'll have reasonable policies on his payphones. > Furthermore, there is no way to develop a truly open marketplace for > payphone calls. I agree. But, it's unimportant. > Market forces only work well in an open marketplace. There will never be an open marketplace with respect to a specific location. Someone controls it, and if you want to do business there, you are at his whim. Payphones are not separate and distinct from his other powers. >> As a consumer, I can influence those policies. Complain to the site >> manager. > I question your claim that you can influence those policies. >> ... the pay phone refused to generate DTMF after the call was >> placed. I lost 35 cents. I explained to the restaurant manager that I >> didn't approve of his business practices, and would never return. >> I would grow old waiting for the FCC to crack down on him, when I >> can more easily and effectively take matter into my own hands. > More easily, certainly. More effectively, I seriously doubt it. Do > you REALLY think the manager cared in the least about your comment? I was 100% effective. He gets no more of my money. I assume that the way the payphone is programmed is illegal; you are prevented from dialing anything that would enable you to route your call via your IXC. What can I expect from the government enforcement bureau? Someone at the FEC or state PUC will file my complaint. Nothing will be done. > In my view, it is far more serious that pay phones get the > compensation despite [NOT] having to establish that their phones will > not block calls routed via the IXC of the customer's choice, using any > established dialing method (950-XXXX, 10(10)XXX-0+). On many COCOT's, > it is impossible to reach the LEC operator or directory assistance > bureau. The providers don't have to prove that their phones can place > calls to any toll-free number, accept call-backs, display the > telephone's number, or the company that operates the phone. > There is no requirement that a payphone accept callbacks. I know that. If I had been paying attention at the time the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was being debated, I would have testified in favor of such. While I dispute Linc's notion of morality, it's quite another thing to COMPENSATE a payphone operator for screwing the public. ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Call Organizer Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 21:16:56 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) I ran across a neat service from AT&T called Call Organizer that is helping me and my roommates keep our toll calls separated. Whenever we dial an inter-LATA toll call, a voice comes on and says "Please enter your calling code." In advance I have submitted to AT&T a list of five-digit codes, one for myself and each of my roommates. When the bill arrives, it puts the roommates first name next to each call. AT&T allows codes of any length from two to six digits, but they must all be the same length. I am not sure if the code digits can be dialed in a continuous string with the dialed number, but when sending a fax with WinFax, I just entered a couple of commas between the dialed number and the code and it went through fine. I checked with US West to see if they could do the same thing with the same codes for our intra-LATA toll calls, and they said they could, but that it would only be four digits. So we just used the first four digits of our AT&T codes with US West. Now I have discovered that the US West service is actually optional. You are not required to dial the code as part of the call as you are with AT&T. For US West, if you wish to use the code, you must dial it as a zero-plus instead of a one-plus call. AT&T used to charge for Call Organizer, but now it is free. They apparently do not actively market or publicize the service. AT&T subscribers can sign up for the service by calling 800-566-2464. Allegedly the number is answered around the clock. Tad Cook tad@ssc.com Seattle, WA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #342 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Dec 8 21:24:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA20128; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 21:24:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 21:24:08 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712090224.VAA20128@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #343 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Dec 97 21:24:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 343 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Toll-Fraud Through Call-Forwarding Again! (ctelesca@pagesz.net) Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones (Greg Monti) Misdialing 911 From Hotels? (Eric Bohlman) RBOC Stall Tactics (Adam Gaffin) Book Review: "The McGraw-Hill Internet Training Manual" (Rob Slade) Unwanted Callers (Babu Mengelepouti) Beware Call Answering (Dan Pearl) Waste of NNX Space? (Joey Lindstrom) Telecom on the New York City Subway System? (Lee Winson) Using RealPlayer on the Web (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: * telecom-request@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: ctelesca@pagesz.net Subject: Toll-Fraud through Call-Forwarding Again! Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 15:37:18 -0500 Organization: Pagesz.net Hello again! I have posted several messages to this group over the last 18 months about some problems I was having with someone other than myself remotely forwarding my phone number to long-distance numbers without my persmission -- perhaps by hacking the PIN to the RACF service. Some readers have responded to these earlier posts, and I am re-posting the original post with the responses and my answers to them. Perhaps someone out there will be able to make some suggestions on how to find out who this fraud has been perpetrated -- other than to make the same suggestions that this respondent made. Something that an FBI agent suggested was that this could be some kind of software glitch with the software that runs the RACF feature. Can anybody tell me what specific software pakage runs RACF for BellSouth, and who wrote it? Nortel, Bellcore, etc.? The FBI agent also suggested that someone could have also hacked into telco billing records to get phone numbers. Is that possible? I wrote: > Hello again! I have posted several messages to this group over the > last 17 months or so about some problems I was having with someone > apparently hacking the PIN number to a Remote-Access to > Call-Forwarding service, remotely forwarding my phone number to > long-distance numbers without my knowledge or permission. It wasn't > until a friend of mine called me on another line to tell me that > someone other than me answered on my line that I knew something was > up. A respondent said: > I haven't seen the previous posts. It sounds to me like your PIN was > observed sometime when you used it. How would that be possible if I have taken every precaution to only use this feature when no one else was around? And when I used it on a phone with Last Number Redial, I always hung-up the phone and dialed some other number to delete my PIN (or any other useful data)? > It may be someone you know. How else would someone learn the number > of your friend? No one else (not even the friends who would have access to my RACF PIN) know my other friend's number. I'm very careful to compartment- alize information. > They are unlikely to have hacked the number from trial-and-error, What about using a computer and a modem to hack the PIN? It is only a four-character PIN, and I've been told it would only take a few hours to do that, considering that there are no anti-hacking/anti-fraud safeguards on the RACF access phone number. > therefore they either observed you using it, Once again, not likely -- I don't use the RACF number around other people, and I erase the data from LNR. > recorded it with a tap I asked the phone company to see if my phone was tapped, and they said it wasn't. Of course, they didn't have to tell me if there was a legal Court-ordered tap on the phone, or if the Teleco was monitoring my phone on their own. > or with a radio scanner, (do you use a cell phone or a cordless ?) No cell or cordless phones ever! > obtained it from a file on one of your computers All computer files are encrypted (via PGP) - besides I don't keep any telco phone data on my computer. > or went through your wallet. Don't keep this info written down in un-encrypted form in my wallet, or anywhere else for that matter! > Review the security of the PIN number itself. Did you select it or was > it given to you in an interceptable manner. PIN number was selected by the Security staff of the Teleco and sent to my PO Box via USPS snail-mail. But that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a bad apple on the telco staff. > Was it recorded anywhere? Not by me - maybe by Teleco personnel? > Who else would have access to your telephones? No convenient access by anyone other than me. My phone only has one extension in my home-office, if you don't consider the Network Interface box under my kitchen window (in a fenced-off backyard) or at the phone utility box (at the street under a streetlight). > Where have you used the number ? Could the number have been retrieved > from a telephone's 'redial' button by someone who could translate the > tones to numbers? Already thought of that; I always hang-up and enter another number, then hit LNR to make sure that the RACF PIN is erased. > Change the pin and keep a history of it's use. When it gets stolen > again, you may have a clue to the culprit. There is something like $85 million in toll-fraud through Remote-Access to Call-Forwarding in this country, largely through dialing into a PBX/Centrex system and finding out how to get an outside line. However, most of these systems have ways of detecting this fraud and preventing it. Not so with residential RACF service where there are only four-character PINs, no anti-fraud features, and teleco personnel who don't feel its worth their time to solve a problem that's so small; $85 million must be small potatoes, and they can get the customers to pay for it anyway (otherwise their phone service gets cut off). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 17:10:22 From: Greg Monti Subject: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones A brief AP wire story ran in _The New York Times_ on Wednesday, December 3, 1997. Summary: The Federal Communications Commission has ordered cellular companies to handle and complete calls to the 911 emergency number even if the customer's cellular service has lapsed. The article notes that the decision, on Monday, December 1, "clears the way for rules adopted in June 1996 to go into effect" [I don't know what those rules say]. The story notes that the Commission had delayed this rulemaking so that industry concerns could be met. The rule requires cellular carriers who do not have roaming agreements with the subscriber's home carrier to also complete 911 calls for free. My comment: I wonder if industry concerns were really addressed. As was noted previously on this newsgroup, cellular carriers worry that the users who now have $19.95 per month service "for emergencies" could potentially disconnect that service and use their disarmed cell phones to make 911 calls forever, for free. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~gmonti ------------------------------ From: Eric Bohlman Subject: Misdialing 911 From Hotels? Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 00:02:05 GMT The following appeared in an article in the December 7, 1997 edition of the _St. Petersburg[FL] Times_: [begin excerpt] Clearwater police are suspicious about the number of 911 calls that come from rooms at the Fort Harrison Hotel. Police respond to each call only to be told most of the time by Scientology security guards that the call was a mistake. Police are not allowed to check individual rooms where the calls originated. In the past 11 months, 161 calls to 911 were made from rooms in the hotel, but each time Scientology security guards said there was no emergency. Scientology officials say most of the calls are mistakes that occur when foreign visitors try to dial the international access code, 011, after dialing a 9 to get an outside line. They are working with police to resolve the problem, Fugate said. [end excerpt] Is this considered a common problem at hotels that have large numbers of non-US visitors? What percentage of 911 calls in general turn out to be the result of misdialing? Do PBX/Centrex systems for hotel applications make some attempt to detect dialing that *might* be an attempt to reach 911 and reroute it on the assumption that someone in an emergency might be misdialing out of panic? Background: the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater, FL is owned by the Church of Scientology and used primarily to provide lodging for members attending "services" that are only offered in Clearwater. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If police are that concerned, they can certainly obtain a search warrant allowing them to examine the phone switch logs and toll records, etc. I know that people here reading this who happen to be anti-Scientology may think that perhaps 'guests' in the hotel are in fact trying to call police because of some sort of unwanted situation involving the Scientology people, and that the security guards are either stopping them from calling or otherwise dealing with the situation on their own. That is one way of looking at the situation; on the other hand I see an incredible number of foreign people in Skokie (mainly from Russia and middle east areas) who -- it is true -- do not know how to operate a telephone correctly and get wrong numbers or no connection at all. How about this: the 911 person answering the call *can* keep the connection up the same way a telephone operator can do; why don't the police start holding on to those connections, ringing back, etc ... or does the switchboard release the line to the room even if the trunk is held up? And if the room extension is released but the trunk is held (by 911) what happens to the ring back? Does the hotel operator get the call? Why don't the police specifically ask to speak with the guest in question at that time? If the guest had misdialed, then redialed, surely they would still be on the phone thirty seconds later. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: RBOC Stall Tactics Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 10:46:36 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com This week's {Network World} takes a look at how RBOCs are thwarting competition in their service areas. And none is more aggressive in keeping out competitors than SBC. "SBC is an order of magnitude harder to get an interconnection agreement with than any other Bell,'' says a vice president of one competitive local exchange carrier. Earlier this year, meanwhile, Pacific Bell withdrew a proposed interconnect tariff that included terms for co-location. Why? The company had been acquired by SBC. Meanwhile, SBC has filed a federal suit to try to overturn the provisions of the telecom act that require RBOCs to open their markets before they can get into long distance. You can read the entire report, and link to our recent three-part series on how the FCC is failing in its new mission to foster competition at: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1208rboc.html If you haven't used Network World Fusion before, you'll have to register first, but it's free. Adam Gaffin Online editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:35:42 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "The McGraw-Hill Internet Training Manual" Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKMHINTM.RVW 970803 "The McGraw-Hill Internet Training Manual", Ronald L. Wagner/Eric Engelmann, 1996, 0-07-066937-6, U$32.95 %A Ronald L. Wagner rwagner@internext.com %A Eric Engelmann %C 300 Water Street, Whitby, Ontario L1N 9B6 %D 1996 %G 0-07-066937-6 %I McGraw-Hill Ryerson/Osborne %O U$32.95 905-430-5000 +1-800-565-5758 +1-905-430-5134 fax: 905- 430-5020 %P 332 %T "The McGraw-Hill Internet Training Manual" This book is *not* a training manual, Internet or otherwise. In the broad spectrum of technical literature, it falls most closely under the category of short Internet guides, of which the better examples are Brendan Kehoe's "Zen and the Art of the Internet" (cf. BKZENINT.RVW), and the second edition of Tracy LaQuey's "The Internet Companion" (cf. BKINTCMP.RVW). The text is not specifically a "business on the Internet" book, either. It does, though, definitely feel as if it were written by someone for whom business, and particularly marketing, is key, and any other consideration runs a very distant second. Part one is the general overview, with the usual pep talk, history, background, and warnings. Nothing is really wrong, but there is very little detail to get wrong. Part two is, I suppose, intended to be the "training" section. It consists of a series of very program- specific, keystroke-by-keystroke, hands-on "activities." Part three is kind of a catchall, including some material on HTML (HyperText Markup Language), Internet security (not *much* security), and online commerce. The reason that the book bulks large in comparison to a lot of the shorter guides lies in a lot of verbiage and wasted space. Why have pages of pointless pictures of computers connected by squiggly lines? Why thirty pages of lessons on how to use Windows for Workgroups? On the other hand, why try to cover the extremely important topic of Internet search engines in only twice as much space as is devoted to increasing the size of Netscape's cache? Why say that you won't cover the standard internet tools -- and then cover them, anyway? (Why cover telnet, and then fail to give information on how to get a telnet client program?) For someone who is starting at the very beginning and is using Windows for Workgroups, Eudora Professional, and Netscape Navigator 3.0, this book provides enough information to get started. That does seem a limited audience and target, though. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKMHINTM.RVW 970803 rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses, 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 09:08:59 -0800 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Unwanted Callers aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) wrote: A clueless collection agency used to call my last employer's business line looking for someone who may or may not have worked there years ago. We did a good job of tormenting stock brokers and telemarketers there, so finally, after about six months of abuse, the totally frustrated collection agent shouted, "I know she's there, you're keeping me from her!," and we never heard from her again. --> My phone is generally used only for data and I receive all voice calls via my pager. This helps me to preserve my privacy -- I do not want to be forced to talk to someone if I'm not in the mood. So it's a really safe bet that when my phone rings (I'm not kidding, NOBODY has my phone number, not even my mother), it's not someone that I want to talk to. And it's likely someone telemarketing or hitting me with some other form of voice spam. Therefore ... I know that it's time to have some FUN! Here are a few things that I do: - If it is a collection agent (which has happened a couple of times, looking for the previous owner of the number), I will say "Yeah, he's not going to pay you so you might as well forget it" and other defiant statements that make the collection agent FURIOUS. And I steadfastly refuse to allow the agent to speak to the previous owner of the number, which further steams them. - If it is a telemarketer, I will wait until they pause, then say "Yes, I just have one question," enthusiastically. Of course, they'll answer any questions that I like ... so I ask them simply "How often do you have sexual activity?" if male, and "Yes, I was curious, are you mensturating right now?" if female. None of the telemarketers have ever answered the question, and most of them end up hanging up on ME. Which I think is hilarious -- it reverses the role of who gets hung up on. I used to ask for THEIR home phone number. But it backfired a few times and these people actually gave it to me. They were so eager to make a sale that they didn't mind calls at home. So the above method evolved over time. - There are two exceptions to the above rule. If it is a newspaper salesman, regardless of what the paper is, I start complaining as long as the telemarketer will listen (and his supervisor if I get passed on) at how angry I am that the newspaper does not carry Rush Limbaugh's column (I don't know if Rush Limbaugh actually has a column, but it sounds good). This I do while sounding like a confused drunk hick. Throughout the course of the conversation, it's important to say "MEGA DITTOES!" at random intervals, and also make regular references to "them queers who are ruining our soil, building landing strips for gay martians." While it is important not to break out laughing while speaking, it is possible. The second exception is if it is a phone company of any sort, and then I start asking them for detailed information on their network. Such as if I could get a fiber map, how widely spaced their repeaters are placed, whether they've deployed SONET, if they have implemented a self-healing network, etc. This is always very amusing, since the telemarketers invariably understand nothing about telecommunications, and usually nobody in their fraud hive does either. Incidentally I did telemarketing as a part-time job in high school, and was pretty good at it. Hence I know what frustrates telemarketers absolutely: taking up lots of their time for no sale. And newspapers and phone companies are the only ones who will continue calling you forever. Eventually other companies get the word if enough of their telemarketers hang up on you. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 16:11:40 EST From: Dan Pearl Subject: Beware Call Answering "Call Answering" is Bell Atlantic's name for the answering machine that they have in their switch. Today, after about one month of not hearing any stuttering dial tone (which indicates a waiting message), I get the stutter. When I dial in for messages, I am astonished to hear 16 previously unheard messages going back to early November. The Call Answering specialist at Bell Atlantic says that there is a problem if I don't have the latest central office hardware. (I have 5ESS, the same as she does at her home.) She recommends that if a few days go by, and I don't hear any stutters, then I should call repair service, and the programmer will restore the stutter. She claimed that the service is reliable "95% of the time". She informed me that the Call Answering for Eastern MA was down this morning (10am) and that there was no estimate for its return. I told her that it was up, that I got the stutter, and called in. I conclude that they needed to reboot the Call Answering server, and rebooting reinitialized the stutter. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That same service as offered by Ameritech has a provision in the Options Menu to 'turn call notification on or off ...' which I think means turningon or off the stutter dial tone. Have you looked at the user options available on your end? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joey Lindstrom Date: Sat, 06 Dec 97 17:42:35 -0700 Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Subject: Waste of NNX Space? On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 22:40:39 -0500 (EST), David Leibold wrote: > TimeLine reads back times of upcoming buses to callers. Each bus stop > is assigned a telephone number, usually on the 416-539 NXX (I don't > know if any other 416-NXX is used in TimeLine service). +1 416 539 > 2737 is a good sample number to try for curious callers. Ah. Wonderful. How many bus stops? How many individual telephone numbers wasted? In Calgary, we've got a similar service available, called "Teleride". And initially it was set up in much the same way, with each stop (actually it was usually a pair or trio of stops) given a four-digit code. To find out bus information (next bus, following bus, etc.) for a stop, you simply dialed (403) 260-xxxx where xxxx was the stop number. But they changed it a few years ago, presumably after some pressure from Telus. Now you dial (403) 974-4000 (ie: just *ONE* telephone number used), then after it answers you key in your 4-digit stop number. And believe it or not, customers find this less confusing. And we wonder why we're constantly running out of telephone numbers in our local NPA's ... and yet we continue to see line number waste like this. Shameful ... :-) / From: The Desk Of Joey Lindstrom +1 403 606-3853 +1 403 282-JOEY / EMAIL: joey@lindstrom.com numanoid@ab.imag.net lindstrj@cadvision.com / WEBB: http://www.ab.imag.net/worldwidewebb/ / / If you were going to shoot a mime, would you use a silencer? / --Steven Wright ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Telecom on the New York City Subway System? Date: 7 Dec 1997 01:44:08 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per the recent post describing the telephone system in Toronto's subway system, I was wondering if anyone knew about the New York City subway system's phone system? For instance, before radios, they had telephones at frequent intervals within all the tunnels in case of train breakdown. Are those phones still there and working? (Tunnel vandalism is a problem.) Have phones in out of the way places been upgrade from plain rotary to dial? