|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 161 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: Usenet newsgroups
Re: parity of service, was ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: parity of service, was ANI vs. Caller ID
Cal State Fullerton Area Code Changing to 657
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. 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 are 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, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:39:34 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <d23.42c78248.37645d56@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/12/2009 8:31:59 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> What is the percentage of subscribers still using rotary service?
> My guess it's about 10% for residential lines, if that much, and 1%
> for business lines. In terms of percentage of submitted calls, it's
> even less. Even if there were hardware devices as you describe, the
> traffic of rotary calls must be extremely low.
I have heard ATMs and credit card readers apparently using pulse
dialing.
Some customers have a combination of rotary-dial and Touch-Tonr phones.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 09:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Smith <marklsmith@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <168453.95614.qm@web65711.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
________________________________
From: "Wesrock@aol.com" <Wesrock@aol.com>
In a message dated 6/12/2009
8:31:59 PM Central Daylight Time,
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>> What is the percentage of subscribers still using rotary service?
>> My guess it's about 10% for residential lines, if that much, and 1%
>> for business lines. In terms of percentage of submitted calls,
>> it's > even less. Even if there were hardware devices as you
>> describe, the > traffic of rotary calls must be extremely low.
> I have heard ATMs and credit card readers apparently using pulse
> dialing.
>
> Some customers have a combination of rotary-dial and Touch-Tonr
> phones.
My new phones dial touchtone, but my old Pacman is pushbutton
pulse. Little used but still there.
Mark L. Smith http://smith.freehosting.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:35:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: dwolffxx@panix.com (David Wolff)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <h0v3ac$g3s$1@reader1.panix.com>
[huge snip]
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> I think "authentication" is the holy grail of Internet engineering:
> having trusted all comers to play by the rules in the early days of
> the Internet, its designers and engineers are now older, wiser, and
> looking for a magic bullet that will prevent the 419 scams, the
> impotence cures, and the trolls from wasting so much bandwidth and
> time.
As I heard it (somewhere), the designers of the Internet didn't *have*
any implementable, really secure authentication. They chose to let
everyone know that *nothing* was secure instead of making some stuff
*look* secure and fooling people.
Thanks
--
David
(Remove "xx" to reply.)
***** Moderator's Note *****
You're probably right. I might wish it had been different, and I can
Monday-morning-quarterback until I'm blue in the face, but it won't
change the past. As much as I dislike spam, I don't know of any magic
bullet to stop it, but I _do_ know that better minds than mine have
been working on the problem for years and that there's no end in
sight.
Those who have been in the trenches of that war have told me that they
don't expect to eliminate spam, but rather only hope to keep it from
becoming a tool of mainstream advertisers. They feel they are winning
the fight so long as Proctor & Gamble doesn't turn to spam.
My fear is that the sewage will start to overflow and block ordinary
commerce to the point where too many users retreat to "walled gardens"
such as AOL or Yahoo: that will spell the death of the "real"
Internet. The only other scenario I can think of will be a glut of
"Virtual Communities", made possible with W.A.S.T.E. or similar
software, and open only by invitation.
Usenet is in a slightly better position: it's likely that most groups
will be moderated by-and-by, with people like me being trusted to
filter spam on behalf of readers. Although Usenet approvals are
trivial to forge in the current system, a more robust paradigm is much
easier to implement becaust of the relatively small number of
moderators involved.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:40:30 -0700
From: Steven Lichter <diespammers@ikillspammers.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <h10oaf$6ov$1@news.eternal-september.org>
David Wolff wrote:
> [huge snip]
>> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>>
>> I think "authentication" is the holy grail of Internet engineering:
>> having trusted all comers to play by the rules in the early days of
>> the Internet, its designers and engineers are now older, wiser, and
>> looking for a magic bullet that will prevent the 419 scams, the
>> impotence cures, and the trolls from wasting so much bandwidth and
>> time.
>
> As I heard it (somewhere), the designers of the Internet didn't *have*
> any implementable, really secure authentication. They chose to let
> everyone know that *nothing* was secure instead of making some stuff
> *look* secure and fooling people.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
>
> David
> (Remove "xx" to reply.)
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
> You're probably right. I might wish it had been different, and I can
> Monday-morning-quarterback until I'm blue in the face, but it won't
> change the past. As much as I dislike spam, I don't know of any magic
> bullet to stop it, but I _do_ know that better minds than mine have
> been working on the problem for years and that there's no end in
> sight.
>
> Those who have been in the trenches of that war have told me that they
> don't expect to eliminate spam, but rather only hope to keep it from
> becoming a tool of mainstream advertisers. They feel they are winning
> the fight so long as Proctor & Gamble doesn't turn to spam.
