From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Nov 4 20:07:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA21706; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:07:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:07:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711050107.UAA21706@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #301 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Nov 97 20:07:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 301 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "DNS and BIND" by Albitz/Liu (Rob Slade) Re: Sausage Making, SS7 and Protocols (Jay R. Ashworth) Uruguay Numbering Plan Changes (egoni@zfm.com) Phase-out of 10XXX Codes? (Linc Madison) UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Coommunications" (Bill Goodin) Re: NPA for Windows Update (Paul Cook) Book Review: "The VRML Sourcebook" by Ames/Nadeau/Moreland (Rob Slade) Re: Switch Information Requested (Mark J. Cuccia) Sprint Tops in Customer Satisfaction (Chuck Tyrrell) Canadian Area Codes (S. Hayman) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 10:23:30 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "DNS and BIND" by Albitz/Liu BKDNSBND.RVW 970705 "DNS and BIND", Paul Albitz/Cricket Liu, 1996, 1-56592-236-0 %A Paul Albitz %A Cricket Liu %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1996 %G 1-56592-236-0 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$32.95/C$46.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 438 %T "DNS and BIND", 2nd ed. Of the millions of users on the Internet, almost all are blissfully unaware of the complexity and magnitude of the task of network routing. How does the network know where to deliver a piece of email? In fact, given the packet nature of all Internet traffic, how do telnet or ftp packets get, reliably and generally quickly, to their destination? Few even recognize the term DNS, the Domain Name Service, which handles the problem. Administrators may have used BIND, the Berkeley Internet Name Domain program, to manage DNS, but may not fully understand the importance, use or finer aspects of it. This book gives both background and operational details. Given the nature of the network routing problem, a full understanding of DNS likely requires actual hands-on work. Albitz and Liu have, however, put together clear, straightforward, and sometimes even lighthearted text to make the learning process as painless as possible. The book also covers more advanced topics than straightforward routing administration. This new edition deals in fair depth with Windows NT, rapidly rising in importance to internetwork operation. Bind 4.8.3 is the basic version for the book, but there is complete coverage of Bind 4.9.4 as well. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995, 1997 BKDNSBND.RVW 970705 ====================== roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 12:28:07 -0500 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Sausage making, SS7 and protocols Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA On Tue, Nov 04, 1997 at 07:12:27AM -0600, on the North American Network Operators Group mailing list, Sean Donelan wrote: >> In a world where the internet industry is becoming more and more >> like the telecoms industry, the necessity of users to have protocol >> level access to the network is diminishing, and the dangers of doing >> so are becoming greater. Which telcos will blithely hand out SS7 >> interconnects to users? Without (routable) IP access, there would be >> no SYN floods of distant networks, no source spoofing, less hacking, >> easier traceability, and the BGP table need only be OTO 1 entry per >> non-leaf node on a provider interconnection graph. > Strange how people in the telecom industry think they need to > become more like the internet industry, and people in the internet > industry think they need to become more like the telecom industry. > If you want to see some sausage being made, take a look at the > "Advance Intelligent Network" and the Internet interface working > group PINT. As someone who's spent extensive time in the past ten years following both industries, I'm going to have fun with this one ... To respond first to the original poster's question: "Which telco's will hand out SS7 connections to users", I pose the analogous question: "Which ISP's will hand out BGP4 connections to users?" > In the US, with telecom deregulation, the distinction between 'users' > and 'telephone companies' is becoming less distinct. When an insurance > company, an university, or an ISP files the paperwork to become a CLEC, > are they a 'user' or a 'telco?' What telco would refuse SS7 interconnects > to a CLEC? The trust model in SS7 makes rlogin look like a high-security > protocol. SS7 was developed in an environment where there would be a > few trusted 'users.' As the number of 'telco'-like entities explodes, > you might see some interesting security issues showing up with SS7. There > is some 'screening' between networks, but gateway STP nodes have many of > the same problems as Internet firewalls. Precisely. All an STP (Signal Transfer Point, for the non telco people) is, is an SS7 router. SS7 is, of course, the protocol used on the networks whereby switches tell each other about, and what to do about, calls. As Sean notes, this has been a tightly closed network to date, and whether sufficient engineering has been done to determine how scalable the administrative protocols surrounding it are is unknown. It's been noted that when you scale a problem up by an order of magnitude, it's no longer the same problem. Let's hope they don't blow this on SS7. > Internet providers give both less and more access to their networks than > telcos. Generally ISPs don't give other ISPs more access to their networks > than any other untrusted user. Even read-only SNMP between providers is > almost non-existant. Most ISPs would probally consider giving SS7 level > access into their network to another ISP a huge security hole. In some > sense, interconnecting ISPs is easier than telcos because the security > risk of connecting to another ISP is the same as connecting to a user. > Today's SS7 network is far more risky than anything Capt. Crunch could > do with his whistle. Perfectly correct. See, Sean? We do agree on some things. :-) > On the other hand, it seems like many ISPs don't consider it a duty to > screen or filter their customer's ingress or their own egress. While > telco's almost always screen information such as directory numbers when > they originate from a customer PBX. Yeah, but they didn't think it up until _afterwards_. It is to this day possible to spoof ANI/CNID with certain PRI connected PBXs on certain models of switch. > This has less to do with the SS7 > protocol, than the trust relationship between telcos. Telcos trust > other telcos to only send SS7 packets with screened customer phone > numbers. This 'trust' is formalized into extremely complicated > agreements between telcos, especially who is liable when the trust is > broken. ISPs have very simple 'trust' relationships (i.e. trust no one), > and correspondingly simple agreements between them. Excellent capsulization of the situation. > Since there is a much lower trust relationship between ISPs, tracing > malicious behavior is much more difficult. At a simple level, look how > caller-id information is treated between telcos. Telcos pass caller-id > information, more or less, on an end-to-end basis through the SS7 network > 'sharing' it with all the telco's along the way. However, telcos don't > pass the caller-id information to the 'user' if the presentation-restricted > flag is set. ISPs don't normally provide any more information to another > ISP than they do to an user. Which model causes less problems when the > CLEC turns out to be an private investigative company, or a university. Indeed. In the environment we're transitioning into, the ISP model will likely turn out to be more popular, for precisely that reason. Whether the LECs and IXCs can adapt is another question entirely. > It will be interesting to see which trust model works better as the > number of CLECs grows or the number of ISPs shrinks, depending on > which consulting group you want to believe. Will ISPs start trusting > each other more, or will telcos start trusting each other less? At > some companies, the Internet connection is the most secure outside > communications connection they have. Wow. That's a scary thought. I personally am disinclined to false senses of security, myself, so I prefer the latter. Lends an interesting tenor to the national security communications backbone topic, though, doesn't it? [ Cross posted from NANOG to comp.dcom.telecom, for comment. ] Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 17:48:23 -0300 From: Enrique Subject: Uruguay Numbering Plan Changes There has been some changes in the numbers of Uruguay this year. From October 26, all of the numbers from Montevideo got an extra digit, and also some of the nearby cities were aggregated to the same area code 2. Full info can be seen at http://www.7cifras.com.uy/7c_eng.htm I am also sending an updated list of city codes of Uruguay, complete as far as I know. Montevideo is the capital city, and I do not include the neighborhoods. Nevertheless, I do list some of the surrounding cities that also begin with 2 as city code. To dial a number in Uruguay from abroad, you'd dial +598-CityCode-Number To dial it from within Uruguay, you'd dial 0-CityCode-Number (if you're not in the same city you're calling to), or just Number, if you're in the same city. Uruguay Country Code : +598 City Codes : 2 Montevideo 2362 La Paz 2364 Las Piedras 2367 Melilla 2368 Progreso 2682 San Jose de Carrasco 2695 Solymar 2696 Solymar 2698 El Pinar 2292 Pando 2293 Totoral 2294 Sauce 2295 Empalme Olmos 2296 Toledo 2297 Surez 2298 Barros Blancos 338 25 de Agosto 3392 25 de Mayo 3398 Cardal 33950 Mendoza 33951 Mendoza Chico 3102 San Ramn (Ruralcel) 3103 Santa Rosa (Ruralcel) 3105 Tala (Ruralcel) 3109 Chamizo (Ruralcel) 3112 Casup 3116 Fray Marcos 3118 Pueblo Bolvar 3119 Reboledo 312 San Ramn 3132 Santa Rosa 3136 San Bautista 3139 San Antonio 315 Tala 3172 Migues 3175 Montes 318 Cerro Colorado 319 Chamizo 3308 25 de Agosto (Ruralcel) 3309 25 de Mayo (Ruralcel) 332 Canelones 334 Santa Luca 335 Joanic 336 Los Cerrillos 3402 San Jose (Ruralcel) 3405 Libertad (Ruralcel) 3406 Rafael Perazza (Ruralcel) 3407 Autdromo (Ruralcel) 3408 Rodriguez (Ruralcel) 342 San Jose 345 Libertad 3459 Puntas de Valdez 346 Rafael Perazza 2347 Autdromo (San Jose) 348 Rodriguez 349 Ecilda Paullier 3502 Florida (Ruralcel) 3504 Sarand Grande (Ruralcel) 352 Florida 354 Sarand Grande 3602 Durazno (Ruralcel) 3604 Trinidad (Ruralcel) 362 Durazno 363 Sarand del Y 364 Trinidad 365 Carmen 366 Paso de los Toros 368 Molles 369 San Gregorio de Polanco (Tacuaremb) 3702 Atlantida (Ruralcel) 3708 La Tuna (Ruralcel) 372 Atlantida 373 La Floresta 374 Soca 375 Parque del Plata 376 Salinas 377 Piedras de Afilar 378 La Tuna 379 Soles de Mataojo 3902 Pando (Ruralcel) 3909 San Jacinto (Ruralcel) 3992 San Jacinto 3999 Tapia 4102 Maldonado (Ruralcel) 422 Maldonado 423 Maldonado 424 Punta del Este 426 San Carlos 4270 La Barra de Maldonado 4271 La Barra de Maldonado 4278 Portezuelo 4279 Portezuelo 428 Punta del Este 429 Punta del Este 432 Piripolis 434 Pan de Azcar 438 Jaureguiberry / Balneario Soles 439 Gregorio Aznrez 442 Minas 444 Aigu 447 Batlle y Ord Fez 447 Zapicn 449 Mariscala 452 Treinta y Tres 453 Santa Clara de Olimar 454 Cerro Chato 455 Jose Pedro Varela 456 Lascano 457 Velazquez 458 Vergara 459 Cebollat 472 Rocha 473 La Paloma 474 Chuy 475 Castillos 47620 Punta del Diablo 47621 Santa Teresa 47627 La Coronilla 47628 La Coronilla 47629 La Coronilla 4806 Faro Jose Ignacio (Ruralcel) 486 Faro Jose Ignacio 4902 Piripolis (Ruralcel) 5202 Colonia (Ruralcel) 5204 Tarariras (Ruralcel) 5205 Colonia Miguelete (Ruralcel) 522 Colonia 574 Tarariras 575 Colonia Miguelete 576 Ombes de Lavalle 577 Conchillas 5302 Mercedes (Ruralcel) 5304 Dolores (Ruralcel) 5306 Cardona (Ruralcel) 5307 Palmitas (Ruralcel) 5308 Jose Rod (Ruralcel) 5309 Ismael Cortinas (Ruralcel) 532 Mercedes 534 Dolores 536 Cardona 537 Palmitas 538 Jose Rod 539 Ismael Cortinas 542 Carmelo 544 Nueva Palmira 5502 Rosario (Ruralcel) 5506 Juan Lacaze (Ruralcel) 5507 Playa Fomento (Ruralcel) 552 Rosario 554 Nueva Helvecia 558 Colonia Valdense 586 Juan Lacaze 587 Playa Fomento 5602 Fray Bentos (Ruralcel) 5607 Young (Ruralcel) 5608 Nuevo Berln (Ruralcel) 5609 San Javier (Ruralcel) 562 Fray Bentos 567 Young 568 Nuevo Berln 569 San Javier 6202 Rivera (Ruralcel) 622 Rivera 624 Vichadero 626 Tranqueras 628 Minas de Corrales 632 Tacuaremb 6382 Tambores 64 Melo 675 Ro Branco 679 Lago Mern 688 Fraile Muerto 7202 Paysand (Ruralcel) 722 Paysand 73 Salto 7302 Salto (Ruralcel) 7407 Piedras Coloradas (Ruralcel) 742 Guichn 7504 Quebracho (Ruralcel) 754 Quebracho 764 Constitucion 766 Beln 772 Artigas 776 Baltasar Brum 777 Toms Gomensoro 778 Mones Quintela 779 Bella Unin 94 Movicom (Celular) 982 Zona Franca de Montevideo 996 Ancel (Celular) ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 13:30:08 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". Background: Long-distance companies and other companies have been assigned five-digit prefix codes 10XXX to allow the caller to specify the carrier on a per-call basis. We're running out of 10XXX codes, though, so we're switching to 101XXXX codes. All existing codes are expanded to 1010XXX with the same last three digits. New codes are being assigned in the 1015XXX range, with other ranges to be opened after 10XXX codes are discontinued. Also, after the discontinuation of 10XXX, will all codes be 101XXXX, or will they at some point generalize to 10XXXXX? (Where do I sign up for my own code, so my friends can dial 10XXXXX-0-# if they don't want to bother with my 800 number? ;-P ;-b ;-P ) ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu (Bill Goodin) Subject: UCLA Short Course on "Commercial Satellite Communications" Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 18:37:55 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles On January 26-30, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Commercial Satellite Communications: Systems and Applications" on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Bruce R. Elbert, Hughes Space & Communications, David A. Baylor, DirecTV, and David Bell, NCP Computers. Each participant receives the course textbook, "The Satellite Communication Applications Handbook", B. Elbert (Artech House, 1997), and extensive course notes. This course provides a state-of-the-art review of satellite communications technologies from a system perspective. Intended for practicing engineers in the satellite communications industry as well as major private and governmental users of satellite and terrestrial telecommunications services, it covers all aspects of the design, operation and use of satellite networks, with a heavy emphasis on commercial applications. The latter include television transmission and broadcasting (distribution and direct-to-home), voice and data networks using Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSATs), mobile satellite services, and advanced broadband capabilities of satellites under development. Each of the five days is broken down into a major segment to provide background in the engineering fundamentals, a detailed review of the current applications and implementations, and evolution of the technology and use of satellite systems in the coming millennium. Course topics include: Evolution of Satellite Technology and Applications Satellite Links and Access Methods The Range of Television Applications Interactive Voice and Networks Telephone Services by Satellite Mobile Satellite Communications--GEO and Non-GEO Broadband and Multimedia Systems How to Stay Abreast and Valued in the Satcom Industry The course fee is $1495, which includes the course text and extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For a more information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ Reply-To: From: Paul Cook Subject: Re: NPA for Windows Update Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:32:29 -0800 I wrote: > The latest release for the highly useful shareware, NPA for Windows is > out. This is the 11 Oct 97 version, with many new prefixes and area > codes since the July version. > Download it from http://www.pcconsultant.com/~robert/pcc > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For newer readers or for old-timers > who do not remember much about him, Paul Cook has been a regular > participant here for several years. His scripts are trustworthy and > and quite useful. The best part is the price! PAT] I've been participating here from one address or another for over a decade, but if you're referring to the program NPA for Windows, its not mine. I'm just an enthusiastic user. It is shareware written and distributed by Robert Ricketts. Or perhaps by scripts PAT meant the text I submit to TELECOM Digest! Paul Cook * pcook@proctorinc.com ph: 425-881-7000 Proctor & Associates, Redmond, WA fax: 425-885-3282 http://www.proctorinc.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sorry, I thought you wrote the script you were recommending. Apologies to the original author are extended. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 10:44:29 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The VRML Sourcebook" by Ames/Nadeau/Moreland BKVRMLSB.RVW 970623 "The VRML 2.0 Sourcebook", Ames/Nadeau/Moreland, 1997, 0-471-16507-7, U$49.95/C$69.95 %A Andrea L. Ames andrea@sdsc.edu %A David R. Nadeau nadeau@sdsc.edu %A John L. Moreland moreland@sdsc.edu %C 22 Worchester Road, Rexdale, Ontario M9W 9Z9 %D 1997 %G 0-471-16507-7 %I Wiley %O U$49.95/C$69.95 416-236-4433 fax: 416-236-4448 800-263-1590 800-567-4797 %P 654 %T "The VRML 2.0 Sourcebook" The Virtual Reality Modeling Language, or VRML, is a "space description" language. It can be used as a standard for creating "3-space" artificial reality scenes. VRML also has the hypertext "linking" capability of HTML, the basis of the World Wide Web, and so, with an appropriate browser, can be used to create three dimensional extensions to the Web. This book provides a good introductory tutorial to the Virtual Reality Modeling Language for basic right up to expert usage. Within the limits of the printed page, the authors have provided a clear and solid introduction. Creating, rotating and moving simple and even complex shapes is given lucid and step-by-step explanations. With the inclusion of the CD-ROM the "sourcebook" becomes even more useful since it provides several VRML browsers that the reader can use, or at least try out. Even the simplest discussion of shapes and rotations can boggle the mind's eye when constrained to "dead trees": VRML is definitely a "hands-on" type of activity. This book will give you a firm grasp of the essentials and syntax of VRML. With the extensions to 2.0 the pace is much faster than it was in the original. Grasp of the concepts may require a bit more dedication, but the quality and clarity of the first edition is still much in evidence. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996, 1997 BKVRMLSB.RVW 970623 ====================== Please note the Peterson story - http://www.freivald.org/~padgett/trial.htm Genesis 4:9/Proverbs 24: 11,12 - your choice ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 10:49:23 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Switch Information Requested In TELECOM Digest, PB Schechter wrote: > Colorado is currently looking for ways to "conserve" numbers in the > 303 area code. One idea that has come up is the possibility of > turning Central Office Codes from NXXs to XXXs. This would add about > two million numbers, and is possible because Colorado is going to use > an overlay in the 303 area, so ten digits will need to be dialed for > all local calls. (Just to be perfectly clear: currently, a CO code > can't begin with 0 or 1 because those initial digits are used to > indicate operator and long distance calls, respectively. However, if > local calls are all prefaced with the area code, the initial digit of > a call to a number with a CO code beginning with 0 or 1 *will not be 0 > or 1.*) > Some people have claimed that this might "break" some switches > (particularly, outside of the North American Numbering Plan). It > seems to me that, once a switch sees that a call is going "somewhere > else" (i.e., to a different area code), it won't even look at the > remaining digits (or, if it does, it won't care what they are). > However, I am not a switch expert. > So, the request: (1) Does anyone know if there are any switches that > would complain about a CO code beginning with a 0 or a 1, even if they > dialed digit string does *not* begin with a 0 or a 1? (2) Does anyone > know how I can find this out? In an recent post regarding non-customer-dialable remote/rural locations (which can only be reached via a local telco or AT&T operator), the billing identification information is presently of the format 88X-XXX. Some of these locations have billing info of the form 88X-0xx-xxxx or 88X-1xx-xxxx, in addition to the form 88X-NXX-xxxx. _Even_if_ customers were able to 'dial' the billing code to call the remote/rural location, many NANP switches wouldn't be able to handle customer dialable strings of the format (1/0)+NXX-0XX-xxxx or (1/0)+NXX-1XX-xxxx. Other problems with 303-0XX and 303-1XX formats being used for central office codes for 'regular' customer-dialable numbers: There are other billing-codes, such as RAO-based calling-card numbers. An RAO is a "revenue-accounting-office". For about twenty years, there have been fourteen-digit calling-cards of the format NXX-0XX-xxxx+ PIN(nxxx) and NXX-1XX-xxxx+PIN(nxxx). The first three digits NXX are the digits of the RAO-code that the calling-card number is associated with. These are 'special-billing' calling cards. The NXX digits of the RAO are _NOT_ the area code. Offhand, I don't know where RAO #303 happens to be in the NANP. But if there are special-billing calling cards assigned off of RAO #303, they would be of the format 303-0XX-xxxx-nxxx and 303-1XX-xxxx-nxxx. If Colorado were to adopt 'regular' telephone numbers of the form 303-0XX-xxxx and 303-1XX-xxxx, those customers would want to be assigned line-number based calling cards, but they couldn't be, since the number-forat would conflict with 'special' calling cards and other special billing codes. ALSO, codes of the form NPA+0XX+ and NPA+1XX+ are used by operators and the automated network itself, for reaching other operators, for selecting specific trunks, for automated controls of portions of the network, for plant-testing, etc. There _are_ discussions in various "ATIS" and NANP telephone industry forums (such as the INC, OBF, NIIF, etc) as to how to expand the capacity of the NANP ten-digit number, or to increase the number of digits in a telephone number to more-than-ten. I don't think that any location would be able to adopt NPA-0XX/1XX format central-office-codes for regular numbers, "on its own". Before any such 'regular' numbers would be assigned, there would have to be various policies adopted at a higher level, such as Bellcore, NANPA (soon to be Lockheed-Martin), the ATIS forums, the NANC (North American Numbering Council), etc., to see if there are any conflicts in any possible proposals. As for when an originating switch sees that a call goes "somewhere else", the toll-switch of the long-distance carrier needs to do six-digit translation of the NPA-NXX to determine the route, and also the billing equipment presently determines the rate. The local originating telco's switch of the calling customer might not need to worry about the fourth/fifth/sixth digits, unless the call is 'nearby'. Also, most originating local telco switches _BLOCK_ customer dialing of a fourth-digit of 0/1 in a dialed string NXX-XXX-xxxx. _IF_ any NPA (area code) or SAC (Special Area Code) were to have regular customer-dialable central-office codes of the 0XX/1XX format, _EVERY_ switch in the NANP will have to be so noted that such would now exist. In some forms of equipment, this might only need to be a software update. But some types of equipment are _hard-coded_ to prohibit customer-dialing of a 0/1 in the 'D' digit. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Chuck Tyrrell Subject: Sprint Tops in Customer Satisfaction Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 09:25:28 -0500 I found this press release interesting and thought that I would pass it along. None of the carriers met even a 70% approval rating from their customers, yet Sprint is referred to as a "premier" service provider. With scores such as these can't you just wait for them to provide local service as well? Chuck Tyrrell ---------------------- Monday November 3 7:59 AM EST Company Press Release Sprint Tops in Customer Satisfaction for Fourth Straight Year, Yankee Group Survey Finds BOSTON, Nov. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumers who use Sprint as their long-distance telephone company say they are happier with the service they receive than their counterparts who use either AT&T or MCI. That's the conclusion of a new survey from the Yankee Group, a Boston-based market research firm. According to the Yankee Group's recently completed 1997 Technologically Advanced Family (TAF) survey, Sprint residential customers gave the company the highest ratings for quality of service in eight key areas. In fact, 1997 marked the fourth consecutive year in which Sprint led the long-distance market in quality of service, and the third year in which it was ranked first in all eight of the service categories measured by the Yankee Group. ``Sprint has done an outstanding job in maintaining its position as a premier service provider to its residential customers,'' says Brian Adamik, vice president of consumer communications research at the Yankee Group. ``In addition to leading its rivals in the long-distance market, Sprint's record for customer service will help the company compete with the Baby Bells for customers in the local exchange market,'' he adds. The 1997 TAF survey asked over 1,900 consumers to evaluate various aspects of their local and long-distance telephone company's service. The long-distance portion of the survey produced the following results: Quality of Service Sprint AT&T MCI (Percentage of customers answering excellent or good) Professional, Courteous, Knowledgeable Personnel 62.3 60.5 53.9 Accurate and Easy-to-Understand Bills 66.0 61.1 53.8 Timely Resolution of Problems 56.1 54.2 43.5 Quick Access to Customer Service 55.9 52.7 44.0 Value for the Money 62.6 45.5 45.4 Provides High-Quality Transmission 67.3 60.3 54.1 Trustworthiness 58.6 56.4 42.2 Deserving of My Loyalty 57.2 53.9 35.3 Working in conjunction with Market Facts, Inc., the world's leading supplier of mail panel consumer research, the Yankee Group has constantly refined and upgraded the TAF survey over its 12-year history. Unlike other consumer studies now flooding the communications and computing industries, TAF offers marketers two critical advantages: a proven scheme for consumer segmentation and a broader array of products and services covered. Since 1986, the Yankee Group has used the TAF survey to measure consumer interest, attitudes, and demand regarding a broad assortment of communications products and services. These range from basic communications services such as local and long-distance telephony to advanced technologies in personal computing and home entertainment. The 1997 survey's results were drawn from a 32-page questionnaire mailed to a representative sample of U.S. and Canadian households. In addition to its North American coverage, TAF has recently been expanded to include separate survey's of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. SOURCE The Yankee Group ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 09:21:29 -0500 From: S Hayman Reply-To: srhayman@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca Organization: University of Waterloo Subject: canadian area codes Hello: I was browsing through your site, but was unable to find the information I was seeking. Could you please help me out by letting me know which region in Canada was first served by an area code without a middle digit of 0 or 1? Sorry for any inconvenience, but I hope you can help me out. Thanks, Steve ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #301 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Nov 4 20:44:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA24689; Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:44:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 20:44:08 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711050144.UAA24689@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #302 TELECOM Digest Tue, 4 Nov 97 20:44:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 302 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California (Mark J. Cuccia) AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule (pheel@sprynet.com) Pac*Bell Payphones Going Up, Too (Linc Madison) Intl. Client Needs Management of Switch; Addl. Eqt. (jim@mast-ent.com) Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (J. Oppenheimer) Good Book Still Available (Jim Haynes) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 15:31:21 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California I finally placed a call to a non-customer-dialable location. Recently, I received some information from one of my Canadian telephone history contacts, which included a photocopy of a small advertisement from a 1997 tourism/travel brochure. The advertisement was for the Drakesbad Guest Ranch, in northern California, an old and rustic 'out-of-the-way' resort, with no electricity. From what I also found out, you can only reach Drakesbad via a dirt road in the Lassen National Forest. The advertisement did state a way to call them: "For reservations, call Drakesbad No.2 via Susanville CA Operator" I did place a call to Pacific Bell's Directory Operator in the 916 area code. At the time I called Directory, area code 530 hadn't yet been activated in Sprint's long-distance network, although the new area code had been activated in AT&T's network. However, I wanted to find out from genuine Pacific Bell Directory as to what listing they had for the Drakesbad Guest Ranch. If I had called via AT&T, I would _NOT_ have routed to Pacific Bell Directory, but rather "Excell Agency" 'pseudo' directory. So, I dialed 101-0333-1+916-KL.5-1212. The Pac*Bell Directory operator answered "Directory, what city?" When I told her "Drakesbad", she told me to hold the line while she checked her bulletin. Then she asked me who or what listing in Drakesbad I was looking for. When I told that I wanted the number for the Drakesbad Guest Ranch, she told me that I needed to call my long-distance operator and ask for Drakesbad No.2 California via the Susanville California Inward Operator. She told me that Drakesbad listings aren't customer dialable. I checked with the AT&T operator for rates. The first minute for a call to Drakesbad ringdowns are billed at rather expensive operator _HANDLED_ rates (most likely the same as "person" rates). The additional minutes were a bit higher than a direct-dialed call would have been, but not overly expensive. Billed at V&H-based distances from my area (New Orleans ratecenter), I was quoted the following: Day: $4.03 first minute, 41-cents each additional minute Evening/Holiday: $3.95 first minute, 34-cents each additional minute Nite/Weekend: $3.93 first minute, 29-cents each additional minute I also checked with the MCI and Sprint operators to see if they had any rates or service for such a ringdown or toll-station. The MCI operator (and her supervisor) had absolutely _NO_ idea of what a ringdown or toll-station was, nor even what an inward operator was. When I asked her what she would do if a customer needed to have her do a "busy-line-verification" or "emergency-interrupt" on a distant number (which requires reaching a local Bell or independent telco inward operator on the far-end to actually do the BLV or interrupt), she told me that she tells the customer to hang-up and then to dial 10288-0, i.e. that they would need to call AT&T. (I would hope that they will begin to state 1010288-0, since the expanded CIC/CAC dialing procedure becomes mandatory in January 1998) The Sprint-LD operator likewise didn't know what a ringdown point was but was familiar with "inward" LEC operators. But she didn't want to seem to look up billing (nor routing) information for a ringdown. She did tell me that they do call far-end LEC inward operators for BLV and to break-in (emergency-interrupt) assistance, but would only call distant inward if I had a full 7/10 digit number. On Monday night, I finally decided to attempt a call to Drakesbad No.2 via the AT&T Operator. I had the "mark-sense" billing information from Bellcore-TRA Rating documents I have purchased from time-to-time, and it was the same 887-439 code as AT&T Long-Lines had in a 1981 Rating document. The routing information to reach Susanville Ca's Inward was indicated as 916+028+ in both old AT&T and more recent Bellcore-TRA Routing documents. The actual local telco for Susanville CA is not Pacific Bell but rather an independent, Citizens' Utilities. But the Bellcore-TRA Rating documents indicated Drakesbad itself as being served by Pacific Bell. So, I dialed *70 (1170) first, as I didn't want anyone who might have been calling me at that moment to "Call-Waiting" beep my line while my call to Drakesbad was being set up or while I would actually be on the line with Drakesbad. Then I dialed '00' for my primary LD-carrier's operator. AT&T is the only inTER-LATA carrier in the US to assist in reaching such locations, and they are my primary inTER-LATA carrier, so I didn't have to dial 10(10)288+ first. During the AT&T voice-prompts for alternate services (grrrrr), I entered '0#' to cut-through direct to a live human operator. Of course, I did initially hear the pre-recorded voice "AT&T- How may I help you?" (again, GRRRR), while the live operator was coming on the line. I told her that I needed to call Drakesbad No.2 California, via Susanville California Inward. She asked me if this was "one of those ringdown toll stations". Of course, it was. I had the mark-sense billing information and operator's routing information to give her, but she still needed to look it up on her OSPS terminal. She didn't need to write-out a manual toll-ticket, since everything can now be keyed into the OSPS computer terminal. I could hear her clicking away on the keyboard. But the Kp+916+028+121+St inward operator routing seemed to give a reorder. I told her to try Kp+530+028+121+St, since that part of northern California is now changing over from NPA 916 to NPA 530. That code worked. We heard ringing and then "Susanville Inward" answered. The AT&T Operator asked the Susanville Inward Operator for "Drakesbad Number Two", to which the Susanville Opeartor answered "Thank you, ringing Drakesbad Number Two". I don't know if Susanville actually entered a non-published seven-digit number, or entered a three-digit trunk or routing code (0XX/1XX), or pressed a single "Drakesbad 2" button, into her TOPS terminal. According to the most recent Bellcore TRA Rating documents I've seen, there are several Drakesbad ringdown subscribers in that area, all with one or two digits after the name "Drakesbad". We heard standard "ESS" ringing indication tone, at the standard pace and cadence, although slightly 'clipped', similar to when dialing into a PBX. I assume that the ringing-indication tone was provided at the Nortel DMS-200 TOPS switch in Susanville. The line continued ringing with no answer, for almost one minute, and then we decided to abandon the attempt, and that I would call back later on. About an hour later, I went through the same process, and when Susanville Inward attempted to call Drakesbad No.2, we heard a busy signal, the standard "ESS" type busy signal, again somewhat 'clipped', similar to what is returned from many PBX systems. The particular Susanville Operator on this attempt kept trying to 'ring' Drakesbad No.2 and mentioned that she hadn't 'heard from them' in over a week. She did mention that maybe the Guest Ranch had closed for the winter, or that with the snow, that maybe the lines were 'down'. But she did tell us to try back later on. About a half-hour after that, I called '00' again to attempt to reach Drakesbad No.2. After all of the billing set-up and routing to Susanville Inward, there was an answer after about three rings. The line was answered by a man as "Drakesbad Guest Ranch". I asked if I had reached "Drakesbad Number Two", and the man at the other end, in a German accent answered that I did. I asked if the AT&T Operator was still on the line, and she said that she would now press 'start-timing' for billing. She told me that when I was finished with the call to simply hang-up -- that it was _not_ really necessary for me to 'flash' her back onto the line. I spoke with the man at Drakesbad No.2 for a few minutes, and asked him about what type of phone service the place had. He told me that all outgoing calls had to be placed through the Susanville CA Operator. He told me that his phone did have a dial (actually a touchtone keypad), and that when going offhook to place an outgoing call, he does receive a dialtone. _But_ when any (single) digit, other than zero, is dialed, he gets a busy signal. He didn't state if it were a 'fast' busy or a 'line' busy, but I assume that the busy was a reorder or fast busy. Dialing the single digit '0' does route him to the Susanville CA operator, who places all outgoing calls for him, including any calls to toll-free 800/888 numbers. His monthly bill comes from Citizens Utilities in Susanville, _not_ Pacific*Bell. Since he has a touchtone phone on his line, whenever he has a call placed to a service with voice/touchtone menus, he is able to enter the digits needed by the voice/menu system. But as for their telephone service itself, he did say that the Drakesbad Guest Ranch is considering leasing and installing a satellite mobile telephone setup, where dialable two-way calling can be provided. The audio quality of the connection was fine. I did _not_ detect any "old-style" transmission loss or 'hiss' on the connection. There was _no_ echo nor delay, neither. When I finished the call and hung up, since I had placed the call to the AT&T Operator on a 0/0+ type trunk, and since the operator had to manually enter the billing information and 'start-timing', it did take a few seconds for my central-office to completely release the trunk to AT&T's OSPS switch. I had picked up the phone about five seconds after hanging up from the call to Drakesbad, and I 're-rang' myself into an AT&T OSPS operator. I told her that I was trying to release my line from an earlier call, so she simply pressed "release-back", causing a 'forced-disconnect' from the OSPS trunk into my own originating local central-office switch. From what I understand, my AT&T 40%-off domestic discount plan applies _only_ to customer-dialed 1+ domestic calls (from home), and to domestic calling-card calls. The 40%-off discount might not necessarily apply to operator-handled calls to non-customer-dialable ringdown locations. When this call to Drakesbad No.2 California eventually shows up on the AT&T portion of my local monthly BellSouth billing, I will prepare a post as to how the call showed up, and what the final total charges were. I don't know if other Ringdown non-customer-dialable toll stations are set up in the same way as Drakesbad No.2 California. It might be that some don't have a dial or touchtone phone on the line, or if they do, it might be that they don't get a dialtone that they have to dial '0'. Some might still be 'manual common-battery' where they get the local operator right away when going offhook to place an outgoing call. Some might be magneto, with several other parties on the line, each able to call each other by cranking out coded rings, but cranking out a single _long_ ring to signal the local operator for calls going to the outside world. But since the rates are a bit more expensive than 'regular' dialable calls, I don't think that I will be calling many more such places for some time. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As always Mark, thanks for a very interesting and detailed report. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pheel@sprynet.com Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:40:31 -0500 Subject: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule Company Press Release AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 4, 1997--In response to customer calls for simplicity and the success of its One Rate calling plan, AT&T today announced several changes to its basic interstate schedule for residential direct-dialed calls. The company will replace its domestic basic schedule's day, evening and night/weekend time periods with peak, off-peak and weekend time periods and will eliminate all mileage bands. Calls will be priced at a single rate during each time period, regardless of distance. The new time periods are as follows: Peak 7 a.m. - 6:59 p.m. Monday - Friday Off-Peak 7 p.m. - 6:59 a.m. Monday - Friday Weekend All day Saturday and Sunday Rates for the peak, off-peak and weekend time periods are 28 cents, 16 cents and 13 cents per minute, respectively. With the elimination of mileage bands and changes in time periods, many customers will see lower prices, depending on when they make their calls. For example, calls placed Sunday evening will be priced up to 25 percent lower than the current rate. ``With millions of customers enrolled in its first year, the success of the AT&T One Rate calling plan has proved that customers want plans and services that offer competitive rates and are easy to understand,'' said Jack McMaster, AT&T vice president, Consumer Markets Division. ``With today's change, all consumers will find it easier to understand our basic rates and many customers will pay lower rates, depending on their calling patterns. In fact, for most residential direct-dialed interstate calls, AT&T's basic rates are actually the lowest among the top three long distance companies.'' The price changes become effective on Nov. 8, 1997, and do not affect AT&T customers who are enrolled in a calling plan. These changes apply only to AT&T's basic interstate residential direct-dialed rates, and do not affect the company's in-state calling plans. Contact: Mark Siegel Lee Ann Kuster 908-221-8422 (office) 602-482-0108 (office) 973-989-1101 (home) 602-482-1600 (home) INTERNET masiegel@attmail.com INTERNET lkuster@attmail.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac*Bell Payphones Going Up, Too Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 13:31:56 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM I posted last month about a local COCOT that raised its local-call rate from the state-mandated $0.20 to $0.35. This Sunday, I saw my first Pacific Bell payphone at 35 cents, in the middle of Golden Gate Park. So much for the benefits to the consumer of payphone deregulation. Higher prices for mostly much lower-quality service, with no meaningful competition. Merchants like PAT's friend, who has programmed the phone to be (*gasp*) useful at a fair price, are incredibly rare. I'm also very disappointed that the FCC remains hell-bent on setting an exorbitant per-call fee on 800/888 calls from payphones. Their original proposal of 35 cents per call was deemed excessive, so they changed it to 28 cents per call. That is still excessive! Further, it makes far more sense to make the charge based on time. I think a penny a minute is about right, or perhaps five cents for the first minute and a penny each additional, and that's making the assumption that ANY payment is warranted. Why are we giving an enormous WINDFALL with absolutely NOTHING in return?? ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: admin@mast-ent.com Subject: Intl. Client Needs Management of Switch + Additional Equipment Organization: LineX Communications (415) 455-1650 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 00:02:35 GMT We have a international long distance company as a client in Taipei, Taiwan which provides essentially a intl. call through service for its client overseas. NEEDS - They are looking for a hardware expert in the U.S., located in the Los Angeles area, capable of handling upgrading & management of both their existing switch equipment and the new equipment they wish to install. As they detail in the client's below email excerpt we have included in the bottom half of this message. ================================================= If you have the capabilities and knowhow to manage the equipment listed in the client's below description and have recommendations on new equipment the client could use in upgrading, OR You know someone in the L.A. area who you could refer us to: PLEASE CONTACT: JIM @ Association of Independent Telecommunications Managers. 425-702-9151 (Off.) PLEASE REVIEW ENTIRE EMAIL BEFORE 425-702-8758 (Fax) CONTACTING US!! 888-218-5601 (Toll Free to Off.) jim@mast-ent.com Email ================================================ APPLICATION - Clients overseas place a call into their Taipei switch. pOnce the call is determined to be a international destination, their switch in Taiwan routes the call across their private line to their Los Angeles switch, which is co-located at the current carrier they are using in Rosemead, CA (L.A. suburb). Their switch in Los Angeles then routes the call as a U.S. originated international call out on their current international carrier under their wholesale intl. rates. They want their new equipment to be able to "Least cost route" calls to different international carriers they will be using, depending on which country the call will terminate to. Their business has expanded 6x in the past year. We are replacing their 192k current circuit with a 384k Private Line between their Switch in Taipei and the Los Angeles area. They currently operate a 192k Private line with another carrier and their current switch is in Rosemead, CA (L.A. suburb), which they are going to disconnect when we have the new setup installed. They need to purchase the new upgrade equipment right now, but they will be very flexible in where they locate it, based on either co-locating their switch in their chosen long distance carrier's POP, or renting space as close to the chosen POP as they can. When they choose the new Private Line and the carrier options, out of 3 - 4 different quotes we have arranged for them, we will know where exactly they will wish to locate their new equipment, but MOST LIKELY IN OR AROUND THE 1 Wilshire Blvd. complex where we are finding most intl. carriers have their POP's located. =================================================== We have provided below excerpts from one of our email messages with the client, which will give you the details on thier current equipment and needs. As you can tell, the client has quite a bit of broken English, but gets her point across enough to understand their needs and equipment specs. =================================================== (Beginning of client Email details) As I mention through the phone that we do not have our engineer in US but we had a partner which we can place our hardware equipment to co-locations but his international outbound rates are too high, so we might need to relocation our equipment to minimize our cost. ( We need 24 phone lines to connect our switch to the international carrier.) Here are the equipment is our both locations US - Rosemead and Taiwan - Taipei. PBX - Fujitsu # E -650 Multiplexer - Northern Telecom - Magellan Passport #NTEP39. ( This multiplexer does not have fax service function; therefore, even though that our individual line is 12kb but still have difficult time to complete facsimile. Therefore, we need to re-structure entire new system to replace the current system to generate minutes' usage but the new system must able to use in "Frame Relay's structure". Currently, our engineers in Taiwan are developing the voice card to replace current PBX, but we would also like to hear your option by either install the PBX or voice card is better for us. Understand that there is no one carrier has lowest cost overall rates to all countries, so for the new system that we must have "least cost routing". Please list the price quotation for our new frame relay system and with PBX please include software. Will call you today for future detail for update status. Thanks and Best Regards, Cheryl ================================================ If you have the capabilities and knowhow to manage the equipment listed in the client's above description and have recommendations on new equipment the client could use in upgrading, OR You know someone in the L.A. area who you could refer us to: PLEASE CONTACT: JIM @ Association of Independent Telecommunications Managers 425-702-9151 (Off.) PLEASE REVIEW ENTIRE EMAIL BEFORE 425-702-8758 (Fax) CONTACTING US!! 888-218-5601 (Toll Free to Off.) jim@mast-ent.com Email ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 18:24:25 -0500 From: Judith Oppenheimer Reply-To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com Organization: ICB TOLL FREE - 800/888 news... commentary... consulting... Subject: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant August, 1997 Federal appeals court decision regarding 1-800-FOR LEASE. This case involved a finding by the jury that the number wrongfully denied the plaintiff by WorldCom was, in and of itself, worth $50K to the plaintiff. --------------- New York, NY November 5, 1997 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) The August, 1997 appellate court decision regarding WorldCom/Play Time (located in ICB TOLL FREE NEWS' Regulatory Reading Room, or email joppenheimer@ icbtollfree.com for a copy) is, at first glance, a fairly straight- forward ruling on a matter of contract law and civil litigation procedures. The court ruled, in essence, that WorldCom blew it by not keeping their right hand informed of what a left hand was doing, and that they breached a contractual obligation as a result. The court also upheld the trial court's method of handling the matter, including allowing the jury to decide the value of the number at issue, and the method of valuation chosen. In those respects the opinion is unremarkable, just like any other breach of contract litigation, except this one involved an 800 number rather than a car, or a business, or a book deal, etc. In the process of making its ruling, however, the court touched on two issues that are extremely important vis-a-vis the toll free issues 800 marketers are currently dealing with at the FCC. These come under the headings of (1) the inherent value of vanity numbers, and (2) the prohibition on transfers. Inherent Value of Vanity Numbers Both the trial court judge and the appellate court panel had no difficulty with the concept that there is an inherent value to a toll free vanity number. The number had value to the plaintiff solely by reason of his intended but not yet implemented business plan. The jury, hearing evidence from both sides, determined that the number was worth $50,000 to the plaintiff. This was obviously not value resulting from years of use and public familiarity. It was an inherent value, created solely by the plaintiff's intellectual exercise of recognizing the vanity pneumonic and developing a business plan to exploit it. If were true that numbers have no inherent value, the plaintiff would not have suffered any monetary damage. But the jury found convincing evidence of monetary damage to the tune of $50K. It is important to understand the subtle nuance here. This was not a jury finding that the plaintiff had lost $50K in profits or business because he did not have the number -- it is possible for my loss of something that has no inherent value in and of itself, to nonetheless cause me to lose money. But that is not what this case was about, or at least not the basis on which it was decided and the damages awarded. Rather, this case involved a finding by the jury that the number wrongfully denied the plaintiff by WorldCom was, in and of itself, worth $50K to the plaintiff. The jury was asked to determine the "fair market value" of the number. In so doing, they applied a "willing-transferor-willing-transfer" standard. This means that they assumed there were two parties, one willing to buy and one willing to sell the number. They further assumed that these hypothetical parties would negotiate an agreement that was mutually acceptable to both of them - the "ideal" compromise, as it were. Their task was to decide, based on all the evidence they heard at the hearing, what the dollar figure was at which these two hypothetical parties would agree. They ruled it was $50K, and that was based, at least in part, on evidence that the plaintiff had almost agreed to pay $50K to a third party (the one to whom WorldCom improperly transferred the number), a deal which fell apart not because of the purchase price, but because of an inability to agree on a nonrefundable deposit. Prohibition on Transfers WorldCom argued "that the Number had no market value because its sale, brokering, barter, or release for a consideration was prohibited." This did not sway the appellate court. The court correctly noted that, lack of "ownership rights" and "prohibitions on transfers" notwithstanding, an end user still has the right to control its 800 service, including ultimate right to direct the status (reserved, active, or assigned) to its own toll free number. It was this right that WorldCom deprived the plaintiff of when is mis-assigned his promised number, and the court had not problem with basing a $50,000 judgment on the value of the lost number. This case thus supports what toll-free advocates have argued to the FCC, namely, that the oft-stated policy that numbers are a public resource and that users do not obtain "ownership" rights in them, is not really relevant to the issue of the commercial transfer of numbers. You can legislate, regulate, and pontificate away all the "property" and "ownership" rights you wish, but at the end of the day, toll free customers still have a number of rights and benefits associated with the particular toll free number assigned (or to be assigned) to them, and that bundle of rights can often be quite valuable in a monetary sense. The appellate court recognized this (though it didn't say it in quite those words) and was therefore not blinded by the prohibition on transfers. Impact on FCC Proceedings This opinion will not necessarily be binding on the FCC. The case does not turn on an interpretation of any federal communications law or FCC rule or policy. But, even though it is not absolutely binding on the FCC, it is nonetheless a very useful precedent. It can't hurt, and it may help advance the cause of toll-free users. Judith Oppenheimer, Publisher ICB TOLL FREE NEWS - http://www.icbtollfree.com Mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com with your name, company name and title to activate 15-day FREE Online trial subscription. Incl. fax number (U.S. only) for FREE Fax Edition trial subscription. FREE GIFT OFFER: mailto:freegift@icbtollfree.