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Chicago Transit Atrocity -- err -- Authority used to have phones in the motorman's compartment on each train, and the conversation was carried on the third rail (the one which is electrified and runs the trains.) The connections were never very good; they always had a hiss and static but it seemed to work. At some point those lines were then interconnected into the PBX system at the CTA's headquarters. Now they use radios, in the 471 megs range. I can get them on my scanner. All the busses are likewise equipped with a phone on the wall next to the driver. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:25:36 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Using RealPlayer on the Web It is very disappointing trying to listen/view stuff on the net with RealPlayer. It seems to spend most of its time dealing with 'net congestion - rebuffering' rather than actually presenting whatever the material is. My configuration is RealPlayer 5.0 with IE 3.0. I have tried using Compuserve, AOL, and MSN (that is, the access to Internet and the web) and get more or less the same results. I have tried different transports and different amounts of buffer space. I originally used whatever defaults are built in, and when it responded by spending 30 seconds 'rebuffering' in order to play for five or ten seconds I tried changing some things. Last night I arranged to give it every spare bit of memory I had in a machine with 16KB ram ... it sat there for a couple minutes getting loaded up. My assumption -- apparently faulty -- was that the larger the buffer, the less likely it would be to run out or have the stream dry up. None the less, all I did was get a few seconds more before it died and said once again, 'net congestion - rebuffering' and that time it never did recover and start playing again. Apparently I gave it to much space; maybe it overwrote something else in error. This happens whether it is a live feed or if it is something canned, no differece. It literally just jerks along, plays a few seconds, freezes for a bit, plays a few seconds more, etc. Anyone have any suggestions, or is this just the state of the net these days, and nothing can be done? I have noticed kind of a neat thing: Once the audio stream is started and running -- the frequent stops and starts for rebuffering and all -- the window with RealPlayer can be minimized or hidden away completely and I can go on with other jobs while listening to whatever ... even going out on the web to other sites, etc, provided the other site does not also need RealPlayer. I have about the same experience with NetShow, so suggestions on that are welcome also. Are things like this basically just big wastes of net resources (with predictable results) or is there a way to use them satisfactorily? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #343 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Dec 8 23:39:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA00497; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:39:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 23:39:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712090439.XAA00497@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #344 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Dec 97 23:39:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 344 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #111, December 8, 1997 (Angus TeleManagement) Re: Radio Modem For WAN and Serial Port Communication (Jack Daniel) Re: Radio Modem For WAN and Serial Port Communication (Ronald Young) Re: Competition Heats Up in Canada For PCS (J.F. Mezei) Re: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California (Lee Winson) Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Lee Winson) Remembering "Information Please..." (amp@pobox.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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 08 Dec 1997 11:11:36 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #111, December 8, 1997 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 111: December 8, 1997 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** CRTC Rejects Mandated Wireless Resale ** Newbridge Cuts Back UB Networks ** Videotron Sells Alberta Cable Network ** MetroNet IPO Oversubscribed ** Comment Sought on Telco/Competitor Relationship ** MTS Provides Personal Change-of-Number Message ** Cantel Completes $100 Million Alberta Buildout ** Clearnet PCS Launches in Ottawa ** NBTel Extends Multimedia Service ** Bell Teams With Danish Firm for Network Management ** Bell Upgrades Rural Service With Wireless ** TMI, American Mobile Satellite to Share MSAT-1 ** Fonorola Opens Office in Victoria ** TeleBermuda Forms Venture for Cross-Atlantic Fiber ** TSB Third-Quarter Results ** Internet Provided Free to Non-Profits ** Telemanagement, Telecom Update Post Web Links ============================================================ CRTC REJECTS MANDATED WIRELESS RESALE: CRTC Telecom Order 97-1797 reaffirms the Commission's 1991 decision not to require wireless companies to allow resale of their services. The Commission says that mandating resale would reverse its decision to forbear from regulating wireless. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/TELECOM/ORDER/1997/O971797_.TXT NEWBRIDGE CUTS BACK UB NETWORKS: Newbridge Networks has eliminated 280 of the 600 positions at its UB Networks unit. UB's sales have declined sharply since it was bought by Newbridge in December 1996. (See Telecom Update #107) VIDEOTRON SELLS ALBERTA CABLE NETWORK: Videotron has sold its 150,000-subscriber cable network in Alberta to Winnipeg- based Moffat Communications for $295 Million. Videotron will use the proceeds to build its Quebec telecom business. METRONET IPO OVERSUBSCRIBED: Shares of MetroNet Communications began trading December 4, after its Initial Public Offering brought in $172.5 Million. Three days earlier, MetroNet connected its first Quebec customer, a unit of QuebecTel, to its Montreal network. COMMENT SOUGHT ON TELCO/COMPETITOR RELATIONSHIP: CRTC Telecom Public Notice 97-40 seeks comment on amending the telcos' Terms of Service regarding relationships with their competitors, particularly with respect to liability for service disruptions. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/TELECOM/NOTICE/1997/P9740_0.TXT MTS PROVIDES PERSONAL CHANGE-OF-NUMBER MESSAGE: Customers of Manitoba Telecom Services can now provide a personal message when they move, telling callers their new number and other information. Customized Intercept costs $5/month. CANTEL COMPLETES $100 MILLION ALBERTA BUILDOUT: Ninety-three percent of Alberta's population now has access to Rogers Cantel's wireless PCS service. Cantel has completed the $100-Million first stage of its digital buildout in the province. CLEARNET PCS LAUNCHES IN OTTAWA: Clearnet Communications extended its digital PCS service to the Ottawa-Hull region December 1. NBTEL EXTENDS MULTIMEDIA SERVICE: NBTel's Vibe Internet and multimedia service, which transmits at up to 4.3 Mbps, is now available in parts of Saint John and Moncton. (See Telecom Update #47) BELL TEAMS WITH DANISH FIRM FOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT: The IS Technologies division of Bell Emergis has agreed with Denmark-based GN Nettest to jointly develop telecom network surveillance and data management products. BELL UPGRADES RURAL SERVICE WITH WIRELESS: Bell Canada has brought single-line service to 100 rural customers near Chatham, Ontario, using Nortel's Proximity I fixed wireless unit. (See Telecom Update #73) TMI, AMERICAN MOBILE SATELLITE TO SHARE MSAT-1: TMI Communications, a BCE-controlled partnership, has sold a half interest in its MSAT-1 satellite to American Mobile Satellite. AMS will lease out the companion satellite, MSAT- 2, to provide service in southern Africa. FONOROLA OPENS OFFICE IN VICTORIA: Fonorola has opened an office in Victoria to serve its Vancouver Island customers. TELEBERMUDA FORMS VENTURE FOR CROSS-ATLANTIC FIBER: TeleBermuda International, headed by Canadian telecom entrepreneur Michael Kedar, has formed a joint venture with Global Crossing Limited to build and operate a cross- Atlantic fiber ring. TSB THIRD-QUARTER RESULTS: TSB International reports net income of $2.46 Million for the nine months ending October 31, a 3% increase over last year. Revenues fell 7% to $21.3 Million. INTERNET PROVIDED FREE TO NON-PROFITS: On December 7, iComm completed the first year of its work providing free Internet access and support to Canadian non-profit, charitable, and community organizations. http://www.iComm.ca TELEMANAGEMENT, TELECOM UPDATE POST WEB LINKS: Web links for organizations mentioned in Telemanagement and Telecom Update can now be found in our Telecom Resources links library. New links are posted the day each issue is published. ** Angus TeleManagement's Telecom Resources is an up-to-date listing of more than 400 useful Web resources for telecom professionals in Canada. ** Go to http://www.angustel.ca/links/links.html ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1997 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 228. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: Jack Daniel Subject: Re: Radio Modem For WAN and Serial Port Communication Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 04:53:54 -0800 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: jdaniel@earthlink.net Kurt Miller wrote: > I am looking for two different products for two different > applications: > 1. I am looking for a radio link product that can be used to extend a > terminal port (low speed serial either 9600 or 19.2K) to a remote > location about two miles away. I need the capability of one or several > terminal ports. These will be connected to a unix box (probably Sun > Ultra) at one end and simple terminals at the other. > 2. I am looking for a low to medium speed radio link for a WAN > application. I am looking at speeds of 19.2K or slightly faster. I > need something that is relatively affordable on a per/port basis and > operates in either S-band or L-band. Does anyone have recomendations > as to products they have used in the past that are reliable / easy to > set up? You may want to contact FreeWave at 303-444-3862 or go to their web site at www.freewave.com. They have 1200 - 115,000 kbs spread spectrum radio modems with RS 232 ports. These are one watt output (max. legal limit) for long range use. ------------------------------ From: Ronald Young Subject: Re: Radio Modem For WAN and Serial Port Communication Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 17:15:17 -0800 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Kurt Miller wrote: > I am looking for two different products for two different > applications: Take a look at: http://www.cylink.com/external/products.nsf/pages/Wireless+Products?OpenDocument I have no idea what their prices are, but generally, this type of stuff is not real cheap. -ron- ------------------------------ From: J.F. Mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Competition Heats Up in Canada For PCS Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 13:32:28 -0500 Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Mike Federchuk wrote: > My AT&T rep says that their network will not support Canada-wide GSM > until December of 1998. A year is too long to wait. We are > considering chaning out 20-30 analog phones for the new 9000i. AT&T > will have to be _very_ price competitive to have us stay. Better > products from Fido and better pricing may be what is driving > AT&T to change their pricing structure. The Nokias9000s are basicaly PSION pocket computers with a phone built in. They have been available in europe for a while. Is AT&T going to support GSM on its own network? I thought they were a CDMA&S only shop? In all fairness, FIDO does not CURRENTLY (yet) support DATA services on their GSM network, but it is coming soon. They do support SMS and last I heard, they will VERY SOON offer computer-to-SMS capabilities. Right now, they offer phone-to-SMS(send message from your phone to another phone) or voice-to-SMS (toalk to a person who sends message for you). ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California Date: 9 Dec 1997 01:49:11 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > MCI is telling local phone customers in California that, effective > January 1, they will no longer enjoy the cheap, flat phone rates that > lured many to switch from Pacific Bell. > Last fall, MCI began marketing a service plan that let new customers > place unlimited calls anywhere within a large region for $24.95 a > month. This event annoys me greatly in ways beyond the obvious "bait and switch" false advertising MCI has done here to attract customers. When MCI was starting out, if AT&T reduced its rates, even to a point where it lost money, it could've killed MCI right then because MCI didn't have the resources to fight a long money-losing rate war. But had AT&T done so, MCI would've cried foul and sued AT&T for anti-trust violations. But why is it now legal for MCI to pull such tactics? Now MCI is an established national company, pulling these tactics against a regional Bell company. MCI could easily afford the losses by this tactic. If a regional Bell company tried this tactic in face of a new competitor, wouldn't there be hell to pay? Also, we know that many customers, while disappointed by the rate loss, won't bother changing back. At one time the telephone industry had a solid repuation for integrity and honesty. The old Bell System may have been bland, bureaucratic, and boring, but their standard of service and the state PUCs watching them kept things above board. With tactics like this, eventually consumers will look at the telephone companies in the same light as they do, say, used car dealers. Do people in the industry really want to end up this way? US national policy is to encourage competition in the telephone busines. But don't we want fair and HONEST competition? Don't we want ALL competitors to play by the rules? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: We've always known about MCI's penchant for stretching the truth at the very least and coming out with downright lies at the worst. Remember, some of us really old-time people have dealt with MCI going way back to the early 1970's when they were first starting out and had a single long distance bypass offering called 'Execunet'. Anyone remember Execunet besides me? I had an account on it; in fact I recommended it to a few people in the very early days. In those days their standard lie was that using Execunet instead of AT&T long distance would save you some percentage of the cost of long distance calls. An early television commercial had some fool saying this and then scratching his head and wondering 'why anyone wouldn't want to save money on their phone bill ...' as if him saying so and MCI selling the service resolved it completely. Their very first lie was in 1969 when they lied to the Illinois Commerce Commission and (the former) Illinois Bell Telephone Company telling them they wanted to build a microwave transmission network between Chicago and St. Louis 'for a few private customers'. When ICC finally approved the application over IBT's objections, MCI then immediatly began reselling the service to everyone. Regards Execunet and MCI 'forgetting' to mention that calls to their switch were supervised and billed as local calls (thus for every small decrease in long distance charges as a result of using MCI there was a corresponding -- or larger -- increase in local call charges which had to be paid to IBT) -- well, MCI had to get sued a couple times before they finally leveled with people. There were lots of complaints -- formal and informal -- filed with the FCC about MCI in those days, and not just by telcos crying sour grapes as you might expect, but by large customers as well whom MCI had lured away from Bell with promises which rang hollow. You are right about how the telco -- when it was all one telco -- 'used to be'. They were extremely dedicated, albiet very bureaucratic and authoritarian. They did keep things working smoothly. Today, the entire industry is starting to get a bad reputation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant Date: 9 Dec 1997 01:58:20 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS After reading the MCI sleaze post I had a thought: To be truly fair in local telephone competition, let's make it TRUE competition. Let each player build their own local loop plant and central office facilities. This will eliminate debates over reimbursements to Bell companies for providing the local loop and fights over equipment problems. The cable TV industry had to build their own outdoor plant. Actually, it isn't as hard as years ago as fiber optic mean stringing a lot less wire through a neighborhood. But the newcomers will have to meet the same standards that Bell companies now meet to provide service. They'll have to wire ALL neighborhoods and offer service to everyone, even high deadbeat slum areas. Banks are forbidden to "redline" slum areas and must provide branch offices in them, so there is precedent for this in competitive industries. (All businesses, no matter how competitive, must conform to various retail service laws and regulations, for example, supermarkets using automatic register scanners must see that prices are clearly marked on shelves, and gas stations must clearly post per-gallon prices.) Let the newcomers see what it's like to negotiate franchises with local municipalities, easements, and the like. Let them get their trucks out in hurricanes and tornados to restore downed wire in the middle of the night. Let's see who restores service the fastest after a storm. For all we know, the newcomers might beat the old Bell System hands down. Maybe new technologies will allow loop to go in fast and cheap, easier to maintain than the old copper cable now in place, saving them and their customers money. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I was saying this same thing back in 1983 and Lord knows how many times since in this Digest. Remember of course that Judge Harold Greene had his noise out of joint to start with where AT&T was concerned. He made no pretense of having a fair 'trial' or proceedings and early on before the divestiture case even came to court he let it be known among his cronies in the US Injustice Department that if they wanted to 'take on Bell' they'd find his courtroom a friendly venue. So the story goes, he lost a dime in a payphone and got sassed by the operator when he asked about a refund; he went away angry and detirmined to break up their monopoly. Seriously, AT&T did not stand a fighting chance in front of him. Some will no doubt write to remind me that AT&T did 'voluntarily' sign off on the deal, but if having a knife in your back and a gun at your head permits you to respond 'voluntarily' it is news to me. Had the good judge *really* wanted fairness, a level playing field for competitors, and consumer choice and all that, he would have ordered just what you suggest: let them spend at least a decade or two installing outside plant, installing switches, signing up customers slowly and surely, etc. Remember, it took Bell a hundred years to get where they were at at that point in time. The judge would have required that local municipalities not interfere with the wiring so that in the event the local executives of Bell belonged to the same golf club or church as the mayor and councilmen there would be no artificial objections tossed in the way of wiring via municipal fiat, etc. He would have required that state commissions from that day forward treat the newcomers and Bell equally. He would have insisted that Bell make no other requirements for interconnection except technical ones, and that Bell cooperate completely with billing, clearing house and back office functions, number assignments, etc. Then he would have said good luck, in a few years when you are in a position to operate a telephone network come back and see me. I will then order Bell to open the front door of their central office, hand you a bunch of pairs to be used for interconnection, and require that whatever they do for their own companies and divisions they also do for you at the same prices, etc. But you see, the newcomers in the industry were in no position nor were they inclined to spend the time and money Bell did over a century to build the best phone network in the world; they just wanted to rip off some of the profits for themselves. Nor, might I add, was Harold Greene inclined to be fair. He hated AT&T with a passion, and was detirmined to screw them every way possible. I only wish AT&T had kept the fight going; I am sure they would have eventually won. They should have used the 'IBM approach to pending litigation' ... remember how when IBM found itself in much the same predicament as Bell, its response was to bury the court and the prosecutor with truckloads -- literally tons -- of paperwork. Millions of internal memos, worksheets and other stuff was entered into evidence by IBM. One day alone there were two semi-trailer trucks backed up at the Court's loading dock/receiving room waiting to unload 'evidence' IBM attornies planned to introduce. Naturally there had to be fifty copies of every document, no matter how many pages long it was. The Court had to put several employees on overtime for several months just to organize the mess that IBM dropped at their doorstep, and they never did get it all figured out. Spreadsheets, computer hardware schematics, software source code, you name it. Had AT&T done the same thing, the judge would still be sitting up reading at 2:00 AM every night trying to make sense of it all. :) But, what's past is past ... no use trying to change it now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: amp@pobox.com Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 19:29:27 -0500 Subject: Remembering Information Please Don't know if this is true, but it's a good story nonetheless. ************************************ Information Please When I was quite young, my father had one of the first telephones in our neighborhood. I remember well the polished old case fastened to the wall. The shiny receiver hung on the side of the box. I was too little to reach the telephone, but used to listen with fascination when my mother used to talk to it. Then I discovered that somewhere inside the wonderful device lived an amazing person - her name was Information Please and there was nothing she did not know. Information Please could supply anybody's number and the correct time. My first personal experience with this genie-in-the-bottle came one day while my mother was visiting a neighbor. Amusing myself at the tool bench in the basement, I whacked my finger with a hammer. The pain was terrible, but there didn't seem to be any reason in crying because there was no one home to give sympathy. I walked around the house sucking my throbbing finger, finally arriving at the stairway - The telephone! Quickly I ran for the footstool in the parlor and dragged it to the landing. Climbing up I unhooked the receiver in the parlor and held it to my ear. "Information Please", I said into the mouthpiece just above my head. A click or two and a small clear voice spoke into my ear. "Information." "I hurt my finger. . ." I wailed into the phone. The tears came readily enough now that I had an audience. "Isn't your mother home?" came the question. "Nobody's home but me." I blubbered. "Are you bleeding?" "No," I replied. "I hit my finger with the hammer and it hurts." "Can you open your icebox?" she asked. I said I could. "Then chip off a little piece of ice and hold it to your finger." After that I called Information Please for everything. I asked her for help with my geography and she told me where Philadelphia was. She helped me with my math, and she told me my pet chipmunk I had caught in the park just the day before would eat fruits and nuts. And there was the time that Petey, our pet canary died. I called Information Please and told her the sad story. She listened, then said the usual things grown-ups say to soothe a child. But I was unconsoled. Why is it that birds should sing so beautifully and bring joy to all families, only to end up as a heap of feathers, feet up on the bottom of a cage? She must have sensed my deep concern, for she said quietly, "Paul, always remember that there are other worlds to sing in." Somehow I felt better. Another day I was on the telephone. "Information Please." "Information," said the now familiar voice. "How do you spell fix?" I asked. All this took place in a small town in the pacific Northwest. Then when I was 9 years old, we moved across the country to Boston. I missed my friend very much. Information Please belonged in that old wooden box back home, and I somehow never thought of trying the tall, shiny new phone that sat on the hall table. Yet as I grew into my teens, the memories of those childhood conversations never really left me; often in moments of doubt and perplexity I would recall the serene sense of security I had then. I appreciated now how patient, understanding, and kind she was to have spent her time on a little boy. A few years later, on my way west to college, my plane put down in Seattle. I had about half an hour or so between planes, and I spent 15 minutes or so on the phone with my sister, who lived there now. Then without thinking what I was doing, I dialed my hometown operator and said, "Information Please". Miraculously, I heard again the small, clear voice I knew so well, "Information." I hadn't planned this but I heard myself saying, "Could you tell me please how-to spell fix?" There was a long pause. Then came the soft spoken answer, "I guess that your finger must have healed by now." I laughed, "So it's really still you," I said. "I wonder if you have any idea how much you meant to me during that time." "I wonder, she said, if you know how much your calls meant to me. I never had any children, and I used to look forward to your calls." I told her how often I had thought of her over the years and I asked if I could call her again when I came back to visit my sister. "Please do, just ask for Sally." Just three months later I was back in Seattle. A different voice answered Information and I asked for Sally. "Are you a friend?" "Yes, a very old friend." "Then I'm sorry to have to tell you. Sally has been working part-time the last few years because she was sick. She died five weeks ago." But before I could hang up she said, "Wait a minute. Did you say your name was Paul?" "Yes." "Well, Sally left a message for you. She wrote it down. Here it is I'll read it. 