From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Feb 25 14:30:12 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i1PJUCK05092; Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:30:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:30:12 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200402251930.i1PJUCK05092@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 #90 TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:30:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 90 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Memories: Old Fashioned Three Slot Payphones (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law (Joe Morris) Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law (Paul Vader) Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law (Bob Snyder) Federal Law, was Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law (Danny Burstein) Re: Vonage Troubles (William Van Hefner) Re: Verizon Land Line International Rates (Tony P.) Share Day for February (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:33:16 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Memories: Old Fashioned Three Slot Coin Phones Sixteen years ago, in January, 1988, John Levine and other participants here including myself got into a discussion of 'Enterprise' phone numbers, the pre-1970 forerunner to what are now toll-free 800 numbers. In the 1960's we never expected reverse-charge toll free to ever be automated, and we certainly had no inkling that the assigned numbering space (code 800) would ever be expanded several times over with 888,877, 866, etc. As that discussion was concluding, we got into talking about the old fashioned three slot coin phones and how guys would abuse them to re-use their money when making calls. Let's join that conversation in progress as we analyzed coin phone numbers and the methodology Bell used to process the calls, etc. PAT Date: 7 Jan 88 22:39:45 GMT From: decvax!ima!johnl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John R. Levine) Organization: Not enough to make any difference Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers and other funny phone numbers In article <2257@cup.portal.com> Patrick_A_Townson@cup.portal.com writes: > OTHER MORE OR LESS STANDARDIZED PHONE NUMBERS IN THE 1930'S - 1950'S: > ... > Coin phones always began with a 9, as in 9xxx. This was universally > recognized ... Well, not quite universally. My phone number is -9650 and as far as I can tell hasn't been changed since the house got dial service, other than changing the prefix from UNIversity to the equivalent 864. (I'm not that old, but the number came with the house.) I note that -9649 is indeed a payphone in a nearby bar. -9950 used to be the local business office, causing a certain number of strange calls. My understanding is that they put special relays on pay phone lines that bounced when they connected, making a distinctive ticky-ticky sound that the operator could recognize. For that matter, when you make a toll call from a payphone, how does the long distance company know that it's a payphone? Special trunks? Special bits in ANI messages? Only AT&T does anything interesting with direct dialed calls from payphones, but the other LD companies at least know to block them. John Levine, ima!johnl John R. Levine, IECC, PO Box 349, Cambridge MA 02238-0349, +1 617 492 3869 { ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE. something Gary Hart for President -- Let's win one for the zipper. Date: 8 Jan 88 05:32:22 GMT From: ptsfa!perl@ames.arpa (R. Perlman) Organization: Pacific Bell Marketing Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers and other funny phone numbers In article <838@ima.ISC.COM> johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) writes: > In article <2257@cup.portal.com> Patrick_A_Townson@cup.portal.com writes: >> OTHER MORE OR LESS STANDARDIZED PHONE NUMBERS IN THE 1930'S - 1950'S: >> ... >> Coin phones always began with a 9, as in 9xxx. This was universally >> recognized ... > Well, not quite universally. My phone number is -9650 and as far as > I can tell hasn't been changed since the house got dial service, > other than changing the prefix from UNIversity to the equivalent > 864. Actually you are both right! In step-by-step offices the 4 and 9 levels were ofter tied together when all line thousands groups were'nt needed. A non-coin would be assigned the number -4xxx and a coin -9xxx, in fact it didn't matter whether you dialed a 4 or nine, you get the same number. BTW, Operators have listings by area code showing all the NNXs (actualy NXXs) that have coin stations. Usually only 1 code per CO has coin lines. If a number (for 3rd number or collect calling) is a -9xxx & is in a coin NNX then the Operator checks with Rate & Route for a "coin check" to see if the number is indeed a coin box. "there's no success like failure and failure's no success at all" Bob Dylan Richard Perlman 1E300 2600 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, CA 94583 (415) 823-1398 uucp {ames,pyramid,ihnp4,lll-crg,dual}!ptsfa!perl || ceo rdperlman:8 Date: 8 Jan 88 16:59:14 GMT From: codas!ablnc!maxwell@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (Robert Maxwell) Organization: AT&T, Maitland, Florida Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers and other funny phone numbers >> Coin phones always began with a 9, as in 9xxx. This was universally >> recognized ... > Well, not quite universally. Back in the days before the TSPS operator positions, the operators had an indexed list at their positions that they used for identifying area codes that listed almost every city or exchange in the USA. One of items also listed in this index was the pay phone number series in any exchange that