Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa25747; 22 Aug 95 19:25 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17973 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:08:16 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17964; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:08:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:08:14 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199508221708.MAA17964@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #351 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Aug 95 12:08:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 351 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "CDMA: Principles of Spread Spectrum Communication" (R. Slade) Billing Goofups (Gary Novosielski) Convert DID Voice System to ISDN BRI Voice System (Rick Strobel) CFP: 4th UK/Australian Int. Symposium on DSP (Tadeusz Wysocki) Telecommunications Short Courses (Bill Bond) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 01:40:52 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "CDMA: Principles of Spread Spectrum Communication" BKCDMASS.RVW 950526 "CDMA: Principles of Spread Spectrum Communication", Andrew Viterbi, 1995, 0- 201-63374-4, U$59.25 %A Andrew Viterbi %C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984 %D 1995 %G 0-201-63374-4 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Company %O U$59.25 416-447-5101 fax: 416-443-0948 markj@aw.com tiffanym@aw.com %O 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 %P 272 %T "CDMA: Principles of Spread Spectrum Communication" The use of a "spread spectrum", or multiple frequencies, for communication is known in some frequency-division multiplexed local area networks, and in some proprietary high-speed modems. Its use in wireless communications has historically been limited to the military, where the reliability and security in hostile environments have been worth the additional engineering. With the increasing use of, and interest in, mobile and cellular communications, code- division multiple access (CDMA) technology is quite desirable. As well as security, it offers much greater efficiencies of available bandwidth, location and velocity information, and improved "hand off" performance when crossing cell boundaries. Intended as a text for a graduate course in electrical engineering or communications, the book covers advanced topics in frequency reuse and bandwidth, synchronization, power considerations, interleaving and other topics. (Students are advised to keep texts from earlier courses as Viterbi does not always define terms or acronyms, and there are errors in the index.) While principles are outlined, the bulk of the book is devoted to detailed calculations of the practicalities of CDMA design. Chapter six is specifically devoted to the design of digital cellular systems. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKCDMASS.RVW 950526. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver roberts@decus.ca | "Metabolically Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca | challenged" Research into slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca | User rslade@CyberStore.ca | politically correct Security Canada V7K 2G6 | term for "dead" ------------------------------ From: gary.novosielski@sbaonline.gov Organization: Small Business Administration Date: Mon, 21 Aug 95 14:13:08 -0400 Subject: Billing Goof-ups > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About twenty years ago I had a situation > such as you describe. I had a business line with an unusually high number > of local message units on it for about three months in a row. The phone > office serving that number had just about the same time been converted > to ESS. I had almost a mirror image experience to yours on my residence line about the time our local central office cut over to ESS in the early '80s. I suddenly *stopped* getting long distance charges altogether. Calls to numbers within my home NPA (201) got billed as usual, but anything with a foreign area code simply didn't show up on my bill. (This was before the "breakup," so everything was normally billed by New Jersey Bell regardless of destination. Still, something "different" about long-distance billing was clearly in place already.) I suspected something went wrong in the reprogramming of the new central office, but I didn't call NJB, since I was curious to see how long it would take for them to discover it on their own. I was careful to put aside the "savings" on the phone bill each month, since I was certain the day would come when they discovered the error and demanded payment. As the months dragged on, I found myself paying a little less attention to how long I stayed on the phone, or how many times I dialed an out-of-town BBS, but I didn't go nuts. Still, it was a full year before I got a "that call" at work from my wife. She said a nice lady from the phone company had called and started off the conversation with "Are you sitting down?" (always a bad sign) and had left a number. I called. It wasn't all that bad. My LD bill had run up to a tad over 700 bucks. I tried to sound surprised, but I don't know how well I did. It turns out, says the "nice lady," that when they reprogrammed the CO, my telephone number (let's say NNX-6147, was erroneously programmed to appear on the bill of a local business who had seven trunks beginning with 6140. Somebody added in their head and forgot to start counting with zero, it seems. She couldn't explain why my short-distance calls weren't affected. Anyway, the business hadn't noticed anything odd for a year, but finally questioned the numbers they were seeing, and got the phone company to discover their snafu and issue them a credit. I asked for and received a full listing of the calls, and sure enough they seemed to be familiar for the most part, but I figured it couldn't hurt to try and cut a deal with Telco. I called them and said that even though I couldn't remember every call I'd made for the past year, let's assume for the sake of argument that all the calls were mine. Did they expect me to just write them a check for 700 dollars? No, no, said the "nice lady." Since the billing error was their mistake, they were prepared to accept a small amount each month. How much? Oh, say, five or ten bucks tacked on to each bill. So we're talking about six to twelve years before they would recover the full amount, right? Um, yeah, she guessed that was right. Well, if she'd accept fifty cents on the dollar, I offered, I'd write her a check the next day, and we'd call it even, and what did she think about that? Well, she wasn't prepared to do the math in her head, but she was clearly familiar with the concept of Net Present Value, which rather precisely calculates what a bird in the hand is worth, in terms of birds in the bush, at a given interest rate (which back then would have been double digit). Uh, could she call me back in fifteen minutes? Sure. Three minutes later, the phone rang. She had talked to her supervisor, she said. And? And, just to confirm, I *had* said the $350 would be in the mail *tomorrow* right? Yup -- first thing in the morning, I assured her. "Done," she says. "Let me give you a post office box number to mail it to." And I haven't seen a billing error since. GaryN GPN Consulting gnovosielski@mcimail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: About 1976 I had a case similar to that. I was living in a building which had a switchboard for the tenants at the front desk and I decided to get my own personal phone installed as well. They put in my phone but never sent me a bill for anything, period, for about one year. Apparently plant never sent the paperwork to the accounting department saying the installation was complete. Since in those days we had a category of service where you got unlimited local calling (which is what I had ordered), provided there were no coin-rated calls on the bill (which I was careful to avoid) there was never any reason for anything to hit the accounting department out of the ordinary. Then one day some #$&^# phreak somewhere made a phraud thirty-party call and billed it to my number. Hmmm ... well of course the charges were forwarded to Illinois Bell from whatever telco was involved (or maybe it was intra- LATA all via Illinois Bell, I don't remember) and the end result was when the charges got into the system they 'fell out' for lack of an account to bill them to. Unbillable charges go into a suspense account and there are clerks whose job it is to be constantly cleaning out the suspense ledger and moving the charges to where they belong. This can be done by charging it back to the telco from which it originated, or by trying to investigate locally, etc. As part of the investigative process, if it is just a couple dollars or less then the clerks usually write it off on the assumption it costs more to do the paperwork charging it back to the other telco and arguing with the other telco about it ("you sent it to us"; "no we didn't, you must have gotten it from another telco"). And sometimes for whatever reason in those days the paperwork would get so mutilated and banged up they did not know where they got the charge from so they had to write it off. This time around, someone decided to dial the number and see if it was actually in service or not. Of course it rang; of course I answered. Bingo, that set off an audit with accounting making an inquiry of plant to see what the actual status of the line was. Plant reconstructed what paperwork they had on it and accounting had to turn on the service after the fact. Like yourself, I had been putting aside money for that day, and one day here comes a bill in the mail for installation charges and monthly service for about *one year* to date. Like yourself, I made a fuss about it, but not a very loud one. I mean, I knew what I was doing all along, so I had no legitimate gripe. I could have inquired about it a year before I did. They did however take off the phraud call which had been billed to me, and the supervisor got a big laugh out of the way things had all come together. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rstrobel@infotime.com (Rick Strobel) Subject: Convert DID Voice System to ISDN BRI Voice System Date: 21 Aug 1995 23:41:52 GMT Organization: InfoTime Could someone please help me find a solution to this problem: I need to replace DID circuits with ISDN BRI. Here's how my current system works: There are several DID trunks connected to an Exacom DID SF-200 interface box, which is connected to a Dialogic voice card on a voice mail system. There are 140 phone numbers assigned to the DID trunks. When a call comes in, the Exacom box signals the voice card and passes the last 4 digits of the phone number to the voice card. The voice mail system then answers, looks up the 4 digit number and then plays the associated greeting. The main problem is that DID circuits are very expensive in my area (the other, less important for now, issues include that DID is inbound only, and I feel that ISDN would be a better technology for the future). ISDN can provide the same functionality for 1/3 the monthly cost. Here's what I want: I want an ISDN device that will accept an ISDN line on one end and provide two analog phone lines on the other. The analog lines should be able to signal my voice card in the same way that the Exacom box does (in band DTMF). (If that is not possible I may be able to take the signalling info from a D channel via (maybe) a serial interface, that would provide the info out of band. But the former is MUCH preferred). Exacom said they were going to make a product like this in the future, the rep called it an ISDN to loop converter with DTMF. They did not provide a time-table, so I suspect it would be at least a year or more -- so I don't want to wait for them. If there's not an off-the-shelf product for this, I'd be interested in any tips on how I could build one myself. BTW, I've contacted all the vendors I could think of, and nobody seems to have anything remotely close. There were a lot of PRI devices, but not BRI. Can anyone recommend any products, vendors, etc that may be able to help me convert from DID to ISDN? Any and all advice is welcomed and REALLY appreciated. Rick Strobel InfoTime Fax Communications voice: 502-426-4279 fax: 502-426-3721 email: rstrobel@infotime.com ------------------------------ From: Tadeusz Wysocki Subject: CFP: 4th UK/Australian Int. Symp. on DSP for Communication Systems Date: 22 Aug 1995 13:01:26 GMT Organization: Edith Cowan University 4th UK/AUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON DSP FOR COMUNICATION SYSTEMS CO-SPONSORED BY: IEEE, CRC for BTN, IEE EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY, JOONDALUP CAMPUS, PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA SEPTEMBER 23-27, 1996 Communication System worldwide have provided a rapidly growing a useful services and are continuing to evolve using Digital Signal Processing. UK/Australian International Symposium was planned by a group of academics and professionals from both Australia and the UK to examine the plans for the future and the progress that has already been made in the field of DSP and their applications to communication systems. The organising committee of the symposium decided to hold the 4th UK/Australian Symposium on DSP for Communication Systems in Perth from 23 - 27 September 1996. A major objective of the symposium will be to pursue the progression from communication and information theory through to the implementation, evaluation and performance of practical communication systems using DSP technology. Papers are invited over the full range of Communication System, Communication Theory and Signal Processing. Examples of such areas are: Error Control Coding Modulation, Demodulation & Multiple Access Data Compression & Speech Coding Channel Characterisation Simulation & Modelling Synchronisation DSP Algorithms & Applications Information Theory Cryptography & Protocols Implementation Consideration Design & Analysis Paper will be reviewed on the basis of extended abstracts of about 1000 words. S e n d A b s t r a c t s t o: DR S H Razavi School of Electrical & Computer Engineering Curtin University of Technology GPO BOX U1987 