>
> My fear is that the sewage will start to overflow and block ordinary
> commerce to the point where too many users retreat to "walled gardens"
> such as AOL or Yahoo: that will spell the death of the "real"
> Internet. The only other scenario I can think of will be a glut of
> "Virtual Communities", made possible with W.A.S.T.E. or similar
> software, and open only by invitation.
>
> Usenet is in a slightly better position: it's likely that most groups
> will be moderated by-and-by, with people like me being trusted to
> filter spam on behalf of readers. Although Usenet approvals are
> trivial to forge in the current system, a more robust paradigm is much
> easier to implement becaust of the relatively small number of
> moderators involved.
>
> Bill Horne
> Temporary Moderator
>
AFLAC (you know the duck) have started using spammers, as well as one of
the largest holders of the Dish Network. So they either feel the risk
is worth it or were sold on something they know noting about.
--
The Only Good Spammer is a Dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2009 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot In Hell Co.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <5d7e5816-dcdd-4ae4-a61f-e96c53675838@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> but I _do_ know that better minds than mine have
> been working on the problem for years and that there's no end in
> sight.
IMHO, a big part of the problem is not technical, but a political/
policy one. That is, much could be done to reduce spam if there was a
_will_ to do, and willingness to accept that some feathers would be
ruffled.
In other words, some elements of the Internet could reduce spam if
they were forced to do so, but no one (ie govt) is willing to apply
that force.
Also, I understand some spam originates overseas but apparently no one
wants to interfere with overseas communiations.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:26:48 -0500
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroups
Message-ID: <6645152a0906131526g1ed2dd10lcbb672e6eea189f9@mail.gmail.com>
A final couple of thoughts about USENET.
I don't agree it's dead. People do still use it and some newsgroups
are quite useful. I still much prefer USENET to web-based forums
because they're lighter weight (some web forums I find to be slow and
more difficult to navigate that a news reader). I can easily save
postings locally and read them offline. And this might seem odd given
what we went through during our Eternal September, but USENET is more
intelligent than many forums (this is only because the mindless ones
have gravitated to the web and abandoned USENET).
What I meant before by "dying" is slowly, one-by-one, ISPs are dumping
it. At what point will I decide it's simply not worth the hassle or
expense to use?
I often feel like I'm on the right course because I have a way of
enraging the left and right-wing fringes on so many topics. I don't
know if our society has become more polar or perhaps all the new media
and way we connect allow us to see each other's extreme views. Before
Facebook I might not have known a friend had such a diametrically
opposed view on some topic. I personally don't expect everyone to
agree me. However I find not everyone extends to same courtesy to me.
In fact there are topics where I agree with someone, but for
completely opposite reasons, and that isn't good enough because I'm
not seeing it their way. Strange world we're in.
John
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jun 2009 10:13:49 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: parity of service, was ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <20090613101349.2029.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
>> service" between numbers in the 'pre-existing' areacode and the new
>> one. For businesses, this 'parity' _is_ a *BIG*DEAL* -- it has a large
>> impact on "retaining" customers.
>
>You confirmed my statement. "Parity of service" was so that newcomer
>phonecos would not be at a disadvantage in attracting subscribers.
Uh, no. It's so that subscribers with numbers in overlay area codes
wouldn't be at a disadvantge. Verizon hands out 646, 347, and 917
numbers, you know. Some of the pressure for area code splits was due
to inefficient allocation to new entrants, but the number of actual
numbers in use is increasing, too.
>Likewise, so was number portability, which also adds unnecssary load
>and expense to swtiching--which we all had to pay for, just to benefit
>newcomers.
Good point. One black bakelite phone per house with service at
regulated rates is all anyone really needs.
R's,
John
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: parity of service, was ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <c2694ebc-c8c7-4cdd-8aab-585ef8f9db56@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 13, 8:29 am, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> Uh, no. It's so that subscribers with numbers in overlay area codes
> wouldn't be at a disadvantge. Verizon hands out 646, 347, and 917
> numbers, you know. Some of the pressure for area code splits was due
> to inefficient allocation to new entrants, but the number of actual
> numbers in use is increasing, too.
Yes, it's correct that subscribers in overlay area codes wouldn't be
at a disadvantage.
BUT the reason we need those new area codes, IMHO, was _largely_ due
to new entrants, not actual growth. For example, my town didn't need
to grow from three to twenty-five exchanges in one year because
'growth". The new addition to the town's C.O. building was not for
growth, but to put in termination equipment for the the newcomer
carriers.
