From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Jan 6 23:02:57 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i0742uJ14023; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:02:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:02:57 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200401070402.i0742uJ14023@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #9 TELECOM Digest Tue, 6 Jan 2004 23:03:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 9 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: NANP Numbering (Jay Hennigan) Re: NANP Numbering (Mark J Cuccia) Re: NANP Numbering (Joseph) Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 (Kilo Sierra) Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 (John Levine) Re: Is TiVo Really All That Great? (Clarence Dold) Re: OnStar's Scare Tactics (Proprclr) AT&T Long Lines Web Site, Cold War Comms E-mail List (Albert LaFrance) Re: NANP Numbering (Joey's Advice to Unwashed Masses) (Joey Lindstrom) Apple Macworld Expo Press Releases (Monty Solomon) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Hennigan Organization: Disgruntled Postal Workers Against Gun Control Subject: Re: NANP Numbering Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:46:24 -0800 On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:42:53 -0800, Rob wrote: > OK, I know that this may very well seem a dumb question, but why is > the NANP numbering system different to other phone systems throughout > the world? > The vast majority of countries in the world have area codes beginning > with '0', whereas in NANP countries the area code commences with '1', > and then numbers on the same area code, or even numbers in > neighbouring codes (i.e. 919, 252 and 304), aren't always regarded as > local, as they are here in the UK. The area code doesn't start with a '1' in the NANP. A leading '1' may or may not be necessary depending on the locality and how it is set up. It so happens that the country code for the NANP is also '1', which can be a bit confusing. Area codes, also referred to as NPA for "Number Plan Area", are three digits long. The first digit is 2 through 9. Within each area code are exchange codes, also three digits in length, the leading digit of which is also 2 through 9. Each exchange code can support up to 10,000 lines, so four more digits follow. A full NANP telephone number is ten digits, usually written with a hyphen between each group such as xxx-yyy-zzzz. You may also see an older form (xxx) yyy-zzzz, where xxx is the area code, yyy is the exchange code, and zzzz is the individual line within the exchange. Early on, the second digit of an area code was either a 1 or a 0, and the second digit of an exchange code was never a 1 or 0. Thus, it was possible to examine the dialed digits on-the-fly and determine by the end of the second digit whether a call was within or outside of the NPA. If the second digit is a 1 or 0, the customer is dialing an NPA, expect a total of ten digits. If the second digit is 2 through 9, the customer is dialing an exchange code, expect a total of seven digits. Letters on the dial were used in positions 2 through 9 and exchanges were given names corresponding to th efirst two digits. The leading digit "1" was not used, as it could be a switchhook bounce. The leading digit "0" got you an operator. Toll vs. local calling is determined by mileage, not by number pattern. It is possible that calls within the same NPA are toll, or that calls to an adjacent NPA are local. Typically anything beyond 12 to 16 miles is toll. An NPA can cover up to an entire state, which can be hundreds of miles. At some point, some telephone companies began to require a leading "1" to place a toll call, as it was not possible to tell from a 7-digit number if it was toll or not. Often a second, higher pitched dial tone followed the "1" to further caution the customer that it was a toll call. With population growth, area codes would "split", new lines would be drawn on the map, and exchange codes could then be re-used in both the new and old area codes. After a while this ceased to scale and the digits 0 and 1 were allowed as the second digit of exchange codes. This broke the convention of using names as there are no letters on the dial in the 0 and 1 positions. The abandonment of exchange names caused a political hue-and-cry at the time, but it allowed the number of exchanges within an NPA to grow by 20%. Now it was no longer possible to tell from the second digit whether a call was within or outside the local NPA. The leading 1 was changed from an optional "this is a toll call" to "An NPA follows." For example, if I'm calling a number in NPA 512, I would dial 1-512-yyy-zzzz. There might also be a 512 exchange within my local NPA, which I would dial as 512-zzzz with no leading 1. Much later, the requirement that the second digit of an NPA be 1 or 0 was also dropped, which allowed many more NPAs. In some localities with rapid growth, area code splits became frequent. This is a problem with reprinting stationery, educating customers, reprogramming automatic dialers, etc. People got upset about the nuisance of this, and "overlay" vs "split" area codes were born. This meant that the area code no longer really represented an area, as two area codes would cover the same geographic area. As exchange codes are unique only to an NPA, you could have a