PERTH WA 6001 AUSTRALIA Fax: 619.351.2584 Email: Razavi_SH@cc.Curtin.edu.au S e n d A b s t r a c t s from E u r o p e, A f r i c a and the M i d d l e E a s t to: Prof. B Honary School of Engineering, Computing & Mathematical Sciences Lancaster University LANCASTER LAI 4YR UK Fax: 441.524.594207 Email: B.Honary@Lancaster.ac.uk D e a d l i n e: Extended Abstract: 31 January 1996 Notification of Acceptance: 15 April 1996 Camera Ready Copies: 15 June 1996 I n q u i r i e s: All correspondence concerning the symposium organisation should be addressed to: Dr. T Wysocki CRC, Australian Telecommunications Research Institute Curtin University of Technology GPO Box U1987, PERTH WA 6001 AUSTRALIA Fax: 619.351.3244 Email: Tad@ATRI.Curtin.edu.au or T.Wysocki@cowan.edu.au O r g a n i s i n g C o m m i t t e e Prof. A Cantoni (CRC for BTN) Australian Telecommunications Research Institute Dr. H Razavi (CRC for BTN) Curtin University of Technology Dr. T Wysocki (CRC for BTN) Edith Cowan University Prof. B Honary (Lancaster University) United Kingdom Dr. H Eren (Electrical & Computer Engineering) Curtin University of Technology ------------------------------ From: bond@utdallas.edu Subject: Telecommunications Short Courses Date: 21 Aug 1995 15:29:21 -0500 Organization: The University of Texas at Dallas Telecommunications Short Courses September - October, 1995 The University of Texas at Dallas Center for Continuing Education P.O. Box 830688, CN 1.1 Richardson, Texas 75083-0688 (214) 883-2204 ADAPTIVE SIGNAL PROCESSING IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS Adaptive signal processing algorithms are central to network echo cancellation, speech enhancement and acoustic echo cancellation (for hands-free teleconferencing and wireless communications), channel equalization, interference rejection in CDMA cellular, smart antennas, and active noise control. The course will give an overview of the Least Means Squares (LMS) and Recursive Least Squares (RLS) adaptive filter algorithms. It will focus on how these algorithms are used in the above telecommunications applications. September 11-12, 1995; 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.; UTD Conference Center; Instructor, Eric Dowling, Ph.D.; fee - $595, CEU's 1.4; for additional information, call Barbara Johnson at (214) 883-2204. MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING In the past decade, the mobile communications industry has enjoyed an exponential growth in its customer base. This has forced many industries to respond to the demands of this exciting field. This course introduces engineers and other professionals to the basic elements of mobile communications engineering. Principle, practice, and system overview of mobile systems will be discussed. The main objective of this two-day course is not to provide an in-depth coverage of all the elements of this field, but to focus on the key elements, such as cell geometry, cochannel interference, modulation schemes, and channel effects. The key elements of TDMA and CDMA emerging digital cellular systems will be introduced. Subsequently, a comparison of these emerging systems in the face of channel impairments will be discussed in terms of the performance measures introduced in this course. September 15-16, 1995; 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.; UTD Conference Center; Instructor, Kamran, Kiasaleh, Ph.D.; fee - $595; CEU's 1.4; for additional information, call Barbara Johnson at (214) 883-2204. OBJECT-ORIENTED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Object-Oriented Programming has become the methodology of choice in the 1990's. This course aims to equip students with knowledge of the principles of sound analysis and design techniques for programs that will be implemented in C++ or Smalltalk. Students will learn by experience as designs are formulated through the use of several case studies. The chosen methodology will mainly be based on Rumbaugh's OMT, although brief overviews of FUSION and Booch's methodology will also be given. September 21-22, 1995; 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.; UTD Conference Center; Instructor, Ivor Page, Ph.D.; fee - $595; CEU's 1.4; for additional informa- tion, call Barbara Johnson at (214) 883-2204. VIDEO DIAL TONE Video-based services, such as Video Dial Tone (VDT), are witness- ing rapid growth. This growth is likely to accelerate as some of the regulatory barriers faced by cable companies, local exchange carriers and interexchange carriers are removed by the Congress. In order to meet the higher bandwidth requirements of the video signals, telephone and cable companies are introducing new transport and switching technologies in the network. The stan- dards organizations such as ITU-TS and committee T1 and the ATM Forum are also defining new standards for handling video servic- es. This course is designed to bring students up-to-date with the market dynamics of the video industry and to provide techni- cal details, from data storage to different delivery architec- tures for the VDT services. September 25-26, 1995; 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.; UTD Conference Center; Instructor, Sudhir Gupta; fee - $595; CEU's 1.4; for additional information, call Barbara Johnson at (214) 883-2204. DESIGN OF FIBER COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS The design of high data rate/bandwidth short haul and long haul fiber communications systems is becoming important because of the high demand for large data rate/bandwidth transmission. Efforts are on the way to seamlessly connect the cellular networks to fiber networks whereby more services can be offered. This course introduces engineers, scientists and managers working in the telecommunications industries to the basic elements of fiber communication. Principle, design, practice and system overview of analog and digital fiber communication will be discussed. After completing the two-day course, the participants will have enough knowledge to understand, design as well as to evaluate digital and analog fiber systems. Design of 10Gbits/s digital systems, fiber communication for video transmission, wavelength division multiplexed systems, systems with concatenated fiber amplifiers, dispersion compensators and external modulators are some of the topics that will be discussed. The data rate impair- ments due to nonlinearity and methods to combat them will also be discussed. October 17-18, 1995; 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.; UTD Conference Center; Instructor, Lakshman Tamil, Ph.D., fee - $595; CEU's 1.4; for additional information, call Barbara Johnson at (214) 883-2204. Bill Bond bond@utdallas.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #351 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa26741; 22 Aug 95 20:38 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22847 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:21:20 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22833; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:21:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:21:13 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199508221921.OAA22833@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #352 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Aug 95 14:21:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 352 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Newsletter on 800,900 Numbers: inTELigence (Judith Oppenheimer) Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Fritz Whittington) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Bob Goudreau) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Wes Leatherock) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (James E. Bellaire) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Patrick L. Humphrey) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Carl Moore) Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits (Sam Spens Clason) Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits (Michael Jennings) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Judith Oppenheimer Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 09:56:15 -0400 Subject: New Newsletter on 800, 900 Numbers: inTELigence Newsletter Separates Fact From Fiction For Users Of 800, 900 Telephone Services New York, NY -- The alleged exhaustion of available 800 telephone numbers and proposed new rules on how the system is to be administrated has spawned a newsletter to keep users of 800 and 900 exchanges up-to-date. inTELigence, published by Interactive CallBrand, tracks actions being considered by the rule-making bodies involved as well as proposals from the telephone service providers. "We separate fact from rumor," said Judith Oppenheimer, president of Interactive CallBrand. "The newsletter tracks the regulators and the service providers and compares their claims with what's actually going on in the marketplace. That way we can advise users about what proposals they may want to make to the rule-making bodies." Several months ago regulators became concerned about the dwindling supply of 800 numbers and they predicted the current supply could be exhausted by February, 1996. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other bodies are reviewing how to allocate the current supply of numbers and is overseeing the addition of a new 888 toll-free exchange which is supposed to be ready for use in March, 1996. "The next few months will be critical and proposed rules will be changing from week to week. Our clients needed some way to keep up and that's why we started inTELigence," Oppenheimer said. Interactive CallBrand and its clients are concerned that doubling the toll-free database will cause quality of service to be compromised. A decline in service could mean slower phone service for customers who have come to depend upon the 800 and 900 systems. inTELigence will also be monitoring plans by service providers to educate the public about the new 888 service and changes in the telephone system that may be needed to accommodate it. These issues are critically important not only to the technical people who will have to implement the new system, but also to marketers who need 800 and 900 services for customer sales and who want access to the new 888 exchange. Subscription information is available by calling ICB at 212-684-7210. For More Information Contact: Judith Oppenheimer, 212-684-7210 Judith Oppenheimer, President Interactive CallBrand(TM): Strategic Leadership, Competitive Intelligence Producer@pipeline.com. Ph: +1 800 The Expert. Fax: +1 212 684-2714. Interactive CallBrand is a leading source of information and support on 800 and related issues, representing user positions before the FCC, State Department, Int'l. Telecommunications Union, and domestic industry forums. ------------------------------ From: fritz@mirage.hc.ti.com (Fritz Whittington) Subject: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint Date: Tue, 22 Aug 95 10:23:19 CDT Reply-To: fritz@mirage.hc.ti.com There is an extremely interesting document available at: http://www.open.gov.uk/oftel/oftelwww/oftcons.htm which explains how the UK intends to handle the area-code and number shortage problems, in a very flexible and user-friendly way. Makes me wonder why we couldn't do it the same way (I know, North America is a lot bigger and has more people, but the scheme is scaleable). It also (horrors!) asks for *feedback* and *comments* on the various proposals. But we know it would never work here -- the opening statement is: "*TELEPHONE NUMBERS BELONG* to people and businesses and they need to be treated as a national resource. OFTEL took over responsibility for the UK Numbering Scheme from BT in 1994. This means that OFTEL now makes plans for the future use of numbers and allocates numbers to telephone companies to allow them to provide service to their customers. To help us make the right decisions, we are committed to consulting all those with an interest - residential customers, business users and the telecommunications industry." (Emphasis mine.) And other heresies like: "When you call a person with the same area code, you usually dial only their local number -- this is known as local dialing. But you can dial the full national number if you prefer. Your call will be connected and the charge is the same either way." Fritz Whittington Texas Instruments, P.O. Box 655474, MS 446 Dallas, TX 75265 Shipping address: 13510 North Central Expressway, MS 446 Dallas, TX 75243 fritz@ti.com Office: +1 214 995 0397 FAX: +1 214 995 6194 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You're right! It would never, never do here in the USA, where we have the only really correct way of doing these things. I should have censored your message entirely rather than risk allowing these heresies to become known to telecom admins here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 11:32:57 -0400 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines Carl Moore writes: >> Inter-NPA 7D dialing is the exception, not the rule, even in >> rural areas. > It refers only to LOCAL calls to other area codes. Of course. And I repeat: 11D (or 10D) dialing for such calls seems far more prevalent than 7D. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 14:51:00 GMT bellaire@tk.com (James E. Bellaire) wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There really is no reason to ever go to > eleven digits as in 1+anything. The reason is that when we get to the > point that all calls must be dialed as AC + seven digits, we will no > longer need the initial '1' as a flag. Right now it serves as a flag > to indicate that an area code is following rather than a prefix. When > we get to where we always begin with an area code, then switches can > be modified to always expect ten digits and always expect the first > three to be an area code. PAT] I believe there is another reason for this, Pat. The leading "1" identifies the call as a call for which a charge is made. In Southwestern Bell territory, at least, originally the leading "1" was not required. A great many calls to the business office were generated by people making 7D calls to numbers which were interzone or toll. They had no indication that the calls were chargeable. It eventually became apparent that a large number of customers were not comfortable with the fact they could not tell from the way they had to dial the call whether the call was toll or not. (Note that virtually all service in Southwestern Bell territory was, and is, flat rate.) So the driving force in adopting "1+" in Southwestern Bell territory, at least, was the demand from customers and the number of calls that had to be written off. Those in this newsgroup tend to feel that everyone is, or should be, as knowledgable as they are about communications matters. The great majority of customers are not, and furthermore they don't want to be and don't see why they should be forced to be. And in the long run they will vote if that's what is required to make telephone service convenient for them. It is, perhaps, one of the penalties that has to be paid for the telephone's becoming such an integrated part of the fabric of life in the U.S.A. that the great body of the public thinks it is theirs and should be operated for their benefit. Even in a corporate environment, it is very hard to educate the users about how to use the telephone service. Most of them don't know; they may learn how to use a few features that are advantageous to them. I have been a part of such education efforts. JEB> Q. Why should users be forced to use area codes when dialing across JEB> NPA boundries? JEB> A. They are not. Suprised? In many rural areas users can dial across JEB> NPA and state lines with 7 digits. The only time 10 or 11 digits JEB> are used is in major metropolitan areas. There are some cases where this is true, but they tend to be special situations. One of the most notable cases is the Kansas City metropolitan area (certainly not a rural area) where cross-NPA and cross-state line (they are the same thing there) are indeed 7D for local calls. But this is limited to calls within the Kansas City metropolitan exchange. If you call outside the flat rate area, you have to use 1 + NPA + 7D. Note that when cross-NPA 7D dialing is used, the NXX has to be "protected" in the other NPA. So the number of available NXXs is reduced by the number of NNXs that can be dialed 7D across the boundary. So I imagine the days of that arrangement in metropolitan Kansas City are numbered. In the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, that time has already arrived. Local calls in the same area code are dialed as 7D. Local calls across the NPA boundary are dialed as AC+7D (10 digits). Chargeable calls to any point, whether within the same area code or not, are dialed as 1+AC+7D (11 digits). JEB> In residential areas an overlay could be perfomed by allowing 7 digit JEB> dialing to all exchanges within the community, and 11 digit dialing to JEB> zone dialing or LD locations. That way neighbors could call each JEB> other using 7 digit dialing. Since in cities of any size the percentage of intra-wire center calls is quite low, this wouldn't be of any great benefit. And wire center boundaries don't usually follow "residential area" or "community" boundaries anyway. JEB> Business areas would not be able to do this because of their high use JEB> of NXXs, but the problems are their creation and a split would be JEB> worse. (See previous messages about stationary and advertising costs JEB> associated with a split.) Since almost all "areas" (wire center areas? metropolitan exchanges? what kind of area?) are a mix of residential and business, and served from the same COs, it's hard to see how, or why, this distinction could be made or implemented. As to stationary and advertising costs, these occur whenever a wire center boundary is changed, when a business relocates or gets a centrex or other types of inward dialing arrangements. And if the business expects to ever get a call from outside its own narrow area, it's going to need to show its area code anyway. Most businesses are fairly small, with a few lines at most (many have only one). But unless it's the local barber shop, most of them expect someone will call them long distance at some time and will want to show their area code anyway. (Even the local barber shop may expect to get calls from vendors outside the local area, and not just unsolicited sales calls, either; businesses need vendors to supply their needs.) Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@f2001.n147.z1.fidonet.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Wait a minute. We went through this several years ago here about the meaning and purpose of 'one'. The One True Religion says that 'one' indicates the three digits following consitute an area code. I had thought that all those heretics who kept insisting that 'one' meant 'the call you are now dialing has a toll charge involved' had long since been excommunicated from this Digest and that those who then persisted in their heresy had been beheaded. ... Now here you are back to pester me again! ... Even if we assume there is some validity in the 'one = toll' argument -- and it probably was valid a number of years ago when area codes did not change with every street corner and back yard neighbor's fence -- there is not a lot of consistency there now. One does not equal toll for large segments of customers in 312/708 who are near each other. There are many many cases now where inter-areacode dialing is purely local. I'll grant you in more rural and lesser populated areas of the USA -- let us take Wyoming, or Montana as examples -- you still have to go the entire state before you change area codes and toll generated from seven digit dialing is pretty common. But do they dial 1 plus seven digits in that case, in order to catch the attention of the originator of the call? I would think they would do that if alerting the caller to the existence of toll was the reason for the leading one. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:52:18 -0500 From: bellaire@tk.com (James E. Bellaire) Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines I, bellaire@tk.com (James E. Bellaire) wrote: >> Q. Why should users be forced to use area codes when dialing across NPA >> boundries [sic]? >> A. They are not. Suprised? In many rural areas users can dial across >> NPA and state lines with 7 digits. The only time 10 or 11 digits are used >> is in major metropolitan areas. goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) replied: > This latter statement is certainly false. Inter-NPA 7D dialing is the > exception, not the rule, even in rural areas. In *most* area where you may dial local across an NPA boundry you dial 7D. 'The rule' in *most* rural areas is 'if it is local, it is 7D' regardless of NPA. The exception is in *metropolitan* areas where you dial 10D or 11D to cross NPAs. Check the boundry lines between NPAs in 'rural' areas, such as the=20 Michigan/Indiana border, where South Bend, IN, can call Niles, MI, and Elkhart, IN, can call Union and Edwardsburg, MI. Along every NPA border there are several rural communities who can dial across the line 7D. Look at Indiana --- 317-564 Delphi to 219-652 Burrows / 219-686 Camden / 219-859 Deer Creek / 219-943 Idaville / 219-965 Yeoman (and back); 317-981 LaFontaine to 219-563/568/569 Wabash (and back); 317-964 Union City to 513-968 Union City, OH (as expected); 317-732 West College Corner to 513-523/529/798 College Corner, OH and 513-796 Morning Sun, OH; ALL of these offer 7D local across NPA borders. The only 1+ NPA requirement I have seen in all of Indiana is from East Chicago, Hammond, and Whiting, Indiana who can call Calumet City, Illinois, locally by dialing 1+708. Where there is a cross NPA local call in rural areas you are *most likely* to find 7D dialing. The exception is 10D or 11D. Inter-NPA 7D dialing is the rule, especially in rural areas. In other news cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) added: > While I don't disagree that overlays are a good idea, it will take > some consumer education. I don't like the idea of an overlay for > landline phones though, because I don't want to have to remember what > area code my friend has (seven digits to remeber is enough for me :-). It > would be easier to put all wireless services into an overlay, then > tell customers XXX is for wireless. All NEW services in the overlay, regardless of use. Most would be cellular/ paging/PBX uses since that is where most of the growth is. 1+NPA would always be allowed and suggested as the 'norm' with 7D being allowed for local calls (all exchanges at your CO plus a few close neighbors). Nobody should ever have to change their phone number unless they move. That would include wireless services. Every time a cell operator has to move their NXX from one NPA to another they must get every customer to bring in their phone to change the MIN. The same NXX cannot be used in the old NPA for cell service untill all the changes are made. Paging companies are easier to move since DID to their switches need not contain the NPA. As far as cellular in Chicago goes, there are a few NXX conflicts that prevent moving all cellular in 708 and 312 directly to a new NPA without changing a few NXX's. But the majority of NXX's in use for cellular are not duplicated in the other Chicago NPAs. It would be nice not to ever change your NPA. But that is part of progress. Have you noticed how many CO names changed when DDD was introduced? The recent discussions of Seattle, New Orleans and Chicago exchange histories show a few of these. Based on 1940's estimates the exaustion of NPAs in 1994 was right on target. The original plan was 'no resplit within 10 years'. It is a shame to see resplits within 5 years but that is part of the change in technology. Overlays would fix this IF all users would accept numbers in the new area and NO user would be removed from the old area. James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Twin Kings Communications - Sturgis, MI [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is quite interesting that you mention the Hammond, Whiting and East Chicago area of northern Indiana in your article. I remember when those all dialed 7-D to reach anywhere in 312. Hammond's exchanges WEstmore-1, 2, and 3 along with TIlden 4 and 5, plus East Chicago's EXport-7 and 8 had to be dialed 219 + 7D from the Chicago side however. Note, it was not 1 + 219 + 7D since we did not dial a leading '1' here until about 1980 or so. Even when Chicago had to dial 219+7D to reach northern Indiana (but not the same way in reverse) for a few years thereafter Calumet City could still dial 7-D to get Hammond/Whiting. Of course this meant that the prefixes 397,398,659, 844,845,931,932,933 could not be assigned in the 312 area. A similar case existed in Antioch, Illinois and North Antioch, Wisconsin where 312-395 could dial 414-396 as seven digits and vice-versa. This did not however prevent the use of 396 elsewhere in northern Illinois; the rule was that subscribers in Antioch had to dial 1+ to reach anywhere in northern Illinois *other than their immediate local area*. I think at one point they asked for community input on the decision and everyone decided they would prefer to be able to call the Wisconsin side of their community with seven digits (instead of ten or eleven) even it if meant having to dial eight digits (1+7D) for everywhere else in the same area code. That was a long, long time before the 312/708 split of course. PAT] ------------------------------ From: plh@hic.net (Patrick L. Humphrey) Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 09:58:51 -0600 In article , goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > bellaire@tk.com (James E. Bellaire) writes: >> Q. Why should NPAs be required to split rather than be overlaid? >> A. They should not. NPA overlays have been in use for several years in >> New York and California. > New York City's 917 NPA has certainly existed for several years, but > as far as I know, it is the *only* overlay in the entire NANP (though > overlays almost happened in other places like Chicago, Miami and > Atlanta). What California NPA were you referring to? There is another one in place and operating right now -- 281 here in Houston, and 972 will be overlaid on 214 (i.e., Dallas) six months from now. >> This means 10 or 11 digit dialing for local calls, with the old >> users being able to keep their numbers. Sometimes 7 digit dialing is >> allowed IF the area code is the same. > What service areas are there that *don't* allow intra-NPA local calls > to be dialed using 7D? I'm not aware of any yet, although mandatory > 10D dialing has been mooted as a future option for some metro areas > that might receive overlay NPAs. Indeed, 10D is in its permissive period right now here in 713 (but *not* in the 281 overlay -- any calls made from or to that NPA _must_ be dialed 10D now), and next March 1 10D will become mandatory on all local calls within 713. >> Q. Why should users be forced to use area codes when dialing across NPA >> boundries [sic]? >> A. They are not. Suprised? In many rural areas users can dial across NPA >> and state lines with 7 digits. The only time 10 or 11 digits are used >> is in major metropolitan areas. > This latter statement is certainly false. Inter-NPA 7D dialing is the > exception, not the rule, even in rural areas. It's still in place in the Kansas City area as of a month ago, from personal observation, and in a few border communities in South Dakota (also as of a month ago, from the same personal observation), but in my travels across sixteen states last month, those are the only places I found it. Patrick L. "staying with 713 -- old habits are hard to break" Humphrey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 95 08:25:09 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) includes this question and (his) answer: >> A. They are not. Surprised? In many rural areas users can dial across NPA >> and state lines with 7 digits. The only time 10 or 11 digits are used >> is in major metropolitan areas. > This latter statement is certainly false. Inter-NPA 7D dialing is the > exception, not the rule, even in rural areas. It refers only to LOCAL calls to other area codes. cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) writes: > 542 may be an overlay, but that is two years from now. Did you mean 562? It was just announced as a geographical split, which means a second