|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 299 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Re: 911 flaw delayed help to attack victim
Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
White Pages may fall victim of technology
====== 28 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, 30 Oct 2009 06:46:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Message-ID: <hce23q$tib$1@news.albasani.net>
John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>> Area code 500 is exhausted, and 533 has been assigned for personal
>> communications services. I had no idea these featurs were so
>> popular.
> History indicates that when the FCC was first considering "Cellular"
> services (back in the 1970's), they discounted the European plan
> already in effect which assigned specific AC's (NPA's) to their
> burgeoning Cellular service so that all NXX's (exchanges) in these
> NPA's would only be for cell phones.
When was caller pays introduced? That type of service warrants a
non-geographical area code, but as long as incoming calls to cellular
phones are distance rated, then sharing existing area codes makes
sense.
> Of course as we all know, instead the FCC only allowed the early
> cellular service supplier's to use NXX's in the already issued
> (land-line) NPA covering their specific initial service area(s)
> which were the largest MSA's (starting with number 1 and licensing
> each successive MSA) until all had two carriers.
> Of course we all know now that the FCC had no idea how large this
> service would grow and that they would have to put together new NPA
> plans with over-lays, etc. to ultimately cover the demand for
> telephone numbers in each NPA area until where we find ourselves
> today. Had they had a crystal ball they might have better chosen the
> European plan with special NPA (just like this new FCC release of AC
> 533) for this growing service.
I do not agree with your analysis. The problem was waste of line
numbering space. If cell phone had to have rate centers so that
incoming calls could be distance rated (and outgoing long distance
calls in the old days), then the correct solution should have been FCC
rules for fulfilling line number requests neutrally.
Groups of cellular phone numbers rated to an exchange should have been
treated like PBXs, which generally require a block of numbers but not
an entire prefix.
Yeah, this might have taken extra equipment at the switch, but the
bill and keep system pretends that every cell phone company has a
physical presence at every central office, so what the hell.
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:53:31 EDT
From: Wesrock@aol.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services [Te.
Message-ID: <c22.6d1aab6c.381c57eb@aol.com>
In a message dated 10/30/2009 9:14:53 AM Central Daylight Time,
ahk@chinet.com writes:
> Groups of cellular phone numbers rated to an exchange should have
> been treated like PBXs, which generally require a block of numbers
> but not an entire prefix.
I remember in the early days of cell phones two cell phone carriers in
Lawton, Oklahoma, each had only part of a prefix--the same prefix.
Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com
wleathus@yahoo.com
Date: 30 Oct 2009 16:01:46 -0000
From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Message-ID: <20091030160146.9995.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> When was caller pays introduced?
Never. There were a few experiments with it using specific NPA-NXX
codes, but they all failed. Evidently the number of people who
thought they were so important that people would pay extra to call
them greatly exceeded the number who actually were. The few
references to 500 numbers I've seen suggest that the ones in use do
not cost anything to call.
> Groups of cellular phone numbers rated to an exchange should have
> been treated like PBXs, which generally require a block of numbers
> but not an entire prefix.
They were. I had a Cellular One number in Vermont in the 1980s which
was in a PBX block allocated from a NET (maybe it was NYNEX then)
prefix.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Message-ID: <592833.65730.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:19:55 -0400 John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> Of course we all know now that the FCC had no idea how large this
> service would grow and that they would have to put together new NPA
> plans with over-lays, etc. to ultimately cover the demand for
> telephone numbers in each NPA area until where we find ourselves
> today.
No matter how many times people repeat [the claim] that the main
reason for overlays was people using technology like cell phones, fax
machines, 'computer' lines or teenager additional lines, [in fact] the
main consumer of numbering space was the CLECs. At one point CLECs
could request a whole 10,000 block of numbers even if they were only
going to use several hundred. It's only now with thousands block
assignments that number assignments have dwindled. Number portability
also plays into it. The economy also has had an effect on numbers
assigned as well.
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:57:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Message-ID: <hcfcv9$s1d$6@news.albasani.net>
Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:19:55 -0400 John Stahl <aljon@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>> Of course we all know now that the FCC had no idea how large this
>> service would grow and that they would have to put together new NPA
>> plans with over-lays, etc. to ultimately cover the demand for
>> telephone numbers in each NPA area until where we find ourselves
>> today.
> No matter how many times people repeat [the claim] that the main
> reason for overlays was people using technology like cell phones,
> fax machines, 'computer' lines or teenager additional lines, [in
> fact] the main consumer of numbering space was the CLECs. At one
> point CLECs could request a whole 10,000 block of numbers even if
> they were only going to use several hundred. It's only now with
> thousands block assignments that number assignments have
> dwindled. Number portability also plays into it. The economy also
> has had an effect on numbers assigned as well.
