TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Sep 94 14:03:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 376 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (John R Levine) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Glen Ecklund) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Robert Koskovich) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Dave Niebuhr) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Barry Margolin) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Carl Moore) Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Carl Oppedahl) Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Wes Leatherock) Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Paul Robinson) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Stephen Satchell) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Bob Smith) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Tom Limoncelli) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (B. Jones) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (John Dean) AT&T Lying, TV a Fake and Other Slander (John J. Butz) Re: True Voice ... True Difference? (Paul R. Paradiso) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Christian Weisgerber) 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 at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ********************************************************************** * * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ********************************************************************** * Additionally, 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. 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, 26 Sep 94 12:16 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > That luxury, of never having the same prefix in two ajoining area > codes, had to be eliminated by sometime in the 1970's. So, there was > another use for '1' on the front end. ... Amazingly, in New Jersey, Land of Perfect Dialing, they still manage to protect prefixes so that all in-state local calls can be dialed with seven digits, even across 609/908/201 boundaries. Local calls into Pennsylvania and New York require eleven digits, though there are a lot fewer of those than there are 201/908 and 908/609. Of course, all calls within your NPA can be dialed either with seven digits or with eleven, regardless of whether they're local, intra-LATA toll, or inter-LATA toll. At my beach cottage in Ocean County, which is in what I believe is the only county in the U.S. that straddles three separate LATAs, if we had to remember 1+ for toll, the phone would be unusable. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, 1037498@mcimail.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:36:24 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC In article , MUSEUMS wrote: > What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still don't > dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area > code-xxx-xxxx. I guess this means they don't have any NPA's as > prefixes, or there is special software. That was true for our entire LATA except NYC itself (Long Island, Westchester, and Putnam counties) until this morning. As of this morning, 1+ is required for calls to other area codes, even within the LATA, at least at my switch. (Tuckahoe CO in Westchester) The switch foreman says this will be a LATA-wide change, though he doesn't know if all the other switches cut over today like mine did. Broke a lot of my dial scripts, it did ... Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM ------------------------------ From: glen@cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 26 Sep 1994 10:33:14 GMT Organization: University of WI, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes: > In Sanjiv Narayan EDU> writes: >> I have noticed a strange thing here since I became a NYNEX customer in >> Marlboro, MA. They have a local calling area (approximatly five mile >> radius) within which I can place unlimited calls for a flat charge. >> However if I call a number outside my local calling area (but still ** >> within ** my 508 area-code), a recording asks you to redial with a '1' >> prefixed before the seven-digit number I am calling. >> Here's my question: If the NYNEX switching equipment is smart enough >> to figure out that I need to dial a '1', why does it not go ahead and >> complete the call anyway. I am willing to pay for the call regardless >> of whether I redial with a '1' prefix or they complete it for me, >> right !!? > The reason is simple. Right now the system is able to figure it > out. But there will be some future time when the system will not be > able to, and the "1" will be quite necessary. The goal is to change > your behavior between now and then. > The reason the system won't be able to figure it out someday is a > function of all those phone numbers that start with area codes, etc. Nope. The reason is: 1 means "long distance." OK, you are willing to pay for the call, but if I make the call I want to know whether it is long distance. This will change soon, and 1 + 7D will no longer be allowed. It will change to either 1 + 10D, or just 7D. 1 will mean "area code (or other special code) follows." Glen Ecklund glen@cs.wisc.edu (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y Department of Computer Sciences 1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355 University of Wisconsin, Madison Madison, Wis. 53706 U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: kosko@iii.net (Robert Koskovich) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 26 Sep 1994 18:16:37 -0400 Organization: intuitive information, inc. Sanjiv Narayan (narayan@thoth.ICS.UCI.EDU) wrote: > It becomes very cumbersome when you have to redial the number with the > '1' prefixed. It'll become all that much more cumbersome when, on October 15, you're required to dial "1-508" to place toll calls within your area code. (You obviously haven't gotten NYNEX's bill stuffer yet.) Bob Koskovich Matick, MA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 7:42:54 EDT From: Dave Niebuhr Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls In TELECOM Digest V14 #372 museums@aol.com (MUSEUMS) Richard writes: > What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still don't > dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area > code-xxx-xxxx. I guess this means they don't have any NPA's