area code change in less than ten years for some people who switched from 213 to 310. And 760 has been announced for split of 619. ------------------------------ From: d92-sam@filsun09.nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason) Subject: Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits Date: 21 Aug 1995 16:53:58 GMT In Peter_Mansfield@australia.notes.pw.com writes: >> It will be the fourth city in the world with eight-digit phone >> numbers, after Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong. > I'm sure that there are other places that I have missed where > eight-digit numbers are already in use. The outer Stockholm suburbs have had eight digit numbers for several years. Those are the old 07xx-xxx xx numbers that were merged with 08 between 1991 (?) and 1993. Those numbers then became 08-5xxx xxxx (we write them 5xx xxx xx). The government regulatory, Post- & Telestyrelsen (PTS), has decided that all new Swedish number series are to be 0 plus nine digits but there is no plan to move all numbers to at least 0 plus eight. I guess dominant operator (& former monopoly) Telia isn't going to change those unless PTS makes them. I wonder if not the competitors would want numbers that are of (almost) equivalent length to that of Telia's ... Sam www.nada.kth.se/~d92-sam, sam@nada.kth.se, +46 7 01234567 ------------------------------ From: M.J.Jennings@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Michael Jennings) Subject: Re: Shanghai to Raise Telephone Numbers to Eight Digits Date: 22 Aug 1995 00:37:54 GMT Organization: University of Cambridge DAMTP In article , Glenn Shirley =WA TELEC ENG= wrote: > bkron@netcom.com (BUBEYE!) writes: >> It will be the fourth city in the world with eight-digit phone >> numbers, after Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong. > Depends what you mean by metropolis, I suppose. Melbourne, Australia > (only about three million people I think -- not quite the same scale) > changed to eight digits in May 1995. Parts of Sydney have already but > won't be entirely changed until about half way through next year. > Brisbane was planned for August this year, Adelaide was August next > year, Perth was September 1997 although these were the timetable they > have probably changed. They could hardly be called metropolis' > although Sydney and Melbourne would probably be. A difference is that the Australian area codes don't just cover the cities mentioned. Each of the new Australian area codes will cover at least one whole state. I belive Denmark and Norway also have eight digit codes for wide areas consisting of more than one city. France excluding Paris is also like this. I _think_ that Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong are the only cities that have an area code for the city that is not shared with anywhere else and which has entirely eight digits numbers. I think that this is what the original statement meant, although it is not exactly what it said. The question as to what other cities should have an arrangement like this but don't will largely be left as an exercise to the reader. (I would argue London, certainly. It might have made sense for places like New York and Los Angeles, too, but the US decided long ago to go for a uniform three + seven digits which rules it out). Michael Jennings Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics The University of Cambridge. mjj12@damtp.cambridge.ac.uk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #352 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa26424; 22 Aug 95 20:22 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23654 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:44:34 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23645; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:44:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:44:31 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199508221944.OAA23645@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #353 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Aug 95 14:44:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 353 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson TRW Versus Inmarsat - Patent Wars in Outer Space (PATNEWS via M. Solomon) 4th Int'l. Conference on Spoken Language Processing '96 (Jim Polikoff) New Area Code Test Numbers (Phillip M. Dampier) Book Review: "Educator's Internet Companion" by Giagnocavo (Rob Slade) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 13:37:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: TRW Versus Inmarsat - Patent Wars in Outer Space Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded FYI to the Digest: Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 23:04:32 -0400 From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) To: patents@world.std.com Subject: PATNEWS: TRW versus Inmarsat - patent wars in outer space One of the reasons that the professional IP community has been so apathetic to the problem of software prior art is that for the big boys, software patent lawsuits are more of a nuisance than anything else (and even then, when you lose you often can win, if you look at Microsoft's final arrangements with Stac and Wang). As big as a million dollars maybe to the rest of us, in some circles it isn't that much. A billion dollars, well that's big bucks to pretty much everyone, including two outer space companies, TRW and Inmarsat, amounts currently at stake over a patent with a very curious history for which the fat lady has yet to sing. It's hard to be apathetic to billion dollar actions. Last May, I had sent an IPNS news item on a patent TRW was seeking dealing with satellite configurations in medium Earth orbit, based on an article I had seen in the London Financial Times. TRW had been suggesting in the space community that it's patent was broad enough to prohibit anyone else from using medium Earth orbit's for satellite systems. While not many of us are trying to do so, one other company was doing so, Inmarsat. Both TRW and Inmarsat are spending billions to establish satellite telephone constellations, big stakes. Coincidently, the day after I sent out that news item, the patent issued, kind of. The "kind of" was that for awhile that day the patent was prepared to be issued, and made it to the PTO's patent text database long enough for me to download the text and mail it out as a news item, only for the patent to be retracted by the Patent Office and therefore never formally issued (TRW claimed to know of only two other such instances in the past 100 years). The action puzzled many. "All I can say is that the Patent Office told us they wanted more time to review their internal quality control methods", one TRW spokesman said. "We had expected to receive the patent certificates on May 16, as scheduled. It was not until that date that we were told otherwise". I quess that it is rare that a patent gets this far before being pulled. "It is our responsibility to not knowingly issue an invalid claim", said Stephen Kunin, the Patent Office's deputy assistant commissioner for patent policy and projects. "If, on internal review, it comes to our attention that we may have a claim that should not go out, and we have strong evidence that this is the case, we try to prevent it from going out. TRW will most certainly be given an opportunity to get the case ship shape. They may end up with the claims they thought they would get. From our standpoint of administering the law, we want to be sure we have done the job we are paid to do", Kunin said. I suspect Inmarsat must have some good lobbyists and pulled a few strings [The timing of the above events, with the patent temporarily issuing, is in conflict with the timing of an internal review catching the patent in time]. As it should, and should be able to, given that Inmarsat is investing $2.6 billion in its satellite telephone constellation system that will compete with TRW's Odyssey. As TRW was claiming that their patents would stop Inmarsat from deploying its satellites, Inmarsat must have done something to get the PTO to reconsider (though Inmarsat denies doing anything), especially given skepticism many in the space industry have about satellite orbit patents in general. Earlier in the year, TRW had said it would sue Inmarsat once the patents issued. TRW was notified in April that their patents were to be awarded, and due to TRW press releases, the PTO had been repeatedly contacted by members of the space industry to find out what was up. As Olof Lundberg, CEO of the Inmarsat project stated, "We have always been of the view that the concept of using intermediate circular orbits in connection with global mobile satellite communications has been known for decades and that any patent obtained by TRW for this general concept would be of questionable validity". The rivalry between the two companies is intense. Last June, TRW petitioned the Federal Communications Commission to deny the application of Comsat Corp. for authority to participate in the purchase of facilities of Inmarsat-P, the proposed private off-shot of Inmarsat. Comsat is the US signatory to Intelsat. Last month, TRW was awarded one patent, 5,433,726. Interestingly, the issued patent had 35 claims, while the original version that was reconsidered had 51 claims. TRW shortly thereafter warned Inmarsat that it could be infringing TRW's patent. According to Bruce Gerding, TRW vice president and managing director of the company's Odyssey program, "The broad scope of its coverage poses a major concern for any aspiring imitators in the field of space-based personal communications systems. We believe that any imitator would have difficulty in launching a commercially viable medium Earth orbit system without infringing our patent". Inmarsat's Lundberg countered, "We are certainly not in the business of infringing other people's patents. We cannot believe that any patent office would issue patents that are so broad that they cover orbits and the general ability to communicate through satellites. Our detailed system design is quite different from our competitor's." According to industry analysts, TRW has the fewest partners and the least capital and is least likely to get its system off the ground, and suspect TRW will use the patent offensively to buy time and raise more resources. (Other than Inmarsat, TRW also is competing with two low Earth orbit ventures which all will be targeting the personal communication systems market). Here are some of the details of the patent: 5433726 Medium-earth-altitude satellite-based cellular telecommunications system ABSTRACT A satellite-based cellular telecommunications system employing a constellation of telecommunications satellites in medium earth orbit to provide multibeam radio frequency (rf) communications links for worldwide cellular telephone service with a minimum number of satellites. The telecommunications satellites are placed in a plurality of inclined orbits about the earth at an altitude of between approximately 5600 and 10,000 nautical miles. The characteristics of the orbits, such as the number of orbits, the inclination of each orbit, the number of satellites in each orbit and the altitude of the satellites, are tailored to maximize the coverage area of the satellites and their related line-of-sight elevation angles, while minimizing propagation time delays, the number of beam-to-beam and satellite-to-satellite handovers, and the total number of satellites. The present invention also includes several additional features which essentially eliminate beam-to-beam and satellite-to-satellite handovers, thus dramatically reducing the likelihood of dropouts. between the plug and the anchor to prevent the plug from entering the opening in the vessel. CLAIM ONE A method of providing medium-earth-orbit satellite-based communications between low-power mobile handsets having an omni-directional antenna and a gateway station through a satellite forming part of a satellite constellation, comprising the steps of: launching a plurality of satellites to an orbiting altitude between 5600 and 10,000 nautical miles, wherein at least one satellite has a reduced antenna field of view (FOV) less than full earth coverage; orienting said satellites in a plurality of orbital planes which are inclined at a predetermined inclination angle with respect to the equatorial plane of the earth; receiving, by at least one of said satellites, radio frequency (RF) signals from a plurality of mobile handsets which transmit said RF signals using their omni-directional antennas; and overlapping a portion of a coverage region of a departing satellite with a portion of a coverage region of an arriving satellite, including assignment means having a predetermined criterion of assignment that calls placed to or from a user located within the coverage overlap region are assigned to said arriving satellite. Interestingly, the prior art cited includes 59 US patents, 8 foreign patents, and 36 literature references, which is a pretty good amount compared to most other patents, though no NASA or DoD technical reports were cited. I am curious to see what prior art will be dug up if the patent is ever challenged. In the end, all of this will end up in the courts. Stay tuned, the fireworks should be great. As a bit of advice to the PTO, there is a pending biotech patent that will cause a global morality outroar when it is issues. I suggest you crank up the internal reviews, and save yourself a massive headache. Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA, 02178 617-489-3727, patents@world.std.com (for info on free subscription, send 'help' to patents@world.std.com ) (for prior art search services info, send 'prior' to patents@world.std.com ) (for WWW patent searching, try http://sunsite.unc.edu/patents/intropat.html ) ------------------------------ From: polikoff@castle.asel.udel.edu (Jim Polikoff) Subject: 4th Int'l. Conference on Spoken Language Processing '96 Date: 22 Aug 1995 10:59:16 -0400 Organization: AI duPont Institute Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing October 3-6, 1996 Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel Philadelphia, PA, USA __________ICSLP 96 Organizers___________ H. Timothy Bunnell, Chair Richard A. Foulds, Vice-Chair Applied Science & Engineering Laboratories Wilmington, DE, USA ICSLP unites researchers, developers, and clinicians for an exchange on a wide variety of topics related to the spoken language processing of humans and machines. Conference presentations range from basic acoustic phonetic research to clinically oriented speech training devices to speech-based natural language interfaces for man-machine interaction. ICSLP 96 will feature technical sessions of both oral and poster format, plenary talks, commercial exhibits, and daily special sessions. In addition, satellite workshops will be held in conjunction with the conference in the areas of interactive voice technology, spoken dialogue, speech databases and speech I/O, and gestures and speech. A new emphasis for ICSLP 96 will be on the clinical applications of speech technology, including the use of speech technology based applications for persons with disabilities. _________________________Conference Update_________________________8/10/95 Dates to Note: January 15, 1996 - Paper abstracts due for review March 15, 1996 - Acceptance notification May 1, 1996 - Deadline for papers (camera-ready, 4 pages) Prospective authors are invited to submit papers relevant to spoken language processing in any of the conference Technical Areas. Abstracts of proposed papers must be received by the ICSLP 96 Organizing Committee no later than January 15, 1996. Papers will be selected by the ICSLP 96 Technical Program Committee and assigned for presentation in poster or oral format. English is the working language for the conference. Submission of an abstract implies a commitment to submit a four page, camera-ready version of the paper and to present the paper in either an oral or poster session if the abstract is accepted. Participants will be expected to pay their own registration fees, travel, and accommodations for ICSLP 96. _____________________Submission of Abstracts____________________________ Abstracts must be received by the ICSLP 96 Organizing Committee no later than January 15, 1996. Abstracts may be submitted either by post or by e-mail following these guidelines: + One page, 400 word maximum + Technical Area(s) indicated in order of preference using the codes (A - X) below. + Title of the proposed paper clearly indicated + Preference for paper or poster clearly indicated + If sent by post, submit four (4) copies of the abstract + If sent by e-mail, use plain text (ASCII) format only Each abstract must also include the following contact information: + Author name(s)* + Postal mailing address + Phone number + Fax number + E-mail address E-mailed abstracts will be acknowledged by e-mail within 48 hours of submission. If you do not receive e-mail confirmation, we have not received your abstract! Please check the e-mail address and resubmit. Please do not e-mail multiple copies for any other reason. *Please be sure that the primary contact person is noted if it is someone other than the First Author. Mail or send abstracts to: ICSLP 96 Applied Science & Engineering Laboratories A.I. duPont Institute P.O. Box 269 Wilmington, DE 19899 E-mail: ICSLP-abstract@asel.udel.edu ________________________Technical Areas___________________________________ A. Production of spoken language B. Perception of spoken language C. Robust speech modeling and speech enhancement D. Speech coding and transmission E. Automatic speech recognition F. Spoken language processing for special populations G. Phonetics and phonology H. Spoken discourse analysis/synthesis I. Synthesis of spoken language J. Applications for people with speech/language/hearing disorders K. Databases and standards for speech technology L. Prosody of spoken language M. Speech analysis and parameterization N. Spoken language acquisition/learning O. Integrating spoken language and natural language processing P. Hardware for speech processing Q. Neural networks and stochastic modeling of spoken language R. Dialects and speaking styles S. Instructional technology for spoken language T. Speaker/language identification and verification U. Human factors and assessment in spoken language applications V. Spoken language dialogue and conversation W. Gesture and Multimodal Spoken Language Processing X. Other ________________________Satellite Workshops___________________________ The following Satellite Workshops will be held immediately before or after the ICSLP 96 conference. 1. IVTTA - The 3rd IEEE workshop on Interactive Voice Technology for Telecommunications Applications (IVTTA) will be held at the AT&T Learning Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, from September 30 - October 1, 1996. The IVTTA workshop brings together applications researchers planning to conduct or who have recently conducted field trials of new applications of speech technologies. Due to workshop facility constraints, attendance will be limited primarily to contributors. For further information about the workshop, contact: Dr. Murray Spiegel Bellcore 445 South Street Morristown, NJ, USA e-mail: spiegel@bellcore.com Phone: 1-201-829-4519; Fax: 1-201-829-5963 Submit abstracts (400 words, maximum 1 page) before April 1, 1996 to: Dr. David Roe IEEE IVTTA `96 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Room 2D-533 Murray Hill, NJ 07974 e-mail: roe@hogpb.att.com Phone: 908 582-2548; Fax: 908 582-3306 2. ISSD-96 The 1996 International Symposium on Spoken Dialogue (ISSD-96) will be held on October 2 and 3 at the venue of ICSLP 96. It is intended to be a forum of interdisciplinary exchange between researchers working on spoken dialogues from various points of view. The first day is devoted to invited lectures followed by sessions of both invited and contributed papers, which will be continued on the second day as special sessions of ICSLP 96. Papers submitted to ICSLP 96 (Technical Areas H,L,O,U,&V) may be selected for presentation at the symposium. For further information about the symposium, contact: Prof. Hiroya Fujisaki, Chairman, ISSD-96 Dept. of Applied Electronics Science University of Tokyo 2641 Yamazaki, Noda, 278 Japan e-mail: fujisaki@te.noda.sut.ad.jp Phone: +81-471-23-4327; Fax: +81-471-22-9195 3. COCOSDA Workshop 96 COCOSDA Workshop 96 will be held on Monday, October 7 at the Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel. The International Coordinating Committee on Speech Databases and Speech I/O Systems Assessment (COCOSDA) has been established to promote international cooperation in the fundamental areas of Spoken Language Engineering. Previous meetings have taken place in Banff 1992, Berlin 1993, Yokohama 1994 and Madrid 1995. Program and registration information for COCOSDA 96 will be forthcoming in later announcements. For more information about COCOSDA, consult the Web Page at http://www.itl.atr.co.jp/cocosda. 4. Workshop on Gesture and Speech The Applied Science and Engineering Laboratories of the University of Delaware will host a Workshop on Multimodal use of Gesture and Speech October 7 - 8, 1996. This Workshop will consider the integration of gesture and spoken language in intelligent human/computer interfaces, in advanced assisitve technology for individuals with disabilities, in telemanipulation and robotics systems, and in human conversation. Gestures including hand postures, dynamic arm movements, facial expression, and eye gaze will be considered along with more traditional lip shapes and handwriting movements. For further information, contact: Dr. Lynn Messing A. I. duPont Institute P.O. Box 269 Wilmington, DE 19899 e-mail: messing@asel.udel.edu Phone: +1 302 651 6830; Fax: +1-302-651-6895 _____________Sponsoring and Cooperating Organizations_________________ The Acoustical Society of America American Speech and Hearing Association (Pending) The Acoustical Society of Japan Canadian Acoustical Association European Speech Communication Association IEEE Signal Processing Society International Phonetic Association Others - contact ICSLP 96. ______________For more information, contact____________________________ ICSLP 96 Applied Science & Engineering Laboratories A.I. duPont Institute P.O. Box 269 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: +1 302 651 6830 TDD: +1 302 651 6834 Fax: +1 302 651 6895 Email: ICSLP96@asel.udel.edu WWW: http://www.asel.udel.edu/speech/icslp.html FTP: zeppo.asel.udel.edu:pub/ICSLP A two-page PostScript format copy of the most recent Conference Announcement and Call for Papers can also be obtained by anonyomus ftp. Connect to host zeppo.asel.udel.edu, cd to directory pub/ICSLP96, and get call.ps.Z in binary mode. The file must be uncompressed with a unix compatable uncompress program before being printed. This plain text version of the announcement is located in the same directory as file call.txt _______________________International Advisory Board_______________ Hiroya Fujisaki Science University of Tokyo Tokyo, Japan Jens Blauert John Ohala Ruhr-Universitat Bochum University of California Bochum, Germany Berkeley, CA, USA Anne Cutler Lawrence Rabiner Max Planck Institute for AT&T Bell Labs Psycholinguistics Murray Hill, NJ, USA Nijmegen, The Netherlands Gunnar Fant Katsuhiko Shirai Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Waseda University Stockholm, Sweden Tokyo, Japan John Laver Kenneth Stevens Humanities Research Board of Massachusetts Institute the British Academy of Technology Edinburgh, Scotland Cambridge, MA, USA Joseph Mariani Yoh'ichi Tohkura LIMSI-CNRS ATR Human Information Orsay, France Processing Research Lab Kyoto, Japan J. Bruce Millar Victor Zue Australian National University Massachusetts Institute Canberra, Australia of Technology Cambridge, MA, USA ------------------------------ From: philjohn@eznet.net Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 13:50:51 -0400 Subject: New Area Code Test Numbers US West issued a press release on August 17th that included supposedly "toll-free" test numbers for reaching new area codes. These are generally used by people who are concerned whether their PBX's have been updated sufficiently to allow calls to new area codes. I can't be certain these are toll-free, but calling them gets you what sounds like a standard intercept. State Old AC New AC Test Number ======================================================================= Alabama 205 334 (334) 223-0600 Arizona 602 520 (520) 782-0100 Colorado 303 970 (970) 241-0022 Georgia 404 770 (770) 666-9999 Oregon 503 541 (541) 334-0057 or 276-0192 (*) Texas 713 281 (281) 792-8378 Washington 206 360 (360) 532-0023 or 576-0023 (*) - Effective November 5, 1995 Phillip M. Dampier + Fidonet: 1:2613/225 3176 Elmwood Avenue + E-Mail: philjohn@eznet.net Rochester, New York 14618-2096 + Faxes: +1 716 461 3169 ** PhilJohn Home Page: http://roch0.eznet.net/~philjohn ** ** Rochester Free-Net: http://www.vivanet.com/freenet ** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 14:49:31 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Educator's Internet Companion" by Giagnocavo BKEDINCM.RVW 950529 %A Gregory Giagnocavo jgg@wentworth.com %A Tim McLain %A Vince DiStefano %A Chris Noonan Sturm cnsturm@wentworth.com %C 1866 Colonial Village Lane, PO Box 10488, Landcaster, PA 17605-0488 %D 1995 %G 0-932577-10-5 %I Wentworth Worldwide Media, Inc. %O U$39.99/C$53.99 800-638-1639 fax 717-393-5752 connect@wentworth.com %P 271 %T "Educator's Internet Companion" "Educator's Internet Companion", Gregory Giagnocavo, 1995, 0-932577-10-5, U$39.99/C$53.99 The video which accompanies this book (little more than an ad for Internet access -- and "Classroom Connect") states at one point that the Internet's educational resources are almost uncharted. This is true only in comparison to the overexposure that other topics get. "Educator's Internet Companion" is, too, almost a sampler of other Wentworth products. Still, it is worth consideration for some practical ideas and a quick, easy-to-follow resource guide. The lesson plans of chapter one are quite terse and provide more suggestions and sites than usable curriculum. Still, the thirty outlines do cover a range of topics and activities (albeit they rely heavily on Gopher, and World Wide Web). The idea of "guided" tours through menu-driven systems is odd, but the Internet can be daunting initially. The lists of Gopher, telnet, ftp, and WWW sites, as well as mailing lists and newsgroups, are brief, but to the point and easy to read. A discussion of funding sources is limited in specifics to the United States, but possibly extremely helpful there. A series of appendices cover, concisely, Internet concepts and tools, acceptable use policies, and the major commercial online services. Wentworth seems to be quite serious about the educational market, and their offerings are practical in both content and prices. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKEDINCM.RVW 950529. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver roberts@decus.ca | "If a train station Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca | is where a train Research into rslade@cyberstore.ca | stops, what happens User Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca | at a workstation?" Security Canada V7K 2G6 | Frederick Wheeler ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #353 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29471; 23 Aug 95 2:46 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02271 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:24:14 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02263; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:24:11 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:24:11 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199508230124.UAA02263@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #354 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Aug 95 20:24:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 354 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson IntegreTel/VRS Billing-Bulk Block Procedure (Joshua G. Fenton) Re: Integratel Customer Service (John Levine) WKP, Infotext, and Carrier Assignments (Van Heffner) Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (Nathan Duehr) Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (Darryl Kipps) Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (bkron@netcom.com) Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (David Devereaux-Weber) 2500 Set Schematics Wanted (Charles B. Robey) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Linc Madison) Sending Telegrams via the World Wide Web (Nigel Allen) AT&T Credit For Cut Calls (Steven Lichter) Government Restricts Internet!! (John Bach) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joshua G. Fenton Organization: Augustana College - Rock Island IL Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 07:03:21 CST Subject: IntegreTel/VRS Billing-Bulk Block Procedure Pat, The accounts payble administrator here has been working very hard to get through to IntegreTel, Inc. & VRS Billing Systems, Inc. to block numbers from our campus. After several weeks, she managed to get a decent rep who provided the following information via fax: (My paraphrasing, exact text is denoted by "") To block 10 numbers or less, call 1-800-BLOCKME (800-256-2563) [TELECOM Editor's Note: Really, 1-800-4-BLOCKME (800-425-6256, optional 3) See my note at the end of this file. PAT] Larger quantities of numbers, you can send an ASCII text file on diskette. The file must be a flag text file, not WordPerfect, Excel, etc. Each phone number should be on a separate line, 10 digit number, followed by carriage return. No dashes, commas, or blanks. "If numbers are within a range, please include the range in a cover letter". Enclose a cover letter with: company, organization, or institution name, address, contact person with phone number in case of processing errors. Mail diskette to: IntegreTel/VRS Billing Systems, Inc. Consumer Relations Department PO Box 611987 San Jose CA 95161-1987 Questions should be directed to the 1-800-BLOCKME number. "Please note: This blocking services if free of charge and normally takes 10 working days to take effect. This blocking service takes advantage of modern blocking technology that should prohibit access to services, but is not 100% guaranteed and only effective for such services that are billed by VRS Billing Systems and/or IntegreTel." Hope all of you find this information helpful! Joshua Fenton ccjf@augustana.edu or joshuaf@sparc5.augustana.edu Joshua G. Fenton, Augustana College Computing Services Phone +1.309.794.7309, Fax +1.309.794.7431 639-38th Street, Rock Island IL 61201-2296 USA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried it your way and got a sort of irritated lady who told me it was 4-BLOCK-ME **not** BLOCK-ME. So I redialed it as suggested and did indeed get through to an automatic service. I only have a couple of complaints about it and both are minor. Your ANI is delivered to them at the time you call, and if you indicate you wish to block your home number, they respond by blocking the ANI given to them without an opportunity to block *additional* residence numbers unless apparently you call them from each line involved, one at time. They offer the choice of blocking '800 callback services' as well as 'international services'. A third option is to block 'all services billed by Integratel/VRS'. They do offer a menu selection for blocking of business phones but I did not try that one. Perhaps it allows more than one entry per call. To repeat though, as the irritated lady told me -- after apparently receiving many such calls -- 'the number for those people is eight digits long': (1-800) 4BLOCK-ME, or 1-800-425-6256. What you do with the '3' on the end is up to you, I guess. Maybe this could be the start of something new in the USA: Eight digit numbers, with Integratel boldly providing the leadership and setting the example for other telco organizations -- even Bellcore! PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine) Subject: Re: Integratel Customer Service Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 04:11:25 GMT > me: "I can be charged for 800 number calls? I thought they were free." > Her: "You sure can - calls to psychic hotline, chat lines, others." > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: She was speaking a little shorthand in > the call and should have perhaps been more precise. There is no charge > to the caller for carriage of his traffic to an 800 number. ... I was under the distinct impression that IXCs were permitted to charge to an 800 caller's line only with a prior written agreement, under a recent FCC rule. We went around with this a while ago, with many people pointing out that often someone who was using a phone to call an 800 number had no authority to charge anything to that phone line. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It can be a 'verbal agreement' as well, or an 'agreement' that is implied by some single action on the part of the caller such as pressing a touchtone button. In fairness to the folks who run those services, bear in mind that many magazine and mail order purchases come with forms already addressed in your name with your only action required being to check a box entitled "YES ... send me a subscription and bill me later." Those have been upheld as legal, with the rule being that as long as the respondent is required to take 'some positive action in agreement with the proposal made by the seller' then the contract is enforceable. If you and I mutually agree that your pressing a button on the phone and causing the phone to make a noise that my computer understands to mean 'yes' will commence the sale or delivery of my goods or services to you, then I gotcha! Since voicemail and the pressing of buttons on phone to communicate requests and decisions is very common these days, one can hardly claim that the same principle, when used by Information Providers is somehow too unusual or different in nature. Check a box ... press a button ... etc. The other thing the IP's successfully claimed was that in 'regular telephone calls' the operator is allowed to accept your verbal approval to charge your number for a collect call. No prior written agreement is required when the operator asks, "I have a collect call will you accept the charges." Therefore, the IP's said it is an unfair advantage for telco to be able to work with verbal agreements on charges to telephone accounts but for us to be required to have written agreements." And in these times in which we live -- the era of post-divestiture and all -- the telco is required to deal with one and all at 'arms length' as they say. If Western Union, an entity separate and not associated with telco, is permitted to speak with you on the telephone and charge the cost of your transaction to your telephone bill based on your verbal statements, then other vendors similarly situated must be permitted to do so as well said one IP. You dial an 800 number to speak with the Western Union operator don't you? It never occurred to you that you were being 'charged for a call to an 800 number' when Western Union charges were placed on your phone bill, did it? Good ... now we understand one another. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 09:51:27 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: WKP, Infotext, and Carrier Assignments I don't know of any way to identify 500 carrier assignments at the moment, but if you are looking for 800/900 number assignments there is a relatively quick (and cheap) way to do so. Infotext Magazine (the trade journal of the pay-per-call industry) sponsors a toll-free audiotext service called The Interactive Exchange. It contains some useful information, including: * 800 & 900 NXX CARRIER ASSIGNMENTS Let's you quickly access 800 and 900 NXX assignments. Just enter the 3-Digit NXX code. * WEEKLY NEWS Weekly news updates on the pay-per-call industry. * STATE INFORMATION Enter the two-letter state postal abbreviation to hear pay-per-call regulatory news for that state. A list of all area codes (including NANP) for that state is also given. * CARRIER INFORMATION Supposedly updated information on new carrier features. All I ever hear when using this feature is the carrier's address and phone number. Press 'A' for AT&T, 'M' for MCI, and 'S' for Sprint. THE INTERACTIVE EXCHANGE: 1-800-321-TEXT Like any voicemail-type IVR system, it seems to send you to the wrong places at times, and can be a bit confusing. The price is right though! You don't even have to pay for the phone call (and NO, it is not an 800 number that bills you back onto your phone bill). I would also highly recommend reading {Infotext Magazine}. It is really the only publication (left) that caters to the 'service bureau industry'. Just reading some of the ads from the service bureaus gives an interesting insight into what is going on in the industry. It is free to qualified subscribers. You can find subscription info at our FAQ File homepage below. P.S. FYI, I just looked at their latest issue, and guess who has the centerfold ad? WKP, Incorporated! Here is a little snippet of their ad: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: WKP is the audiotext industry's only full-service carrier serving domestic and international markets. WKP has emerged as the leader in the US market providing solutions for all forms of domestic and international dialing. WKP Offers: * All transport, switching, call processing and accounting. * Multiple dialing plans including: 10XXX, 011, 500, 800 and many alternative transport vehicles. * A choice of service bureaus that provide audiotext, live one-on-on (SIC), psychic, conference calling and many other live and recorded services. * Billing company choices that process call records at WKP tariffed/dominant carrier rates. * 800 billing on LEC Calling Card, Visa/Mastercard and Check Debit. * Comprehensive fraud control and caller screening. * Customized tag messaging. * No start-up fees, no number fees and no minimum volumes required. For more information (on WKP) please contact Brayton Johnson at 206-622-4187. WKP INCORPORATED 1200 Fifth Ave., #1206 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (800) 882-9215 (!) Fax: (206) 622-3708 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: BTW, I have ABSOLUTELY NO association with Infotext or WKP whatsoever. I do find Infotext facinating reading though. Van Hefner Publisher Discount Long Distance Digest vantek@northcoast.com FAQ FILE HOMEPAGE http://www.webcom.com/~longdist/dldfaq.html ------------------------------ From: nduehr@rmii.com (Nathan Duehr) Subject: Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 01:20:59 GMT Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet Inc. Reply-To: nduehr@rmii.com Michael Fumich <0003311835@mcimail.com> wrote: [Clipped a big story about how Michael called Allnet Long Distance and was trying to find out who is responsible for some phony 500 numbers that are sending calls overseas to "adult phone services" at horrendous rates. Allnet responded that they don't do that kind of business, and that their company practice is not to do so.] > The plot thickens!: > When I dial 10718-1-700-555-4141, the equal access test number, I find > that I have reached "The Equal Access Dialing" network. When I dial > 10718 +0 + # to reach an operator the call does not complete and gives me > Switch "WCCH2". > The exact same thing happens with 10509, assigned to International > Audiotext Network Inc. , also of Seattle WA. In fact, several PIC's > known to be used by Adult Service Providers gave me the recordings > described above. > The heart of the matter?: > "WCCH2" in fact indicates the call is being handled by WCT, Inc. a > long distance company located in San Luis Obispo CA. I was informed > that "Worldcall" was one of their brands. WCT is owned by Frontier > Communications International as is (surprise!) ALLNET. I probed > further (and higher up) and when I mentioned WKP? BOOM! "Who are YOU!" > "What do you REALLY want?" "No Comment!" etc., etc. etc. There is no secret here, Allnet and WCT were both purchased by Frontier Communications *very recently*. In fact, Allnet's shareholders just agreed to the merger Wednesday. Other companies purchased include ConferTech, American Sharecom, Schneider Communications, LinkUSA, and ETI. The only company expected to be operating under their old name after the merger is complete is LinkUSA. All of the other companies will become Frontier Communications. > My mother had a saying she was rather fond of ... "Oh what a tangled > web we weave, when we practice to deceive" . This is a very tangled > web indeed! I think you are looking in the wrong place. My guess would be that as these companies merge, their traffic will be handled on the "other" company's switches, etc. Allnet probably has no idea that they are carrying this traffic. Nathan Duehr, Technical Service Associate ConferTech International, Wholly Owned by ALC Communications (Allnet) The opinions above are my own, and not the opinions of ALC. I guess I'd better say that. ------------------------------ From: dkipps@globalcom.net (Darryl Kipps) Subject: Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services Date: 22 Aug 1995 05:07:50 GMT Organization: Shentel In article , 0003311835@mcimail.com is: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well readers, if your PBX is capable of > screening as far the prefix within an area code, you might want to Snip > also. And don't forget 900-999. That one is very bizarre and very > expensive. Pat ... are you referring to (900) 999-XXXX or (500) 900-XXXX thru 999-XXXX? > And I do not grouse about them because they do sex talk on the phone. > My complaint is that they moved out the tidy little box we had for > them known as 900/976 where phone system admins could be protected > against abuse, and began abusing 800 as well. I don't care what anyone > chats about on the phone or their computer as long as they pay their > own bills, and 900/976 along with billed number screening was one way > to assure that was pretty much done. PAT] AMEN! Darryl Kipps dkipps@globalcom.net CIS: 72623.456 Winchester, VA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was referring to 900-999. Those can really get raunchy, and quite expensive. I guess we can assume the adult phone services are like any other business in the 'community' which a large segment of the community finds distasteful. Consider the adult bookstore in your community: how many different times have petitions been passed and motions made at city council meetings to have them closed down or moved to a different