Some years ago it was proposed to put faxes and wireless devices in
the new area codes where a 10 digit number is not a disadvantage, but
apparently this wasn't done very much.
> >Likewise, so was number portability, which also adds unnecssary load
> >and expense to swtiching--which we all had to pay for, just to benefit
> >newcomers.
>
> Good point. One black bakelite phone per house with service at
> regulated rates is all anyone really needs.
I have no idea of how your response relates to number portability.
Let's be clear that number portability represented a significant cost--
which is a line item right on my bill. It benefits the newcomers to
make it easier for customers to switch to them. As such, IMHO the
newcomers ought to be the ones to pay for it, not the rest of us who
aren't changing. If the newcomers were truly offering a superior
service or better price, they could well afford the cost of number
portability. However, the books I referred to in an earlier
discussion said the newcomers offered nothing better.
As to "one black phone", that sounds like a strawman. The old Bell
System offered a large variety of services and equipment well beyond
"one black phone" for decades. Of course, the difference to today is
that all of us must subsidize those with premium services --such as
the portability fee and mandated 10 digit dialing--whereas in the past
those with premium services paid their own way.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:02:37 -0500
From: Neal McLain <nmclain@annsgarden.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Cal State Fullerton Area Code Changing to 657
Message-ID: <4A33A36D.6080001@annsgarden.com>
FULLERTON CALIFORNIA - May 27, 2009. Beginning May 30, Cal State
Fullerton will have a new area code - 657. Cal State Fullerton's main
campus in Fullerton and CSUF Irvine Campus will be using this latest
area code assigned within Orange County.
The additional area code was added by the California Public Utilities
Commission to meet the increasing needs for additional phone numbers
from throughout the county, explained Marci Payne, manager of
telecommunications for Cal State Fullerton.
Continued at http://tinyurl.com/714-657
CSUF has a four-digit internal dialing plan covering the main campus at
Fullerton (area code 714, recently overlaid by 657) and a branch campus
at Irvine (area code 949).
Before the University's area-code switch, the dialing plan was:
0 = Campus operator
1xxx = 4D extensions at Irvine Campus (949-936-1xxx)
2xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-278-2xxx)
3xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-278-3xxx)
4xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-278-4xxx)
5xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-278-5xxx)
6xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-626-6xxx)
7xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-278-7xxx)
82xx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-278-82xx)
83xx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-278-83xx)
84xx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-278-84xx)
85xx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-278-85xx)
88xx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (714-626-88xx)
9 = Outside line (local and toll)
Effective May 30, all extensions were switched to 657-278. The new
dialing plan is:
0 = Campus operator
1xxx = 4D extensions at Irvine Campus (657-278-1xxx)
2xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (657-278-2xxx)
3xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (657-278-3xxx)
4xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (657-278-4xxx)
5xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (657-278-5xxx)
6xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (657-278-6xxx)
7xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (657-278-7xxx)
8xxx = 4D extensions at Fullerton Campus (657-278-8xxx)
9 = Outside line (local and toll)
Irvine campus extensions officially changed to 657-278-1xxx (creating a
657 island inside 949). However (as of 06/11/09) it was still possible
to reach Irvine extensions at the old 949-936-1xxx numbers.
I guess this change was made for a couple of reasons:
- It allows the University to consolidate all extensions in 657-278,
eliminating the 949-936 and 714-626 anomalies.
- It allows the University to utilize previously unavailable number
blocks 657-278-9xxx and 657-278-0xxx by switching to a 5-digit internal
dialing plan.
Some authors (notably former TD contributor Mark Cuccia) have noted that
this change violates an underlying argument in favor of overlays:
"nobody has to change area codes." Well, that's true, but it doesn't
preclude Universities and similar bulk number users from voluntarily
switching to the overlay area code.
Neal McLain
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:38:15 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <4rWdnb25DIGaea7XnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <a2fd25bd-a733-4394-bbd1-a6aba1447c8d@j18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 6:51 pm, Robert Bonomi <bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you have *any* idea how much of the country now has
>> _usage-based_billing_ for *LOCAL* calls as well as for
>> 'long-distance' calls? Hint: in terms of 'number of lines', the
>> figure is in the 70-80% range.
> You are saying 70-80% of landlines have local usage based billing?
> Where did you come up with that figure?
>
> What is the percentage of subscribers still using rotary service?
> My guess it's about 10% for residential lines, if that much, and 1%
> for >business lines. In terms of percentage of submitted calls,
> it's even >less. Even if there were hardware devices as you
> describe, the >traffic of rotary calls must be extremely low.
>> The issue is the length of time, _PER_CALL_PLACED_, that the
>> appropriate 'digit decoding' gear has to be attached to the
>> customer circuit.