phone number of 512-555-0166 and your next door neighbor would have 789-555-0166. and, you would be local calls to each other. In these localities, customers would frequently misdial by omitting the area code. Telcos then mandated ten-digit dialing, where the customer was required to dial the NPA even if it was the same as his own. > For example, my local calling area not only covers my own exchange > (01685) but also all numbers on the neighbouring exchanges of 01443, > 01639, 01874 and 01495. Not only is it not possible to tell from the digits dialed if a number is local or toll, we have "LATAs", or geographic boundaries that are quasi-toll and don't line up with NPAs at all. Within a LATA, the local telco usually handles these quasi-toll calls, but if aa call crosses into a different LATA (even if it might be in the same NPA), the call must be handled by a long distance carrier, usually other than the local exchange telco. > Also, how are calls charged between countries within NANP -- that > is, is a call from Canada or the US to Bermuda or Barbados regarded > as international, even though they're technically (I think!) on the > same phone system? They're charged based on the calling and called country, not by the digits dialed, handled by a long distance carrier. This all probably seems very confusing to someone who hasn't grown up with it, but it kind of makes sense to those of us who have. The driving force is to have fixed-length numbers of seven or ten digits, and delay the need to go beyond ten digits for a fully unique number for as long as possible. From a technical perspective, it would have been easier to put wireless services in their own unique NPAs, as the growth in wireless is what drove many NPA splits. The wireless folks fought this politically. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:44:45 -0600 (CST) From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: NANP Numbering Earle Robinson (no email address indicated), from France, claims: (BIG snip) > ... [Finally] to address your vaunted 7 digit dialing. Well it ain't so > in many places any more. In Miami you have to dial 10 digits to call a > local number and I think it is the same in NYC, too. But whoever said in this thread that seven-digit (local and/or same-NPA) dialing is still in force "everywhere" in the NANP? The NANP was intended as a ten-digit numbering plan from the beginning, on a "3+3+4" format (or "3+7") even though in the 1940s thru early 1960s, there were *MANY* areas that still had less-than-seven-digit local numbering/dialing. And most all of us are *QUITE WELL AWARE* that there are the overlay areas with *mandatory* (1+)ten-digit local/same-NPA dialing, such as the entire state of Maryland (301/240, 410/443), New York City (212/646, 718/347, 917), most of southeast Florida (305/786, 954/754), a large part of southern/southeastern Ontario/Toronto Metro (416/647, 905/289), a large part of southwest BC/Vancouver Metro (604/778), the northern suburbs of Chicago (847/224), Atlanta Metro (404/770/678/470), Houston Metro (713/281/832), just about ALL of northeastern (903/430) TX (including but not just Dallas (214/972/469) and Ft.Worth (817/682) Metro), Charlotte NC Metro (704/980), the VA suburbs of DC (703/571), the Portland OR extended area (503/971), Denver CO Metro (303/720), a portion of southeastern MI (248/947), parts of northeastern (330/224) and all of northwestern (419/567) Ohio, Philadelphia (215/267) and southeastern (610/484) PA, most of northern NJ (201/551, 973/862, 732/848), eastern MA/Boston Metro/etc (617/857, 508/774, 781/339, 978/351), Pittsburgh PA Metro (412/724/878), ALL of Puerto Rico (787/939), Orlando Metro/Central Florida (407/321). I THINK that I've covered all of the overlay areas (which all have mandatory (1+)ten-digit local/same-NPA dialing). And there are more areas which are planned to go overlay whenever it is actually determined that another area code is really needed. (Disclaimer ... I hope I don't have any typograhical errors in listing the actual code-numerics neither). The NANP has adapted to the numerous technological and regulatory changes over the past 50 years, with the least noticeable changes in actual numbering/dailing when compared to OTHER parts of the world ... and again I'll say that the NANP *IS THE BEST* numbering/dialing plan IN THE WORLD, despite some "flaws" which could be corrected with industry/regulatory agreement/co-operation. > Given this, many people are confused between long distance dialing, > 11 digits (1 digit more than here in Europe) and local calling. With > our 10 digit dialing norm there is no confusion. YEAH... You're RIGHT! and *THAT's* because YOU don't really have ANY real "FREE" local calling. In (most parts of) Europe (including France and the UK), you PAY for even your shortest distance local calls. True, some of the more populated largest urban areas in the US have measured/message rate/unit "local" calling (and I guess that many parts of the NON-US Caribbean parts of the NANP have measured "local" calling too), but the LARGE BULK of the US, as well as ALL of Canada, do have *TRUE* "free" (monthly flat rate) local calling. And, those parts of the US (and all of Canada) *DO* usually have a clear indication in the *dialing* procedure as to when a call would or would not incur toll charges -- i.e., (other than 800/888/877/866/etc. toll-free where 1+ always still seems to be required), the "requirement" of a 1+ before a ten-digit number when dialed from those areas means that toll charges are most likely incurred, while calls that do not incurr extra toll charges (with the exeption of the 8YY+nxx-xxxx toll-free numbers as stated above) are dialable as 'straight' ten-digits. Unfortunately, dialing rules are not uniform throughout the NANP. BUT ... I'll take the NANP methods over *ANY* other numbering/dialing plans. The NANP has *MOST CERTAINLY* stood the test of time! And it covers one of the largest geographic areas of the world, as well as THE most *populated* parts of the world. Mark J. Cuccia New Orleans LA CSA ... in the LAND of DIXIE! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, I think the most populated part of the world is China. They are way ahead of the USA population, even if you include Canada which somehow got included in the scheme intended for the USA and the several islands south of Florida put together. But the NANP is strange because of the political games which have been played with it over the years. Canada is 'good' so they got included; Cuba is 'bad' so they were excluded, even though it (Cuba) is surrounded by other islands which are included in NANP. Even though Hawaii and Alaska are states and therefore entitled to be NANP, two other relatively insignificant and tiny islands thousands of miles away had their international codes swapped into the NANP. Mexico is no further away than Canada, yet it (Mexico) is not NANP. Why does a large island to the northeast of Canada get included in NANP (as 709?) but St. P&M (much closer to mainland USA not get included? So Mark, it seems to me NANP is not such a great deal; there were lots of politics played in who got to be included, and why. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joseph Subject: Re: NANP Numbering Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:39:12 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Reply-To: JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.NOcom On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:58:41 +0100, Earle Robinson
wrote: > You speak of how the American phone system already had 7 digits from > the 40s on. Well, yes in cities like New York. But, I was growing up > in Greenwich Connecticut where our phone number was Greenwich 102. Well, it's no different than what other places went through. Smaller places had differing length phone numbers. Many places in the UK had three digit telephone numbers up until a few years ago. Many places in the US if they were small enough might have had as few as 3 digit telephone numbers as well. The North American system has been basically the same from 1947 though to the present with some changes. Yes, there's not always continuity between dialing from one area to the other, but basically everything has remained the same since 1947. > Today, overall the systems here are often better than what is in the > states. > I also recall how awful phone service was in west Los Angeles in the > late 70s and into the 80s (also mentioned by another writer in a > message here the other day). We were served (an oxymoron) by General > Telephone. I really don't think you can judge American telephone quality by a second-rate telephone company such as GTE. > Here in France if I dial a number, and there is no call waiting on > that line, I get a busy signal, just as in the states. But, all I need > do is to punch the 5 on the touch pad and hang up. When my > correspondent hangs up my number rings, I pick up the phone and the > phone is ringing at the other end. And that service is also available in North America as well. > If you are in NYC you have Verizon , if in Miami Bell South. No > choice. Perhaps this was so at one time. You are free to get local service from numerous companies now. > Finally, to address your vaunted 7 digit dialing. Well it ain't so in > many places any more. In Miami you have to dial 10 digits to call a > local number and I think it is the same in NYC, too. Given this, many > people are confused between long distance dialing, 11 digits (1 digit > more than here in Europe) and local calling. With our 10 digit dialing > norm there is no confusion. No, it isn't available in all places any longer, but then again you have to dial 10 digits on all your calls in France so there's no advantage for you either. remove NO from .NOcom to reply ------------------------------ From: kd1s@aol.comremvthis (Kilo Delta One Sierra) Date: 06 Jan 2004 21:01:03 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 > The monthly bill was around six or seven dollars and my > roomate and I agreed to split the bill but each be responsible for > our own long distance charges and or telegrams which were sent by > phone. So in 22 years the price changed about $5.00, and I got a Touch Tone phone to boot! So that does support the argument that a regulated monopoly was better for us than the current scheme although I see now that Verizon is offering an unlimited plan here in RI for $54 a month. I pay about $45 a month now for all my services -- and my LD runs anywhere from $5.00 a month to $20 a month. So my total telecom costs range from $50 a month to $65 a month at an average of $57.50. The plan might just be worth it. ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 2004 01:18:55 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Twenty Years Ago Today 1-Jan-2004, back on 1-Jan-1984 Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > I paid a total of $12 a month. That included the phone rental (A red > 2500 set of course!) and the Touch-Tone surcharge and taxes. > Now the line charge alone is $17.26, then add in the damned fees and > taxes and it come out close to $30. Twelve bucks in 1982 is worth about $24 now, so the local rate has gone up by about 25%. In the meantime, long distance rates have gone from over 25 cents/min (worth about 50 cents/min now) to 5 cents/min or lower, so they've dropped by 90%. If you make no long distance calls at all you lose, if you make a lot you win, if you make an average number, it's a wash. > That's what is killing any savings. The phone companies and the > government saw a golden opportunity to rape and pilage as usual and we > end up footing the bill. I've got news for you, there were plenty of taxes in 1982 as well. Local rates deliberately went up because the subsidy from long distance is almost gone. > Know what? Universal Service charges should have gone away a long > time ago. If people want to move out to the burbs and rural areas let > them pay to have the lines strung. I don't think it's a good idea to start an inter-regional war. The current implementation of USF certainly leavs something to be desired, but the theory is as good as ever: the more people you can call, the more useful your phone is. There are lots of involuntary transfers from one part of the country to another, and I sure hope you don't live in California because if you do, I'd like to have a few words about your water bill. ------------------------------ From: dold@IsXTiVoXRe.usenet.us.com Subject: Re: Is TiVo Really All That Great? Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:24:44 UTC Organization: a2i network Rob wrote: > Ask people on a general high street in the UK what TiVo is and they'll > no doubt look at you askance. Ask them what Sky+ is and there's every > possibility that they'll know exactly what it is. That is the same as in the US. But I consider Tivo a growing product. Ask people on the street in the US what Dean Witter is and they'll recognize the name. The fact that the company no longer exists is irrelevant. Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8-122.5 ------------------------------ From: balanco01@yahoo.com (Proprclr) Subject: Re: OnStar's Scare Tactics Date: 6 Jan 2004 13:14:17 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com joe@home.com.eu (joe@home.com.eu) said: > I leased a GMC vehicle for 3 years starting in Feb 2002. It had one > year's free Onstar (I call it Offfstar ;-) > It is absolutely worthless. The clerks that they employ speak > terrible English, are for the mostpart stupid, and some are even > surely. Let me guess, Onstar "outsourced" it's call center to India. > If you have a roll-over crash the antenna will probably break off, > thus preventing the cell phone connection. > OTOH, if you have an on-highway crash, the odds are overwhelming that > help will come first from the sources used by the 99% of folks and > entities who do not have Offstar. > The optional personal calling feature sucks, too. Although it sounds > good in the vehicle the person on the other end hears a very tinny > voice. And, there is no way of sending out DMTF for after-connect tone > prompts. Hmmm ... will holding up one of those hand held DTMF dialers to the microphone work? > And, getting directions is good for a real belly laugh. > Anyone who subscribes to this service is apparently too dumb to get > their own cell phone and real auto GPS navigation unit. I've heard their recent ads, what a dumb campaign. General Bullmoose created a real loser, and is force-feeding it to keep it alive. I doubt I will get another GM vehicle so long as they force me to pay for that equipment (it's a mandatory install in many of their lines of vehicles). ------------------------------ From: Albert LaFrance Subject: AT&T Long Lines Web Site, Cold War Comms E-mail List Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:03:22 -0500 Mr. Townson, First of all, I wanted to let you know how interesting and useful the Telecom Digest and Archive has been to me -- it's a very valuable resource! Also, I maintain a web site which you might want to add to your Links page. It's devoted to the former AT&T Long Lines microwave and cable networks: http://long-lines.net . And finally, there's an e-mail list on the Yahoo Groups service which deals with all types of communications networks, C3I systems and facilities of the Cold War era. The group's web page, where you can join or view archived messages, is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coldwarcomms . Again, thanks for your excellent work in preserving telecom history. Regards, Albert LaFrance [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks very much for your kind words, Albert. I do appreciate it when someone tells me they like the hard work that has gone into the Archives over the years. In correspondence I receive now and then from someone who absolutely hates me as the moderator here (and he claims there are just whole bunches like himself, but never comes up with any names), a recent letter from him pointed out 'how obvious it was that the Digest was not any good lately as a quick