location under the guise of zoning restrictions, etc. People say adult bookstores and prostitution should all be confined to a so-called 'red light district' and as to be expected, the people involved in those businesses fight such efforts to restrict them. You say they bring down the neighborhood and cause a lot of 'victimless crimes' to occur. There is no such thing as victimless crime (if some action has been codified as a crime, then by definition there are victims involved), but that is not the point I wish to make. It takes a major effort to remove nuisances of that sort if indeed there is any constitutional right to remove them at all. We sort of had it nicely controlled before with the equivilent of a 'red light district' in the 900/976 territory. But when business started to go to down because the assigned district was so out of the way and difficult to reach that most citizens did not go past there on a regular basis anyway, the merchants in that district decided they needed to expand. They moved out on Main Street once again with their wares in plain view, knowing full well that as the poet John Bunyan said, "what we say, and what we do, in real life are often two." So here they are once again on Main Street: Alexander Graham Bell Boulevard, with new and shiny storefronts in the 500 block, instead of their old location down in the 900 block where no one goes any longer except a few people who still know ways of getting around all the barricades the community put up down there. So *now* what do you propose to do people? Block 500's as well? PAT] ------------------------------ From: bkron@netcom.com (BUBEYE!) Subject: Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 08:11:20 GMT jensoft@blarg.com (Jensoft) writes: > Baylan Communications Inc > Vienna VA It's actually in Sterling, VA. > International Audiotext Network > Seattle WA > 206-286-5200 This one answers "Callback Services" with a voice-prompt menu offering to connect you with various departments. When you select "information about our services" and are routed to the "telesales" department, you get a live human being ... at 1 o'clock in the morning! > This last one isn't exact, but it's a likely culprit! > W K Enterprises Inc > Tacoma WA Hardly! They're a cabinet shop here in Washington state! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 12:49:29 -0500 From: David Devereaux-Weber Subject: Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services Pat, I have reservations about distributing this information, but it may help someone who is attempting to investigate this company. Regarding WKP.COM: If you point your World Wide Web browser at http://www.wkp.com you get "Internet Strip Show". For $15(?) per day (charged to your VISA or Mastercard), you can watch "live strippers" over the Internet. David Devereaux-Weber, P.E. djdevere@facstaff.wisc.edu The University of Wisconsin - Madison Division of Information Technology Network Engineering (608)262-3584(voice) (608)265-5838(FAX) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How fascinating. I wonder if as a service to bored office workers sitting around at four in the afternoon waiting for five o'clock to come they also allow you to charge it to the phone number to which your modem is connected? That would sure get things in an uproar wouldn't it ... ... Speaking of c-sex, I am amazed at the large number of office workers and assorted bureaucrats with computers and modems at their disposal one will find on Compuserve CB in the middle of the afternoon. Check it out sometime. Login to the adult CB simulator some afternoon and see all the business executives, etc sitting on there, purportedly reading 'email' or working on the company's latest 'contract proposal' ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu (Charles B. Robey) Subject: 2500 Set Schematics Date: 22 Aug 1995 19:58:18 GMT Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park, MD I have a friend who has, squirreled away in his garage, a very old wood telephone, with the crank and all. I offered to get it working for him if he could find me an old 2500 set, to take the network from. He got it, but when I went looking for my old ITT maintenance manual, well, I couldn't find it. Does anyone have a schematic for a 2500 set, so I can figure how do the wiring involved with this? If this is in computer form, could you mail it to me? I don't work in telecom any more, but I know what to do with it. Chuck Robey chuckr@eng.umd.edu 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 Greenbelt, MD 20770 (301) 220-2114 ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 05:49:41 GMT James E. Bellaire (bellaire@tk.com) wrote: > Q. Why should NPAs be required to split rather than be overlaid? > A. They should not. NPA overlays have been in use for several years in > New York and California. This means 10 or 11 digit dialing for local > calls, with the old users being able to keep their numbers. Sometimes > 7 digit dialing is allowed IF the area code is the same. This is utterly false. There are no (zero) NPA overlays in California and there is only one that is in VERY limited use in New York. The 415/510 split was a split, not an overlay. The 213/818/310 and 714/619/909 splits were splits, not overlays. The 212/718/718 split (I list 718 twice because the Bronx initially kept 212 but later moved into 718) was a split, not an overlay. The 917 overlay on 212/718 is used only by a small number of cellular phones. In none of these cases were old users able to keep their numbers, except to the extent that the original plan for 917 was abandoned. (The plan was to force all cellular and beeper numbers into 917.) There is one planned NPA overlay coming to California, but the details are still in flux. I believe the first fully operational overlay in the U.S. will be Houston, Texas, ACs 713/281, and the people in Houston are NOT happy about it, either. In California, all calls to a different NPA, whether local or toll, must be dialed as 11 digits. All calls within a given NPA, whether local or toll, may be dialed as 7 digits. Thus, from my home in San Francisco, a local call to Oakland is 11 digits but a toll call to Palo Alto is 7. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 07:47:29 -0400 From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Subject: Sending Telegrams via the World Wide Web Unitel Communications Inc. now allows users to file telegrams using the World Wide Web. If your Web browser supports forms, go to http://www.alliance9000.com/E/10/ORDER.HTML to send your telegram. For more information, see http://www.alliance9000.com/E/10/10.HTML I realize that the telegram is now largely obsolete, but it's interesting seeing Unitel do this. It's quite a change from walking down to CNCP's Halifax telegraph office late at night eighteen or nineteen years ago to have stories from the student newspaper at Dalhousie University sent as press-rate telegrams to the telex machine in Ottawa of Canadian University Press, the co-operative news agency of student newspapers. Nigel Allen (formerly of The Dalhousie Gazette) 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3, Canada Internet: ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen Telephone: (416) 535-8916 ------------------------------ From: slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) Subject: AT&T Credit For Cut Calls Date: 22 Aug 1995 10:51:22 -0700 Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University It seems that AT&T now has a new policy on giving you credit for calls of one minute. My BBS calls its Hub during the night to get its mail and newsgroups. At times for one reason or another the call will get cut off; maybe because of something in the network or noise or god knows what; remember it is a modem and not voice. Up until this month when I called to get the credit; most times it is just a few cents and never amounts to much, but money is money when you run a BBS and don't charge. Now they will not give you credit unless there is another call right after the bad one. Well this last month was a real bad one and in one case my system tried 14 times right in a row and never got connected; other times it was just a time or two and then maybe did not get connected because the other end got busy or did not answer. I took my complaint through the system and yesterday got a call from the Ofice of The Chairman of AT&T, who said that a credit would be issued for a grand total of $4.95 with tax. It seems that the manager with AT&T at a lower level was willing to lose a customer for such a be issued for a grand total of $4.95 with tax. It seems that the manager with AT&T at a lower level was willing to lose a customer for such a small amount because of their so called new policy. They would have lost both my phones as well as my wats line, which is a lot more. This person told me that they could not say that they would issue a credit each month this happens, but if it is just a couple of times I never even bother. The reason behind this policy is they can't be sure if it is their equipment, local equipment or the subscriber's equipment on either end and besides the phone circuts are made for voice. Right on all of the above, but I never got anything for the call since I was cut off, and the newer modems are made to work over the voice network just fine as is proved by my 95% trouble free operation. I also pointed out that the modems we are using are made by AT&T Paredyne, so maybe there is a problem with them. Also AT&T now has Internet access and they will have the same problems we all have. He agreed that this is an ongoing problem that they will live with, this was not the chairman and I don't think he will even hear about it, but should this occur again I will move my service as with the small users the costs are almost all the same, I have checked. The above are my ideas and have nothing to do with whoever my employer is. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They were not 'willing to lose your business over $4.95', they were willing to lose your business because you nickle and dime them to death month after month over credit for stuff that in all likely- hood is *not* their fault. People seem to feel that whenever there is a problem with a phone call the phone company is automatically at fault and should be required to absorb the loss. I disagree. AT&T and the local telcos are usually more than generous about making allowances when there is any question at all about who is at fault. The local telcos routinely write off small amounts as a courtesy to the IXC's rather than charge them back for investigation and the IXC's do the same for the local telcos. Rarely is it worth the time to investigate *where* the fault occured in a telephone connection. Both the IXC's and the local telcos also write off a lot of charges due to just plain customer stupidity and stubborness also; it costs less than it does to have to respond to a commission complaint filed by a subscriber who read some consumer journal and knows his rights by God! and wants his money back. Everyone knows that the human ear is far less sensitive to noise on the line than a modem, and that the human brain can make sense out of things a modem would be completely confused by. Telephones come with receivers which are placed against your ear, not with modem connections. That over simplfies it a little, but I have seen idiots ask for credit on the dumbest things. A few years ago a lady goes to a payphone and dials my *modem* number in error. Or rather, she dialed it correctly because her basic premise -- the number she thought she wanted -- was incorrect. She stands there at the payphone and makes five calls in a row to my modem, then has the unmitigated gall to call up repair service and report my number out of order 'because there are just loud noises on the line when I call it.' The repair guy calls me on my other line to ask me if there is a problem. I told him there was not, and he tells me about this lady, and how after turning me in to repair then wants to know how to get back the money she lost in the payphone due to this 'phone company screwup' ... everything is the phone company's fault, you see. Ask the newspapers, ask any talking head on your television set. Area codes change on every street corner? Must be a plot by the phone company to turn more local calls into long distance ones. As we used to say in years past to CB'ers with poor quality radios, "Take it back to K-Mart or Radio Schlock and demand a refund. Tell 'em to give you back your welfare check for this month then go by a decent radio that doesn't sound like pooh!" Put in 1995 terms, check those modems and their settings. Look for loose connections on your own premises. Consult with other users of the same hub and see if they also have hassles like this every night during the National Mail Hour. Ask the sysop of your hub to relate his experiences. Once you have completely eliminated yourself and your hub as the source of this problem ... or at least 75 percent of it, *then* go to telco and get your refund for this month. Otherwise quit bothering them. And by the way, if you think AT&T is stingy with refunds due to customer goodwill, try one of the others you highly tout. See how soon they get a bellyful of your complaints also. PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnbach@net.ix.netcom.com (Restrict) Subject: Government Restricts Internet!! Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 21:40:36 GMT Organization: Netcom [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This one could be retitled as a "Last Laugh!", my periodic joke feature ... but then I realized the guy is serious. Read on ... PAT] SPEAK UP AMERICA -- MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT Question: Should the United States Government interfere and put restrictions on the use of the Internet?? CALL: 1-900-945-5600 ext 163 and cast your vote. Cost: $1.98 per call (NOT per minute) Call Today Must be 18+/Touch Tones Only InfoService/Studio City, CA/213-993-3366 Results of this survey will be compiled and sent to members of the House and Senate. Thank you for casting your vote and for making your voice heard. