TELECOM Digest Thu, 7 Apr 94 11:05:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Needed on LEC Competition/Value of Service (F. Goldstein) Re: Question About MIN and ESN (Daniel Goemans) Re: Cellular Roaming Charges (David E. Sheafer) Re: Cellular Roaming Charges (Tak To) Re: New NPA for Virginia (Carl Moore) Re: New NPA For Virginia (Karl Johnson) Re: Anonymous Phoning (Paul Robinson) CLID and Toll Saver (Jack Meth) Re: Local Charges for 950 and 800 Access? (John R. Grout) The Sacred and the Profane (Paul Robinson) Re: Radio Contest Overloads 911 Lines, Business Calls (Mark Rudholm) Re: Switch Problems (Matt Silveira) Re: 900 and Other Premium Numbers (was Pager Scam) (Mark Brader) Re: FAX Mailbox Services (Les Reeves) 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 GEnie. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers. To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: ptownson@townson.com. ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. TELECOM Digest is gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. 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: goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Information Needed on LEC Competition/Value of Service Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 00:38:11 Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation In article 00r0nolting@leo.bsuvc.bsu. edu writes: > I urgently need information on pricing regulations in the local > exchange with regard to universal service subsidies. I have heard the > term "value of service" but am unable to find how the higher priced > business phone subsidizes the rural phone. Is part of the monthly fee > put into a fund, part of every local call? Three of us are participating > in a competition and have to present our ideas on Friday, April 8th, in > the morning. Yes, there is a fund. (I apologize in advance if my information is out of date; this was the way it was set up by the FCC in the early '80s and I am not aware of major changes, but I miss details like that at times.) The National Exchange Carriers' Association administers a Universal Service Fund. Low-cost telephone companies (Bells, especially in urban territories) contribute some of their carrier access charges (stuff paid by AT&T, MCI and the like for use of their local networks) to this fund, which is used to subsidize service in high-cost areas, such as Wyoming. It's not taken from local calls, but from interstate calls. Also, the price paid by carriers to local telcos varies, with some rural companies getting much more than the 3-5c/minute/end that Bells collect. So the long distance carriers lose money on those calls and it is made up for by the rest of their calls. Fred R. Goldstein k1io goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com ------------------------------ From: goemansd@kirk.usafa.af.mil (Daniel Goemans) Subject: Re: Question About MIN and ESN Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 15:47:20 GMT Organization: United States Air Force Academy In article sathya@uw-isdl.ee.washington. edu (Sathyadev Uppala) writes: > What is the difference between MIN and ESN? MIN (Mobile Identification Number) is the mobile unit phone number. It is user programmable and necessarily different from the ESN for two reasons: (1) The ESN is not user programmable (ideally) and it represents the true radio signature of the phone. (2) The ESN, more recently, is starting to become a security issue and is generally no longer posted on the packaging or shell of the phone. It is somewhat of a secret. Because a caller must identify the phone he/she is trying to call, the MIN is available -- which is not a security issue. ESN (Electronic Security Number) is everything said above, and stored separately from the info in the NAM (Number Assignment Module). Hope that helps. Daniel Goemans USAF Academy ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer <_sheaferd@merrimack.edu> Reply-To: __SHEAFERD@merrimack.edu Subject: Re: Cellular Roaming Charges Date: 5 Apr 94 22:19:25 EST Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA In article , nsayer@quack.kfu.com (Nick Sayer) writes: > Lars Nohling > writes: >> Are then any tricks to cutting costs on the high roaming rates many >> cellular carriers charge ? >> Any sort of Resellers who provide discounts like in the Long Distance >> business ? > In any given area there can be up to two cellular companies. One of > them will probably be some sort of variation on "Cellular one", one is > very likely to be either some variation of GTE or a BOC. > Your only choice in the matter is if you are in an area where there > are two services. My phone is a Motorola 550 (one of the more popular > ones, so they tell me. It's a "flip fone" sort of reminiscent of Star > Trek TOS communicators). I can, using RCL * set up how it roams by > telling it which of the two services in a given area it should check > first for roaming. I can change this on the fly (not during a call, > though). So I could conceivably call *611 and ask whoever answers what > their roaming rates are, then switch to the other service and ask them > the same question. If I don't like the second answer better than the > first, then I will switch back to the first provider and there you go. The home system you subscribe to usually sets the roaming rates for any areas where you are allowed to roam, not the company that you are roaming with, they just bill your carrier according to their agreements and then bill you according to their charges. From what I understand some carriers take a loss in certain markets, to provide the customer less costy service in areas adjacent to the home area. In addition in some markets if you subscribe to the A side, you wont be able to roam on the B side, and visa-versa without setting up a temporary account. It all depends on