From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Fri Aug 25 05:26:14 1995 by 1995 05:26:14 -0400 telecomlist-outbound; Fri, 25 Aug 1995 02:12:42 -0500 1995 02:12:40 -0500 To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu TELECOM Digest Fri, 25 Aug 95 02:12:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 360 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Seven Digits Across NPA Lines (Scott Robert Dawson) Questions: History of AC 905; What's a TWX? (Scott Robert Dawson) Digital Dictation Equipment (D. Matthew Ford) V&H Questions (Douglas Frank) IntegreTel/VRS Billing-Bulk Block Procedure (Randal L. Schwartz) Billing Goof-ups (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Bell Canada Calling Cards in USA (Scott Robert Dawson) Smartcard Phone Spotted in Oshawa Ontario! (Scott Robert Dawson) L.A. Times 800-Number Article (Carl Moore) 860 Working Early (Scott D. Fybush) Future of 809 D.A.? (Linc Madison) Re: AT&T Moving Into Local Exchange Market (S. Bapat) Re: War on Payphones (Rich Szabo) Re: War on Payphones (Dave Levenson) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- bellaire@tk.com (James E. Bellaire) wrote: > I, bellaire@tk.com (James E. Bellaire) wrote: >>> Q. Why should users be forced to use area codes when dialing across NPA >>> boundries [sic]? >>> A. They are not. Suprised? In many rural areas users can dial across >>> NPA and state lines with 7 digits. The only time 10 or 11 digits are used >>> is in major metropolitan areas. > goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) replied: >> This latter statement is certainly false. Inter-NPA 7D dialing is the >> exception, not the rule, even in rural areas. > In *most* area where you may dial local across an NPA boundry you dial > 7D. 'The rule' in *most* rural areas is 'if it is local, it is 7D' > regardless of NPA. The exception is in *metropolitan* areas where you > dial 10D or 11D to cross NPAs. > Check the boundry lines between NPAs in 'rural' areas, such as the=20 > Michigan/Indiana border, where South Bend, IN, can call Niles, MI, and > Elkhart, IN, can call Union and Edwardsburg, MI. > Along every NPA border there are several rural communities who can dial > across the line 7D. A viewpoint from Ontario (Bell Canada country) ... In the National Capital Region (613: Ottawa, Ontario and 819: Hull, Quebec) there is 7D _local_ dialing across the NPA boundary (also the Ottawa River, the provincial boundary, and if Quebec separates from Canada, an international boundary). By contrast, the Greater Toronto Area was recently split (1993) with Metro Toronto remaining 416 and the outlying region becoming 905. (This must have used one of the last remaining NZX style area codes). Local calls across this NPA boundary are dialed 10-digits only; however there are areas on the outer boundary of 905 where one can dial 7D local across the NPA boundary to other area codes (519, 705, 613). No local calls are dialed with a 1 in front. However, all long-distance calls between or within NPAs are dialed as either 0+ or 1+ ten digits. (Up to about five years ago it was still possible to dial 1+ 7D for long-distance within the same NPA. This ended when the NZX area codes started to run out). It was not until I started to go to the States, and also talk to US enployees of the company I work for, that I realised that many people dial 1+ for local calls. Is this because 'local' service in the States can be metered? All our local service is flat-rate. Bell got stomped when it recently tried to introduce metered local service for business. There was mention of this on this group not long ago. I suspect the 1+ now tends to signify some kind of metered service, and as far as the user is concerned, the difference between 'local' or 'long-distance' service becomes more a matter of cost. Incidentally, we do not have the same separation between local and long-distance carriers also; Bell Canada operates the local monopoly in its territory, and also competes in the long-distance market. (The 400-kilo gorilla ...) Scott Robert Dawson srdawson@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~srdawson/scothmpg.htm ------------------------------ I've two questions: 1) Old catalogues at my work give 905 as the area code for northern Mexico, and 903 as the area code for Mexico City! 905 is now _my_ area code in southern Ontario (outside Toronto). Mexico is country code 52 now. What happened? Did their phone system get rebuilt and centralised? Was north and central Mexico part of country code 1 once, and then the whole country was put under country code 52? 2) What is or was a TWX? The same old catalogues give 10-digit TWX numbers all in what are now area codes N10 (310, 410, 510... ); but the locations are much more scattered, and don't correspond to the present area codes. Scott Robert Dawson srdawson@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~srdawson/scothmpg.