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Haynes Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 15:34:24 -0800 Subject: Good Book Still Available I discovered the other day, browsing the U.C. Press web page http://www-ucpress.berkeley.edu that the following book is still available in paperback only. Claude S. Fischer America Calling - a social history of the telephone to 1940. ISBN 0-520-08647-3, published in 1992. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #302 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 5 09:28:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA00796; Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:28:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 09:28:31 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711051428.JAA00796@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #303 TELECOM Digest Wed, 5 Nov 97 09:28:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 303 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FTC Announces Refunds in That Moldava s-x/Modem/Dialing Scam (D. Burstein) Alternic Founder Arrested? (Babu Mengelepouti) AOL Wins Restraining Order Against Spammer (Eric Florack) Voice Mail for Macrotel MT-16H (Bruce Wilson) Re: Switch Information Requested (Al Varney) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 01:48:23 EST From: Danny Burstein Subject: FTC Announces Refunds in That Moldava s-x/Modem/Dialing Scam Background: earlier this year a s-x promotion on the internet asked people to download a special viewer. When they clicked it on, it disconnected the computer from the phone line, silenced the modem, and outdialed an international number in Moldava (formerly of the USSR). So people were hit with international calling costs on this. Also, the connection was _not_ broken when people were finished, so the clock kept running. Take special note of the FTC statement that these calls did _not_ actually complete to Moldava, but rather were terminated in Canada. Which is somewhat fascinating to think about ... FOR RELEASE: NOVEMBER 4, 1997 ___________________________________ VICTIMS OF MOLDOVAN MODEM "HIJACKING" SCHEME TO GET FULL REDRESS UNDER FTC SETTLEMENTS More than 38,000 consumers will get full credits totaling over $2.74 million for telephone charges they unknowingly incurred when their computer modems allegedly were hijacked and re-routed to expensive, international numbers, the Federal Trade Commission announced today. The refunds are included in settlements the FTC has reached with several firms and individuals charged by the agency with running the high-tech Internet scam, which used a purported "viewer" software program to disconnect consumers from their local Internet service providers and reconnect them to international numbers assigned to the country of Moldova. The FTC alleged that the defendants enticed consumers who visited their websites on the Internet to download the "viewer" software in order to access computer-stored images for free. Once the consumer downloaded and activated this software, the FTC alleged, it automatically disconnected consumers' modems from their local Internet service providers, turned off the speakers on the consumers' modems, and silently dialed international telephone numbers to reconnect consumers to the Internet through an expensive long distance telephone call. Once hijacked in this fashion, consumers' modems remained connected to those international tele phone numbers even when consumers left the defendants’ websites or left the Internet entirely to do word processing, spreadsheet or other computer work. As a result, many consumers received phone bills with international call charges totaling several hundred or several thousand dollars. The FTC received valuable assistance from AT&T's office of Network Security in spotting and investigating this alleged scam. The settlements are with defendants named in the case at the time it was filed in February 1997, as well as additional responsible parties the FTC has identified in its continuing investiga tion since that time. The first settlement, which requires the court's approval to become binding, is with original defendants Audiotex Connection, Inc., of Rockville Centre, New York; Promo Line, Inc., of Dix Hills, New York; William Gannon, an officer and owner of Audiotex Con nection and Promo Line, Inc.; and David Zeng, a computer programmer; as well as newly-named defendant Internet Girls, Inc., another corporation of William Gannon located in Rockville Centre, New York. All of these defendants, except David Zeng, did business as Electronic Forms Management. David Zeng did business as DaveZ@aol.com. The FTC asked the court to dismiss charges against Anna M. Grella, an original defendant, following the further investigation. The second settlement, being announced today for a public comment period before the Commission determines whether to make it final and binding, is with other newly-named respondents: Beylen Telecom, Ltd., of Grand Cayman in the Cayman Islands; NiteLine Media, Inc., of Brooklyn New York; and Ron Tan (also known as Roeun Tan), an officer of NiteLine Media. According to the FTC's complaints detailing the charges against the defendants and the respondents, consumers who were surfing the Internet and stopped to visit one of the defendants' or respondents' websites for "free" computer images -- including sites named www.beavisbutthead.com, www.sexygirls.com, www.1adult.com, and www.erotic2000.com -- first had to download a special "viewer" program called "david.exe." Before allowing consumers to visit a selected site, this program surreptitiously disconnected them from the local telephone number of their chosen Internet service provider and reconnected their computer modems to the Internet through an international telephone call, all without their knowledge because the program also turned off their modem speakers so that they could not hear the disconnect or the dialing of the international number. Moreover, the FTC alleged, the calls never were connected to Moldova, but rather terminated in Canada, even though consumers still received telephone bills for higher- priced Moldovan calls. Initially, the FTC alleged, although the defendants advertised their websites as free, consumers racked up international calling charges of more than $2 per minute until they turned off their computers. Later in the life of the scheme, the defendants added some disclosures to their websites, but still failed to disclose that the calls would terminate in Canada or that consumers would continue to incur the Moldovan rates even after they exited the relevant websites, the FTC charged. The proposed settlements would require the defendants to redress consumer victims by paying funds to AT&T and MCI, which will issue credits to their customers who were billed for the calls, and to the FTC, which will issue refunds to customers of other long-distance carriers who were billed for the calls. In addition, the settlements would prohibit the defendants from: * misrepresenting that consumers can use a software program to view computer images for free when there are costs associated with downloading, installing, activating or using the program; * using any download program to generate modem calls on the Internet without clearly and conspicuously disclosing: 1) that the program will terminate the consumer’s local Internet connection; 2) that the program will dial an international telephone number and connect them to a location outside the United States; 3) that the international call will cost a stated amount per minute; and 4) that the consumer’s computer will remain connected to the international number for a certain period of time or until the consumer takes some action; * causing consumers to be charged for destinations that their calls never actually reach; and * distributing any program similar to "david.exe" to third parties. The settlements also would require the defendants to obtain written assurances from any billing entity that telephone bills consumers receive for the defendants’ services reflect where the international calls actually go. The settlements also contain various record keeping and reporting provisions that would assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants’ compliance. The Commission vote to accept the settlements was 4-0. The settlement with Audiotex Connection, Promo Line, Internet Girls, Gannon and Zeng was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in Uniondale, this morning. A summary of the settlement with Beylen Telecom, NiteLine Media and Tan is being published in today’s Federal Register and will be subject to public comment for 60 days, after which the Commission will determine whether to make it final and binding. Comments should be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. NOTE: These agreements are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission of law violations by the defendants. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000. Court-filed consent decrees also have the force of law when signed by the judge. ___________________________________ Copies of the settlements and complaints in these cases are available from the FTC’s web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 202-326-2502. Consent agreements subject to public comment also are available by calling 202-326-3627. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710. MEDIA CONTACT: Victoria Streitfeld or Bonnie Jansen, Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2718 or 202-326-2161 STAFF CONTACT: Paul Luehr, Bureau of Consumer Protection 202-326-2236 Audiotex: FTC File No. X970021; Civil Action No. CV-97-0726 (DRH) Beylen: FTC File No. 972 3128 (audiot-2) _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:48:25 -0500 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Alternic Founder Arrested? This came off the dc-stuff mailing list, and I use alternic's public DNS service so this may or may not be true. Take with a grain of salt ... By Janet Kornblum November 3, 1997, 1:30 p.m. PT update An FBI official confirmed today that AlterNIC founder Eugene Kashpureff was arrested Friday in Toronto on U.S. charges related to wire fraud. In July, Kashpureff hijacked InterNIC's URL, sending surfers trying to get to "www.internic.net" to his own site at "www.alternic.net" in what he called a "protest." Almost immediately, he knew he could be facing federal computer crime charges for his actions, he said. Authorities arrested Kashpureff after weeks of investigation, said Joe Valiquette, a spokesman for the FBI in New York. He did not immediately have more information. Marc Hurst, a spokesman for the AlterNIC, said Kashpureff was scheduled for a deportation hearing today. Hurst said he had been contacted a few weeks ago by Canadian immigration authorities who were looking for Kashpureff because he was wanted by the FBI on warrants for several counts of wire fraud. Network Solutions (NSI), which runs the InterNIC registry that Kashpureff was protesting, had taken Kashpureff to court, but the case was settled. Kashpureff apologized to the Internet community and tried to help inform it how to fix a program that would prevent someone else from perpetrating the same kind of domain name hijacking. But apparently his troubles did not end in August with the court settlement. Along with taking Kashpureff to civil court, Network Solutions had contacted law enforcement officials who were investigating whether Kashpureff had broken federal computer crime laws. A spokesman said at the time that Network Solutions originally had not been planning to file charges against Kashpureff. Kashpureff originally started rerouting pages on July 11. He stopped on July 14; but then he got angry and did it again on July 18. That's when officials from Network Solutions decided to take him to court, an official said. "What Kashpureff did was attack the Net," a Network Solutions official stated today in an email message. "He directly polluted cache in local servers that did not have an updated version of BIND." BIND is a program that controls the Internet's Domain Name System protocol. Alerts have since been issued to encourage system administrators to update their copies of BIND. Hurst said today that although he doesn't condone any alleged crime that Kashpureff may have committed, he was surprised by the vehemence with which he said Kashpureff was pursued. Hurst said he was originally contacted several weeks ago by immigration authorities looking for Kashpureff. When Kashpureff, a father of four, perpetrated the hack, he said he was angry and hadn't thought about the ramifications. Some in the Internet community applauded his actions, saying they were needed to draw attention to what they saw as Network Solutions' monopoly on the domain naming system. Others criticized Kashpureff, saying that he acted rashly, hurt the cause, and deserved punishment. But both Hurst and Richard Sexton, who also worked with Kashpureff on the AlterNIC, said that even those who disagreed with Kashpureff would likely find the charges to be outrageous. "The most you could have lost is two seconds and one mouse-click," Sexton said. "It is fraud, but the fiscal damage amounts to zero. He should be found guilty and fined a dollar." "I was surprised by the seriousness with which this was treated," Hurst said. "He's a computer guy. He's not a serial killer. He didn't cause any airports to black out. He didn't cause a blackout in a hospital. He redirected some Web pages." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:43:11 PST From: Eric Florack Subject: AOL Wins Restraining Order Against Spammer AOL Wins Restraining Order Against Spammer by Brian McWilliams, PC World Radio November 4, 1997 America Online today said it won round one in its battle against Over the Air Equipment, a firm that provides striptease shows over the Internet. AOL said a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order last Friday prohibiting Over the Air from sending bulk e-mail to AOL members. In a suit filed last month, AOL accused Over the Air of using deceptive practices, including falsifying e-mail transmission data, to avoid AOL's mail controls and to repeatedly transmit vast quantities of unsolicited e-mail to AOL members. But Over the Air's president Rick Lee told PC World News Radio today that while AOL may claim to have won round one, his company will be the victor at the final bell. Lee doesn't deny sending unsolicited e-mail to AOL members, but he said the judge didn't look closely at the details of the case. "We've always deleted members who requested to be deleted, [and] we have a delete list that's larger than our customer base list. So if we have a delete list somewhere in the area of 3 million people, you tell me that I'm not acting responsibly." Lee said Over the Air intends to appeal the ruling, and he vowed that when all the facts are out, AOL will be sorry it chose to make an example of his company to score public relations points in its fight against spam. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:50:14 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Voice Mail for Macrotel MT-16H I'm hoping the knowledgable people frequenting this newsgroup can give me some help and guidance with respect to an ongoing problem. I'm the assistant director of a small inner-city IRS 501(c)(3) human service agency in Des Moines, Iowa. Our phone system is a paid-for Macrotel (MT-16H KSU) with 4 incoming lines, equipped for 10 key sets and 2 single-line phones, with space in the KSU for the addition of 4 more ports which could be either key sets or SLTs. We've got an ongoing problem in getting appropriate voice mail service. We tried a used Natural Microsystems Watson on one of the SLT ports, with the KSU programmed to ring that extension on all incoming calls, but found programming the Watson to be a daunting task and ultimately that it wouldn't do what we wanted it to do, so we've been paying through the nose (about $200/month) for US West's Business Voice Messaging, which still doesn't really meet our needs (and which is a PITA to reconfigure remotely). Another disadvantage to using the Watson was that it'd only handle one incoming call at a time, so second and third callers would get ring, no answer, while it was busy with the first call. (The other existing SLT port's used for a "public" phone in the reception area.) With the Watson's "card system" of announcements, I could make our outgoing announcement in 3 parts, determine how they'd play, and edit only the part which needed to be changed. For example: 1001 "Thank-you for calling ... closed Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays." jump to 1003 1002 "Unfortunately no one is available ..." record 1003 "... will be closed for the ... holiday." jump to 1002 If no holiday was impending, all I had to do was change the "jump" instruction with card 1001 to go to 1002 instead of 1003; and all I had to change for each holiday was the announcement associated with 1003. The only way to do this with US West's voice messaging is to re-record the entire announcement at the router. US West voice mail boxes are limited to one main mail box and 3 "guest" mail boxes, but we've got one program with over a dozen employees (seemingly subject to change from week to week as people come and go). We need to have unlimited branching from the main selections, so the "organizational chart" of the voice mail system can approximate that of the organization: General greeting and list of programs. Agency Administration Director Assistant Director Etc. Program 1 Staff 1 Staff 2 Staff 3 Staff 4 Etc. Program 2 Staff 1 Staff 2 Staff 3 Staff 4 Etc. Etc. (A bonus would be the ability to look up names if the caller weren't sure which program it is with which the person being called is associated.) Of course it's got to be possible for someone to call in from outside and retrieve his or her messages; and it'd be a bonus if messages could be forwarded from one mail box to another if employee A determined a message should go to employee B. It would also be a bonus if the system could be programmed to call a pager after recording an incoming message. In presenting this to various local vendors, we've been told our only option is to replace the phone system, for a lot more money than we're prepared or willing to spend. (Remember I said it's paid for; and it meets our needs except for the voice mail aspect.) The most I could justify spending would be in the $2,000-$4,000 range (a year or two of the anticipated savings from dumping the US West voice messaging); and it'd take us a while to figure out where we were going to get even that (grants or other fundraising). What I'm envisioning would be something PC-based (DOS or Windows 3.1) with up to 4 ports that could be connected to up to 4 SLT ports on the MT-16H which can be easily configured or reconfigured at the console. Used/refurb is just fine! It's the result (and cost) which counts. :-) Bruce Wilson Urban Dreams 1400 Sixth Avenue Des Moines, IA 50314 (515) 288-4742 [10 AM - 6 PM, Central, M-F] (515) 284-5886 [24-Hour Fax] ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Switch Information Requested Date: 4 Nov 1997 21:18:38 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , PB Schechter wrote: > Colorado is currently looking for ways to "conserve" numbers in the 303 > area code. One idea that has come up is the possibility of turning > Central Office Codes from NXXs to XXXs. This would add about two million > numbers, and is possible because Colorado is going to use an overlay in > the 303 area, so ten digits will need to be dialed for all local calls. So, the first question is: Why go to XXX CO codes, if you have a new overlay available? > Some people have claimed that this might "break" some switches > (particularly, outside of the North American Numbering Plan). It seems > to me that, once a switch sees that a call is going "somewhere else" > (i.e., to a different area code), it won't even look at the remaining > digits (or, if it does, it won't care what they are). However, I am > not a switch expert. Switches care very much about every digit you dial. Dialing an area code doesn't mean the call isn't local, or even intra-switch. While a Colorado switch may only use the first 3 digits to route calls to Chicago's 312 area code, it certainly knows which other digits are valid and how many must be dialed before sending the call towards Illinois. If the switch is sitting about half-way between Colorado Springs and Denver, it may even have some 303, 970 and 719 lines within the same switch, and thus need to examine far more than 3 digits. > So, the request: (1) Does anyone know if there are any switches that > would complain about a CO code beginning with a 0 or a 1, even if they > dialed digit string does *not* begin with a 0 or a 1? (2) Does anyone > know how I can find this out? When USTA asked us this question in 1994 (regarding the expansion from 800-NXX-XXXX to 800-XXX-XXXX, as a means of deferring the 888 NPA), we looked at several of the road-blocks involved in "D-digit unblocking", the industry term for removing the current restriction on the 4th digit of NANP telephone numbers. But we only examined those issues with regard to Toll-Free numbers. Unblocking the "D" digit for geographic numbers will impact areas we did not examine. (For example, there are no line-test systems for Toll-Free numbers. But real lines have test-support systems that are likely to reject 7-digit line numbers beginning with 0/1.) The following is a modified version of our response to USTA, just to give you an idea of the impact. To get a more complete answer, should you wish, the usual means is to request the PUC to ask service providers to determine the impact on THEM, which will then result in questions to the appropriate vendors. However, you should also contact the North American Numbering Council (NANC) to get their perspective, since only they have the ability to permit allocation of such office codes. I suspect a letter from the Colorado PUC to NANC would be appropriate. Letters can be addressed to: Alan C. Hasselwander Chairman North American Numbering Council 4140 Clover Street Honeoye Falls, N.Y. 14472-9323 The NANC Web site is at: http://www.fcc.gov/ccb/Nanc and the latest (from this summer) report to the NANC by the Carrier Liaison Committee regarding NXX Exhaust alternatives is at: ftp://ftp.atis.org/pub/clc/clc/adhoc.doc The report does not mention D-digit unblocking because, I understand, it is not considered a viable short-term answer. But read the following first. I personally believe the effort needed would take far longer (and cost far more) than just turning up your overlay NPA, which you'll need eventually anyway. ---------------------- IMPACT ON THE ENTIRE NORTH AMERICAN NUMBERING PLAN REGION A. D-digit unblocking affects every switch inside the NANP, including Canada and many Carribean islands. (This assumes you want folks in Toronto to be able to dial 303-1XX-XXXX, for example.) Many switches would require development to both remove craft input restrictions on 0/1XX office codes and add the ability to route/screen numbers with those office codes. C. Inter-exchange carriers (MCI, etc.) will require modification to their switches, support systems and billing systems in order to route calls to and correctly bill calls from the new office codes. Some real-time database changes would be required if 0/1XX-XXXX lines are to be allowed to have 900, 800, 888, 700 or 500 NPA calls terminate to them. D. PBX owners and cellular mobile carriers through-out the NANP would require changes to their equipment and support systems. Some of the protocols supporting cellular roaming may need enhancements. E. Billing agents (LEC, IXC and AOS providers) and systems (Bellcore LERG, etc.) must support rating of calls to 0/1XX office codes. Also, since such "pseudo-codes" are used today as a means of assigning 10-digit "line-based" calling cards by some IXCs, all such calling cards beginning with 303 must be recalled and re-assigned. (Card-holders of these numbers are spread out over the entire country, not just in the 303 NPA.) F. Operator systems would need modifications to support receipt of 7-digit ANI (of the I+0/1XX-XXXX form) over CAMA facilities. Changes would also be needed to support LIDB access for line-based services, such as 3-party billing verification, collect call acceptance, etc. Directory Assistance systems will likely need changes to permit such numbers into their databases. G. Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) that stores, transmits or uses NANP numbers might be affected. This could include Caller ID units, ISDN devices, Enhanced Service Provider systems using ISDN or ANI-based interfaces, private customer-owned coin telephones and alarm systems. ----- IMPACT ON THE 303 NPA AND NEAR-BY AREAS H. All the support systems used to provision, administer and test customer lines on 303 NPA switches must be altered to recognize the new CO codes. This effort and time is likely to take longer than item A. above. (In some cases, a 0/1XX code is recognized as a test code either between switches or from test systems to a single switch. Changes in the protocol exchanged from switch-to-switch or switch-to-test-system would be required, as well as coordination of the installation of those changes.) ----- This is not an exhaustive list of the impact, but gives you an idea of the wide-spread impact of the change. If the introduction of Interchangable NPAs can be used as a measure of the effort and impact, it took 5 years to introduce, and several more years before CPE/PBX equipment was changed to allow dialing of NPAs like 970. The local switch effort for D-digit unblocking will likely be more substantial than the Interchangable NPA effort. Al Varney - not speaking officially for Lucent Technologies ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #303 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 6 21:31:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA14753; Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:31:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:31:32 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711070231.VAA14753@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #304 TELECOM Digest Thu, 6 Nov 97 21:31:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 304 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Slams Dad of [Texas] PUC Chairman (Jack Perdue) Book Review: "sendmail" by Costales/Allman (Rob Slade) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Al Varney) Speaking of Customer Service (Corky Sarvis) Call for Papers (David Loomis) Risks is Alive and Well (TELECOM Digest Editor) Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs (phs3@watvm.uwaterloo.edu) 900 Number Help (Steven Gaunt) RFD: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel (ghtrout@mail.execpc.com) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Al Varney) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jkp2866@unix.NOSPAM.tamu.edu (Jack Perdue) Subject: AT&T Slams Dad of [Texas] PUC Chairman Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 22:54:37 GMT Organization: Silicon Slick's Software, Supplies and Support Services This was so dang funny I just had to share it with the Digest. I especially like the part where the head of the PUC gets the runaround -- just like the rest of us. ;) jack jkp2866@cs.tamu.edu ------------------- From the November 5th, 1997 {Houston Chronicle} AT&T slams dad of PUC chairman Service switch draws attention to problem By POLLY ROSS HUGHES Copyright 1997 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau AUSTIN -- Telephone slamming victims, take heart. Even the father of Texas Public Utility Commission Chairman Pat Wood III is not immune. Long-distance giant AT&T, it turns out, slammed Port Arthur businessman Pat Wood Jr., who discovered last month that six of his nine business lines had been switched to a more expensive AT&T long-distance service. The practice, known as "slamming," is illegal and happens to be regulated by the PUC. But, for all his clout, Wood said, his personal efforts on behalf of his father led to two hours of frustrating runarounds that yielded few answers about what happened. "If the chairman of a state commission has this much difficulty with the world of `customer service,' how in hell can we expect the customers to navigate this maze?" Wood asked in a memo to PUC Commissioner Judy Walsh and other agency officials. "I had hoped that a competitive marketplace in long distance would've resulted in more high-quality customer service by now." AT&T also doesn't know how it could have surreptitiously switched the senior Wood's lines to more expensive AT&T services, said company spokesman Jim Van Orden. "We are investigating this case cited by PUC Chairman Wood," he said. "AT&T believes that even one accusation that we may have unintentionally slammed a customer is a concern." Van Orden said AT&T has the lowest slamming rate of residential customers tracked by the Federal Communications Commission in 1996, but he did not have comparable rankings for slamming of business customers. A new state law that went into effect Sept. 1 requires companies found guilty of slamming to pay the cost of switching customers back to original providers and to refund charges resulting from slamming. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:59:03 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "sendmail" by Costales/Allman BKSNDMAL.RVW 970705 "sendmail", Bryan Costales/Eric Allman, 1997, 1-56592-222-0, U$39.95/C$56.95 %A Bryan Costales bcx@bcx.com %A Eric Allman eric@cs.berkeley.edu %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-222-0 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$39.95/C$56.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 1050 %T "sendmail", 2nd ed. Sendmail might not be the heart of UNIX mail and communications services, but it certainly is a good portion of the autonomic nervous system. Although considered venerable by some, it is also extremely widely used. This book hopes to make sendmail administration not only easy, but fun. Quite a task. Part one of the book is tutorial in nature, starting with background information in chapter one. We are given a brief history and philosophy of sendmail, plus some description of the component parts, and the related Internet RFCs (Request For Comment) and technologies. (RFCs, the name to the contrary, are the descriptions of how Internet functions should work. In a sense, they are the standards of the Internet.) The tutorial covers the invocation and switches, the configuration file, mail delivery agents, macros, rules, rules and more rules, class macros, options, headers, and miscellaneous topics. Part two deals with administration and management, and runs you through the process of configuring, compiling and installing sendmail. It also has specifics of V8 as well as DNS (Domain Name Server). More advanced topics, such as security, the queue, aliases, mailing lists, forwarding, logging and statistics are now in a new part three. Part four is the reference, and chapters list the options for delivery agents; defined, class and database macros; options, headers, the command line and debugging. There are appendices and a bibliography. Because of the nature of the book, you will find a fair amount of material duplicated (for example between the tutorial on delivery agents, and the reference sections). However, the duplicated material, and the short chaptering make this an excellent reference work overall. The material is generally clear and well laid out. The tutorial section is definitely for the technically advanced: I suspect the authors have a ways to go before many people find sendmail "fun". copyright Robert M. Slade, 1993, 1997 BKSNDMAL.RVW 970705 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke http://www2.gdi.net/~padgett/trial.htm ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant Date: 6 Nov 1997 15:22:27 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > New York, NY November 5, 1997 (ICB TOLL FREE NEWS) In August, 1997, > the Federal Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld a district court > judgement between Playtime, Inc. and Worldcom, Inc., regarding the > toll-free number 1-800-FOR LEASE. > .... Rather, this case involved a finding by the jury that the > number wrongfully denied the plaintiff by WorldCom was, in and of > itself, worth $50K to the plaintiff. The jury was asked to determine the > "fair market value" of the number. > This case thus supports what toll-free advocates have argued to the FCC, > namely, that the oft-stated policy that numbers are a public resource > and that users do not obtain "ownership" rights in them, is not really > relevant to the issue of the commercial transfer of numbers. You can > legislate, regulate, and pontificate away all the "property" and > "ownership" rights you wish, but at the end of the day, toll free > customers still have a number of rights and benefits associated with the > particular toll free number assigned (or to be assigned) to them, and > that bundle of rights can often be quite valuable in a monetary sense. Judith, I can understand your basic argument, but have problems with some of the logical extensions of them. It would seem a property right in numbers similar to a TV station broadcast frequency license might be a reasonable claim. But to claim an ownership/right to a number that was never used in trade seems a stretch. If I "find" an 800 number with some alphabetic or even numeric attractiveness, have I established some right to that number at the moment of "discovery"? If I apply for that number through a RespOrg, do I have a right established at that point, even if the RespOrg (and indeed, the entire world) is unaware of my "discovery" of the number's value? [I'm not expecting an answer to each question -- they're just a means of exploring the problem domain. - ALV] Or do I have to apply for trademark protection of the "discovery" in order to claim it has a value? If I trademark something like 800-FOR-LEASE, but haven't applied to a RespOrg in order to become the assignee, do I have a right established at that point? What if the number is already in use (as 800-DMS-LEASE, perhaps by NorTel?). Do I still have a right associated with the NUMBER? Or just the 800-FOR-LEASE string? If I ask a RespOrg to assign me the number if/when NorTel releases it, and the number is grabbed by another RespOrg upon release, do I have a valid claim of damages? What if two RespOrgs are asked by two entities desiring the number (the Wyoming Department of Natural Resources wants 800-DNR-LEASE for an upcoming auction of grazing rights, and Playtime wants 800-FOR-LEASE). Does the industry need to establish a queue of potential assignees? If so, doesn't that mean that THOSE numbers have value while they are in the pool, and thus the FCC (and the taxpayers) should receive payment when assigning those numbers to customers? So, two basic questions: WHEN does an entity have a claim of ownership or "rights" in a TollFree number? And are there any circumstances under which the "public" would receive payment for use of this "public resource" (TollFree numbers) -- or is it only the assignees/buyers that financially benefit, and their brokers? If 800-FOR-LEASE is valuable to Playtime, why isn't it an asset of the FCC or the 800 number administrator or the RespOrg? Shouldn't Playtime have to "buy" the number, or is its value just created from thin air by the "discovery" of it's previously-untrademarked mnemonic or numerological (800-666-FACT) attributes? If "customers" can sell a number, could a RespOrg "buy" them? If so, would the RespOrg now be able to "sell" the number they previously had to "give away"? If a RespOrg purchases a number, but doesn't use it, does it then have to be returned to the pool? If the NANC decides expansion of the NANP requires expanding the 800 number format to more than 10 digits, can the entity with "rights" to 800-FLOWERS claim damages from the FCC, because it would be losing that "number"? Or would you argue that the entity is entitled to "protect" its interests by having first chance to be assigned the whole 800F-LOWE-RSxx range? Or would you argue the NANC has no legal right to expand the 800-number format, because some companies have "discovered" an eternal right to the current format? And the ultimate question: Do you feel comfortable having various courts answer these questions, or would you prefer that the FCC establish the rules? --------------- By the way, the FCC recently re-affirmed the "public resource" concept regarding numbers. On Oct. 20, 1997, regarding something AT&T might value more than any 800 number, (the 10288 carrier access code), the FCC stated: 58. Second, we find that VarTec's service mark argument fails. While we agree with VarTec that trademarks and service marks are property rights, we find that because CICs and CACs are telephone numbers and, therefore, a public resource, there can be no private ownership of them. We specifically reject VarTec's assertion that there is a lack of legal authority to support the propositions that NANP codes are a public resource, and that use of such codes does not confer ownership. (From Order extending deadline for 7-digit Carrier Access Codes, and effectively removes the 5-digit 10XXX Carrier Access Code from the NANP mid-1998. VarTec argued that existing 10XXX numbers should be grand-fathered and remain in the dialing plan, along with 1010XXXX codes. Two arguments against elimination of 10XXX were: - [it] takes VarTec's private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment and - [it] violates VarTec's commercial free speech rights under the First Amendment; These sound like arguments against format expansion of 800-numbers ... See http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97386.txt) Al Varney - just my (automatically copyrighted) opinion ------------------------------ From: Corky Sarvis Organization: Our Lady of the Lake University Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:51:12 CDT Subject: Speaking of Customer Service Pat, I thought that I would write this short article to (a.) document what has been happening with my MCI connection and (b.) to see if anyone else have been having the same "challenges". Last Tuesday (28 October 1997), I noticed a marked lack of numeric pages being received by my Nationwide Pager provided by MCI. I usually receive 10-15 calls per day on it. I found some time late that morning and called the 1-800 number for Customer Service. About a month ago, we changed telephone numbers at home. I told the MCI representative at that time that we were changing numbers and that I wanted my pager, 800 and 500 service, as well as my long-distance service to follow from the old number to the new number. He said, "No problem! I can take care of that for you." Well, take care of it, he did! My long-distance at the new home number is working and is through MCI. (I verified it through the 1-700 number.) However, the pager, 800 and 500 numbers didn't make the jump. As I said, I called the 1-800 number for Customer Service. They fiddle- faddled around and kept me on-hold for quite some time. Finally, the representative came back on and told me, rather snipily, actually, that since I had terminated service with them that it would be three to four business days to switch the pager, 800 and 500 numbers back on. I asked her if this time delay could be shortened. More snipily, she said that "no", nothing could be done. I went back to my planner and told her the day, date, time and person that I spoke with and what this chap said that he could do by " ... taking care of me." Again, almost rudely now, she said no such help. Still, my fault. So, being the patient sort of person that I am, I waited. Today is the 5th of November. It has been a bit longer than the three to four business days. The 800 number and 500 number are back alive. They need to be programmed correctly. However, the digital, nationwide pager is still dead as a doornail. I called the techno-geeks this morning and got told that they could see the order to "reinstate your service" in the computer but couldn't tell me when it would be reinstated. I called the customer representatives and had a very nice conversation with a lady who took all of my information all over again. She said that she, too, could see the original order from the 28th of October. However, she was going to put a double-rush on the reinstatement and that I should have my Nationwide pager back-on sometime later this week or maybe the next. Has anyone else observed or experienced such cavalier behaviour on the part of an otherwise, formally top-drawer company? Talking to the droids at MCI is like talking to the IRS. Information, if provided, when provided, may or may not be correct and certainly won't be in a timely manner or even accurate. Comments? Corky Sarvis, Director Weekend College and Special Programs Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, Texas, USA ...................................................................... Robert J. "Corky" Sarvis, M.B.A. Weekend College & Special Programs Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. ...................."I Can! I Will! I Shall!........................ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 11:01:24 -0600 From: David Loomis Subject: Call for Papers CALL FOR PAPERS 16th Annual INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS FORECASTING CONFERENCE Demand Analysis and Technology Forecasting in the Information Age June 9-12, 1998 Hyatt Regency at Union Station St. Louis, Missouri U.S.A. Hosted by Illinois State University 16th Annual International Communications Forecasting Conference http://www.econ.ilstu.edu/icfc/home.htm The International Communications Forecasting Conference (ICFC) is a professional forum for forecasters, demand analysts, market researchers, product managers, statisticians, academics, and consultants within, or interested in, the communications industry. The ICFC provides insight into and analysis of existing and emerging issues as they pertain to communications forecasting, planning, demand analysis, market research and cost analysis. The theme of the 1998 conference is "Demand Analysis and Technology Forecasting in the Information Age." Advances in technology, intensifying competition, and the evolving regulatory framework create opportunities and risks for all the industry participants. The evolving global communications industry affords unprecedented international competition and cooperation. Convergence has erased industry lines between communications, information and entertainment providers, and technology is eliminating distinctions between wireline, wireless, and satellite services. The conference will include plenary sessions, concurrent sessions and tutorials. Professionals and academics with expertise in telecommunications demand, market analysis, forecasting, product management, industry competition, technology and related fields are strongly invited to submit papers for the concurrent sessions on areas of interest as listed below. Please submit abstracts of 200 words or less by mail, fax or e-mail on or BEFORE MARCH 2, 1998 to: (preferred mode is e-mail) ... David G. Loomis Tel: 309-438-7979 Illinois State University Fax: 309-438-5228 Department of Economics e-mail: dloomis@ilstu.edu Campus Box 4200 Normal IL 61790-4200 Abstracts will be reviewed by the Conference Planning Committee and notification of acceptance will be given by March 31, 1998. Presentations should be about 20 minutes followed by a brief discussion. If more time is required for your proposed presentation or you have any special audio-visual or computer requirements, please indicate so in your abstract. All presenters are required to register for the conference under the early registration fee. A limited number of registration scholarships may be available to academic and government presenters. Papers presented at the conference are also eligible to be included in a conference publication. Organized by Representatives from: AT&T Ameritech Bell Atlantic Bell Canada Bellcore Bell South Cincinnati Bell GTE ICG Telecom Group Lucent Technologies MCI Nokia SBC Communications SNET Sprint Telstra (Australia) US West WIK (Germany) **************************************** David G. Loomis Email: dloomis@ilstu.edu Illinois State University Voice: (309) 438-7979 Department of Economics FAX: (309) 438-5228 Campus Box 4200 Normal, IL 61790-4200 Web Site: http://odin.cmp.ilstu.edu/~dloomis/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 20:16:16 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Risks is Alive and Well I suppose I have received at least three dozen replies in the past several days responidng to Rick DeMattia's inquiry regarding RISKS. In every case the respondent said RISKS is indeed alive and wll, and being published regularly. Several respondents did say that Usenet propogation of RISKS is not that great; I would say the same about this Digest. Anyway, I hope that answers the question. PAT ------------------------------ From: p.h.s.3.@watvm.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Fujitsu vs. Lucent ACDs Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:54:16 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services Our office is considering Fujitsu and Lucent ACDs/PBXs to replace an ancient ROLM (the cream-colored phones, *not* a 9751; I'm not even sure what vintage it is). I'm sure either would be better than this 1980s technology, but does anyone have any good/bad experiences with either to suggest? TIA ..phsiii Remove dots from userid portion of From: to reply. ------------------------------ From: Steven Gaunt Subject: 900 Number Help Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:19:24 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Is there anyway to fight the charges for a 900 Call? I had notified BellSouth about two years ago that I wanted 900/976 blocking. Two months ago, a $75 charge showed up. Upon some checking, it seems my 11 year old had dialed a Physic 800 number that rolled to a 900 number. I called BellSouth and they essentially said to bad! I needed to call the carrier of that call. So I finally got through to ATT's 900 complaint line and the end result with them was tough. I had to pay the charge. Well, I still have not paid the charge, but I am getting hounded by ATT to do so. Any suggestions? Will a state's PSC do anything or will I end up paying the charge. Thanks in advance, Steve Gaunt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Absolutely do NOT pay the charge. Quite simply, your local carrier and AT&T violated their own rules by charging you for the call. You already were on record with both (they subscribe to and use the same common database as does MCI and Sprint and all local telcos) as a subscriber who requested no 900/976 charges, nor the essence of same. It is unreasonable for any telco to assume an eleven year old child is sophisticated enough to understand that a traditionally 'toll- free' number can be converted, and although I am not certain what the latest rules are, my belief is that it is illegal for carriers to convert the charges in the way this was done. Are you otherwise a subscriber of AT&T? If so, this might be a perfect reason to simply take all your long distance business elsewhere. As unlikely as it is that their corporate left hand will know what their right hand is doing, chances are in a month or three, they'll be sending you a hundred dollar bribery payment to get you back as a customer anyway, and if you wish just use that check to pay off the psychic charge if they have not already written it off by then. If they choose to give you the 'access to the AT&T network is denied' routine, well that will really be a big loss for you won't it ... ... I know when they ran an Ameritech billing tape twice and double billed me then refused for months to correct it and finally cut me off, I was terribly upset about it ... I just tossed a couple more of my lines over to Frontier and kissed AT&T goodbye. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ghtrout@mail.execpc.com Subject: RFD: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:20:39 -0600 Organization: Exec-PC BBS Internet - Milwaukee, WI REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD) Unmoderated group - comp.dcom.telecom.nortel This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of a worldwide unmoderated Usenet newsgroup: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below. NEWSGROUP LINE: - comp.dcom.telecom.nortel - Technical discussions of Nortel telecommunications products and systems. RATIONALE: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel Nortel (previously Northern Telecom) telecommunications equipment is installed in more businesses than any other manufacturer. Having a Usenet newsgroup for Nortel system owners, technicians and administrators will provide an excellent forum to ask questions and obtain answers about Nortel equipment. Nortel designs, manufactures, and supplies a breadth of products for digital networks of all kinds, but is most commonly known as the manufacturer of the Meridian, Norstar and DMS line of business telephone systems. Customers are typically local and long-distance telecommunications companies, cellular mobile radio and personal communications services providers, businesses, universities, governments, cable television companies, competitive local access providers, and other network operators around the world. CHARTER: comp.dcom.telecom.nortel This group would encourage posting of material relating to the installation, administration, maintenance and new technologies relevant in the Nortel line of business telecommunications equipment. Posts might include questions and answers about system programming, hardware setup, product capabilities, sources for third party add-ons, vendor recommendations, user group meetings, product bulletins, and similar posts. The group would be unmoderated. Suppliers, as well as end-users of the equipment would be invited, as this would offer the widest range of talent and information for the reader. Binaries, spam, scams, flames, libel; etc. would be discouraged and should not be posted in this newsgroup. PROCEDURE: This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens. All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups. This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any questions about the process. DISTRIBUTION: This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.dcom.telecom comp.dcom.telecom comp.dcom.telecom.tech news.announce.newgroups news.groups Proponent: Gene T. ghtrout@mail.execpc.com http://www.execpc.com/~ghtrout/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This was posted as a courtesy here since many readers may enjoy such a forum; however please conduct the requisite discussion in the unmoderated groups noted above. PAT] ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Linc Madison wrote: > Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing > 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing > from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed > that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". You'll find this at: The answer is: June 30, 1998 > Also, after the discontinuation of 10XXX, will all codes be 101XXXX, or > will they at some point generalize to 10XXXXX? > (Where do I sign up for my own code, so my friends can dial 10XXXXX-0-# > if they don't want to bother with my 800 number? ;-P ;-b ;-P ) The document also addresses these issues. The NANC and INC have rules that probably preclude low-usage XXXXX assignment, unless you can demonstrate significant calling traffic. You're better off trying to get your own 950-XXXX number -- and the FG-B tariff is usually cheaper than FG-D. Al Varney - just my opinion ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #304 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Nov 7 22:01:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA15651; Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:01:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:01:31 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711080301.WAA15651@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #305 TELECOM Digest Fri, 7 Nov 97 22:01:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 305 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Local MCI Service Difficulty Switching LD Provider (Jim Lawson) "Local Long Distance" Slammers (Gordon S. Hlavenka) Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule (Lisa Hancock) Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule (Adam Gaffin) How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Roy Smith) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Ed Ellers) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (B. Wilson) Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California (Lee Winson) Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California (Adam H. Kerman) Employment Opportunity: Systems Engineer Needed (dje@dmc22.com) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: WECO 500 Schematic (Lee Winson) Re: 900 Number Help (Michelle Durbin) Re: 900 Number Help (Eli Mantel) Re: Risks is Alive and Well (Pete Weiss) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jcl@earthling.net (Jim Lawson) Subject: Local MCI Service Difficulty Switching LD Provider Date: 7 Nov 1997 14:13:16 GMT Organization: Home I currently have MCI as my local phone service provider (no price difference from GTE, I just wanted off GTE). This past September I recieved an offer from AT&T for $100 if I switched to their LD service. I rang them and asked to be switched. A couple of weeks later I rang the 700-555-4141 and learned that I had not been switched. I called MCI and they said the number sometimes lagged and their computers said I was switched. I waited a week longer and there was no change. After calling AT&T and confirming my account was active and the request had been made to MCI to switch me I called MCI and told them to do so. Assuming they could handle that I left it alone till I got a postcard from AT&T stating they were having difficulty assuming my LD service. So I called them up and together we sat on hold with MCI for about an hour and finally spoke to a MCI rep. That rep stated that at first they had attempted to switch my local service to AT&T and since that wasn't a option where I live had switched me back to them. I then asked AT&T to put another service switch request into MCI and the MCI rep said it would take maybe five days. Two weeks pass and I'm still hearing the 700 number say MCI and AT&T has not recieved any of my toll calls. I call MCI and they say I was switched, I call AT&T and they say they aren't seeing any calls yet. I'm now waiting for a MCI supervisor to call me back. I'm now tempted to switch back to GTE who could at least handle switching of my LD carrier. I'm also concerned that any internaional and toll calls made during this period are not being carried at MCI's international rate since their computer thinks I'm not with them. :-( Jim Lawson jcl@earthling.net http://www.concentric.net/~jcl666 mst3k#3801 Kilgore Trout: "The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest." ------------------------------ From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Subject: "Local Long Distance" Slammers Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:20:59 -0600 Organization: Crash Electronics, Inc. Reply-To: gordon@crashelex.com Today I got a call from an Ameritech representative. Apparently, there's a federally mandated surcharge on my phone bill which I could eliminate if I make a "minor change" to my "Local Long Distance" billing arrangements. We conversed for about five minutes, with me becoming more suspicious all along. Was this going to change my Long Distance carrier? No, just the way my local long distance was billed. What about my inbound 800 service? That would still be billed seperately by my LD carrier, however my "local long distance" would now appear right on my Ameritech bill, and this federally-mandated surcharge would be reduced or eliminated. The flags really started to wave when I discovered that she didn't know about my second line, and needed my full name and street address "for verification" (although she was typing furiously in the background). The jig was up when she announced that she was now going to transfer me to a "verification operator" to complete the billing change. Sure enough, the verification operator started reading off what my new rates were going to be (25 cents per minute for most calls) and when I asked if I was about to change my LD carrier she said yes. So of course, I said I was NOT going to authorize any such change, then hung up and immediately called Ameritech to make sure both of my lines are PIC'ed to the correct carrier and locked down. An AltaVista search for "Local Long Distance" (the name of the company I was about to switch to) turned up: Daniel Coleman President Coleman Enterprises, Inc. dba Local Long Distance 28 West Fifth Street Suite 480 St. Paul, MN 55102 As a LD reseller in Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Nebraska. The Rhode Island PUC is kind enough to divulge full contact info on this company at: http://www.ripuc.org/rec00001/r0000219.htm Point is, I've been reading c.d.t for over five years. I'm no genius, but I'd put myself in the 90th percentile WRT telecom literacy, and these goofs almost got me. I shudder to think what the average telecom consumer would suffer at their hands. The IL Atty. General's office said they were not interested unless I was actually switched, which (so far) has not happened. Gordon S. Hlavenka www.crashelex.com gordon@crashelex.com Grammar and spelling flames welcome. Some of us still think it's important. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This reminds me of the joker here in Chicago who opened a business several years ago called 'Telephone Company Repair Service' ... that was the legal name of his company. He then had telemarketers phone everyone they could find telling them about his repair service and how they could pay a 'small premium' each month, billed separately from their phone bill of course, to have unlimited repairs made to their phones and lines as needed. He even stumbled upon a loophole which was that Ameritech did not have (nor any other Bell Company) a copyright on the 'walking fingers' emblem and he used that on his bills which he sent out monthly. The Illinois Attorney General's office finally closed him down but they were only able to do it when one of the telemarketers slipped up when asked, 'Are you part of Illinois Bell?' and said yes ... to an IBT employee called at home. If not for that little accident by his telemarketers he had stayed *barely* within the law. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule Date: 6 Nov 1997 01:06:17 GMT Organization: Net Access BBS > [AT&T] will replace its domestic basic schedule's day, evening and > night/weekend time periods with peak, off-peak and weekend time periods > and will eliminate all mileage bands. Calls will be priced at a single > rate during each time period, regardless of distance. I wonder how well this will be publicized. For some people, their phone bills will jump significantly: * Many people wait until 5pm for Evening rate to kick in. They will have to wait until 7pm with this change. * Many people wait until 11pm for the Night-Wkd rate to kick in. They will have to wait for the weekend to get the maximum discount. On the other hand, many people call Sunday night thinking weekend rate is still in effect. They'll save money now. I suspect increased use of automated computer dialing is partly responsible for this. When the old rate schedule was established about 20-25 years ago, most data transmissions were set up by a person, and there was nowhere near the volume of them. Personal facsimile was off in the future. Now many people have automated fax and computers programmed to transmit overnight. I still think rates should have some mileage basis. Living near several LATA boundaries, a five mile call for me goes over AT&T, and I pay far more for that than an equivalent local call. My local Bell company remains NOT allowed to carry such calls, even though now AT&T can carry regional toll calls in competition to it. I also wonder how this change will affect Calling Card and Credit Card calls from coin and non-coin phones. The "surcharges" put on such calls makes rate calculation really confusing. Frankly, I believe they're doing that intentionally, a confused consumer will end up paying more. ------------------------------ From: Adam Gaffin Subject: Re: AT&T Simplifies Basic Long Distance Rate Schedule Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 15:15:41 -0500 Organization: Network World Fusion Reply-To: agaffin@nww.com From Network World Fusion today: "AT&T is raising prices on all of its key data and voice services today. The move is likely to boost costs even for AT&T users on term contracts, most of whom do not have protection against price hikes because of the telecom industry's unique tariffing system." Increases range from 3.9% to 10% depending on service. You can get the complete story at: http: //www.nwfusion.com/news/1105att.html If you're not already an NWFusion user, you'll have to register first (it's free, at least). A dialog box'll pop up, hit Cancel to get to our registration page (unfortunately, when done, you'll be put onto our home page instead of the above - we recently move to a new server and still have some work to do). Adam Gaffin Online Editor, Network World agaffin@nww.com / (508) 820-7433 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:07:00 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Organization: NYU School of Medicine, Educational Computing No, I'm not talking about cable TV. I'm talking about the old cable message system. Our letterhead says "Cable Address: NYUMEDIC". What exactly is one supposed to do with that piece of information if they wanted to send me a message by cable? Can I just walk into a PTT in Mongolia and tell the clerk "I want to send this to Roy Smith, at NYUMEDIC", and he'll do something magic? Who runs this? Is it some separate physical network? Does it still actually exist in any useful way, or is the address on our letterhead just an anachronism left over from long ago, since gone the way of the telegram? Roy Smith New York University School of Medicine 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In brief, a 'cable address' was simply a short form or abbreviated form of a longer telex/TWX number much like 'Enterprise' was a short form of a business telephone number. Unlike 'Enterprise', cable addresses did not automatically signify the message could be sent collect however. It was up to each subscriber with a cable address to make that decision. You rarely see cable addresses any longer for the simple reason you rarely see telex/TWX/telegram messages any longer. Consider them if you will as simply an alias address used for business purposes to make the recipient easier to remember/correspond with. Lots and lots of business places had cable addresses when telegraphy was a common method of communication. Strictly speaking, 'telegrams' were domestic, intra-USA only messages through the Western Union monopoly. 'Cablegrams' were messages to or from the United States going overseas to other countries, however the term 'cable address' was used in both services. Cable addresses were maintained by whatever international organization coordinated telegraph services. Offhand I remember a few from long ago: BEACON HILL was an organization in Massachusetts; SYMPHONY was the Chicago Symphony Orchestra; FBI was the Federal Bureau of Investigation; HOUSEREPS, WHITEHOUSE, and CAPITOLHILL should be obvious. Then there was FINEART for radio station WFMT in Chicago. When I worked in the phone room at the University of Chicago, the telex machine located there was UNIVCHGO. All could be reached with a numerical address as well. Yes, you should be able to go to any PTT and send a cablegram to a cable address in lieu of the corresponding numerical address if indeed the location still is using a telex machine. For that matter if Western Union still accepts telegrams via their 800 number in St. Louis (no longer billable to your phone and no longer deliverable by a young boy on a bicycle who rides up to your house with a piece of paper in one hand while his other palm is outstretched waiting for a monetary gift or tip) you can send telegrams to cable addresses as well. The response from the message-taker would probably be very similar to that of an AT&T operator asked to establish a connection with a toll-station; i.e. a bit of head scratching and denial at first, but it can be done. Are you sure you are not using some *very old* stationary? Do you still have telex service there at your school? Honestly I am not sure cable addresses still exist, even if some modicum of telex/TWX service is still around. If they do, that's how they work. WUTCO used to charge their hardwired customers (those with telegraph equipment on their premises) about one or two dollars per month to maintain the 'address' in their database. It could also be flagged to indicate whether or not 'automatic reverse charge' (collect) telegrams were acceptable or not. I hope that answers your question. Oh, before I forget: guess which entity had the cable address TITANIC nearly a century ago? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 19:19:26 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Al Varney wrote: "It would seem a property right in numbers similar to a TV station broadcast frequency license might be a reasonable claim." FWIW, broadcasters do *not* have a property right in the normal sense in their licenses; when a station is sold the seller has to apply to the FCC to transfer the license to the buyer, and the Commission can deny that transfer if it sees a problem with the buyer. The FCC, of course, can also revoke a license at any time under its regulations, which must comply with the Communications Act. Among other things, the FCC usually doesn't allow a broadcast license to be sold separately from the real and other property of the station in question, so someone who has just obtained a license can't just turn around and sell it; s/he has to actually put the station on the air, somehow, and then sell the operating station. (One Louisville FM station licensee got around that a few years ago by renting a spare transmitter from Clear Channel Communications, which operated two stations here and has more now. Clear Channel downlinked a satellite-fed country music service, put it on the new licensee's frequency with its spare transmitter, and signed the new call letters as required. This went on for several months, during which the licensee found a buyer and made a deal to sell the station; this complied with the letter of the FCC rules since the station was in operation, but no physical assets were sold -- the guy didn't own any to sell!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 08:50:13 -0500 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant In article , Judith Oppenheimer writes: > This opinion will not necessarily be binding on the FCC. The case does > not turn on an interpretation of any federal communications law or FCC > rule or policy. But, even though it is not absolutely binding on the > FCC, it is nonetheless a very useful precedent. It can't hurt, and it > may help advance the cause of toll-free users. Nowhere in all this verbiage was it said which appellate court this was or a cite to a published or slip opinion given, which makes it almost impossible to assess the potential significance of this opinion, nor is anything said as to whether Worldcom asserted lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was exclusively within that of the FCC and how that issue was disposed of (if it was raised) or whether the FCC may have "participated" by way of an amicus brief and how the issues raised in its brief (if there were one) were disposed of. In general terms, decisions aren't binding on anyone not a party to the litigation; and a Federal appellate court decision has precedential value only within the appellate jurisdiction (i.e., a Second Circuit decision is only precedent within the Second Circuit, for example). Although another Circuit Court of Appeals or a District Court within another circuit might find it persuasive, it's free to reach a contrary decision; and it's only decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court which establish precedent binding on all of the circuits and trial courts within them. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California Date: 5 Nov 1997 04:42:25 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Mark, thanks for the interesting report. Some questions I'd like to share with the newsgroup ... 1) I'm curious as to if the AT&T operators would know how to connect you if you did NOT give them the operator dialing code -- just said "Drakesbad Number 2 in Susanville California". Normally, that's all you would know. [When I've used Enterprise numbers in recent years, the typical AT&T operator has no idea what I'm talking about and refuses to do anything until I provide a proper number. One even cut me off. I have to ask them to get a supervisor to explain how to look it up. (Several AT&T operators referred me back to the local Bell operator, who then referred me back to AT&T.) One time the AT&T operator placed the call as collect, but asked the called party if they'd accept it -- on an Enterprise call, that's supposed to be a given.] 2) When AT&T first began giving discounts for dialed direct calls (1970s?) there were a few places that still didn't have DDD service. For those places, or for when a customer had trouble making the call, AT&T always charged the dialed-direct rate even if the operator placed the call. I don't know what today's rate plans are, but by that tradition you should be billed the dialed direct rate. Also, I thought on operator-handled rates that the operator surcharge is only on the first minute and that subsequent minutes are the same as dialed direct. Further, aren't there now two classes of operator handled -- one sort of an "self-serve" type-dial 0+ and enter your calling card, and the other a "full serve"? Regardless of how they bill you, it might be interesting to call them and ask for an explanation when you get the bill. I'll bet their customer service people won't have a clue on it! ------------------------------ From: ahk@chinet.chinet.com (Adam H. Kerman) Subject: Re: Ringdown - Drakesbad No.2 California Date: 5 Nov 1997 00:14:50 -0600 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote about tol-stations. Mark, that was a terrific article, as always. BTW, when I call the AT&T operator, I just flash after I hear the two-tone bong; I never dial 0#. Does this work universally? ------------------------------ From: dje@dmc22.com Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:03:00 CST Subject: Employment Opportunity: Systems Engineer Needed I am looking to hire a Systems Engineer to provide Pre-Sales technical support, perform product technical presentations and demonstrations for networking software installed on Unix, Novell and Windows NT platforms. The requirements include: Knowlege of one or more of the previously mentioned platforms, strong communication skills, and the ability to get people excited about new technologies. We're one of the largest software companies in the world. Candidate can report to any one of three offices in New Jersey (southern, central and northern). Compensation 50,000 - $90,000, outstanding benefits (including company paid medical and dental). Company that has been consistantly rated one of the best companies to work for in North America. If you know someone that would be interested I can be contacted at: Dave Eide Voice: (609) 584-9000 ext 273 Fax (609) 584-9575 Email dje@dmc22.com ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 7 Nov 1997 16:42:07 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT, Al Varney wrote: > In article , Linc Madison > wrote: >> Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing >> 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing >> from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed >> that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". > You'll find this at: > > The answer is: June 30, 1998 Well, as I noted in a post that PAT apparently ditched because I cross-posted it to .tech, my latest Nortel News says that the end of permissive is 31 Dec 97. Alas, the post didn't make it into .tech either, for some reason, so here it is again. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that it did not make it into the .tech group either implies perhaps it never got to either place; that perhaps it got lost leaving your machine for some reason. There are times I will cross-post here from .tech; no hard rule about it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: WECO 500 Schematic Date: 6 Nov 1997 00:22:15 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Per the question about wiring older telephone sets ... A book has been published for telephone collectors explaining wiring: "Old Time Telephones! Technology restoration and repair" by Ralph O. Meyer, published by TAB Books (div of McGraw Hill), (c) 1996. Tab Books--Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17294-0850 It is schematics and explanations for a large variety of older telephone instruments and components. [I would suggest not mixing components from a 500 set with a 300 set because of incompatibility in the internal set network and handsets.] ------------------------------ From: Michelle Durbin Subject: Re: 900 Number Help Date: 7 Nov 1997 16:09:47 GMT Organization: West Coast Online's News Server - Not responsible for content I had over $200 in calls on my phone bill for some 900 number calls, and I didn't have 900/976 call blocking at the time. But once I assured the AT&T rep that the calls were made without my permission/ knowledge, they agreed to remove the charges. They told me that by law they have to do this the first time that you request them to do so. The next time you will be charged regardless. It was at that point that I requested that all 900 or 976 number be blocked. However, even this will not protect you fully. Weeks later a charge of about $30 appeared for a long distance number (212-something). I asked the phone co if there was any way to block these non-900/976 calls, and they say there was no way they could block them. Yet I was charged much more than the regular long distance rate for that area code - The call lasted less than 10 minutes. The phone co told me to call the company that billed me. I did and they were totally uncooperative. I demanded that they remove the charges, but the best I could get was for him to offer a 50% discount. A discount?!?!? Like a fool I refused the discount, thinking I would be able to get the charges taken off. But I didn't get around to doing research into what my rights are in this case, and I ended up paying for the call. Does anyone know about how to block calls, or get charges removed for calls which are not 900/976 numbers, but bill at a higher rate than standard long distance rates? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ask your local telco and/or your long distance carrier (if one of the big three) to add you to the 'billed number screening' database. All the reputable carriers dip this same common database before allowing certain kinds of billing to your number to occur. Once listed there, 'collect' calls to your number will be denied by the carrier originating the call; they will not even bother to ask your permission, but instead advise their (originating call) customer that 'the number you are calling does not allow collect calls'. Likewise, third- party pay calls will be rejected at the source with similar advice given to the caller. Taking that step will eliminate most hassles with unauthorized charges. The reason it will not work in all cases is because not all of the long distance carriers and/or information provider billing services such as Integratel, Pilgrim Telephone and a few others use the database. Integratel does have its own similar database but you need to call them direct to be included on theirs. I do not know what Pilgrim does; and it might not hurt to list your number(s) also with IDS (?) and with Opticom, out of Carmel, IN. Both are big COCOT/AOS services. But if you get listed by the big three along with Integratel and your local carrier, you'll have covered about 95 percent of the territory. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eli Mantel Subject: Re: 900 Number Help Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:45:33 PST Steven Gaunt wrote: > I called BellSouth and they essentially said too bad! I needed to > call the carrier of that call. So I finally got through to ATT's > 900 complaint line and the end result with them was tough. I had > to pay the charge. In our moderator's zeal to assert the righteousness of your position, he failed to mention that on top of everything else, your local phone service cannot be terminated for failure to pay such unregulated charges. I believe the proper protocol is to notify the local phone company that you dispute the charge. As an unregulated charge, it will be removed immediately and the information provider will be so notified. If you assert to the local phone company that you refuse to pay for 900/976 charges under any circumstances, they may be obliged to block such calls. (Of course, you can say "Thank you very much. That's what I already asked for.") The information provider has the right to pursue legal remedies through other channels, such as small claims court. There is the potential for reporting your non-payment to a credit bureau, but I believe there are special rules that apply to reporting non-payment of 900/976 calls. Since it seems that AT&T is acting as the agent of the information provider, they might choose to cut off your long distance service. Since there seem to be plenty of other companies who would appreciate your business, that shouldn't be much of a problem. Eli Mantel aka the Cagey Consumer ------------------------------ From: Pete-Weiss@psu.edu (Pete Weiss) Subject: Re: Risks is Alive and Well Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 10:12:45 -0500 Organization: Penn State University -- Office of Administrative Systems When in doubt, check the WEB site: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks /Pete Weiss at Penn State ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #305 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sat Nov 8 21:52:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA27999; Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:52:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 21:52:09 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711090252.VAA27999@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #306 TELECOM Digest Sat, 8 Nov 97 21:52:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 306 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Random Thoughts on Payphone Deregulation (Dave Levenson) Ameritech ISDN Warning (Kyler Laird) New Brunswick, Canada Toll-Free Directories on Web (Nigel Allen) Wireless Quiz & Information (David Crowe) Telco Racks (Adept Care) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Al Varney) Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? (Brett Frankenberger) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Tom Watson) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Jack Hamilton) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Roy Smith) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (oldbear@arctos.com) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Random Thoughts on Payphone Deregulation Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 21:39:45 EST From: Dave Levenson Organization: Westmark, Inc. Reply-To: dave@westmark.com By way of introduction, I own a small business which operates approximately 50 payphones in urban northeastern New Jersey. Our payphones still charge 20 cents for local calls, as they did in the days of state regulation. They sell long distance calls to any point in the continental U.S. for $0.25 per minute. Zero-plus calls, by default, go to Bell Atlantic for intraLATA, or AT&T for interLATA and interstate destinations. We do not ask either of these carriers to impose any surcharge on these calls, though AT&T has recently announced a 35-cent surcharge on calls from payphones. On October 7, the New Jersey BPU no longer regulated the prices we charge for local calls. (They never regulated non-local calls.) The press covered this change in regulation, and mentioned that some telephone companies had already increased the price of local calls; the number 35 cents was mentioned. Over the last three or four weeks, as I have made my rounds cleaning, collecting, and repairing our payphones, I have been asked (by passers-by, and by the proprietors of several small businesses where our phones are located) when our price would go up to 35 cents. My answer is that we have no plans, at present, to increase prices. The public seems to like this answer. The proprietors (who receive a commission from us, based upon the operating profit of the phone) sometimes don't. When asked by proprietors, I usually ask them something like: "If you increased the price of that can of beans from $0.79 to $1.40, would you make more money or less money?" Their answer is always that they would make less money -- because there is another grocer only a block away. "There's another payphone, even closer!" is my reply. The real answer, of course, is more complex. There are other payphones. There are also wireless phones. In the past, state-imposed rate regulations were based upon a subsidy which was paid to the local exchange carrier by all telephone service subscribers, and subsidized the carrier's payphones. By law, that subsidy ended last April. (Your local telephone service cost has gone down, now that your're no longer subsidizing your carrier's payphones, hasn't it? No? Well isn't that interesting!) We don't subsidize carrier-owned payphones, or COCOTs, or cellular service; this is a level playing field and we are all competing with each other. If our costs for the service we sell via payphones are increased, we'll probably have to increase our prices...but we're beginning to be able to shop around for that in a competitive market, also. If our location-providers ask us to increase prices, we may be forced to comply. On the other hand, we used to be forced to use the revenues from local coin calls to subsidize the provision of 800 calls from our payphones, but now we're entitled to share in the carrier's revenue for those calls. They make up about 25% of the total traffic from all of the payphones, and over 90% at one or two phones. We plan to stay below the price of cellular, and below or equal to the price of coin calls from Bell Atlantic payphones. We're above the price of calls from most residential phones -- but if you have a residential phone, then you pay a fixed monthly charge in addition to the per-call price. You pay this charge even if you only call 800 numbers (which means that those calls are not `free' from home, either). ------------------------------ From: laird@freedom.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) Subject: Ameritech ISDN Warning Date: 8 Nov 1997 18:24:36 GMT Organization: Purdue University My wife is back in school at IU and I'm still at Purdue, so she has a townhouse in Bloomington, Indiana. I've finally gotten her hooked on using e-mail and she uses it at work, so I decided to get a SS10 for her townhouse (so I can have something nice to work on when I'm there, too). ISDN is the only way to go in Bloomington. CDPD isn't available (RAM is, but...), the cable co. hasn't yet discovered the Internet and the telco doesn't appear to have any other xDSL plans. (I did investigate an "alarm circuit" with HDSL modems, but it just got too difficult.) So ... I signed up with the only reasonable ISDN provider in town, BlueMarble.net, and they helped me order my ISDN line. Just ordering it was an ordeal. The woman who took the order (with the ISP and me both on the line) was a moron. She had great difficulty and let someone else just take care of it. Later that week, I received a call from Ameritech with the details. It would take over three weeks to install. My wife was getting anxious, but this gave me time to get the computer purchased and set up. The line was installed when promised, Oct. 24. Unfortunately, no one was home, so the installer decided not to connect the line to the inside wires. I spent the evening on the (cellular) phone with my wife trying to figure out why she couldn't get a signal. So ... she called back to get the wires connected since I wasn't going to be down there for over a week. Eventually the installer showed up again. This time, however, he told her that she could not use ISDN at all unless she had RJ-45 jacks installed at every existing jack. She was tired of waiting, so she believed this idiot and he proceeded to *stick* RJ-45 jacks on the freshly-painted walls. Unfortunately I wasn't available when this was happening, but I went ballistic when I heard. Now I'm down in Bloomington learning the fine art of drywall repair and painting because this jerk coerced my wife into letting him install jacks that we did not want or need. (I have no use for any RJ-45 jacks except for Ethernet and I'll take care of that later -- and not with stick-on jacks.) I'm waiting to see if we get billed for this fiasco. I'm tempted to bill Ameritech for my time and materials to repair the damage. Enough venting for now ... My advice: 1. Don't let an Ameritech phone installer inside your house. 2. Don't leave your wife alone with an Ameritech phone installer. 3. Do everything you can yourself if you want it done correctly. --kyler ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:13:18 EST From: Nigel Allen Subject: New Brunswick, Canada Toll-Free Directories on Web You may already be aware of the Canadian directory assistance listings available free of charge at http://canada411.sympatico.ca/ These listings are provided by the participating telephone companies, but may be out of date and incomplete. (I couldn't find a listing for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, for example.) The New Brunswick Telephone Company recently announced that it will be providing its own free directory database at http://www.nbtel.nb.ca/powerpages The NBTel service appears to be more current than the Canada411 service. As well, some Canadian toll-free (800 and 888) listings are available at http://canadatollfree.sympatico.ca/ Some, but not all, Canadian toll-free numbers can be reached from the U.S. Nigel Allen, 8 Silver Ave., Toronto, Ontario M6R 1X8, Canada ndallen@interlog.com http://www.ndallen.com/ ------------------------------ Subject: Wireless Quiz & Information From: crowed@cnp-wireless.com (David Crowe) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:17:21 -0500 Organization: CADVision Development Corporation (http://www.cadvision.com/) Cellular Networking Perspectives is a monthly standards and technology bulletin. Our quiz for November is available at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/quiz.html Prizes include T-Shirts, Standards "Trading Cards" and free back issues! Articles in this month's issue of the newsletter are on CALEA, Calling Party Pays, IS-136 TDMA ("Digital PCS") features and a list of TR-45.5 CDMA standards, published and under development. The titles and a short description of all issues are listed at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/backissue.html For more information or a free sample, please reply to this posting or fill out a request at: http://www.cnp-wireless.com/order.html David Crowe, Editor ------------------------------ From: *NOSPAM*adept@aspi.net*NOSPAM* (Adept Care) Subject: Telco Racks Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:32:42 GMT Organization: The Destek Group, Inc. Reply-To: *NOSPAM*adept@aspi.net*NOSPAM* Can anyone point me to a manufacturer of 19" telco racks in the New England area? If replying by e-mail remove the *NOSPAM* Thanks, Noel ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 8 Nov 1997 06:16:39 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates On 7 Nov 1997 16:42:07 GMT, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > On 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT, Al Varney wrote: >> In article , Linc Madison >> wrote: >>> Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing >>> 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing >>> from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed >>> that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". >> You'll find this at: >> >> The answer is: June 30, 1998 > Well, as I noted in a post that PAT apparently ditched because I > cross-posted it to .tech, my latest Nortel News says that the end of > permissive is 31 Dec 97. > Alas, the post didn't make it into .tech either, for some reason, so > here it is again. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that it did not make it into > the .tech group either implies perhaps it never got to either place; > that perhaps it got lost leaving your machine for some reason. There > are times I will cross-post here from .tech; no hard rule about it. PAT] I so assumed ... and I'm not sure the problem wasn't just that my newsfeed didn't get it _back_; in any event, it seems Al was correct in the first place ... I didn't check his source, and it was dated later than mine. Well, if you're gonna look foolish, do it for the widest possible audience, and get it over with ... and piss off the host in the process. Sorry all. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp2.ih.lucent.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: 8 Nov 1997 15:28:07 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies, Naperville, IL Reply-To: varney@lucent.com In article , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > On 5 Nov 1997 23:44:25 GMT, Al Varney wrote: >> The answer is: June 30, 1998 > Well, as I noted in a post that PAT apparently ditched because I > cross-posted it to .tech, my latest Nortel News says that the end of > permissive is 31 Dec 97. Nortel News is one day off on the original end date. The FCC originally, in an Order dated April 11, 1997, stated the "end of permissive dialing" date as Jan 1, 1998. They changed their mind in the above-referenced Order, released on Oct. 22, 1997. Nortel News probably has a couple of weeks lag between writing articles and delivery. Al Varney ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Organization: Netcom On-Line Services In article , Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > Well, as I noted in a post that PAT apparently ditched because I > cross-posted it to .tech, my latest Nortel News says that the end of > permissive is 31 Dec 97. > Alas, the post didn't make it into .tech either, for some reason, so > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that it did not make it into > the .tech group either implies perhaps it never got to either place; > that perhaps it got lost leaving your machine for some reason. There > are times I will cross-post here from .tech; no hard rule about it. PAT] Cross-posts between a moderated and unmoderated group do not "automatically" appear in the unmoderated group. The "design" of Usenet is that when an article is cross-posted to two groups, it travels around the 'Net as one article with two lines in the newsgroups line. So if you cross-post to a moderated and unmoderated gorup, the message is only mailed to the moderator of the moderated group -- it does not appear in the unmoderated group. If the moderator approves of the post, he can then post it in both the moderated and unmoderated group, so it remains one article. If the posting machine split the article into two -- one to send to the moderator and one to put in the unmoderated groups, then, should the moderator approve the post, there would be two copies out in Usenet, taking up twice as much disk space, and appearing twice in the newsreaders of people who subscribed to both groups. (Obviously, this gets interesting if a post is to multiple moderated groups. I don't have personal knowledge how that works.) Brett (brettf@netcom.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As long as *any* moderated group is shown in the newsgroups line, then the moderator of the moderated group controls the message. If more than one moderated newsgroup is shown then the first moderated group's moderator is the controlling party. Because the volume of mail coming to this Digest is such that I rarely get to deal with more than twenty or thirty percent of it, I discourage having general posts to Usenet come through with comp. dcom.telecom in the newsgroups line since there is a very likely chance the message will never make it further. It is far better, at least in the case of this Digest, to handle it as two separate postings; one for Usenet in general except c.d.t. and one for the Digest, c.d.t. and the website bulletin board 'TELECOM_Digest_Online'. This reminds me to advise all readers that if you do not like or wish to receive the Digest for whatever reason, yet at the same time you are not fond of Usenet or get poor propogation, there is a third alternative: http://telecom-digest.org/TELECOM_Digest_Online provides message-by-message reading just like Usenet, but without, let's say, the mess that so much of Usenet has become in recent years. Messages go there at the very same instant that Usenet prop- ogation begins on each (parsed single message style) issue of the Digest, and is available even before email reaches most users. You might want to check it out. Of course, there is also the telecom chat area, a webchat interface available for posting short questions and comments and hopefully receiving responses to same without waiting for the Digest itself to include your message. To use this feature: http://telecom-digest.org/chat ... and the times you will most likely find other users on line is around 10-11 pm Eastern USA Time most nights. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tsw@cagent.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 20:49:13 -0800 Organization: CagEnt, Inc. In article , roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) wrote: > No, I'm not talking about cable TV. I'm talking about the old cable > message system. > Our letterhead says "Cable Address: NYUMEDIC". <<>> The reason for a "cable address" was that unlike domestic telegrams, international telegrams had the words in the address billed. If you sent a cable to "John Smith MACONSULT" (similar? to a cable address I know), it was charged as only TWO words. The full address which may be many words cost considerably more. This was in the days when the "art" of short cables was in full bloom. In the 40's a cable could be just the "word" DEAL. Everyone knew what it meant, and that is all that was needed. At international costs of upward to $1.00 per word, and no transatlantic telephone cable (that happened in the 50's) this was a VERY common method of doing things. Remember, credit cards weren't around then, and every carried local currency. Even more of a bother. I suspect a message like "SENDBUX" would have been even more common, who knows. Fast forward to the 90's. Now we have domain names that are registered with Internic. Nobody likes raw IP addresses, but they too work. The concept is VERY similar. I don't know the cost for maintaining a "cable address" but it probably isn't that much (in today's terms). Now I suspect it is a prestige thing, and if you ever get to some out of the way third world country that only has a telegraph office, you are in luck. tsw@cagent.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) Please forward spam to: annagram@hr.house.gov (my Congressman), I do. ------------------------------ From: jfh@alumni.stanford.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 04:00:03 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1997 by Jack Hamilton On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 08:07:00 -0500, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith): > Are you sure you are not using some *very old* stationary? Do you > still have telex service there at your school? Honestly I am not sure > cable addresses still exist, even if some modicum of telex/TWX service > is still around. They certainly did ten years ago. At that time, I worked for a large defense and medical equipment company with civilian and military customers all over the world. I wrote an interface between the old Telex system and our then-new PROFS electronic mail system from IBM. We sent dozens of telexes every day. Fax would have been faster, and probably cheaper, but a telex had the advantage of providing legal proof of receipt. PROFS' moment of fame came during the Nixon/Watergate days, when some incriminating email memos were found in the White House PROFS system. I haven't heard anything about PROFS recently; I don't know whether IBM dropped it, or just renamed it to something sexier. Jack Hamilton PGP ID: 79E07035 jfh @ alumni . stanford . org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 07:53:17 -0500 From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Organization: New York University School of Medicine TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response: > Are you sure you are not using some *very old* stationary? The stationary is new. But, given the way things work around here, it's entirely likely that nobody else has had a clue for decades what this was all about, so every time the stationary was reprinted, it was just carried along. "Hey, Bob, do we still need the cable address on the letterhead?", "Beats me, it's always been there, I have no idea why, but we might get in trouble if we drop it." > Do you still have telex service there at your school? Well, we've still got lots of KSR-33's all over the place, but they are just hooked up to old pieces of lab equipment. It's anybody's guess what goes in the administrative offices :-) > WUTCO used to charge their hardwired customers (those with telegraph > equipment on their premises) about one or two dollars per month to > maintain the 'address' in their database. Sort of like being charged $100/year to maintain a DNS entry today, no? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very, very similar to DNS entries. PAT] ------------------------------ From: oldbear@arctos.com (The Old Bear) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:31:36 -0500 Organization: The Arctos Group - http://www.arctos.com/arctos Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In brief, a 'cable address' was simply > a short form or abbreviated form of a longer telex/TWX number much > like 'Enterprise' was a short form of a business telephone number. > You rarely see cable addresses any longer for the simple reason you > rarely see telex/TWX/telegram messages any longer. Consider them if > you will as simply an alias address used for business purposes to > make the recipient easier to remember/correspond with. Lots and lots > of business places had cable addresses when telegraphy was a common > method of communication. As I recall, the "cable address" was a carryover from the days of telegraphy when time and economics dictated that the number of telegraphic characters transmitted be minimized. I seem to recall that there was a slightly lower charge for international messages to registered cable addresses because all messages were charged by the word ... including the address. Hence the run-together cable addresses like westmoco or beaconhill. Along the same lines (no pun intended), is a favorite trivia question of mine: Q. What actor played a the character of the frontier west known for his pioneering use of electronic mail? A. Richard Boone, who played Paladin in the TV series "Have Gun - Will Travel" -- and who, as hired gun, would give his clients a business card reading with the image of a chessman and the words "WIRE: PALADIN - SAN FRANCISCO" That was a "cable address." Cheers, The Old Bear [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So many people are simply amazed to find out that indeed 'email' -- although that term itself is relatively new -- has been around more than a century. It is just that now-days everyone is his own telegrapher. Fifty or a hundred years ago that was not the case; we went to a central location and handed over scraps of paper with messages to be sent to someone somewhere. The community telegrapher then tapped it out over the wire much like we do today. Certainly there were not as many long- winded and frivilous messages as now, and as was pointed out many messages consisted of just a few words, sent at considerable ex- pense. Regarding Paladin and his business card which allegedly said, "Have gun, will travel ... wire Paladin, San Francisco" there is an obscene joke which I dare not repeat *completely* in this family-oriented Digest but it went something like this: You have to fill in the missing word .... "Have cr___, will shack, 'til Paladin gets back -- wire Mrs. Paladin, San Francisco." Well, I thought it was funny, albiet a bit crude and out of style for here. Have a nice weekend! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #306 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 9 16:56:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA24846; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:07 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711092156.QAA24846@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #307 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Nov 97 16:56:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 307 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Turning Away Telemarketers (Tad Cook) Global TLD Net Access Status (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) V.34 Modems, Call Waiting With Caller ID :-( (Bret A. Schuhmacher) Unregulated LD From Canadian Hotels (Paul Lantz) CallerID Info Needed (Steve Pershing) Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Bob Keller) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Turning Away Telemarketers Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 19:48:13 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Florida Telephone Service Prevents Telemarketers from Calling Subscribers By L.A. Newkirk, Tallahassee Democrat, Fla. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Nov. 7--Michael Aylin sleeps during the day because he works at night. If the phone rings, it had better be important. And he says telemarketers aren't important. "They say `We would like you to donate ...' The only thing they're going to get donated from me is a dial tone," he said. "I'm not really pleasant when I get woken up." Aylin is one of only 55,000 telephone subscribers in Florida who have signed up for a service that protects them from telemarketers. There is a total of 14 million telephone subscribers. The "No Sales" list has been available for the last seven years, but not many are aware of it. "It's a surprise to a lot of people," said Geoff Luebkemann, chief of the state Bureau of Consumer Protection. The bureau is working on a flashy flier that will regularly be included in phone bills. Under a 1990 state law, telemarketers are banned from calling anyone who has paid to be on the consumer bureau's list. Only 32 businesses have been fined for violations, but the bureau is operating under a new policy to open investigations of telemarketers that have accumulated ten consumer complaints against them. There are currently 70 cases, said Melissa Meffert, bureau regulatory consultant. The law protects you from telemarketers selling goods and services but not from charities seeking donations or companies that you've recently done business with -- such as a long-distance company you have dropped. Luebkemann said the bureau is working to amend the law by reducing the length of time that a company can still call you to no more than three years. Consumers pay $10 each year per phone number for the service and $5 to renew. Residential numbers and noncommercial pagers and cell phones can also be protected from unwanted solicitations. The fees pay to maintain the data base and other administrative costs, but Luebkemann said the bureau is seeking an increase since the current fees are seven years old. While charities are exempt from the ban, they must first register with the bureau before they can call you, Luebkemann said. The list is updated and sold to telemarketers quarterly. The deadline to be on the next list is Dec. 1; the new list comes out Jan. 1. The quarterly list costs telemarketers $100 per area code, or $300 for the whole state. More than 500 telemarketers buy it, though it's not required. But they are required to comply with the law and may not call any names on the list. If you sign up for the list and still get calls, you must complain in writing. The bureau sends you pre-printed postcards when you sign up for the service. An investigation is opened after ten complaints are filed against a telemarketer. Aylin said he used to get at least three telemarketing calls each month, so he signed up for the service last spring. "Everybody's trying to get a piece of business. Everybody wants a bigger business. Just don't bother me at the house," Aylin said. He wants to choose the businesses and charities he deals with -- not let them choose him. He said the list works. "I haven't really noticed any more (calls). They've pretty much disappeared," Aylin said Wednesday. And he's received only one charity call in that time. Aylin said the cost of the program is reasonable. "Oh, yeah. Ten dollars a year? You're talking about less than a dollar a month to get rid of the pesky phone calls. What a bargain! You'll spend a dollar a month on junk, on bubble gum." ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Global TLD Net Access Status Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 22:56:26 GMT Tom Watson wrote (re cable addresses): > if you ever get to some out of the way third world > country that only has a telegraph office, you are in luck. Not many of those left. FYI, here is a sorted list of countries with net access, based on data from the e-mail country codes FAQ. Impressively, of 244 national top-level domains (many of which represent territories or colonies, not countries) 187 have FULL net access. rishab ---------- National TLD net access status as of 9/97 Full internet 187 Email only 12 No access or provisional/unknown 45 Total 244 Source e-mail country-codes FAQ Copyright (c)1997 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh **********national TLDs with full internet as of 9/97********** AD Andorra FI * AE United Arab Emirates FI * AG Antigua and Barbuda FI * AI Anguilla FI * AL Albania FI * AM Armenia FI * Ex-USSR AN Netherland Antilles FI * AO Angola (Republic of) FI * AQ Antarctica FI * intermittent luxor.cc.waikato.ac.nz AR Argentina FI * AT Austria FI B * AU Australia FI * AW Aruba FI * AZ Azerbaijan FI B * Ex-USSR BA Bosnia-Herzegovina FI * BB Barbados FI * BD Bangladesh FI * BE Belgium FI * BF Burkina Faso FI * BG Bulgaria FI B * BH Bahrain FI B * BI Burundi FI * BJ Benin FI * BM Bermuda FI * BN Brunei Darussalam FI * BO Bolivia FI * BR Brazil FI B * BS Bahamas FI * BW Botswana FI * BY Belarus FI B * Ex-USSR BZ Belize FI * CA Canada FI B * CF Central African Rep. FI * CH Switzerland FI * CI Ivory Coast FI * CL Chile FI B * CM Cameroon FI * CN China FI * CO Colombia FI * CR Costa Rica FI * CU Cuba FI * CY Cyprus FI * CZ Czech Republic FI * DE Germany FI B * DJ Djibouti FI * DK Denmark FI * DM Dominica FI * DO Dominican Republic FI * DZ Algeria FI * EC Ecuador FI * EE Estonia FI * EG Egypt FI B * ES Spain FI B * ET Ethiopia FI * FI Finland FI B * FJ Fiji FI * FM Micronesia FI * FO Faroe Islands FI * FR France FI B * GA Gabon FI * GB Great Britain (UK) FI B * X.400 & IP ns1.cs.ucl.ac.uk GD Grenada FI * GE Georgia FI * Ex-USSR GF Guiana (Fr.) FI * GG Guernsey (Ch. Isl) FI * GH Ghana FI * GI Gibraltar FI * GL Greenland FI * GP Guadeloupe (Fr.) FI * GQ Equatorial Guinea FI * GR Greece FI * GT Guatemala FI * GU Guam (US) FI * in US domains GW Guinea Bissau FI * GY Guyana FI * HK Hong Kong FI * HN Honduras FI * HR Croatia FI B * HT Haiti FI * HU Hungary FI B * ID Indonesia FI * IE Ireland FI * IL Israel FI B * IN India FI B * IM Isle of Man FI * IR Iran FI B * IS Iceland FI B * IT Italy FI B * JE Jersey (Ch. Isl.) FI * JM Jamaica FI * JO Jordan FI * JP Japan FI B * KE Kenya FI * KG Kyrgyz Republic FI * Ex-USSR (in .su domain) KH Cambodia FI * KR Korea (South) FI * KW Kuwait FI * No BITNET KY Cayman Islands FI * KZ Kazakstan FI * Ex-USSR LB Lebanon FI * LC Saint Lucia FI * LI Liechtenstein FI * LK Sri Lanka FI * LS Lesotho FI * LT Lithuania FI * Ex-USSR LU Luxembourg FI * LV Latvia FI * Ex-USSR MA Morocco FI * MC Monaco FI * MD Moldova FI * Ex-USSR MG Madagascar FI * MK Macedonia (former Yug.)FI * ML Mali FI * MN Mongolia FI * MO Macau FI * MP Northern Mariana Isl. FI * MT Malta FI * MU Mauritius FI * MV Maldives FI * MW Malawi FI * MX Mexico FI * MY Malaysia FI * MZ Mozambique FI * NA Namibia FI * NC New Caledonia (Fr.) FI * NE Niger FI * NG Nigeria FI F NI Nicaragua FI * NL Netherlands FI B * NO Norway FI B * NP Nepal FI * NZ New Zealand FI * OM Oman FI * PA Panama FI B * PE Peru FI * PF Polynesia (Fr.) FI * PG Papua New Guinea FI * PH Philippines FI * PK Pakistan FI * PL Poland FI B * PR Puerto Rico (US) FI B * PT Portugal FI * PY Paraguay FI * QA Qatar FI * RE Reunion (Fr.) FI * In .fr domain RO Romania FI B * RU Russian Federation FI B * Ex-USSR SA Saudi Arabia FI B * dial-ip SB Solomon Islands FI * SC Seychelles FI * SD Sudan FI * SE Sweden FI B * SG Singapore FI * SI Slovenia FI * SJ Svalbard & Jan Mayen IsFI * in .no domain SK Slovakia (Slovak Rep) FI * SM San Marino FI * SN Senegal FI * SR Suriname FI * SU Soviet Union FI B * Still used. SV El Salvador FI * SZ Swaziland FI * TG Togo FI * TH Thailand FI * TM Turkmenistan FI * Ex-USSR TN Tunisia FI * TO Tonga FI * TR Turkey FI B * TT Trinidad & Tobago FI * TW Taiwan FI * TZ Tanzania FI * UA Ukraine FI * UG Uganda FI * UK United Kingdom FI B * ISO 3166 is GB US United States FI * see note (4) UY Uruguay FI * UZ Uzbekistan FI * Ex-USSR VA Vatican City State FI * VE Venezuela FI * VI Virgin Islands (US) FI * VU Vanuatu FI * WS Western Samoa FI * YE Yemen FI * YU Yugoslavia FI * ZA South Africa FI * ZM Zambia FI * intermittent ZW Zimbabwe FI * **********national TLDs with only e-mail as of 9/97********** CD Dem. Repub. of Congo PFI * formerly ZR Zaire CG Congo * CK Cook Islands * ER Eritrea * GM Gambia * GN Guinea PFI * dial-IP LR Liberia * MR Mauritania * SL Sierra Leone * TD Chad * TJ Tadjikistan * Ex-USSR VN Vietnam * **********national TLDs with no or provisional access as of 9/97********** AF Afghanistan(Islamic St.) AS American Samoa BT Bhutan BV Bouvet Island CC Cocos (Keeling) Isl. CV Cape Verde CX Christmas Island EH Western Sahara FK Falkland Isl.(Malvinas) FX France (European Ter.) France Metropolitaine GS South Georgia and HM Heard & McDonald Isl. IO British Indian O. Terr. IQ Iraq KI Kiribati KM Comoros KN St.Kitts Nevis Anguilla P KP Korea (North) P LA Laos LY Libya MH Marshall Islands MM Myanmar MQ Martinique (Fr.) MS Montserrat NF Norfolk Island NR Nauru NU Niue PM St. Pierre & Miquelon PN Pitcairn PW Palau RW Rwanda F currently cut SH St. Helena SO Somalia ST St. Tome and Principe SY Syria TC Turks & Caicos Islands TF French Southern Terr. TK Tokelau TP East Timor TV Tuvalu UM US Minor outlying Isl. VC St.Vincent & Grenadines P VG Virgin Islands (British) WF Wallis & Futuna Islands YT Mayotte ------------------------------ From: bas@cascade.healthcare.com (Bret A. Schuhmacher) Subject: V.34 Modems, Call Waiting With Caller ID :-( Date: 09 Nov 1997 15:54:17 -0700 Organization: Healthcare Communications, Inc. OK, I just got call waiting with Caller ID service from USWORST. The idea was that when I'm on line, I'd know when someone was trying to reach me and I'd have the option of manually disconnecting the data call. However, I don't get any signal! I know it works with voice calls because I tested it while talking to a USWASTE representative (he called me back on his other line and I was able to see the incoming call info). I've tried the following setups, but it doesn't seem to matter: wall -> CID box -> modem -> phone wall -> modem -> CID box -> phone I'm using a USR Sportster 33.6 w/voice. FWIW, I have call forward on no answer and call forward on busy features with this line. I originally thought the call forward on busy was the problem, but then the USWURST guy proved it wasn't. The modem has to have something to do with it (is the V.34 protocol still getting in the way somehow?). And no, I don't have call waiting disabled, I checked that. Is anyone using call waiting id for this purpose? What'd you do to get it to work? Thanks for any pointers! Regards, Bret A day without sunshine is like night. ------------------------------ From: Paul Lantz Subject: Unregulated LD From Canadian hotels Date: 9 Nov 1997 20:59:30 GMT Organization: Ontario Northland--ONLink Recently I stayed in a hotel in Toronto. The telephone information sheet stated that long distance services were provided by US Telephone (or something) which was an unregulated service. I wondered if this would affect the price of telephone calls (visions of having long distance calls diverted through some offshore company at astronomical cost). Does anyone have information on this? I made long distance calls but they went through Bell; I didn't try any calls to the US. Are there are any risks for people using these services? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are sufficient risks in using hotel/motel phone systems for long distance (sometimes even local!) calls that one should always read carefully any literature placed by the phone in the room, and question front desk personnel for details before using the room telephone to any extent. Some of them are frankly outrageous. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Pershing Subject: CallerID Info Needed Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 13:04:38 -0800 Organization: Questor Technologies Inc. I am looking for information on what can be transmitted in the callerID data burst, which is sent by the telephone switch between the first and second rings. The purpose is so that modem software can be programmed to act on the incoming data to answer the phone in different ways, depending on the data. I know that there are bits indicating: "privacy, long-distance, message-waiting", etc, but I am looking for a more-or-less complete list of available data. If anyone has this info or ideas where to find it, please drop me a note. Thanks in advance for any help. Steve Pershing ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 12:19:02 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant In TELECOM Digest, Vol 17 # 305, Ed Ellers wrote: > Among other things, the FCC usually doesn't allow a broadcast license > to be sold separately from the real and other property of the station > in question, so someone who has just obtained a license can't just > turn around and sell it; s/he has to actually put the station on the > air, somehow, and then sell the operating station. Yeah, BUT ... First, as you note, parties do find ways around this. And the ways around it are even more common in some other services than in broadcast. For example, most licenses that have been obtained by auction are subject to no such restrictions whatsoever (provided that the parities comply with "unjust enrichment" rules so that I can not, for example, take advantage of a small business bidding credit and installment payment plan and then turn around and sell to AT&T and have AT&T take the license on the same terms). Even apart from auctions, in many non-broadcast services the only requirement *is* that the facilities be timely constructed, and in a few service not even that is required. Also, in cellular the Commission created an exception to the construction requirement that permitted licensees to acquire unconstructed authorizations for other markets. The theory of the exception was that some smaller were not viable unless operated as part of the adjacent larger market. The seller is required to execute a sworn statement that it intended to construct and operate the system when it filed its application (yeah, right ) but the unforeseeable changed circumstances now dictated incorporation of the market into a larger system. I am aware of no case, after this exception was established, in which the Commission ever challenged one of these showings. My point is, whatever goes on in the broadcast services notwithstanding, the so-called anti-trafficking and holding period rules have been substantially eroded in the past 10 to 15 years. Second, as far as the fiction that the license is being sold ancillary to the sale of other property, e.g., the tower, the transmitters, the studio, etc., let's not kid ourselves -- and I'm sure the Commission is not kidding itself when it approves these transactions. The fact of the matter is that, no matter how the bean counters may show it on the books, that piece of paper from the FCC is what makes these multi-million (and sometimes billion or more) dollar deals. All of the other property put together is typically worth only a small fraction of the value of the license. In TELECOM Digest, Vol 17 # 305, Bruce Wilson wrote: > Nowhere in all this verbiage was it said which appellate court this > was or a cite to a published or slip opinion given, which makes it > almost impossible to assess the potential significance of this > opinion, This was the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Case No. 96-2066, Play Time, Inc. v. LDDS Metromedia Communications, Inc. (12 August 1997). It was an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. There is probably an official citation for the opinion by now, but I don't have it handy. > nor is anything said as to whether Worldcom asserted lack of > subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was exclusively within > that of the FCC and how that issue was disposed of (if it was raised) > or whether the FCC may have "participated" by way of an amicus brief > and how the issues raised in its brief (if there were one) were > disposed of. There is no indication that the FCC participated. Nor is there any indication in the opinion that WorldCom asserted, as you put it "lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the matter was exclusively within that of the FCC." Such an argument, at least worded that way, would have failed, because it is questionable whether the FCC has *any* jurisdiction over a contract dispute simply because it involves a telephone number or telephone service, and the FCC *certainly* does not have *exclusive* jurisdiction. What sometimes happens, if a particular issue in a case turns on some point of FCC regulation or policy, is the court might certify that question to the FCC. But more often than not, the court will decide the issue of FCC regulation or policy just as a federal court decides issues of state law, or one state court may be called upon to interpret another state's laws. It is really no big deal, and it happens every day. WorldCom *did* assert the policy against brokering numbers (then an informal and voluntary industry policy, because the facts of this dispute arose before the FCC's anti-brokering rules in CC Docket No. 95-155) based on the FCC policy that numbers are a public resource and are not privately owned. However, this was offered, at least at the appellate level, not as a matter of jurisdiction, but rather as an attack on trying to set damages based on a monetary "value" of the number. The Court rejected that argument. > In general terms, decisions aren't binding on anyone not a party to > the litigation; and a Federal appellate court decision has > precedential value only within the appellate jurisdiction (i.e., a > Second Circuit decision is only precedent within the Second Circuit, > for example). Although another Circuit Court of Appeals or a District > Court within another circuit might find it persuasive, it's free to > reach a contrary decision; and it's only decisions of the U.S. Supreme > Court which establish precedent binding on all of the circuits and > trial courts within them. Yeah, so what. The "persuasive" value of an opinion from another circuit is nonetheless of much greater value than your statement implies. If I were going into the Second Circuit to argue a case, absent a Second Circuit precedent against me, I'd sure feel a whole lot better it there were a First Circuit opinion in my favor than if there were no relevant opinions at all. Moreover, the vast majority of issues never make it to the Supremes. Thus, what the various circuit appellate courts have to say about issues is of significance. This may be one of the first appellate court decisions to address the issue of the value of a vanity number to a user before the number is actually assigned to and used by that user, and it is certainly the first such decision since the FCC adopted its anti-brokering rules in CC Docket No. 95-155. For that reason alone, it is an important decision worthy of commentary. Bob Keller (KY3R) rjk@telcomlaw.com www.his.com/~rjk/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #307 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 9 17:46:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA28950; Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:46:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:46:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711092246.RAA28950@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #308 TELECOM Digest Sun, 9 Nov 97 17:46:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 308 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant (Bob Keller) Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning (Kevin R. Ray) Re: Risks is Alive and Well (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Blake Droke) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Ed Ellers) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Bill Ranck) Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? (Jeremy Rogers) Data Recording - Real-Time Digital Comms (Edwin Kayes) Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape (Monty Solomon) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Matthew Black) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 23:09:53 -0500 From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: Play Time, Inc., Appellee, vs. Worldcom, Inc., Appellant In TELECOM Digest, Vol 17 #304, Al Varney , in response to Judith Oppenheimer , wrote: > Judith, I can understand your basic argument, but have problems > with some of the logical extensions of them. It would seem a property > right in numbers similar to a TV station broadcast frequency license > might be a reasonable claim. As one who as represents Judith and ICB on these issues before the FCC, let me jump in and offer few observations. I think there are, indeed, some useful analogies (and some differences) to be drawn between the "public resource" concept of both the electromagnetic spectrum and telephone numbers. The key trick in both is not to forget that the "public" are the citizens, including the citizens who own and operate businesses, and that the government serves the public, not the other way around. > But to claim an ownership/right to a number that was never used in > trade seems a stretch. "Ownership" and "property rights" are, IMO, red herrings that divert us from the basic issues. Just as I can have rights to do things with portions of the radio spectrum without "owning" it, the fact that I may not "own" my telephone number is not a basis for denying that the number has an inherent "value" or denying me the right to transfer it to someone else, and even to be compensated for it. > If I "find" an 800 number with some alphabetic or even numeric > attractiveness, have I established some right to that number at the > moment of "discovery"? There is a significant distinction between rights in the number itself versus any intellectual property rights that may arise by virtue of discovering a corresponding pneumonic or other unique characteristic or use of a particular number. Dreaming up the idea of 1-800-WIDGETS does not confer any rights in 1-800-943-4387, although I may have the right to prevent someone else from using the number in a manner that infringes my IP rights. An analogy: I am probably free to use the image of Jersey cow in any number of ways; but if I start using it to market computers, I'll probably be hearing from Gateway's attorneys in short order. The "right" in a number flows not from the "discovery" but rather from being the assigned user of the number. Whatever your views respecting property interests or ownership in numbers, it must be conceded that, when a number is assigned, the designated user has certain rights in that number as against the rest of the world. And, IMO, that right has a certain value. The value may be great as to some numbers and nil as to others. And, even as to a given number, the value may vary from user to user. But there is a value in a number, even if it is nothing more than the longevity of the number assignment. My mother has had WHitehall 5-xxxx for 50 years. I'm sure that number has a certain intangible value to her that would be appreciated by virtually no one else. The number 1-800-FLOWERS, on the other hand, has a very tangible and vary large value that is appreciated by many (i.e., it would probably bring a "pretty penny" on the open market). So, an assigned user clearly has *some* kind of rights in the assigned number. And third parties may place a value on (covet?) the number. The policy question, of course, is whether or not economic nature should be permitted to follow its course. > If I apply for that number through a RespOrg, do I have a right > established at that point, even if the RespOrg (and indeed, the entire > world) is unaware of my "discovery" of the number's value? The "right" you have, or "should" have, is to have the RespOrg take reasonable steps to reserve the number for your use at your direction. If a RespOrg confirms the availability of a particular number and agrees to reserve the number for me, the RespOrg has a contractual obligation to take all reasonable steps to do so. The "discovery" associated with the number is largely irrelevant, although it may, if disclosed, place the RespOrg on notice of the possible greater value to me of that particular number (and the corresponding greater exposure to liability if it fails to meet its contractual obligation). In the WorldCom case, it was not a "right" to "1 800 FOR LEASE" that was really at issue, rather it was the right to have WorldCom honor an agreement. The number might just as well have been any seven digit 800 number. Play Time wanted that particular 800 number (the reason why the customer wants a particular number should be of no consequence to the carrier or the RespOrg unless the customer chooses to disclose it), and WorldCom contractually agreed to reserve the number for Play Time. Then WorldCom screwed up and gave the number to someone else. The correspondence of the number with "1 800 FOR LEASE" did, however, come into play as to the "value" of the number and, hence, the amount of damages to which Play Time was entitled. But that's true in any case involving liability. If I go down the street indiscriminately lobbing grenades at garages, when I am later sued I am going to owe greater damages to the gal with the BMW than I will to the guy with the Honda. This might have been just any old number that WorldCom screwed up on for a new business, and the fix might have been as easy as getting the customer a new number and paying for new stationery and business cards. But because it was "1 800 FOR LEASE", the screw-up ended up costing WorldCom $150,000 (the $50K value of the number, trebled) plus attorneys fees and court costs. > Or do I have to apply for trademark protection of the "discovery" > in order to claim it has a value? You would apply for a trademark to protect your IP rights and to prevent others from using it. That may or may not give you rights to the number. Again, your "rights" to the number come from properly getting the number assigned to you ... or entering into a binding contractual obligation to have the number assigned to you. If I get a trademark for "1-800-WIDGETS" that, in and of itself, does not give me rights to 1-800-943-4387. If someone else has and is using that number, I can not necessarily pry it away solely because of my trademark. The current user might, after all, be using the number as "1-800 YID ID UP" because she is a therapist specializing in helping Gentiles to elevate their social consciousness, (Sorry, I couldn't resist. ) What I *can* do, is prevent someone else from using the number in a way that interferes with my trademark. Thus, I could probably stop a competing widget vendor from getting the number and using it to market its product in competition with me. While they become intertwined at times, intellectual property rights in a vanity number as a brand, logo, trademark, etc., is something separate and distinct from an assigned user's "rights" in a particular telephone number. > If I trademark something like 800-FOR-LEASE, but haven't applied to > a RespOrg in order to become the assignee, do I have a right > established at that point? Vis-a-vis the RespOrg as to the number? No, IMO. As to third parties who might obtain and use the number? Only, IMO, if their use violates your trademark and/or constitutes an unlawful business practice on some other grounds. > What if the number is already in use (as 800-DMS-LEASE, perhaps by > NorTel?). Do I still have a right associated with the NUMBER? Not beyond those mentioned above, IMO. > Or just the 800-FOR-LEASE string? You do not get a trademark in the number itself, anymore than Gateway Computer has a trademark on the Jersey cow you drive past on a country road. You do not even get a trademark in the *telephone* number as such, any more than Gateway has a trademark in each and every *picture* of a Jersey cow. But, nonetheless, the number has an inherent value to you and is, in fact, more valuable to you than other numbers, because it corresponds to the string. So, let us assume that some little old European lady discovers in her attic a long forgotten Rembrandt painting of a Jersey cow. The art critics consider it of inferior quality, and it is of very little value to art collectors. It may, nonetheless, be of very great value to Gateway because of its value as an advertising tool. But, Gateway would have no "rights" in that painting (notwithstanding its IP rights in the use of the Jersey cow image to market computers) unless and until it made a deal with that little old lady. Likewise, my "discovery" of a vanity number, and even my "trademarking" of the vanity string, does not give me a "right" in the number until I get the number "assigned" to me. > If I ask a RespOrg to assign me the number if/when NorTel releases > it, and the number is grabbed by another RespOrg upon release, do I > have a valid claim of damages? That is a question of contract law. It will turn on (a) whether you and the RespOrg entered into a legally binding contract and, (b) whether the RespOrg took all reasonably necessary actions to discharge its duty to you. As a practical matter, I don't think there is any (legal) way the RespOrg can absolutely guarantee that the number won't be grabbed by someone else. But lets look at this question as it played out in the WorldCom case. WorldCom agreed to give the number to one customer, and then turned around and gave it to another customer. That's a no-brainer. It's called breach of contract. > What if two RespOrgs are asked by two entities desiring the number > (the Wyoming Department of Natural Resources wants 800-DNR-LEASE for > an upcoming auction of grazing rights, and Playtime wants 800-FOR-LEASE). To the best of my knowledge, the RespOrg that is quickest on the draw will win out. The losing customer will have a case against its RespOrg only if there was intentional wrong-doing or negligence. My under- standing of the procedures, however, is that the RespOrg could do everything it is supposed to do and still lose out to someone else. > Does the industry need to establish a queue of potential assignees? It might not be a bad idea to have some sort of waiting list system for priority to currently used numbers when they become available. That would remove a lot of uncertainty ... and business people hate uncertainty. > If so, doesn't that mean that THOSE numbers have value while they are > in the pool, and thus the FCC (and the taxpayers) should receive > payment when assigning those numbers to customers? Value is in the wallet of the beholder. What is an extremely valuable number to me may be just another number to you. There is no workable way to set the value in that context. Even auctions are not workable. In spectrum auctions the licenses have a more or less absolute value (although different bidders have different ideas of what that value is). The type of value we are talking about with numbers is neither absolute nor is it set in time. 1 800 FLOWERS was just a number until someone got the idea. How do you hold an auction today that fairly values what the number might be worth to a particular theoretical user tomorrow? That aside, I'm not in favor of a system that would have the govern- ment attempt to extract the monetary value of a number simply for assigning the number. This is a foreign concept to some, but here goes ... there just may be some private commercial transactions from which it is not necessary for Uncle Sam to extract a pound of flesh! I say let users buy and sell numbers if they want, and let the capital gains tax law take care of the rest. Besides, the "public resource" idea of numbers has been, I believe, distorted. The concept originally arose in the context of establishing that the local exchange carriers do not "own" telephone numbers even though they were, by fiat, responsible for administering them. Somehow we jumped from that to a policy says that the users ought not be allowed to exchange money for transferring rights in assigned numbers. Now we are going a step further and saying that the Government, by Golly, *should* be allowed to charge money for numbers. > So, two basic questions: WHEN does an entity have a claim of > ownership or "rights" in a TollFree number? I don't like to call it "ownership". I'm more comfortable, and feel it is more logically and philosophically correct, to call it "rights" in numbers. I think those rights arise and vest when the number is validly assigned to me. My rights are to use the number in connection with my service, subject to the law and the terms and conditions of my service. I believe those rights should also include the right to transfer my use of and rights in the number to another user. > And are there any circumstances under which the "public" would > receive payment for use of this "public resource" (TollFree numbers) > -- or is it only the assignees/buyers that financially benefit, and > their brokers? This is not like radio spectrum which is a real, physical resource that is used to the exclusion of others. The kind of value that prompts someone to pay for a number is generally unique to that user or a small class of users. For example, 1 800 FLOWERS is extremely valuable to a florist, but is probably just another number to an oil refiner. There is no public loss of value if the oil refiner agrees to accept money to transfer its right in the number to the florist. To the extent one profits on the sale of a number, the government will get any taxes to which it is entitled. Brokers will financially benefit only to the extent that the parties to the transaction value their contribution and facilitation. The "public" has no basis for jealousy in this regard. > If 800-FOR-LEASE is valuable to Playtime, why isn't it an asset of > the FCC or the 800 number administrator or the RespOrg? Shouldn't > Playtime have to "buy" the number, or is its value just created from > thin air by the "discovery" of it's previously-untrademarked mnemonic > or numerological (800-666-FACT) attributes? Why oh why oh why has our government become so damned greedy. YES ... the number has a certain value to that particular user because that user thought of an idea. If the government will just stay the hell out of the way and let the user exploit the idea, there just might be a stimulation to the economy. There just might be some additional jobs created. There just might be some capital gains tax revenue if the entrepreneur buys the number from another user. There just might be some income tax revenue generated from the success of the business enterprise (on both the profits of the business and the salaries of the employees). Is it *really* necessary for the government either to (a) prevent that, or (b) allow it but only if it can also get a cut up front? > If "customers" can sell a number, could a RespOrg "buy" them? If so, > would the RespOrg now be able to "sell" the number they previously had > to "give away"? If a RespOrg purchases a number, but doesn't use it, > does it then have to be returned to the pool? Probably a conflict of interest, especially given the fact that most RespOrgs are also IXCs. If I were King we would get rid of the RespOrg system altogether and allow users to have direct access to the database. > If the NANC decides expansion of the NANP requires expanding the > 800 number format to more than 10 digits, can the entity with "rights" > to 800-FLOWERS claim damages from the FCC, because it would be losing > that "number"? I seriously doubt it. The value of 800-FLOWERS was built on the structure of the NPA-NXX-xxxx system, but there were no guarantees that the system would continue. Parties like 800-FLOWERS may have equitable, policy, and social arguments that might convince the government to protect that value, but I can't see it rising to the level of a "right" or "entitlement". Even if there were such private "rights" against the government in this context, they would have to be weighed against the public need for a more efficient numbering system. A prudent businessman will simply have to plan for this possibility down the road. As you may have noted from my rampage above, I am very much in favor of keeping government out of the hair of business to the greatest extent possible. But it is a two-way street. The flip side of that coin is that business should not expect government to protect it from every little pot hole in the road, perhaps not even when some of those pot holes turn out to be potentially fatal chasms. > Or would you argue that the entity is entitled to "protect" its > interests by having first chance to be assigned the whole > 800F-LOWE-RSxx range? Sounds like a good argument for domain partitioning to me! > Or would you argue the NANC has no legal right to expand the > 800-number format, because some companies have "discovered" an eternal > right to the current format? To nit pick, NANC has no legal right to do anything other than make recommendations to the FCC. The FCC has the legal right and public interest duty to do what it needs to do with numbers in general and with the NANP in particular in order to maintain an efficient and equitable numbering system. I submit that the public interest probably requires the Commission to *consider* the effect of any changes to the numbering plan on such "values" in numbers, and especially to consider any ripple effect this may have on the economy as a whole ... and I would urge the Commission to accommodate those concerns to the extent possible. But the reality of the situation is that some day in the next century we may well evolve(?) beyond one plus ten digit dialing, and the plight of vanity numbers will not (and probably should not) be the overriding regulatory policy consideration in that process. [DISCLAIMER: I reserve the right to advocate, on behalf of any paying client, a different position in any formal proceedings at that time. ] > And the ultimate question: Do you feel comfortable having various > courts answer these questions, or would you prefer that the FCC > establish the rules? I think the courts should decide disputes that arise involving the transfer of numbers, just as they resolve disputes that arise involving the transfer of automobiles, businesses, body parts, houses, or anything else. WorldCom was, in the end analysis, a contract dispute. A guy had a business plan. A key part of that business plan was getting a particular number. He arranged with WorldCom to get the number for him, and WorldCom agreed to do so. Then WorldCom dropped the ball and, to add injury to insult, handled the aftermath of the screw-up rather badly. So, the guy sued WorldCom. Quite frankly, I don't think this is a matter the FCC should be involved it at all. It is a court matter, and the court handled it just fine. > By the way, the FCC recently re-affirmed the "public resource" > concept regarding numbers. On Oct. 20, 1997, regarding something AT&T > might value more than any 800 number, (the 10288 carrier access code), > the FCC stated: > 58. Second, we find that VarTec's service mark argument fails. > While we agree with VarTec that trademarks and service marks > are property rights, we find that because CICs and CACs are > telephone numbers and, therefore, a public resource, there > can be no private ownership of them. We specifically reject > VarTec's assertion that there is a lack of legal authority to > support the propositions that NANP codes are a public resource, > and that use of such codes does not confer ownership. Confirms my view that rights in the mark do not translate into rights in the number. Beyond that, however, I still see this "property" interest thing as a non sequitur or, at best, a red herring. Except insofar as it might affect certain "takings" arguments (and I see that VarTec did advance a 5th Amendment "takings" argument), whether or not you call it a property right or not, and whether or not you acknowledge ownership are irrelevant. The FCC (in the vanity number context) jumps from the irrelevant premise that number are a "public resource", to the questionable mid-point that users do now "own" their numbers, and on to the illogical conclusion that there must be no pecuniary gain for transferring assignment of a number. (But, let Congress mandate auctions of numbers, and just watch how quickly the FCC trips over itself to start raking in money for numbers!) If the Commission's logic is correct, and IMO it patently is not, then Disney should have to give back ABC, AT&T should have to give back McCaw Cellular, etc., etc., etc. Because as to radio these issues are not even arguable. By statute the spectrum is a public resource, and by statute licensees gain no ownership in the spectrum (merely a license to use it). And yet, huge gobs of money are exchanged for radio licenses every day with the FCC's full blessing. Let's be intellectually honest. Perhaps there is a valid legal or policy reason to prohibit the purchase and sale of numbers, but the ostensible lack of ownership interest ain't it. But, I digress ... this order (the 10xxx => 10xxxx order) had to do not with buying and selling but with changing the architecture ... > (From Order extending deadline for 7-digit Carrier Access Codes, > and effectively removes the 5-digit 10XXX Carrier Access Code > from the NANP mid-1998. VarTec argued that existing 10XXX > numbers should be grand-fathered and remain in the dialing plan, > along with 1010XXXX codes. Two arguments against elimination of > 10XXX were: > - [it] takes VarTec's private property without just compensation > in violation of the Fifth Amendment and > - [it] violates VarTec's commercial free speech rights under the > First Amendment; > These sound like arguments against format expansion of 800-numbers ... Which gets back to my statements regarding possible future moves beyond ten-digit dialing. The collateral effect on private users is one of many public interest considerations, but probably not dispositive or even overriding. I haven't checked, but similar issues may have been litigated in the context of area code splits and overlays. Bob Keller (KY3R) rjk@telcomlaw.com www.his.com/~rjk/ ------------------------------ From: Kevin R. Ray Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning Date: 9 Nov 1997 04:24:29 GMT Organization: The Windy City Kyler Laird wrote: > So ... I signed up with the only reasonable ISDN provider in town, > BlueMarble.net, and they helped me order my ISDN line. > Just ordering it was an ordeal. The woman who took the order (with > the ISP and me both on the line) was a moron. She had great > difficulty and let someone else just take care of it. I skipped the ISP/USRobotics help to getting my ISDN line. I called 1-800-TEAM-DATA directly. All they wanted was some equipment code that I didn't know -- telling them "Courier I-Modem" was enough. Ironically after the installation and playing with it I tried switching the Courier from using Nation ISDN-1 protocol to Nation ISDN-2, AT&T 5ESS, Northern Telecom DMS-100 ... they *ALL* worked. > Later that week, I received a call from Ameritech with the details. > It would take over three weeks to install. My wife was getting anxious, > but this gave me time to get the computer purchased and set up. I too received a call back from Ameritech confirming the installation. It too took about three weeks from the initial phone call. Typical from what I've heard. > The line was installed when promised, Oct. 24. Unfortunately, no one > was home, so the installer decided not to connect the line to the > inside wires. I spent the evening on the (cellular) phone with my > wife trying to figure out why she couldn't get a signal. You knew the installation date. Why was no one there or re-schedule it for a good time? If I was the installer (which I'm not a phone guy :) I too would have terminated at the POP box and left. It would be *possible* to fry phone equipment by simply hooking it up to a ISDN line. The installer had no idea where those pairs went inside the house. > So ... she called back to get the wires connected since I wasn't going > to be down there for over a week. Eventually the installer showed up > again. Probably not the original installer who knew about ISDN, et al... > This time, however, he told her that she could not use ISDN at all > unless she had RJ-45 jacks installed at every existing jack. She was > tired of waiting, so she believed this idiot and he proceeded to > *stick* RJ-45 jacks on the freshly-painted walls. Probably because it was a installer not familiar w/ ISDN. Why he (or anyone) would think you need RJ-45 jacks at every existing jack location is beyond me ... > Enough venting for now ... My advice: > 1. Don't let an Ameritech phone > installer inside your house. My installation went flawlessly. From start to finish. And the same Ameritech installer helped me a week before (knowing that I was getting ISDN in a week) with solving a modem problem on the same number. Couldn't keep a connection. Even brought over his laptop to determine it was the line and not my equipment (for his peace of mind). Turned out to be a bad T-1 card somewhere on the line ... > 2. Don't leave your wife alone with > an Ameritech phone installer. Or don't get married. :) > 3. Do everything you can yourself > if you want it done correctly. That I can agree with ... My experience with getting ISDN installed with Ameritech was next to perfect. Believe me, from past experience with dealing with Ameritech programming screw ups on the line, I have *NOT* been a Ameritech "fan" in the past. I will say that in the last year their response time and knowledge has been wonderful! It took them *hours* to resolve a "911" problem at the office that I discovered (right address, wrong name being delivered to dispatch). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:31:29 -0500 From: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: Re: Risks is Alive and Well Organization: Ashworth & Associates, St Pete FL USA Here is another web interface to RISKS for interested people: For Lindsay Marshall's web interface to the digest, which I'd had to go hand copy into the messane ... http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/bin/risksindex/ Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Pedantry. It's not just a job, it's an Tampa Bay, Florida adventure." -- someone on AFU +1 813 790 7592 ------------------------------ From: Blake Droke Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 00:17:31 -0600 Reply-To: bdroke@sprintmail.com Bill Levant wrote: > We had some trouble in my office this week with inTRA-LATA toll > calls. > We just switched from ATX (10008) to Worldcom (10555) and calls to > certain nearby toll points were being misrouted by Bell Atlantic > (which SWORE that our PIC codes were all correct; they weren't, but > THAT's another story ...) preventing us from completing those calls, > except by using an IXC, at ungenerous rates). > At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code > 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works > just like (700) 555-4141. > I've never seen that mentioned here; does it work anywhere else? > BTW, if you're lucky (?) enough to have BA inTRA-LATA toll, dialing > 700-4141 gets you the dulcet tones of James Earl Jones thanking you > for using CNN, er ... BA. It's ALMOST worth switching to BA just for > that ;-). > By the way, Worldcom offers UNTIMED calling to the entire metro > Philadelphia area at about .07/call; BA charges (at best) .04/minute > during the day. How does Worldcom do this and not go broke (I assume > that they **don't** re-sell BA). I tried 700-4141 here in Memphis, I basically got nothing, sort of a where's the rest of the number type of response. At 1-901-700-4141, I got a message stating "Thank you for choosing BellSouth. We're here to meet your communications needs." Strange, since you can't pick your own intra-LATA carrier in Tennessee yet (unfortunately). (But you can override via a PIC code, ie. 10333, 10222, 10288, etc.) ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 02:38:23 -0500 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Jack Hamilton wrote: > PROFS' moment of fame came during the Nixon/Watergate days, when some > incriminating email memos were found in the White House PROFS system. That's not the only bit of high tech that was used in the White House during the Nixon Administration. For a while they had Xerox Alto workstations, which were the first practical GUI implementation ever to be used outside the lab; Alto was the real inspiration for the Lisa and Macintosh. Getting back to telecom stuff, C&P Telephone installed Picturephones in the White House to link key officials, though I don't know how many had the system or if one was installed in the Oval Office (Nixon may have had his in the smaller adjoining office). Reportedly this was on a trial basis, and when C&P wanted to start charging for the service the White House had the Picturephones taken out. ------------------------------ From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Bill Ranck) Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: 9 Nov 1997 13:17:37 GMT Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Jack Hamilton (jfh@alumni.stanford.org) wrote: > PROFS' moment of fame came during the Nixon/Watergate days, when some > incriminating email memos were found in the White House PROFS system. > I haven't heard anything about PROFS recently; I don't know whether > IBM dropped it, or just renamed it to something sexier. Actually, it was Reagan/Iran-Contra days. PROFS was not around in 1972. IBM no longer supports PROFS, and it is not year 2000 compliant, so anyone (like us) who still has it running will stop using it in a couple years. ;-) Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Rogers Subject: Re: How Does Cable (as in "Cable Address") Work? Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 16:56:32 GMT [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... > Certainly there were not as many long-winded and frivilous messages > as now, and as was pointed out many messages consisted of just a few > words, sent at considerable ex-pense. My favourite set of cable exchanges was that related by the novelist Evelyn Waugh between himself and the {Daily Mail} newspaper, who were employing him as a war correspondent in Abyssinia, but were concerned that they weren't getting any reports. Daily Mail: WHY UNNEWS Waugh: UNNEWS GOODNEWS Daily Mail: UNNEWS UNJOB Waugh: UPSTICK JOB ASSWISE Jez ------------------------------ From: Edwin Kayes Subject: Data Recording - Real-Time Digital Comms Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 14:47:27 +0100 (BST) Organization: Somerdata Reply-To: edwin.kayes@somerdata.com I am interested in making contact with anyone who has an interest in recording comms signals such as E-1 G.703 Level 1 and above. Specifically, I am looking for feedback to identify user hardware, interfacing and software requirements which will help future product development of real-time record-to-disk systems. Thanks, Edwin Kayes Somerdata Limited Wells England edwin.kayes@somerdata.com http://www.somerdata.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:48:13 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 07:58:03 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape edited by Philip E. Agre University of California, San Diego Marc Rotenberg Electronic Privacy Information Center MIT Press, 1997 Hardcover ISBN: 0-262-01162-X $25.00 Available through the EPIC Bookstore: http://www.epic.org/bookstore/ Excerpts from the introduction can be found at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/landscape.html MIT Press Web site: http://mitpress.mit.edu/ Privacy is the capacity to negotiate social relationships by controlling access to personal information. As laws, policies, and technological design increasingly structure people's relationships with social institutions, individual privacy faces new threats and new opportunities. Over the last several years, the realm of technology and privacy has been transformed, creating a landscape that is both dangerous and encouraging. Significant changes include large increases in communications bandwidths; the widespread adoption of computer networking and public-key cryptography; mathematical innovations that promise a vast family of protocols for protecting identity in complex transactions; new digital media that support a wide range of social relationships; a new generation of technologically sophisticated privacy activists; a massive body of practical experience in the development and application of data-protection laws; and the rapid globalization of manufacturing, culture, and policy making. The essays in this book provide a new conceptual framework for the analysis and debate of privacy policy and for the design and development of information systems. The authors are international experts in the technical, economic, and political aspects of privacy; the book's strength is its synthesis of the three. The book provides equally strong analyses of privacy issues in the United States, Canada, and Europe. ------------------------------ Contributors: Philip E. Agre Beyond the mirror world: Privacy and the representational practices of computing Victoria Bellotti Design for privacy in multimedia computing and communications environments Colin J. Bennett Convergence revisited: Towards a global policy for personal data protection Herbert Burkert Privacy enhancing technologies: Typology, vision, critique Simon G. Davies Re-engineering the privacy right: How privacy has been transformed from a right to a commodity David H. Flaherty Controlling surveillance: Can privacy protection be made effective? Robert Gellman Does privacy law work? Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger Generational development of data protection in Europe David J. Phillips Cryptography, secrets, and the structuring of trust Rohan Samarajiva Interactivity as though privacy mattered ------------------------------ From: black@csulb.SPAMFORD-WALLACE.edu (Matthew Black) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: 6 Nov 1997 15:31:54 GMT Organization: California State University, Long Beach In article , Perillo@DOCKMASTER.NCSC. MIL says: [message edited for brevity --matt] > "In a letter to all customers of its wire-maintenance plans, > Bell Atlantic said the plans will no longer cover > ''malfunctions in the dial tone resulting from the use of > voice-grade lines to transmit or receive data or signals which > exceed the operating capabilities of the line.'' In effect, > the Bell Atlantic policy means subscribers to the optional > wire-maintenance plans will not be covered for service calls > that involve problems resulting from modem use on a standard > voice line. Simple solution: unplug your modem BEFORE calling for repair service. If a telephone works on the line, the problem is probably with the modem/computer. > According to Bell Atlantic, ''a service charge may apply when a > repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the > transmission or receipt of data or signals which are beyond the > operating capabilities of the dial-tone line.'' ". I can see why Smell Atlantic wants to charge for service calls completely unrelated to dial-tone service. I support remote access users for my organization and most problems are caused by the customers/users. One of our users, for example, added a second phone line for his modem. When moving his modem to the new phone line, the computer could no longer connect. After an hour, we finally isolated the problem to his software: his computer dialed *70 to cancel call waiting and the new line didn't have this feature. GTE charges $1.00/month for the cancel call waiting. Under this scenario, GTE (or Smell Atlantic) should charge the full cost of any service call since the problem was not related to the dial tone. [To reply via e-mail, remove obvious component from reply-to address] matthew black | the opinions expressed herein are mine and network & systems specialist | may not reflect those of my employer. california state university | network services SSA-180E | e-mail: black@csulb.edu 1250 bellflower boulevard | PGP fingerprint: 98 4E DF BE 49 A8 DF 99 long beach, ca 90840 | 6A 7A 1B F1 3E 50 E5 D2 =============================(c) 1997 by Matthew Black, all rights reserved= ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #308 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Nov 10 21:51:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA10807; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:51:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:51:24 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711110251.VAA10807@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #309 TELECOM Digest Mon, 10 Nov 97 21:51:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 309 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Operators and Rates (was Re: Drakesbad No.2 Ringdown) (Mark Cuccia) 704/828 Schedule Change (John Cropper) 408 to Split Yet Again in 1999! (John Cropper) Last Laugh! Re: Where is Dust Coming From (Richard Redmond) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 16:31:15 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: AT&T Operators and Rates (was Re: Drakesbad No.2 Ringdown) Lee Winson wrote: > Mark, thanks for the interesting report. Some questions I'd like to > share with the newsgroup ... > 1) I'm curious as to if the AT&T operators would know how to connect > you if you did NOT give them the operator dialing code -- just > said "Drakesbad Number 2 in Susanville California". Normally, > that's all you would know. > [When I've used Enterprise numbers in recent years, the typical > AT&T operator has no idea what I'm talking about and refuses to > do anything until I provide a proper number. One even cut me off. > I have to ask them to get a supervisor to explain how to look it > up. (Several AT&T operators referred me back to the local Bell > operator, who then referred me back to AT&T.) One time the AT&T > operator placed the call as collect, but asked the called party > if they'd accept it -- on an Enterprise call, that's supposed to > be a given.] I happened to have the Inward Operator's Routing Code (916+028+121, now 530+028+121) from some old AT&T documents (1981), which was the same as what is shown in current Bellcore documents. But the travel advertisement indicated to call Drakesbad No.2 CA via Susanville CA Operator. Even though most AT&T operators would have such a request maybe once a month (if that often), they are trained to know that such a request is for a call to a "Ringdown" or "Toll-Station", etc., which _MUST_ be handled by the (LEC/AT&T) Operator(s). And had I not know the operator's route code (530+028+) or mark-sense billing ID code (887-439), the operator simply looks it up from an informational and instructions database that her OSPS terminal dips into. These days, AT&T operators don't really need to go to the "Rate and Route" operator anymore. I didn't mention in my original post that on one of my attempts to call Drakesbad No.2, that the AT&T operator disconnected. Whether she did this deliberately, or accidently (when I told her that I needed to place a call to Drakesbad No.2 California via Susanville CA Inward, she told me to hold the line, but I was disconnected), I don't know. About ten years ago, I needed directory assistance for a number in a small village in India (+91). I did have the city-code, and the small village was customer IDDD-able from the US, but I didn't have the subscriber's number. It so happened that I was requesting directory assistance during the Christmas/New-Years' Holiday Season. Traffic was _QUITE_ heavy during that time. When the originating AT&T TSPS Operator (and at that time, they still had a TSPS switch and operator-team in New Orleans, NWORLAMA1UD) would attempt to use operators' routing for inward or directory for whatever town in India, their PTT's heavily accented recording kept repeating _OVER-and-OVER_, "Please wait for operator to answer, your call is in queue", with little-to-no pausing. Since the recorded announcement didn't "supe", after two-minutes of the recording endlessly repeating itself, the connection timed out, "Your AT&T International call did not go through in the country you have dialed. Please try your call again. 