as > prefixes, or there is special software. As of today, Sept. 24, 1994, Area Code 516 is 1+10D for anything other than 516 and 7D for anything inside it. Dave Niebuhr Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov niebuhr@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (preferred) niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 1+(516) 282-3093 FAX 1+(516) 282-7688 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:18:31 -0400 Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA In article varney@uscbu.ih.att.com writes: > The MA PUC believes most customers want to use "1+" as an indication > of "I know I am making a non-free call". Unfortunately, they don't apply this rule consistently. Last month I had a $470 NYNEX phone bill, and didn't dial 1+ for any of those calls. The reason is that NYNEX in Massachusetts has various forms of flat rate service. For those of us in the Boston metropolitan area (I live in Arlington, five miles outside of Boston), the relevant forms are Unlimited Service and Metropolitan Service. Every city has two sets of calling areas, called Zone 1 and Zone 2. If you have ordinary Unlimited Service, you get flat rate calling to Central Boston and Zone 1; to get Zone 2 included you have to get Metropolitan Service. If you only have Unlimited Service (as I did until this month), you can call Zone 2 without any prefix, but you're still charged around $.06/minute. Last month I got laid off and got an account on Netcom (stop laughing!), and dialed up their Boston POP. Since I didn't have a job, I spent vast amounts of time dialed up to Netcom (about 110 hours over two weeks). I never bothered to check my phone book to see whether this was in my unlimited calling area -- I assumed that since they called it the Boston POP that it was in a Boston exchange, and I have unlimited calling to Boston. When the phone bill came I checked. It turned out that it was in Wellesley, one of about 5 cities in the Boston metropolitan area that are in my Zone 2. This was worse than the time I came back from a business trip and discovered that someone had tapped into my phone line and used it to make hundreds of dollars of 976 calls. I guess they don't want to make the necessity of dialing 1+ for toll calls dependent on the service plan you've chosen. I think all the areas in eastern Massachusetts that require 1+ dialing from the Boston metropolitan area are in the 508 area code that was added a few years ago, so they don't have any "1+seven-digits" in 617 any more. And as part of the NANP change, they're replacing 1+seven-digits in 508 with 1+508-seven-digits there. The story has a happy ending, though. When I called NYNEX to upgrade my service, I was lucky to get a very helpful service rep. I asked if I could have the upgrade made retroactive to the current billing period, since the bill didn't come until about two weeks into the period. Not only did she do that, but she made it retroactive to the previous billing period, and gave me a credit for most of that huge phone bill. Barry Margolin BBN Internet Services Corp. barmar@near.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 10:34:21 GMT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls museums@aol.com writes: > What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still don't > dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area But to prepare for the coming of the NNX area codes, 516 has to start enforcing 1 in front of area code; long distance within area code can stay at 7D. In the TELECOM Digest Editor's Note, there are some corrections: > Prefixes like 417 and 305 are not old and traditional. No, the body of the message said "NNX's (should be NXX's) that are old traditional NPA", and my history file refers to these as N0X/N1X prefixes. > door neighbors in North Antioch, Wisconsin (404-397) by merely dialing That is 414, not 404 in southeastern Wisconsin. ------------------------------ From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:48:11 GMT Organization: Oppedahl & Larson In wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor. edu writes: > In article <779506137snz@detroit.freenet.org> aa931@detroit.freenet. > org writes: >> One other point ... this is in response to a previous comment, but I don't >> remember who wrote it: When the telco says that they cannot or do not do >> something because it is prohibited by tariff, _ask them to FAX or send you >> the page(s) from the tariffs that contain that prohibition_. You have the >> right to see this information, and in at least one case I was able to call >> a telco's bluff by asking them to send me the tariff that justified an >> action they had taken (wrongly, as it turned out). >-=> Quoting John Higdon <=- > JH> This is excellent advice. Some years ago, some irate parent complained > JH> about my "voice BBS" which is inhabited primarily by loser teenagers. > ... [text deleted] ... > JH> I asked the gentleman to fax me the appropriate tariffs and we would > JH> read them together. This he did, and after examining the five > JH> applicable pages that described business vs residence service, he had > JH> to conclude that my operation fully qualified as residence service. > Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of > it. It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to (and > that's often because of the particular circumstances). They take the > position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the > commission, but they are not required to make you a copy. Yes, it's true. Many telcos will not send you tariff pages. Here in New York, one of the rare pro-customer moves by the PSC is a relatively new rule that the PSC has to give you copies of tariff pages (and lots of other things) for free as long as it is less than some number of pages (25 as I recall). Carl Oppedahl AA2KW Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers) Yorktown Heights, NY oppedahl@patents.com ------------------------------ From: constellation!mom!tranquil.torii.nova.com!Wes.Leatherock (Wes Leatherock) Date: 26 Sep 94 10:56:26 -0600 Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX BQA@Llunder Organization: Fidonet: Quoting John Higdon: > I asked the gentleman to fax me the appropriate tariffs and we would > read them together. This he did, and after examining the five > applicable pages that described business vs residence service, he had > to conclude that my operation fully qualified as residence service. Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of it. It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to (and that's often because of the particular circumstances). They take the position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the commission, but they are not required to make you a copy. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.ed wes.leatherock@tranquil.nova.com ------------------------------ úÿFrom: Paul Robinson Tony Pelliccio , writes: > wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu writes: >> Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff.. > Yeah sort of like NYNEX. The copy of the tarrif for my area is > in Boston of all places. If you think I'm going to drive up to > Boston just to look at it you're nuts. But then, Telco has all > the eggs in their basket don't they? I don't know if you are simply posting from Brown or actually there, but if NYNEX operates in Rhode Island, they have to have offices there and certainly there has to be a copy filed with your state's commission. In California, for example, every telephone company office -- which included offices for paying bills -- had to have a complete copy of the entire 15 volume tariff set. Both GTE and Pacific Bell had their own tariffs on file at each office which accepted payments from the public. Here in the Washington, DC area, there is a set of tariffs for all three offices for Bell Atlantic and at their payment center for the metro area which is located at 13th & G NW in DC. Also, Bell Atlantic has filed a copy of their tariff schedule with the main branch of the public library in every county in Maryland. I do not know what they do in Virginia, I've never had phone service there. I do know that a telephone company does not like having to let people know what the tariffs actually say, and will do anything they can not to have to let you see them. By law they must make them available and cannot require you to have a reason for seeing them. One way to get some response from the company is to make your next telephone bill payment to the Public Utilities Commission, stating that you believe your bill to be in error, but cannot prove it because the phone company refuses to provide any reasonable access to their tariff schedules in order for you to discover what you suspect is an error. While you may or may not get a satisfactory response from the PUC, you can bet that someone from the Telephone Company will contact you immediately after your letter reaches them, even if the PUC decides to deny your request. One time I wanted to program a long distance number including the 10xxx code into a speed-dial number but the telephone company's computer refused it, so I called 611 and nobody could tell me what was wrong. So I sent my bill for GTE of California and the check to the Public Utilities Commission explaining the circumstances. The CalPUC returned my check explaining they could not accept my payment since the issue was over service problems rather than a billing question. But it was right after this that a helpful supervisor from GTE called me and was very patient in explaining that their switch would not allow a 10xxx code to be programmed into a speed dial number and they would pass my complaint onto the manufacturer (which was probably also GTE, but that's another story). This was a piece of information that nobody at repair service seemed to be able to provide me until AFTER I had sent in a protest to the PUC. I wonder if that had anything to do with it. :) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you mention the problem using 10xxx with Speed Dialing. One peculiar thing here is the inability to call forward to an international number. We cannot get 011-anything programmed following *72 ... and telco acts like they have no idea what I am talking about when I mention it to them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ssatchell@BIX.com (ssatchell on BIX) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 94 14:59:06 GMT Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation > Nick Sayer said: >> If they're trying to imply that that is what a long distance phone >> call sounds like (which despite truevoice is still constrained to >> roughly 300-3000 Hz), then it's nothing short of outright fraud. Sorry, I have to take exception to the claim that the bandwidth for all telco customers is still 300-3000 Hz. If that were true, then there is no way for V.34 modem owners to achieve 28.8 kilobit/s carriers with the modems -- they'd be constrained to 21.6 kilobits/s. Since I do achieve 28.8 kilobits/s in calls between Incline Village, Nevada and various locations in Georgia, Mass, and NYC, then either the bandwidth is wider than you claim or the laws of physics have been repealed. Also, I've seen surveys (unscientific) produced by several parties which show that the actual bandwidth is wider than the 2700 Hz you claim. Even Bellcore and IEEE P743 recognize that things are wider. In the case of P743, the new 23-tone test which should be a standard by the end of the year sends out tones way outside the 300-3000 Hz bandswidth (100-3700 Hz based on an early draft of the proposed IEEE-743 replacement) which would be stupid if the old rules still held. We don't have to protect any in-band network signalling any more. That whistle that John Draper found in the box of Capt'n Crunch cereal all those years ago DOESN'T WORK in the modern network. Trunk circuits, even the now-outmoded N-series trunks, were designed with channels 4 KHz wide. The frequency constraints, if memory serves, were to improve speech quality by suppressing low-end frequencies which don't contribute to intelligibility and "protecting" network signalling at the high end. Oh, there are a small number of older trunks still in use, and they will block signals outside of the old passband. They are being replaced with digital trunks as quickly as the capital improvement programs allow. This isn't just in the United States, either -- we are talking about a world-wide event. Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations ssatchell@bix.com Testing modems for magazines and industry since 1984 sts@well.sf.ca.us Publisher of SEPTeL modem testing journal 70007.3351@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: bobsmith@coho.halcyon.com (Youth Alive International) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 1994 05:24:33 GMT Organization: NWNEXUS, Inc. - Making Internet Easy In article , David Adams wrote: > It would be real interesting if somebody ran the same test as in the > AT&T ad with the same song as an audio source and then post the > results. That was already done. Back when True Voice was just being demo'd, before actual implementation, someone on the net did a bunch of sound tests on (I believe) the demo, and demonstrated that the only thing happening was the low bandwidth filter was being removed. Perhaps the moderator has this archived somewhere. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Persons interested in the results of that testing can check the Telecom Archives. Go to the /technical sub- directory and read the file on True Voice. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tal@plts.org (Tom Limoncelli) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 25 Sep 1994 22:43:43 -0400 Organization: PLTS, Somerville, NJ USA In cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) writes: > BUT they fail to mention that it was the breakup of the Bell System > which lowered these call costs. (Which also increased the cost of > local calls by a large percentage.) Actually, the price was dropping anyway. The use of satelites was causing a price implosion. Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.org (home) -- tal@big.att.com (work) Write to me for info about internet mailing lists on these topics: Drew University Alumni/ae, IXO/tpage users, New Jersey Unix Sysadmins' Group (like SAGE), New Jersey motss, North East motss, BiNet/New Jersey, and more! ------------------------------ From: bjones@bilbo.pic.net (B. Jones) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 1994 04:08:35 GMT Organization: PICnet They did a demo in my area a couple of months ago. I thought that it sounded better; a fuller sound (probably a low frequency boost. I read some tech paper in a magazine once ... simply sounded better to me. Sort of like Boise Sound Systems; I can't figure how they work, low freq sound wave propogation lengths and such. But the little box tricks my ears ... great! ------------------------------ From: bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (John Dean) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 1994 02:30:01 GMT Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY The TV consumers today will believe anything that has to do with computers. But they are more attracted when silly graphics and screens are added which really don't have any meaning to us 'real power' users ... (Are we still the minority?) Oh well ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 18:15:04 EDT From: jbutz@hogpa.ho.att.com (John J Butz) Subject: Re: AT&T Lying, TV a Fake & Other Slander Folks must be a little tone deaf. I can tell right away when TrueVoice is on my call or not. Now that 10288 works for all my intra-lata toll calls, TrueVoice is added to every non-local call I make. In fact, this is a great little way to test TrueVoice. Place a call to your favorite SO on Bell Atlantic followed by a call on AT&T, then note the difference. (BTW, 10288 is not only a great way to save on intra-lata toll, using it defeats *69 Return Call and Caller ID.) I don't disagree that the TrueVoice television ads have a lot of that Madison Avenue glitz (ie. back-up singers belting in when True Voice activates, 3D spectrographs, sharply dressed and intelligent AT&T employees ... like myself :-|, etc.), but it's really not fair to state that what is heard on a TV set, is what will be heard on a phone handset. To that end, I noticed that ads are labeled "Simulated TrueVoice Effect." For a real comparison, the TrueVoice demo line can be reached by dialing 1-800-932-2000. Calls to this number are processed by the same piece of equipment that provides TrueVoice in the network, so what a caller hears IS the real TrueVoice. (The voice on the demo is that of James Naughton.) Since reading TELECOM Digest is so enjoyable, I wish I had more time to peruse and reply to Digest postings, but I've been totally overwhelmed by current assignment. Later. John Butz jbutz@hogpa.att.com AT&T - CCS PS. What's the latest with the TrueVoice patent review? It's nice to know that someone else shares my hobby of reading yellowing, vintage 1920's, Bell Telephone Laboratories Technical Journals. (The one about Operators on Rollerskates is my favorite!!!!!!!) ------------------------------ From: bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Paul R. Paradiso) Subject: Re: True Voice ... True Difference? Date: 26 Sep 1994 02:00:32 GMT Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY Hello. Actually, at this point I would like to believe that there IS a difference. The difference will probably be noticed in data communications such as Modems, Fax, etc. It is amazing at how fast the CPS rates can go up when the lines get clearer and clearer. I have tested my modem on a line and when it picked up the line thru an "ATA" command, all I heard was static, but was perfectly fine for Voice. Since modems and fax, etc. send their tones at such a higher speed today, they need as little blockage as possible. Hopefully this will help, if not, I'm not surprised ... bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Paul R. Paradiso ------------------------------ From: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:01:08 +0200 Reply-To: naddy@mips.lu.pfalz.de jfritz@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jeffrey Fritz) writes: > BTW, the telephone network supports a 300 - 3 kbps bandwidth for a > reason -- understandability. 300 .. 3000Hz? Natural capacity of the line, Poupin coils, bandwidth restrictions for analog multiplexing, bandwidth restrictions to accommodate the Nyquist limit. BTW, actual bandwidth in the modern digital PSTN is about 200 - 3700Hz. Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber, Germany naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org / naddy@mips.lu.pfalz.de ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #376 **************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: 09-27-94 Msg # 557843 To: ELIOT GELWAN Conf: (700) email From: TELECOM Digest (Patrick Stat: Private Subj: TELECOM Digest V14 #376 Read: No ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) TELECOM Digest Mon, 26 Sep 94 14:03:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 376 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (John R Levine) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Glen Ecklund) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Robert Koskovich) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Dave Niebuhr) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Barry Margolin) Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls (Carl Moore) Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Carl Oppedahl) Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Wes Leatherock) Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder (Paul Robinson) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Stephen Satchell) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Bob Smith) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Tom Limoncelli) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (B. Jones) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (John Dean) AT&T Lying, TV a Fake and Other Slander (John J. Butz) Re: True Voice ... True Difference? (Paul R. Paradiso) Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice (Christian Weisgerber) 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 at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ********************************************************************** * * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ********************************************************************** * Additionally, 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. 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, 26 Sep 94 12:16 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > That luxury, of never having the same prefix in two ajoining area > codes, had to be eliminated by sometime in the 1970's. So, there was > another use for '1' on the front end. ... Amazingly, in New Jersey, Land of Perfect Dialing, they still manage to protect prefixes so that all in-state local calls can be dialed with seven digits, even across 609/908/201 boundaries. Local calls into Pennsylvania and New York require eleven digits, though there are a lot fewer of those than there are 201/908 and 908/609. Of course, all calls within your NPA can be dialed either with seven digits or with eleven, regardless of whether they're local, intra-LATA toll, or inter-LATA toll. At my beach cottage in Ocean County, which is in what I believe is the only county in the U.S. that straddles three separate LATAs, if we had to remember 1+ for toll, the phone would be unusable. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, 1037498@mcimail.com Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:36:24 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC In article , MUSEUMS wrote: > What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still don't > dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area > code-xxx-xxxx. I guess this means they don't have any NPA's as > prefixes, or there is special software. That was true for our entire LATA except NYC itself (Long Island, Westchester, and Putnam counties) until this morning. As of this morning, 1+ is required for calls to other area codes, even within the LATA, at least at my switch. (Tuckahoe CO in Westchester) The switch foreman says this will be a LATA-wide change, though he doesn't know if all the other switches cut over today like mine did. Broke a lot of my dial scripts, it did ... Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM ------------------------------ From: glen@cs.wisc.edu (Glen Ecklund) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 26 Sep 1994 10:33:14 GMT Organization: University of WI, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes: > In Sanjiv Narayan EDU> writes: >> I have noticed a strange thing here since I became a NYNEX customer in >> Marlboro, MA. They have a local calling area (approximatly five mile >> radius) within which I can place unlimited calls for a flat charge. >> However if I call a number outside my local calling area (but still ** >> within ** my 508 area-code), a recording asks you to redial with a '1' >> prefixed before the seven-digit number I am calling. >> Here's my question: If the NYNEX switching equipment is smart enough >> to figure out that I need to dial a '1', why does it not go ahead and >> complete the call anyway. I am willing to pay for the call regardless >> of whether I redial with a '1' prefix or they complete it for me, >> right !!? > The reason is simple. Right now the system is able to figure it > out. But there will be some future time when the system will not be > able to, and the "1" will be quite necessary. The goal is to change > your behavior between now and then. > The reason the system won't be able to figure it out someday is a > function of all those phone numbers that start with area codes, etc. Nope. The reason is: 1 means "long distance." OK, you are willing to pay for the call, but if I make the call I want to know whether it is long distance. This will change soon, and 1 + 7D will no longer be allowed. It will change to either 1 + 10D, or just 7D. 1 will mean "area code (or other special code) follows." Glen Ecklund glen@cs.wisc.edu (608) 262-1318 Office, 262-1204 Dept. Sec'y Department of Computer Sciences 1210 W. Dayton St., Room 3355 University of Wisconsin, Madison Madison, Wis. 53706 U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: kosko@iii.net (Robert Koskovich) Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 26 Sep 1994 18:16:37 -0400 Organization: intuitive information, inc. Sanjiv Narayan (narayan@thoth.ICS.UCI.EDU) wrote: > It becomes very cumbersome when you have to redial the number with the > '1' prefixed. It'll become all that much more cumbersome when, on October 15, you're required to dial "1-508" to place toll calls within your area code. (You obviously haven't gotten NYNEX's bill stuffer yet.) Bob Koskovich Matick, MA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 7:42:54 EDT From: Dave Niebuhr Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls In TELECOM Digest V14 #372 museums@aol.com (MUSEUMS) Richard writes: > What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still don't > dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area > code-xxx-xxxx. I guess this means they don't have any NPA's as > prefixes, or there