From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Fri Aug 25 01:52:11 1995 by 1995 01:52:11 -0400 telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 24 Aug 1995 22:18:55 -0500 1995 22:18:53 -0500 To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu TELECOM Digest Thu, 24 Aug 95 22:18:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 357 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (Eric Bennett) Re: AT&T Credit For Cut Calls (Steven Lichter) Re: Wideband SATCOM Nets to Support WWW (Darren Alex Griffiths) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Stan Schwartz) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Leonard Erickson) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Nevin Liber) Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Ralph Hyre) Re: PacBell's New Network (Steven Lichter) Re: PacBell's New Network (Steve Cogorno) Re: Questions on ISDX's (Mark Beresford) Re: Atlanta Automated 411 (pbxtalk@ccnet.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@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************ * * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent- * * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************ * In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In article , Darryl Kipps wrote: > In article is: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was referring to 900-999. Those can > really get raunchy, and quite expensive. I guess we can assume the > adult phone services are like any other business in the 'community' > which a large segment of the community finds distasteful. This analogy is flawed, (unless I have misunderstood). People are not objecting to the existance of these services but to their billing practices. To extend your scenario, the adult bookstore sends the bill to me because whoever shopped there happened to get to main street via my driveway. It seems to me unfair to have a product the cost of which cannot be determined until the purchase is made. I think a mechanism should exist for dynamically charging calls. Imagine how long the teleslime would last if that $5/min popped up on a display before the call was connected. Obviously this would take a big investment for only marginal gain. Encoding the "Billing Class" by using certain number forms (900) is a fair trade-off. > So *now* what do you propose to do people? Block 500's as well? PAT] What other option is there? 500s are a billing lottery unless you trust who/what ever you are calling. Folks who can't get through to 500s being used as intended will come to my attention much sooner than people who are "only making a long distance call" to some landmine 500. Eric B. ------------------------------ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They were not 'willing to lose your business > over $4.95', they were willing to lose your business because you nickle and > dime them to death month after month over credit for stuff that in all > likelyhood is *not* their fault. People seem to feel that whenever ... Right after I made the post I got a call from a tech at AT&T, they had opened a ticket since there had been several complaints over a number of months. It turned out that the Hub I call is right next to an Interstate and the noise is truckers running hight powered CB radios. They had been aware of it for years, but PacBell never took any action. They are putting a filter; if that will help, never did on my TV; to take care of the problem. By the way, I only called AT&T when there were a lot of them, not just a few, and it was not the money as I said it was always just under $5.00, but this was a real pain since it slowed the net down. The above are my ideas and have nothingg to do with whoever my employer is. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu ------------------------------ Kramer <102564.2255@CompuServe.COM> writes: > Is there a market to support the wideband download of data (imagery, > video, bulk files, etc.) from www sites based on narrow band requests? > Considering developing asymetrical net using DBS satellites (similar > to Spaceways concept) to provide 23MBS downlink to 20cm antennas and > embedded terminals with 14.4 teresstial and/or satcom uplinks for > request channel. Price targets $1/2k per terminal. $3/4 per 15 > second @ 23MBS. What do you think? I don't know what the demand is, but cable TV companies have already thought about this. For a while there was a company that distributed a full newsfeed via the veritcal blank of WTBS (I think) and it was available to anyone who bought a special modem and payed a monthly fee, actually that service may still be around. You got a high speed, cheap, newsfeed but you had to send news via conventional nntp of uucp methods. There was also talk of cable companies setting up ppp connections over regular phone lines, you'd send over the phone line but you'd receive data via your cable TV hookup. I've never heard of that going beyond some test customers, but with the advent of deregulation it could become more popular. Cheers, Alex Griffiths Senior Software Engineer Fujitsu Open Systems Solutions, Inc. ------------------------------ The new Southern Bell (BellSouth) phone book for Charlotte, NC arrived this week, and I bet there are others on the Digest like me who do the Steve Martin routine when they hear the phone book slam against the door ("The new phone book's here!"). To quote directly from Page 10 of the White Pages: "Calls into Charlotte's expanded area within North Carolina may be dialed with just seven digits. Calls into Charlotte's expanded area within South Carolina require the 803 area code plus seven digits - no need to dial '1' before the area code." I guess this is another case of "1+ means toll". I had assumed that all of the 10D inter-NPA areas had been changed to 11D. I guess not. Charlotte has a local calling area that covers a 40-mile radius from the city all for a flat rate (something I'm not used to, coming from NYNEX/NY). It was also recently mentioned that Atlanta has the world's largest local calling area. Can someone confirm this? Stan ------------------------------ Our Esteemed Moderator writes: > Even if