used a special group of numbers. It has been a few years since I last saw one, but I do remember the numbers for pay phones could be anything from an exchange + 1 digit (ie: 321-9) to a group of numbers (ie: 321-7800 to 321-8299). As I remember the instructions with the list, this was a group to be checked for possible pay phone, not necessarily an absolute list. I don't consider myself very old, but I can remember when the phones were so automatic, you didn't have to turn a dial or push buttons, you would just speak the number you wanted into the mouthpiece and the connection would be made. :-) > For that matter, when you make a toll call from a payphone, how does > the long distance company know that it's a payphone? Special trunks? > Special bits in ANI messages? Only AT&T does anything interesting > with direct dialed calls from payphones, but the other LD companies > at least know to block them. With ESS offices, the programming takes care of handling special needs for a given line. It is reasonably simple to prevent charging LD calls to a given line, no matter which company you use for LD. The same basic technique that gives you 1+ dialing to your LD company can control how the calls are accepted from a pay phone. Bob Maxwell AT&T DP&CT | All standard (and most non_standard) Maitland, FL ihnp4!ablnc!maxwell | disclaimers apply. Date: 12 Jan 88 06:43:03 GMT From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Patrick_A_Townson@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Organization: The Portal System (TM) Subject: Re: Enterprise Numbers and other funny phone numbers Perlman points out a method of detecting coin service which is correct. If in fact the receiving number is coin; and if the caller insists on making the call collect, and provided some fool on the receiving end agrees to accept the collect call then he has to deposit the money as if he were making the call. The only problem is, the distant operator cannot supervise the collection properly. The operator tells called party to hang up and wait a minute ... she calls inward in the city in particular, and asks for assistance from a local operator in manipulating the coin collection table; assistance in dumping the coins in the box, collecting for overtime, etc. The local operator calls the coin box, gets the money and connects the parties. Does anyone on here remember when coin phones had on the top for nickles, dimes and quarters AND had no trap door on the coin return AND had regular -- not armored -- cable to the handset? As little kids we rarely paid for calls. We either applied ground to the line through a tiny pin hole in the handset cord (which we put there, of course) or we used a coat hanger bent in a funny way which we stuck up the coin return. We would deposit the money which fell on the table inside. The process was the operator would apply the tip and ring one way to throw the table and toss the money in the box or would apply it in reverse to throw the table in the direction of the return slot, to give the money back if there was no answer, etc. To make long distance calls, we would use the same quarter(s) over and over. The operator would ask for two dollars -- in would go two or three quarters (clung clung clung) ..." just a minute operator, I am looking for more change! ..." and that coat hanger would go up the return slot and trip the table, sending our quarters down the chute and back to us ... "Ok operator, here is the rest of the money ..." and if we were fast enough, or the operator was not suspicious, the coat hanger could be used to retrieve the three quarters ... some operators immediatly collected when there was an answer, especially if they suspected hanky panky on the other end ... some would not wait for the full collection, but grab the coins as they came in, hitting that ring key over and over knowing the brat-child on the other end of the line had been thwarted in the process ... Some of the older exchanges in downtown Chicago years ago had to have the assistance of a special "trunk operator" to return the money if a call was not complete. Your operator would give up on completing the call and tell you to hold on ... after a few seconds and a click, someone would answer "Wabash trunking" ... and your operator would say something like "return on circuit 5096" ... and the phone would clatter and your coins would fall back out to you. And there was also (downtown) the Franklin Coin Central Office which handled nothing but pay phones in the downtown area. -------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (From 2004) Does the above all look like Egyptian hieroglyphics to some of our younger readers? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Morris Subject: Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:37:49 UTC Organization: The MITRE Organization Sammy@nospam.biz writes: > Mike wrote: >> I registered on that Do Not Call list back when it first came out. >> When it went into affect we stopped receiving all those annoying >> telemarketing phone calls. But ever since that new law came out that >> requires telemarketers to display info on the caller id, we've been >> getting about 3 "out of area" calls everyday at the same times they >> used to call. > What law requires telemarketers to deliver Caller ID? Try the Code of Federal Regulations: 16CFR310.4(a)(7) (FTC Telemarketer Sales Rules) and 47CFR64.1200 (FCC rules governing telemarketers). The FTC announcement of the new rules can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/01/callerid.htm Joe Morris ------------------------------ From: pv+usenet@pobox.com (Paul Vader) Subject: Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:42:37 -0000 Organization: Inline Software Creations Sammy@nospam.biz writes: >> requires telemarketers to display info on the caller id, we've been >> getting about 3 "out of area" calls everyday at the same times they >> used to call. > What law requires telemarketers to deliver Caller ID? The same law which established the national do not call list. The FCC added several provisions onto the law concerning things it regulates, and this was one of their rules. As of 01/29/2004, it's against the law for a telemarketer to suppress caller-id, or have it show incorrect information. * -- * PV something like badgers -- something like lizards -- and something like corkscrews. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law From: Bob Snyder Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 13:16:26 -0500 Sammy@nospam.biz writes: > Mike wrote: > What law requires telemarketers to deliver Caller ID? 47 C.F.R. Sec 64.1200 http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/01/callerid.htm is the FTC's press release about this change to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. This (as all FTC rules) only apply if there is interstate trade going on, so if it's all within one state, these rules may not apply. Note that a number of states have enacted laws/regulations where telemarkets must at least respect the FTC's Do Not Call list. Also, the FTC is proposing to reduce the time telemarketers have to check the Do Not Call list from once a quarter to every 30 days. See http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/02/040210tsrnpr.htm for details. The comment period ends Feb 26, which may be in the past by the time this gets out. Bob ------------------------------ From: Danny Burstein Subject: Federal Law, was Re: "Out of Area" Caller ID Law Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 05:48:35 UTC Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC In Sammy@nospam.biz writes: > Mike wrote: >> I registered on that Do Not Call list back when it first came out. >> When it went into affect we stopped receiving all those annoying >> telemarketing phone calls. But ever since that new law came out that >> requires telemarketers to display info on the caller id, we've been >> getting about 3 "out of area" calls everyday at the same times they >> used to call. > What law requires telemarketers to deliver Caller ID? Someone posted the following to TELECOM Digest a few weeks ago: Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 03:33:42 -0500 Subject: No More Blank/Fake Caller ID For (Most) Telemarketers Compliance on the Line: Telemarketers to Start Transmitting Caller ID Information Beginning January 29, 2004, telemarketers must transmit Caller ID information in order to comply with the Federal Trade Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). This information will help consumers choose which sales calls they want to take. Telemarketers are required to transmit their telephone number, and if possible, their name, to consumers' Caller ID services. [ snip ] http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/01/callerid.htm Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: William Van Hefner Subject: Re: Vonage Troubles Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 23:43:37 -0800 I've had the same problem myself. I have the sneaking suspicion that Vonage only has so many ports that can operate at once, and that if too many people are using the service, others aren't going to get a dialtone. It's much like during an emergency (earthquake, tornado, etc.) when everyone tries to pick up the phone and call at once, some people won't be able to get a dialtone immediately. In Vonage's case, I think that this is due to them overselling capacity. They probably just don't have the capacity to handle the number of customers they have at the moment, since they are expanding so rapidly. Remember a few years ago when AOL customers ranted because all of their dial-up lines were constantly busy? This smells like the same type of situation. My own Vonage box (Cisco ATA) is plugged into a Linux router, which flawlessly handles countless thousands of website requests each and every day, which is plugged into an Adtran CSU/DSU and then a Cisco router, which plugs into our T-1. We are nowhere near capacity on our T-1, and have experienced maybe 10 minutes of downtime in the past year. It definitely is not our equipment, nor the excellent T-1 service we receive from Sprint. It is definitely a "Vonage problem". I will say this for Vonage. When it works, it WORKS. Call quality on our T-1 is not telco quality. It is superior to telco quality. I have also tried using Vonage on SDSL and a cable modem. I get quality roughly equivalent to a cellphone using those. Anyone looking at using SIP phone service right now might want to take a look at some of the other players, until Vonage can get its act back together. iConnectHere.com is still catching up to Vonage, when it comes to adding local phone numbers, but their rates are pretty good. They've been doing SIP for a lot longer than Vonage has, as well. If the situation with Vonage gets much worse, I may consider giving them a spin. William Van Hefner Editor - TheDigest.Com On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:22:03 -0600 John Schmerold wrote about Vonage Troubles: > We've been using Vonage and find that 2 - 3 times per week we pick up > the phone and get dead air. When we call Vonage support during these > outages, there are no available support personell. > Internet connectivity is flawless during these outages (we have a > lightly loaded T1.) > Anyone else having this problem? > Any suggestions? > Has anyone figured out a way to monitor remote Vonage boxes (we were > provided the Motorola VT1000 boxes) with What's Up Gold? This would > be somewhat