look at the Archives would easily indicate.' But what the Moderator Hater tends to ignore is the fact that when this Digest began there was no web, and there were *no* other telecom forums around. I was sort of like Ma Bell ... if you wanted to talk telecom you did it here, in this newsgroup. And like the late Ma Bell, now I have literally dozens of 'competitors' around on the web and the various ISPs, like Yahoo and AOL and others. Everyone has a telecom forum these days, it seems. I've invited him to go use a few of them, and maybe he does, but he still comes around here to pester me also. If I had *anything* at all to do with a few of the other forums getting started -- and I know I did for a few of them -- then I am humbly grateful. Anyway, thanks again for your kind note, and I hope this mention in the Digest gets you a few new subscribers/readers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:33:58 -0700 From: Joey Lindstrom Reply-To: Joey Lindstrom Organization: Telus Sucks! Subject: Re: NANP Numbering; Joey's Advice to the Unwashed Masses Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 12:47:27 PM, Earle Robinson wrote: > You say that the USA is the leader for technology, etc. Yes, that is > true, but the brains behind much of this come from Europeans and, > more recently, Asians. Andy Grove is Hungarian, as was von Neumann. > American rocket technology was brought by von Braun from German > after the 2nd World War. (more examples snipped) And the zipper, basketball, the snowmobile, and (Eureka!) the telephone all came out of Canada. Innovation comes from all over. Mark's point is that the USA is a world leader in innovation, and despite your examples to the contrary, Mark's statement is perfectly true. > Here in France if I dial a number, and there is no call waiting on > that line, I get a busy signal, just as in the states. But, all I need > do is to punch the 5 on the touch pad and hang up. When my corres- > pondent hangs up my number rings, I pick up the phone and the > phone is ringing at the other end. No extra charge, no monthly > fee. It's free. You are intimating that this service is unavailable here (later, in your original post, you clearly state that we "don't have" this feature). In fact we do, and depending on the phone company you're with, it might be pay-per-use, or a flat-fee charged monthly, or may be included in a service bundle. But we do have this feature. Granted, it takes three keys rather than one, but hey. > Interested in ADSL? All I need do is provide my phone number and > address on a web page and I am told how many meters I am from the > central office and told I qualify because it is 473 meters. If I > prefer a phone company other than France telecom I can choose from 6 > or 7. Try that in the states! Try that in Germany or the UK. My German friends tell me that ADSL is completely unavailable where they live (outside Muenchen) but they've got ISDN at some whopping huge monthly rate. Ditto my friend in London, England. She lives in one of the most important cities in the world, and they can't even get broadband together (she calls it "steam-powered internet"). Before moving recently, she could not get ADSL or cablemodem service for love or money. Now she's got cablemodem (still no ADSL available), and is paying as much as I'm paying for "business class" service here in Canada, and getting about a tenth of the bandwidth. There are exceptions to everything, Earle. This other point you make, though, is interesting. You're telling me that there are six or seven companies competing for local dialtone service for residential customers? Hey, I'll take your word for it, but this I find extremely hard to believe. Long distance, maybe. Dialtone? Wow, that's unbelievable. Here in the wilds of Western Canada, we've got two local dialtone providers (for residential: six or seven for business) and umpteen dozen long distance companies all vying for our 3 cents per minute. > If you are in NYC you have Verizon , if in Miami Bell South. No > choice. Perhaps some of our American readers can respond to this point, but I'm sure that there are alternatives to the ILEC available in these markets. Or am I wrong? > I stand corrected as concerns the maximum number of digits mandated > by the ITU. But, this could be readily extended, as it was when it > went from 12 to 15. The American system seems so cumbersome in > comparison. Why would more than 15 ever be necessary? How many people can this world support? Personally I thought it was ridiculous moving from 12 to 15 in the first place, in order to allow for this direct-dial-in variable-number-length scheme in Germany and Austria. Fixed length good, variable length bad. :-) > While I can merely replace the first digit to use one of the major > alternate carriers, in the states I'd have to dial several digits to > do this. You have to dial "several" digits to select SOME carriers, as you illustrated in your example. The NANP system probably has one or two digits too many, but it allows for a maximum of 10,000 long distance carriers. That's a lot. > We also have features, like the handling if a busy signal > that I already mentioned, which you don't have. See above. > For example, I can add other data to my directory listing using the > internet, to provide the names of other people who use my number, > email addresses and other numbers, too. Cellular phone numbers will > be listed shortly, though one may opt out if one wishes. Call > blocking here may be done on an individual basis or > globally. Naturally, there is an emergency number, 112, valid > everywhere in Europe. But there is also an emergency number for > abused women to call, too. Ah, yes. Aren't standards a wonderful thing? 