Isn't number portability actually a more efficient use of numbering
space? That way, if a caller migrates from a land line to a cell
phone or CLEC, then it's a number used out of the original pool, not
the expanded pool of numbers assigned to that exchange on behalf of
other phone companies. And then, if as much of the expanded pool is
reclaimed as possible, perhaps that frees up numbering blocks for
assignment elsewhere for actual increased demand for line number
assignment.
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:07:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Message-ID: <hcfdia$h3c$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <592833.65730.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com> writes:
> No matter how many times people repeat [the claim] that the main
> reason for overlays was people using technology like cell phones,
> fax machines, 'computer' lines or teenager additional lines, [in
> fact] the main consumer of numbering space was the CLECs.
True for the most part, but in some areas the locals really were
running out of numbers... For example, in NYC where the "212" area
code was initially all five boroughs, they had to split into "212" and
"718". And when cellular service begand reaching the masses there was
the addition of "917".
(The later area code overlays in NYC were more due to that
semi-artificial scarcity you described).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Horne <hornetd@gmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: 911 flaw delayed help to attack victim
Message-ID: <a1d929f4-db1c-4267-9c0e-9c2780780c5d@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
On Oct 29, 11:39 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The following is a disturbing story. The Newark NJ Star Ledger
> reported that the victim of an attack dialed 911 for help, but
> apparently the 911 center was unable to determine the location of the
> call. It was not clear whether the 911 center had the technology to
> do so, or [if] there was a flaw [in] it. Perhaps others more familiar
> with modern 911 operation can elaborate.
>
> For full article please see:
> http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-15/12567813...
[Moderator snip]
>
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
>
[Moderator snip]
>
> The problem is not caused by cell phones: it's caused by the
> unrealistic expectations we have regarding what is and is not possible
> in public-safety responses. The TV-viewing public has adopted a
> fantasy where it expects a telephone to transform into a trained and
> well-equiped and well-supported public safety professional in the
> blink of an eye, all the while forgetting the basic imperatives of
> distance and time. Municipal managers have endorsed electronics as the
> "magic bullet" which cures all ills, and have placed poorly trained
> call-takers in positions where experienced police officers and/or
> firefighters would be more effective. The results have been
> foreseeable.
>
> Bill Horne
> Moderator
Notice that at least one of the quoted law makers does understand the
biggest part of the problem, which is the diversion of 911 fees to uses
that have nothing to do with handling emergency telephone calls well.
It is so much easier for a politician to pay for the PSAP staffing
with the [911] fees then it is for them to do that out of the general
fund and use the fees to pay for new equipment and software. If they
do the first one they can save the library hours that people are
screaming about; if they do the latter they have to bear up under the
attacks from the people who wanted them to "cut the fat, not their
macrame class." That last is an actual quote from a call I answered
as a relief dispatcher in Davis California shortly after proposition
Thirteen passed by an overwhelming margin. To that caller the closing
of the recreation center for nights and weekends was a travesty and
not a foreseeable result of her voting to cut the towns property tax
revenue in half.
--
Tom Horne
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:03:47 +0000
From: Adam Sampson <ats@offog.org>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Area code 533 assigned for personal communications services
Message-ID: <y2aws2cly98.fsf@cartman.at.offog.org>
Wesrock@aol.com writes:
> Of course, Europe is generally caller-pays so I don't think any cell
> phone number could be a viable alternative as a number someone could
> use to call a local business.
This is certainly not the case -- mobile numbers are now the norm for
small businesses in the UK. Remember that the vast majority of people
are calling from a mobile in the first place, and the majority of the
calls they make (and, more likely, text messages they send) are to
other mobile phones already...
--
Adam Sampson <ats@offog.org> <http://offog.org/>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: White Pages may fall victim of technology
Message-ID: <151366.53976.qm@web52710.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Booster seats. Door stops. Fodder for papier-mache projects. It seems
those thick phone books that land on most folks' doorsteps each year
get used for just about everything except locating phone numbers.
If some state and local lawmakers have their way, however, even those
uses would go by the wayside.
Under legislation they hope to take to Sacramento in January, state
Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, and Millbrae Councilwoman Gina Papan
would bar phone companies from producing and distributing White Pages
unless people choose to receive it.
"All of us know in these cost-conscious times, with growing awareness
of the environment, that we need to make sure we don't waste
resources," Yee said during a news conference at Millbrae City Hall on
Thursday morning.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/29/BALL1ACEQ8.DTL&feed=rss.technology
(Alternative, shorter URL) http://bit.ly/2Hvq24
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 Bill Horne. 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 moderated by Bill Horne.
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) 2009 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 (9 messages)
|