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't that precious! I wonder what he thinks 202-225-3121 is used for? I wonder if he has ever heard of whitehouse.gov or of the various representatives in Congress who have email addresses? *Why* -- pray tell -- would anyone with an Internet address who reads his message not simply send email to the proper people? Oh? You don't know what net addresses to use? That's okay, I have dozens of long winded messages in my queue here from the EFF/ACLU/CPSR and other groups who will be more than glad to tell you who you should be email bombing on a daily basis. Not only that, they know just what you should say when you write. When this guy wrote me, he cross-posted to about a hundred other groups on Noisenet. I suspect when the software saw me in there (moderated) it probably jinxed his message from reaching all the other groups. At the same time as the above arrived, I got another one touting a 900 'dateline' service, where if I so choose, I may meet the man of my dreams. He wanted that one printed also, to the same hundred or so noisegroups. Perhaps as a courtesy, I should carefully remove my name out of the newsgroups line, and feed the whole thing back into the stream again so that others may be as amused as I was by this fellow. So you see, it isn't just AOL that comes up with rather incredible people sending out messages. Obviously netcom has a few stashed away also. As I said, a last laugh for today ... but not a very funny one. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #354 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa29255; 23 Aug 95 2:37 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02816 for telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:58:07 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02807; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:58:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:58:04 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson) Message-Id: <199508230158.UAA02807@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #355 TELECOM Digest Tue, 22 Aug 95 20:58:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 355 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Bell Canada Calling Cards (Chris Gettings) Re: Door-to-Door Ethernet (Jon Mellott) Re: Some Questions on HR1555 (James E. Bellaire) Re: Bell Atlantic: A Scandal Ready to Blow Up in its Face (Erez Levav) Re: Bell Atlantic: A Scandal Ready to Blow Up in its Face (Thomas Lapp) Re: AT&T Business Practices (Mike King) Re: AT&T Business Practices (Bhaktha Keshavachar) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 14:34:00 -0600 From: gettings@tcel.com (Chris Gettings) Subject: Re: Bell Canada Calling Cards > Unitel and Bell Canada are in competition. As a result, AT&T will > *not* 'validate' (check on and accept) Bell Canada calling cards! MCI > and Sprint will accept Bell Canada calling cards. This suprises me. I have an AGT Calling Card which *is* accepted by AT&T. I used it extensively this past week in Missouri, Colorado and Montana. AGT is the provincial phone company for Alberta, a member of Stentor, the Canadian phone cartel. Bell Canada is also a Stentor company. Bell Canada provides service in Ontario and Quebec. BC Tel is the Stentor in British Columbia, Manitoba Tel in Manitoba etc. MCI is allied with Stentor as a whole, not Bell Canada individually so if they were blocking Bell Canada cards it would seem that they would also block AGT and other Stentor cards. Are you sure AT&T blocks Bell Canada cards or were you just told this by someone at Bell? Stentor thrives on this kind of "dis-information" and other dirty tricks to try to keep their monopoly grip on Canada. Stentor is determined to thwart true competition despite laws providing for it and the regulators are frustrated and powerless against Stentor's financial muscle. Stentor has armies of lawyers and lobbyists to dilatory tactics and obfuscate the truth when responding to CRTC queries. Potential competitors are destroyed by Stentor's predatory pricing and unfair competition; and Stentor is too stupid, closed minded and anachronistic to realize that all the Bell Companies and AT&T have benefited from competition in the United States. Sales and profits are up and markets are expanding for the Bells in the States. Who suffers in Canada? Canadian individuals and businesses who can ill afford it considering the state of their economy. Chris Gettings N5589D BE-35H email: gettings@tcel.com http://canam.dgsys.com/cg/planes.html ------------------------------ From: jon@mu.ee.ufl.edu (Jon Mellott) Subject: Re: Door-to-Door Ethernet Date: 22 Aug 1995 01:42:32 GMT Organization: EE Dept at UF In article , Dan Cromer writes: > NIMLI (sp? - I've heard it said, not actually seen it written) is > offered in Gainesville, Florida, by Southern Bell/BellSouth. I think > that stands for something like "Native IP Mode LAN Interface", and is > a fiber(?) connection to the premise equipment, which then can either > be ethernet or token ring and offer full LAN speed connections. I > didn't pay too close attention to the specifics, since the original > pricing was ~$1200/month, though I think that price has perhaps been > cut in half to about $600/month over the last year or two, especially > since local Cox Cable was seriously discussing using set-top boxes to > do a similar thing with reserved 6mHz channels on the TV cable. The municipal utility company (Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU)) that currently handles (reasonably competently) electric, water, and gas is also beginning to participate in the telecom market. GRU is currently leasing access to its fiber network for implementation of MAN service. The most notable use of this network has been by Shands Hospital which is affiliated with the University. Due to physical plant constraints a lot of outpatient facilities have been distributed around Gainesville with the facilities linked via a MAN allowing the remote sites to have the same sort of bandwidth available within the primary facility. I recall a quote attributed to a city commissioner who said something to the effect that GRU would be providing local phone service throughout Gainesville. I find this idea to be a little unsettling: I doubt that the electric company (which has little or no experience in telecom) is going to be able to compete with the big boys. > [...] I wanted ISDN for my home and due to a "hairpin turn" > environment, whatever that is, I was offered a special assembly of > $130/month, not the $52/month in the tariff. Interesting. Gainesville seems to have one of the cheaper ISDN rates that I've seen: last year I was quoted $34/month for a residential BRI within 15,000 feet of the switch with no usage charges for local connections. Jon Mellott (jon@alpha.ee.ufl.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:40:33 -0500 From: bellaire@tk.com (James E. Bellaire) Subject: Re: Some Wuestions on HR1555 In TD347 ng@mprgate.mpr.ca (Steve Ng) wrote: > I am a newcomer to the telecom regulations (and the US legislative > procedures), please excuse for my novice questions: > What is the difference between HR1555 "The Telecommunications Act of > 1995" and s652 "Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of > 1995"? The HR version was passed by the House of Representatives, the S version was passed by the Senate. These two bodies are seperate halves of our legislative branch. Once each decides independently what they want in a bill, sometimes each holding separate hearings, the two bills are sent to a conference committee made up of a few members of the House and a few members of the Senate. They decide what is the same in each bill and take the differences and try to decide which way to go. Once the conference committee decides how the unified bill will look it goes back to both the House and the Senate and must be passed by both in its final form. If passed it is sent on to the president, the leader of the Executive branch of our government, for him to sign into law. If President Clinton decides to veto the bill (he has threatened this) he sends it back for another possible vote in the House and Senate. If both the House and Senate each vote a 2/3rds majority in favor of the bill then they 'override' the veto and it becomes law. > When do you expect HR1555 and s652 be passed? will these become a law > (legislation) or a FCC regulation? (or what do we call them when they > are passed?) When the conference committee gets done with the bill it will be voted on again. I don't believe that they have even started looking at it yet. HR1555/S652 will become a law when it gets through the remaining steps. Reading through HR1555 shows that the law will require the FCC to set up regulations to enforce this law. If anyone does not agree that the FCC regulations are the same as the law they can go to court (the judicial system is the third branch of government). > Appearently, each State can introduce its own telecom regulations. I > have read some articles talking about the Public Service Commission > (from one of the State) has allowed a LEC to offer intraLATA services. > Is this correct? How is this related to HR1555 or s652? When HR1555 is > passed, what kind of impact will we see on LEC? allowing them to offer > interLATA services? (I guess the IXC can offer local access services if > HR1555 is passed, right?) The states have similar arrangements as the federal government. Each body as its own method of getting bills passed into laws requiring the PUC to write a conforming regulation. The federal government has authority over the state governments. The states cannot do anything that violates a federal law. Likewise the PUCs must form regulations within their state's law. If the federal law or conforming FCC regulation does not prohibit an activity and the state law does not prohibit the activity then the PUC can allow the activity. LEC intraLATA service was permitted (and is standard) since the breakup of the Bell system. Your LEC is the default carrier for all IntraLATA calls. Recently the IXCs have been asking people to use the 10xxx codes so that the IXC carrier carries the intraLATA calls. The LECs want to provide interLATA service. That is part of HR1555. The IXCs want to provide LEC service. Some PUCs have approved this based on certain loopholes in the federal law, FCC regulations, and their state laws. HR1555 will permit this kind of service, and force the old LECs to compete based on national rules instead of state rules. James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com Twin Kings Communications - Sturgis, MI ------------------------------ From: levav@yulara.fccc.edu (Erez Levav) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic: A Scandal Ready to Blow up in its' Face Date: 22 Aug 1995 21:43:37 GMT Organization: Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA Reply-To: levav@yulara.rm.fccc.edu (Erez Levav) In article , Paul Robinson writes: > No, the problem lies with what happens to orders which are received by > the company and are either being performed internally or are being > scheduled for processing by a technician, or are otherwise not > finished. Since the issue is over cost, the "back office" processing > which is handled, allegedly by a contractor's employees, is not only > being done badly, in some cases *it isn't even being done at all*! > Both a Federal Government Employee in that agency's telecom section, > and a C&P Telephone Installer, who each work in two different states, > have both independently told me that when orders come into the back > office processing center, the clerks there more-or-less enter them > into the system, and there's really either no- or not-much quality > control. And there's simply not enough people to handle all the > orders that come in to enter them all in the same day without running > overtime, which they are of course, not going to do. So the employees > have a method of handling the excess orders that they can't get done > by the end of their shift. > ** They throw them in the wastebasket without even processing them! ** > That means that the order has been entered, the customer has probably > either been billed for the service or expects it to be changed, but > the order was never even done by the back-office clerks! > And *this* explains why sometimes I place an order for service and > don't get it done. It also explains why I've had orders that are done > incorrectly unless they were complicated; a simple order, the > back-office clerk just throws in the system any-old way, but a > complicated order probably requires that the clerk look up the coding > to process it. BA horror stories? Should we start a contest? Not that I dispute the above, but I have a fresh-from-the-press story that indicates that all is not well at the "front-office" either: Last week I ordered another line. I was told that since I do my own on-premises-wire maintainnence, I do *NOT* have to be there for the installation. When I came back from my client site the day installation was supposed to happen there was a note and phone message telling me that they could not install the line since I was not there. Hmm, interesting -- but expected. So, I called and was promised an early installation (the next morning between 8 - 10). When 10am passed without a show from our friend at BA, I called. I had to wait about 20 minutes to get through. Then I was informed that they do not have my new number as an install-item. Ok, so "we" trace the order by my current number. Found. Now I'm told that the person assigned is delayed at another job. Now I start to get annoyed. First, they promised to be within the time frame. Second, if they have a problem -- they can call, after all they are the *PHONE* co. I inform the lady on the other end that I'm waiting just for the installer, and that since I am paid by the hour I expect them to come ASAP. She promises me that the person will stop what he is doing and come to my place NOW. I wait. I wait. it is 11:15, no one is here. I call again -- using a different number to try and cut the on-hold time. That worked. I speak to another person (that still can't find the record of my new number ...) and when she finaly finds it I'm told that there was *NO ONE* assigned to the install, and it will not be done before 5pm. Now