112 gets you an emergency operator, and that's all well and good. Works throughout Europe, you say? Great. But you'll pardon us if we grimace a bit when you brag about these things, because our standards existed FIRST. Why should we change "911" to "112"? Look at it from our point of view. Here's what we see: a bunch of johnny-come-latelys take a look at our standards, decide they need changing (mostly so that they're not "American" anymore), implement those changes, then can't understand why the rest of the world won't join their new and improved "standard". Nobody asked us for our opinion, and even if they had, it has not been demonstrated that this new standard is in any way superior to what we've got, which works and works well. It's a model of efficiency. 10 digits is just fine for 350 million people and leaves lots of room for growth. > Finally, to address your vaunted 7 digit dialing. Well it ain't so > in many places any more. In Miami you have to dial 10 digits to call > a local number and I think it is the same in NYC, too. Given this, > many people are confused between long distance dialing, 11 digits (1 > digit more than here in Europe) and local calling. With our 10 digit > dialing norm there is no confusion. Exsqueeze me? Baking soda? If I'm in France, I dial 10 digits to reach across the country or to the restaurant across the street. Explain to me how a Frenchman is *NOT* confused over what is long distance and what is local, where an American WOULD be. You're talking out of your ass on this one. As for me, here in Calgary I dial local calls as 7-digit, though I have the option also of dialing as 10-digit (with area code) or even 11-digit (1+area code). If I dial a long-distance number with only 7 digits, my call will not go through, which alerts me that this is a call I'm going to have to pay for. (but let's not start that jihad again -- some people are adamantly opposed to toll-alerting) And that brings me to the most basic, fundamental difference between "my" phone system and "your" phone system. I can pick up my phone and call my friend across the city and chat for hours, and never even *THINK* about what this call is costing me. Because it's not costing me anything over and above my monthly flat-rate. When you adopt THAT, let me know, and I'll reconsider this quaint notion that your phone system is somehow "better" than ours. Y'know, the way you really, really stretch credulity in order to construct an argument -- ANY argument -- that something French is better than something American, reminds me a whole lot of something that Robin Williams said in his recent concert video. Imagine, if you will, Robin speaking in an over-the-top French accent, and saying something like the following (paraphrased to keep it in a g-rated context): "Ah, screw you Americans, we hate you ... What's that? Ze Germans are coming? 'ALLO, AMERICANS! WE LOVE YOU!!!" Joey Lindstrom [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There you go, Earle! Did Joey get you straightened out, or didn't he? Don't you just love Canadians who like to pretend they are arrogant USA citizens, with their general dislike for so much of the customs of the rest of the world? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:22:30 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Apple Macworld Expo Press Releases Apple Introduces iPod mini 6 January 2004, 2:02pm ET, PR Newswire http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200401061902_PRN__SFTU087 Over Two Million iPods Sold 6 January 2004, 2:02pm ET, PR Newswire http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200401061902_PRN__SFTU088 Apple Announces iLife '04 6 January 2004, 2:04pm ET, PR Newswire http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200401061904_PRN__SFTU089 Apple Introduces Jam Pack 6 January 2004, 2:05pm ET, PR Newswire http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200401061905_PRN__SFTU090 Apple Introduces Xserve G5 6 January 2004, 2:06pm ET, PR Newswire http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200401061906_PRN__SFTU091 Apple Unveils New Xserve RAID Storage System 6 January 2004, 2:07pm ET, PR Newswire http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200401061907_PRN__SFTU092 Apple Introduces Final Cut Express 2 6 January 2004, 2:07pm ET, PR Newswire http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200401061907_PRN__SFTU093 Mac OS X Users Approach 10 Million 6 January 2004, 2:09pm ET, PR Newswire http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200401061909_PRN__SFTU094 Apple Previews Xgrid Technology 6 January 2004, 2:09pm ET, PR Newswire http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:AAPL&story=200401061909_PRN__SFTU095 ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 fifty 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. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. 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. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #9 ****************************