504-2T". On some attempts, the AT&T operator would let the recording play a few times, but tell me that I should call back later on. On one attempt, when I requested directory for whatever village in India, the AT&T operator simply disconnected. I did call back and tell a supervisor about this. And while I knew that the originating AT&T operator 'could' have passed me to AT&T's IOC in Pittsburgh, which had the cordboard for particular international locations (Kp+160+910+St, for the positions handling calls to India), I was told that IOC Operator Assistance was for customers _paying_ for calls to non-dialable locations in foreign countries, or calls to non-dialable countries, or other special assistance. Directory requests for numbers in dialable countries didn't seem to merit my attempts being handled by the 160+910 operator. Incidently, directory assistance requests in countries outside of the NANP (i.e. international/overseas) were still FREE at that time, and _only_ AT&T operators (when calling from the US) could handle such requests. Sprint and MCI (etc) operators had always told me to call 10288-0 for such assistance! Even today, you occasionally get a _RUDE_ AT&T operator who will disconnect on you. Sometimes, on such out-of-the-ordinary assistance or requests (in these days and times), it might be necessary to ask for a supervisor right away. The supervisors have _always_ apologized for the rudeness of some operators, and ask if you had just had the trouble, and if you were calling from the same number. Maybe they have a way to track complaints about operators. I don't know if AT&T still has "AWT" for their operator teams. AWT stands for "Average Work Time", and I'll let some former operators who participate in the Digest explain what that was all about. > 2) When AT&T first began giving discounts for dialed direct calls > (1970s?) there were a few places that still didn't have DDD > service. For those places, or for when a customer had trouble > making the call, AT&T always charged the dialed-direct rate even > if the operator placed the call. I don't know what today's > rate plans are, but by that tradition you should be billed the > dialed direct rate. > Also, I thought on operator-handled rates that the operator > surcharge is only on the first minute and that subsequent > minutes are the same as dialed direct. Further, aren't there > now two classes of operator handled -- one sort of a "self-serve" > type--dial 0+ and enter your calling card, and the other a > "full serve"? > Regardless of how they bill you, it might be interesting to > call them and ask for an explanation when you get the bill. > I'll bet their customer service people won't have a clue on it! I don't know the exact date or year, but sometime around 1992 or 1993, AT&T operators would _RARELY_ complete a call for you and bill you at the direct-dialed rate or customer-card or even customer-station rate, even if you indicated trouble in completion when you tried to dial the call yourself, or if the location wasn't (yet) customer-dialable. On wrong-number reports, the Operators will tell you that they did key-in a credit, but then tell you that you can hang-up and redial, or that they can place the call at operator _HANDLED_ rates. It used to be that on wrong-number reports, the operator would ask you what number you really intended to call, credit you, and that _THEY_ would dial the (intended) number, at the cheaper rate depending on the class of the call. Similarly, on reports to the operator that you were 'cut-off', the operator would credit you for two or three minutes, and then dial the number _for_ you at the original rate. A few years back, I can remember that many sleazeball COCOTs not allowing me to dial 10(10)288+0/01+, and 0+ would cause the COCOT to send me off to some AOSlime. But when I tried to dial 1-800-CALL-ATT or 1-800-3210-ATT, the COCOT would cut-off its touchtone keypad. I was unable to DTMF-enter the destination number (not to mention my calling-card number). Use of an acoustic DTMF tone-generator would cause the COCOT to shut-off its mouthpiece voice-path, or even disconnect me! :( If I told the AT&T operator that I was having _trouble_ with the call, they would usually give me the customer-card rate rather than operator-handled rate. But not anymore. I _assume_ that the rationale is that so many people who usually use MCI, Sprint, etc., but _rarely_ ever use AT&T, were placing the occasional call via AT&T, at the cheper rates. But I've been told that for cases where the operator bills you Operator-Handled rates on such trouble conditions, AT&T's customer service is frequently helpful in reducing the charge or giving you a credit (if you are noted as a 'regular' customer of AT&T). But the originating operator on the initial call doesn't seem to be authorized to give one the 'cheaper' rates, _UNLESS_ there is previous notification from higher-up, such as Network Management. i.e., NM knows that a switch or trunk is down, and alerts all OSPS chief-operators or supervisors to tell the individual operators to give the customer the cheaper rate, _IF_ the customer indicates a trouble condition. As for initial and addition minute rate structures themselves, with all of the various recent changes in AT&T's rates or package plans or discount programs, it is more and more difficult to get a clear answer as to what one might be charged. Incidently, I've been told that AT&T's '0+' card-billing is more expensive than 800- access for card-billing. And even if you have _dialed_ the destination number as (10(10)288)+0+, but are calling from a rotary dial telephone, I've been told that the rates are _higher_ for the operator to key-in your AT&T (or LEC) card number rather than when you key it in yourself from a DTMF telephone. Maybe it is better to have a battery-powered (Radio Shack) touchtone (DTMF) generator, and even from rotary-dial phones, at least you could rotary-dial the 800- access number (if the _line_ has DTMF subscribed service from the local telco, you could even acoustically DTMF _that_) and then acoustically DTMF-enter the destination number and card number at the "bong" and AT&T "sparkle" jingle, and as such you would be billed the least expensive AT&T card rate. NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your comment about the call to India and the crude 'on hold' device they used to keep you waiting struck a very sympathetic chord with me. I'll tell you who else used to be (still is?) simply awful: try reaching an inward operator in France very late Sunday night in the USA when it is Monday morning and the start of the work week in Paris. An AT&T operator in the Pittsburgh IOC who usually works night shift says Sunday night into early Monday morning here is pure hell as far as a shift to work. They are extremely busy with calls going to businesses in Europe and trying to reach directory inquiry operators in France and a couple other European countries. Pittsburgh is swamped all night long and my contact says one of the most annoying parts of it are what she termed the 'absolutely damnable wait-your-turn machines' used in France. In about a fifteen second cycle, a man with a very crisp British accent says, "We are trying to extend your call, please stand by", followed by three or four bars of some bit of music. This is then repeated, and repeated, and repeated with the very short two or three second at best intervals between the man's request for patience, and the same music. If your operator remains on hold three minutes for a response from *their* operator, she and you will hear that message and music repeated a dozen times. And to quote her, "whoever sold that piece of junk to the France telecom found another sucker in Singapore; check them out Sunday about noon in the USA as they are getting all fired up and starting work on Monday morning there." I tried; sure enough, same man's voice urging the Americans to show patience while attempts were made to extend the call; same three or four bars of the idiotic music. It would appear in many parts of the world, the telecom administration is simply not geared up to handle nearly the volume of traffic they should be able to handle. I suspect the telecom revolution in the USA and the amount of international calling being done these days caught many of them by surprise. But which would you prefer? In the 'olden days' (make that how many years ago you feel like) the routine was the AT&T operator would try to call the other country and it would simply ring, and ring, endlessly, unceasingly. The AT&T operators in White Plains, NY (when much of the IOC was located there) would matter-of-factly tell the American caller they would wait up to five minutes for an answer and no longer. Then after, say, forty or fifty rings, when Paris or New Delhi finally answered (almost resentfully it seemed) and your operator asked for a directory listing there, the distant operator would go away and be gone up to five minutes or so before coming back on the line with the requested number, or to say she could not find it at all. My contact in Pittsburgh said she believes AT&T encouraged the telecom admins in those places to install 'wait-your-turn' machines mainly to placate USA operators/users so that at least it could be detirmined if the connection got through or not at all ... in the past did the 'open ring' mean the distant point was very busy or did it mean the circuit was out of order and not getting through at all? Well, the crude 'on hold' things they use now at least confirm the connection is part-way there. :) An American in Cuba; circa 1950-55, before the borders closed: a reader pointed out to me he tried to call 'back home' to the USA one day. Normally operators in Havana connected to AT&T's Inter- national Operating Center in Miami for call completion. This day though it rang and rang and rang, maybe three dozen times or so, and finally the Cuban operator in Havana advised our reader, "I am sorry sir, the United States is not answering the phone today." And she said it in dead seriousness. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 704/828 Schedule Change Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:10:06 -0500 From BellSouth: November 10, 1997 CHARLOTTE -- North Carolina's telephone companies will implement the new 828 area code for the western part of the state 10 weeks sooner than originally announced, moving the schedule in line with the plans for the other two new area codes -- 336 and 252. The new implementation date of March 22, 1998, will mean customers will have six months of "permissive dialing" during which they may use either the new 828 code or the old 704 code in completing calls that require an area code. The original schedule allowed only four months of permissive dialing. In addition, some cellular companies throughout the state will be taking an additional 18 months of permissive dialing to complete the conversion to the data chips inside their customers' telephones, as ordered by the North Carolina Utilities Commission. "When we originally announced the schedule last month we said the date for the 828 implementation was tentative," said Chuck Reiley, Regional Director of Corporate & External Affairs for BellSouth. "We are pleased that we were able to advance the schedule so customers will have the same time in which to adjust to the new 828 code as they do to the new 336 and 252 codes." The final implementation schedule for the state's new area codes are: 336 will split from 910 to serve the Triad area beginning Dec. 15, 1997, with mandatory dialing beginning June 15, 1998; 252 will split from 919 to serve the northeastern section of the state beginning March 22, 1998, with mandatory dialing beginning Sept. 21, 1998; and 828 will split from 704 to serve the western section of the state beginning March 22, 1998, with mandatory dialing beginning Oct. 5, 1998. During permissive dialing, calls which require an area code may be dialed using either the new code or the original code. At the end of the permissive period, the new area code must be used to complete the call. Calls within the basic local calling area that are currently dialed using seven digits are not affected by the area code change and will continue to be dialed using only seven digits. "Permissive dialing gives customers time to notify others of the change, make whatever changes to their telephone equipment or services that are needed, and become accustomed to the new code," Reiley said. "During this time, BellSouth will be completing the conversion of our switching equipment and our billing and records systems -- everything from displaying the proper number by Caller ID and to assuring that the correct number is billed for a call." The Commission granted an extension of permissive dialing for some cellular customers because of the logistics requirements for cellular providers to actually convert chips inside each phone. Reiley said that during this extended permissive period, BellSouth customers will be able to call cellular customers using the same dialing pattern they use today. Cellular providers will furnish their customers with information regarding dialing patterns and procedures for converting to the new area codes. Reiley said that some BellSouth customers, who live close to a new area code boundary, may experience a change in the dialing patterns for some calls. If a customer is now using seven digits to place calls to an Expanded Local Calling Plan area which will be in a different area code, the customer will need to use 10 digits after the new code is introduced. He said BellSouth will send detailed information directly to affected customers. ### For more information, contact: Chuck Reiley 704-258-7005 ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: 408 to Split Yet Again in 1999! Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:32:53 -0500 408/831 isn't going to solve things ... from PacBell: November 10, 1997 408 Area Code to Split Again in 1999 Demand for Additional Phone Numbers Rapidly Growing SAN FRANCISCO -- Due to increased demand for telephone numbers, an additional new area code will be introduced in portions of the South Bay Area Peninsula and Central Coast areas of California that now use the 408 area code. The new area code is expected to be in use as early as November 1999. This area code introduction will occur just 16 months after the 831 area code splits off from the 408 area code in July 1998 and more than one year earlier than previous projections due to unprecedented number demand. "The good news is that not everyone will have to change their area code in 1999," said California Code Administrator Doug Hescox, who coordinates area code relief planning statewide for the telecommunications industry. "Only those customers who kept their 408 area code last time will be affected this time around. Customers with the 831 area code will not have to change their area code." The 408 area code currently serves the majority of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties and very small portions of Alameda, Merced, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo and Stanislaus counties. As proposed, on July 11, 1998 the new 831 area code will begin serving most of Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties and very small portions of Merced, San Luis Obispo and San Mateo counties. Originally the 408 area code was not expected to split again until the year 2001. "However, the demand for telecommunications services far exceeded the industry's expectations, so we've had to move the next area code introduction date up," Hescox explained. Hescox said the skyrocketing demand for new phone numbers is being seen not only in the South Bay and Central Coast areas, but across the state. California now has 18 area codes - more than any other state - and will need to add another five by the end of 1998 to keep pace with demand. Two primary factors driving that demand are the high technology explosion and local telephone service competition. "The rising demand for additional phone numbers is caused by the increased use of fax machines, pagers, cellular phones, modems for Internet access and data communications networks like ATMs and pay point services, all of which require phone lines. Further, with the onset of widespread competition in California's local telephone market in 1996, each new provider requires its own supply of phone numbers. In California, we have more companies entering local telephone competition than any other state," Hescox continued. Under California law, public participation and comment is obtained before the industry submits an area code relief plan to the California Public Utilities Commission. Hescox explained that a series of meetings will be held before May 1998 to seek public comment and input on potential options for the 408 area code. Locations, dates and times of the public meetings will be announced at a later time. Boundaries for the new area code, as well as the actual three-digit number, will be announced in late 1998. Area code relief plans are collectively developed by a telecommunications industry group composed of more than 30 companies, including AT&T, AT&T Wireless, AirTouch, the California Cable Television Association, Cox California PCS, Cox Communications, GTE, ICG Telecom Group, L.A. Cellular, MCI, Mobilemedia Communications, Pacific Bell, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, PageNet, Preferred Networks, Sprint and The Telephone Connection. California Code Administration is an independent planning group that coordinates area code relief planning and administers numbering resources on behalf of the California telecommunications industry. Final decisions on area code issues are made by the California Public Utilities Commission. ------------------------------ From: Richard Redmond Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Where is Dust Coming From Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 20:06:15 -0600 Organization: Ethos Communications [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Usually I save this sort of message for around April 1 each year, but what the heck; this one is a bit more elaborate than the usual 'blow dust out of the lines' messages which appear in April, and I thought you might get a laugh from it. So here goes ... PAT] Vicki Blier wrote: > In article <63kvhj$1cgk$2@news.rchland.ibm.com>, > seurer@nordruth.rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) wrote: >> A lot of dust comes from the phones when the phone company cleans the >> lines. Around here they warn us to put plastic bags over the phones. >> Strangely they usually do this operation right at the beginning of >> April. >>:-) > Telephone wires are like heater ducts, little empty tubes that carry > your voice's vibrations to the person you're calling. When the phone > company cleans them, they send little cockroaches through them with > feather dusters attached to their backs. The dust that is not picked > up by the feather dusters is stirred up and comes out the little holes > in the mouthpiece. Please don't take this issue lightly! Before you allow the telephone company (telco) to clean out your phone lines ... The following is taken from a Telephone New Subscriber Phamplet dated November 1, 1997. There is a serious side-effect to having the phone company blow or clean out your lines. If there is a weak spot in the insulation anywhere between the central office and your phone, it can cause an insulation break in your phone line. Through this break, solder ants can enter thus causing an infestation, especially when the insulation break is close to your house. For the uninformed, solder ants, a close cousin to the leaf-cutter ant, crawl through the phone lines and attack the soldered connections in phone equipment, answering machines, telephones, modems, digital satellite receivers (plugged into a phone jack) and home computers, especially those using an internal modem. They eat the solder off of joints causing cold solder joints and opens. Symptoms of a solder ant infestation are the crackling and popping sounds heard on your phone, spurious reboots on your computer and wrong numbers/incomplete calls on your phone. Remember the electrical outage that affected nearly the entire western United States several years ago? It was caused by solder ants. Three ways to combat this pest are as follows ... 1. Cracks in your phone line insulation, the cause of solder ant infestations, are caused by excess slack in cables between the central office and your home. This slack causes excessive bending of the insulation on your phone lines thus causing cracks thus allowing solder ants to enter. In order to correct this, insist that the phone company pull all the slack out of your lines from the central office end. This is not widely known, but the telcos must do this at no charge to the subscriber requesting it. Lobbying by the telcos prevented them from having to do this automatically. 2. Four to six inches from the device (phone, modem, etc.) tie a tight knot in the phone cord to prevent solder ants from exiting to your equipment (Make sure you loosen the knot when the lines are blown out!). This also has the added benefit of preventing lightning from destroying your equipment. It is a known fact that lightning must travel in a straight line and it cannot make it around the bends of a tight knot tied in your phone cord. This is a little known fact that companies such as APC, who make surge suppression equipment, do not want you to know. 3. Insist that the phone company flush your lines instead of blow them out. Chemicals contained in the flushing solution ward off solder ants and are just as effective in cleaning out your lines. The only problem is that once notified that your lines are to be flushed, you have the responsibilty of unplugging all telecom devices and leaving the phone cord ends extended in to some type of bucket to capture the flushing solution. Otherwise the solution will drain all over your equipment and require professional cleaning. An environmental note: Smaller, less well-financed telcos use cheaper, older, more dangerous flushing solutions. The residue left from line flushing must be dealt with the same way you would deal with any petroleum based solvent. The easiest way to get around this is to insist that your telco use environmentally friendly subscriber line flushing solvents. Warning: Do not attempt to blow out the lines yourself or try to look into a line that is being blown clean. You could destroy your phone equipment or injure yourself. It is best left to the experts. I have been in the telephone business for twenty-two years. I know what I am talking about! ;^) ----------- Spammers: Welcome to my kill file! | Everyone else: Drop the underscores. Richard Redmond | r_redmond@plan_o.net | "Another Rich Republican Wanna-Be" [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And you, sir, are a charlatan! Solder ants, indeed! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #309 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Tue Nov 11 00:23:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA20270; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:23:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 00:23:26 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711110523.AAA20270@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #310 TELECOM Digest Tue, 11 Nov 97 00:23:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 310 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson UCLA Short Course: Internet Multicast and Multimedia Technology (B Goodin) Re: Switch Information Requested (Blake Droke) Electrical Design Engineers Needed (lmc@dmc22.com) Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning (Dan J. Declerck) Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning (Bill Cornett) Customer DDD is 46 Years Old (Monday) (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Customer DDD is 46 Years Old (Monday) (Ryan Michael Landry) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Eric W. Burger) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Tom) Re: Unregulated LD From Canadian Hotels (Brian F. G. Bidulock) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Goodin Subject: UCLA Short Course: Internet Multicast and Multimedia Technology Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 17:18:41 -0800 On February 9-10, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Internet Multicast and Multimedia Technologies: The MBone, Multicast Routing, RTP, and RSVP", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Lixia Zhang, PhD, Associate Professor, Computer Science Department, UCLA; Steve Deering, PhD, Technical Leader, Cisco Systems; and Deborah Estrin, PhD, Associate Professor, Computer Science Department, University of Southern California. IP multicast delivery has been the key enabler for the development of a wide variety of multimedia applications on the Internet. This course describes the creation and operation of the MBone, the Multicast Backbone of the Internet, and its most widely used applications: vat (packet voice), vic (packet video), wb (distributed whiteboard), and csdr (conference session directory), for interactive remote participation in real time. The course also presents underlying protocol technologies, including the IP multicast service model, DistanceVector Multicast Routing Protocol (DVMRP), and Realtime Transport Protocol (RTP), and scalable, reliable multicast delivery algorithms. The course also presents some of the tools available for monitoring and diagnosing multicast routing and delivery problems, such as mtrace and RTPmon. Because the rapid growth of the MBone is driving further evolution of existing protocol technologies, the second half of the course focuses on enhancement of Internet architecture and protocols to better support multicast and multimedia applications. This includes a detailed description of the RSVP resource reservation protocol and the PIM multicast routing protocol. The course is intended for Internet protocol implementors, Internet service providers, managers and planners of enterprise networks, and anyone wishing to learn how MBone works, and how IP multicast protocols and applications are evolving. The course fee is $795, which includes extensive course materials. These materials are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. ------------------------------ From: Blake Droke Subject: Re: Switch Information Requested Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:36:48 -0600 Reply-To: bdroke@sprintmail.com PB Schechter wrote: > Colorado is currently looking for ways to "conserve" numbers in the > 303 area code. One idea that has come up is the possibility of > turning Central Office Codes from NXXs to XXXs. This would add about > two million numbers, and is possible because Colorado is going to use > an overlay in the 303 area, so ten digits will need to be dialed for > all local calls. > (Just to be perfectly clear: currently, a CO code can't begin with 0 > or 1 because those initial digits are used to indicate operator and > long distance calls, respectively. However, if local calls are all > prefaced with the area code, the initial digit of a call to a number > with a CO code beginning with 0 or 1 *will not be 0 or 1.*) > Some people have claimed that this might "break" some switches > (particularly, outside of the North American Numbering Plan). It > seems to me that, once a switch sees that a call is going "somewhere > else" (i.e., to a different area code), it won't even look at the > remaining digits (or, if it does, it won't care what they are). > However, I am not a switch expert. Other replies have indicated that there would be problems with various IXC and LEC switches, but this would only be the beginning. PBXs everywhere would have to be checked for any possible problems. (At my office, the PBX would have to have minor re-programming). But even minor re-programming when spread out over 1000s of PBXs in the NANP would be quite an undertaking (and quite an expense). What about computer programs and databases which have been programmed to recognize 0xx-xxxx and 1xx-xxx numbers as invalid? How many of these are there out there? Another computer problem (especially with IBM midrange and mainframe systems) is some times the phone or fax number is stored as one field for the NPA code, and another 7 digit numeric field for the phone number. It is a common practice on these systems to display the phone number with an "Edit word". This will cause data such as 5551212 to be displayed or printed as 555-1212, but data such as 053-1234 will be displayed/printed as 53-1234. If you saw a number like that what would you think? (Probably where's the rest of the number.) Speaking of what would you think, how are you going to re-program people's brains? When we switched away from 0 or 1 as second digit in NPAs, the average person couldn't have cared less. He/she most likely never knew that restriction existed to begin with. A number beginning with 0 or 1 will probably raise quite a few more eyebrows. ("This number can't be right"). I'm sure there'd be virtually no public education. Untold hundreds of thousands still don't know that 888 is toll free. If I ran a business in Denver, I would most certainly NOT want a number beginning with 0 or 1. (For residential, it might be a plus, it might confuse the telemarketers.) In my humble opinion (and it is very humble indeed) is that the NANP should not be tampered with on a local level. It is unfair to shift the expense of incorporating this change throughout North America, simply to prevent someone in Denver from having an area code they don't like. There has already been far too many local changes made to the NANP. Some places require 7 digits for local calls, some 10, some 11. Some have 7 digit dialing for some long distance calls, some don't. This is another local twist which is not needed. Changes like this should be considered at the NANP level (or whoever is in charge of it now.) And while they're at it, maybe they could fix the other dialing messes, like making 10 local dialing the preferred method, with 7 digit permitted where possible, and 1+10 digits premitted on all calls everywhere, or something like that. (So no matter where you were in North America, you'd at least know how to dial the phone.) Just my two cents worth, as an information systems manager in Tennessee with dozens of programs and 2 PBXs that would require changing, if Colorado proceeded with this plan. ------------------------------ From: lmc@dmc22.com Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:41:46 CST Subject: Employment Opportunity: Electrical Design Engineers Needed We are a market leader in the manufacture and sale of clinical diagnostic equipment and are seeking engineers for our South East and Mid West facilities, individuals that can design and integrate electronic circuitry for diagnostic and patient monitoring equipment. These positions reports to the Director of Research and Development. A BS degree in Electrical Engineering is essential. Experience with embedded real-time systems, an ability to work in a team environment and a minimum of 2 years' experience in the medical diagnostics industry is required. I can offer competitive compensation ($90,000) and comprehensive company-paid benefits. If you know someone that would be interested I can be contacted at: Larry Chiaravallo Voice: (609) 584-9000 ext 216 Fax (609) 584-9575 Email lmc@dmc22.com ------------------------------ From: Dan J. Declerck Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:42:22 -0600 Organization: Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group Kevin R. Ray wrote: > Kyler Laird wrote: >> So ... I signed up with the only reasonable ISDN provider in town, >> BlueMarble.net, and they helped me order my ISDN line. >> Just ordering it was an ordeal. The woman who took the order (with >> the ISP and me both on the line) was a moron. She had great >> difficulty and let someone else just take care of it. > I skipped the ISP/USRobotics help to getting my ISDN line. I called > 1-800-TEAM-DATA directly. All they wanted was some equipment code that > I didn't know -- telling them "Courier I-Modem" was enough. > Ironically after the installation and playing with it I tried > switching the Courier from using Nation ISDN-1 protocol to Nation > ISDN-2, AT&T 5ESS, Northern Telecom DMS-100 ... they *ALL* worked. >> Later that week, I received a call from Ameritech with the details. >> It would take over three weeks to install. My wife was getting anxious, >> but this gave me time to get the computer purchased and set up. > I too received a call back from Ameritech confirming the installation. > It too took about three weeks from the initial phone call. Typical > from what I've heard. I had an additional line installed in May ... I never got a confirmation date for the install. The guy came out when I wasn't home. Instead of getting an additional line installed, I got all lines disconnected! (I said "number_of_lines++" and got " lines = 0") It took them TWO days to come out and repair the problem ... >> The line was installed when promised, Oct. 24. Unfortunately, no one >> was home, so the installer decided not to connect the line to the >> inside wires. I spent the evening on the (cellular) phone with my >> wife trying to figure out why she couldn't get a signal. > You knew the installation date. Why was no one there or re-schedule it > for a good time? If I was the installer (which I'm not a phone guy :) > I too would have terminated at the POP box and left. It would be > *possible* to fry phone equipment by simply hooking it up to a ISDN > line. The installer had no idea where those pairs went inside the > house. >> So ... she called back to get the wires connected since I wasn't going >> to be down there for over a week. Eventually the installer showed up >> again. > Probably not the original installer who knew about ISDN, et al... When Ameritech started offering Ameritech.net internet service, I went to their webpage to check things out ... I sent e-mail off asking questions about pricing, local numbers, etc. It took no less than SIX weeks to get a reply. I replied that my present ISP had normal daytime hours, and typical response time was less than 24 hours for e-mail. The mere fact that it took them six weeks to respond to a simple e-mail (no technical content) was reason enough for me not to consider their service. I'd hope that they've improved this since then. After all, the costs of abndoning ameritech.net will probably be borne out on the landline voice customers, should this data venture fail. Today, there is almost no way to avoid the baby bells when data service is required. => Dan DeClerck | EMAIL: declrckd@cig.mot.com <= [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That has been a rather consistent complaint about many/most of the large corporations which have jumped on the WWW bandwagon in the past couple years hasn't it? They put up nice, sometimes very fancy web pages with all their products and services on display, then assign no one to answer email inquiries. PAT] ------------------------------ From: systech@sprynet.com (Bill Cornett) Subject: Re: Ameritech ISDN Warning Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 01:17:42 GMT Organization: Sprynet News Service I feel certain that if you had taken this up with a supervisor at Ameritech, they would have paid to have your drywall professionally repaired. If a first level doesn't give you satisfaction, take it up the line. Now that you have repaired it yourself, it's too late. I'm familiar with the jacks you are talking about, the sticky backing rips the outer layer off the drywall when it is removed. For that reason I use screws and plastic anchors instead. The holes are easily filled. As you pointed out, they should never have been changed. Assuming you didn't call to complain, this installer will probably do the same thing over again somewhere else. Bill Cornett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 09:44:09 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Customer DDD is 46 Years Old (Monday) It was on 10-November-1951, 46 years ago today (Monday), that Customer DDD (Direct Distance Dialing) began, from the #5XB Office in Englewood/Teaneck NJ, to about 15 or so selected metro areas across the (continental) USA. The term "DDD" wasn't really used at that time, but rather (customer) Long Distance Dialing. An inaugural call was placed (by _dialing_ ten-digits), by the mayor of Englewood NJ to the mayor of Alameda CA. I think that the Englewood NJ mayor also dialed calls to mayors of other cities then customer-dialable from Englewood NJ, as well. A text-based transcription of the customer-instruction booklet "How to Use Long Distance Dialing" is available from the TELECOM Digest Archives in the "History" section: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/history/ NWORLASKCG0 (BellSouth #1AESS Class-5 Local "Seabrook" 504-24x-) NWORLAIYCM1 (BellSouth-Mobility Hughes-GMH-2000 Cellular-MTSO NOL) NWORLAMA0GT (BellSouth DMS-100/200 fg-B/C/D Accss-Tandem "Main" 504+) NWORLAMA20T (BellSouth DMS-200 TOPS:Opr-Srvcs-Tandem "Main" 504+053+) NWORLAMA04T (AT&T #4ESS Class-2 Toll 060-T / 504-2T "Main" 504+) JCSNMSPS06T (AT&T #5ESS OSPS:Operator-Services-Tandem 601-0T 601+121) MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:03:34 -0600 (CST) From: Ryan Michael Landry Subject: Re: Customer DDD is 46 Years Old (Monday) We ought to have DDD Day instead of some of these assinine holidays of late (UN Day, World Peace Day, MLK Day, etc.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I disagree strongly. I have very little disagreement with the United Nations, and in fact one of their agencies known as the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) has been a sponsor of this Digest for several years. Their financial support has been invaluable where keeping this Digest flowing from day to day is concerned. I happen to also think that world peace is a good idea even if a bit far-fetched as it seems at times, this being the eve of what may be still another in the long series of ugly conflicts between the USA and Mr. Hussain; I'd like to see every day be World Peace Day in reality, but I'll grant you it probably will never happen and I would never agree to live under the terms which some governments would impose on you and I to make it happen. Through a bit of extremely good luck, I was fortunate to be at a private dinner (eight persons total) with Martin and Coretta King in 1964. Although he was the speaker on a few occassions in Chicago during the early 1960's at the Chicago Sunday Evening Club services at Orchestra Hall (the same place where Hillary Clinton's young people's group heard him speak on one of the same Sunday evenings), I had never really met him personally until that time. My roomate at the time was the organist for Sunday Evening Club; after the service that night -- the night teenager Hillary Clinton was there -- the president of CSEC and his wife, a Trustee of CSEC and his wife, and Dr. and Mrs. King went around the corner to Miller's Pub for dinner and drinks. Someone invited Roy (organist) and he asked them if I could join the group. At 22 years of age, and already in the habit of writing Editor's Notes on every subject under the sun I was, frankly, thrilled. Here you see, less than an hour before he had been addressing two thousand plus people at Orchestra Hall; now he was looking at *me* and talking to *me*. The others present at the table all chatted; to me it seemed prudent for once in my life to keep my damn mouth shut and just listen. Two hours passed quickly, and as midnight approached he and Mrs. King said they simply had to leave. The others had their own cars but Roy and I did not. I recall ordering a taxi; Roy and I dropped off Dr. and Mrs. King at the hotel where they were staying then Roy and I kept the same cab and went back home. That was the last time he was invited to speak at CSEC; when the trustees were preparing the list of speakers for the next year they did not invite MLK back. 'Too controversial for our taste' was their excuse. Now based on that experience, perhaps I am biased, but I consider MLK to be a saint. Frankly Ryan, I found your message offensive. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:38:38 EST From: Eric William Burger Forwarded message from Robert J. Perillo: > Actually, the problem isn't ... This decision is seen as a marketing > move to stimulate demand for ISDN lines, and assymetrical digital > subscriber line service (ADSL) when it becomes available next year. > It's really ... the limitations of Bell Atlantic's voice-grade > circuits, he said. Standard voice lines operate at 300 to 3,000 hertz, > but a 28.8 modem requires a range of 465 to 3,520 hertz, he said." Especially in residential suburbs, Bell Atlantic is heavily relying on SLC96's (compression). That's not good for modems, but ok for voice. BA's not likely to "fix" a signficant cost reduction for themselves. ------------------------------ From: Tom Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: Sun, 09 Nov 1997 22:33:50 -0500 Organization: Magic Carpet Inc Reply-To: trbarton@galaxy.net >> According to Bell Atlantic, ''a service charge may apply when a >> repair person is dispatched and the problem is with the >> transmission or receipt of data or signals which are beyond the >> operating capabilities of the dial-tone line.'' ". Here's a part that you might have missed ... One of my customers uses a fax and modem on a pots line. The cable in the area is really old and most pairs are suspect. He was complaining of modem drop outs. I have a pretty keen ear for noisy lines, surprisingly :-) better than most NYNEX repairmen, but knowing I needed better info than "just sounds bad", I carry a "Side Kick" meter with me; it shows line problems like leakage, cross, grounds, and noisy splices. Well, as you can already guess, the NYNEX guy was less than impressed, said that the line "sounded OK", and that he had never seen a meter that could "Show Noise", but he changed the pair anyway -- to a WORSE pair, and left. A long argument insued with management, and finally they sent over a repairman who found a good pair, and ended the story. Well, what I see from the Bell Atlantic story here, it is obvious that they are going in the direction of a company policy of "sounds OK for voice, and that's all we guarentee ..." no matter how badly the line hums or crackles. Too bad, as it really is not that hard to clean up noisy cables, and in the end, an afternoon spent by a cable crew doing just that, will reduce over all service calls, and save the company countless repair hours "changing pairs" ------------------------------ From: Brian F.G. Bidulock Subject: Re: Unregulated LD From Canadian hotels Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 03:11:20 -0700 Organization: Brian F.G. Bidulock Paul Lantz wrote: > Recently I stayed in a hotel in Toronto. > The telephone information sheet stated that long distance services > were provided by US Telephone (or something) which was an unregulated > service. I wondered if this would affect the price of telephone calls > (visions of having long distance calls diverted through some offshore > company at astronomical cost). It looks like the long distance services were actually provided by a reseller and not a full carrier such as AT&T Canada or Sprint Canada. > Does anyone have information on this? I made long distance calls but > they went through Bell; I didn't try any calls to the US. Are there > are any risks for people using these services? The fact that the calls went through Bell reaffirms the possibility that long distance services were provided by a reseller. If you are confused about long distance rates from motels or hotels in Canada and carry a calling card from your Long Distance carrier which has an 800 access number (such as Bell's calling card using their 800-555-1111 dial around number), you can make a calling card call from the hotel or motel without operator surcharges. Many hotels or motels charge CDN$0.50 or so for making an 800 call, but it is against CRTC ruling for a hotel or motel to block access to any 800/888 number. If you want to avoid a hotel surcharge on 800/888 numbers where the hotel or motel surcharges, you might use the payphone in the lobby, where 800/888 surcharges are prohibited. Calling cards are easy to acquire from all long distance carriers in Canada and the bill for calls can normally be reported and paid on your normal home or business long distance bill. Hope this helps. Brian ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #310 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 12 22:05:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA13884; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:05:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:05:13 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711130305.WAA13884@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #311 TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Nov 97 22:05:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 311 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pager Firm's House of Cards (Tad Cook) Rate Center Divided by Area Code Split (Linc Madison) Rockwell Sues Bay Networks Over K56flex Modem Technology (Eric Florack) CFP: 2nd Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia (Argi Krikelis) Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted (Kevin Mocklin) Using Mobile Phones to Pay for Cola, Juke-box (Monty Solomon) http://www.areacode-info.com/ (John Cropper) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Pager Firm's House of Cards Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 14:12:50 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) Published Wednesday, November 12, 1997, in the San Jose Mercury News Pager firm's wrong number Why EconoPage rose and fell By Jon Healey Mercury News Staff Writer In a mere 2 1/2 years, Aaron R. Arnott and Michael R. Adams parlayed two briefcases, an answering machine, a motorcycle and a little money into one of the country's largest paging resale operations. The company they founded -- EconoPage Inc. of San Jose -- ultimately became a cash factory, producing half-million-dollar salaries for Arnott and Adams and making even store clerks feel rich. As the business expanded into nearby states, the two young entrepreneurs spun dreams of peddling low-cost pagers nationwide -- or cashing out as millionaires. But EconoPage crashed even more quickly than it rose, in a spectacular October explosion that left behind more than 200,000 prepaid customers and up to $16 million in debts. As law-enforcement investigators and plaintiffs attorneys poke through the company's ruins, one thing has become abundantly clear: The imposing EconoPage structure rose from a foundation that was too fragile to support its weight. Selling pagers is a business rife with marginal operators, attracted by the industry's rapid growth and low entry costs. Arnott and Adams, new to the communications industry, made a series of mistakes: They spent too much, grew too fast, cut their profit margins too thin, and shackled themselves to lengthy service contracts that generated plenty of cash up-front but only expense down the line. But if there is a lesson in the EconoPage experience for entrepreneurs, there is also one for consumers considering prepaid service contracts or memberships of any kind. Those who try to save money by paying in advance are gambling that the seller will outlive the contract. David Benoit, a paramedical examiner based in San Jose, was one of the many Bay Area residents who found out just how bad a gamble that can be. In 1996, he paid EconoPage $378 for a five-year contract, including two years of toll-free service. He then put the number on more than $2,000 worth of business cards, fliers and promotional materials. EconoPage collapsed a little more than one year later. Arnott and Adams, for their part, continue to defend the EconoPage model. As they tell it, greedy suppliers pushed them over the edge in a scheme to pirate their customer base. Indeed, the competition for former EconoPage customers is now running hot. But some paging industry veterans worry about the competition, and they question whether anyone has learned from EconoPage's demise. "There are too many EconoPages out there," said Danny Lee, chief operating officer at Future Paging and Cellular of San Francisco. "Maybe the majority of the paging resellers do not have a good, solid accounting background and reserve to cover (the prepaid contracts). That is the danger." The paging business comprises two kinds of companies: carriers and resellers. Carriers are the companies with the wireless networks that transmit signals from telephones to pagers. They sell directly to the public, but they also sell pagers and service (called "airtime") in bulk to resellers, who act as middlemen. Industry officials say that resellers go belly up all the time, foundering in the face of fierce competition. What's unusual about EconoPage isn't that it failed, they say, but that it was so successful. "This is the biggest reseller I've ever heard of," said Mitchell Sacks, president of TSR Paging, the nation's seventh-largest paging company. The venture began modestly, with a phone call from Adams to Arnott one day early in 1994. Adams reported that an acquaintance was making a comfortable living in Los Angeles as a paging reseller, a business that required little investment and no specialized knowledge. Arnott was 31 at the time, working as the manager of a rent-to-own store. Adams was 32, working in computer sales. Together they came up with $20,000 to $25,000 to get the business started, using Arnott's home as their base. They ran a small advertisement in the Mercury News and set up an answering machine in Arnott's house to take orders. When Arnott got off work, he would hop on his motorcycle with a briefcase of sample pagers to show the people who had responded to the ad. EconoPage's strategy was to offer lower prices and longer contract terms than its competitors, a formula that quickly paid off. "The bigger we got, the more pagers we could buy, the better price we could get," Arnott said. Because of the fierce competition among paging carriers, "they were coming to you every week with a better and better deal." The final offer Eventually, the company settled on this offer: a new pager and one year of airtime for $89.99, two years for $119.99, and three years for $139.99, with an additional year free if the customer turned in an old pager. By contrast, a new pager and a year of airtime in pre-EconoPage days would have cost upward of $120. EconoPage's competitors responded by dropping their prices and offering longer contracts, establishing the one-year prepaid deal -- which had been a rarity -- as the new standard. From three stores in 1995, EconoPage went to 21 in 1996 and 35 in 1997. The sales grew quickly too, rising to $3.1 million per month at the end of 1996, but money seemed to fly out the door just as fast. In particular, the company spent lavishly on advertising, with its budget for newspaper and radio ads climbing to half a million dollars per month, and on payroll. Boosted by daily incentive bonuses, store managers averaged almost $70,000 in yearly pay in 1996. Company investors and top management collected $1.4 million, including payments to ten positions "held by family members or friends," company documents report. Arnott defended the salaries and bonuses, saying, "When you have a company that grows this quickly ... you have to develop some type of performance-based remuneration." Company officials also gained a reputation for flashy spending -- expensive suits, Rolex watches, fancy cars. They made notable contributions to civic causes, too, such as a $9,000 donation to help buy bulletproof vests for the police. The success was intoxicating. Arnott and Adams wanted EconoPage to be nothing less than the nation's largest paging reseller, and they developed a plan to open three stores in each of 10 major cities. The owners also began working in the fall of 1996 on plan B: to sell EconoPage to the highest bidder. Arnott believed he and Adams could reap $5 million to $8 million each in capital gains. They began distributing a prospectus in early 1997, and a number of companies expressed interest right away. Beneath the glittering EconoPage edifice, however, lay some deep and threatening fissures. The company was reporting razor-thin profit margins -- less than $1.50 for every $100 in sales in 1995 and 1996, according to unaudited company documents -- and that was without factoring in the cost of fulfilling its prepaid contracts. EconoPage was also putting off the more lucrative contract renewals -- the lifeblood of most paging companies -- with its long-term contracts and trade-in deals. And it was spending aggressively on growth instead of setting money aside to cover the obligations it was incurring. Meanwhile the two main carriers that supplied EconoPage -- Paging Network Inc. and PageMart Inc., both of Dallas -- encouraged its aggressive growth. They supplied pagers and airtime at discounts that often rose with each new customer recruited, and they sent letters applauding the company's go-go tactics even after EconoPage fell behind on its bills. As Arnott and Adams saw it, PageNet and PageMart provided EconoPage what amounted to a $1 million credit line by allowing EconoPage to run 60 to 90 days behind on its airtime bills and, in PageNet's case, letting EconoPage pay for pagers with company checks that the local PageNet office did not cash for three weeks. This cushion, or "float," was standard industry practice, they said. "That part of the equation," said Sacks of TSR Paging, another one of EconoPage's carriers, "allowed EconoPage to really price their sale of equipment to the consumer below what a reasonable business person would charge." Spokesmen for PageNet and PageMart insisted that their companies did not extend credit to EconoPage or give preferential treatment. Other resellers stayed healthy, said PageNet vice president Stas Wolk, because they took a more cautious approach to growth. In spring 1997, PageNet and PageMart suddenly pulled EconoPage's long financial leash taut. They demanded that the company pay all its overdue bills and current charges and they placed new strictures on the supply of pagers. Arnott and Adams say that the move was purely malicious; spokesmen for PageNet and PageMart said they acted only after EconoPage bounced checks or fell far behind on its payments. The strictures, particularly PageNet's requirement that EconoPage pay cash on delivery for pagers, hurt badly. EconoPage's financial model depended on growth -- in particular, the flow of money that new pager sales produced. Now it had fewer pagers to sell and, as a consequence, fewer new customers. Over the summer, EconoPage struggled to make ends meet. The company laid off 30 percent to 40 percent of its workers, eliminated all perks, pared its advertising, hired an expert in corporate turnarounds and cut salaries, Arnott said. By August, EconoPage officials were telling the carriers they'd found a way to make everyone happy: by selling the company to Source One Wireless Inc. of Chicago, a midsize paging carrier. But as the promised deal dragged on and EconoPage again fell behind on its payments, PageMart decided to cut its losses. In September, PageMart started shutting off hundreds of toll-free pager numbers, the services that cost PageMart the most to provide. Desperate, Arnott said he and Adams offered to sell the company to Source One essentially for nothing. Neither Source One nor any other carrier however, decided EconoPage was worth saving. It wasn't just the bad publicity caused by the PageMart disconnections, industry officials said; it also was EconoPage's balance sheet, which showed $12 million worth of airtime owed to customers. "He had no business to buy," Sacks said. The bleak assessment of EconoPage evidently was shared by Rick Redett, a consultant EconoPage hired to help it work out its troubles. In a September report to PageNet and other carriers, Wolk said, Redett offered this analysis: EconoPage had grown too fast, hired too many people, spent too much on advertising, paid excessive salaries and other perks, and benefited from too little financial expertise. Deal all but dead On Oct. 22, Arnott told the company's creditors that the Source One deal was all but dead. "We called the stores and had them all chained up." Looking back, Arnott and Adams say it's clear to them that PageNet and PageMart deliberately ruined their business. The motive, they said, was to keep Source One from taking over EconoPage's customer base and becoming the dominant paging carrier in Northern California. The accusation is absurd, officials at PageNet and PageMart say. "We would have loved for them to be able to sell this thing to Source One so that we would have gotten paid all the money we were due and have not been paid," said Fred G. Anderson, PageMart's general counsel. Whatever the outcome, the company's saga provides a powerful cautionary tale for all consumers. Some paging competitors, however, argue that the company's heavy advertising so "brainwashed" consumers that they still believe cheap, long-term contracts are a realistic deal. "They want to know why I won't do it (match EconoPage's deals)," said Richard Aal, general manager of American Telecom in San Jose. "I just look at them and say, `They're out of business. That's what put them out of business.' They just don't get it." ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Rate Center Divided by Area Code Split Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:15:25 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In the recent 415/650 area code split here in northern California, one of the interesting features is that the "San Francisco 3" rate center, which covers roughly the southern third of the city, plus a significant portion of the adjacent suburbs, is now split between the two area codes. Clearly there is a wire center boundary in there somewhere, but it is still a bit unusual to have a single rate center spanning two area codes. San Francisco 3 serves the following prefixes: 415: 239 330 333 334 337 338 405 406 452 466 467 468 469 582 584 585 586 587 656 657 715 799 840 841 994 650: 301 746 755 756 757 758 761 985 991 992 993 997 All but a tiny portion of the area served by the wire center that is now in area code 650 is outside the city limits of San Francisco, mostly in the suburbs of Colma and Daly City. (The area of San Francisco that is now in area code 650 is literally a few city blocks.) The new San Francisco directory (cover date: Sept. 1997-98) still lists these prefixes as "San Francisco 3," although it reflects the area code split. That seems to indicate that there is no plan to divide the rate center along area code lines. Of course, if we ever do get overlays in California, we'll quickly become accustomed to having rate centers with multiple area codes, but for now it's a little ahead of its time. As an aside, I've recently updated my web pages at their new address, < http://www.lincmad.com >, and added a couple of new features, such as a thorough listing of towns and area codes. I am also testing a page which allows you to quickly find out where a given area code is located. Try < http://www.lincmad.com/cityjump.html#415 >, but be aware of two things. First of all, this page is not yet listed on my index page, since it is experimental. Second, the page contains over 300 "anchor points" (e.g., "#415"), which may overwhelm some browsers. With those caveats, you can jump down the table by adding any valid area code or two-letter postal abbreviation after the main URL. I'm adding other features, including a publication-quality map, in the next few weeks. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:07:41 PST From: Eric Florack Subject: Rockwell Sues Bay Networks Over K56flex Modem Technology Rockwell Sues Bay Networks Over K56flex Modem Technology by Elinor Mills, IDG News Service November 11, 1997 Rockwell Semiconductor Systems today announced it has filed a lawsuit against Bay Networks for allegedly breaching its K56flex modem technology licensing agreement with Rockwell. Bay Networks' "current business practices violate its K56flex licensing agreement with Rockwell and its actions competitively disadvantage K56flex licensees," a Rockwell statement said. The statement did not specify exactly how Bay is breaching its licensing agreement and officials at Rockwell did not return calls seeking more information. Bay Networks, whose access controller module supports the K56flex modem technology, also did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Dwight Decker, president of Rockwell, said in the statement that the company had tried to resolve the issue with Bay Networks without success, and that litigation could delay deployment and approval of a global 56-kilobits-per-second modem standard. Rockwell and Lucent Technologies developed the K56flex technology that many modem makers and Internet access providers are backing for analog modems that run at up to 56 kbps. Meanwhile 3Com subsidiary U.S. Robotics is pushing an incompatible x2 specification. ------------------------------ From: Argi Krikelis Subject: CFP: 2nd Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 15:37:36 +0000 Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK 2nd Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia Orland, Florida - Monday, March 30, 1998 Preliminary Call for Participation The Workshop on Parallel Processing and Multimedia will be held in Orlando, Florida on March 30, 1998. The workshop, second in the series, is part of the 12th International Parallel Processing Symposium (IPPS '98) which is sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Parallel Processing and is held in cooperation with ACM SIGARCH. In the recent years multimedia technology has emerged as a key technology, mainly, because of its ability to represent information in disparate forms as a bit-stream. This enables, everything from text to video and sound to be stored, processed and delivered in digital form. A great part of the current research community effort has emphasized the delivery of the data as an important issue of multimedia technology. However, the creation, processing and management of multimedia forms are the issues most likely to dominate the scientific interest in the long run. The focus of the activity will be how multimedia technology deals with information, which is in general task-dependent and is extracted from data in a particular context by exercising knowledge. The desire to deal with information from forms such as video, text and sound will result in a data explosion. This [requirement to store, process and manage large data sets] naturally leads to the consideration of programmable parallel processing systems as strong candidates in supporting and enabling multimedia technology. The workshop aims to act as a platform where topics related, but not limited, to * parallel architectures for multimedia * parallel multimedia computing servers * mapping multimedia applications to parallel architectures * system interfaces and programming tools to support multimedia applications on parallel processing systems * multimedia content creation, processing and management using parallel architectures * parallel processing architectures of multimedia set-top boxes * multimedia agent technology and parallel processing * `proof of concept' implementations and case studies. Workshop plans include a keynote address andsubmitted papers, and a panel discussion. Submitting Papers & Publication Details Authors are invited to submit manuscripts reporting original unpublished research and recent developments in the topics related to the workshop. The language of the workshop is English. All manuscripts will be peer-reviewed. Submissions should be in uuencoded, gzipped, postscript form and e-mailed to Argy.Krikelis@aspex.co.uk. In cases where electronic submission is not possible, send 4 copies to the Workshop Organiser. Manuscripts must be received by November 12, 1997. The manuscript should not exceed 15 double-spaced (i.e. point size 12), single-sided A4 size page, with a 250-word abstract. The corresponding author is requested to include in the cover letter: 1. complete postal address 2. e-mail address 3. phone number 4. fax number 5. key phrases that characterize the paper's topic. Receipt of submissions will be promptly acknowledged by e-mail. Notification of review decisions will be e-mailed by January 10, 1998. Camera-ready papers will be due by January 30, 1998. Proceedings of all IPPS '98 workshop papers will be available. However, there are efforts for the workshops papers to appear in a book on their own, or as a special issue of a scientific paper. Last year's workshop's papers will appear in a special issue of the "Parallel Computing" Journal. Workshop Organiser Argy Krikelis Aspex Microsystems Ltd. Brunel University Uxbridge, UB8 3PH United Kingdom Tel: + 44 1895 203184 Fax: + 44 1895 203185 E-mail: Argy.Krikelis@aspex.co.uk Programme Committee Edward J. Delp, Purdue University Divyesh Jadav, IBM Research Center, Almaden Martin Goebel, GMD, Germany Argy Krikelis, Aspex Microsystems Ltd., UK Tosiyasu L. Kunii, The University of Aizu, Japan Vasily Moshnyaga, Kyoto University, Japan Eythymios D. Providas, University of Thessaly, Greece Registration: This workshop is being held as part of IPPS. The usual IEEE Computer Society guidelines apply wrt registration; the workshop is open to IPPS registrants and separate registration for the workshop is not needed. Information about IPPS can be obtained over the Web at the following URL: http://www.ippsxx.org ------------------------------ From: Kevin Mocklin Subject: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 10:51:31 -0500 Hello, First, I'd like to say thank you for the Digest and associated Web pages, they are a great resource! I am not currently a subscriber to the list, but a few years back I followed for a while, and obtained a nice text list of area codes which also included a breakdown for each area code similiar to the following: 314 Saint Louis and Columbia, (Eastern) Missouri The file also had a bunch of other general information in it. The closing note in the file is as follows: Closing note: The information in this [Guide to North American Area Codes] first appeared in various parts in TELECOM Digest Volume 9, issues 2 and 15; January 3 and January 15, 1989. [Note: Various updates made throughout 1992 and 1993 by Carl Moore, others.] -------------------- Now I am simply looking for an updated list that includes all the recent splits and changes. Bellcore's Web page only indicates State, and after doing some poking around on your web site, I've found pieces here and there, but no single basic text file with all the codes and a description of the area they cover. Is such a file maintained and available in one nice package? I like to be able to simply grep for an area code. Thanks for any help. Cheers, Kevin IntraServer Technology, Inc. 508.429.0425 x 241 mocklin@intraserver.com http://www.intraserver.com/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is indeed one area of the archives which needs much updating. There are several areas of the archives which need to be brought up to date but I just do not have the time or resources for it at present. Can anyone help with a current copy of the script in question? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:27:35 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Using Mobile Phones to Pay For Cola, Juke-box HELSINKI (Reuters) - Technology-crazed Finns can now play their favorite tune on a juke-box or buy a bottle of coke from a vending machine using mobile phones instead of coins. Telecom Finland, launching the service on Wednesday, said one of Helsinki's restaurants had already fitted a juke-box with a digital device which directly debited callers' telephone accounts when they selected a tune. Similar devices have been installed in two Coca-Cola vending machines, the telephone company said. Finland has the world's highest penetration of mobile phones at more than 40 per 100 inhabitants. It is home to Nokia, one of leading producers of mobile phones. ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: http://www.areacode-info.com/ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:02:54 -0500 Finally up and running! :-) We've given our popular area code section its own home site! http://www.areacode-info.com/ John Cropper LINCS http://www.lincs.net/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #311 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Wed Nov 12 22:52:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA16914; Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:52:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:52:21 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711130352.WAA16914@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #312 TELECOM Digest Wed, 12 Nov 97 22:52:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 312 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Monty Solomon) No-PC Internet Phone in Japan (Collin Park) More on Massachusetts Fiber Sabotage (oldbear@arctos.com) Bell Atlantic Boosts Pay Phone Rates (Monty Solomon) Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland (Kimmo Ketolainen) Re: New York Times on Net Day (Derek Uttley) Re: Telco Racks (Don Ritchie) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:24:42 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:38:25 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre Subject: the Internet will swallow the phone system [Forwarded by permission. Gary's right: the Internet's going to swallow the phone system. Informed people disagree mightily about whether the Internet can provide the same functionality as the phone system for much cheaper, but that's not really the point. The point is that connection- oriented voice is just one tiny specialized case of the vast range of possible functionalities that the Internet can provide. It won't be easy, since the Internet architects will have to get quality-of-service differentiation, a reservation protocol, and a decentralized bandwidth market all going at the same time. The people who think they can make this work, like David Clark at MIT (architect) and Jeff McKie-Mason at Michigan (economist) etc etc, are very smart, however, so just give them a few years. In the meantime, please have a talk with your phone company. Explain the Internet Way to them. If you explain it very slowly then they might get it just before they go out of business.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 08:26:54 -0600 From: Gary Chapman To: chapman@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu Subject: L.A. Times column, 11/10/97 Appearing below is my Los Angeles Times column for today, November 10, 1997. Please feel free to pass this on, but please retain the copyright notice. If you have received this message from anyone other than me, Gary Chapman, you might be interested in the Internet listserv that sends my columns and articles out to subscribers. Information about how to subscribe to the listserv is at the end of this message. On the other hand, if you did receive this message from me, you are subscribed to the listserv and need not pay attention to the subscription information. Thanks for signing up. -- Gary Gary Chapman Director The 21st Century Project LBJ School of Public Affairs Drawer Y University Station University of Texas Austin, TX 78713 (512) 471-8326 (512) 471-1835 (fax) gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/21cp Monday, November 10, 1997 DIGITAL NATION You Thought Ma Bell's Demise Was Big? By Gary Chapman Copyright 1997, The Los Angeles Times The telecommunications business, MCI founder Bill McGowan used to say, is "just like any other business, only with a lot more zeros." That's still true, and there are even more zeros now. But these days people in the telecommunications field seem to wake up every day to face a new world. There are new regulations and legislation, court decisions that overturn legislation, big and small mergers and acquisitions, and, of course, new technologies that threaten to turn everything upside-down. Even people in the industry, which is notorious for its jargon and acronym-packed vernacular, have a hard time following what's happening from day to day. So it's nearly impossible for the public to grasp what's going on. But there are some big trends emerging that point to a profound shift in telecommunications in the United States and elsewhere -- and for reasons not yet widely covered in the media. We may be on the leading edge of a paradigm change as significant as the breakup of AT&T in the early 1980s. So far, public attention to this industry has tended to focus on the new environment of deregulation introduced by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and on the subsequent wave of mergers, such as the marriage of Pacific Telesis and SBC Communications, or that of Bell Atlantic and Nynex, all formerly regional Bell corporations. The Telecom Act was supposed to foster competition in services, but the mergers and the legalistic stonewalling of the Bell companies have alarmed critics who think that competition in local markets is being forestalled. This has produced countless droning editorials about the need to speed up the process of competition in telephone service. But meanwhile, in the background and beneath the radar of most editorial writers, new companies and new technologies are emerging that are likely to be the most important players in any future arrangement of telecommunications. In fact, the larger and more well-known companies, particularly AT&T, are beginning to look somewhat desperate in the face of competition from new names that most of the general public has never heard of. The paradigmatic example is WorldCom, a company based in an unlikely location for the headquarters of a telecom empire: Jackson, Miss. WorldCom was pretty much unknown to most people outside the industry until it stunned everyone by offering $29.4 billion in stock to buy MCI, which everyone has heard of. (GTE promptly matched that offer, but with cash.) WorldCom was in the news briefly before the MCI bid when it bought out CompuServe, handed that service's customers to America Online and then kept CompuServe's networking facilities. WorldCom is now the largest Internet service provider in the world. WorldCom President John Sidgmore was a featured speaker at the Technology Summit, a Wall Street Journal-sponsored conference I attended recently in New York. "Where is telecom headed?" Sidgmore was asked. His reply: "Internet, Internet, Internet." Sidgmore pointed out that Internet traffic is growing at about 1,000% a year, while voice traffic is growing at only 10% a year, a figure that hasn't changed in decades. Sidgmore then surprised the audience with this prediction: "In 10 years," he said, "when you look at what's being carried by telecom lines, you won't even know voice is in there." Consider the fact that the U.S. market for voice-based services is $125 billion a year now, and his prediction takes your breath away. Sidgmore believes that the telecom industry will be a trillion-dollar industry early in the next century worldwide and that all the signs point to the Internet as the key to its expansion. Sidgmore noted, for example, that more than half of all international calls are faxes, and once Internet-based faxing becomes widespread, which should happen soon, that will punch a huge hole in the market of conventional telecom carriers. So will Internet telephony. The capability of the Internet to carry voice phone calls is limited now but likely to improve dramatically in the near term. New Internet telephony companies are springing up all over, mostly to capture the new business model of using corporate intranets to replace voicemail systems and PBX switchboards. Reed Hundt, who recently stepped down as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, believes that "there will be a war between the circuit-switch business and the packet-switch businesses," as he told Red Herring magazine recently. Circuit switches are what telephone companies use; packet switching, a different technology, is what Internet companies use. The outcome of this war "will make or break numerous fortune seekers," Hundt said. The older telecom companies are saddled with a large number of liabilities: dated technology; corporate cultures far slower than the entrepreneurial cultures of the upstarts; and an investor base that depends on safe, reliable growth instead of the hell-bent riskiness of the newer ventures. The older giants have tended to focus their strategies for protecting market share on the techniques they know best, such as fighting in the courts and lobbying legislators. But the new companies, such as WorldCom, Qwest, Frontier, Brooks Fiber (recently purchased by WorldCom) and perhaps a reoriented MCI, will be big challengers -- and not chiefly because of changes in regulation but because of immense changes in technology. If the Internet paradigm wins out, if packet-switched networks begin to succeed the circuit- switched infrastructure of the telephone network, then we may see several very familiar names become extinct. And several new names will be part of our household conversations. Gary Chapman is director of The 21st Century Project at the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu. ----------------------------------------------- Listserv Subscription Information To subscribe to a listserv that forwards the text of and pointers to articles by Gary Chapman, including his column Digital Nation in The Los Angeles Times, follow these instructions: Send mail to listproc@mcfeeley.cc.utexas.edu Leave the subject line blank. In the first line of the message, put: Subscribe Chapman [First name] [Last name] Leave out the brackets, just put your name after Chapman. Send this message. You'll get a confirmation message back, reporting your subscription, and this message will have some boilerplate text in it about passwords, which you should IGNORE. Passwords will not be required for this listserv. To get off the list, send mail to the same address, with the same message except with the word Unsubscribe substituted for Subscribe. You should get something two or three times a month. I'll occasionally mail out either text or pointers to other articles I have written, besides my column, but I have promised list subscribers that I won't use this list for any other purpose, so traffic should be low. Feel free to pass this listserv subscription information on to anyone else you feel might be interested in subscribing. ------------------------------ From: cpark@gol.com (Collin Park) Subject: No-PC Internet Phone in Japan Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 12:45:40 +0900 Recently AT&T JENS have been advertising their "@phone" service here, and I thought I'd tell you about it. You apply by fax, giving a credit card number (!). Billing is in 1-minute increments, but a detailed statement costs 1000 yen (about $8.00 US) per month. (I guess AT&T JENS took a page from NTT's and KDD's playbook.) The rates are attractive: 24 yen per minute (like 19 cents?) to the US, and similar discounts to other countries. They're also apparently cheaper *within* Japan (like Tokyo-Osaka, maybe 30% cheaper than local carriers, I don't remember rates). My only gripe is with the 4-digit password. The pre-assigned one is "one of the first passwords that any self-respecting hacker would try" and it cannot be changed! The nice lady on the phone guaranteed me that nobody else had the same password, but if anybody gets hold of my access code, then guessing the password would mean free calls (untraceable since I'm so far unwilling to spring for the monthly detailed statement). Anybody else signed up with these guys? Do you have a "hacker's dream" password as well? collin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:46:11 -0500 From: The Old Bear Subject: More on Massachusetts Fiber Sabotage This from Marty Hannigan at XCOM: From: hannigan@xcom.net (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:37:57 GMT Organization: XCOM Technologies - Data Engineering Reply-To: hannigan@xcom.net Considering I've gotten about 2 hours of sleep in the past 24 hours, plus the flu, I can attest to the massive outage caused by an apparent disgruntled employee. 1200 strands, 3 OC48's and multiple OC10s taken out with cutters, deliberately and maliciously. On the OC48 they took out the primary AND the protect ring dissolving their redundancy. And they did cut in multiple locations. Everyone has at least one single point of failure that can cause a massive outage. :) Whether you've identified it or not, it's there. Regards, Martin Hannigan hannigan@xcom.net Director - Data Networks V:617.500.0108 XCOM Technologies, INC. F:617.500.0002 ------------------------ Then, this report from the newspapers Wednesday: Excerpted from {The Boston Globe}, Nov. 12, 1997, page B3... Vandalism disrupts phones, cable TV: Lines are severed in several towns by Joann Muller, Globe Staff About 40,000 Greater Boston homeowners lost their cable TV service and 350 businesses lost telephone service over parts of three days after an apparent rash of vandalism that began Saturday. Media One, the region's largest cable operator, and Teleport Communications Group, a long-distance phone company, said their services were disrupted Saturday night, early Sunday, and Monday evening after vandals apparently climbed at least eight utility poles and cut the companies' one-inch-thick fiber cables. The two companies, whose cables share a fiber optic conduit, offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the vandals. Media One spokesman Rick Jenkinson said he believes his company was the target of the sabotage, because many of the incidents occurred near Media One buildings or facilities. The sabotage began at about 9:30 p.m. Saturday when someone climbed a pole in Woburn and cut a bundle of fiber cables, Jenkinson said. Customers in surrounding communities were affected, he said, but service was restored within an hour and 15 minutes. About six hours later, similar incidents occurred in Needham and Newton, he said. Then, at about 5:30 p.m. Monday, five more cables were cut in Natick, Dedham, and Needham. About 26,000 Media One customers were affected over the weekend, he said, and another 18,000 on Monday evening. All cable customers received a one-day credit for the lost service. Teleport's phone customers weren't affected much, said spokeswoman Donna Suky, because the outages occurred over the weekend or after hours when most of the businesses were closed. The phone lines were back on before most customers even knew there was a problem, she said. Both companies said they have extensive backup systems that enabled them to restore service quickly. The companies have set up a toll-free, confidential hot line (800-298-9790, ext. 8120) for tips about the vandalism. State and local police from several communities are investigating. Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 20:26:51 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Bell Atlantic Boosts Pay Phone Rates MANCHESTER, N.H. (Reuters) - Bell Atlantic Corp. said Wednesday it is raising the price of a local call from its pay phones in eight states and Washington, D.C., to 35 cents from 25 cents, citing pressure from competitors. The Northeastern local telephone provider said rates will go up in New Hampshire, West Virginia, Virginia, Washington, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Vermont. The new rate will begin Nov. 19. It will take about three months to adjust all the pay phones to the new rate, the company said. Bell Atlantic said Congress last year confirmed that the pay telephone business is competitive, ordered it deregulated and required that all direct and indirect subsidies of the service be eliminated. Bell Atlantic said it must pay competitive commissions for property owners to place its pay phones in their businesses and must charge a competitive price to users of those phones. "Like any competitive business, we need to respond to market conditions," said Lorraine Chickering, president of Bell Atlantic Public Communications. ------------------------------ From: kk@sci.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen +358 40 55555 08) Subject: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland Date: 12 Nov 1997 06:58:27 GMT Organization: Sirius Cybernetics Inc Finland According to the Ministry of Transport and Communications report this week, the number of mobile phones in the country exceeded two million in the beginning of November. This means that 39 Finns out of 100 are now carrying around a mobile phone. 50,000 new subscriptions are signed every month. Very close behind come the other Nordic countries - Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Denmark. The Finnish mobile phone market is heavily dominated by the local producer Nokia. Several local GSM 1800 networks are being launched in major towns to provide competition against the analog NMT 450/900 and the digital GSM 900 networks of Telecom Finland and Radiolinja. At the moment, the most inexpensive subscriptions for a mobile phone cost 50 mk (10 USD) to open and require 20 mk (4 USD) as the monthly fee. MTC: www.vn.fi/lm | Nokia: www.nokia.com | Telecom Finland: www.tele.fi Radiolinja: www.radiolinja.fi Kimmo Ketolainen * kk@sci.fi * http://iki.fi/kk/ * +358 40 55555 08 mail2sms: sms@kk.iki.fi * sms2mail: +358 50 582 7229/"kk message.." ------------------------------ From: Derek Uttley Subject: Re: New York Times on Net Day Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 12:43:06 -0500 Organization: Newbridge Networks Corporation Reply-To: duttley@spamnewbridge.com Dave Hughes wrote: > I'll tell you here and now, any English teacher can and could, with a > combination of classroom computers and links to the Internet impart > more ENGLISH language literacy to a group of students, than the same > teacher with pencils, paper, and books over the same period of > time. And, at the same time, develop facility with forms of English > used online (which differs, when done well, as much from paper-written > forms as does the spoken word from the written text) > I proved that 14 years ago with Radio Shack and Osborne computers > accounts on the Source, and modem access to bulletin-boards. And some > college freshman instructors who took my course in 'Electronic > English' (and I don't mean word processing) demonstrated the same > thing. > That does not mean that all, or many, English teachers know how to > teach English using computers and networks. But give me 30 students in > a classroom with 15 networked computers with software of my choice, > you take 30 in a classroom with pencils, paper, and books of your > choice and after a school year, my students will wipe the floor with > your paper crowd, in spelling, grammar, puncutation, composition, > and general English Language literacy. But ... will they be able to write (i.e. use a pen/pencil in a way that can be deciphered by others?), or are you saying that cursive writing will not be required in the future? > They will also be far more prepared to graduate to higher and more > subtle levels of computer and network use for further education or > movement directly into the workforce. > It is beyond me why the myth persists that reading and writing using > computers, and communicating via the Internet in written forms, is not > itself the use of the English language in ways so much more efficient > in the use of time, and the skills (or lack thereof, as in typing > skill) used in writing well, than relying on traditional paper and > pencils. When there is a power failure, or an equipment failure, one may have to rely on traditional methods. ------------------------------ From: Don Ritchie Subject: Re: Telco Racks Date: 12 Nov 1997 06:00:07 GMT Organization: New Age Consulting Service Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA Adept Care <*NOSPAM*adept@aspi.net*NOSPAM*> wrote: > Can anyone point me to a manufacturer of 19" telco racks in the New > England area? GrayBar or Alltel can sell you a Chatworth rack 7' 19" rack should cost around 150 bux Don Ritchie Century Communications Euclid, Ohio dritchie@nacs.net - k8zgw@hac.org - don@hamnet.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #312 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 13 20:09:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA04343; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:09:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:09:03 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711140109.UAA04343@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #313 TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Nov 97 20:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 313 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Splitting Exchange Designations: Feasible? (Lee Winson) Siemens Euroset 221 S IWV / MWV (Translation) (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Phase Out of 10XXX Codes (Jeff Vinocur) 10XXX/101XXX Codes in Canada (Sebastien Kingsley) Re: MCI Cuts of 2/3 of ISPs Phone Lines (Scott A. Miller) Confidential? 800 Numbers? was Re: More on Fiber Sabatage (D. Burstein) Re: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted (Linc Madison) Books on Intelligent Networks (Robin E. Haberman) Re: New Brunswick, Canada Toll-Free Directories on Web (David Fraser) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (John McHarry) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Thor L. Simon) Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic (Chris Zguris) Re: CallerID Info Needed (Rich Courtney) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (John R. Levine) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Splitting Exchange Designations: Feasible? Date: 13 Nov 1997 04:28:22 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS A major reason North America is running out of telephone exchanges is competition by new local companies. At present, each new local company must be assigned a full exchange code in each area served, giving it 10,000 numbers per area. The problem is many new carriers won't need anywhere need that many numbers, so numbers are wasted. Would it be _feasible_ and _practical_ to change this so exchange codes could be split between carriers per geographic area? (Codes would NOT cover multiple geographic areas.) That is, say 215 548-1xxxx would be assigned to Bell Telephone, 548-2xxxx would be assigned to Comcast, 548-3xxx would be assigned to AT&T-Local, etc. There are two obvious issues: 1) Will the telephone companies accept this? I suspect the existing Bell companies won't while the new competitors would not. A lot of long time exchange codes have a certain "status" in some neighborhoods, for instance, in the Chesnut Hill section of Philadelphia (an affluent area), the 242, 247, 248 codes have a certain tradition/"class" associated with them and merchants want them. Likewise in suburban Moorestown NJ, where merchants seek 235 (BElmont). Those long-time codes tell consumers that a store is in a nice area. Where it comes to marketing strategies, these guys go for blood. 2) The second is technical. Can the tandem and long distance routing switches be programmed inexpensively to split up calls by this scheme? I suspect since they're gonna have to reprogram switches to route calls to the new competitors anyway it wouldn't be too hard. By the way, who is paying for connecting up the new companies -- the new ones or the existing Bell companies? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:39:07 CST From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Siemens Euroset 221 S IWV / MWV (Translation) I had asked for some help translating a message here recently, and the several replies I received are summarized below. > Ich habe folgendes Problem : Wie kann ich das oben genannte Telefon > fest von Impulswahl auf Mehrfrequenzwahl umstellen ?? Und auch wieder > zurck. Temporr ist bekannt ... :-)) The translators say he is asking: "I have the following problem: How can I permanently set the above mentioned telephone from pulse to tone dialing? And back again. I know to temporarily make the change." The same translators more or less all agreed on this answer: There is a whole era of telephones in Germany from the mid eighties that were pulse dialing phones, but could, on a per call basis, be switched to tone. Tone dialing is about 5 years old in Germany, so the purpose was to be able to use phone banking, etc. after the connection was made, just like many phones here, when in pulse mode, can be set to tone by pressing a dedicated key, or * for the duration of the call. Upon hanging up reverting back to pulse. More than likely this person does NOT have the option to permanently set his phone to tone. This is common in Austria where, for the last 15 years, the Austrian Post Office has been installing Austrian-Made Kapsch brand telephones with 16 buttons. 12 dialing keys, Redial, Store, Memory and "K", which allows outpulsing tones for the duration of the call. For some incredibly stupid reason, you are limited to 16 tone digits after pressing "K" making non-operator assisted calls via USA Direct impossible. Grrr. -------------- Thanks to those who responded with assistance. PAT ------------------------------ From: chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) Subject: Re: Phase-Out of 10XXX Codes? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:24:00 GMT Organization: WWWHHS Reply-To: chip76@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 13:30:08 -0800, Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) wrote: > Is there a phase-out date set yet for the elimination of the existing > 10XXX carrier codes in favor of the new 101XXXX codes? I got a mailing > from the "Dime Line" folks (whom I do not recommend, BTW) and noticed > that the little stickers now say "DIAL 1010-811" instead of "DIAL 10811". That reminds me -- I was using a pay phone last night (at a high school in a somewhat rural area). I can't recall the carrier, I am vaguely thinking Universal Telecom or something similar. Anyway, I was trying to call home (we have an 888 number for such situations), and it rejected it. I first thought perhaps my dad had restricted the calling area, so I tried 1-800-CALL-ATT to use the calling card instead. Same thing. It simply didn't like toll-free calls. I've never seen this before, has anyone else? I realized after a couple seconds that I could use 10ATT, which worked -- although their phone tree didn't like me and I ended up having to recite numbers to an operator. Speaking of phone trees, I've got a PBX question. My school's phone tree (new, so I haven't had a chance to find out specs) prompts first "If you know your extension...", but certain extensions for some reason require an operator intermediary. Is there any way around this? The operator has rather minimal hours and we'll end up in a room with a perfectly good phone but no way to receive calls. Jeff Vinocur chip76@ix.netcom.com http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3768/ ------------------------------ From: miind@hotmail.cam (Sebastien Kingsley) Subject: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:04:02 GMT Organization: Xenon Technologies Group Ok, first of all, I KNOW what a PIC (primary interstate carrier) code is (10xxx/101xxx), and what they are used for, but my question is, how are they used in Canada? The reason I ask this is because it was my understanding that they WEREN'T used in Canada. But, I recently obtained a document from Industry Canada, that contains PIC codes for many Canadian RBOCs and other long distance carriers. Here are a few of them: BC Tel - 10323 Bell Canada - 10363 Fonorola - 10507 London Telecom - 10960 Likewise, it was my understanding that the use of the special 950 exchange WASN'T used in Canada. However, this same document lists 950-xxxx dialups for Canadian companies too!?! Here are a few of them: BC Tel - 950-5226 BC Tel - 950-5322 Fonorola - 950-5507 Canadian Tire - 950-5303 Vancouver TE - 950-5826 Could someone PLEASE enlighten me on this subject? If they aren't used here, then why do Canadian companies have them assigned to them? And if they ARE used here, are they used in the same manner as in the USA? Here in BC Tel country, dialing 10xxx will result in an intercept message. Dialing a 950 dialup results in a similar fashion. People at the telco tell me that they aren't used, but they cannot explain why BC Tel are assigned a 10xxx code, and a 950 dialup. TIA for any help on this puzzling subject. ------------------------------ From: samiller@BIX.com (Scott A. Miller) Subject: Re: MCI Cuts Off 2/3 of ISP's Phone Lines Date: 12 Nov 1997 14:07:34 GMT Organization: Galahad On Sat, 1 Nov 1997 10:58:32 -0600 sewilco of TELECOM Digest wrote this re MCI Cuts Off 2/3 of ISP's Phone Lines: > At 7 p.m. Wednesday, MCI told US Internet that it could not handle > the volume and duration of Internet connections made by US Internet's > customers Does US Internet have the legal resources to test the "circumstances beyond control" contract boilerplate that MCI is undoubtedly using as a legal band-aid? Scott A. Miller samiller@bix.com samiller@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (Danny Burstein) Subject: Confidential? 800 Numbers? was: Re: More on Mass Fiber Sabotage Date: 13 Nov 1997 01:49:46 -0500 Organization: mostly unorganized In The Old Bear writes: [lots of good stuff about apparent vandalism disrupting telco, cable tv, and other services in Boston area] [snip] > The two companies, whose cables share a fiber optic conduit, > offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and > conviction of the vandals. [snip] > The companies have set up a toll-free, confidential hot line > (800-298-9790, ext. 8120) for tips about the vandalism. State and ^^^ > local police from several communities are investigating. Confidential, (secret) and 1-800 do _not_ go hand in hand. danny 'then again, this is a telco we're talking about' burstein dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@LincMad.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 23:27:28 -0800 Organization: LincMad Consulting; change NOSPAM to COM In article , Kevin Mocklin wrote: > First, I'd like to say thank you for the Digest and associated Web > pages, they are a great resource! > I am not currently a subscriber to the list, but a few years back I > followed for a while, and obtained a nice text list of area codes > which also included a breakdown for each area code similiar to the > following: > 314 Saint Louis and Columbia, (Eastern) Missouri > The file also had a bunch of other general information in it. I don't have a shell script to do this, but I have a couple of static area code lists on my web pages. < http://www.lincmad.com/cities.html > lists the area codes by state and then by number, with a detailed list of cities and towns in each code, including many upcoming splits. It includes the entire NANP. < http://www.lincmad.com/cityjump.html > is the same list, but has the added feature that you can add an area code or two-letter state/province abbreviation and jump to that area; e.g., "cityjump.html#415" or "cityjump.html#CA" I am currently testing this page, since I am a little bit concerned that some browsers may choke loading a page with over 300 "anchor points" in it. If you test out this page, please let me know if it works for you or if you have any problems. I ultimately plan to replace "cities.html" with this list, if everything works smoothly. < http://www.lincmad.com/locator.html > is a streamlined list ordered numerically by area code. It gives the state and a couple of major cities for each area code. Of course, you can then flip back to the other pages if you need a more detailed listing. ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ From: robineh@ibm.net (Robin E. Haberman) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 97 21:03:06 Reply-To: robineh@ibm.net Subject: Books on Intelligent Networks The following is a list of books on Intelligent Networks, protocols, signaling and their evolution. Engineering Networks for Synchronization, CCS 7 and ISDN: Standards, Protocols, Planning, and Testing, by P.K. Bhatnagar, IEEE Telecommunications handbook Series, 488 pages, 1997, ISBN 0-7803-1158-2, $79.00 http://www.ieee.org/ Intelligent Network, by Jan Thorner, Artech House, July 1994, 200 pages, ISBN 0-89006-706-6, $40.00, Ph: 1-800-225-9977 (for orders) Intelligent Network, by Thomas Magedanz & Rudu Popescu-Zeletin, Internationl Thomson Computer Pree , 1996, 222 pages, ISBN 1-85032-293-7, $29.95 http://www.thomson.com./itcp.html Signaling in Telecommunication Network, by John G. Van Bosse, Wiley Series in Telecommunications & Signal Processing, $74.95 (ordering information unk) Signaling System 7, Travis Russell, McGraw Hill, 1995, 470 pages, ISBN 0070549915, $65.00 Telecommunications Protocols, by Trvis Russell, McGraw Hill, page 409, 1997, ISBN 0-07-057695-5, $ 44.95 http://wwwcomputing.mcgraw-hill.com The New Telecommunications, a political economy of network evolution. By Mansell, Robin. Sage Publications, London - Thousand Oaks - New Delhi, pages 260. 1993 from the table of contents page of New Telecommunications: Acknowledgements viii Introduction ix 1 The Biased Structuring of Telecommunication Networks 1 2 The Intelligent Network - Changing Technologies and Institutions 15 3 Early Network Transformations - the US Experience 46 4 Latecomers or Innovators? The European Policy Challenge 69 5 The Intelligent Network in the United Kingdom 110 6 The Intelligent Network in France 125 7 The Intelligent Network in Germany 136 8 The Intelligent Network in Sweden 148 9 Collaborating with Rivals in Telecommunication 159 10 Intelligence for Flexibility for Whom? 192 11 Challenges for Policy and Regulation 215 Glossary 233 Bibliography 239 Index 254 Ph: 1-805-499-9774 (for orders), http://www.sagepub.com Robin E. Haberman ------------------------------ From: jdfraser@nbtel.nb.ca (David Fraser) Subject: Re: New Brunswick, Canada Toll-Free Directories on Web Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:58:18 GMT Organization: NBTel Internet On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 15:13:18 EST, Nigel Allen wrote: > The New Brunswick Telephone Company recently announced that it will be > providing its own free directory database at > http://www.nbtel.nb.ca/powerpages As project manager for PowerPages, I had thought of posting an announcement about this to various newsgroups, but didn't want to seem to be *advertising*. However, now that someone else has mentioned it, I can chime in...:-) > The NBTel service appears to be more current than the Canada411 service. Yes it is. PowerPages is updated twice daily from our customer information system. We would have liked to do it more often, but that would taken some major reworking in said cust info sys. As well as white pages listings for residence and business, it has the blue pages listings for the provincial government (federal coming real soon now) and reverse directory. Extra listings that customers put in the phone book are also in PowerPages (e.g. fax, e-mail, web, etc.). Regards, Dave Fraser (jdfraser@nbtel.nb.ca) ------------------------------ From: mcharry@erols.com (John McHarry) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:52:25 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 21:38:38 EST, Eric William Burger wrote: > Especially in residential suburbs, Bell Atlantic is heavily relying on > SLC96's (compression). That's not good for modems, but ok for voice. > BA's not likely to "fix" a signficant cost reduction for themselves. This is not correct. Some SLC96s concentrate, that is they have fewer DS0s to the CO than they have lines subtending. The lines contend for the available bandwidth (DS0s). Others simply digitize the lines onto DS0s. (Both handle signalling, ringing, test, and other functions as well.) Compression would be to encode the signal to less than a DS0. It may be that there is a compression option on the SLC5, SLC96's successor, but I am not aware of it, and doubt that it would make economic sense in the US. I am not too familiar with the codecs used in SLC96, but I have never heard that they are any better or worse than those on CO line cards. It does use robbed bit signaling, but that is probably de minimus. There are, however, two ways a SLC96, or other digital loop gain device could degrade modem signals. The first, and probably the worse, is if an integrated SLC does not have its remote terminal properly configured to clock off the T1s. This will cause a lot of slips, and these are well known to trash data. The second is if the SLC is run in the 'universal" congfiguration. This adds another digital to analog conversion to the system and introduces some additional degradation. I hope this helps, but telco residential service folk would likely not understand a word of it. ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: 12 Nov 1997 16:51:03 -0500 Organization: Panix Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com In article , Eric William Burger wrote: > Forwarded message from Robert J. Perillo: >> Actually, the problem isn't ... This decision is seen as a marketing >> move to stimulate demand for ISDN lines, and assymetrical digital >> subscriber line service (ADSL) when it becomes available next year. >> It's really ... the limitations of Bell Atlantic's voice-grade >> circuits, he said. Standard voice lines operate at 300 to 3,000 hertz, >> but a 28.8 modem requires a range of 465 to 3,520 hertz, he said." > Especially in residential suburbs, Bell Atlantic is heavily relying on > SLC96's (compression). That's not good for modems, but ok for voice. > BA's not likely to "fix" a signficant cost reduction for themselves. Wrong. The SLC96 does not, as usually installed, "compress". The specific problem with many of the SLC96, SLC Series 5, and similar systems which Bell Atlantic inherited from NYNEX is that they were wired back-to-back instead of integrated. This leads to unnecessary digital-analog-digital conversions and is responsible for the high-frequency roll-off and distortion which limits modem performance through such units. This is basically just NYNEX idiocy which Bell Atlantic is trying to sleaze its way out of instead of actually tackling the underlying technical problem. Considering that there are NYNEX central offices whose main frames haven't been cleaned in at least 20 years, this is not surprising. Wiring SLC -- particularly larger units like the Series 5 -- back-to-back instead of integrated creates a huge cable mess and typically a *very* nasty splice, requires two units instead of one, which obviously costs twice as much, presents at least twice the possiblity for human error (and these are NYNEX installers we're talking about here -- likely the worst in the industry) and causes the performance problem for modems that we're discussing. It's been standard NYNEX engineering practice for years. Somehow, this fails to surprise me ... Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com "And where do all these highways go, now that we are free?" ------------------------------ From: czguris@interport.net (Christopher Zguris) Subject: Re: Modem Users, Who You Gonna Call?; Not Bell Atlantic Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:01:20 GMT Reply-To: czguris@interport.net Tom wrote: > Here's a part that you might have missed ... One of my customers uses > a fax and modem on a pots line. The cable in the area is really old > and most pairs are suspect. He was complaining of modem drop outs. > I have a pretty keen ear for noisy lines, surprisingly :-) better than > most NYNEX repairmen, but knowing I needed better info than "just > sounds bad", I carry a "Side Kick" meter with me; it shows line > problems like leakage, cross, grounds, and noisy splices. > Well, as you can already guess, the NYNEX guy was less than impressed, > said that the line "sounded OK", and that he had never seen a meter > that could "Show Noise", but he changed the pair anyway -- to a WORSE > pair, and left. > A long argument insued with management, and finally they sent over a > repairman who found a good pair, and ended the story. I remember reading - in this digest, I believe - that the phone co. is _required_ to give you a line up to the spec in the tarriff. If a line is so bad that won't run fax, the line can't be up to spec. So, if a repairman simply says "it sounds good to me" can't you call them on the line _not_ being up to tarriff regardless? Christopher Zguris, czguris@interport.net http://www.users.interport.net/~czguris ------------------------------ From: Rich Courtney Subject: Re: CallerID Info Needed Date: 11 Nov 1997 15:35:47 GMT Organization: Norand Corporation Steve Pershing wrote in article ... > I am looking for information on what can be transmitted in the callerID > data burst, which is sent by the telephone switch between the first and > second rings. Just about any ASCII text! > The purpose is so that modem software can be programmed to act on the > incoming data to answer the phone in different ways, depending on the > data. Is the data to be generated by your own "switch"? Otherwise look at the originating number sent. IE: Only answer from list of employees only. > I know that there are bits indicating: "privacy, long-distance, > message-waiting", etc, but I am looking for a more-or-less complete list > of available data. Can you write computer code in C? I have a program that will generate data. > If anyone has this info or ideas where to find it, please drop me a > note. Check the Mitel Semiconductor web site. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Nov 1997 02:03:32 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. >> At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code >> 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works >> just like (700) 555-4141. I tried it here in upstate N.Y. and got a recording from my inter-LATA IXC. But they're not my intra-LATA toll carrier. My intra-LATA IXC is New Yo, er, Nyn, er, Bell whoever they are, who happen to have decent rates for intra-LATA toll with one of their calling plans. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #313 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Nov 13 22:15:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA13961; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:15:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:15:21 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711140315.WAA13961@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #314 TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Nov 97 22:15:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 314 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 (Jurgen Morhofer) Re: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 (Romain Fournols) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Lee Winson) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Dan Seyb) New Book: MS Active Platform Sourcebook (John Burke) Re: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted (Thomas Peter Carr) Re: New York Times on Net Day (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: CallerID Info Needed (Rich Courtney) How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Peter Capek) Re: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS (Richard W. Museums) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:01:45 +0100 From: Jurgen Morhofer Subject: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site: http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html kindly supplied by Jutta Degener. Since the introduction of Dual-Band GSM phones it makes sense for the first time to add DCS 1800/1900 operators too as the original purpose of this list was meant to be a roaming guide. (Changes in the list marked by "*") Date 11-08-1997. Country Operator name Network code Tel to customer service ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------- Albania AMC 276 01 Andorra STA-Mobiland 213 03 Int + 376 824 115 Argentina Armenia Armentel Australia Optus 505 02 Int + 61 2 9342 6000 Telecom/Telstra 505 01 Int + 61 18 01 8287 Vodafone 505 03 Int + 61 2 9415 7236 Austria Mobilkom Austria 232 01 Int + 43 664 1661 max.mobil. 232 03 Int + 43 676 2000 * Connect Austria Int + 43 1 58187300 Azerbaidjan Azercell 400 01 Int + 994 12 98 28 23 * JV Bakcell Bahrain Batelco 426 01 Int + 973 885557 Bangladesh Grameen Phone Ltd ??? ?? * TM International Belgium Proximus 206 01 Int + 32 2205 4912 Mobistar 206 10 Bosnia Cronet 218 01 PTT Bosnia 218 19 Botswana Brunei DSTCom 528 11 Jabatan Telekom 528 01 Bulgaria Citron 284 01 Int + 359 88 500031 Burkina Faso OnaTel Canada * Microcell 302 37 Cambodia CamGSM Cameroon PTT Cameroon Cellnet 624 01 Chile China Guangdong MCC 460 00 Beijing Wireless China Unicom 460 01 Zhuhai Comms DGT MPT Jiaxing PTT Tjianjin Toll Congo African Telecoms Croatia HR Cronet 219 01 Int + 385 14550772 Cyprus CYTA 280 01 Int + 357 2 310588 Czech Rep. Eurotel Praha 230 02 Int + 42 2 6701 6701 Radio Mobil 230 01 Int + 42 603 603 603 Denmark Sonofon 238 02 Int + 45 8020 2100 Tele Danmark Mobil 238 01 Int + 45 8020 2020 Egypt * Arento 602 01 Estonia EMT 248 01 Int + 372 6 397130 Radiolinja Eesti 248 02 Int + 372 6 399966 Ritabell Ethiopia ETA 636 01 Fiji Vodafone 542 01 Int + 679 312000 Finland Radiolinja 244 05 Int + 358 800 95050 Telecom 244 91 Int + 358 800 17000 Alands Mobil 244 05 Telivo Ltd. * Finnet 244 09 Int + 358 800 94000 France Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 * Bouygues Telekom 208 20 Fr.Polynesia Tikiphone 547 20 Fr.W.Indies Ameris 340 01 Georgia Superphone Geocell 282 01 Magticom 282 02 Germany D1, DeTeMobil 262 01 Int + 49 511 288 0171 D2, Mannesmann 262 02 Int + 49 172 1212 Ghana Franci Walker Ltd ScanCom 620 01 Gibraltar GibTel 266 01 Int + 350 58 102 000 G Britain Cellnet 234 10 Int + 44 753 504548 Vodafone 234 15 Int + 44 836 1191 Jersey Telecom 234 50 Int + 44 1534 882 512 Guernsey Telecom 234 55 Manx Telecom 234 58 Int + 44 1624 636613 Greece Panafon 202 05 Int + 30 94 400 122 STET 202 10 Int + 30 93 333 333 Guinea Int'l Wireless Spacetel * Sotelgui Hong Kong HK Hutchison 454 04 SmarTone 454 06 Int + 852 2880 2688 Telecom CSL 454 00 Int + 852 2888 1010 Hungary Pannon GSM 216 01 Int + 36 1 270 4120 Westel 900 216 30 Int + 36 30 303 100 Iceland Post & Simi 274 01 Int + 354 800 6330 India Airtel 404 10 Int + 91 10 012345 Essar 404 11 Int + 91 11 098110 Maxtouch 404 20 BPL Mobile 404 21 Command 404 30 Mobilenet 404 31 Skycell 404 40 Int + 91 44 8222939 RPG MAA 404 41 Usha Martin Modi Telstra Sterling Cellular Mobile Telecom Airtouch BPL USWest Koshiki Bharti Telenet Birla Comm Cellular Comms TATA Escotel JT Mobiles Indonesia TELKOMSEL 510 10 Int=A0+ 62 21 8282811 PT Satelit Palapa 510 01 Int + 62 21 533 1881 PT Kartika Excelcom 510 11 Iraq Iraq Telecom 418 ?? Iran T.C.I. 432 11 Int + 98 2 18706341 Celcom Kish Free Zone Ireland Eircell 272 01 Int + 353 42 38888 Digifone 272 02 Int + 353 61 203 501 Italy Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Ivory Coast Ivoiris 612 03 Int + 225 23 90 00 Comstar 612 01 Int + 225 21 51 51 * Loteny Telecom 612 05 Int + 225 32 32 32 Japan Jordan JMTS 416 01 Kenya Kenya Telecom Kuwait MTCNet 419 02 Int + 965 484 2000 La Reunion SRR 647 10 Laos Lao Shinawatra 457 01 Latvia LMT 247 01 Int + 371 256 2191 Lebanon Libancell 415 03 Cellis 415 01 Lesotho Vodacom 651 01 Liechtenstein Natel-D 228 01 Lithuania Omnitel 246 01 Bite GSM 246 02 Int + 370 2 232323 Luxembourg P&T LUXGSM 270 01 Int + 352 4088 7088 Lybia Orbit Macao CTM 455 01 Int + 853 8913912 Macedonia PTT Makedonija 294 01 Madagascar Sacel * Madacom Malawi TNL 650 01 Malaysia Celcom 502 19 Maxis 502 12 Malta Telecell 278 01 Marocco O.N.P.T. 604 01 Int + 212 220 2828 Mauritius Cellplus 617 01 Int + 230 4335100 Monaco Itineris 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Office des Telephones Mongolia MobiCom Mozambique Telecom de Mocambique Namibia MTC 649 01 Int + 264 81 121212 Netherlands PTT Netherlands 204 08 Int + 31 6 0106 Libertel 204 04 Int + 31 6 54 500100 New Caledonia Mobilis 546 01 New Zealand Bell South 530 01 Int + 64 9 357 5100 Nigeria EMIS Norway NetCom 242 02 Int + 47 92 00 01 68 TeleNor Mobil 242 01 Int + 47 22 78 15 00 Oman General Telecoms 422 02 Pakistan Mobilink 410 01 Int + 92 51 273971-7 Papua * Pacific 310 01 Philippines Globe Telecom 515 02 Int + 63 2 813 7720 Islacom 515 01 Int + 63 2 813 8618 Poland Plus GSM 260 01 Int + 48 22 607 16 01 ERA GSM 260 02 Portugal Telecel 268 01 Int + 351 931 1212 TMN 268 06 Int + 351 1 791 4474 Qatar Q-Net 427 01 Int +974-325333/400620 Romania MobiFon 226 01 Int + 40013022222 MobilRom 226 10 Int + 40012033333 Russia Mobile Tele... Moscow 250 01 Int + 7 095 915-7734 United Telecom Moscow NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02 Int + 7 812 528 4747 Dontelekom 250 ?? KB Impuls 250 ?? * JSC Siberian Cellular 250 ?? San Marino Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 SaudiArabia Al Jawal 420 01 EAE 420 07 Senegal Sonatel 608 01 Seychelles SEZ SEYCEL 633 01 Serbia Singapore Singapore Telecom 525 01 Int + 65 738 0123 MobileOne 525 03 Slovak Rep Eurotel 231 02 Int + 421=20903 903 903 Globtel 231 01 Int + 421 905 905 905 Slovenia Mobitel 293 41 Int + 386 61 131 30 33 South Africa MTN 655 10 Int + 27 11 301 6000 Vodacom 655 01 Int + 27 82 111 Sri Lanka MTN Networks Pvt Ltd 413 02 Spain Airtel 214 01 Int + 34 07 123000 Telefonica Spain 214 07 Int + 34 09 100909 Sudan * Mobitel 634 01 Swaziland Sweden Comviq 240 07 Int + 46 586 686 10 Europolitan 240 08 Int + 46 708 22 22 22 Telia 240 01 Int + 46 771 91 03 50 Switzerland PTT Switzerland 228 01 Int + 41 46 05 64 64 Syria SYR MOBILE 417 09 Taiwan LDTA 466 92 Int + 886 2 321 1962 * Mobitai * TransAsia Tanzania Tritel 640 01 Thailand TH AIS GSM 520 01 Int + 66 2 299 6440 Total Access Comms 520 18 Tunisia Tunisian PTT Turkey Telsim 286 02 Int + 90 212 288 7850 Turkcell 286 01 Int + 90 800 211 0211 UAE UAE ETISALAT-G1 424 01 UAE ETISALAT-G2 424 02 Int + 971 4004 101 Uganda Celtel Cellular 641 01 Ukraine Mobile comms 255 01 Golden Telecom 255 05 Radio Systems Kyivstar JSC USA * Bell South 310 15 * Sprint Spectrum 310 02 * Voice Stream 310 26 * Aerial Comms. 310 31 * Omnipoint 310 16 * Powertel 310 27 * Wireless 2000 310 11 Uzbekistan * Daewoo GSM 434 04 * Coscom 434 05 Vatican Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 349 2000 190 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Vietnam MTSC 452 01 DGPT 452 02 Yugoslavia * Mobile Telekom 220 01 Pro Monte Zaire African Telecom Net Zimbabwe NET*ONE 648 01 * Telecel Zimbabwe ------------------------------ From: Romain Fournols Subject: RE: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 10:48:03 -0000 Dear Jurgen, Please note some mistakes in your list: Ivory Coast Ivoiris 612 03 Int + 225 23 90 00 Comstar 612 01 Int + 225 21 51 51 * Loteny Telecom 612 05 Int + 225 32 32 32 The network name of Loteny is Telecel. Customer care phone numbers: Belgium - Mobistar is +32 95 95 95 00 Lebanon - Cellis is +961 3 391 111 Fr.W.Indies Ameris is +590 93 27 47 Regards, Romain FOURNOLS Societe Ivoirienne de mobiles 11 BP 202, Abidjan 11, Cote d'Ivoire TEL (+225) 23 90 15 / GSM (+225) 07 90 15 FAX (+225) 23 90 11 Email : romain.fournols@fcr.france-telecom.fr ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 14 Nov 1997 00:14:24 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Well, this article boiled down to one key sentence: > So will Internet telephony. The capability of the Internet to carry > voice phone calls is limited now but likely to improve dramatically in > the near term. The author did not explain how this "capability" will improve. IMHO, the Internet can be described in terms of "store and forward", not direct connect. That is, your message is stored by your ISP, then packaged and routed. This can appear to be instantaneous, or as Dave Barry said, at the speed of the Division of Motor Vehicles. That won't work in voice communication. Also, the article said nothing about how individuals will connect to the Internet in the first place, and how ISPs will connect to each other. I don't see any substitute for providing the local loop plant and the basic switching infrastructure to support it. (And IMHO the problem in establishing local competition is not the existing Bell companies, but rather the demands of the new companies to be exempt in paying for the massive RBOC infrastructure, both hardware and software*.) For all the brave talk the new carriers claim, I really question if they'll have the capacity and business ability to truly handle EVERYTHING a telephone company must deal with. Will a new company want its service reps spending hours chasing down bad debts from customers the PUCs order them to have? To spend hours on the phone with confused Aunt Mabel over a 23c toll charge? Some of this talk, frankly, sounds to me like inexperienced computer engineers who have yet to experience the challenges of both maintaining a service network, under fire, in the face of changing conditions. Building a network on your own terms is relatively easy compared to running it smoothly. * My analogy to competition is this: Suppose you own a 7-11 convenience store. They'll tell you that a competitor is to open next door to you. You are told to let the new store use your driveway and parking lot. You are still responsible to light, maintain, and shovel snow from this parking lot. The new store doesn't have to worry about this, you do. Is this truly fair competition? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thoughts on reading the original article was that the author was saying Internet would eventually absorb most or all of the long distance side of the telecom business. That is, after all, the most profitable part of it. Yes, there would still be the local loops, but companies like AT&T -- to name just an example -- would suffer financially quite a bit after the Internet as a voice carrier comes into wide use. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Reply-To: d.seyb@telesciences.com Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 11:15:27 -0500 From: Dan Seyb > In the meantime, please have a talk with your phone company. > Explain the Internet Way to them. If you explain it very slowly then > they might get it just before they go out of business.] This of course assumes you WANT your local phone monopoly to survive :) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am pretty sure the local monopoly will stay intact, even if not always a monopoly. Where the damage will be most obvious is in the long distance arena. I still say that some day in the future we are going to see news headlines saying AT&T has filed bankruptcy, and the pitiful little shell which remains is going out of business. You say that is unthinkable? Well, please recall that in the 1930-60 era no one ever dreamed Western Union would be virtually defunct by 1990. Most of us here, myself included, are too young to remember the *real* glory days of Western Union, when the company's name was on everyone's lips for one reason or another almost every day. By the time I was in my early twenties, WUTCO was already on a downward spiral. To their credit, like AT&T, they had **so much money** and so many resources they just kept holding on another quarter-century or so before finally dying. May I respectfully suggest that AT&T's downward spiral has begun ... their money, their name and their resources will keep them on the scene several more years before they finally reach the end. Just as WUTCO's demise came about in large part because it did not occur to them that everyone could be their own telegrapher; I suggest AT&T still refuses to believe that every ISP around today can be a long distance telephone company, and an inexpensive one at that. Now, no one is going to go around digging up the streets and laying cable as Bell did early this century and since they still own the local loop they'll be pretty safe even if not as complacent as in the past. No, it is AT&T/Sprint/MCI I fear for over the next couple decades as Internet phone becomes more and more common. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Burke Subject: New Book: MS Active Platform Sourcebook Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:56:31 -0500 Organization: Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions Reply-To: jcburke@bellatlantic.net Wiley Computer Publishing has just published the book "Microsoft Active Platfrom Sourcebook", which is a good introduction to all of the Active Platform elements. It includes a chapter on DCOM. You can find more information, the Table of Contents, and an excerpt at: http://www.smartbooks.com/bw711msactvplatfm.htm I hope this is helpful. John Burke ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Updated Guide to North American Area Codes Wanted From: carr@tbolt.si.com (Thomas Peter Carr) Date: 13 Nov 97 17:28:04 GMT Organization: Smiths Industries The web page that I have been using to get this information is at: http://www.thedirectory.org/pref/ I can't remember where I got the link from, but it seems to be fairly up to date on the "splits". Thomas Peter Carr | I have a dream, ... carr_tom@si.com (Internet) | M L King Jr 08/28/63 616-241-8846 / 616-241-7533 FAX (Telephone) | Smiths Industries, MS 214; 4141 Eastern Avenue SE; Grand Rapids, MI 49518-8727 ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: New York Times on Net Day Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:02:02 +-5-30 Derek Uttley wrote: > When there is a power failure, or an equipment failure, one may have to > rely on traditional methods. [i.e. pen and paper instead of computers, no matter how good your computer-aided english language learning experience; dave hughes' original comment elided] Perhaps Dave's students will write slowly in unclear block letters. But how good is _your_ italic caligraphy, anyway? I haven't seen too many people who can write anywhere near as beautifully as people did a century ago. but then, in 19th century London or Paris, there were several postal deliveries _daily_, and you did write a lot by hand. That's less necessary now, so you write less - or less carefully - and it looks worse. Similarly, handwriting will undoubtedly be even less useful a few decades from now, and under forced conditions people's writing will look even worse. If that sounds bad, you should advocate caligraphic italics today... I do, but i don' t have the time to practise, so there. rishab [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When people today sometimes complain that students are not learning certain skills as in the past because some computer process has taken over the task instead, a common response by others is to say well, so what. These days we do not learn lots of the skills taught in the past because they are obsolete. Quite often the business of 'shoeing' horses is given as an example. Since we seldom have any need for horses these days in large urban areas, there is no reason to teach the trade of horseshoeing. All that is very fine, but my concern is that if no one knows how to do certain mathematical processes any longer because the computer now does all that for us, then what happens when some charlatan comes along and deliberatly corrupts the computer for whatver agenda of his own? Then what? Now there is no one left to prove whatever the computer is telling us is wrong because *no one knows it is wrong*. I see some very grave dangers in allowing the use of computers and calculators in school for anything other than helpful tools *once the lessons have been learned.* I certainly would not ban their use, but I would control their use. The students would learn to write, learn at least arithmetic if not some degree of higher mathematics. They would learn to build their vocabulary, how to spell and how to identify the way in which words are constructed and sentences are created. Then when I was assured the students were capable of thinking and reasoning on their own I would present them with the computer and carefully explain the computer's purpose: it is to be an extension of their brain; a tool to help them process their thoughts and information presented to them more rapidly and effeciently. An extension of their brain, not a replacement for it. Unfortunatly we seem to be headed in this latter direction. The risk involved in leaving the computer in charge of everything that we used to have to spend our time thinking about is that the computer has no way of knowing what is right and what is wrong. It accepts whatever it is told. If it is told that two plus two equals five it goes quite merrily on its way and parrots that answer each time it is asked. You or I upon hearing such a thing would scream loudly and say STOP! THAT IS WRONG! So what happens a century from now when the people on Earth at that time no longer know how to think for themselves because the computer does all of it for them? If you think there won't be a computer programmer or two along the way who deliberatly screws things up just for a big laugh or some other malicious reasons you are sadly mistaken. Maybe computers, like alcohol and cigarettes ought to be age-restricted to adults; people who are old enough they have been forced to think and use their brains at least a few times in their lives. Is there anything more pathetic than to go into an office full of people where the computer happens to be 'down' at the moment and all of them are just sitting there in a trance; no idea how to complete any of their work; no idea how to find answers to anything. Very, very sad. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rich Courtney Subject: Re: CallerID Info Needed Date: 12 Nov 1997 23:19:33 GMT Organization: Norand Corporation The information that your modem presents may not contain the raw data sent by your telco. The fields normally sent include: date,time,number,name of caller. There are certain flag bytes that tell if private info is blocked. Most modem users will look at the number of caller and determine if to answer or not for security. If you need further info contact me. I will not have info on your modem so try their website first. I do have a program to generate callerid tones (scratchy data bursts) playable as a SoundBlaster WAV file. You may also check: http:www.semicon.mitel.com and look for app notes on the MT8841 chip. ------------------------------ Date: 12 Nov 1997 23:32:29 EST From: (Peter Capek) Subject: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? I recently tried using 1-700-555-4141 to determine the long distance company associated with a phone line, but the number seems to be invalid. The LEC's operator supervisor couldn't explain why -- she thought it should work -- but referred me to the business office. Did I miss something? Has this capability gone away or become obsolete, perhaps as side effect of local deregulation? Peter Capek [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It should work; it is the number of record for that purpose on a national basis. I cannot say why it does not but I can tell you a work-around that you might try. On the line in question just dial 00 (double zero) and let it time out to a live operator. Ask her what company she with. Ask her what is the number for the business office of that company. That should get you a reliable answer. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:06:00 GMT kk@sci.fi (Kimmo Ketolainen +358 40 55555 08) wrote: > At the moment, the most inexpensive subscriptions for a mobile phone > cost 50 mk (10 USD) to open and require 20 mk (4 USD) as the monthly > fee. Is that flat-rate for unlimited usage? If not, what's the per-minute airtime usage charge? Incoming/Outgoing? -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 11 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ From: Richard W. Museums Subject: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 05:30:56 -0800 Organization: Erol's Internet Services I saw that Metropolitan Fiber System is laying colored tubes along the West bound side of RT 87 in Rockland, does this mean Fiber is going to the suburbs now too? Richard ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #314 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Nov 14 21:39:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA08673; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:39:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 21:39:36 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711150239.VAA08673@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #315 TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Nov 97 21:38:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 315 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Craig Milo Rogers) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Roger Conlin) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Dave Stott) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Tony Pelliccio) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Scott A. Miller) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (David Esan) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Bill Sohl) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Garrett Wollman) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Michael D. Sullivan) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Thomas A. Horsley) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:24:10 PST From: Craig Milo Rogers Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System In article , Lee Winson wrote: >> So will Internet telephony. The capability of the Internet to carry >> voice phone calls is limited now but likely to improve dramatically in >> the near term. > The author did not explain how this "capability" will improve. > IMHO, the Internet can be described in terms of "store and forward", > not direct connect. That is, your message is stored by your ISP, then > packaged and routed. This can appear to be instantaneous, or as Dave > Barry said, at the speed of the Division of Motor Vehicles. That won't > work in voice communication. The term "store-and-forward" carries baggage. The Internet's predecessor, the ARPANet, was described as "packet-switched" to differentiate it from earlier store-and-forward text messaging systems (uh, TWX?). The discriminating factors are: the ARPANet forwarded parts of messages (packets) instead of entire user-level messages, it forwarded them faster, and it didn't store copies in the intermediary switching nodes for an appreciable time. Packet-switched telephony research has been going on since before the Internet itself was created. There have been some false starts, in part because the complexity of the problem being addressed (ranging from compressed voice through HDTV), and in part because demand for service, among researchers alone, usually surpassed the available bandwidth. The solutions under review involve separating Internet traffic and reserving resources (link bandwidth, CPU bandwidth, buffer space) for stream traffic, such as Internet telephony. In some ways, these are the same issues that ATM addresses, but Internet streams use Internet packets rather than ATM cells as the low-level unit of traffic. Because of the (relatively) high resource consumption of Internet voice (much less video!) and the particular complexity (and volatility!) of the stream reservation and processing procedures, economics more-or-less dictated that Internet telephony was not supported by most Internet backbones; in particular, the special software needed *for optimal operation* simply hasn't been available on popular IP routers. In spite of these constraints, the ever-increasing capacity of the Internet backbones and the ever-increasing amounts of non-voice traffic lead to the assertion that the marginal cost for carrying voice-grade traffic on the Internet backbones will be relatively small (assuming that the special resource reservation and routing protocols are stable). At this point, given the present demonstrated demand for service, it will be in the economic interests of the IP switch manufacturers and backbone carriers to support Internet telephony. When this economic watershed will take place has always been a matter of speculation ... most of which has been disproven by time. Nonetheless, it still seems imminent. > Also, the article said nothing about how individuals will connect to the > Internet in the first place, and how ISPs will connect to each other. > I don't see any substitute for providing the local loop plant and the > basic switching infrastructure to support it. (And IMHO the problem in > establishing local competition is not the existing Bell companies, but > rather the demands of the new companies to be exempt in paying for the > massive RBOC infrastructure, both hardware and software*.) Easy problem first: the long-distance switching fabric will be paid for by the Internet backbone carriers. Schools, offices, and some factories are already being rewired for Internet connections. Unidirectional sound is standard on PCs now. True bidirectional sound hardware and real-time operating system support has been lagging, but newer hardware (e.g, Ensoniq AudioPCI) and software {uh, WindowsNT :-} have (or are promised to have) the necessary features. The direct connection of digital cellphone systems to the Internet is not technologically unreasonable. Cellphones with data support are now (or soon to be ) available, I believe. Under this model, cellphone systems could offer portable Internet "phone numbers" (eg: ) for voice calls to/from the Internet switching backbone. SS7 and the FCC portability database become irrelevant, their functions absorbed by DNS and maybe LDAP. Internet email, paging, and fax services to cellphone terminals follow in the same fashion. Home connectivity and rural connectivity remain big problems. ISDN, two-way cable, and the various DSL technologies *might* provide the necessary infrastructure, but, as you point out, it's not clear who wants to pay for them. If the US repeats the scandinavian experience, the digital cellphone system alone could be sufficient to handle most home Internet telephone in urban areas. Ultimately, the market foundation may rest upon something too sleazy to be included in current projections prepared for public policy. Consider the potential market for 976 services translated to interactive VR HDTV ... sin sells, and sin without local regulation sells very well indeed. > For all the brave talk the new carriers claim, I really question if > they'll have the capacity and business ability to truly handle > EVERYTHING a telephone company must deal with. Will a new company > want its service reps spending hours chasing down bad debts from > customers the PUCs order them to have? To spend hours on the phone > with confused Aunt Mabel over a 23c toll charge? The pager business and the long-distance telephone business, and, to some extent, the Internet service providers, have migrated to a two-tier model. There is an under-stratum of connectivity companies that own the transmission facilities and switches, and an overburden of marketing companies that sell access and service. The connectivity companies focus on running reliable transport services. The marketing companies focus on salespeople and service reps. The former are objects of corporate acquisition, while the latter have a higher tendency to collapse; caveat emptor. > Some of this talk, frankly, sounds to me like inexperienced computer > engineers who have yet to experience the challenges of both > maintaining a service network, under fire, in the face of changing > conditions. Building a network on your own terms is relatively easy > compared to running it smoothly. Another factor is that telephone deregulation has encouraged great reductions in expectations for the service quality of the telephone infrastructure. ;-) I can assure you that Internet ISP and backbone engineers do, indeed, experience the challenges to which you allude. > * My analogy to competition is this: Suppose you own a 7-11 convenience > store. They'll tell you that a competitor is to open next door to you. > You are told to let the new store use your driveway and parking lot. You > are still responsible to light, maintain, and shovel snow from this > parking lot. The new store doesn't have to worry about this, you do. > Is this truly fair competition? No, but that's not the right analogy. :-) Instead, consider a "typical" small-town shopping area: narrow streets, small stores, needless exposure to the weather while shopping, high city taxes to support crumbling infrastructures. Suddenly, a Net*Mart appears just outside the town boundaries. Good parking, wide selection, air conditioning, no city taxes ... that's the brave new world we're building! Craig Milo Rogers ------------------------------ From: roger.conlin@erols.com (Roger Conlin) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 00:34:42 GMT Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: roger.conlin@erols.com Monty Solomon wrote: > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:38:25 -0800 (PST) > From: Phil Agre > Subject: the Internet will swallow the phone system > [Forwarded by permission. Gary's right: the Internet's going to > swallow the phone system. Informed people disagree mightily about > whether the Internet can provide the same functionality as the phone > system for much cheaper, but that's not really the point. The point > is that connection- oriented voice is just one tiny specialized case > of the vast range of possible functionalities that the Internet can > provide. It won't be easy, since the Internet architects will have to > get quality-of-service differentiation, a reservation protocol, and a > decentralized bandwidth market all going at the same time. The people > who think they can make this work, like David Clark at MIT (architect) > and Jeff McKie-Mason at Michigan (economist) etc etc, are very smart, > however, so just give them a few years. In the meantime, please have > a talk with your phone company. Explain the Internet Way to them. If > you explain it very slowly then they might get it just before they go > out of business.] Very amusing. After you wake from this fantasy, remind yourself who it is that carries the Internet. Voice traffic will change, merge, etc., but let's not spout off about phone companies going out of business because of the Net. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:56:00 -0500 From: Dave Stott Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System In Telecom Digest #314, lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson)wrote: > Also, the article said nothing about how individuals will connect to the > Internet in the first place, and how ISPs will connect to each other. > I don't see any substitute for providing the local loop plant and the > basic switching infrastructure to support it. The BOC's loop is one way for consumers and businesses to connect to their ISPs, but there are others: wireless and microwave, for instance, are in use today. WinStar has an entire line of microwave-based services for high-speed data connections that use WinStar links from the customer premises to WinStar switches. They never hit the BOC network unless they also have WinStar local service, which means interconnection to the PSTN at the "out" side of the WinStar switch. ISPs will connect to each other the same way they do today - through high-speed lines supplied by internet backbone providers. That may or may not include the BOCs; there are plenty of other options available. > (And IMHO the problem in establishing local competition is not the existing > Bell companies, but rather the demands of the new companies to be exempt > in paying for the massive RBOC infrastructure, both hardware and software*.) That's certainly one opinion. Others feel that telephone customers have had no choice in where their money went prior to today, and the dollars they have invested in telephone service (because all dollars are ultimately supplied by the customers) is a "public investment" in a private company. If Ford had a government protected monopoly on automobile sales in the US, what kind of car would _you_ drive? When GM came to town, Ford could argue that the existing roads should be used exclusively for Fords, since only Fords had been used on them up to now. Should GM build all new roads? Or should they be allowed to use the roads that were built for Fords? Would it matter if the roads had been built _by_ Ford? Would GM then have to build new roads for their cars? > For all the brave talk the new carriers claim, I really question if > they'll have the capacity and business ability to truly handle > EVERYTHING a telephone company must deal with. Some will, some won't. Some of the ones that don't have those skills in-house will contract with people who do have the skills and have opened up new companies to serve the industry. In the early days of any competitive industry you find newcomers with more money than know-how, but if they pay attention to basic rules of business, they can become real players. Just ask Bernie Ebbers over at WorldCom. > Will a new company want its service reps spending hours chasing down > bad debts from customers the PUCs order them to have? To spend hours > on the phone with confused Aunt Mabel over a 23c toll charge? Probably not. But do the BOCs like that either? (Which, if I guess correctly, is the underlying point here.) From experience working with the Collections group at U S WEST, I can say that that company, at least, would much prefer that people paid their bills on time. As for the "hours on the phone" over "a 23c toll charge," some companies will accept that their employees' time is worth more than that and write the charge off, just as U S WEST does. > Some of this talk, frankly, sounds to me like inexperienced computer > engineers who have yet to experience the challenges of both > maintaining a service network, under fire, in the face of changing > conditions. Building a network on your own terms is relatively easy > compared to running it smoothly. A key point that investors look at in determining whether or not to fund a startup. Not many people are wealthy enough to start their own phone company, so if the experience running a network isn't there, neither will the funds be there. That's exactly the value of a market driven economy - better ideas drive out poor ones. > * My analogy to competition is this: Suppose you own a 7-11 convenience > store. They'll tell you that a competitor is to open next door to you. > You are told to let the new store use your driveway and parking lot. You > are still responsible to light, maintain, and shovel snow from this > parking lot. The new store doesn't have to worry about this, you do. > Is this truly fair competition? No, it isn't. That said, it _is_ the way the government has decreed that competition shall evolve, and we can either sit and moan about it, get new people elected to change the law, or take the actions that best suit our needs to make the most of a bad situation. If I ran your 7-11, I'd do those things necessary to make me more competitive than my new neighbor and keep some customers coming in my door. The fact is, you're store is going to lose business (as are the BOCs). That fact should not be in question, and nobody ought to waste their time discussing it. Both the 7-11 and the BOCs would be better served to discuss which customers they are willing to lose, and how they will keep the ones they aren't willing to lose. It also raises an interesting question - if your store goes broke, where will people park to shop at the new store? By extension, if the BOCs go broke (and I agree with Pat that they won't) who will maintain their OSP? Any business that depends on it's competitor(s) for its products lives a very frightening existance. (Imagine if Ford dealers had to compete with the factory to sell cars.) The BOCs will survive, but they won't look the same in ten years. My guess is that they will have a network arm which sells access and switching services to all comers on non-preferential terms, and a marketing arm which will purchase products from the network arm at non-preferential prices. This is what Rochester telephone did, and now Frontier is the fifth largest LD company in the US. Dave Stott (602) 831-7355 dstott@2help.com http://www.2help.com ------------------------------ From: tonypo@ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:00:19 -0500 Organization: The Cesspool TELECOM Digest Editor Noted: > Now, no one is going to go around digging up the streets and laying > cable as Bell did early this century and since they still own the > local loop they'll be pretty safe even if not as complacent as in > the past. No, it is AT&T/Sprint/MCI I fear for over the next couple > decades as Internet phone becomes more and more common. PAT] Actually I believe that Sprint and MCI will survive since they carry a pretty big chunk of the Internets backbone traffic. AT&T goofed when it came to that. Tony ------------------------------ From: samiller@BIX.com (Scott A. Miller) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 14 Nov 1997 13:48:28 GMT Organization: Galahad On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 23:24:42 -0500 Monty Solomon of TELECOM Digest wrote this re The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System: > please have a talk with your phone company. Explain the Internet > Way to them. If you explain it very slowly then they might get it > just before they go out of business. Please explain why in the H*** I would want to save my phone company from going out of business. Think of it as evolution in action ;>) Scott A. Miller samiller@bix.com samiller@bellatlantic.net ------------------------------ From: David Esan Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 14 Nov 1997 15:19:14 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am pretty sure the local monopoly > will stay intact, even if not always a monopoly. Where the damage will > be most obvious is in the long distance arena. I still say that some > day in the future we are going to see news headlines saying AT&T has > filed bankruptcy, and the pitiful little shell which remains is going > out of business. Perhaps I don't understand the Internet well enough, but aren't the various existing Long Distance companies supplying the lines that connect the various backbone sites? And aren't they getting paid for that? True the number of Long Distance calls using AT&T as its carrier will decrease, but the number on the various ISP will increase. Volume over the network will not be affected. Profits for AT&T will be reduced because they will not be able to soak the poor consumer as they have in the past, but they will still make profits leasing lines to the ISPs, who will pass the costs on to the poor consumers who will still get shafted. Wasn't the strategy of WorldCom in buying MCI to increase their internet participaton? Won't they need lines to do that? Isn't there a profit in owning the lines? ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 04:32:43 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thoughts on reading the original > article was that the author was saying Internet would eventually > absorb most or all of the long distance side of the telecom business. > That is, after all, the most profitable part of it. Yes, there would > still be the local loops, but companies like AT&T -- to name just an > example -- would suffer financially quite a bit after the Internet as > a voice carrier comes into wide use. PAT] The problem today and for the forseable future is that internet phone is not reliable. As a business user, I can not afford the hit or miss aspect of internet phone when dealing with clients. I suspect I-phone will augment recreational/family voice services, but I see little liklihood that it will kill AT&T, MCI, etc. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 13 Nov 1997 23:37:45 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Lee Winson wrote: > The author did not explain how this "capability" will improve. Pity. That's OK, I can. Point 1: As the original article described (which is backed up in many industry publications), the market for data service is growing much faster than the demand for voice. In fact, the total capacity of the data networks is expected to cross over that of the voice networks in the not-too-distance future. The practical upshot of this is that the available bandwidth will be effectively limited only by the hardware and software technology inside the networks. Technology is now being developed and deployed which will give service provides the opportunity to provide substantially different levels of service to different customers, thus providing a market mechanism where increased bandwidth can be paid for as demand warrants. Point 2: Statistical multiplexing, which arises out of the observation that not everybody wants to talk at once, applies to data networks as well -- indeed, it is even more effective, since a packet transmission dedicates a far smaller fraction of the total transmission resource than a telephone circuit represents. To translate this into the circuit domain, it's as if you and I could share the telephone line by allowing me to say something whenever you take a breath. Point 3: There are essentially three types of data services: elastic, adaptive, and isochronous. Elastic services are insensitive to short-term delays in the network; they will use up as much bandwidth is available, but in the presence of other users will back off until an equilibrium is reached where each user (connection, really) shares the channel equally. (Not quite true; as I mentioned above, there are things service providers can do to make some users more equal than others.) Isochronous services are at the exact opposite end of the spectrum: they depend on traffic reliably getting through the network at a constant rate, with packets arriving neither too soon nor too late. For a very long time, telephony-type applications were thought to fall into this category, but it's now understood by networking researchers that they are, in actuality, adaptive services, the third major type. An adaptive service is one which can operate under widely differing network conditions, and provides some amount of buffering at the receiving end which can be adjusted to provide as good a service as the delays in the network allow. The prototypical ``Internet Telephony'' application, Van Jacobson's research vehicle `vat', was the first major application to develop this service model. Just what the bounds of acceptable performance are for the specific application of telephony is an open research question, although it clearly depends to a great deal on the nature of the users (consider the potential differences between computer geeks, CEOs, tightwads, and Soccer Moms). Last I heard, a group called the ``Internet Telephony Consortium'' was sponsoring research on actual human subjects to help determine what these parameters are. (This actually provides sort of a ``poor man's admission control'' -- once the quality degrades past the level of acceptability, people will become discouraged and stop, thus removing their traffic from the network.) Point 4: These three types of services interact in an interesting way. Specifically, services which inject their data into the network at a constant rate, or effectively so, will always win a battle for bandwidth against elastic services like TCP. This has two salutary benefits: first, and most immediately, people will actually be able to use the service, at least so long as the network isn't totally saturated. Second, in the long run, users will eventually notice that their network performance is getting sluggish, at which point some fraction of them will purchase a higher level of service, again providing an additional economic incentive to expand the capacity of the network. > Also, the article said nothing about how individuals will connect to the > Internet in the first place Same way they do now: either by one of the wires going into their home, or over radio waves. The technology is there to get far more than enough bandwidth with either mechanism (the cable company already has a 3 Gbit/s pipe into my home, which they currently use to distibute analog video, how passe). Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Sullivan Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 00:43:11 -0400 Organization: DIGEX, Inc. Reply-To: Michael D. Sullivan On 14 Nov 1997 00:14:24 GMT, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Lee Winson: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thoughts on reading the original > article was that the author was saying Internet would eventually > absorb most or all of the long distance side of the telecom business. > That is, after all, the most profitable part of it. Yes, there would > still be the local loops, but companies like AT&T -- to name just an > example -- would suffer financially quite a bit after the Internet as > a voice carrier comes into wide use. PAT] Long distance *has* been the most profitable part of telecom in the past, but given the level of competition it is no longer the most profitable. Check out the earnings reports. AT&T thought it was shedding the deadweight when it spun off the local telcos, but it bought the right to have its customers stolen by MCI et al., while leaving the bread and butter behind. And the profitability of the local telcos, which has been substantial for the last few years, will soon be undercut by local telco competition. And, Pat, you err when you suggest that AT&T has local loops as a significant part of its business. AT&T shed these on 1/1/84. The only local loops AT&T has now are its CLEC loops (resale and/or unbundled) and its wireless (cellular and PCS) "loops". TELECOM Digest Editor noted further: > I suggest AT&T still refuses to believe that > every ISP around today can be a long distance telephone company, and > an inexpensive one at that. > Now, no one is going to go around digging up the streets and laying > cable as Bell did early this century and since they still own the > local loop they'll be pretty safe even if not as complacent as in > the past. No, it is AT&T/Sprint/MCI I fear for over the next couple > decades as Internet phone becomes more and more common. How do the ISPs route traffic to the NAP? How does the backbone transport traffic after it reaches the NAP? By and large, using facilities provided by AT&T, Sprint, or MCI as an underlying carrier. MCI is one of the largest players in internet intrastructure. It's also about to become a subsidiary of Worldcom/UUNet. I don't think you have to lose sleep over them. Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Maryland, USA mds@access.digex.net, avogadro@well.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I did not mean to imply tha AT&T was in the local loop business to any extent. I meant to say that as I-phone develops and becomes more used, more and more of AT&T's core business will drift away toward I-phone. Yes, ISPs will continue to use AT&T and the other major carriers but they will be paying a lot less than the aggregate total that AT&T lost everytime Mom and Dad and Uncle Pat and whoever made a toll call. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 13 Nov 1997 22:26:21 -0500 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > Now, no one is going to go around digging up the streets and laying > cable as Bell did early this century and since they still own the > local loop they'll be pretty safe even if not as complacent as in > the past. Well, the cable companies already did the equivalent of "digging up the streets" to get their cables to homes, and with the advent of cablemodems (and many cable companies upgrading their lines and equipment to handle two-way cablemodems), there is no real reason the cable companies couldn't replace the local loop as well. The only wires left would be the ones inside your house, which get their phone signal from a little box plugged into your cable (the same box, in fact, that your computer gets its ethernet connection from). So I'm not all that certain the local loop is really safe from competition either ... The *Best* political site URL: http://www.vote-smart.org/ email: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net icbm: Delray Beach, FL Free Software and Politics ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #315 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Nov 14 22:17:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA11192; Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:17:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 22:17:05 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711150317.WAA11192@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #316 TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Nov 97 22:17:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 316 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson California GTE Payphones Go to 35 Cents (Tad Cook) Help! Grounding! (Howard Eisenhauer) Book Review: "Web Client Programming with Perl" by Wong (Rob Slade) BellSouth Retains Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing (Stan Schwartz) Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Timothy A. Deem) Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification (Bill Levant) Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Fred McClintic) Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? (Rich Courtney) Re: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS (John Stahl) Re: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS (Steve Sokal) Re: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: California GTE Payphones Go to 35 Cents Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 17:18:57 PST From: tad@ssc.com (Tad Cook) GTE to Raise Local Pay-Phone Rate; 911, Toll-Free and Calling-Card Calls Are Still Free Business & News Editors/Telecommunications Writers THOUSAND OAKS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 14, 1997--GTE Friday announced that it is raising the rate for local calls on public pay phones to 35 cents throughout California. Calls to 911, 1-800 or 1-888 and calling-card calls remain free to pay-phone users. GTE's local pay-phone rate has not risen since 1984, when it increased from a dime to 20 cents. GTE operates more than 40,000 pay phones in California and 120,000 nationwide. "We know that consumers want easily available, high-quality pay phones," said Don Wood, GTE's area public communications manager. "A modest price increase helps ensure the wide availability of pay phones in both high-traffic and out-of-the-way but necessary locations." Since their invention in 1889, public pay phones have been owned and operated exclusively by local telephone companies. In 1984, the Federal Communications Commission allowed other companies to offer pay-phone service. Consequently, the number of businesses operating pay phones since 1984 has grown significantly. In addition, all pay-phone providers face increasing competition from the explosive growth of new technologies such as cellular services, paging and public Internet terminals. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the pay-phone business, allowing market-based rates. Prior to Oct. 7, state regulatory commissions set pay-phone rates without regard to the actual cost of providing the service. Additionally, the act requires that pay-phone businesses like GTE's be self-sustaining and eliminates intercompany subsidies. GTE California serves more than 4.8 million customer lines in California and portions of Nevada and Arizona. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of GTE Corp., one of the nation's largest telecommunications companies and an industry leader in providing customers with one-stop shopping for Internet access and local, regional and long-distance voice, video and data services. http://www.businesswire.com ------------------------------ From: aa988@chebucto.ns.ca (Howard Eisenhauer) Subject: Help! Grounding! Date: 14 Nov 1997 23:46:58 GMT Organization: Chebucto Community Net I'm in need of some advice on grounding matters. I work for a company installing PCS equipment and some issues have been raised about reference grounds for the radio and transmission equipment. Issue #1: When an insulated ground lead (1/0 Cu. to be specific) is run through a metallic conduit(11/2"-2" EMT) should the conduit be bonded to the ground lead: a.