helpful if we could inform the users that there is a > problem. > TIA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: After following the tech advice given to me by Vonage last night, nothing -- thus far -- has broken down or gone wrong here; the firewall is not leaking as of yet so I am going to again suggest the mods the tech told me about Vonage and Linksys firewalls to eliminate (supposedly all) of that problem of periodic no-Vonage dial tone and Vonage unable-to-locate user for incoming call: Implement the 'punctures' in your firewall as was described in issue 89 on this topic. Let Vonage and me know if it works for you as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Verizon Land Line International Rates Organization: ATCC Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:31:12 GMT In article , rnadgor@email.com says: > To make a long story short: My girlfriend is in Spain for the > semester, and I have a Verizon landline in my house. I went on their > website to see how much it would cost to call, and it said $0.10 a > minute and a $4 fee. Sounded very cheap to me, so I made several hours > of phone calls. I got my bill yesterday: $630. Called Verizon. They > told me that I needed to call them and agree to pay the $4 to activate > the international calling for that price. Since I did not, I was > charged $3.09 a minute. They refused to charge me the $4 and then how > much I would have paid, saying it was my fault I didn't pay the $4 > even though on their website there is no mention of calling them to > pay it or that there is a different rate if you don't pay it etc ... > Has anyone had this problem or know a way to get out of it / convince > them that they should charge me the price it would have been had it > been $4. I'm a poor college student who simply can't afford that type > of payment. I have no idea what to do. To hell with Verizon LD to Europe. USADataNet has connectivity to most major European nations for .08 a minute and there's no call setup fee. > Thanks. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe an appeal to the chairman's > office would work. It has for me a couple times. Or else filing a > commission complaint. But really, what made you think they would > automatically know of your intentions and put you on the $4 plan? > For them to do that without your okay is also illegal; it is known > as 'cramming'. This really isn't Verizon's fault at all; try again > tomorrow with a different rep and see if she will help you before > you go the appeals route. If you get out of this mess in one piece, > start reading their advertising more closely, and *always* tell the > business office your intentions before you make calls like this. > PAT] Policies like these are predatory on the part of AT&T. No wonder they're doing so badly. It looks like they took a few pages from the MCI playbook. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:09:01 EST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Share Day for February We are at that time again -- once per month here, regardless of the amount of message traffic coming through -- where I pause to ask for your kind and generous financial assistance in the costs of producing and distributing the TELECOM Digest around the internet. The biggest part of my job each month is weeding through the spam and viruses which arrive relentlessly day after day. That part alone requires two to three hours daily, mainly I suppose since the spammers are getting wiser about the spam filters and traps we have set up all over to catch them. The virus spreaders are still clinging to the 'Microsoft Update' line; all that can be simply junked as is, but the spammers are getting trickier, for sure. Well none of what I say on that is anything you have not heard before many times, so let me say no more about it except that where Digests such as this one used to be able to be produced with a few key clicks most days, now it is very, very dangerous not to give at least a cursory glance at the items as they are being edited for publication. Entire Digests (of various genres) have been killed off for lack of interest among other things when one or two or three people took them over and began abusing them. Ditto Usenet newsgroups. Unlike public radio or public television, where the idea seems to be to take one or two 'fund raising' periods each year and then do literally nothing but sit on air and raise money for two or three weeks until they have met their budget for the year, I prefer to spread it out with a few messages each month over the same period of time. Five to six hundred -- or even a thousand -- messages of general interest over a month's time, then three or four fund raising reminders. My editing is far from perfect, and things slip in that some of you do not approve of, but I think TELECOM Digest is a little better than most of the text/email-based Digests on the net these days. If you want to do your part to help, as always it is greatly appreciated. You are the best person to decide what this Digest and newsgroup is worth financially, and how much you can afford to keep it going in its present form. Two ways to help: go to our web site http://telecom-digest.org and there on the front page, near the bottom, is a PayPal donation button. Click it and fill in the details. You can use any credit card of your choice. Or, if you prefer to send a check or money order to get a better record, that is fine also, in which case you would direct it to: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Post Office Box 50, Independence, KS 67301-0050. Thanks in advance for your usual fine, generous help. ------------------------------ 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 #90 *****************************