'Tell him I still say there are other worlds to sing in. He'll know what I mean'." I thanked her and hung up. I did know what Sally meant. ------------------------------------ Have you seen http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum ------------------------------------ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Somewhere around 1959-60 in {Reader's Digest} is where your 'Information Please' appeared when I first saw it. It was at least 35 years ago, so pardon me if I do not recall the exact issue. :) In those days, {Reader's Digest} tended only to reprint things from other print media, so the story had to have been somewhere else before they got it. So it might be forty years old, but I have never used it here before that I can recall. Its a good, very warm story, and I enjoyed printing it here today but whether it is true or not is hard to say. I put it in the same category as the lady who had the dog tied to the telephone pole in the backyard and her phone did not work right unless the dog did his thing around the pole, and you know how that one went. I'd say Sally, if she existed, and what the heck, let's say she did, was a pretty typical Bell System employee. They were extremely bureaucratic, but extremely dedicated, and with *very* long memories where customer requirements and satisfaction was concerned. All the old timers could tell stories about service to customers that today would be hard to believe or match. As Charles Brown, former Chairman of AT&T and President of Illinois Bell once said during a particularly trying event in the divestiture process, "So when was the last time they (meaning MCI) sent two workers out to the mountains of Montana in January to restore service for a handful of customers whose cable had gotten broken in an ice storm, only to have the two workers slip in the ice and fall to their deaths down the side of a mountain?" "If I was selling only the east coast corridor traffic (where MCI was almost exclusively in its earliest days) and ignoring the farmers and the small town residence people then I could sell my service at cut rate prices also. Who is kidding who, anyway? ..." Indeed, the old Bell System workers were extremely dedicated. I wish the newcomers would at least learn from the examples of the pioneers. But thanks again for a marvelous story; I know most readers here had not seen it before. By the way, in the {Reader's Digest} version, he had not gone on a plane trip with time to spare and on a whim called Directory Assistance. In their version of the story he had gone back to his old home town to visit long-forgotten school chums, etc and he noticed the town was now on a dial rather than manual system. He picked up the phone, dialed '411' and got the same operator as he had gotten years earlier when it was a manual exchange. Also, he did not ask how to spell the word 'fix', but he asked some other question which triggered the operator's memory from years before, prompting her response about his injured finger. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #344 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 9 22:01:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA26206; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:01:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:01:15 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712100301.WAA26206@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #345 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Dec 97 22:00:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 345 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telemetry and SCADA (Ferdie Lochner) Book Review: "Internet Dreams" by Stefik (Rob Slade) Phone Doubler Now in US (Fergal Purcell) A Couple Tidbits From the Foreign Language Media (Linc Madison) Re: Toll-Fraud Through Call-Forwarding Again! (Danny Burstein) Re: Toll-Fraud Through Call-Forwarding Again! (David Wigglesworth) Questions About TDMA Phones (Dave Rubin) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Eli Mantel) Re: Beware Call Answering (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Radio Modem For WAN and Serial Port Communication (H. Peter Anvin) Re: Cellular Phones to Cease Blocking 911 Calls (Hendrik Rood) Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones (John R. Levine) Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones (Bruce Wilson) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: ferdie@paarlmun.co.za (Ferdie Lochner) Subject: Telemetry and SCADA Date: 9 Dec 97 07:11:15 GMT Organization: Deja News Posting Service Hi, I would appreciate it if somebody will help me to understand the following two matters: 1. What is the relation between telemetry, SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) and radio frequencies? 2. Would Win NT be a better operating system than Win 95 for telemetry (and SCADA?) and if so, why? Thanks for your time, Ferdie Lochner ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:26:06 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Internet Dreams" by Stefik Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKINTDRM.RVW 971113 "Internet Dreams", Mark Stefik, 1996, 0-262-19373-6, U$30.00 %A Mark Stefik stefik@parc.xerox.com %C 55 Hayward Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1399 %D 1996 %G 0-262-19373-6 %I MIT Press %O U$30.00 800-356-0343 fax: 617-625-6660 curtin@mit.edu %O www-mitpress.mit.edu %P 412 %T "Internet Dreams: Archetypes, Myths, and Metaphors" If you don't know where you're going, that's probably where you'll end up. A great many statements, pronouncements and opinions regarding the current "extended" Internet (or, in Quarterman's term, the Matrix) and any future developments from it are based not on reality, but on unconscious assumptions that the net is a library, TV, playground, workshop, meeting place, alternate world, community, market, or some other metaphor. Stefik has collected and excerpted visions from a variety of sources to try and present a range of options, and to promote discussion of these underlying assumptions: are they valid, are they helpful, and what are they missing? The articles come from classics such as Vannevar Bush's "As We May Think" (his "memex" is often cited as the seminal idea behind hypertext and the World Wide Web), through the artistry of Julian Dibbell's "A Rape in Cyberspace" (items as compelling as this are seldom found in technical works), to Scott Cook's bad-tempered "Technological Revolutions and the Gutenberg Myth." Part one looks at the metaphor of the library. Hypertext, the move from books to digital media, intelligent agents, currency in literature, intellectual property values, non-informational aspects, and the preservation of culture are included in the topics raised. For those who have looked at the net as a cultural entity, the library is the symbol most frequently used for comparison. Still, these essays do manage to present the classic ideas without being repetitious. Part three looks at the electronic marketplace and commerce. The business approach to the net tends to be the least examined aspect: those interested in the Internet as a sales tool simply want to get on with it and close the deal. "Business on the net" books tend to be simplistic and seldom have a solid grasp on the reality of either the technology or the culture of the net. While brief, this section covers every pertinent topic that I have seen discussed in almost all books on the digital economy, and makes a reasonable introduction to a generally sloppy field. Parts two and four appear, to me, to be very strongly related. Part two looks at email, and does a decent job. Part four looks at other forms of computer mediated communication, but primarily emphasizes real-time social communication. (The particular example used is the MUD - multiple user domain - but IRC - Internet Relay Chat - would be very similar.) On the one hand, therefore, the two parts are simply alternate technologies with the same objective. In correspondence with Stefik, he has noted that he was trying to bring out the image of the sense of place involved in chat "rooms." In hindsight, his objective is accomplished, although not strongly. I may be the wrong person to note this distinction, since long experience with mailing lists has given me a sense of "place" in regard to them as well. The metaphors that might be called passive entertainment (newsgroup lurking and Web browsing) and work get rather short shrift. It is, of course, not possible to examine all the metaphors for the net and would be very difficult to collect all the common ones. Those presented are a good start, and a prompt for further discussion. (While archetypes and myths do get frequent mention, their use does not contribute greatly to the book in its current form.) Hopefully, this work may promote further explorations of other Matrix metaphors - which, in turn, may lead to an expanded second edition. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKINTDRM.RVW 971113 ------------------------------ From: Fergal Purcell Subject: Phone Doubler Now in US Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 08:25:32 -0600 Organization: Ericsson Inc. Reading the post on Nortel deploying "Internet Call Waiting" reminded me of an Ericsson Internet product that was released this year, first in Finland and is now in the US. The following is a press Release from Ericsson on the Internet Phone Doubler Product. Any typos are mine. RICHARDSON, TEXAS - DEC. 8, 1997 Ericsson's innovative Phone Doubler, which allows Internet users to make and receive phone calls while logged onto the Internet without a second phone line, has been deployed by Internet Global Services Inc,. a Dallas Internet service provider. Phone Doubler service is available today for Global's business and residential Internet customers in the 214 and 972 area codes, which serve the Dallas area. "Phone Doubler solves a big problem for Internet customers who don't want to be out of touch when they're online, but who don't want the expense of installing a second phone line," siad Michael Gorton, Global president. "This is the beginning of the end for the busy signal." The Phone Doubler establishes a voice gateway that allows voice calls to be sent over Internet protocol (IP) networks. When an Internet subscriber goes online, an IP address is logged into the server. Phone calls to the subscriber are forwarded to the voice gateway, where the Phone Doubler maps them to the previously created IP address and routes them to the subscriber. The subscriber is alerted to the incoming call with an icon on the computer screen, and can take the call using the computer's microphone and speaker while continuing the Internet session. The subscriber also can place a phone call while still online. Phone Doubler hardware and software are installed at the Internet service provider, and Phone Doubler client software installed on the customer's computer allows the customer to use Phone Doubler services. Voice technology originally developed by Ericsson for digital wireless communications makes the sound quality of Phone Doubler calls as clear as ordinary calls. "Global is taking a big step forward in offering voice over IP service with Phone Doubler," said Mark Miller, Director of Internet and Business Development for Ericsson. "Phone Doubler has benefits for telecommuters, small businesses, home offices and cunsumers, and we're looking forward to seeing Global grow its business with Phone Doubler." Phone Doubler can help businesses cut the cost of telecommuting by eliminating the need to have additional phone lines installed in employees' homes. With Phone Doubler, employees can receive and make phone calls while logged into the corporate network orthe Internet. Phone Doubler also can help small businesses make the most efficient use of phone lines by aloowing phone calls and Internet access simultaneously on the same line. Global will offer Phone Doubler service for $9.95 a month plus a $29.95 set-up fee, or for $15.95 a month with no set-up fee for customers with dial-up accounts. Business customers who include Phone Doubler in their package of Internet services from Global will have the capability for phone calls to be placed from any computer on the local area network connected to the Internet. ----------------------- + Fergal Purcell + + Competence and Resource Manager + + Wireless Local Loop and Support Processor + + 1010 E.Arapaho Road, + + Email: Fergal.Purcell@ericsson.com P.O. Box 833875, + + Telephone: + 1 972 583 5503 Richardson, + + Fax: + 1 972 669 0154 Texas, 75083-3875 + ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: A Couple Tidbits From the Foreign Language Media Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 00:04:15 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM San Francisco is a multi-lingual city, among its many charms, and I sometimes channel-surf some of the foreign-language newscasts. I was watching the Cantonese news the other day and saw several ads for 10XXX long distance services. The ads were not just the English ads with a dubbed-in voiceover, they were top-to-bottom done for the Chinese language market, including some very slick computer animations. On tonight's Univision (Spanish) news, there was an ad for an 800 number for collect calls, 1-800-226-2727, with all the voice prompts in Spanish. They also had a brief news item about pagers and 800 calls from payphones. I didn't catch everything (my Spanish is more than a little rusty) but I did catch a reference to the 28-cent surcharge. They specifically mentioned "toll-free 800 numbers" (I think that's "numeros 800 sin cargo") but not 888, much less 877. In non-telecom-related news, there was a long update on the life of Lorena Bobbitt. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh yes, poor Lorena ... it appears the authorities have now lodged some new charges against her as the result of a recent altercation with someone else; she tried to hurt a man she was with. Fortunatly she did not have any scissors or knives with her when she went postal this time, but the authorities were not amused, nor was the most recent subject of her assault. Her former husband John had no comment for the press. I am reminded of the words of Stephen Foster, American folk song writer of the nineteenth century who penned, "The years move swiftly by, Lorena; the snow is on the ground again ..." I feel certain if some politically incorrect (very incorrect!) but witty soul wanted to do so, they could take Foster's tune and modify the poem just a bit for our modern day Lorena with some remarkable results. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Re: Toll-Fraud Through Call-Forwarding Again! Date: 9 Dec 1997 00:15:21 -0500 Organization: mostly unorganized In ctelesca@pagesz.net writes: [a large tale of woe deleted] >> Where have you used the number ? Could the number have been retrieved >> from a telephone's 'redial' button by someone who could translate the >> tones to numbers? > Already thought of that; I always hang-up and enter another number, > then hit LNR to make sure that the RACF PIN is erased. One other possiblity: Have you ever used this from an office, hotel, or a cocot? Many of these have SMDR - station message detail recording, in which _every_ digit you punch in gets recorded. There is a legitimate use for this: for example, your hotel call records get listed, then get compared to a rate chart (either manually or via computer) and you get the bill when you leave. HOWEVER, these records also typically show the _other_ digits you enter, i.e. your telephone calling card number can get lifted this way. danny 'published a letter about this in 2600 years ago' burstein Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 19:39:24 From: David Wigglesworth Subject: Re: Toll-Fraud Through Call-Forwarding Again! Have you considered the possibility that you once accessed the RACF from a PBX somewhere. PBX's often retain all the dialed digits and not just the phone number dialed. So anyone with access to that PBX's billing records can see what numbers were dialed and in what sequence. This method can also be used to obtain calling card numbers. Regards, David Wigglesworth ------------------------------ From: Dave Rubin Subject: Questions About TDMA Phones Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 15:10:09 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I just signed up for TDMA service with AT&T in New York with the Nokia 2160 phone. I have found the Nokia to be on the heavy side and it also lacks some important features like a call timer (while you are on a call) and minute warning beep. I also find it annoying that it cannot display names and numbers of stored entries at the same time. Compared to the new Qualcomm phones, or even my old Motorola DCP550 the Nokia is not impressive. Unfortunately it seems my choices with TDMA are limiting. Can anyone recommend a better dual-mode TDMA/AMPS phone for use with the AT&T Digital PCS (IS-136/800Mhz) system? Thanks ... please respond via E-mail. Dave Rubin mailto:daverubin@worldnet.att.net NOTE: to reply to this message remove the "NOSPAM." prefix from the reply address. ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 09:04:52 PST Adam H. Kerman (ahk@chinet.chinet.com) wrote: > [somebody] wrote: >>> A property owner SHOULD be in the business of attempting to earn >>> the highest posssible revenues from his site. >> A property owner SHOULD NOT be engaged in business practices >> that are predatory. > By definition, all practices of a person who controls a site are > predatory; control of a location is a monopoly. He is under no > obligation to do business with just anyone ... [and on and on ...] IMO, you folks have gone off on a few tangents. The issue at hand is whether public interest should be allowed to supersede private property rights, and if so, what public policy will best serve the public interest. I have heard no objections to mandatory 911 access, and have even heard the obligation not to discriminate mentioned in this discussion, so it appears that everybody concedes that the public interest is relevant in establishing what property owners may do. The public interest is not necessarily best-served by regulating low prices for service. Indeed, the premise of the 1996 Telecom Act was that the public interest could be better served by letting competition set prices for as many services as possible, including payphones, in spite of the common sense argument that the ability of consumers to choose among competing payphones is likely to be very limited in many circumstances. In reality, competition occurs by providers of payphone services offering maximum revenue to the property owner, largely by charging higher prices to the actual payphone users. Thus, the real problem in using the competitive model as the one that best serves the public interest is that the choice is made by somebody other than the one who pays for the service. While some argue that customers upset with unreasonable payphone prices at one merchant are free to take their business elsewhere, this is really a red herring. People are not going out shopping for the best payphone deal! Payphones are an ancillary service that merchants provide, one that has very little to do with how people decide where to shop. If you think this is a bona fide argument, ask yourself how often you have chosen not to go to a particular restaruant, store, or gas station because they didn't have a convenient payphone available. Whether you think it's good or bad, we already have unregulated pricing of other products and services that have limited competition, including hotel room phones, ATMs, cable tv, and movie theatre popcorn. Whatever rationale is used to determine the public policy for one of these areas should also be applicable to the others. Eli Mantel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, but Eli ... where would I be without my tangents every day? I'd feel naked without them. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Beware Call Answering Date: 9 Dec 1997 04:47:36 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On Mon, 8 Dec 1997 16:11:40 EST, Dan Pearl wrote: > "Call Answering" is Bell Atlantic's name for the answering machine > that they have in their switch. Today, after about one month of not > hearing any stuttering dial tone (which indicates a waiting message), > I get the stutter. They call it "Personal Secretary" down here in GTE land. Or at least, they _did_; I suddenly head radio spots for "GTE Voicemail". But anyway ... > When I dial in for messages, I am astonished to hear 16 previously > unheard messages going back to early November. Oops. > The Call Answering specialist at Bell Atlantic says that there is a > problem if I don't have the latest central office hardware. (I have > 5ESS, the same as she does at her home.) She recommends that if a few > days go by, and I don't hear any stutters, then I should call repair > service, and the programmer will restore the stutter. She claimed > that the service is reliable "95% of the time". Oh, neat. I think that's a tarriffed service; the PSC might be interested. > She informed me that the Call Answering for Eastern MA was down this > morning (10am) and that there was no estimate for its return. I told > her that it was up, that I got the stutter, and called in. I conclude > that they needed to reboot the Call Answering server, and rebooting > reinitialized the stutter. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That same service as offered by Ameritech > has a provision in the Options Menu to 'turn call notification on or > off ...' which I think means turning on or off the stutter dial tone. > Have you looked at the user options available on your end? PAT] More than likely, Pat, that's a switch for _pager_ notification; I've never heard of a telco voicemail system where the stutter was switchable. It's worthwhile to note that the stutter is generated by the _switch_, but that's not where the calls go. Typically, the line is provisioned with call forward busy/no answer (indeed, in GTEFL land, you can only _order_ that feature if you're an 'Enhanced Service Provider'; the sub cannot order it themselves) to a trunk that feeds the voicemail server; it uses the Original Called Number information to decide which mailbox to hit. The voice mail server, once it has a message for you, sends a message to the switch over a SMDI (Simple Message Desk Interface) link, a 9600-56K digital circuit between the two sites -- which may not be collocated. I'd say the SMDI link is bouncing and they don't realize it, myself. I'd be interested to know what more you can shake out of them armed with this info ... Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Subject: Re: Radio Modem For WAN and Serial Port Communication Date: 6 Dec 1997 09:55:37 GMT Organization: Transmeta Corporation, Santa Clara CA Reply-To: hpa@transmeta.com (H. Peter Anvin) Followup to: By author: millerk@akamail.com (Kurt Miller) In newsgroup: comp.dcom.telecom > 2. I am looking for a low to medium speed radio link for a WAN > application. I am looking at speeds of 19.2K or slightly faster. I > need something that is relatively affordable on a per/port basis and > operates in either S-band or L-band. Does anyone have recomendations > as to products they have used in the past that are reliable / easy to > set up? Range? Line of sight? Lucent WaveLan are 2Mbit/s and *supposedly* can go four to five miles line of sight with directional antennae. hpa PGP: 2047/2A960705 BA 03 D3 2C 14 A8 A8 BD 1E DF FE 69 EE 35 BD 74 See http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/ for web page and full PGP public key I am Bahai -- ask me about it or see http://www.bahai.org/ "To love another person is to see the face of God." -- Les Miserables ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Cellular Phones to Cease Blocking 911 Calls Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 22:36:44 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses Reply-To: hrood@xs4all.nl lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) enlightened me about: > A brief article appeared in {USA Today} (Tue 12/2/97) saying that the > FCC will issue regulations requiring cellular carriers to not block > 911 calls from cell phones of competiting companies, and to improve > the service quality of 911 responsiveness to wireless customers. For > example, the caller's telephone number and approximate location is to > be passed to the 911 center. > Given the complexity of this issue, it will require close watching and > interpretation to laymen's terms. > Whether this will include phones not registered to _any_ carrier > was not explained. This is a very interesting message. In the European GSM-system it is possible (and even some measures are taken in the standard for mobile handsets) to dial 112 (European variant of 911) on every handset. Even without a SIM-card for billing in it (the calls to 112 are free of charge). It surprises me that a comparative USA 911 service on cellular is not available yet and that this FCC-ruling might be challenged by lawyers. > Another issue is what happens if you're near a state border and get > a 911 center in a different state -- how will you get transferred to > the right location? (Living and working near the Penna-NJ border > my cell calls are often shown originating in the state opposite > of where I actually am.) This is a problem reported several times on the borders of my country (the Netherlands). It happens that users of a GSM-cellular at the border are dialling 112 and end up in a German or French speaking 112-office in the neighbouring country. In the GSM-system you can avoid this problem to look closely at the display of your phone and see the cellular network it is trying to make contact with before placing the call. When you are not able to choose the cellular network (typical on older analog phones) this can become a major problem. Hendrik Rood ------------------------------ Date: 9 Dec 1997 05:23:09 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > My comment: I wonder if industry concerns were really addressed. As > was noted previously on this newsgroup, cellular carriers worry that > the users who now have $19.95 per month service "for emergencies" > could potentially disconnect that service and use their disarmed cell > phones to make 911 calls forever, for free. I suspect the answer to that particular worry is "tough noogies." Are there really enough 911 calls to tie up a significant part of the cellular network? If cellular companies can't figure out how to persuade people that it's worth turning on their cell phones, that says more about the cell companies oligopolistic pricing than it says about the users who are presumably making rational decisions within the parameters that the cell companies provide. In particular, what did they expect with expensive service and free phones? 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:56:05 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones In article , Greg Monti writes: > My comment: I wonder if industry concerns were really addressed. As was > noted previously on this newsgroup, cellular carriers worry that the users > who now have $19.95 per month service "for emergencies" could potentially > disconnect that service and use their disarmed cell phones to make 911 calls > forever, for free. Yeah, but you can't dial 911 to call Aunt Millie. I don't think 911 traffic's going to suddenly mushroom; and there won't be any need to assign numbers to those phones which had "emergency" service but now don't have it. However, I don't see any impending mass exodus of "emergency" service subscribers because such "emergency" service isn't limited to 911 calls, which is to say a subscriber can use those minutes for anything. Thus there might be some incentive to retain the service to be able to make and receive other calls even if the infrequent 911 calls could be made without it. For example, my fiance could use such a "disarmed" phone to call 911 in a real emergency but not to call me if she'd merely run out of gas or to tell me she was running late, either of which might constitute a family "emergency." Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #345 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 11 21:37:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA22743; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:37:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:37:02 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712120237.VAA22743@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #346 TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Dec 97 21:36:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 346 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Using International Callback as Toll Free Number (Collin Thomas) Re: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California (Julia Fan) Re: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California (John Stahl) Out of the Mouths of ... (73115.1041@compuserve.com) Reimbursements to COCOTs For "Free" Calls (Tom Watson) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Bill Ranck) Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels? (Jan Ceuleers) Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels? (James Bellaire) Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels? (Eric Kammerer) Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones (Michelle Durbin) Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones (Ed Ellers) Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones (Mike Fox) Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones (Steven Michelson) Multi-Line Digital Phone Systems - and a Modem (Jerome R. Kalisz) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: Using International Callback as Toll Free Number From: Collin Thomas Date: 9 Dec 1997 19:46:16 GMT Organization: ntr.net Corporation We would like to provide a toll free number for our company to people in Japan. The current international toll free company we have found is almost $2.00/min. We obviously would like to find something less expensive. One idea that I have is to use a modified international call back service. The service would provide a number that anyone in Japan could call. They would then enter their phone number and hang up. The service would call them back and rather than provide them with dial tone, it would dial us directly. The person calling would then hear our line ringing and would be connected to us when we answered the line. All charges would be directed to us, therefore providing a toll free number to Japanese callers. Does this sound plausible? What services might we call to try and set this up? Anyone have a better solution? Thanks in advance for any answers/ideas. I can be reached via e-mail at collin@rightsolution.com . ------------------------------ From: julia_fan@bigfoot.com (Julia Fan) Subject: Re: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 05:09:15 GMT Organization: CampusMCI Reply-To: julia_fan@nospam.bigfoot.com On 9 Dec 1997 01:49:11 GMT, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) wrote: > This event annoys me greatly in ways beyond the obvious "bait and switch" > false advertising MCI has done here to attract customers. It does not sound like bait and switch to me. MCI offered a product in good faith that did not take off, so they are discontinuing it. More of a marketing decision than anything else. According to the numbers from the article only 25,000 folks signed up ... out of how many hundreds of thousands in the target market? It sounds like a business decision that had to be made on a product that obviously was not selling. Julia Hayes Fan julia_fan@bigfoot.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/5353 (When replying remove the 'nospam' in the address) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Generally -- but there is no firm rule; no iron clad decision set in stone -- when a telco decides to stop making some service available, they at least 'grandfather' the existing customers, either until the customer moves, discontinues service or chooses to use some other plan. MCI would probably get a bit more sympathy had they at least offered to allow existing subscribers to continue on the plan, even for something like several months to a year while at the same time making it known the plan was no longer being offered to new customers, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 22:30:26 +0000 Everybody seems to be forgetting that MCI isn't plain old MCI any more. Didn't they just get 'eaten-up' by a much smaller company? Now the new company is most probably very much in debt, what with the investment they made (printing paper must cost something!); the justification begins. Will we now see a slow raise in long distance charges throughout the country -- and the world -- by the new Worldcom-MCI? (After all, most things, good and bad for the consumer, start on one of the coast's -- left or right.) I'd say its pretty much a good bet! Be prepared for the price increases from everyone in the business. John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications, Data and Internet Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: 73115.1041@NOSPAMcompuserve.com Subject: Out of the Mouths of ... Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:33:33 GMT Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] One would not expect the average 11 year old to be cognizant of the more subtle aspects of modern telecommunication ... Recently, my 11 year old daughter described something a classmate asked her to do with the phone. My daughter didn't understand what she was being asked to do and asked me to explain. A classmate called her up after school one day and asked her to press the hangup button on the phone, dial a certain number and the press the button again. Telecom literate readers will recognize that she was being asked to create a three-way call. With all due respects to Paul Harvey, "And now, the REST of the story ..." A few months back, US West had enabled the use of three-way calling on all residential lines in New Mexico. The user interface for activating this feature is the switchhook flash. A charge of .75 per use is levied. It seems the classmate had been calling another party to the point that the recipient of the calls had used another CLASS feature, banning all calls from the classmate's number. The classmate was getting the recording stating that calls from the classmate's number were not accepted. The classmate wanted my daughter to call the third party (avoiding the ban) and bridge her into the call so she could continue to bother the recipient. Oh ... the attempt failed. As soon as I had received the notice that US West was enabling this feature months prior, I called and had them remove it from my lines. It was just too easy to accidentally activate it. Ken 73115.1041@NOSPAMPLEASEcompuserve.com ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Reimbursements to COCOTs For "Free" Calls Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:43:04 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. Given all the hype about the $.25 (or whatever it is) charge that the pay phone operators get for "toll free" calls, I'm surprised that the pay phone operators don't complain about not being paid for '911' calls. Aren't these both in the same catagory as far as the pay phone operators are concerned? They are providing "free" calls for the public at large for whatever reason (good or bad). Why shouldn't they get reimbursed for the calls? I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the whole scheme. Things were MUCH better when the price of a local phone call on a pay phone was simply a dime!! Boy are those days gone! Given the wonders of prepaid phone cards and 800 numbers, why even have coin slots in the phones at all. Just sell the "prepaids" that have magentic stripes on them (to dial the provider and register the card number) and go from there. In variable length number Europe, they have stored value cards, which seem to work quite well. Of course, they don't have money grubbing COCOTs (that I saw) either. Leave it to our wonderful government to really foul things up!! tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Date: 10 Dec 1997 13:53:09 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Eli Mantel (mantel@hotmail.com) wrote: > I have heard no objections to mandatory 911 access, and have even > heard the obligation not to discriminate mentioned in this discussion, > so it appears that everybody concedes that the public interest is > relevant in establishing what property owners may do. > prices for service. Indeed, the premise of the 1996 Telecom Act was > that the public interest could be better served by letting competition > set prices for as many services as possible, including payphones, in > In reality, competition occurs by providers of payphone services > offering maximum revenue to the property owner, largely by charging > higher prices to the actual payphone users. Thus, the real problem in > using the competitive model as the one that best serves the public > interest is that the choice is made by somebody other than the one who > pays for the service. This situation appears to me to be directly analogous to the soft-drink vending machine trade (with the exception of the mandatory 911 access and like considerations). If you see a business place that has both Coke and Pepsi machines on premise, the price of the drinks in almost invariable lower than if the premise only has one brand. The drink vendors pay the property owner extra for exclusivity. In my area, one of the local grocery stores has both brands' machines out front, and the cost per drink is 35 cents. At other stores, with only one brand vending machine, the cost is usually 55 cents. Clearly the consumer is paying extra for less choice. Obviously pay phones, in places that allow multiple operators to place them, will cost less if there is direct competition. But, in reality, the business model is clearly foretold by the soda vendors ... Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is exactly the reason I insisted that the COCOTS I had installed for the guy here be priced at 25 cents; because the nearby Ameritech phones are 35 cents. Regards Pepsi and Coke, you'll never see both brands (or any of the brands 'underneath' each) in the same vending machine. You will see a Coke machine and its various brands one place, and a Pepsi machine elsewhere. When served from a fountain, likewise never will the two be together, nor will the plastic/paper cups used to serve the beverage mention the name of the other. There is at least one exception to this however, and probably a couple more. The 7/Eleven chain sells enough of each to have a major say-so in how it is done. And they say there will be one fountain, one cup. Everyone's logo goes on the cup and that includes both Coke and Pepsi. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Subject: Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels? Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 14:15:06 -0800 Organization: Alcatel > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If police are that concerned, > How about this: the > 911 person answering the call *can* keep the connection up the same > way a telephone operator can do; why don't the police start holding > on to those connections, ringing back, etc ... or does the switchboard > release the line to the room even if the trunk is held up? I don't know about PBXs in North America, but in this part of the world an ermergency operator cannot hold a PBX trunk line: the connection between the subscriber line and the trunk is severed immediately. Depending on the particular type of trunk, the PBX will place the trunk out of service due to signalling timing violations if the CO does not acknowledge the release request in time. > And if the > room extension is released but the trunk is held (by 911) what happens > to the ring back? Does the hotel operator get the call? Why don't > the police specifically ask to speak with the guest in question at > that time? If the guest had misdialed, then redialed, surely they > would still be on the phone thirty seconds later. PAT] The operator of the PBX may not know which of the guests has dialed the emergency number (or even that the number has been dialed at all). There may be many guests on the phone when the emergency operator calls back thirty seconds after the original call. > ... on the other hand I see an incredible number of > foreign people in Skokie (mainly from Russia and middle east areas) > who -- it is true -- do not know how to operate a telephone correctly > and get wrong numbers or no connection at all. This is quite an offensive statement to make. Those people may not know their way around the NANP, but that certainly can't be equated to not knowing how to operate a telephone correctly! I'm sure that's not what you meant to say. ________ \ / Jan Ceuleers Network and Business Consulting \ / Alcatel Bell, Switching Systems Division \ / Francis Wellesplein 1 B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium \/ Tel. +32 3 240 8027 Fax +32 3 240 9917 ceuleerj@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be X400: C=BE,A=RTT,P=ALCANET,OU1=BELA1,O=ALCATEL,S="Jan",G="Ceuleers" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:16:24 -0500 From: James Bellaire Subject: Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels? In TELECOM Digest v343, Eric Bohlman quoted an article from the December 7, 1997 edition of the _St. Petersburg[FL] Times_ about problems with 911 from hotel phones: > Clearwater police are suspicious about the number of 911 calls that > come from rooms at the Fort Harrison Hotel. Police respond to each > call only to be told most of the time by Scientology security guards > that the call was a mistake. Police are not allowed to check > individual rooms where the calls originated. > In the past 11 months, 161 calls to 911 were made from > rooms in the hotel, but each time Scientology security guards said > there was no emergency. Evidently the hotel must know the rooms where the call originated, otherwise the 'police are not allowed to check' complaint is erroneous. A city I once lived in fined its citizens $50 for multiple false alarms from a single address. This was intended to encourage businesses with malfunctioning alarm systems to get them fixed. Billing started with the third false alarm each month. (The hotel would owe nearly $7,000 by now!) If hotel security is that good they may just want to intecept all 911 calls at the security desk. Of course they would have to be staffed 24hrs a day and check with their lawyers. On another international note -- what does the hotel to with '112' calls, the number a traveler who needs emergency aid may pound first? James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Telecom Indiana Webpage http://members.iquest.net/~bellaire/telecom/ * Note new server - old URL should still work * ------------------------------ From: Eric.Kammerer@zool.AirTouch.COM (Eric Kammerer) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:26:59 -0800 Subject: Re: Misdialing 911 From Hotels? > Is this considered a common problem at hotels that have large numbers > of non-US visitors? What percentage of 911 calls in general turn out > to be the result of misdialing? Do PBX/Centrex systems for hotel > applications make some attempt to detect dialing that *might* be an > attempt to reach 911 and reroute it on the assumption that someone in > an emergency might be misdialing out of panic? When I ran the PBX at a Nortel training center, I had the same problem. We had 911 dispatches all the time, only one of them was ever valid. People would misdial, realize their mistake, and hangup. Of course, 911 dispatches with lights and sirens on a hang-up! To make it more interesting, the only ANI that was delivered was the BTN for the DDD trunks, not the extension number making the call. Most calls were made from some phones provided for student use which had phantom DN's not in the DID range. The easiest way to deal with the problem is to block 911, but that's not legal for hotels, and leaves you highly susceptible to lawsuits. I ended up routing 9-911, 9-11, and 6-911 (9 was the local access code, 6 was for long distance). I didn't want to get sued because someone couldn't reach 911, and I didn't want to feel guilty if someone died while waiting for help. ------------------------------ From: Michelle Durbin Subject: Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones Date: 9 Dec 1997 16:35:34 GMT Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service > My comment: I wonder if industry concerns were really addressed. As > was noted previously on this newsgroup, cellular carriers worry that > the users who now have $19.95 per month service "for emergencies" > could potentially disconnect that service and use their disarmed cell > phones to make 911 calls forever, for free. "For emergencies" may not necessarily mean dialing 911. People who have cell phones for "emergencies" may want to have the ability to call for a tow when their car breaks down. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:07:45 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. John R. Levine (johnl@iecc.com) wrote: > I suspect the answer to that particular worry is "tough noogies." > Are there really enough 911 calls to tie up a significant part of the > cellular network?" Probably not, but the carriers don't want to lose that $20/month from their "just in case" customers. "If cellular companies can't figure out how to persuade people that it's worth turning on their cell phones, that says more about the cell companies oligopolistic pricing than it says about the users who are presumably making rational decisions within the parameters that the cell companies provide. In particular, what did they expect with expensive service and free phones?" How true. I bought a good used bag phone at a hamfest a while back, hoping that my mother might be able to get a decent deal without a long service commitment. Silly me. The best I could get locally without a yearly agreement was $40/month and 40/minute, with no bundled air time. (The Frontier deal that Pat has mentioned here sounds good, but she'd have to switch to Frontier for long distance to get it. I haven't checked to see if it's even available in Louisville yet.) So the phone is sitting in my closet, to be pulled out for long trips in case a call to 911 is needed. I can also make "non-emergency" calls at $2/minute, so if I did have to call a friend or relative rather than 911 it isn't unattainable. One interesting offer I saw was for "emergency" cellular phones for $99; these are used (allegedly "remanufactured") handheld phones from Motorola and at least one other manufacturer, and come with a car lighter adapter instead of a battery and charger. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Louisville is served by Ameritech Cellular I think, and if it is, then Frontier could help you, since they resell Ameritech. Your mother would not necessarily have to default a line to Frontier. I forgot to mention that having an 800 'Call Home' number from them also counts as having an account for the purposes of getting cellular service. So your mother can get an 800 number for three or four dollars per month plus tolls and then sign up for cellular. Or, you could sign up for 800, get cellular and then give the phone to your mother with you paying the bill on it. If you do it that way then get your own cellular service as well. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:20:04 -0500 From: Mike Fox Reply-To: mikefox@ibm.net Subject: Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones Bruce Wilson wrote: > In article , Greg Monti > writes: >> My comment: I wonder if industry concerns were really addressed. As was >> noted previously on this newsgroup, cellular carriers worry that the users >> who now have $19.95 per month service "for emergencies" could potentially >> disconnect that service and use their disarmed cell phones to make >> 911 calls forever, for free. > Yeah, but you can't dial 911 to call Aunt Millie. I don't think 911 > traffic's going to suddenly mushroom; and there won't be any need to > assign numbers to those phones which had "emergency" service but now > don't have it. However, I don't see any impending mass exodus of > "emergency" service subscribers because such "emergency" service isn't > limited to 911 calls, which is to say a subscriber can use those > minutes for anything. I think the industry will have a problem, as this regulation will hasten the exodus from traditional cellular to PCS services. PCS services are generally superior, but have little to no coverage in rural areas and poor nationwide coverage. If I'm a subscriber to regular cellular considering moving to PCS, I might be dissuaded by the knowledge that I can't use my PCS phone to dial 911 while I'm travelling. But if I know that I can keep my old cellular phone in the car for 911 while travelling, and I don't have to keep service activated, I think I'd be more likely to drop my analog services and sign up for PCS, knowing that I have the security blanket of the unactivated analog phone in case I'm in an emergency in a non-PCS area. This isn't just speculative. I've already had some friends switch to PCS and drop their analog cellular after verifying they can still use their analog phones for 911. I still think the regulation is a good, common-sense idea, though. Mike ------------------------------ From: Steven Michelson Subject: Re: Free 911 Service for Cellular Phones Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:25:40 -0500 Organization: AT&T I wouldn't be surprised, however, if people who became aware of this free 911 service started using 911 for things that aren't really life-threatening emergencies. For example, is a flat tire an emergency? Not really (IMHO), but those who only have 911 service might consider it one, since it's the only number they can dial on their phones. How about a fender-bender accident where nobody is hurt, but there is some small damage to a vehicle? Different people will have different views of what constitutes an emergency worthy of calling 911. This could, unfortunately, burden the 911 service. I hope that ubiquitous 311 service (i.e., non-emergency police line) also finds its way to cellular. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:07:33 -0500 From: Jerome R. Kalisz Reply-To: kalisz@ctinet.net Organization: KaliszArt Subject: Multi-Line Digital Phone Systems - and a Modem Hi! I just started browsing your archives. A lot of good info there. Maybe you could help me in my search. I'm a member of a non profit organization (toastmasters) that needs to hook a modem up to the phone system in our meeting room. However, there are no fax/data ports available; only multi-line phones on a digital key system. I don't know of any way to tap into such a system inexpesnviely to bring out a single jack into which I might plug the modem. There might be a handset amplifier, but mail order ones are expensive, and not guaranteed to work (plus take a while to get here). I wonder if I could build one? In any case, do you know which of your articles might have some good info on this? It would be much appreciated! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it has been discussed in the Archives, but I decided to put this out for general responses by readers. IMO (notice, no 'H'; that's because I don't give humble opinions) the easiest way out might be to go to wherever the punch down block is serving the multi-line phones (or the jack, or whatever), get in there and camp on one of the pairs you want to use for data purposes. Bring it off to the side in a modular jack of its own ** on the (new) red/green wires ** . Get one of those line exclusion devices from Radio Shack which prevent a phone user from disrupting a data call and vice versa. Plug it into the new jack in such a way that all the phones behind it are dead (on that line appearance) when the modem is off hook. Now plug the modem in, in series behind that excluder thing. I have a terminal and modem hooked up that way now in one place I use a lot. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #346 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Dec 11 23:41:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA00999; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:41:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:41:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712120441.XAA00999@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #347 TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Dec 97 23:41:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 347 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Are Cookie Files Public Record? (Monty Solomon) Fifty Years of Transistors (John R. Levine) Wireless Telephone Systems Seminar (Jerry Kaufman) Bay Area Telecom (Babu Mengelepouti) Locking the Phone Line - Help (Gary Brummond) Bibliography: European Reports on Intelligent Networks (Robin Haberman) Pay Phone Fraud Begins! (Keith Jarrett) Story of MCI Savings Certificates (Eli Mantel) Do Cell Phones Affect Learning? (oldbear@arctos.com) How to Test Coax Cable (RG6)? (Timothy Iafolla) Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Nick) Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Jack Decker) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 11 Dec 1997 00:38:11 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Are Cookie Files Public Record? By Dan Goodin December 9, 1997, 4:05 p.m. PT As it moves toward its first court hearing tomorrow, a novel case testing just how far public records law extends into cyberspace appears destined to be a long, drawn-out battle, one of its attorneys said. As reported previously, a weekly newspaper in Tennessee is suing a local municipality in an attempt to obtain files that are automatically stored on employees' computers when they surf the Internet. Plaintiff Geoffrey Davidian, editor of the Putnam Pit, said in court documents that officials in the town of Cookeville turned him down when he tried to obtain the files under Tennessee's public records act. In addition to seeking an order forcing the disclosure of the so-called cookie files, Davidian's suit also seeks unspecified punitive awards and attorneys' fees. The case -- which appears to be the first to test whether cookie files are considered public under a state's public record law -- receives its first court hearing tomorrow. But Sam Harris, the attorney representing Davidian, said little is likely to come out of it. "I've made the offer we will drop any claim to monetary damages if they will agree that any Internet file is public information," said Harris. Attorneys for the city have rebuffed the offer, he added, and are now stalling for time. Last month, the U.S. district judge in Nashville hearing the case postponed a preliminary injunction hearing until after tomorrow's case management conference. At the informal meeting, the judge will set deadlines and iron out other procedural matters, but Harris said he may use the hearing to file an expedited motion for access to the files, called a temporary restraining order. Cookeville officials appear to be digging in their heels. Michael O'Mara, city attorney for the 26,500-person city about 75 miles east of Nashville, said he has obtained a written opinion from Tennessee's attorney general that the computer files Davidian is seeking are not considered public under that state's laws. Specifically, O'Mara points to provisions in the law that make exceptions for temporary records and working papers. A cookie "is about the equivalent of scratching notes on a yellow pad and at the end of the day throwing them away," said O'Mara. "We don't think that the documents the Putnam Pit are requesting are public documents." O'Mara declined to discuss the possibility of a settlement in the case, citing city policy. Many Webmasters use cookies as a way of tracking information about the people visiting a site. Cookies are especially helpful in automating sites that are activated by passwords or that customize content based on a user's preferences. Because the files are automatically stored and updated on the user's hard drive each time a site is accessed, cookies can provide detailed information about a user's browsing habits, such as which sites are visited and when. In a press release posted on his Web site, Davidian said he is seeking the files in an attempt to hold public employees accountable. "The cookie files could show whether taxpayers are footing the bill for city employee access to Internet sites focusing on such issues as white supremacy, pornography, [or] white slavery," Davidian explained. Karl Olson, a California attorney who practices media law, said that on the surface, Davidian's case appears solid. Tennessee's law defines a public record broadly as any media, "regardless of physical form or characteristics [that is] made or recorded...in connection with [the] transaction of official business by any governmental agency." He said it was predictable that the city would contend that cookies are temporary records that are exempt from public record laws. Such arguments are common, but by no means foolproof, said Olson, an attorney at Levy, Ram & Olson in San Francisco, adding, "To me there's a pretty good argument in favor of disclosure." Predictably, Harris, the plaintiff's lawyer, agreed and vowed to press on. "I think the legislature wrote a statute that gives a lot of leeway as to how you interpret it [a public document]," said Harris, a solo attorney in Cookeville. "To me, this is really a First Amendment case. Can public officials subvert the press simply by storing information using modern technology?" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is just a thesis of mine. The city may have examined those cookie files in the process of deciding what to do in response to the suit and what they found would prove very embarassing. City employees might have been reading the types of things suggested by the newspaper or participating in other non-work related activities on the net. They might have been visiting sex sites or even god-forbid, reading TELECOM Digest. Now the city is stuck with trying to delete the files (or at least the most embarassing parts of them) or deal with the backlash. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:56:33 EST From: John R Levine Subject: Fifty Years of Transistors Next Tuesday, December 16th, marks the 50th aniversary of the invention of the transistor at Bell Labs. It's hard to think of an invention that has had a more profound effect on the modern world. Without transistors, we couldn't have fast cheap computers, nor the modern digital telephone network. Lucent, which now owns Bell Labs, has a nice web site on transistor history at http://www.lucent.com/ideas2/heritage/transistor/ Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: Jerry Kaufman <"JerryKaufman@worldnet.att.net"@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Wireless Business Telephone Seminar Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:00:59 -0700 Organization: Alexander Resources Reply-To: "JerryKaufman@worldnet.att.net"@worldnet.att.net 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: * WIRELESS CENTREX * IN-BUILDING CELLULAR * WIRELESS PBX * ON-PREMISES/UNLICENSED PCS Location: Orlando, FL Hotel: Sheraton Orlando North Dates: February 5 & 6, 1998 Presented by: Alexander Resources Contact: Carole Kaufman Telephone: 972-818-8225 Fax: 972-818-6366 Seminar Web site: www.alexanderresources.com e-mail:seminars@alexanderresources.com The two day seminar will be taught by Jerry Kaufman, President of Alexander Resources. Mr. Kaufman is an internationally recognized expert on wireless communications and the foremost authority on wireless telephone systems. Alexander Resources Co. 15851 N. Dallas Pkwy, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75248 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:36:21 -0500 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Bay Area Telecom I visit relatives annually in the bay area, which, as a college student with no car, is invariably a very dull experience. I was wondering if there was anything interesting to telecom enthusiasts in or near the area that is accessible by public transportation. That would give me a reason/excuse to leave, so I could get a break from answering the endless questions about the nontraditional academic program at the school I attend ("what do you mean they have NO GRADES?") and the specific academic program I have chosen (So what exactly IS "water resources?"). I have heard that the Roseville Telephone Company has an excellent museum for instance, but how far is that from Mountain View? Any input on that, or anything else of interest in the Bay Area would be very appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:11:42 -0800 From: Gary Brummond Reply-To: tma*uni@unidial.com Organization: Telephone Management Associates Subject: Locking the Phone Line - Help A co-worker of mine has three teenagers who use the telephone on a regular basis. It is their own line, but he limits their incoming and outgoing calls to everything prior to 9:30pm. At 9:30pm, every night, he turns a key which cuts off the telephone line. The problem, he says, is that he has to physically do it at 9:30pm every night. He was wondering if there was the same type of device, only with a timer. This way, he could set the timer, and not have to get up at 9:30pm each time. Thanks for your help! Gary Brummond Telephone Management Associates (888) 444-4TMA tma@unidial.com ------------------------------ From: robineh@ibm.net (Robin E. Haberman) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 97 19:51:41 Reply-To: robineh@ibm.net Subject: Bibliography: European Reports on Intelligent Network The following seven references are on published proceeding, journals and a book on the Intelligent Network in Europe. 1. @inproceedings{BMSB97-PACT, author = {Volker Braun and Tiziana Margaria and Bernhard Steffen and Friedrich--KarlBruhns}, title = {Service Definition for Intelligent Networks: Experience in a Leading--edge Technological Project Based on Constraint Techniques}, booktitle = {3rd Int. Conf. on Practical Application of Constraint Technology (PACT'97)}, year = {1997}, month = {April}, editor = {The Practical Application Company}, address = {London (UK)}, 2. @inproceedings{BrKM-ICIN96-Tut, author = {F.--K.~Bruhns and V.~Kriete and Tiziana Margaria}, title = {Service Creation Environments: Today and Tomorrow}, booktitle = {4th Int. Conf. on Intelligent Networks (ICIN'96)}, year = {1996}, month = {November}, address = {Bordeaux (France)}, 3. @techreport{MIP9604, author = {Tiziana Margaria (Hrsg.)}, title = {Advanced Intelligent Networks '96}, year = {1996}, number = {MIP--9604}, institution = {Fakult\"{a}t f\"{u}r Mathematik und Informatik, University of Passau}, number = {MIP--9604}, 4. @inproceedings{MKMMSB-IWWC97-Tut, author = {Tiziana Margaria and V.~Kriete and B.~Massion and C.~Molic and J.~Sch\"{u}tt and F.--K.~Bruhns}, title = {Women and Intelligent Networks: Experience in a Leading--edge Technological Project}, booktitle = {WWC'97, 6th International IFIP--Conference on Women, Work and Computerization}, journal = {LNCS}, year = {1997}, month = {May}, publisher = {Springer Verlag}, address = {Bonn (germany)}, 5. @article{SMCBR96-IECAnnRev96, author = {Bernhard Steffen and Tiziana Margaria and Andreas Cla\ss{}en and Volker Braun and Manfred Reitenspie\ss{}}, title = {An Environment for the Creation of Intelligent Network Services}, journal = {Annual Review of Communication, Int. Engineering Consortium Chicago (USA), EIC}, year = {1996}, pages = {919--935}, note = {also invited Contribution to the book ``Intelligent Networks: IN/AIN Technologies, Operations, Services, and Applications -- A Comprehensive Report'' IEC, 1996, pp. 287--300.}, 6. @inproceedings{SMCBR96-AIN, author = {Bernhard Steffen and Tiziana Margaria and Andreas Cla\ss{}en and Volker Braun and Manfred Reitenspie\ss{}}, title = {An Environment for the Creation of Intelligent Network Services}, booktitle = {Int. Workshop on Advanced Intelligent Networks (AIN'96)}, year = {1996}, pages = {117--136}, month = {March}, address = {Passau (Germany)}, 7. "The Intelligent Network Standards - their application to service" by Igor Faynberg Lawrence R. Gabudza, Mare P. Kaplan, Nitin J. Shah; published by McGraw Hill (Series on Telecommunication) ISBN 0-07-21422-0, $50 Robin E. Haberman ------------------------------ From: remove_this_part_to_email_keith@tcsi.com (Keith Jarrett) Subject: Pay Phone Fraud Begins! Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:41:49 GMT Organization: NetVista Info Corp From a page 1 article in the December 8 issue of RCR (ww.rcrnews.com): [Paging] Dispatch centers across the country already have reported instances of mass auto-dialing from pay phones to their 800-number dispatch lines since the compensation scheme [good choice of words, don't you think?] went into effect. The calls are recorded messages that say, "What's that? (pause) I'm sorry, I must have dialed a wrong number," and then disconnect. Each call lasts about 5-6 seconds and blocks the dispatch centers' caller identification systems [how is this possible if the dispatch center has ANI?]. Dispatch centers believe that the calls are being made by pay-phone [pay-phoney?] service providers looking to cash in on the surcharge. "Whoever this is, they know what they are doing," Kane [VP of All Office Support] said. "Most long-distance carriers bill in 6-second increments, so they will be very difficult to spot." [I don't understand that last comment, since even a 5-second call will be charged as 0.1 minute.] Because the pay-phone compensation scheme makes no provision for wrong numbers, 800-number operators have no choice but to pay up. In the petition, the dispatching parties suggest the FCC that there should be no compensation for calls lasting less than 15 seconds, eliminating the wrong-number issue. [This change would eliminate recorded auto-dialed calls, too, guaranteeing employment for human callers in these fraudulent operations. :-) ] BTW, if you don't subscribe to RCR, check it out. RCR and Wireless Week are the two leading trade publications for the wireless industry. Keith Jarett keith "at" tcsi.com ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Story of MCI Savings Certificates Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 00:37:38 PST I attempted to redeem my MCI Savings Certificate in September. These Savings Certificates were MCI's answer to AT&T's offer of cash for customers willing to come back to AT&T. I called up MCI Customer Service tonight asking them to show me the money that they promised me. What they told me was a real surprise, one that I wanted everyone to hear about, so I've made it the lead story on my Cagey Consumer web site: http://www.geocities.com/wallstreet/5395 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:27:38 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: Do Cell Phones Affect Learning? As summarized in {Edupage} for 12/11/97: DO CELL PHONES AFFECT LEARNING? European regulators are taking a hard look at research by University of Washington professor Henry Lai that indicates exposure to microwave radiation hampered the ability of lab rats to learn a maze. Lai found that exposing the rats to 45 minutes of microwave radiation similar to levels that might be absorbed by a typical cell phone user slowed the rats' ability to master the task. The effects of the waves could be ameliorated by pretreating the rats with drugs that target two neurochemical systems in the brain -- the endogenous opioid system and the cholinergic system, leading Lai to propose that these systems are affected by microwave-frequency fields. The Wireless Technology Research Group, an industry-funded group, is now planning its own experiments. Meanwhile, at least one company in Germany already began advertising "low-radiation" cell phones this past summer. source: {Scientific American} December 1997 ------------------------------ From: Timothy Iafolla Subject: How to Test Coax Cable (RG6) ? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:12:03 -0500 Organization: Erol's Internet Services After crimping on a coaxial connector, is there an easy way to test for continuity, shorts, etc, using a multimeter? Thanks, Tim Iafolla ------------------------------ From: Nick Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 01:24:26 -0500 Organization: @Home Network Lee Winson wrote: > After reading the MCI sleaze post I had a thought: To be truly fair in > local telephone competition, let's make it TRUE competition. Let each > player build their own local loop plant and central office facilities. > blah blah blah Then Pat added ... > ... Remember, it took Bell a hundred years to get where they were at > at that point in time. I would argue that the truly fair course of action would be to take the local loop away from the RBOCs. Sure, AT&T and the RBOCs built it up over a hundred years, but with whose money? The people of the United State's money, that's who. Since it was a monopoly (not at first, but during the massive post war build-up at least), the people had no choice but to fund AT&T and the RBOCs. The local loop belongs to the people. It should have been taken over by the government. I hate the waste and inefficiency of government agencies as much as anyone, but the government couldn't do a worse job of building the phone system than the locals. They're quasi-government agencies anyway. People are just blind to their failures because they have nothing to compare them to. Perhaps if the government had taken control, we would have a decent telephone 'backbone' and energetic, competitive companies offering services using it. We'll never know. As things stand now, nothing's going to improve. We may all see a 15 to 20 % decrease in local phone charges, but that's where it will level off, because that's the discount mandated by congress. The RBOCs, at worse, will become wholesalers of local phone service, but that service will still be way too expensive. If the local telephone companies employed new technology and took calculated risks which could cut phone costs 200%, 400%, who knows? But they don't because they're not required to. Instead they plug along, putting band-aids on an antiquated local loop that's still mostly aging copper wire. Makes me sick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:54:28 -0500 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant The moderator sayeth thusly: > Remember of course that Judge Harold Greene had his noise out of > joint to start with where AT&T was concerned. He made no pretense > of having a fair 'trial' or proceedings and early on before the > divestiture case even came to court he let it be known among his > cronies in the US Injustice Department that if they wanted to > 'take on Bell' they'd find his courtroom a friendly venue. So > the story goes, he lost a dime in a payphone and got sassed by > the operator when he asked about a refund; he went away angry and > detirmined to break up their monopoly. I just can't let this one go by. I don't know if the story is true or not; I suspect that it took more than just losing a dime at a payphone to upset the honorable judge, although if the operator really sassed him that might well have been the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back." However, I have often contended that one reason that large companies sometimes receive their comeuppance is because they finally manage to offend the wrong person. For example, if the local cable company fails to show up on two separate occasions when scheduled to do a cable hookup, and then then when they finally do arrive, they drill a hole through the sidewall of the home (rather than down into the basement or crawl space and then out) so that the homeowner now has a hole in his siding and an ugly wire running down the side of their house - well, if the cable company does that to most of us we might get upset but there is not much we can do about it. However, if that sort of thing is the usual practice rather than the rule, then one day they will pull this stunt at the home of the mayor or a city council member, or if perhaps they have been careful to make sure that city high officials get only the best possible service, then they'll do it at the mayor's mother's home or at the home of someone else that the mayor or an influential council member cares about. Or maybe they'll do it at the home of the local newspaper editor, or the owner of the local radio or TV station. My point is that if a company makes a practice of treating their customers like dirt, sooner or later they're going to do it to someone who has the authority to get them where it hurts. The next time our hypothetical cable company's franchise expires, they may find that the city leaders are no longer willing to grant them an exclusive franchise; they might even consider themselves lucky if their existing franchise is renewed. The thing that I recall about the Bell System of old is that if there was some irregularity on your bill -- long distance calls that you didn't make, for example -- their first reaction was to insist that the customer must have made those calls, or that someone in their family must have, or that perhaps a visitor to the home had made the calls (in which case the customer was held responsible). I remember one particular case where there was a call on my bill to a place where I knew no one; I called the business office and got all the usual garbage about how those calls *had* to have come from my line because after all, their computers had recorded the origin of the call and their computers didn't make mistakes (yes, the representative actually said this!). Since I was in essence being called a liar, and was also being told that a machine was more credible than I was, I got pretty hot and threatened to call down the wrath of the Public Service Commission upon their heads if she didn't remove that call from my bill. Even then she told me that I'd have to wait while she investigated further. Well, after about five minutes on hold she came back and told me she had pulled the record on the call and it had originated from an eight-party line. Since I had a private line at the time, that was a pretty obvious discrepancy, so she did remove the charge, and even gave me a rather weak apology (which must have ruined her whole day, given her previous tone of arrogant superiority). Note that she hadn't even bothered to check my claim in any way prior to my threat of bringing the matter before the PSC, she just assumed that she was going to stick me with the charge, come what may. I can tell you that after that experience, I was ready to believe anyone who told me that the phone company was trying to charge them for calls they didn't make. The reason that the old Lily Tomlin "Ernestine" character (whose trademark line was, "We're the phone company - we don't have to care!") resonated with the public was because so many of us had dealt with arrogant, inflexible phone company representatives. Granted that there were the repair guys who put their lives on the line to restore service after emergencies, but these were not the people that the average customer had frequent contact with. Most customers, if they had a reason to talk to a phone company employee at all, dealt with either operators or business office employees and while many of those were fine folks, there were those who simply assumed that if a customer disputed a charge on their bill the customer was lying, even if (as in my case) the charge was relatively small and the customer had no history of missing bill payments (or even being late with a payment). No one likes being called a liar, and if a department store or supermarket treated customers that way, many customers would resolve never to shop there again, but of course you didn't (and in most places, still don't) have the option of not dealing with your local phone company, unless being without a phone wasn't a problem for you. I'm not saying that Judge Greene was always "fair" in the way he dealt with AT&T. But I do think this was definitely a case of "what goes around, comes around" and there is a lesson to be learned here, one that perhaps a few of today's long distance companies ought to take note. If you are going to make it a practice to treat customers badly, sooner or later you are going to offend the person who has the ability to cause you some serious damage down the road. It may be a judge, or a state regulator, or a lawyer, or a congressman or senator, or someone who will be holding one of those positions in a few years, or perhaps a close relative of one of those folks, or someone else that they care deeply about. I think that as today's major long distance companies adopt policies that infuriate more and more people, they are going to find that they have fewer and fewer "friends in high places" when the time comes that they really need some! Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is very, very true that much of the early success of MCI -- going back now to the middle/late seventies and even the early eighties -- must be credited to the distaste so many people had for AT&T and the 'phone company' in general in those days. The idea of 'getting one over on the phone company' was quite appealing. People did not really bother to differentiate between the locals and AT&T, and they loved Ernestine because she reminded them of so much they disliked about Bell. If you recall, New York Telephone (to name one example) was having a *horrible* time keeping up with repair requests and new installations throughout the seventies. There was a period of time in those years that you could walk down the streets of Manhattan for a couple miles without finding a single working payphone. Most of the central office equipment was still either crossbar or stepper in those days, it was getting old and in need of maintainence and because people who like to defraud telco knew so much about the old system, fraud was at an all time high. Speaking again about New York Telephone, who was it made the comment about payphones in the big apple saying, "So I stood there in that stinky, smelly payphone booth with graffiti all over the walls and standing in someone else's piss all over the floor waiting for fifteen rings for the operator to answer so I could ask for credit on the last call I made when I lost my money. After fifteen rings, an operator answers who says it is not her fault and she could do nothing for me. I tried to explain what I wanted, she said to hold on a minute and while I was waiting she cut me off, 'accidentally' I am sure." So there was a preponderance of these incidents along with other things that had the public pretty annoyed. Was it all Bell's fault? Probably not; all of us came into the 1970's together at the same time after the very tumultuous 1960's; attitudes were much different, and admittedly 'good help was hard to find', leaving telco and lots of other large major corporations in some tight squeezes. Demand for telecom services was growing, and telco had trouble getting good dedicated workers. Remind me sometime to tell you about the backoffice hellhole at the Amoco/Diners Club Credit Card Processing Center in those days and the kinds of *creepy* jerks working there. Telco also had a lot of *strange* people; anti-war (Viet Nam) protestors, phreaks, etc on the payroll. Service was not at its best, and that is an understatement. First National Bank of Chicago had a couple dozen thieves and people convicted of mail fraud working in its mailroom which the bank did not know about until it finally caught on and fired eighteen employees in one single day. All big corporations were enemies of the people and responsible for the war, etcetera ad nauseum. I recall also one day it made the newspapers when Illinois Bell did a good housecleaning and dumped a couple hundred employees who it was alleged were not 'looking after the best interests of the company'. Of course that just left them that much shorter on 'good help'. But for whatever reason, lots of folks in those days hated AT&T. It was a 'multi-national corporation involved in war-mongering,'; it was 'guilty' of all sorts of things. Add in broken payphones in booths that someone had vandalized and peed in; long delays in getting installations and repairs done and calls on your phone bill that you did not make ... when MCI came along and offered its services many people flew AT&T's coop just out of retaliation. It was said in an editorial in {Telephony Magazine} about 1976 that MCI's customer base consisted of people who hated AT&T and others who simply did not know any better and actually thought they would save money. You are right, Jack; what goes around comes around. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #347 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 16 08:22:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA10973; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:22:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:22:51 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712161322.IAA10973@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #348 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Dec 97 08:22:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 348 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Tulsa Bank Error Sends Calls to Wrong Number (Tad Cook) Sprint False Information - Don't Use Sprint! (Diana Fruguglietti) Pac*Bell Announces 661 as New NPA for 805 Split (Mark J. Cuccia) Minneapolis/St.Paul NPA Relief (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Lee Winson) Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (M. Hayworth) Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Joseph Singer) Re: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California (Dave Stott) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: Tulsa Bank Error Sends Calls to Wrong Number Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 01:31:08 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Phone Dialing Trouble Glitch Hits Home for Tulsa, Okla., Couple By Dan Rutherford, Tulsa World, Okla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Dec. 12--Bank One Oklahoma may not be able to tell you how many customer complaints they received from their weekend conversion, but Debi and Mark Allen probably can. The Allens' answering machine recorded most of them. When Liberty Bank & Trust Co. began its conversion to Bank One at the close of business Friday, it shut down its regular customer service 800-number. Instead of a menu of options, the system played a message directing Tulsa customers to call Bank One for help. However, the message forgot to tell customers the phone number was in the 405 area code. The Allens have the same number in the 918 area code. "It started Friday afternoon. But I just blew it off. There were only five or six calls," Debi Allen said. "My husband thought it was kind of fun -- they thought we were the bank. Then around 6 p.m. it just hit and it wasn't fun anymore." Mark Allen finally asked an irritated customer how he got his home phone number and called the bank to remedy the problem. However, the mistake couldn't be fixed until Monday. "Over the weekend we unplugged it (the telephone). It was that bad," Debi Allen said. "I plugged it back in Monday because I had to make some calls and got about 50 more. People over the weekend must have written the number down because they are still calling." Spurring the calls were a couple of glitches in Bank One's ATM switchover. And all of the bank's branches were closed Saturday for the conversion. "I'm passing along the gripes and complaints," Debi Allen said jokingly. "Really, it's just one of those deals where mistakes happen. They were very apologetic and worked with us. I couldn't have asked for people to be nicer," Debi Allen said. Bank One spokesman Joe Bowles said, "We apologized profusely and got the problem fixed immediately. "We were embarrassed by the mistake and hope our customers realized that in a conversion of this magnitude thousands of things went right. Only a couple of things went wrong. If we inconvenienced anyone we are very apologetic," Bowles said. ----------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have mentioned here in the past how I had the same thing happen in 1974 when an old SxS office in Chicago was cut over to ESS. My number was 312-WEbster-9-4600 and the number for the switchboard at Sears' Credit Department was WAbash-2-4600. Calls from one single southwest side central office in in Chicago were directed to me due to a programming error in the central office and for a day or so I was bombarded with calls for Sears -- I probably got several hundred before it was corrected. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:45:42 -0500 From: Diana Fruguglietti Reply-To: diana@kronos.com Subject: Sprint False Information - Don't Use Sprint! I have been scanning this newsgroup and found that I am not alone in my billing disagreements with Sprint! I had Sprint as my long distance carrier and saw an advertisement on TV about free Monday night calls between 7pm - 11pm. Since I did not have any written confirmation of this I decided to call their sales number to verify if this was really true, prior to making any calls. This happened back in early November. I called and the woman I spoke with confirmed that yes this was true. I asked about the 403 area code (Canada) and she said it was included. She said all other times would be .10 / minute evenings and .25 day rate. I said great. She also said the promotion ran through Dec. 29th. Therefore I made my calls and talked for 40 minutes to Canada. To my astonishment, I just received my bill and was billed for $40.00 - $1 / minute!! I called to get this fixed and they said that I had to sign up for the free Monday nights and that Canada was not even included!!! The sales- person never mentioned this. They wouldn't budge. Obviously they do not care about their customers! They will LIE to get you to make phone calls and then charge you exorbitant rates. I told them I would switch carriers and post this information on the internet. It didn't phase them one bit! If anyone has since got their bill adjusted, please email me with how you did it. I will never use Sprint again. I can't wait until they call to find out why I switched companies! -Diana [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No Diana, you are not alone. There are lots of other readers here similarly situated. This has been an ongoing discussion here for at least a few years now, going back to when Sprint was offering free modems to new customers and then continuing through the days of the 'Friday Free' promotion. The rules were changed on both of those promotions mid-stream also, or if the rules were always in effect, they were not explained very well. If you recall with 'Friday Free', new customers were told they would get all their calls free every Friday for one year; then all of a sudden certain types of calls were no longer free (once the customer had made the call he found this out of course). Sprint even included the name and phone number of a representative who was assigned to specifically answer questions about the change in the promotion ... ... lots of readers here remember that! This guy never once was able to be contacted. He was always 'in a meeting all day' or 'stepped away from his desk for a few minutes' or 'on another call', but never available to answer calls from customers about the letter *he sent out under his own name* saying that the 'Friday Free' program was being modified. You knew of course that the name 'Sprint' goes back to the days when the Southern Pacific Railroad started the company. The railroad decided in the middle to late 1970's that they needed to upgrade their internal network communications. Where they had been operating with wires on poles strung along the side of their railroad tracks all over the USA, they decided to install a 'modern' (for the 1970's) microwave network. When the new system was in place, they had lots of excess capacity and decided to sell the excess to other companies to help pay for the new network. The name given to the new entity was outhern

acific ailroad nternal etwork elecommunications. It was sometimes spelled out S.P.R.I.N.T. and sometimes people said the word 'sprint' instead. Like CARE (Committee on American Relief in Europe), ZIP codes (Zone Improvement Plan) and a few others, people have long since forgotten the original words and prefer to just pronounce the abbreviation as a word in and of itself. Sprint of course has not been owned by the railroad for many, many years, and they switched from business customers only to business and residence many years ago. While on this topic, I'll mention that MCI means 'Microwave Communications, Incorporated', which was the original name of the company when it was a storefront operation selling/repairing radio equipment in Joliet, Illinois in the middle 1960's. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:40:50 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Pac*Bell Announces 661 as New NPA for 805 Split Pac*Bell's website has a notice dated 8-December-1997, announcing the final boundaries in the forthcoming split of NPA 805 (Southern California area to the north of Los Angeles metro), as well as the digits of the new code (NPA 661), as well as permissive/mandatory dialing dates. http://www.pactel.com/cgi-bin/getrel?1608 The coastal area of current NPA 805 will retain 805 (Ventura and northwestward). The interior area of current NPA 805 (including Bakersfield) will change to 661. Permissive dialing 13 Feb 1999. Mandatory dialing 14 Aug 1999. Through 13 Nov 1999 (for three months after 661 becomes mandatory), calls to the affected areas (now in 661) but dialed as 805 instead of 661 will reach an intercept indicating that particular number has changed from NPA 805 to NPA 661. After 13 Nov 1999, I assume that Pac*Bell (or the new NANPA, Lockheed-Martin) will begin assigning new 805-NXX and 661-NXX prefixes exclusively for their respective regions. There was nothing on the website announcing what the NPA 661 test verification number will be. Also, elsewhere in Pac*Bell's website, it is mentioned that Nevada's 702 NPA will split in 1998. There are no further details, although I understand that the southern part of Nevada (Las Vegas, etc) which is mostly Sprint-Centel will retain 702. The northern part of Nevada (Reno, Carson City, Sparks, Virginia City, etc) which is SBC/Pac*Tel's Nevada*Bell (and other small local independent telcos) will be changing to a new yet-to-be-announced NPA code. One thing we know for certain is that the new (northern) Nevada NPA code will _NOT_ be 711 nor 777. 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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:31:33 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Minneapolis/St.Paul NPA Relief On Thursday, my friend in Minneapolis told me that local radio/TV/print/ news/media mentioned that either 651 or 952 will be the new NPA code for St.Paul MN and nearby communities east of the Mississippi River. It was mentioned that Lockheed-Martin (the new North American telephone numbering administrator) and USWest will make the 'official' formal announcement in February 1998. I don't think that any 'exact' dates of activation (permissive/manda- tory) were announced, except that the new code will be needed in summer, 1998. Whatever the split code for St.Paul will be (either 651 or 952), the other code will be for further relief (at some future date) for Minneapolis and west of the river metro area communities, which for now will retain the 612 NPA code. (Hopefully, by that time, they could do an overlay with full mandatory ten-digit local dialing, as Atlanta metro will be doing, and possibly Chicago metro might be doing throughout next year). The local dial format for Minneapolis/St.Paul metro with this forthcoming split, from what I've been told, will be ... Home-NPA local: seven-digits and permissive ten-digits Adjacent/Nearby-NPA local: mandatory ten-digits All toll (including home NPA, if there is any toll within the 'same' NPA): mandatory 1+ten-digits 10(1X)XXX+ can be prefixed first to use different carriers All operator/card/etc. special billing, same or differing NPA: mandatory 0+ten-digits 10(1X)XXX+ can be prefixed first to use different carriers This seems similar to the existing dialing plans in use in Seattle and Atlanta. Boston metro has a similar dialing plan, although permissive 1+ before ten-digits for both home and nearby NPA local calls is also allowed in eastern MA -- I don't think that Seattle and Atlanta allow a permissive 1+ before any ten-digit local call. The forthcoming split will cause some problems, as there are areas near the Mississippi River, on each side, which are served out of c/o switches and NXX codes from the opposite side. I don't know if these "pocket area" customers will have to be renumbered right away, or if USWest is going to have to 'duplicate' NXX codes in both NPA codes. During the state regulatory hearings, an overlay plan was considered, but it seems that the split has been decided on. 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: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant Date: 15 Dec 1997 23:52:52 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS > I would argue that the truly fair course of action would be to take > the local loop away from the RBOCs. Sure, AT&T and the RBOCs built it > up over a hundred years, but with whose money? The people of the > United State's money, that's who. Several people have stated this. I believe that point of view is flat out wrong, as well as unconstitutional. The local loop was built with the INVESTOR'S money, not the public. A phone system is worthless unless a critical mass of people are also customers, and there is switching equipment ready to take your call. The bills you pay are a return on the investment. Think about it: You order new phone service for the first time. In a couple of days, your service is turned on. Did they, in response to your request, build a central office and lay out a cable to your house -- AND -- bill you for all those expenses? No, of course not. Your monthly bill will pay over time for that layout. The amount of return on the stockholder's investment is regulated by law. If a plain private company offers a popular product, it can make a big profit. The phone company cannot. However, the phone company is still at risk for loss of investment. Suppose a community loses population (like many inner cities). The company is stuck with a bad investment in plant. Look at the railroads: the public decided to ride on government built highways and airports. The railroads were stuck with tracks and trains that weren't necessary, and some went bankrupt. If the government were to take over the local loop, the US Constitution requires that it pay for it. You cannot take private property without just compensation. > I hate the waste and inefficiency of government agencies as much as > anyone, but the government couldn't do a worse job of building the > phone system than the locals. Well then, you support my original post. Let some new company come along and do it their way and we'll see how it works ou t. > Perhaps if the government had taken control, we would have a decent > telephone 'backbone' and energetic, competitive companies offering > services using it. We'll never know. The rest of the world has government ownership, and the US always had the best phone system. Regarding the other post describing the arrogance of the "Ma Bell"... My own experiences with the old telephone company have been generally very good. Admittedly, I was served by the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, one of the best in the whole system. I've had dimes lost in pay phones, and they mailed me a refund. I also found a few dimes in pay phones, too. I wonder how many people mailed them to the phone company? As to challenging long distance calls, my own experience has been if you do it rarely, there was no problem. A friend told me his father found a strange call on their bill and gave the telco hell to take it off. They did. Turned out my friend made to call, he wasn't familiar with the town location shown. I suspect a lot of "stray" calls were the result of special one-time circumstances people merely forgot about. As far as Judge Greene: In Oslin's {The Story of Communications}, Oslin describes Greene has an activist judge out to make fresh public policy, in the spirit of the liberal 1960s. In other words, the implication was that the judge saw the phone company itself was inherently broken and needed fixing. Back in those days a lot of people DID feel that way -- that any large corporation was inherently evil simply by being a large corporation. ["Prejudice" takes many forms. You can have a very intelligent person convinced that all members of a certain ethnic group have a particular trait -- this is the common meaning. But a less known but just as virulent strain is thinking that all members of the _business_ community have a particular trait. That's no better.] When I started in computers in the early 1970s, there was a lot of criticism of IBM (which also was the target of an anti-trust suit but won it.) I asked my experienced co-workers if IBM was really as bad as the "conventional wisdom" had it. They replied: a) IBM got the flack because it was so large and visible and b) IBM's competitors did every undesirable business practice IBM did. (For myself, having used both IBM and competitors' computers, I found IBM products and support superior, and still do.) Back in those days it was very popular to spit on big corporate America, and AT&T got hit hard. Much of it was flat out unfair. As to the severe service problems of the 1970s, some of it was AT&T's fault for poor planning. Some of it was technical, in that their equipment wasn't suited for a high volume of installations. And some of it was social. At the time, people became much more mobile, moving around more often than ever. This resulted in a very high volume of change orders that the office and tech staff couldn't keep with. Technically, the old distributing frames filled up with jumpers faster than ever and this hindered connection efforts. Another problem at the time was high employee turnover, and the new employees couldn't be trained fast enough to know what they were doing. There were also complaints of the quality of workers the companies were pressured to hire at the time. Yet another problem of the times was vandalism and crime. Most broken pay phones were the result of vandalism and abuse, not poor maintenance. The phone company had to increase pay phone maintenance efforts at a time when its forces were stretched thin. If you have concentrated vandalism, you'll never catch up with it -- the minute a phone is fixed it'll get broken again. That is not the phone company's fault, but they got the blame. Please forgive my long-winded response. While some good social reforms came out of those days, a lot of bad things came out too, and I think people have to take a closer look at things. The changes in the telephone industry are a reflection of the changes of society, for better and worth. Sometimes the "conventional wisdom" is too broad and general and inaccurate. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This was indeed the hassle that New York Telephone, Illinois Bell and a couple other of the large metro-area telcos had in the 1970's. Pay phones were fair game for anyone who (a) wanted to vandalize something; or (b) use as a toilet as a way to show contempt for American business and the role they perceived it (a large corporation) played in the war in Viet Nam. We slid through the 1950's very easily, and *should* have seen what was coming after the rough-and-tumble 1960's but many large companies did not see it or chose to ignore it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael Hayworth Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:21:01 -0600 Organization: Innovative TeleSolutions Lee Winson wrote: > After reading the MCI sleaze post I had a thought: To be truly fair in > local telephone competition, let's make it TRUE competition. Let each > player build their own local loop plant and central office facilities. Yeah, and just so we make it really fair, let's make sure we guarantee each new competitor a huge customer base and give them a guaranteed profit. <> There's nothing difficult, impressive or particularly admirable about being willing to do all this stuff when you're guaranteed a profit for doing it. I'll be glad to sit in my corporate office and hire some poor guy to run cable to Uncle Fester's cave up in the Ozarks, if that's one of the requirements that comes with a huge guaranteed profit. > But the newcomers will have to meet the same standards that Bell > companies now meet to provide service. They'll have to wire ALL > neighborhoods and offer service to everyone, even high deadbeat slum > areas. Banks are forbidden to "redline" slum areas and must provide > branch offices in them, so there is precedent for this in competitive > industries. Banks are not *required* to build branch offices anywhere. They build branch offices where it makes them a profit. They *are* forbidden from redlining, which simply means that they can't automatically reject mortgage applications from people living in particular areas of a city. It doesn't mean they have to build an office there -- the folks who live there have to drive to them to a branch to apply for the mortgage. To stick with that analogy, if you want to require CLECs to accept customers in all areas of the city, that seems reasonable. Bell's former monopoly has already required them to run cable to those areas. But if they're not guaranteed a monolopoly, you can't require them to run cable to Uncle Fester instead of to my much-more-profitable door. We've paid for all this physical plant for years, due to the RBOC monopolies -- and a pretty poor plant it is, since there's been no motivation for them to run fiber instead of copper, or to build out facilities that can actually sustain a 56K modem call. Now, Bell is going to have to compete, and instead of going out and figuring out ways to actually make customers *want* to do business with them, they're going to whine and gripe and drag their feet all they can. The sad thing is that I find many times when I'm really impressed with how good a job SWBT does for me -- but those times are more than balanced out by the number of times that I can't believe what a poor job they do of providing either features or knowledgeable staff. Michael Hayworth VP, Technology Innovative TeleSolutions ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 07:14:21 -0800 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant recently wrote in TELECOM Digest: > Perhaps if the government had taken control [of the telephone > network], we would have a decent telephone 'backbone' and energetic, > competitive companies offering services using it. We'll never know. Evidently you don't know your telecom history fully as for a time the government *did* control the telephone network in the USA. If you look at most PTT's (or whatever they are called in a foreign country) you'll usually see an inefficient organization that gives absolutely abysmal service. Most were usually run by the post office system in that country. It's only been with the advent in these countries of making the companies public or at least not fully government owned that these countries developed decent telephone infrastructure. Some of the European countries France for example had some of the worst telecom plant imaginable. In some South American countries they had "dial tone" boys whose job it would be to wait on a telephone for a dial tone so that the businessman could complete a call things were so bad. I'll grant you competition has helped coax the incumbent telephone companies such as AT&T get their act together sooner, but the reality is that the Bell System in the US had a standard that was implemented throughout the Bell System and by and large that standard was followed with the effect being that you could count on telephone service to be reliable and there when you needed it. Yes, telephone service was very ordinary for years and you could count on no frills telephone service and not much more for many years, but everything hopefully changes and with that change we should be better off for it. Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington USA [ICQ pgr] PO Box 23135, Seattle WA 98102 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:53:33 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: MCI Cancels Toll-Free Service in California In TELECOM Digest #346, Julia Fan wrote: > It does not sound like bait and switch to me. MCI offered a product > in good faith that did not take off, so they are discontinuing it. > More of a marketing decision than anything else. According to the > numbers from the article only 25,000 folks signed up ... out of how > many hundreds of thousands in the target market? It sounds like a > business decision that had to be made on a product that obviously was > not selling. And our Moderator replied, in part: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Generally -- but there is no firm rule; > no iron clad decision set in stone -- when a telco decides to stop > making some service available, they at least 'grandfather' the existing > customers ... And there's the rub. The telecom industry is like few others in that respect. When Post or Kellogg changes the price on the boxes of cereal they ship to the local grocery, the store manager has all the boxes on the shelf repriced, not just the new ones. When the price of gas goes up, all the gas goes up, even if the station doesn't expect a delivery for a few more days. Most perishable goods are like that -- when the price changes, it changes for all present and near-term future goods. We grew up in an industry that was heavily regulated and the 'grandfathering' of services was driven by the regulatory side of the business, not from the goodness of the telco's heart. The new entrants aren't regulated the same way the RBOCS and GTE are, and they can add and delete products as they see fit. That's the marketplace at work, and even if the incumbents can't play by the same rules _yet_, the rest of the industry can, and will. We've seen long distance plans come and go, and we've seen internet plans change from per-minute charges to "all you can eat" and now the direction is back to per-minute charges. Cellular and PCS phone companies are continually offering a variety of payment plans that come and go, and none of us, I suspect, expect any of them to last forever. Let's get used to the wireline companies trying new and different pricing structures. The reasonable pricing structures will prevail and when the companies try to buy marketshare, it is will remain a short term bargain for the customer. Dave Stott dstott@2help.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #348 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 16 08:51:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA12449; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:51:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:51:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712161351.IAA12449@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #349 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Dec 97 08:51:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 349 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Update (Canada) #112, December 15, 1997 (Angus TeleManagement) AIN/IN Training Program Short List (Robin E. Haberman) Noisy Analog Lines (Lee Miller) Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Art Kamlet) Re: Are Cookie Files Public Record? (Lisa Hancock) Re: Telemetry and SCADA (Jack Daniel) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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, 15 Dec 1997 11:56:00 -0500 From: Angus TeleManagement Subject: Telecom Update (Canada) #112, December 15, 1997 ************************************************************ * * * TELECOM UPDATE * * Angus TeleManagement's Weekly Telecom Newsbulletin * * http://www.angustel.ca * * Number 112: December 15, 1997 * * * * Publication of Telecom Update is made possible by * * generous financial support from: * * * * Bell Canada ................. http://www.bell.ca/ * * City Dial Network Services .. http://www.citydial.com/ * * Computer Talk Technology .... http://icescape.com/ * * fONOROLA .................... http://www.fonorola.com/ * * Lucent Technologies ......... http://www.lucent.com/ * * * ************************************************************ IN THIS ISSUE: ** Rogers to Spin Off Network Services ** BCE Mobile Postpones Share Issue ** CRTC Requires Reports on Cable's Digital Progress ** Telecom Act Revisions Passed ** Clearnet Signs U.S. Roaming Deal ** MetroNet Announces Ottawa-Hull Fiber Build ** Ottawa Asked to End SaskTel's CRTC Exemption ** Alberta White Pages Go Online ** Infosat to Sell Iridium Satellite Services ** World Conference Strikes Satellite Deal ** Sheridan College Plans New-Technologies Centre ** Sympatico Reaches 370,000 Households ** Cogeco Converts to Two-Way Cable ** Bell Offers Toll-Free Calls to Santa ** Telecom Competitors Explain Their Strategy ============================================================ ROGERS TO SPIN OFF NETWORK SERVICES: Rogers Communications says it will spin off Rogers Network Services. The new company, to be called Rogers Telecom, will issue debt or equity to finance its entry into the local services market. BCE MOBILE POSTPONES SHARE ISSUE: BCE Mobile Communications, the parent company of Bell Mobility, has deferred an equity issue announced in November that was to have raised $340 Million. (See Telecom Update #109) CRTC REQUIRES REPORTS ON CABLE'S DIGITAL PROGRESS: In Broadcasting Notice 1997-33-2, the CRTC orders cable companies to report by January 31 on their progress in implementing digital distribution capacity and to update these reports every three months until August 1999. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/bcasting/notice/1997/p9733-2_.txt TELECOM ACT REVISIONS PASSED: On December 9, Bill C-17 passed third reading in the House of Commons. It amends the Telecommunications Act to authorize the CRTC to license international telecom service providers and to administer numbering resources in Canada. It also repeals sections of the Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act to pave the way for ending Teleglobe's overseas monopoly in 1998. The Bill still requires Senate approval. CLEARNET SIGNS U.S. ROAMING DEAL: Clearnet Communications has signed a reciprocal roaming agreement with PrimeCo Personal Communications, a Dallas-based PCS provider licensed in 19 states. Clearnet has also announced roaming deals with Sprint PCS and WirelessNorth and plans to make U.S. roaming available early in 1998. METRONET ANNOUNCES OTTAWA-HULL FIBER BUILD: MetroNet Communications Group will invest $60 Million in a 120-km fiber optic network in Ottawa-Hull. Installation will start early next year. OTTAWA ASKED TO END SASKTEL'S CRTC EXEMPTION: On December 8, the Coalition for Fair Competition in Saskatchewan, composed of cable, wireless, and alternative phone companies, called on the Federal Government to bring SaskTel under federal CRTC jurisdiction. SaskTel's exemption from federal regulation runs until October 26, 1998, but a cabinet order is required to end it. ALBERTA WHITE PAGES GO ONLINE: Telus Advertising Services has placed Alberta residential directory listings online at http://www.alberta.com. In a few weeks, Albertans will be able to add online e-mail listings without charge. All listings will be updated quarterly. ** Yellow pages listings for all provinces are online at http://www.canadayellowpages.com INFOSAT TO SELL IRIDIUM SATELLITE SERVICES: Vancouver-based Infosat Telecommunications will be the Canadian distributor for the Iridium Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite system, which is to begin Canadian operations in September 1998. Infosat's deal with Iridium Canada does not cover the Northwest Territories. WORLD CONFERENCE STRIKES SATELLITE DEAL: The World Radiocommunication Conference in Geneva last month reallocated mobile satellite spectrum to accommodate the broadband LEO systems planned by Teledesic, SkyBridge, and Celestri. http://www.itu.ch/PPI/press/releases/1997/itu-20.html SHERIDAN COLLEGE PLANS NEW-TECHNOLOGIES CENTRE: Sheridan College in Oakville, Ontario, has published the business plan for its Centre for Animation and Emerging Technologies. The Centre, to be opened in 2000, will encompass the college's telecom management program as well as media arts, graphic design, and animation. http://www.sheridanc.on.ca/news/scaet SYMPATICO REACHES 370,000 HOUSEHOLDS: The Sympatico Internet service, marketed by the Stentor companies, says that it now has 370,000 subscribers across Canada, up from 140,000 one year ago. COGECO CONVERTS TO TWO-WAY CABLE: Cogeco Cable plans to connect 75% of its subscribers to Internet-ready two-way equipment by September 1998. CEO Louis Audet told Cogeco's Annual Meeting December 10 that Cogeco now has 5,000 cable modem subscribers. BELL OFFERS TOLL-FREE CALLS TO SANTA: Bell Canada has opened a toll-free direct line to the North Pole, enabling Ontario children to leave voice mail for Santa. Call 1-888-SANTA-97. TELECOM COMPETITORS EXPLAIN THEIR STRATEGY: Telemanagement is publishing a series of exclusive interviews with leaders of Canadian telecom service providers, outlining their plans to provide new, competitive services. ** The current issue of Telemanagement gives the floor to Bill Catucci, CEO of AT&T Canada Long Distance Services, and Jan Peeters, CEO of Fonorola. ** The January issue will feature leaders of two local- service competitors, MetroNet and Videotron. ** To subscribe to Telemanagement, call 1-800-263-4415 ext 225 or go to http://www.angustel.ca/teleman/tm-sub.html ============================================================ Web links for organizations mentioned in Telecom Update can be found at http://www.angustel.ca/links/links.html HOW TO SUBMIT ITEMS FOR TELECOM UPDATE E-MAIL: editors@angustel.ca FAX: 905-686-2655 MAIL: TELECOM UPDATE Angus TeleManagement Group 8 Old Kingston Road Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 =========================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE (OR UNSUBSCRIBE) TELECOM UPDATE is provided in electronic form only. There are two formats available: 1. The fully-formatted edition is posted on the World Wide Web on the first business day of the week. Point your browser to www.angustel.ca and then select TELECOM UPDATE from the Main Menu. 2. The e-mail edition is distributed free of charge. To subscribe, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should contain only the two words: subscribe update To stop receiving the e-mail edition, send an e-mail message to majordomo@angustel.ca. The text of the message should say only: unsubscribe update [Your e-mail address] =========================================================== COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER: All contents copyright 1997 Angus TeleManagement Group Inc. All rights reserved. For further information, including permission to reprint or reproduce, please e-mail rosita@angustel.ca or phone 905-686-5050 ext 228. The information and data included has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but Angus TeleManagement makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding accuracy, completeness, or adequacy. Opinions expressed are based on interpretation of available information, and are subject to change. If expert advice on the subject matter is required, the services of a competent professional should be obtained. ============================================================ ------------------------------ From: robineh@ibm.net (Robin E. Haberman) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 14:55:09 Reply-To: robineh@ibm.net Subject: AIN/IN Training Program Short List As many of you may know, the study of any fast moving field like the Intelligent Network is not easy. If you are like me, and company oral tribal knowledge won't cut it, then good formal training is hard to find. Telecommunications technology information does not come cheap. The following is short list of some formal training programs offered in CCS/SS7-IN/AIN field. A few have listings for ISDN courses which offer some SS7 information. For more information check with the training program for final times, dates, and costs or more course offering. ARG (1-919-461-8600) http://www.arg.com Integrating ISDN, Bellcore (1800-832-2463) http://www.bellcore.com Common Channel Signaling/Signaling System 7; Common Channel Signaling Network Operations & Maintenance; Common Channel Signaling Network Operations Workshop; Common Channel Signaling/Trouble Analysis Procedures; Advanced Intelligent Network - Overview; Advanced Intelligent Network - Operations; Advanced Intelligent Network- Protocols; AIN -Trouble Analysis Procedures; Advanced Intelligent Network - Operations & Maintenance; Numbering Strategies & Beyond 1997; Local Number Portability - A Technical Overview; Local Number Portability Operations & Routing Maintenance; Intelligent Services Peripheral-Operations & Maintenance; GSM: An International Standard for Mobil Communications; Signaling System 7 - Wireless. Ericsson Technical Education Center http://www.ericsson.com/e-tec/index.html Introduction to Intelligent Network; SMAS Operation; SS7 Overview; AIN-VPN Subscription Handling. Learning Tree (1-800-843-8733) http://www.learningtree.com ISDN for Telecommunications; Implementing ISDN Data Networks. Southern Methodist University, http://www.smu.ede Academic Questions Contact: James Dees (214) 768-1456 Advanced Intelligent Network, TM 971-N Southern Methodist University Course N. EE 6390, 30(80 minute) Prerequisites: Intro to Telecommunications (EE5301/TM 503-N) TRA (1-800-872-4736) http://www.tra.com Understanding SS7, AIN and LNP ---------------------------- Robin E. Haberman ------------------------------ From: Lee Miller Subject: Noisy Analog Lines Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:13:00 -0500 Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: lwmiller@ricochet.net I saw the following advice on one of the Ascend Web pages and am seeking expertise as to whether their advice regarding noisy analog lines makes any sense and whether it should be modified or supplemented in someway or just dismissed. > If you've got noise and a low line level, you need to contact your Telco > provider. Explain to them that you are using a modem on your line, you > are getting poor cct quality figures from our modem, and that the line > level is low. You are entitled to have this problem corrected. Make > sure that you say there is nothing wrong with your normal voice > communications (if that is the case...) otherwise they will just do a > normal line check. If you are on a digital exchange, ask them if you can > have the AGC (automatic gain control) turned OFF and your line setting at > the exchange, set to position "5". In most cases this should give you a > good cct and level and cure your connect problems at a stroke. For those interested in more background, I'm trying to resolve a telephone line related decrease in modem speed. Specifically, I bought a new 56Flex modem and hooked it up to my pc and pots line. No real trouble with anything. I've never seen 56K, but nearly always see 46K. The best I've seen is 48K a few times. Given what I've seen posted, what I'm getting seems about as good as one can reasonably expect. I'm happy with things, then comes the problem. I move the pc and modem to another house, turn it on and bingo, it's back in business, except now the maximum rate is 28.8. What followed was literally weeks of trying every change and combination of changes imaginable. Till it was all said and done I tried all of the following: * start by trying what seemed to be every conceiveable modem init string, * changed the modem driver software, * changed the modem firmware, * then replaced the modem (tried a total 4 different 56 Flex modems (2 int, 2 ext)) * replaced the wire from the modem to the wall jack, * then replaced that cable with a pre-fabbed cat 5 cable, * then took every device off every other extension leaving only the modem as the sole device, * then eliminated all other obvious RF producers like cordless and cell phones, * then replaced the cable from the wall jack to the network interface point on the side of the house with category 5 cable * Naturally, I've tried the phone company and they've tested the line for noise and say it is "normal for a voice grade analog line". I've asked if I could get an upgrade to a modem line or whatever they call their "data grade analog line" and politely told that the choices are a pots line or an ISDN line. However the new 56 flex modems don't work with ISDN, so it seems the only choice is pots, and the telco considers its noise level "normal". * I then procurred and tried a tele line filter (ATT model Z100B1) which did nothing. * Along the way I've tried 3 different ISPs and every reasonable dialin number they have. * I also tried the USR line test which said both lines were X2 capable, * and I tried the Ascend line test which showed one line downloads much slower than the original (big suprise) * The last thing I investigated was the subscriber line concentrator issue since it seems to have the potential for reducing modem speed. The new line is a straight run, whereas the original line (the fast one) is on an SLC. Just the opposite of what I was expecting. * During my SLC investigation I found that the new line is approx 8,000 feet whereas the original is approximately 17,000 feet (per the telco), but again the opposite of what I was expecting. At this point, I've tried everything I could think of or heard of. Nothing changed the situation. The maximum rate at the new site and line is 28.8 and the original line remains 46-48Kbps. The only other thing I've seen is the above advice posted by Ascend on their web site. It does seem to focus on line noise for an analog line with a 56 Flex modem. However, I need some expert advice as to whether it might provide some real benefit of whether it would just provide another long series of calls to the telco that result in no real difference. Also, if you know of something else to try that I missed, feel free to tell me or point me at other options for getting a pc with 56 Flex modem known to work at 48K on one line to work at something better than 28.8 on a new line at a different house. Thanks in advance for any insights you might have, -Lee lwmiller@ricochet.net ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant Date: 16 Dec 1997 00:20:43 -0500 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Lee Winson wrote: > After reading the MCI sleaze post I had a thought: To be truly fair in > local telephone competition, let's make it TRUE competition. Let each > player build their own local loop plant and central office facilities. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But I was saying this same thing > back in 1983 and Lord knows how many times since in this Digest. > Remember of course that Judge Harold Greene had his noise out of > joint to start with where AT&T was concerned. He made no pretense > of having a fair 'trial' or proceedings and early on before the > divestiture case even came to court he let it be known among his .... But ... The Justice Department didn't ask for the local phone companies to be divested from the long distance business. The Justice Department asked that Western Electric be spun off and the local and long distance services carried by the Bell System could continue on as is. In 1982 Charlie Brown changed the proposal to letting the manufacturing and R&D stay with long distance, and spinning off seven RBOCs. The gov't agreed, and the judge agreed provided everything went through him. It wasn't until 1995 that Bob Allen, for all the criticism people have heaped on him, came to the same conclusion the Justice Department came to almost 15 years earlier -- but by then the RBOCs had been spun off from long distance. Allen spun off the old Western Electric (by 1995 the Western name had virtually disappeared, but the organizations still remained) into what is now Lucent Technologies. He also undid the NCR merger, admitting it was a flop. Just think what would have happened if Charlie Brown agreed in the 80s to the Justice Department's original demand. Lucent would have been formed years earlier, and the Bell System might still be around. Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Are Cookie Files Public Record? Date: 15 Dec 1997 22:15:47 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS > As reported previously, a weekly newspaper in Tennessee is suing a > local municipality in an attempt to obtain files that are > automatically stored on employees' computers when they surf the > Internet. .... > Specifically, O'Mara points to provisions in the law that make > exceptions for temporary records and working papers. As a government employee, I have some very definite opinions on this: 1) Without question, those "cookie" files are temporary working papers not "official public records". My definition of a public document, based on my years of government service, is a _completed_ document of official standing. If I were to write someone a formal letter, and compose it in my computer, that letter does not become a "public document" until I sign and mail it. At that point the letter will be stored in our official files, available for public inspection per state law. 2) A second issue is privacy concerns. Not all government records are open to the public, there are a number of situations where a private citizen's privacy must be recognized (tax filings and medical records for example.) A newspaper reporter has no right to browse through such files regardless of the medium they're stored on. Should a newspaper be allowed to listen in on employee telephone calls to see if they're making personal calls on the job? I can't help but wonder if this newspaper is more interested in creating a scandal to sell papers rather than true good government. ------------------------------ From: Jack Daniel Subject: Re: Telemetry and SCADA Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:16:53 -0800 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: jdaniel@earthlink.net Ferdie Lochner wrote: > 1. What is the relation between telemetry, SCADA (supervisory control > and data acquisition) and radio frequencies? Telemetry, in its purest definition, is the constant monitoring of a varying measurement from some distance. i.e. reading a meter a mile away from your present location. In practice, "telemetry" can also define remote reading of many different measurements at predefined intervals. The term is sometimes used to cover similar applications not within the previous definations too. A SCADA sytem may include telemetry functions SCADA is an acronym for Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition. This defines a system of providing both remote control and measurement. Unlike telemetry, you can monitor remote contact closures and SEND 'commands' to cause contacts to close at the distant end and, in some cases, send new variable values to the distant end. Radio frequencies are a common communications medium used in telemetry and SCADA systems, but not a manditory part of either type system. Telephone lines, coaxial cables, laser links and other means can also provide the communications medium between the ends of these systems. In many cases, the communications distance is far or the installation of wires is impractical financially or physically, so radio frequency use is preferred. The federal government (FCC) regulates the use of radio frequencies in the US and the limits placed on the technical characteristics of each individual radio channel varies greatly. This gives rise to having radio frequencies thar are technically compatibale with the communications protocol of the telemetry or SCADA devices you plan on using. For example, a FCC approved use in the 173 MHz band may limit your radio frequency 'modulation' bandwidth so much that you can only operate at 1200 BPS practically. This may increase or decrease according to which radio frequency channel the FCC authorizes you to use. The better channels are those which have few interfering users on the same radio channels. These types of channels are "licensed" radio frequencies which require special applications and fees to be paid periodically for their legal use. Due to the demand for these types of channels and a very limited quantity, there are few still available in or near any city. The FCC has responded to this radio frequency shortage by approving "spread spectrum" type radios which have the advantage of allowing many more users to share the same radio frequencies with minimal interferenece to each other. This does require the use of an FCC approved "spread spectrum" radio but does NOT require the user to obtain a license as in the non-spread spectrum type radios mentioned previously. Spead spectrum radios came in many versions and quality, and as you would expect, the cheaper models generally have poorer reliability, range and immunity to interference. Fortunately, many moderately priced designs are excellent in SCADA and telemetry applications. The major difference between moderate and high priced models are mostly operational and feature differences, not reliability as a radio device. Note that some popular SCADA data formats (i.e Modbus RTU protocol)require special handling within the radios so you should always demand the radio manufacturer guarantee data format compatibility or provide an alternative soultion. > 2. Would Win NT be a better operating system than Win 95 for telemetry > (and SCADA?) and if so, why? There has been considerable debate within the industry as to what operating system is "best" for SCADA or telemetry. So far I have seen no clear, outstanding winner of that debate because each of these operating system has advantages and disadvantages when used with a particular type of operation and supporting software. Your specific application may favor one over the other. It is perplexing that most experienced users find WIN 95 and Win NT to be less reliable than older DOS based systems. It is VERY VERY important in SCADA systems to have a ultra reliable unattended operation and a software platform that is too complex to eliminate random 'crashes' is an undesirable condition. The frequent crashes a Windows users has in a word processing program is only an annoyance while a crash in a SCADA program could waste thousands of dollars in materials and time or even kill someone. Unfortunately, you no longer have much choice when selecting a operating platform and you have to accept whatever defects and unrelaibility is inherent in these platforms. IMHO, the Win NT has some integration advantages over Win 95 but others will disagree for various reasons. Remember, you will also be using some application software to do the actual SCADA or telemetry operation, so the important thing is that the program and the platform be compatible and reliable as possible. Be sure this software has 'crash' recovery and auto-boot capabilities. Get the 'mean time between crashes' guarantee in writing. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #349 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Dec 16 20:27:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA05254; Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:27:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:27:31 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199712170127.UAA05254@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #350 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Dec 97 20:26:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 350 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (John Levine) Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant (Nick Marino) Re: Multi-Line Digital Phone Systems - and a Modem (Christopher Faylor) Re: Multi-Line Digital Phone Systems - and a Modem (Christopher Boone) Re: Beware Call Answering (Alan Boritz) Re: Beware Call Answering (David Willingham) Re: Beware Call Answering (Anton Sherwood) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Pay phone Owner Surcharges (Pat Miller) Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges (Jack Decker) How to Connect a Phone to an Amp or Tape? (Manuel Ladas) Wanted to Buy: Phone System (Kobi) Trade Association References Wanted (Randy Hiser) Listing of CLECs in Texas Wanted (Peter Nayland Kust) 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@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 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding 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: 16 Dec 1997 05:51:03 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Perhaps if the government had taken control, we would have a decent > telephone 'backbone' and energetic, competitive companies offering > services using it. We'll never know. Well, actually, the government did take over the phone system from 1918-1919. Can't say as it improved things much. Most countries outside of North America had (many still have) government telephone monopolies which uniformly provided mediocre service at high prices. But there's the germ of a good idea here: the issue isn't so much who owns the local phone wires, it's that you don't want the local wires under the control of the same people who own the phone switch. Rochester N.Y. happens to be the largest city in the U.S. that never had a Bell as the local phone company. A few years ago, the the local telco split itself in half, with one part owning the phone wires and the other part owning the other stuff. (The other stuff also includes a bunch of long distance and cellular properties, it's now called Frontier.) This offered a lot more level playing field to new entrants, since they had to make a deal with the phone wire company to get access to local pairs, but not with one of their competitors. I haven't heard much lately about how well this is working. Perhaps a reader in Rochester can report on it. 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: Nicholas Marino Subject: Re: Let Local Competitors Build Their Own Local Loop Plant Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:58:20 -0500 Lee Winson wrote: > The local loop was built with the INVESTOR'S money, not the public. The government gave these investors a guaranteed profit by virtue of insuring a monopoly. If I was builing a competitive local loop today and was able to offer a guaranteed return to my investors, I'd have no trouble attacting investors and we would have a competitive local loop, but obviously that's not the case. > The rest of the world has government ownership, and the US always > had the best phone system. Several other posters have commented on the failings of foreign government owned PTTs. First, they have not all been failures. Second, you can't compare a open, democratic, capitalistic society like the US with other countries. Companies operating in the US have economic incentives that don't exist in many other places. ------------------------------ From: cgf@bbc.com (Christopher Faylor) Subject: Re: Multi-Line Digital Phone Systems - and a Modem Date: 16 Dec 1997 03:04:07 GMT Organization: Boston Business Computing, Ltd. In article , Jerome R. Kalisz wrote: > I just started browsing your archives. A lot of good info there. > Maybe you could help me in my search. I'm a member of a non profit > organization (toastmasters) that needs to hook a modem up to the phone > system in our meeting room. However, there are no fax/data ports > available; only multi-line phones on a digital key system. I don't > know of any way to tap into such a system inexpesnviely to bring out a > single jack into which I might plug the modem. > There might be a handset amplifier, but mail order ones are expensive, > and not guaranteed to work (plus take a while to get here). I wonder if > I could build one? > In any case, do you know which of your articles might have some good > info on this? It would be much appreciated! I have a device that I use from time to time which connects to the handset portion of a digital phone. You then plug the handset and modem into the device. You use the handset as normal. To use the modem, you pick up the handset, press '9' (or whatever) to get an outside line, and then let the modem dial as normal. This works fairly well. I've managed to make 28.8K connections using this setup. I believe that I got this from the "Hello Direct" catalog. http://www.bbc.com/ cgf@bbc.com "Strange how unreal VMS=>UNIX Solutions Boston Business Computing the real can be." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hello Direct is a mail order company specializing in telecom equipment. I've not heard from them in quite awhile so I will give their toll-free number in case anyone wants to obtain a recent catalog: 800-HI-HELLO. They have good stuff, although I thought some of their prices were a bit high. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Multi-Line Digital Phone Systems - and a Modem Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 13:58:51 -0600 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering Dept Reply-To: cboone@earthlink.net Jerome R. Kalisz wrote: > I'm a member of a non profit > organization (toastmasters) that needs to hook a modem up to the phone > system in our meeting room. However, there are no fax/data ports > available; only multi-line phones on a digital key system. I don't > know of any way to tap into such a system inexpesnviely to bring out a > single jack into which I might plug the modem. Depends ... what kind of KSU is it? Some like a Comdial etc, cannot supply Tip/Ring analog pair to a modem ... only to the digital phone (which in Comdial's case, uses digital signaling BUT analog talk path; yet no way to hook up a modem to it). There are some aftermarket boxes that allow a modem to be inserted in the HANDSET cord of the digital phone (which of course happens to be an ANALOG spot in the ckt). Let me know more info on what phone system you have and what type/brand of modem; that will help. Chris ------------------------------ From: aboritz@CYBERNEX.NET (Alan Boritz) Subject: Re: Beware Call Answering Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:41:47 -0500 In article , Dan Pearl wrote: > "Call Answering" is Bell Atlantic's name for the answering machine > that they have in their switch. Today, after about one month of not > hearing any stuttering dial tone (which indicates a waiting message), > I get the stutter. > When I dial in for messages, I am astonished to hear 16 previously > unheard messages going back to early November. I have the same service from Bell Atlantic at my office in Jersey City, NJ. It only functions about 1/3 of the time. During the past three weeks, it either didn't answer at all, or it took messages and did not give the stuttering dialtone notification. The remote access number also frequently doesn't answer, or it will answer and hang up quickly. We also frequently will get someone's mailbox when calling the remote access number (instead of the voice prompt). I intend to file a complaint with the NJ Public Utilities Commission if it happens again. We have the service on two hunting ddco's. I was going to cancel the service on the first line, but apparently we gain the added feature of being able to program the number of rings before bouncing to the second line, by having it on both lines with call-forward-on-no-answer active. Although there's a mailbox on the first line, all unanswered calls are merely call-forwarded to the second line after two rings (which is ok). I discovered that back in April, another Bell Atlantic screw-up allowed messages to be left on the first mailbox, instead of bouncing the callers to the mailbox on the second line. > The Call Answering specialist at Bell Atlantic says that there is a > problem if I don't have the latest central office hardware. (I have > 5ESS, the same as she does at her home.) She recommends that if a few > days go by, and I don't hear any stutters, then I should call repair > service, and the programmer will restore the stutter. No, that's not the way it works. *Each* time it happens, call it in for repair. If they don't fix it by the time they gave you, call your state's regulatory agency and file an informal complaint. Then someone from the carrier's president's office will follow up for you. Do that *each* time they miss a repair. Don't forget, Bell Atlantic's manager's salary increases are often tied somehow to public utilities commission complaints. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:50:16 -0500 From: we202c3f@aol.com (David Willingham) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Beware Call Answering Jay Ashworth corrected the Moderator: > Pat, that's a switch for _pager_ notification; I've never heard of a > telco voicemail system where the stutter was switchable. Jay -- I have Memory Call service from BellSouth and indeed the user options menu gives "turn notification on or off;" when selected it prompts "turn message waiting indicator on " etc. WE202C3F@aol.com David Willingham ------------------------------ From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) Subject: Re: Beware Call Answering Organization: That would be telling. Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 02:12:27 GMT Dan Pearl writes > "Call Answering" is Bell Atlantic's name for the answering machine > that they have in their switch. Today, after about one month of not > hearing any stuttering dial tone (which indicates a waiting message), > I get the stutter. > When I dial in for messages, I am astonished to hear 16 previously > unheard messages going back to early November. Ugh. Pacific Bell calls it The Message Center. One of its selling points is that roommates can have their messages stored separately; so, for example, the recording at my former flat said for awhile "Hit 1 to record a message for George, 2 for Anton, 3 for Tom." When I tried to record a message from outside, I was likely to hear "2 is not a recording option." When George moved out I had the extra extensions turned off. Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com "How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19 ------------------------------ From: Pat Miller Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Pay phone Owner Surcharges Date: 15 Dec 1997 16:46:35 GMT Organization: Telephone Answerette Systems Inc. There has been a great big discussion on the e issue of pay phones: their marketplace, charges, rules (limitations/restrictions), etc. Pay/public phones or something like them will probably be around for a long time to come, but I think that the biggest thing that has happened here is that there is a push for mobile phones. I am not saying that the wireless companies (or their realities) did or did not lobby (and possibly put $$$ in the policy makers pocket) ... What I am saying is that no matter what has happened is that more people will switch to mobile phones. After all the price for a wireless is getting low. After I have paid my basic rate, the cost for the average pay phone call is becoming more expensive than a call on my wireless. The length of calls may change. Not only will the local call become cheaper, but the local calling area is often larger with wireless, and you can choose your long distance provider. (Or at least your wireless provider) Now it may become convenient to get a wireless. After all you are not teathered; you need not spend a long time looking for a phone -- maybe a place to talk -- that place may even be a phone booth (will there now be booths at establishments that have no phone?) As a continuation to the convince factor, many 800 number owners are deciding not to accept calls from pay phones, and to place a call to these numbers many may choose to go wireless when not at home. These factors will snowball to the extent that fewer pay phones will exist. Pat Miller--Communications Consult+ full/expanded info on web/finger email/finger pmiller@tas-kc.com | http://www.nyx.net/~pmiller backup finger pmiller@nox.nyx.net | email pmiller@nyx.net voiceONEnumber 816-523-2474 | fax 816-968-968-5 (you-you5) ---------------------------------+Heartland TEC #145 155 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:57:56 -0500 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: FCC Response to Complaint on Payphone Owner Surcharges Let me just mention the obvious here: Sometimes you DON'T have the option of shopping for a lower-priced payphone. Of course, some folks would insist that you always have that option. But I would suggest that you don't have the option if the cost of using another payphone exceeds any potential savings by a significant factor, or if the competitive payphone is unreachable due to time or distance constraints, or if there is some social/legal reason that one cannot leave the premises where a payphone is installed. Some examples: Airports: If all the payphones in an airport terminal are contracted to one company, most people are hardly in a position to leave the airport to use another phone, particularly if they are waiting for a flight. Hospitals: This is a particularly nasty situation because often people are caught at the time they need to make a call quickly. Further, I've noticed that all the hospitals in this area have signs at all doorways saying that the use of cellular phones are prohibited within the hospital, because they might adversely affect hospital equipment. The suspicious side of me says that the real reason is that they want to force people to use their ripoff payphones. I wonder if this is a common practice in hospitals across the country, or if the locals are just being especially money-grubbing? Schools: Another place where people can be caught in a real bind. In high schools and below, students may be prohibited from leaving the building when school is in session. And in institutions of higher learning, the campus may be so large that people simply don't have the time to leave campus to find a lower-priced pay phone. Jails: You might say, "Why SHOULDN'T prisoners be penalized for making calls, after all, the point of a jail is to punish people" but bear in mind two things: First, sometimes people are held in jail awaiting trial, and are later found innocent. Second, it's often not the prisoner that pays the inflated rates, but rather the people that they call (often family members who are completely innocent of any crime). If you want more examples, just think of any place where people are under tight time constraints (transportation facilities such as subway terminals and even some city bus stops come to mind) or in large complexes where they'd have to travel quite a distance to find another phone. So even though I normally favor deregulation, I think that the problem here is exactly what has been pointed out by others: The normal marketplace dynamic is skewed because the people who use the service often don't have effective choice. Granted that the same thing happens when there is a lack of competition in any other product or service, but most things are higher priced than a phone call so in those cases you can travel further and still save money (you might drive two miles to get a box of cereal for $1.50 instead of the normal $3.00, but you probably wouldn't drive two miles to make a phone call for 25 cents instead of 50 cents, evemn though the percentage of savings is exactly the same), and most other products and services aren't as time sensitive as a phone call (often, when you need to make a call, you need to make it NOW). There is ample precedent for price regulation on services that have limited competition (passenger fares in the transportation industry are but one example, and we've all seen how people in less populated areas were disadvantaged by airline fare deregulation). It will be interesting to see what comes of all this, but might guess is that pay phone deregulation is the best thing that could have happened for the cellular and PCS industries. I wouldn't be surprised if, barring some change in the present course of events, in ten years a pay phone will be considered a relic from a bygone age! Jack ------------------------------ From: Manuel Ladas Subject: How to Connect a Phone to an Amp or Tape? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 23:11:30 GMT Organization: Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster, Germany Hi all, I'm desperately searching for a phone that has audio inputs and outputs. In other words: I want to connect the phone to a mixer or a tape (via an audio output) _and_ connect an external microphone or even an effect processor to the phone (via an input). My questions: - Are there any phones which can do that? - Are there any devices you can put on the phone that pick up the signals and have ins/outs themselves? They used to have such things before there were modems, but I guess they are not suitable for audio? - Are there any kits available to modify an existing phone to give it input / output jacks? - If all these things do not exist: How can I build such a solution myself? Connecting the amp directly does not work, it results in a loud humming noise and nothing else... But: There _must_ be a solution. In phone-in-shows on TV and radio they get the phone audio on their mixers all the time! Thanks in advance for any hints! Manuel ------------------------------ From: Kobi@LDD.COM (Kobi) Subject: Want to Buy Phone System Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:12:34 GMT Organization: LDD Reply-To: Kobi@LDD.COM I am looking for a good small office phone system for my office (New/DEMO/Used). Need capability for 6-8 incoming lines and 12 or so stations. (Need speakerphone on 2 units). Voice mail, Auto Attendent, and music on hold. Currently have a 4 line Merlin. PLEASE RESPOND TO: LEADDOG at L L D . COM or CALL 212.462.4066 ------------------------------ From: Randy Hiser Subject: Seeking Trade Associations Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:36:51 +0300 Organization: Netcom Hi all, I'm currently looking for any reputable professional/trade organizations that are associated with videoconferencing, telecommunications and/or computers open to the public. Your recommendations are greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ From: pkust@swhell.net (Peter Nayland Kust) Subject: CLECs in Texas Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:53:43 GMT Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Does anyone know of any CLECs or CAPs currently serving any part of the state of Texas? I'm creating a web site to a) protest the outrageous abuses Southwestern Bell and other telopolies are visiting on their customers and b) provide people with information and resources about their telephone service. So far, I'm finding very little information about competitors to SWBell that are offering dialtone NOW, and I want to make sure I'm not overlooking anything. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Take care and God Bless, Peter Nayland Kust |"You can choose from Phantom Fears Southwestern Hell | or Kindness that can Kill http://www.swhell.net |I will choose a Path that's Clear; | I will choose Free Will" pkust@swhell.net | -- Neil Peart ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #350 ******************************