> AFAIK, there is no such thing _today_ as "digit decoding gear". As
> mentoined before, all lines must be scanned often for on-off hook
> status. Dial pulsing is collected as part of that scanning.
I repeat, "FALSE TO FACT".
First, there is _NO_ repetitive 'scanning of all lines' for
on-/off-hook status. That approach is TOO *DAMN* EXPENSIVE (in terms
of resource consumption) to be practical.
I'm not going to go into all the gory details, but the basic outline of
switch architecture is that it has some functions that *must* be done
at specific time intervals. These are 'real-time' tasks. Each of these
tasks has the exclusive, and *un-interruptible* use of the CPU until it
finishes its processing. Obviously, these routines are written to use
as little CPU as possible, and return control to the scheduler. "Bigger"
real-time tasks are broken down into "whatever" number of smaller pieces
as are needed to get the execution time of each individual piece under
the size of the real-time scheduling 'slot'.
The 'real-time' subsystem has ABSOLUTE PRIORITY in call on resources.
_Nothing_ can interrupt the real-time tasks -- because if anything was
allowed to do so, one could not predict how long a given 'piece' (per above)
would take to process, and one could not guarantee that it would finish
within it's allocated time-slot (an absolute requirement, in order for the
-other- real-time tasks to get _their_ slots in a timely manner).
Note: There are an *ABSOLUTELY*FIXED* number of real-time time-slots in
the system. There is no even theoretically possible way to get 10,001
time-slots of 100usec each in a system where each slot must run one time
per second.
When the real-time subsystem has 'spare' time -- whether it is due to the
presence of 'unused' scheduling slots, or of 'pieces' that completed their
increment of processing before the end of their time-slot -- then the
'interruptible' subsystem runs.
The interruptible system consists of tasks with non-deterministic behavior,
that do -not- have hard 'real-time' constraints on them. These tasks
run under an _adaptive_ priority-based scheduler, but _only_ when the
real-time system does not need the CPU. There are two basic variants of
tasks in this system -- routine 'scheduled' tasks (initiated by a scheduling
software directive), whose execution can be interrupted 'at will' for
by any other task, for any reason; and 'interrupt service' tasks, which
take precedence over any 'scheduled' task, and also take precedence over
any lower-priority interrupt-service task. Interrupt-service priorities
are hard-coded into the system architecture, while the priority of any
'scheduled' task can vary (within limits) from moment-to-moment.
Software-based digit-decoding -- of either DTMF or pulse digits -- is, of
necessity, *REAL*TIME* task, because you must have a stable time-base for
the samples for pulse-width or tone-frequency determination. This makes
such decoders 'expensive to use', and '_relatively_ scarce', in the system
architecture. Therefore such decoders are activated only for the _minimum_
necessary time periods.
To use on-/off-hook 'scanning' for pulse dial detection, the on-/off-hook
scanning would have to run as a real-time task for *every* line on the
switch. EVERY SECOND of every day. To reliably decode 20PPS dialing,
one would have to sample each line a minimum of 40 times/sec. (Nyquist
limit), and preferably more. Or a minimum of 3.45 _million_ times per line
per 24 hour day.
What you do, _instead_, is hang a simple differentiator circuit (hardware)
on each tail circuit, that generates an interrupt "when and only when"
the line state (on-/off-hook) changes. This circuit is expressly designed
to be _insensitive_ to changes as short as a dial-pulse. This circuit
triggers twice per phone call (once going off-hook, and the 2nd time
going on-hook). If one is making a call every 8 seconds, 24 hours/day,
this interrupt happens less than 2,200 times/day -- more likely it will
be only in the 10s to 100s of times per day. Worst-case: 1500 times
less frequent than 'scanning', probably 15,000+ less load on the system.
WHEN, and *only* when, the line goes off-hook (10s to 100s of times a day)
do you enable a REAL-TIME digit decoder task on that line. And it stays
enabled _only_ for the duration of the actual dialing -- a few seconds
for DTMF, maybe 20-25 seconds for pulse. Say it is 25 seconds times 100
calls, thats a total of 2500 seconds of real-time task per day for a
_HEAVILY_USED_ line, vs 86,400 seconds for _every_ line under your scanning
scenario. A switch-wide average on outgoing calls is probably more like
10-20 per line than 100. Making the 'decoder on demand' approach on the
order of 100-200 times more efficient than full scanning'.
> No extra hardware is required. The translation from dial pulses or
> Touch Tone signals to whatever the switch uses internally is done by
> software.
>If there is a citation describing that modern switches have a hardware
>device for digit decoding, could you share it?