-where the lead enters and exits the conduit b.-at one end only c.-not at all Issue #2: Is it permissable to secure the ground lead to walls, ceilings, cable racks, slow moving installers or whatever with: a.-mettalic clamps that encircle the lead b.-mettalic clamps that don't encircle the the wire c.-non-mettalic clamps only Please note that in most cases a seperate lightening protection system will be in place for the outside plant structures/equipment although in my experience lightning goes pretty much where it wants so the possibility exists to have surge current on the reference ground. If anyone can point me to some references to make the arguments one way or another I would very much appreciate it. Thanks a lot, Howard Eisenhauer on ***************************************** Chebucto Community Network *Switching is a science, Radio is an art* Halifax Nova Scotia * Grounding is Black Magic * aa988@ccn.cs.dal.ca ***************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:10:37 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Web Client Programming with Perl" by Wong BKWBCLPR.RVW 970507 "Web Client Programming with Perl", Clinton Wong, 1997, 1-56592-214-X, U$24.95/C$42.95 %A Clinton Wong %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1997 %G 1-56592-214-X %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$42.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 228 %T "Web Client Programming with Perl" I admit it, I did not pay enough attention to the title. I assumed this had something to do with forms or other Web *server* programming. But the title is correct: this book teaches you how to write *clients* for the Web. What, program your own browser? Well, maybe. What the author concentrates on, though, is development of small, specialty utilities. Why fire up a browser, and navigate menus and screens, when what you really want is simple confirmation of package delivery? You don't actually want to read http://www.av.ibm.com/Update.html everyday -- only when a new version comes out and the page changes. Or, perhaps, you are simply obsessive and want to check AltaVista every morning to see if anyone has put up a Web page about you overnight. All of this is much simpler and quicker with a utility than a full browser. (Besides, a utility can work in the background.) After an introduction, chapters two and three cover HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol). In and of itself, this is worth the book, since so few HTML (HyperText Markup Language) and even CGI (Common Gateway Interface) texts do a decent job of it. Wong then goes on to cover sockets programming aspects of Perl and the LWP (Library for WWW access in Perl). Chapter six has sample LWP programs, while seven shows graphical interfaces with Tk. Appendices list HTTP headers, reference tables, and the Robot Exclusion Standard. Overall, a useful book in many ways, and readable as well. The book may be of particular interest to those dealing with intranet application development. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKWBCLPR.RVW 970507 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca link to virus, book info at http://www.freenet.victoria.bc.ca/techrev/rms.html Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:12:22 PST From: Stan Schwartz Reply-To: stannc*no*spam@yahoo.com Subject: BellSouth Retains Seven-Digit Cross-NPA Dialing From the BellSouth Corporate web site, this is in conjunction with the upcoming North Carolina NPA splits. Aren't "protected exchanges" such as these what contribute to chewing up existing NPA's?? ------------- Existing seven-digit cross-NPA EAS routes which will retain their seven-digit dialing -- Existing seven-digit EAS routes that will become cross-NPA and will retain their existing seven-digit dialing when new NPA boundaries are implemented -- Existing seven-digit cross-NPA EAS routes which will retain their seven-digit dialing -- Anderson to Mebane Belmont to Mill Creek, SC Bessemer City to Mill Creek, SC Burlington to Mebane Charlotte to Lake Wylie, SC Dillon to Dillon, SC Lake View, SC Latta, SC Fairmont to Rowland, SC Gastonia to Clover, SC Mill Creek, SC Lake Wylie, SC Lake Wylie West, SC Gatewood to Danville, VA Gibson to Newtonville, SC Grover to Antioch, SC Blacksburg, SC Kings Mountain to Antioch, SC Mill Creek, SC Laurinburg to Newtonville, SC Liberty to Benton, TN Blue Ridge, GA Copper Basin, TN Dial, GA Lakewood, GA McCaysville, GA Lowell to Mill Creek, SC Lumberton to Rowland, SC Milton to Danville, VA Mt. Holly to Mill Creek, SC Pembroke to Rowland, SC Rowland to Rowland, SC Saxapahaw to Mebane Shelby to Antioch, SC S. Crowders Creek to Clover, SC Lake Wylie, SC Lake Wylie West, SC Mill Creek, SC York, SC Stanley to Mill Creek, SC Waterville to Newport, TN Existing seven-digit EAS routes that will become cross-NPA and will retain their existing seven-digit dialing when new NPA boundaries are implemented: Denver to Maiden Newton Sherrills Ford Goldsboro to LaGrange Moss Hill Lincolnton to Maiden Maiden to Denver Lincolnton Newton to Denver Stony Point to Taylorsville Taylorsville to Stony Point ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:41:15 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes In Canada? Sebastien Kingsley wrote: > Ok, first of all, I KNOW what a PIC (primary interstate carrier) code > is (10xxx/101xxx), and what they are used for, but my question is, how > are they used in Canada? > The reason I ask this is because it was my understanding that they > WEREN'T used in Canada. > But, I recently obtained a document from Industry Canada, that > contains PIC codes for many Canadian RBOCs and other long distance > carriers. > Here are a few of them: > BC Tel - 10323 > Bell Canada - 10363 > Fonorola - 10507 > London Telecom - 10960 > Likewise, it was my understanding that the use of the special 950 > exchange WASN'T used in Canada. However, this same document lists > 950-xxxx dialups for Canadian companies too!?! > Here are a few of them: > BC Tel - 950-5226 > BC Tel - 950-5322 > Fonorola - 950-5507 > Canadian Tire - 950-5303 > Vancouver TE - 950-5826 > Could someone PLEASE enlighten me on this subject? If they aren't > used here, then why do Canadian companies have them assigned to them? > And if they ARE used here, are they used in the same manner as in the > USA? > Here in BC Tel country, dialing 10xxx will result in an intercept > message. Dialing a 950 dialup results in a similar fashion. People > at the telco tell me that they aren't used, but they cannot explain > why BC Tel are assigned a 10xxx code, and a 950 dialup. > TIA for any help on this puzzling subject. First, some definitions ... PIC = Primary InterExchange Carrier CIC = Carrier Identification Code XXX (except 10X, 15X, 16X), in permissive expansion to 0XXX; also 5XXX, 6XXX; and after mid-1998, possible to be any XXXX CAC = Carrier Access Code (10-XXX, 101-XXXX) i.e., 10 + a three-digit "CIC", and 101 + a four-digit "CIC" fgB = Feautre-Group "B", where 950-xxxx numbers are dialed fgD = Feature-Group "D", where a "CAC" is dialed LATA = Local Access and Transport Area In the US, Equal Access and dialing to alternate carriers has been around for over ten years, but originating use is still not universally available (such as from some independent or rural area). Canada does now have Equal Access or dialing through an alternate carrier, but similarly, originating use is not available from all areas. It is possible that your _particular_ area of British Columbia doesn't yet have originating Equal Access. In the US, 950-xxxx numbers pre-dated the use of 10[1X]XXX+ codes and choosing a primary carrier. Similarly in Canada, where originating access was made available, use of 950-xxxx access pre-dates 10[1X]XXX+ access or choosing a primary carrier. Since 950-xxxx numbers are _supposed_ to be coin-free and toll-free to the originating end-user, another use of 950-xxxx numbers has been for a 'universal' toll-free seven-digit number, similar to 800/888-nxx-xxxx numbers. There have been 950-xxxx numbers assigned to Pizza Hut, banks, credit-card companies, etc. for voice services, or for modem/data functions) There have been many postings to TELECOM Digest over the years regarding Equal Access, 950-xxxx numbers (fg.B) and 10[1X]XXX+ service (fg.D). Also, Bellcore/AT&T/Lucent/Nortel/etc. have published many documents since the 1980's regarding such, including Bellcore's "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks" (1983, 1986), "BOC Notes on the LEC Networks" (1990, 1994, 1996). As for LATAs, when the Bell System broke-up in the 1980's, the US was divided into "LATAs". For the most part, (toll) calls placed within a LATA are supposed to be carried by the toll functions of your local telco, while inTER-LATA calls are to be carried by your chosen long-distance company. In some states, you can even choose a primary carrier for toll calls within your LATA, and that carrier can be different from your chosen primary inTER-LATA carrier. But in either case (except from areas where Equal Access and fg.D originating hasn't yet been implemented), you can place calls via a different carrier on a per-call basis, by dialing the 10[1X]XXX+ "CAC" code before dialing the number, so long as that LD-carrier desires to carry your call. Some of them will accept 'casual-use' calls dialed with a "CAC", _only_ if you have previously set up an account with them. Canada hasn't adopted the "LATA" concept. Where Equal Access and fg.D originating has been implemented in Canada, it is supposed to be where _toll_ calls to the US and Canada (even toll within your province) is to be routed (and billed) on the carrier that you chose as your primary. And use of a 10[1X]XXX+ CAC is to route/bill such toll calls on a 'per-call' basis (casual use) via the dialed alternate carrier. Therefore, if you choose fONOROLA as your primary (US/Canada) toll carrier, you _don't_ have to dial 10[10]507+ prior to the number. But if you want to use the toll services of BC-Tel on a casual-use per-call basis, you would dial 10[10]323+ first. But with inTRA-LATA toll competition in the US, as well as competition between local telcos (which is also coming to Canada), it could possibly happen in the next several years that LATAs as we have known them will eventually vanish. Since I don't actually live in Canada, I couldn't say how certain ideosynchosies and inconsistancies exist, such as calling the operator or operator/card services, non-US international, etc. It has been that Teleglobe is the protected monopoly for calling non-US internatinal locations, and such calls have been placed as before, through your Canadian local telco's services. I don't know what happens if you dial a 10[1X]XXX+ "CAC" first, then 011+. Nor do I know how (straight) 011+ calls would be handled if your primary toll carrier were _not_ the toll services of "your local telephone company". However, I understand that Teleglobe is soon supposed to be losing its protected monopoly status if it hasn't lost it already. It could also be that other carriers allow you to use them for 011+ calls, but they are simply _reselling_ Teleglobe. Even where Equal Access and fg.D origination has been implemented in Canada (_and_ in the US), various inconsistancies will abound. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Timothy A. Deem Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:46:12 -0600 Organization: ComSource, Inc >> At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code >> 610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works >> just like (700) 555-4141. > I tried it here in upstate N.Y. and got a recording from my inter-LATA > IXC. But they're not my intra-LATA toll carrier. My intra-LATA IXC > is New Yo, er, Nyn, er, Bell whoever they are, who happen to have > decent rates for intra-LATA toll with one of their calling plans. It appears you have to dial the following based upon which you want: IntraLATA provider: 1-(your area code)-700-4141 LD provider: 1-700-555-4141 Hope that helps ... ------------------------------ From: Wlevant@aol.com Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 20:34:55 EST Subject: Re: InTRA-LATA Carrier Verification >> At one point, Worldcom told us to dial 700-4141 (we're in area code >> (610) to verify our inTRA-LATA toll PIC assignment. I did; it works >> just like (700) 555-4141. > I tried it here in upstate N.Y. and got a recording from my inter-LATA > IXC. But they're not my intra-LATA toll carrier. My intra-LATA IXC > is New Yo, er, Nyn, er, Bell whoever they are, who happen to have > decent rates for intra-LATA toll with one of their calling plans. Sounds like Brandex (er, Bell Whatsis) screwed up the translation. Surprise. Bill ------------------------------ From: Fred McClintic Subject: Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 16:45:33 -0600 Peter Capek wrote: > I recently tried using 1-700-555-4141 to determine the long distance > company associated with a phone line, but the number seems to be > invalid. The LEC's operator supervisor couldn't explain why -- she > thought it should work -- but referred me to the business office. > Did I miss something? Has this capability gone away or become > obsolete, perhaps as side effect of local deregulation? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It should work; it is the number of > record for that purpose on a national basis. I cannot say why it > does not but I can tell you a work-around that you might try. On > the line in question just dial 00 (double zero) and let it time out > to a live operator. Ask her what company she with. Ask her what is > the number for the business office of that company. That should get > you a reliable answer. PAT] I've used that number in the past here, so I tried to dial it just to see what would happen. I got a bad number recording "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please, check the number and dial again. 21K" We are in the middle of changing from AT&T to MCI, so I wasn't sure what I *should* be getting at this particular moment. I then grabbed a line from our other GTE location and checked from one of their trunks. Same thing. Next I grabbed a line from our SWB location. There I got the AT&T jingle. Next I went out locally and dialed 00. I got the MCI jingle. Ah, looks like a carrier problem ... I then asked the MCI operator why I couldn't dial 700-555-4141. She wasn't aware of the number and asked her supervisor. Her supervisor was aware of the number, but wasn't sure why it didn't work. She offered to transfer me to customer service, which I agreed to. (after waiting on hold for five minutes...) I asked the customer service person the same question. She took our phone number and verified that we had 30 lines on this account, but wasn't aware of the 700-555-4141 number. She, like all of the people I had been talking to from MCI kept asking "well, does double-zero work?" Of course it does, but that isn't the issue ... I had her ask her supervisor who told her "that number has been taken down on a national level". Funny, when you dial 10+CIC+1-700-555-4141, it works fine for AT&T, Sprint, LDDS (err.. LDDS/WorldCom err.. MCI/WorldCom or whatever...), and all the companies that I've been slammed to in the past.... grrr ... Finally, I called our MCI rep. She had never heard of the number, but called back after asking one of her technical consultants, who suggested that maybe 700-555-4141 was for dedicated service and that 700-555-4242 was for switched service. I'd not heard of this anywhere before, but tested the new number -- same recording. I then sent her a copy of this email which I was ready to send. That was the last I've heard of her for about six hours now. That's our results here in northeast Missouri ... Fred ------------------------------ From: Rich Courtney Subject: Re: How Do I Learn My Default Long Distance Carrier? Date: 14 Nov 1997 18:19:11 GMT Organization: Norand Corporation We have MCI and I get a recording. Using 10228+ AT&T responds correctly. Iowa location. ------------------------------ From: aljon@worldnet.att.net (John Stahl) Subject: Re: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:36:19 +0000 Richard W. Museums said: > I saw that Metropolitan Fiber System is laying colored tubes along the > West bound side of RT 87 in Rockland, does this mean Fiber is going to > the suburbs now too? MFS has a contract with the NYS Thruway Authority to put in a fiber-optic "superhighway" across the length and breadth of the 641 mile Thruway system in New York State. The Thruway Authority not only has the Thruway (I90) but also has authority and control for many of the ancillary roads connecting to I90. These include I84, the Cross Westchester Expressway, some of the Interstate roads around Buffalo and part of the Thruway connecting CT to NYC on the west shore of the LI Sound. I remember when the Authority went out for bid on this project back in 1994/95, hearing them at several bidders conferences discussing the advantages the "system" offered any would-be successful bidder. Their routes from west to east, north to south cover most of the major transportation corridors and major population areas of NY. From PA to CT, from Canadian border to New York City, MFS has a complete fiber route for them selves. They are installing a conduit system for who knows how many fibers. The Authority is to get some number of "dark" fibers and drop-off at each of their facilities along the routes - toll booths, offices, maintenance areas, etc. Now that WorldCom, parent of MFS, has their sights on MCI, all of these companies including Compuserve and the other publicized companies that WorldCom has purchased so far, sure seem to be helping to make them a giant among telecommunications companies! John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecommunications, Data and Internet Consultants email: aljon@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 16:28:00 EST From: Steve Sokal Subject: Re: NY State Thruway Rockland County and MFS The fiber optic cable being placed by MFS is part of the New York State NYT Project. A complete description may be found in the RFP referenced at http://www.irm.state.ny.us/nyt/nyt.htm ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Penetration Rate 39% In Finland Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 04:00:36 +-5-30 Kimmo Ketolainen (kk@sci.fi) wrote: > We don't yet have flat-rate cellular service. For the subscription > quoted above, the per-minute fee is 1.92 FIM (0.37 USD) during > Mon-Fri working hours and 0.99 FIM (0.19 USD) at all other times. Thanks. I was curious because the other figures were almost exactly the same as the rates in India - or at least in Delhi, where the two private operators seem to have formed a cartel. The exception being that if you pay Rs 299 (USD 8) per month, you get charged Rs 3/Rs 6/Rs 9 per minute for off-peak/standard/peak hours. Peak hours are four hours during weekdays; off-peak is all Sunday; standard is everything else. which means that you pay on average Rs 7 (USD 0.13) per minute. > (Local, regional and long distance calls are all charged at this same > rate as it is done in most European cellular networks. Nothing is > charged for receiving incoming calls.) Isn't that because landline users are charged extra to call mobile phones? In India landline users pay the same to call a mobile phone as to call another landline, so mobile users have to pay for incoming calls too, about 60% of the rate for outgoing calls. rishab ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #316 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 16 17:53:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA29233; Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:53:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 17:53:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711162253.RAA29233@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #317 TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Nov 97 17:53:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 317 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (John R. Levine) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Lee Winson) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Bruce Lucas) Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System (Eric Edwards) Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes in Canada (Eric Blondin) Re: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fgoldstein@bbn.|nospam.|com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 16 Nov 1997 03:39:13 GMT Organization: GTE Internetworking - BBN Technologies In article , wollman@khavrinen.lcs. mit.edu says... >> The author did not explain how this "capability" will improve. > Pity. That's OK, I can. But the argument is refutable. Indeed, the whole "Internet will swallow" thread seems to me to be amazing hubris amonst those on the Internet side who simply don't understand the complexities of the phone network. Carrying CB-radio-quality voice, or even sunny-weather hi-fi audio across the Internet is (literally) childs' play. It's only a teensy fraction of what the telcos have to worry about, and usually do. I started off on the "voice" side in the '70s, and was Telecom Mgr. here at BBN in the late '70s, doing PBX stuff when the ARPAnet NCC (NOC) was ours, and with my desktop VT-52 connected to host computers via a Pluribus TIP. Now I'm quite conversant on Internet, packet and ATM matters, and speak both languages. I do however see a failure to communicate. > Point 2: Statistical multiplexing, which arises out of the observation > that not everybody wants to talk at once, applies to data networks ... Of course. It's natural there. > Point 3: There are essentially three types of data services: elastic, > adaptive, and isochronous. Elastic services are insensitive to > short-term delays in the network ... > Isochronous services are at the exact opposite end of the spectrum: > they depend on traffic reliably getting through the network at a > constant rate, with packets arriving neither too soon nor too late. > For a very long time, telephony-type applications were thought to fall > into this category, but it's now understood by networking researchers > that they are, in actuality, adaptive services, the third major type. ... > An adaptive service is one which can operate under widely differing > network conditions, and provides some amount of buffering at the > receiving end which can be adjusted to provide as good a service as > the delays in the network allow. The prototypical ``Internet > Telephony'' application, Van Jacobson's research vehicle `vat', was > the first major application to develop this service model. Ah yes, the Nineteenth Coming of Etherphone! Indeed the idea that voice is elastic is not new. Undersea cables in the '70s used it to conserve costly (analog!) channels. Voice was stored in little bursts. Silent bursts were discarded and good ones were shoved onto available channels, preceded by tone bursts (to identify the original channel). I went to work at DEC in 1980 just as they were installing a TASI system, STC's COM-II, which could compress 31 channels onto 16, all analog tie lines. I think its packet size was 39 milliseconds. It was supposed to save money, but in practice it was a horror show. Then in 1986, StrataCom brought out their digital TASI, the IPX, which used somewhat shorter packets and was somewhat less horrible, but not without pain. All in the meantime, the REAL cost of bandwidth was plummeting. In 1980, a domestic US toll call probably cost Mother (AT&T Long Lines) about 15c/minute (call it my educated guess), exclusive of the share paid via Separations to the BOCs. Then the glass began to go in. Nowadays, after some inflation to devalue the cent, the call probably costs more like two cents. The Dime Lady costs more? She's still paying a nickel or more per minute to the LECs at each end of the call. Big users connect directly to their IXC and don't pay the "originating" half, and "virtual private network" calls with no Bell switches involved are routinely sold at well under a nickel a minute, depending on volume. It's pretty hard to shave much off of two cents. So why does Internet telephony look so good? Because nobody sees the two cents. They see the retail price, which includes billing, marketing (you think the Dime Lady works cheap?), and huge "access" charge payments to the local telcos. It's cutthroat and not very profitable, but very little of the cost is for bandwidth. Internet Telephony bypasses the billing system, so it looks cheap. Legally (in the USA), IF you carry voice across state lines and feed it INTO the local exchange (NOT into an ISP as a packet stream but as a pure voice call into the LEC), then you ARE a long distance carrier. Sticking a Cisco router in the middle and running newfangled forms of TASI doesn't change things. If you only use the local exchange to call up an ISP as a data call, then of course the per-minute access charges do NOT apply, and that leaves Internet telephony a big niche market for recreational chatting amongst computer hackers. But if it rings a real phone line, Long Distance is Long Distance. And frankly over the past 20 years the quality of LD has improved astonishingly. A call from Boston to New York in 1977 was hissy at best, that "Long Distance" sound, and transcontinental calls were half-duplex too due to echo suppressors. Today a call between the USA and Australia sounds almost local. Internet telephony, with its long packetization delays and low-bit-rate voice, with its dropouts and "adaptive" (that's a euphemism) quality, harkens back to the bad old days. Sure, an LD company could offer it, but why, when fiber optic 64000 bps channels are cheap enough? > Point 4: These three types of services interact in an interesting > way. Specifically, services which inject their data into the network > at a constant rate, or effectively so, will always win a battle for > bandwidth against elastic services like TCP. This has two salutary > benefits: first, and most immediately, people will actually be able to > use the service, at least so long as the network isn't totally > saturated. That's salutary in the Swiftian "modest proposal" way. Translated: Voice is anti-social and drives data off of the Internet. TCP follows the Van Jacobson Slow-Start and backoff rules (if it conforms to spec). Voice-on-net doesn't. That's why VON is worse for the Internet itself than it is for the telephone industry! I'm concerned that too much VON will degrade the Internet's data performance, causing too much congestion. The phone companies will fend for themselves. Or at least the smart ones will -- telcos who cry that the Internet are "ruining" the phone network are missing the boat too. (ooooh, the temptation to say "Bell Titanic" here is too great, but I will try to resist that mixed metaphor ...) > Second, in the long run, users will eventually notice that > their network performance is getting sluggish, at which point some > fraction of them will purchase a higher level of service, again > providing an additional economic incentive to expand the capacity of > the network. By which point, data is clobbered, and doesn't have the option of just picking up a normal phone! Voice-on-net is a cute hack. It's potentially useful for "intranets" where there is private bandwidth, and for some discount long-distance services (especially overseas), where its low bit rates might be economical compared to the older gear telcos use. But a well-engineered circuit-switched telephone network is a thing of beauty, not much appreciated by many Internet wonks but beloved of millions of subscribers. That market's not about to disappear. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein"at" bbn.com +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Nov 1997 04:56:43 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. Before we write off the telcos in favor of the Internet, can we meditate on the topic of access charges for a minute? Every long distance carrier (IXC) in the U.S. pays a substantial amount of its revenue, like about half, to LECs in the form of access charges, typically two to three cents per minute per end of each call. Internet providers (ISPs) don't pay that fee. Both the 1987 "modem tax" brouhaha and some skirmishes earlier this year were on the exact issue of charging ISPs the same per-minute fees that IXCs pay. Both in 1987 and 1997, the regulators decided that ISPs don't need to pay because they're not in the long distance business, they're in the Internet business. But if Internet telephony ever becomes more than a gimmick, this will change, and ISPs will pay the same amount that IXCs do. (The amount charged to IXCs is in fact dropping, but what's important is that they'll be equal.) Given a choice between paying 10 cents a minute for phone calls versus all you can stand for $20/month, the ISP looks pretty attractive. But equalize the access charges to, say, 1 cent/min per end, and the IXC will charge about 5 cents/minute, while the ISP will charge $20/mo plus 2 cents/minute. You'd have to make 11 hours of Internet phone calls per month before you come out ahead, and for the forseeable future, Internet telephony will sound a lot worse than real phone calls. (As someone else noted, telcos are hidebound but not totally stupid, and they can packet switch phone calls just like ISPs do if that's an effective way to get the connections they need, which will make the costs of providing similar service from the ISP or IXC about the same.) I certainly agree that telcos will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and the ones who insist that they're only in the business of providing circuit switched connections over copper pairs for large per-minute charges will probably die. But it's way premature to think that Internet telephony will take away their market, since the cost advantage is due largely to a regulatory quirk. One thing that Internet phone does tell us is that there's a market for inferior phone service at a lower price than for high quality phone service, but it doesn't tell us what the most effective way to provide that lower level service is. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: lwinson@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 16 Nov 1997 02:30:39 GMT Organization: The PACSIBM SIG BBS Some more comments on economic competition and telephone service ... Someone said the cable TV companies have already dug up the streets and put in a "local loop" plant. Well, yes and no. Yes, we have cable TV service and a lot of people have fiber optic. But is the existing plant INDIVIUALLY ADDRESSABLE for two-way conversations? My local cable is but one "pipe" emanating from their HQ. Can that handle the equivalent of 120,000 lines PLUS all the private and high speed data links the phone company has in this area? Further, cable lines are installed with a lower physical standard and are less reliable than phone lines. > The BOC's loop is one way for consumers and businesses to connect to > their ISPs, but there are others: wireless and microwave, for > instance, are in use today. Is wireless and microwave appropriate and cheap enough for individual POTS subscribers? > That's certainly one opinion. Others feel that telephone customers > have had no choice in where their money went prior to today, and the > dollars they have invested in telephone service (because all dollars > are ultimately supplied by the customers) is a "public investment" in > a private company. Consumers received a service for their payments all this years. The network was not built by tax dollars, but rather by subscribers who were getting telephone service. Indeed, the smallest subscribers were subsidized by the heavier business, premium service, and long distance users. > When GM came to town, Ford could argue that the existing roads should be > used exclusively for Fords, since only Fords had been used on them up > to now. Should GM build all new roads? Well, your argument falls flat since Ford didn't build the roads in your story. The Bell System designed and built the network privately. It also must be remembered that Bell System stockholders gave up many rights that a private company normally has. They could not get rich the way Microsoft and Intel stockholders are. The rate of return was sharply limited by state PUCs and the FCC. Further, the pricing of service was controlled by the government. The phone company is also mandated to serve unprofitable/undesirable customers. There are often articles in the newspaper complaining about corporations avoiding poor or ghetto areas, however, that is generally fully legal. The phone company must offer full services everywhere, to everyone, with appeal rights to the PUC. And that is costly. The phone company isn't allowed to tack on price premiums. For example, if you visit a resort town, you'll find most prices more expensive than back at home. Phone service will be exactly the same. If the phone company was private, it'd charge a premium just as the ice cream man and suntan lotion store. [I paid double for suntan lotion this summer at the beach because I forgot the bottle at home.] > A key point that investors look at in determining whether or not to > fund a startup. Not many people are wealthy enough to start their own > phone company, so if the experience running a network isn't there, > neither will the funds be there. That's exactly the value of a market > driven economy - better ideas drive out poor ones. While the above is generally true, there are two very important exceptions that people forget about: First, investors are by no means always shewd and rational. There are empty brand new shopping centers near me. The investors who built them lost money. I never understood why they were built in the first place as I saw no retail demand for that location. Someone obviously convinced investors otherwise. You're gonna see plenty of startups fail. Secondly, better ideas don't always "drive out bad ones". That only happens in the "pure competition" economic model where everyone has full knowledge and equal opportunity to enter the marketplace. Once a company gets entrenched, it won't be go away so easily, even if it provides _bad service_. It boils down to _service_. Someone else posted that our expectations have dropped to service quality. I agree, quite regretfully. From my own perspective, I could care less if someone invests and makes a killing or loses his shirt in the telephone service business. What I fear is, as a consumer, being stuck and dependent on lousy service because a variety of marketplace conditions dumped that on me. I don't want to get fleeced paying high rates as I'm forced to at COCOTS or to use cellular as a substitute. Telephone service is a critical public utility. Years and years ago society recognized its value and destructiveness of competitition in this particular industry and established sensible controls. Competition IS the American Way. But I don't see the evolving industry as competition in the sense of a Norman Rockwell painting. Rather, I see it as the Trusts and new unfettered monopolies that Pres Theo. Roosevelt had to break up. Why re-create something we know from history was a failure? ------------------------------ From: Bruce Lucas Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 23:38:48 -0500 Garrett Wollman wrote: > (This actually provides sort of a ``poor man's > admission control'' -- once the quality degrades past the level of > acceptability, people will become discouraged and stop, thus removing > their traffic from the network.) Yeah, that really sounds like my idea of high-quality phone service - hovering on borderline of acceptability, with a guarantee that some percentage of the time you pick up the phone get such a poor connection that you just hang up instead. Yeah. ------------------------------ From: ese002@news9.exile.org (Eric Edwards) Subject: Re: The Internet Will Swallow the Phone System Date: 16 Nov 1997 09:33:42 GMT Organization: Engineers in Exile On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:24:10 PST, Craig Milo Rogers wrote: > No, but that's not the right analogy. :-) Instead, consider a > "typical" small-town shopping area: narrow streets, small stores, > needless exposure to the weather while shopping, high city taxes to > support crumbling infrastructures. Suddenly, a Net*Mart appears just > outside the town boundaries. Good parking, wide selection, air > conditioning, no city taxes ... that's the brave new world we're > building! So competive local carriers encourage the electronic equivilient of urban sprawl. Hmmm. I'll have to think about that one ... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 13:37:50 -0500 From: Eric Blondin Subject: Re: 10XXX/101XXX Codes in Canada miind@hotmail.cam (Sebastien Kingsley) wrote: > Ok, first of all, I KNOW what a PIC (primary interstate carrier) code > is (10xxx/101xxx), and what they are used for, but my question is, how > are they used in Canada? > The reason I ask this is because it was my understanding that they > WEREN'T used in Canada. > But, I recently obtained a document from Industry Canada, that > contains PIC codes for many Canadian RBOCs and other long distance > carriers. > Here are a few of them: > BC Tel - 10323 > Bell Canada - 10363 > Fonorola - 10507 > London Telecom - 10960 Yes those codes are used in Canada, a bit differently (and limited) compared to the U.S. though. First of all, I`ll take Fonorola as an example: a new customer subscribes to the service, so the number is entered in the switch, afterward the number is PICed, this takes a few days, so the customer is told that if they want to use our service right away, he must use the 10507 CIC for a few days until service is setup on equal access. Another use would be for customers who would like to be on casual calling (not all carriers offer this though) and for this to work they would need to have opened an account with us (except for a few like PRONTO (I think that's the name) who offers service in the Montreal area and offers only casual calling, which is billed by Bell Canada at PRONTO rates). Finally, I know that our Cust. Serv. Reps give the 10323 CIC to our customers when we have connection problems to certain countries and STENTOR seems to work and the call is really urgent (10323 IS assigned to BC Tel, but works from all over the STENTOR networks). Of what I heard, those codes work from payphones in the U.S., they don`t in Canada though (at least for now). Hope that`s precise enough. Eric Blondin The International Dialing Resource Center: http://www.geocities.com/~dialworld ------------------------------ From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: Re: Updated GSM-List 11/08/97 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 05:06:14 +-5-30 Dear Jurgen, I'll try and post a list of Indian GSM cellular operators' contact numbers soon, but for the moment here are the correct numbers for the two operators in Delhi. Jurgen Morhofer wrote: > India Airtel 404 10 Int + 91 10 012345 > Essar 404 11 Int + 91 11 098110 Airtel Int + 91 9810 012345 Essar Int + 91 9811 098110 FYI India has more GSM ops than any other country in the world, and has therefore become the only country with a GSM MoU Interest Group of its own (instead of being part of GSM-MoU's Asia Regional Interest Group). India will shortly become the world's only country to hit a million mobile subscribers within 30 months from the start of service (currently it's approx. 700,000, growing at >280% p.a; the first GSM network here started in end-1995). -rishab The Indian Techonomist - http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The newsletter on India's information markets Editor and Publisher - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Mobile +91 11 98110 14574; Fax +91 11 2209608; Tel +91 11 2454717 A4/204 Ekta Apts., 9 Indraprastha Extn, New Delhi 110092 INDIA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #317 ****************************** From editor@telecom-digest.org Mon Nov 17 20:33:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA06372; Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:33:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 20:33:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199711180133.UAA06372@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #318 TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Nov 97 20:33:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 318 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out (Monty Solomon) Call for Papers, IDMS '98 (Ketil Lund) Book Review: "Great American Websites" by Renehan (Rob Slade) Ericsson TDMA Cellphones: Gimme A Break! (Alan Boritz) 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@telecom-digest.org * 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: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cell Phones,'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Date: Mon, 17 Nov 97 09:04:14 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Sunday, November 16, 1997 Cell Phones, 'Crime Fighters of the '90s,' Are Striking Out Safety: Woman shot during carjacking sues service provider because 911 calls would not go through. By MICHAEL A. HILTZIK, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer There could hardly have been a worse time for Marcia Spielholz's cellular phone to fail her. It was a Sunday night in December, and the 37-year-old lawyer was on her way home to Beverly Hills from a Christmas shopping trip to Culver City. Along the way, it was clear, her BMW had attracted the attention of a pair of carjackers. For 10 terrifying minutes she played cat-and-mouse with a black sedan along National Boulevard and up Castle Heights Avenue, one hand on the wheel, the other frantically tapping 911 onto the keypad of her cellular phone. The call would not go through; she would dial again. Again, the rapid busy signal that meant no connection. Another try, another sickening busy. Finally her time ran out. The black sedan cut off her escape on Castle Heights. A man approached her car with a gun drawn. Spielholz held the useless phone to her face as if to suggest that she had reached police, hoping she might scare off an attack. The man didn't seem to be fooled. He thrust a .38 up to the window. "I said, 'Please don't do this,' and turned my head away," she recalled in an interview with The Times. The bullet blew off a part of her right lower face and came to rest just above the carotid artery delivering blood to her brain. The blast drove the phone into her face, shattering her jaw -- and more. She recently underwent her 11th reconstructive operation, raising her medical bills to more than $250,000. The time she has needed to devote to recuperation and physical therapy after the 1994 shooting forced her long ago to give up her job as a lawyer for MGM Studios. The assailants, who fled after the gunshot, have never been caught. Spielholz today is haunted by the thought of what might have been, had her cellular phone accomplished what she had always regarded as one of its fundamental purposes: to summon help. "The police told me later they were blocks away," she said. "They could have been there in minutes. The [911] dispatcher could have told me what they tell all carjacking victims -- to abandon the car. But I never got that far." *** Consumer advocates and cellular industry critics say Spielholz's ordeal, although exceptionally tragic, is not entirely the product of bad luck. Among the contributing factors, they argue, are federal regulatory policies and industry practices that have systematically undermined the quality and accessibility of 911 service for cellular phone customers. Users of conventional phones have long become accustomed to free 911 access as a public right. In most communities, the emergency number can be reached from a pay phone without dropping a coin, and in some communities the service is so efficient that emergency equipment can be dispatched before a caller completes the connection. That is not true in the cellular world. Although public safety agencies across most of the country are equipped to receive 911 calls from cellular phones, no state or local regulators oversee the quality or availability of 911 service to cellular users. (In this state, all cellular calls are fielded first by the California Highway Patrol, which passes them on if necessary to local police or fire agencies.) The cellular industry has also fought and delayed federal rules aimed at broadening access to 911 for all cellular customers. These include a proposal that would ensure that all cellular 911 calls be automatically transmitted on the strongest compatible radio signal available at the moment the call is made. *** Spielholz says that this regulation might have saved her if it were in effect at the time of her assault. One technical study she commissioned for a lawsuit that she filed against L.A. Cellular, her service provider, indicates that the company's signal is still too weak to carry a 911 call in the area of National and Castle Heights -- unlike that of AirTouch Communications, the rival cellular carrier in Los Angeles. (Because signal strength tends to fluctuate, L.A. Cellular's signal might be stronger than AirTouch's at other points or at other times of day.) In other words, under the so-called strongest compatible signal standard, Spielholz's 911 call would have automatically shifted to AirTouch's line and her chances of summoning help would almost certainly have improved. But that is only part of the problem with cellular 911, critics say. The cellular industry has never shown the same commitment to easy access for all callers demonstrated by conventional -- or land-line -- phone companies, which are regulated by state authorities and routinely provide free 911 access from private and pay phones alike. Instead, many wireless companies favor their own customers by deliberately blocking 911 calls made on their own signals by callers using competitors' phones, by out-of-towners, or by users of phones that have never been activated by a commercial service (so-called non-initialized phones). "I believe access to 911, no matter how you get there, is an obligation and a public service," said James Conran, a former member of the California Public Utilities Commission whose San Francisco consumer group, Consumers First, has pressed for broader cellular 911 service. "The industry is doing everything it can behind the scenes to kill" FCC rules aimed at widening cellular 911 access, he said. That's an important issue, because a large number of the 55 million cellular phones in operation nationwide are used by their owners primarily as emergency devices. Industry studies show that as many as 20% of all users pay low monthly fees for service -- $9.95 to $19.95 in most cases -- but never record even a single minute of elective use. Industry experts believe that such a pattern is characteristic of customers purchasing the service simply for the privilege of reaching help in a tight spot. Cellular companies have long treasured this so-called safety and security market as a wellspring of low-cost subscribers. *** Spielholz argues in court papers that L.A. Cellular promoted the security function of its service in advertising and customer mailings -- proclaiming that cellular phones are "becoming the crime fighters of the '90s." The company also said that two-thirds of cellular subscribers surveyed nationwide cited personal safety as their primary motivation for signing up -- without stressing the downside that cellular service can be spotty and unreliable. That was especially true on the Westside, according to a deposition given in her Los Angeles federal court lawsuit by former L.A. Cellular President Michael Heil, who said that during his tenure the company chronically struggled to keep up with capacity demands in the "core," the West Los Angeles-Beverly Hills-Culver City area. Those problems, he said, were manifested in a large number of dropped, or uncompleted, calls and complaints from customers unable to make connections. L.A. Cellular (a partnership of AT&T Wireless and BellSouth) contends that customers are explicitly cautioned on their service invoice that cellular service can be affected by many factors, including terrain, foliage and weather. *** The company also said in its response to Spielholz's lawsuit and a related class-action complaint that its customer contracts specifically disclaim any responsibility for a subscriber's incidental losses or damages stemming from service problems. The company further says that it does not market phones explicitly as safety devices. "We market the convenience" of cellular service, said Steven C. Crosby, the company's vice president for external affairs. "We do not emphasize or exploit the 'fear factor' " in marketing or advertising. Representatives for the cellular industry say that they support, in principle, efforts to broaden 911 access for cellular users, but that many proposals involve troublesome technical obstacles. Industry representatives argue, for example, that with the advent of digital cellular phones, a number of incompatible systems will be in use for wireless communications, hampering efforts to standardize access. Ensuring that law enforcement agencies' own systems are compatible with those of wireless service companies will also take time, they say. *** But consumer advocates say those technical problems are exaggerated. They say what the industry really fears is that more customers might discover that most cellular phones are capable of placing 911 calls regardless of whether a user has signed up for service -- but only if the local cellular companies are willing to transmit the call. "That's the biggest scam of the cellular companies," said Mark Hiepler, Spielholz's attorney. "You don't have to sign up to get through." In California, all cellular carriers now pass all 911 calls to emergency agencies regardless of their source, but there is as yet no law or regulation requiring them to do so. The implementation date of an FCC regulation requiring such access was recently deferred from Oct. 1 to the end of this month, and industry critics fear further delays. Industry spokesmen argue that encouraging widespread use of unconnected phones would lead to mischief and abuse. "We don't want people making prank calls from phones they buy at swap meets," said L.A. Cellular's Crosby. Law enforcement officials say that's not a significant problem, especially compared with the benefits of broader 911 access. "The more cell phones on which you can make 911 calls, the better," said California Highway Patrol Commissioner Dwight Helmick. Cellular representatives also contend that because free 911 service is financed in part by state taxes on subscribers, nonsubscribers should not get unrestricted access to 911. "It's a fairness issue," said Steve Carlson, executive director of the Cellular Carriers Assn. of California. "People pay for cell service and part of what they pay for is 911 access. If all you need to do is buy the phone, then you wouldn't pay the fees and 911 taxes" that finance 911 service. As for the "strongest compatible signal" standard, "our position is this is a solution in search of a problem," said Michael F. Altschul, general counsel for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assn. He noted that all cellular phones are manufactured with two radio bands built in, corresponding to the two carriers licensed by the FCC to operate in each metropolitan area. "All cell phones allow the customer to roam on the other band if the preferred carrier doesn't have a serviceable signal," Altschul said. "The user could be educated to know how to flip to the other band." But critics say that manually reprogramming a cellular phone is a laborious procedure that is almost impossible for the average consumer, especially in a crisis. Critics argue that even making such a suggestion shows how well the industry understands that it has oversold the reliability of cellular phones as safety devices. When Hiepler asked former L.A. Cellular President Heil in a deposition whether having a cellular phone handy in an emergency would give him "peace of mind" -- a phrase drawn from a 1994 L.A. Cellular ad campaign -- the executive replied: "Yeah, if a criminal were chasing me and I were to be able to place a call ... and if my phone were working, if the battery were in proper working order and if I had dialed correctly ... and if ... that call were then routed to the California Highway Patrol ... and if those people were to be able to respond correctly. I'm sure [there are] a few if's I left out. Then I might have some peace of mind." Copyright Los Angeles Times ------------------------------ From: Ketil Lund Subject: Call for Papers, IDMS '98 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:56:17 +0100 Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway Dear Collegues, 5th International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services 8. - 11. September 1998, Oslo, Norway Online information for IDMS'98 (including the CfP) can be found at: http://www.unik.no/~idms98 You will be doing us a great favor if you disseminate the this Call for papers among your interested colleagues. Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this announcement. Best regards, Ketil Lund | Organization Committee IDMS'98 | | 5th International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia | Systems and Telecommunication Services | Oslo, Norway, 1998 | | UniK - Center for Technology at Kjeller | University of Oslo | P.O. Box 70, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway | | e-mail: idms98@unik.no | WWW: http://www.unik.no/~idms98 Call for Papers IDMS'98 5th International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services 8. - 11. September 1998, Oslo, Norway The Fifth International Workshop on Interactive Distributed Multimedia Systems and Telecommunication Services follows the successful IDMS workshops held 1997 in Darmstadt and 1996 in Berlin. The purpose of this workshop is to bring together researchers, developers, and practitioners from academia and industry. The workshop serves as a forum for discussion, presentation, and exploration of technologies and their advances in the broad field of interactive distributed multimedia systems and telecommunication services -- ranging from basic system technologies such as networking and operating system support to all kinds of teleservices and distributed multimedia applications. Case studies and papers describing experimental work are especially wel