we assume there is some validity in the 'one = toll' argument - - > and it probably was valid a number of years ago when area codes did not > change with every street corner and back yard neighbor's fence -- there is > not a lot of consistency there now. One does not equal toll for large > segments of customers in 312/708 who are near each other. There are many > many cases now where inter-areacode dialing is purely local. I'll grant > you in more rural and lesser populated areas of the USA -- let us take > Wyoming, or Montana as examples -- you still have to go the entire state > before you change area codes and toll generated from seven digit dialing > is pretty common. But do they dial 1 plus seven digits in that case, in > order to catch the attention of the originator of the call? I would think > they would do that if alerting the caller to the existence of toll was > the reason for the leading one. PAT] They did do that. Heck, here in Oregon and Washington, up until the introduction of N0X and N1X exchanges forced a change, the rules were as follows: Local inside NPA: xxx-yyyy Toll inside NPA: 1-xxx-yyy Toll outside NPA: 1-NPA-xxx-yyy I don't know of any cases of local calls acroos NPA boundaries, but I suspect that they were dialed as seven digits, because my older copies of exchange info for NPA 503 list a number of "protected" exchanges for 708 and the like. Of course, since Jan 15, 1995, 1 + seven digits is not allowable *anywhere* in the NANP. But both from previous discussions here, and helping people across the US and Canada set up dialing translation tables for Fidonet mailers, I'd have to say that the practice of "1 means toll" was far more prevalent than the reverse (going both by area, and number of NPAs). Take a good look at how long distance is dialed *now* (after the the introduction of NNX area codes). There's a pretty clear pattern of "1 means toll" vs "dial it all as 7 digits" (10 for inter-NPA). It's places like Califormia, New York, and Chicago that are not using 1 to indicate toll. And these are the places where other "comsumer unfriendly" practices such as *mandatory* measured service exist. "1 means toll" is alive and well. And maybe someday, it'll penetrate to the telephone hells like Chicago and LA. :-) BTW, I have no problem with *allowing* 10/11 digit dialing of local numbers. I think it makes sense. But I do think it'd a good idea to have to dial a 0 or 1 before any long distance call. If nothing else, it makes programming dialing equipment easier, because you can set some defaults such that you won't accidentally treat a new exchange clear across the state as a local call. Forcing the call to wait until "cheap" time doesn't interfere seriously with delivering the email, but it certainly prevents unpleasant surprises. (this is less critical now that in-state rates are getting rational. But it's still a good thing). ------------------------------ In article , lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) wrote: > In California, all calls to a different NPA, whether local or toll, > must be dialed as 11 digits. All calls within a given NPA, whether > local or toll, may be dialed as 7 digits. That must be a fairly recent change. About two years ago, I remember having to make some phone calls at pay phones from Monterey to Sunnyvale (both in 408) and having to dial the 1 before the seven digits. Nevin ":-)" Liber nevin@CS.Arizona.EDU (520) 293-2799 ------------------------------ James E. Bellaire (bellaire@tk.com) wrote: > Q. Why should users be forced to use area codes when dialing across NPA > boundries? > A. They are not. Suprised? In many rural areas users can dial across NPA > and state lines with 7 digits. The only time 10 or 11 digits are used > is in major metropolitan areas. In CBT-land (parts of 513, 606, 317) we can use seven digits for 'local' calls. I can call across NPA boundaries to points in Northern Kentucky (606) and Southeastern Indiana (317) We recently lost the ability to do 1+ seven digits (now all TOLL calls are 1+ ten digits), but that's a small price to pay. > The plan: > Overlay the area with a new area code. > Require 1+NPA+local number for LD and ZONE calls. > Permit 7 digit dialing to local exchanges, regardless of NPA. > Prohibit 7 digit dialing to same NPA, except for local exchanges. > Allow 1+NPA dialing for all calls AND BILL AT THE PROPER RATE. > I doubt if the telcos would want to mess with cross-NPA 7 digits in > major metropolitan areas, so I don't expect this to be implemented > without PUC or FCC pressure. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There really is no reason to ever go to > eleven digits as in 1+anything. The reason is that when we get to the > point that all calls must be dialed as AC + seven digits, we will no > longer need the initial '1' as a flag. The Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana Public Utilities Commissions disagree with you. 1+ still serves a 'Toll-Alerting' feature, indicating that the call will cost more than a local call. When the phone companies react to Internet Telephony and make all calls cost the same, then we won't need the 'toll alerting' feature anymore, I suppose :-) ------------------------------ cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) writes: > It seems the issues between Pacific Bell and the City of San Jose (CA) > have been resolved and PacBell has resumed installing it's new > network. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think PacBell should appeal the city's > ruling regards negotiations with each property owner. Most cases involving > utility easement rights over the years have gone in favor of the utility > and that is how I think it should be. PAT] The above it not always true. Some years ago the City of Riverside, California put a transformer in my back yard next to my house on the ground. They did it without asking or checking for right-a-way or easement. They did a lot of damage working on it over the years. I always claimed they had not right to put it there, but they said they had my permission in writing, they would not or could not show me their claim. In time it finally after years fighting them I got it to court, the paper they had was an eaement, but it was a copy and from what it looked like they had copied my signature onto it from something else and then just copied it over. They could never produce the form They then claimed that even though they may not have had the paper they had the right to have it there since it was needed to supply me my power. That did not hold up since it also supplied the whole block. It turned out because of a change in the planning department that the city required for the builder to get his permits, the house was build there, where that would have been the street. What finally happened was I was paid for ten years of it being there and they finally moved it. The judge said that they did not have the the right to just take the property and on top of that the placment violated the cities own electrical regulations. The above are my ideas and have nothing to do with whoever my employer is. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, ·_ Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. ------------------------------ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think PacBell should appeal the city's > ruling regards negotiations with each property owner. Most cases involving > utility easement rights over the years have gone in favor of the utility > and that is how I think it should be. PAT] Yes, but PacBell wants to install equipment where they currently have no easement rights. Remember, these boxes are to be placed *every 10 to 12 houses* in the front yard. The city contends that since there will be so many of these amplifier boxes, Pacific Bell should try to negotiate the location with the homeowner. I certainly wouldn't want the telco coming out and saying "Well, we're putting our box here and we want to rip out this concrete work here, and some of your trees." I personally wouldn't mind have an amplifier box in my yard, but I would like to have a little control over *where* it would be placed (ie: somewhere that's not very noticeable). Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ In article , dsumka@NetVision.net.il says: > I am hoping someone out there might be able to give me some information > about GPT's ISDX PBX's. (that was enough initials for a while). > I have heard rumours that these PBX's sometimes "lose" switch information, > does anyone know anything about that? > Also, can anyone reccomend good Call Detail Recording software for these > switches? The software we are using currently seems to lose calls and > minutes when we compare that data to the invoices from our carriers, more > then a 5% loss in duration. GPT Business Systems read with concern the recent information on the Internet regarding the GPT iSDX. GPT prides itself in the quality of the iSDX and its resilience. GPT would like to assure all iSDX users and readers of this note that the iSDX is a long standing and very reliable product now being actively supported and sold in over 40 countries world-wide. It does not have any problems of loss of information relating to switched call traffic. With reference to "Call Detail Recording software" for the iSDX, GPT has always maintained an open policy on records output on the V.24 port. As a result over 40 companies have been registered with GPT to receive the descriptions of the call logging records. Prominent amongst these are Databit, SR Comms, BTS, Datapulse, TISL, Wayland, Moscom, ASL, Christie Softech and Tiger. We hope that all readers will feel renewed in their confidence with regard to this issue. Anyone who has any further questions or queries regarding iSDX should contact the GPT Help Desk on + 44 115 943 3015. ------------------------------ In article , Nick Vora wrote: > In article , kpolking@nyx10.cs.du.edu > (Kent Polkinghorne) writes: >> Andrew B. Hawthorn writes: >>> Atlanta has recently added an automated directory assistance system >>> and I was curious if anyone knew how it works. When a person dials >>> 411, they are connected to a recorded female voice that says "What >>> city please?" The caller responds and the voice asks "What listing?" >>> The caller replies. > Miami (Southern Bell) has a similar (if not the same system). The > operator comes on line to confirm any discrepancies with you and then > patches you through to an automated voice that tells you the number > and informs you that for an additional charge it can be dialed for > you. However I've found that even when there is no doubt and no > discrepancy the operator comes on line, if only to say "Thank you" and > then patches you through? Is there a reason beyond alleviating the > fears of people who believe machines are taking over? Can't the > computer system handle it fully?! You want it fully automated? I think it's scary! But then again, I know 411 operators, they support their families with their jobs, etc, yakity shmack. I know you probably don't care, so I won't go on. But the first thing I thought of was Berbet Doodah. When I was working 411 one night, we had a caller come in who wanted Berbet Doodah. The operator looked for it, checked the spelling, didn't find it, and the customer would not accept that. So he was routed to the SA. Now I get him. We checked the spelling again, phonetically, "B for Bravo?" "Chess!" "E for Echo?" "Chess!"etc. until we had spelled out Berbet Doodah. I checked the whole area code, reversed the words (Doodah Berbet) and even went through the Residence files. No Berbet Doodah! I informed him of this, and now he was very upset. I asked him if he was sure of the spelling, and he started to spell it phonetically again, only this time, it was "B as in Bictory, E like Edward, L rike Rarry, B like Bictory, E like Edward, T like Tango, nest vord T like Tango, U like Umbrella," etc, etc. until he had spelled out enough to parse it together as "Velvet Turtle", a local restarant. As I was giving him the number, I was glad I wasn't his waitress. ;-) Let's see what your automated system does with Berbet Doodah! pbxtalk@ccnet.com "The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously." Hubert H. Humphrey ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #357 ******************************