It is advisable to read one or two lines ahead, it can keep you from looking
foolish.
>> This applies whether the decoding gear is outboard hardware, or a 'polling'
>> pure software routine.
>
>Software is not "tied up" on a computer when it is waiting for input.
>The CPU goes on to do something else. (Interrupt handling is beyond
>the scope of the discussion).
See the above discussion of "real-time" subsystems, and why software-based
digit-decoding must 'tie up' a real-time scheduling slot.
>> How long does it take, on average, to 'pulse dial' a 7 digit number?
>> How long does it take, on average, to 'tone dial' a 7 digit number?
> When you visit a website, the server is not "tied up" while it waits
> for you to think or type in stuff. It only acts when you're finished.
Irrelevant and immaterial to "real-time" processing.
>> FALSE TO FACT.
>>
>> The primary motivation for 10-digit dialing was to provide "parity of
>> service" between numbers in the 'pre-existing' areacode and the new
>> one. For businesses, this 'parity' _is_ a *BIG*DEAL* -- it has a large
>> impact on "retaining" customers.
> You confirmed my statement. "Parity of service" was so that newcomer
> phonecos would not be at a disadvantage in attracting subscribers.
WRONG. "Newcomer phonecos" _were_ part of the pressure that necessitated
area-code splits and overlays, but *ONLY* part of it. The burgeoning use
of fax machines and especially computers with modems put much _more_ pressure
on the numbering system. In the 80s, I was working for a business with a
grand total of 6 employees. We were datacomm intensive, had nearly 30
phone lines (12 for voice, 16 modems (some dial-in, a bunch for dial-out FAX)
and 2 dedicated incoming fax line) , plus a T-1 internet connection, plus 8
dedicated data circuits. This kind of loading was not uncommon for
'technology using' small businesses in those days. The telecom model had
changed RADICALLY -- from one trunk line per several employees to several
lines per employee. THIS is what put the overall pressure on the numbering
system. Full prefix allocations to CLECs aggravated the situation, but it
wasn't the entire cause, nor even the primary one.
"Parity of service" was so that _existing_ USERS of the phone system,
*whether*or*not* they switched to a 'newcomer phoneco' would not be
disadvantaged in retaining existing customers. _Every_time_ a "split"
happened, _3/4_ of the pre-split universe was affected. (everybody in
the new areacode, plus the circa 1/2 the calls from the old areacode
to somebody that was now in the new one.) Two splits, and the numbs of
'inconvenienced' customers is greater than the total number of people in
the area -- some have been inconvenienced more than once. OTOH. With an
'overlay', and mandatory 10digit dialing for all numbers, _everybody_ is
inconvenienced (and to a lesser degree than 1/2 the people in a 'split'!)
once, and once _only_. Additional overlays can be brought in, if/when
needed, with no inconvenience to anyone.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 13:19:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: ANI vs. Caller ID
Message-ID: <1c654f3a-ad65-41f9-ad3f-9956f2f758a9@o21g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 12, 6:51 pm, Robert Bonomi <bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
> Do you have *any* idea how much of the country now has
_usage-based_billing_
> for *LOCAL* calls as well as for 'long-distance' calls?
P.S.
Many places with measured service ("message rate") do NOT time local
calls; that is, they only charge one message unit or equivalent. So,
there is no revenue lost for dialing time. Some places use a
modernized message unit system for suburban calls, but others call it
short haul toll calls. Many short haul toll calls are handled today
by a long distance carrier.
In the Philadelphia area, Verizon recently _reduced_ its message unit
call charges. That is, calls that were once timed are now untimed and
for other calls the costs are less. Late night discounts have been
added. This suggest the revenues from this service are not so
critical.
I would also suggest that whoever few subscribers left still using
dial phones probably probably don't make many calls--people who would
make many calls would likely have modern equipment.
Also, message rate service is more common for businesses. I would
suggest it's quite rare for a business to still have dial phones,
unless it's a very small slow scale business that probably doesn't
make many calls.
In both cases people who still have dial phones often ONLY use them as
a backup or answering phone; perhaps they're an old hard wired set
they didn't bother disconnecting.
Let's remember that many businesses today, large and small, have
automated menus and callers MUST have a Touch Tone phone to work
through the menus. Many places don't allow agent access if one merely
holds the line. This discourages pulse phone use.
The question thus becomes what percentage of _calls_ submitted to
switch are from pulse phones, broken down by timed and untimed
service. I would submit that today that percentage is extremely low.
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition 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.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
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 oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2008 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.
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 The Telecom digest (11 messages)
******************************
|
or 