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Gee, I feel old today. These are both topics we have covered here in the past, but a brief summary might be good for people new to the Digest in recent months. Mexico never was in code 1. They were always 52. But for a number of years, international direct dialing was in flux here in the USA with some people able to do it and others not able. For those who were not able to place a call to Mexico using 011-52, the 903/905 hack was available. These were two previously unused area codes which were set up to call Mexico. They were never actually known by those numbers; instead the official rule was that one could call Mexico by dialing '90' followed by '3' and the local number in many towns in northern Mexico or '5' followed by the loal number in Mexico City. Once IDDD was universal throughout the USA, there was no longer a need for 90-3 or 90-5 and they were retired from service pending assignment as regular area codes elsewhere. What is TWX, the man asks. Well, the yperiter Echange was AT&T's competition to Western Union's Telex, or egraph change. Earlier in this century, Western Union had expanded their telegraph services to include a 'do it yourself' network where telegrams (essentially messages typed out on paper transmitted long distances over wires) no longer had to be sent from a public telegram office. Businesses could lease a telegraph sending/receiving machine and do it themselves in their offices via a switched network Western Union constructed, in large part with the help of their very good freind, AT&T. After awhile, AT&T thought that Telex looked like a very profitable thing, so they decided to do it themselves. They had to call it a different name of course, so they chose TWX, which is pronounced 'Twix'. They were also just getting into area codes about the same time, so they reserved area codes 310,410,510,610,710,810 and 910 for TWX machines. Where 310,410,510 and 710 covered the eastern part of the USA, 910 covered the entire western part of the USA from Chicago westward. 610 was Canadian TWX and 810 was Mexican TWX, although I never once saw a single example of 810 back in those days. One day Western Union got in a snit about the success of AT&T's TWX network and filed suit to force AT&T out of that business. Their claim was that they (WUTCO) had the exclusive rights to written communication by wire just as AT&T had the exclusive right to verbal communication by wire. Remember, this was *long* before divestiture; I guess it was in the early to middle 1960's. AT&T lost the case and the Supreme Court ordered them to divest themselves of TWX. 'Conveniently', WUTCO was more than happy to purchase it. The purchase was made 'in place' with the switching equipment, etc, remaining in AT&T (really local telco) central offices, but belonging to WUTCO. The 'area codes' assigned for TWX use went along with it, and for about twenty years or longer, WUTCO operated two separate and distinct networks, their original Telex network and their TWX network, with Telex network switches and equipment in their custody and maintained by them and TWX network switches and equipment owned by them but maintained by the various local Bell System telcos under contract. Is that all clear as mud now? . A number of years ago WUTCO decided to change the name of the service from TWX to 'Telex II'. Then they started 'Easy Link' with a gateway into both Telex and Telex II from Easy Link. Easy Link subscribers got email, and those who wanted an address for the receipt of telegrams were assigned network addresses in the 910 'area code' regardless of where they were. Then AT&T eventually bought the whole thing back from WUTCO, and I guess all the Telex II (TWX) machines were moved over onto the original Telex network and all the reserved area codes were put back into service for voice telephony. Honestly, I have no idea these days who -- if anyone -- operates and maintains the Telex network, if it even still exists. Does AT&T still operate it domestically in the USA? I know that the company known as 'Western Union International' which was never part of Western Union, is owned by MCI, or at least it was. Anyone have updated stuff on this? PAT] ------------------------------ I am looking for PC-based dictation equipment (like Dialogic cards) that can be used for transcription. Mainly looking for a way to control voice playback with a foot pedal - start, stop, ff, rew, etc. Our current setup is dictation is called into a pc with 32 ports of Retorex cards. Transcriptionist get voice via a VDI superstation, which is essentially a DTMF pad with a volume knob and a foot pedal connection. The foot pedal is a Sony FS-75 which has three switches in it. The VDI is programmed to send the appropriate DTMF when the foot pedal is pressed. I have checked with Dialogic, and Retorex and they dont make anything like that. Does anyone have any suggestions? D Matthew Ford Programmer Analyst DMatthewF@aol.com ------------------------------ Can anyone tell me where V&H coordinates came from, and how they actually represent distances in the U.S.? Does anyone know how to translate V&H coordinates (such as those found in Bellcore's LERG data) into standard lattitude and longitude? I am creating a real-time network map, and need this translation. The answer in any form would be appreciated, though programming code or algorithm form would be best. Thanks, Doug Frank STAR Telecommunications Santa Barbara, CA ------------------------------ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried it your way and got a sort > of irritated lady who told me it was 4-BLOCK-ME **not** BLOCK-ME. > So I redialed it as suggested and did indeed get through to an > automatic service. I only have a couple of complaints about it > and both are minor. Your ANI is delivered to them at the time you > call, and if you indicate you wish to block your home number, they > respond by blocking the ANI given to them without an opportunity > to block *additional* residence numbers unless apparently you call > them from each line involved, one at time. They offer the choice of > blocking '800 callback services' as well as 'international services'. Do they read the ANI to you? If they do, we now have another way of getting ANI. (I'm trying it as soon as I get off line.) Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 Email: Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@ora.com) Web: My Home Page! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, they read the ANI back but only after you have indicated you want the line blocked. I guess you could use them to find out the number on lines which are unidentified as long as you or the owner of the line don't object to being blocked from Integratel charges. The way they phrase it is cute: "As a courtesy, your local telephone company forwarded your number to us at the time they connected your call. The number we are blocking is xxx-xxx-xxxx." ------------------------------ > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As part of the investigative process, > if it is just a couple dollars or less then the clerks usually write > it off on the assumption it costs more to do the paperwork charging it > back to the other telco and arguing with the other telco about it > ("you sent it to us"; "no we didn't, you must have gotten it from > another telco"). And sometimes for whatever reason in those days the > paperwork would get so mutilated and banged up they did not know where > they got the charge from so they had to write it off. This time > around, someone decided to dial the number and see if it was actually > in service or not. Of course it rang; of course I answered. Bingo, > that set off an audit with accounting making an inquiry of plant to > see what the actual status of the line was. Plant reconstructed what > paperwork they had on it and accounting had to turn on the service > after the fact. You're fortunate that they found it. It took me over eight months to convince Nynex that they made the exact same mistake on my line. I'd call them FROM the line through an operator and have the operator read back the number to customer service. The nice lady on the other end of the phone would always come back with "I have no record that the number exists." to the amusement of both myself and the operator. They never did find all my toll charges but I know where they went. Seems that the local VA hospital is on the same exchange as me but their numbers are xxx-71xx where mine is xxx-071x ... so it's obvious that someone shifted a digit. I found out because in years of old I used to, well, know my way around other carrier's networks and a friend in NJ called me and asked if I was up to old tricks again. I got a bill for eight months of flat rate local service -- which came to a grand total of $160 because even the end-user charges weren't added in. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It would happen a lot that if the subscriber was on the same premises as some major account (for instance, a switchboard serving most of a large building) that the installer who came to do the work 'just assumed' without reading the order carefully that the new install was part of the larger customer's account, and they would turn the service on but not submit the paperwork correctly. Likewise, a major organization or institution occupies most -- but not all -- of an exchange with a centrex account and then here and there a few independent subscribers are stuck in on the same exchange ... the centrex admin had better watch out, because someone processing the paperwork says 'oh, exchange xxx, that is all used by the Universal Amalgamated Corporation,' and just toss the new charges on their bill. PAT] ------------------------------ A week or so ago I wrote that Bell Canada calling cards would not be ·_ accepted by AT&T in the States. Several people have replied to me, stating that they've had no problems using their cards. I checked with my source and she admitted that, okay, it sometimes works. But then sometimes it doesn't. I guess this is something that bears watching. I _am_ going to the States soon and I'll be sure to give this a test ... more info later. Scott Robert Dawson srdawson@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~srdawson/scothmpg.htm ------------------------------ Last week I was in Oshawa visiting friends and we stopped at a food store. The pay phones in the lobby were the standard Nortel 'Millennium' model, but the top housing above the screen was bright blue with the new Bell logo, and the card reader housing was bright yellow. Both of these were changed from the previous grey-blue. The graphic by the card slot showed two cards, one with a stripe and one with a small square. Intrigued, I remembered them and turned to the Web when I got home. Earlier, I had seen an ad in French for a new Bell phone card with a chip, in a promotional magazine for the Montreal Jazz Festival. Bell Canada serves most of Ontario and part of Quebec. A check of Bell's Web site, http://www.bell.ca, turned up a media release dated 7 April, which described the new card and its rollout across Quebec and (in September) Ontario. The card was supposed to be easily buyable in convenience stores, depanneurs, etc. My question is: are these cards reusable? Can you put more money in them when they run out? Will they be refillable in an ATM? Is there some sort of standard for these cards so that they could be used, say, in other countries? Will other countries' cards work in a Bell phone? All this hints at a vast behind-the-scenes transaction network rivaling the banks'. Scott Robert Dawson srdawson@interlog.com http://www.interlog.com/~srdawson/scothmpg.htm ------------------------------ Today (Aug. 22) the {Baltimore Sun} had a reprint of an {L.A. Times} article "800 numbers have the ring of success" by Roy Rivenburg. There is no hint of area code 888 or the rumbles involving it, but it does note that 800 