is special software. As of today, Sept. 24, 1994, Area Code 516 is 1+10D for anything other than 516 and 7D for anything inside it. Dave Niebuhr Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov niebuhr@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (preferred) niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 1+(516) 282-3093 FAX 1+(516) 282-7688 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:18:31 -0400 Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA In article varney@uscbu.ih.att.com writes: > The MA PUC believes most customers want to use "1+" as an indication > of "I know I am making a non-free call". Unfortunately, they don't apply this rule consistently. Last month I had a $470 NYNEX phone bill, and didn't dial 1+ for any of those calls. The reason is that NYNEX in Massachusetts has various forms of flat rate service. For those of us in the Boston metropolitan area (I live in Arlington, five miles outside of Boston), the relevant forms are Unlimited Service and Metropolitan Service. Every city has two sets of calling areas, called Zone 1 and Zone 2. If you have ordinary Unlimited Service, you get flat rate calling to Central Boston and Zone 1; to get Zone 2 included you have to get Metropolitan Service. If you only have Unlimited Service (as I did until this month), you can call Zone 2 without any prefix, but you're still charged around $.06/minute. Last month I got laid off and got an account on Netcom (stop laughing!), and dialed up their Boston POP. Since I didn't have a job, I spent vast amounts of time dialed up to Netcom (about 110 hours over two weeks). I never bothered to check my phone book to see whether this was in my unlimited calling area -- I assumed that since they called it the Boston POP that it was in a Boston exchange, and I have unlimited calling to Boston. When the phone bill came I checked. It turned out that it was in Wellesley, one of about 5 cities in the Boston metropolitan area that are in my Zone 2. This was worse than the time I came back from a business trip and discovered that someone had tapped into my phone line and used it to make hundreds of dollars of 976 calls. I guess they don't want to make the necessity of dialing 1+ for toll calls dependent on the service plan you've chosen. I think all the areas in eastern Massachusetts that require 1+ dialing from the Boston metropolitan area are in the 508 area code that was added a few years ago, so they don't have any "1+seven-digits" in 617 any more. And as part of the NANP change, they're replacing 1+seven-digits in 508 with 1+508-seven-digits there. The story has a happy ending, though. When I called NYNEX to upgrade my service, I was lucky to get a very helpful service rep. I asked if I could have the upgrade made retroactive to the current billing period, since the bill didn't come until about two weeks into the period. Not only did she do that, but she made it retroactive to the previous billing period, and gave me a credit for most of that huge phone bill. Barry Margolin BBN Internet Services Corp. barmar@near.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 10:34:21 GMT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: NYNEX Makes You Dial '1' For Same Area-Code Calls museums@aol.com writes: > What is weird is that on Long Island, area code 516, they still don't > dial 1's for anything. I guess they can dial 800-xxx-xxxx or area But to prepare for the coming of the NNX area codes, 516 has to start enforcing 1 in front of area code; long distance within area code can stay at 7D. In the TELECOM Digest Editor's Note, there are some corrections: > Prefixes like 417 and 305 are not old and traditional. No, the body of the message said "NNX's (should be NXX's) that are old traditional NPA", and my history file refers to these as N0X/N1X prefixes. > door neighbors in North Antioch, Wisconsin (404-397) by merely dialing That is 414, not 404 in southeastern Wisconsin. ------------------------------ From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX Blunder Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:48:11 GMT Organization: Oppedahl & Larson In wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor. edu writes: > In article <779506137snz@detroit.freenet.org> aa931@detroit.freenet. > org writes: >> One other point ... this is in response to a previous comment, but I don't >> remember who wrote it: When the telco says that they cannot or do not do >> something because it is prohibited by tariff, _ask them to FAX or send you >> the page(s) from the tariffs that contain that prohibition_. You have the >> right to see this information, and in at least one case I was able to call >> a telco's bluff by asking them to send me the tariff that justified an >> action they had taken (wrongly, as it turned out). >-=> Quoting John Higdon <=- > JH> This is excellent advice. Some years ago, some irate parent complained > JH> about my "voice BBS" which is inhabited primarily by loser teenagers. > ... [text deleted] ... > JH> I asked the gentleman to fax me the appropriate tariffs and we would > JH> read them together. This he did, and after examining the five > JH> applicable pages that described business vs residence service, he had > JH> to conclude that my operation fully qualified as residence service. > Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of > it. It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to (and > that's often because of the particular circumstances). They take the > position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the > commission, but they are not required to make you a copy. Yes, it's true. Many telcos will not send you tariff pages. Here in New York, one of the rare pro-customer moves by the PSC is a relatively new rule that the PSC has to give you copies of tariff pages (and lots of other things) for free as long as it is less than some number of pages (25 as I recall). Carl Oppedahl AA2KW Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers) Yorktown Heights, NY oppedahl@patents.com ------------------------------ From: constellation!mom!tranquil.torii.nova.com!Wes.Leatherock (Wes Leatherock) Date: 26 Sep 94 10:56:26 -0600 Subject: Re: Yet Another NYNEX BQA@Llunder Organization: Fidonet: Quoting John Higdon: > I asked the gentleman to fax me the appropriate tariffs and we would > read them together. This he did, and after examining the five > applicable pages that described business vs residence service, he had > to conclude that my operation fully qualified as residence service. Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff or parts of it. It varies by company and often by the individual you talk to (and that's often because of the particular circumstances). They take the position that you can inspect the tariff in their offices or at the commission, but they are not required to make you a copy. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.ed wes.leatherock@tranquil.nova.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 05:26:51 EST úÿFrom: Paul Robinson Tony Pelliccio , writes: > wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu writes: >> Many LECs will not send you a copy of the tariff.. > Yeah sort of like NYNEX. The copy of the tarrif for my area is > in Boston of all places. If you think I'm going to drive up to > Boston just to look at it you're nuts. But then, Telco has all > the eggs in their basket don't they? I don't know if you are simply posting from Brown or actually there, but if NYNEX operates in Rhode Island, they have to have offices there and certainly there has to be a copy filed with your state's commission. In California, for example, every telephone company office -- which included offices for paying bills -- had to have a complete copy of the entire 15 volume tariff set. Both GTE and Pacific Bell had their own tariffs on file at each office which accepted payments from the public. Here in the Washington, DC area, there is a set of tariffs for all three offices for Bell Atlantic and at their payment center for the metro area which is located at 13th & G NW in DC. Also, Bell Atlantic has filed a copy of their tariff schedule with the main branch of the public library in every county in Maryland. I do not know what they do in Virginia, I've never had phone service there. I do know that a telephone company does not like having to let people know what the tariffs actually say, and will do anything they can not to have to let you see them. By law they must make them available and cannot require you to have a reason for seeing them. One way to get some response from the company is to make your next telephone bill payment to the Public Utilities Commission, stating that you believe your bill to be in error, but cannot prove it because the phone company refuses to provide any reasonable access to their tariff schedules in order for you to discover what you suspect is an error. While you may or may not get a satisfactory response from the PUC, you can bet that someone from the Telephone Company will contact you immediately after your letter reaches them, even if the PUC decides to deny your request. One time I wanted to program a long distance number including the 10xxx code into a speed-dial number but the telephone company's computer refused it, so I called 611 and nobody could tell me what was wrong. So I sent my bill for GTE of California and the check to the Public Utilities Commission explaining the circumstances. The CalPUC returned my check explaining they could not accept my payment since the issue was over service problems rather than a billing question. But it was right after this that a helpful supervisor from GTE called me and was very patient in explaining that their switch would not allow a 10xxx code to be programmed into a speed dial number and they would pass my complaint onto the manufacturer (which was probably also GTE, but that's another story). This was a piece of information that nobody at repair service seemed to be able to provide me until AFTER I had sent in a protest to the PUC. I wonder if that had anything to do with it. :) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Interesting you mention the problem using 10xxx with Speed Dialing. One peculiar thing here is the inability to call forward to an international number. We cannot get 011-anything programmed following *72 ... and telco acts like they have no idea what I am talking about when I mention it to them. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ssatchell@BIX.com (ssatchell on BIX) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 94 14:59:06 GMT Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation > Nick Sayer said: >> If they're trying to imply that that is what a long distance phone >> call sounds like (which despite truevoice is still constrained to >> roughly 300-3000 Hz), then it's nothing short of outright fraud. Sorry, I have to take exception to the claim that the bandwidth for all telco customers is still 300-3000 Hz. If that were true, then there is no way for V.34 modem owners to achieve 28.8 kilobit/s carriers with the modems -- they'd be constrained to 21.6 kilobits/s. Since I do achieve 28.8 kilobits/s in calls between Incline Village, Nevada and various locations in Georgia, Mass, and NYC, then either the bandwidth is wider than you claim or the laws of physics have been repealed. Also, I've seen surveys (unscientific) produced by several parties which show that the actual bandwidth is wider than the 2700 Hz you claim. Even Bellcore and IEEE P743 recognize that things are wider. In the case of P743, the new 23-tone test which should be a standard by the end of the year sends out tones way outside the 300-3000 Hz bandswidth (100-3700 Hz based on an early draft of the proposed IEEE-743 replacement) which would be stupid if the old rules still held. We don't have to protect any in-band network signalling any more. That whistle that John Draper found in the box of Capt'n Crunch cereal all those years ago DOESN'T WORK in the modern network. Trunk circuits, even the now-outmoded N-series trunks, were designed with channels 4 KHz wide. The frequency constraints, if memory serves, were to improve speech quality by suppressing low-end frequencies which don't contribute to intelligibility and "protecting" network signalling at the high end. Oh, there are a small number of older trunks still in use, and they will block signals outside of the old passband. They are being replaced with digital trunks as quickly as the capital improvement programs allow. This isn't just in the United States, either -- we are talking about a world-wide event. Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations ssatchell@bix.com Testing modems for magazines and industry since 1984 sts@well.sf.ca.us Publisher of SEPTeL modem testing journal 70007.3351@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: bobsmith@coho.halcyon.com (Youth Alive International) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 1994 05:24:33 GMT Organization: NWNEXUS, Inc. - Making Internet Easy In article , David Adams wrote: > It would be real interesting if somebody ran the same test as in the > AT&T ad with the same song as an audio source and then post the > results. That was already done. Back when True Voice was just being demo'd, before actual implementation, someone on the net did a bunch of sound tests on (I believe) the demo, and demonstrated that the only thing happening was the low bandwidth filter was being removed. Perhaps the moderator has this archived somewhere. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Persons interested in the results of that testing can check the Telecom Archives. Go to the /technical sub- directory and read the file on True Voice. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tal@plts.org (Tom Limoncelli) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 25 Sep 1994 22:43:43 -0400 Organization: PLTS, Somerville, NJ USA In cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) writes: > BUT they fail to mention that it was the breakup of the Bell System > which lowered these call costs. (Which also increased the cost of > local calls by a large percentage.) Actually, the price was dropping anyway. The use of satelites was causing a price implosion. Tom Limoncelli -- tal@plts.org (home) -- tal@big.att.com (work) Write to me for info about internet mailing lists on these topics: Drew University Alumni/ae, IXO/tpage users, New Jersey Unix Sysadmins' Group (like SAGE), New Jersey motss, North East motss, BiNet/New Jersey, and more! ------------------------------ From: bjones@bilbo.pic.net (B. Jones) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 1994 04:08:35 GMT Organization: PICnet They did a demo in my area a couple of months ago. I thought that it sounded better; a fuller sound (probably a low frequency boost. I read some tech paper in a magazine once ... simply sounded better to me. Sort of like Boise Sound Systems; I can't figure how they work, low freq sound wave propogation lengths and such. But the little box tricks my ears ... great! ------------------------------ From: bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (John Dean) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 1994 02:30:01 GMT Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY The TV consumers today will believe anything that has to do with computers. But they are more attracted when silly graphics and screens are added which really don't have any meaning to us 'real power' users ... (Are we still the minority?) Oh well ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 18:15:04 EDT From: jbutz@hogpa.ho.att.com (John J Butz) Subject: Re: AT&T Lying, TV a Fake & Other Slander Folks must be a little tone deaf. I can tell right away when TrueVoice is on my call or not. Now that 10288 works for all my intra-lata toll calls, TrueVoice is added to every non-local call I make. In fact, this is a great little way to test TrueVoice. Place a call to your favorite SO on Bell Atlantic followed by a call on AT&T, then note the difference. (BTW, 10288 is not only a great way to save on intra-lata toll, using it defeats *69 Return Call and Caller ID.) I don't disagree that the TrueVoice television ads have a lot of that Madison Avenue glitz (ie. back-up singers belting in when True Voice activates, 3D spectrographs, sharply dressed and intelligent AT&T employees ... like myself :-|, etc.), but it's really not fair to state that what is heard on a TV set, is what will be heard on a phone handset. To that end, I noticed that ads are labeled "Simulated TrueVoice Effect." For a real comparison, the TrueVoice demo line can be reached by dialing 1-800-932-2000. Calls to this number are processed by the same piece of equipment that provides TrueVoice in the network, so what a caller hears IS the real TrueVoice. (The voice on the demo is that of James Naughton.) Since reading TELECOM Digest is so enjoyable, I wish I had more time to peruse and reply to Digest postings, but I've been totally overwhelmed by current assignment. Later. John Butz jbutz@hogpa.att.com AT&T - CCS PS. What's the latest with the TrueVoice patent review? It's nice to know that someone else shares my hobby of reading yellowing, vintage 1920's, Bell Telephone Laboratories Technical Journals. (The one about Operators on Rollerskates is my favorite!!!!!!!) ------------------------------ From: bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Paul R. Paradiso) Subject: Re: True Voice ... True Difference? Date: 26 Sep 1994 02:00:32 GMT Organization: Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY Hello. Actually, at this point I would like to believe that there IS a difference. The difference will probably be noticed in data communications such as Modems, Fax, etc. It is amazing at how fast the CPS rates can go up when the lines get clearer and clearer. I have tested my modem on a line and when it picked up the line thru an "ATA" command, all I heard was static, but was perfectly fine for Voice. Since modems and fax, etc. send their tones at such a higher speed today, they need as little blockage as possible. Hopefully this will help, if not, I'm not surprised ... bd80519@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu Paul R. Paradiso ------------------------------ From: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber) Subject: Re: Now AT&T is Lying About True-Voice Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:01:08 +0200 Reply-To: naddy@mips.lu.pfalz.de jfritz@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jeffrey Fritz) writes: > BTW, the telephone network supports a 300 - 3 kbps bandwidth for a > reason -- understandability. 300 .. 3000Hz? Natural capacity of the line, Poupin coils, bandwidth restrictions for analog multiplexing, bandwidth restrictions to accommodate the Nyquist limit. BTW, actual bandwidth in the modern digital PSTN is about 200 - 3700Hz. Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber, Germany naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org / naddy@mips.lu.pfalz.de ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #376 ****************************