your carriers agreements with other carriers. David E. Sheafer internet: __sheaferd@merrimack.edu ^^ thats 2 _ in the net address GEnie: D.SHEAFER ------------------------------ From: TTO@RANKIN.aspentec.com (Tak To) Subject: Re: Cellular Roaming Charges Date: 7 Apr 1994 04:12:35 GMT Organization: Aspen Technology, Inc. In LNohling_+a_BSSI_+lLars_Nohling+r% REMSBSSI@mcimail.com writes: > Are then any tricks to cutting costs on the high roaming rates many > cellular carriers charge? > Any sort of Resellers who provide discounts like in the Long Distance > business? Comparing to typical [roaming] air time charges, the long distance carrier charges are of secondary concern. I talked with an AT&T sales person before and he said that PRO WATS service is available to cellular accounts in some areas. (I did not ask which since it is not available in the areas that I have accounts in -- namely Boston and NYC/NJ.) Note that roaming charges are set more or less _solely_ by your home cellular serive and may or may not have anything to do with the what is charged by the cellular providers in the roaming locale. E.g., NYC-NJ Cell/1 charges has a much higher roaming rate for, say, DC, than Boston Cell/1. (Actually, in the off peak periods, the home rate in NYC charged by NYC-NJ Cell/1 is higher than the roaming rate charged by Boston Cell/1; even with the added L.D. charges!) So, shop around. Depending on your calling pattern, it might be cheaper to sign up for service in some other areas in addition to your home area. Tak To (617) 577-0310 x377 Box 45, MIT Branch PO, Cambridge, Ma 02139. tto@aspentec.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 19:30:42 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: New NPA For Virginia Well, it'd have to be one of those N00 codes if it's this coming August (1994). More likely, it'll be an NNX code becoming useable in August 1995. As has been discussed in the digest before, the DC area gets precedence for keeping the old area code, so Richmond and Norfolk switched from 703 to 804 in 1973, and Baltimore and Annapolis switched from 301 to 410. I am not yet aware of any N0X/N1X prefixes in Virginia beyond the DC area. Roanoke might be the biggest city to get the new area code in this upcoming split of 703. I've travelled across a lot of Virginia, so I'd be interested in hearing where the new boundary is. ------------------------------ Date: 07 Apr 94 07:17:45 EDT From: Karl Johnson Subject: Re: New NPA for Virginia Carl Moore replied to my post: > Well, it'd have to be one of those N00 codes if it's this coming > August (1994). More likely, it'll be an NNX code becoming useable > in August 1995. As has been discussed in the digest before, the > DC area gets precedence for keeping the old area code, so Richmond > and Norfolk switched from 703 to 804 in 1973, and Baltimore and > Annapolis switched from 301 to 410. I am not yet aware of any > N0X/N1X prefixes in Virginia beyond the DC area. Roanoke might > be the biggest city to get the new area code in this upcoming > split of 703. I've travelled across a lot of Virginia, so I'd > be interested in hearing where the new boundary is. In my comments in the original post I was trying to say these same speculations, but I suppose it may not have been visible enough. To further show that a likelihood of the split happening in 1995 one only needs to look at the upcoming splits in 205, 206, 708, and 602 each of which will happen in 1995 each NPA is (according to Friday's quarterly NPA count posted in TCD) larger and growing faster (in terms of number of NXXs). After further contemplation I think that the companies involved have been told by Bellcore to spend three months preparing their recmendations by the end of June and Bellcore will take another month to decide where to put the line. After looking at the map in the Northern Virginia Directory showing the NPAs for Virginia I think the border between 703 and the new NPA will be an east-west line going west from Harrisonburg or somewhere further south, but this is nothing but a WAG (wild assed guess) as I have no solid information as to the NXX counts in each county (I assume that like the Maryland split this will follow county lines). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 00:05:50 EDT From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: Paul Robinson Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA jmm@elegant.com (John Macdonald), writes in Comp-privacy: > There has to be a middle ground which allows anonymous calling > to parties that are willing to accept such calls while not > allowing anonymous calls to parties that wish to insist upon ID. There is, and it's already available. > The phone company ought to provide a recipient option that lets > the recipient choose to never receive calls with blocked ID. That's exactly what is available now. > Their phone would not even ring This is *exactly* what happens. > (or be busy), and the caller would get an intercept message "The > number you have dialled does not accept calls with blocked > ID.". The caller would know why their call did not get through > and could choose to unblock and call again if they felt that > there was a need to complete the call. (The current situation > where the recipient's display says "number blocked" and the > recipient just does not answer can lead to the caller trying > again and again, hoping that the recipient will eventually get > home. While there may be some desire to cause such callers that > sort of nuisance, it also means that the recipient's phone is > busy.) Where they have Caller-ID, they can have (subject to political considerations) exactly the system you mentioned available. In Virginia and Maryland (DC probably has it if the suburbs do) the service is called "anonymous call rejection." You dial *77 and from that point on, if someone calls you by dialing *67, they don't get through; they are shunted to a recording that tells them that the party they are calling does not accept anonymous calls; if they want to reach the party, call again without blocking their number. This remains in effect until and unless the called party dials *87. Here, ACR is free with Caller ID (which costs $6.50 a month) or is $3.50 a month without Caller ID). As strange as that sounds, you *can* block calls from people who block the transmission of their number even if you don't have Caller-ID. Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And having it available for people without Caller-ID makes good sense since the caller would not know one way or the other and probably assumes they *do have it* if he goes to the trouble of adding the *67. Even though the recipient does not have Caller-ID they may not like the idea of getting calls from people who choose to block it for whatever reason, the theory being I don't care who you are, but I don't like the idea of you trying to hide from me. PAT] ------------------------------ From: methj@fi.gs.com (Jack Meth) Subject: CLID and Toll Saver Organization: Fixed Income Division - Goldman, Sachs & Co. Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 15:06:45 GMT I am considering getting Caller-ID on a line with an answering machine. The answering machine picks up before the second ring when in toll saver mode. CLID is delivered between the first and second ring. Will CLID be delivered if the phone is picked up before the second ring? The CLID will be a backup to a doctors off hours answering machine. If the machine fails to record the message then CLID can be used to figure out who called last. (Last number call back *69 won't work because the MD dials into the machine to check messages and wont know that machine failed until after she dials in.) CLID costs $6.50 per month in (718) 544. Thanks, Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It will be haphazard at best. A lot of telcos deliver Caller-ID immediatly after the first ring, easily a second or so before the second ring starts (and the answering machine likely to pickup). If delivery is delayed until just before the second ring it is possible some of the transmissions will be garbled if the answering machine picks up at the start of the second ring. It would be better if you could delay the answer all the time until the third or fourth ring unless toll-saver is an important feature to the person using the system. PAT] ------------------------------ From: j-grout@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout) Subject: Re: Local Charges for 950 and 800 Access? Date: 6 Apr 1994 20:00:51 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu In TELECOM Digest Editor responded to j-grout@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (John R. Grout): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Generally it is only the rip-off > private payphones (COCOTS) which have charges for 950 and 800. They > are not supposed to either, but they get away with it. I am surprised > it was at a C&P phone. Maybe there was a programming error. PAT] According to Jonathan (jdl@wam.umd.edu), it is unlawful to charge for 800 calls, but C&P _does_ charge $.25 for a call to a 950 number from its payphones in Maryland. John R. Grout INTERNET: j-grout@uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 00:15:00 EDT From: Paul Robinson Reply-To: Paul Robinson Subject: The Sacred and the Profane Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA taranto@panix.com (James Taranto), writes: > In article , LincMad@netcom.com (Linc > Madison) wrote: >> The splits in 703 and 214 in particular may put to the test the >> sanctity of the "you must dial 1 for all toll calls, and you must be >> able to dial all local calls without a 1" arrangement. > That arrangement is hardly sacred. In NYC, for example, we have > to dial 1 for all calls between 212 and 718. Perhaps it is the age of some equipment that requires this, or because it was considered the simplest way for the public to handle the system. The DC area does a nice job: if the number is local and in the same area code, dial the seven digit number, or optionally dial the area code and the seven digit number. If it's local and in a different area code, dial the area code and number. If it's long distance, even in the same area code, dial 1 + area code + number. In *all* cases, dialing 1+ area code + number will put the call through even if the call is local, and at no additional charge. One thing to be careful of in this area is that IXC 10xxx codes are permitted to be used even for local calls. I got a couple of minor bites for about 40c when I misprogrammed my modem and dialed a local number via 10222 plus seven digits on a couple of local calls lasting less than five minutes each. But this sort of thing has all sorts of personal animosity attached to it. Let's go on to something less controversial, like which Church is the One True Religion of God, shall we? Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1994 01:59:58 -0800 From: rudholm@aimla.com (Mark Rudholm) Subject: Re: Radio Contest Overloads 911 Lines, Business Calls sellers@on.bell.ca (Dave Sellers) writes in Telecom-Digest: Volume 14, Issue 151, Message 2 of 18 > As reported in the {Ottawa Citizen} March 27, 1994, radio and television. > Canada's national capital was put on hold Friday night when a local > radio station (CHEZ 106) gave away tickets to a Pink Floyd concert to > the first 53 callers. [deletia] > The calls overloaded Bell Canada's switching equipment even thou the > radio station was using special "contest lines". The switches > responded by making callers wait up to a minute for dial tone. It sounds like a simple case of too many simultaneous requests for dialtone. The special overload prefixes won't do anything to prevent this problem. This is usually what is going on when people say "my phone went out during the earthquake." [deletia] > Phone service was affected wherever the radio station had listeners -- > as far south as Cornwall and Smith Falls and as far north as Pembrook. > Many business were affected, like Pizza Pizza which Friday night is > their busiest. Pizza Pizza estimates they lost $12,000 because people > could not get through to place their order. Yeah, right! They've got to be selling some pretty darn expensive pizzas for a three hour loss of phone service to cost them $12,000. > The phone problems also hampered other services such as 911. Many > people called to complain about their problems with the phones. About > 280 calls were made to 911 between 5 to 9PM compared to about 125 on a > normal Friday night. Tony Yantha of the Ottawa Police said "I normally > have three clerks working on 911. Last night I had five and still > wasn't enough." Obviously some people could get dialtone. So why is it that when people find their phone doesn't deliver a dailtone quickly, when they finally get one, they dial 9-1-1 ?? News reports about phone outages always have to mention 911, I guess it makes for nice, sensationalistic copy. > Sandra Cruikshanks of Bell Canada said that the phone service was back > to normal by 9:30PM (started at about 6:20PM). The station's contest > number designed by Bell, is designed to allow large number of callers > to hear a busy signal if the line isn't available, without affecting > other lines. > She said that the sheer number of calls to the radio station during > the ticket give away "is just unheard of". But she said the phone > system responded exactly the way it should have. "It worked perfectly > well." It's nice to see that the Canadian press is as lousy as its American counterpart -- sensationalistic and largely ignorant about the issues on which it alleges to report. Mark D. Rudholm Philips Interactive Media rudholm@aimla.com 11050 Santa Monica Boulevard +1 213 930 1449 Los Angeles, CA 90025-7511 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 06 Apr 94 22:28:57 PDT From: mws1@admin01.osi.com (Matt Silveira) Subject: Re: Switch Problems Mr. Robinson brings up an interesting but NOT uncommon problem with clocks. The syncing required for digital lines are critical but many IXCs and LECs have clocking problems (this is why we have alarm messages on OOSs such as "Out of Sync" or "Clocking Error".) The solution, install better and more clocks in the backbone nets. And make sure each clock is synched properly to prevent timing issues. It is curious that you had so many problems, perhaps you should get on the case of your telco. ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: 900 and Other Premium Numbers (was Pager Scam) Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Thu, 7 Apr 94 07:04:17 GMT > As an aside, 900 numbers get a lot of publicity, and most people know > that they are expensive to call. Until I started reading the Telecom > digest, I was not aware of the existence of 976/540 or any other kinds > of premium numbers. Offhand, I cannot recall seeing a single > advertisement for local premium services, but anyone who has ever > watched late night TV cannot help being aware that 900 calls are > rather expensive. This obviously varies either by region, or between the US and Canada. Around here (Toronto) we have 900 and 976 numbers also, but it is the 976's for which there are numerous late night advertisements featuring scantily clad women. As just about everyone reading this knows, in much (but not all) of the US and Canada, long-distance numbers must be dialed differently from local ones, so that you always know when you're dialing a toll call. Such a rule applies here. And when someone dials a 976 number here, *they must dial it as if it was long distance within their area code*. Are there places in the US or Canada where long-distance and local numbers are dialed differently, but where 976 or other premium numbers are dialed like *local* calls? Mark Brader, msb@sq.com SoftQuad Inc., Toronto [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well here in the Chicago area, we have but one single source of 976 numbers; it is in Chicago downtown yet callers to those numbers only dial 976 and the number regardless of where we are in the region, ie. no 708-976 or 312-976 ... just 976. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 09:31:27 PDT From: Les Reeves Subject: Re: FAX Mailbox Services Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest] Lars Nohling (LNohling_+a_BSSI_+lLars_Nohling+r%REMSBSSI@mcimail.com) wrote: > Does anyone have any info on companies that provide a FAXMAIL service? > What I am looking for is a FAX Number I can give out that receives > faxes and then allows me to retrieve them from any fax machine by > dialing up my code. AT&T came out with a bunch of services for "professionals on the go" about a year ago, and a FAX mailbox was part of the package. The disadvantage was that callers had to dial an 800 number and then enter a bunch more digits for your mailbox. Most business users won't stand for this nonsense; they punch the number into the fax machine and walk away. If you come up with a FAX mail service that can be dialed like a standard fax machine, I too would like to know about it. Les lreeves@crl.com Atlanta,GA 404.874.7806 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech offers fax mailbox service. It uses straight seven digit DID numbers in area 312. IIt works just like voicemail; the caller dials 'your' number and gets a fax. You as the owner call in to the same number and retrieve your faxes. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #168 ****************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------