numbers are relatively new with regard to consumer affairs (the phones replace at least some of the mail). Also, it says: "The granddaddy of toll-free product numbers emerged at Whirlpool, which christened its 'Cool Line" in 1967, the year AT&T introduced 800 service." ------------------------------ NYNEX is already allowing calls to Connecticut's new 860 NPA, two weeks before permissive dialing is scheduled to start. I can call 860 from my office in 617-254 (Brighton MA), although not through the office PBX, which does not yet recognize 860. SNET's announced test number, 860-203-0950, is not yet operational. I'd be interested to know whether other areas are getting early access to 860. BTW, on a trip to New Jersey the last weekend of July, I passed a glass-company truck on the highway that had already been altered to show (860) instead of (203) ... and this a full month before permissive dialing started! Glad to see the message is getting through to some people. Scott Fybush - fybush@world.std.com ------------------------------ I was reading in TELECOM Digest recently that plans are being made to allow any of the various small countries and territories in area code 809 to get its own area code. The first of these is Bermuda, area code 441, going into effect later this year. Under the current system, directory assistance for all of 809 is centralized (I think somewhere in Florida) -- you reach the same operator for Bermuda, Puerto Rico, or Jamaica. However, if each of those has its own area code, they could decide independently whether to continue contracting with the folks in Florida (or wherever) or to set up their own operation. Conceivably they could even try to set different charges for access to their directory assistance. Ironically, if every different country got its own area code, it would simplify the determination of rates: only the area code would be needed to figure the cost of a call, instead of the area code and prefix. Just one of those little bits of technotrivia that preoccupy me when I really should be asleep. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think 809-555-1212 is physically located in South Carolina. PAT] ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > What's interesting about this alleged plan by AT&T to 'take over' local > service next year is that they already have several new switches in place > largely sitting idle waiting for the day to arrive when they go in > service and (according to the WSJ story) AT&T plans to do something quite > ridiculous and offer their existing long distance customers 'local area > service' for some very small amount of money; far less than what the BOCs > are getting. Full custom calling features, the works. Interesting times. Interesting, indeed. Taking this argument to its logical extreme, since now there are no restrictions as to who can be in whose market, it is possible that using Ted Vail's old tactics AT&T might end up buying USWest, PacTel, SWBT, Nynex, BellAtlantic, BellSouth, Ameritech, and GTE, and we will be back to square one. S. Bapat bapat@gate.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I don't think they could buy up those companies. I think all those former AT&T companies have to be left alone where AT&T is concerned. That is what I meant by saying 'several monopolies'. Today, a hundred years after the government-ordered breakup of the Standard Oil Trust owned by John Rockefeller, any of the various parts of the former oil monopoly (Exxon, Amoco, Chevron, etc) are by themselves larger than the original monopoly. Competition, eh? So let's open a gasoline refinery and oil producing business and see how far it gets us ... Within the next dozen years or so watch and see if each of the Baby Bells are just as powerful and sassy as AT&T ever was in the old days if not more so. No one today remembers when Exxon, Chevron and Amoco were all one and the same; and I venture to say in a few years very few Americans around will still remember when there was a single 'telephone company'. Instead there will be a half-dozen or so large, major players in the industry, each a complete full service phone company with long distance service, local service and everything else they offer. So instead of one monopoly to 'choose from' we will have six to choose from. Still, I guess that's better than just one. PAT] ------------------------------ In a previous article, dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) says: > It has previously been recounted here. The War on Drugs turns into a > War on Payphones. The politicians have finally found a way of > accomplishing something visible; the payphones don't fight back. [much snipped] This brings to mind a terrifying episode that occurred when my wife was about to give birth to our daughter. We were in a public building at the time my wife realized that the baby's movements were very diminished, which indicates that the baby could be dying. We called the OB/GYN from a payphone and the answering service wanted our number for a return call. I read the fine print on the phone which said "no incoming calls accepted". The service refused to give us the OB/GYN's home number. We panicked for a short time until I realized we had our brand new cell phone in the car which we were able to receive the OB's calls on. Rich Szabo ------------------------------ Pat writes: > ...even the County Jail, where the payphones are among the worst > ripoff phones to be found anywhere. PAT] Even the telephone companies know a `captive market' when they see one, no? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #360 ******************************