From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Thu Aug 31 16:20:30 1995 by 1995 16:20:30 -0400 telecomlist-outbound; Thu, 31 Aug 1995 12:03:07 -0500 1995 12:03:04 -0500 To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu TELECOM Digest Thu, 31 Aug 95 12:03:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 366 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (William Brownlow) Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (Brig C. McCoy) Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (Carl Moore) Re: 1-800-555-xxxx (Bob Keller) Re: San Francisco Area Codes (Roger Fajman) Re: San Francisco Area Codes (John David Galt) Re: Allnet Tries to Hide Adult Services (John E. Briggs) Re: How to Distinquish Local From Long Distance Numbers (Jim Donaldson) Re: How to Distinquish Local From Long Distance Numbers (Barry Margolin) Re: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Sergio Gelato) Other "Special" Areacodes (Mark J. Cuccia) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DavidB.Horvath wrote: > It looks like the 1-800-555 number space is available for "normal" > toll free phone numbers. > I got a call from a Contract-programmer broker in Texas (they wanted > to know if I was interested in a job down there), when I mentioned > that I wasn't interested but might be able to pass the lead on to a > friend who was interested in moving to TX, I was given a 1-800-555- > number. I confirmed the number to make sure I heard it correctly. > Now what are the movies going to use to show someone dialing a toll > free number? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know what they will do now. Maybe > the YANG! principle should be applied. YANG = Yet Another Noise Group. > Should I put up a message in news.groups calling for a discussion on what > to name the new group which will discuss how Hollywood should handle the > use of telephone numbers when telco no longer has the luxury of providing > them with numbers that won't disturb the real people? PAT] I remember reading a blurb in {The Washington Post} about using 555 numbers. It stated that Bellcore had agreed with the movie studios certain combinations would not be issued. These combinations could and would continue to be used in movies and television programs. Thus, as an example, 555-1234 would not be issued and would be available for use by the entertainment and advertising industries. A few years ago a Charles Bronson movie, Telephon, was released. The distributor, Universal(?) set up an 800 number for some purpose which was reached by dialing 1.800.TELEPHO(n). I wonder who has 1.800.835.3746 now? ------------------------------ David B. Horvath, CDP wrote: > It looks like the 1-800-555 number space is available for "normal" > toll free phone numbers. (snip) > I was given a 1-800-555- number. I confirmed the number to make sure I > heard it correctly. > Now what are the movies going to use to show someone dialing a toll > free number? (snip) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't know what they will do now.,,,, Yes, 800-555 was made available to "regular" numbers sometime last year, I think in December. Maybe Judith Oppenheimer has some more details on this. I remember seeing it in Bellcore TRA's INPG fiche (Industry Numbering Plan Guide) and LERG when I last ordered them in December 1994. I also remember that one of my free mailings from Bellcore NANPA last year stated that 800-555 was going into the "general" portability pool. Some of my Bellcore free mailings from NANPA, the ICCF, and the INC have talked about *other* NPA's using the 555 exchange code for services *other* than regular Directory Assistance or other telco services. Bellcore NANPA is working with 555-XXXX line number assignments, and it *seems* that this will be yet *another* 976-type of code! :-( There are plans for single NPA assignments of particular 555-XXXX numbers, regional or multiple-NPA assignments of a particular 555 number to a particular subscriber, and national/NANP-wide/most-NPA's assignments of a specific 555-XXXX number. MANY 555 numbers, it seems, are now in *conflict* according to one of my mailings from Bellcore/ICCF/INC. There were *simultaneous* requests for the same groups of XXXX line-numbers, such as 6397 (NEWS), 8255 (TALK), 5683 (LOVE), etc. The mailings I got listed the line numbers which are in *conflict*, along with the multiple *simultaneous* requesting companies, but not the "letter" mnuemonics. There were even some numericals which would even spell out profanities, but as I said, the mailing only listed XXXX numbers- NOT letters/names. BTW, Cap.Cities/ABC (Radio & TV News, etc) requested some of the form 7777, and I think that CBS-The Columbia Broadcasting System had requested some 2222 or the like. ABC-TV owns several TV stations in the US on Channel 7, while CBS has many Channel 2's. Or even if they don't *own* the station, many affiliates are on those channels. For motion-picture/TV/Radio/dramatic fiction, etc, the 0100 to 0199 block of line numbers are NOT going to be assigned to working numbers within the NPA-555-XXXX service. I don't know how this is going to apply to 800-555-XXXX, tho'. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1- 2497 WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241- 2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865- 5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ DavidB.Horvath wrote: > It looks like the 1-800-555 number space is available for "normal" > toll free phone numbers. Noticed the same thing with 1-900-555 yesterday, as the Priority support number for Artisoft is 1 900 555-8324, used it in resolving a LANtastic problem, so I know it wasn't a typo. :) Brig C. McCoy | Automation Consultant Southeast Kansas Library System | Internet: brigc@world.std.com 218 East Madison | Voice: 316 365-5136 Iola, KS 66749 | Fax: 316 365-5137 ------------------------------ Speaking of Hollywood (and its use of 555-xxxx, not just in area 800, in movies etc.): I Love Lucy had telephone numbers in it from time to time. They changed from time to time, too; the phone company supplied them to ensure there would be no answer if fans tried calling them. ------------------------------ In TELECOM Digest V15 #364, David B. Horvath, CDP queried: > Now what are the movies going to use to show someone dialing a toll > free number? Here's a thought. Perhaps the movies should get rid of the 555 thing altogether and instead use real live 1-900 numbers. Then, if anyone is curious enough to dial the number heard in the movie, the studio could collect revenue at the rate $X.XX per minute. Hey, that might offset at least some of the cost of Waterworld! [Note to any Hollywood type reading this list: In consideration of my valuable intellectual property rights in the above concept, I do, of course, excep royalties on all calls received should you decide to implement this scheme. ] Bob Keller (KY3R) mailto:rjk@telcomlaw.com Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C. http://www.his.com/~rjk Federal Telecommunications Law Telephone 202.416.1670 ------------------------------ > John Higdon is from the San Jose / San Francisco area. Maybe he might > have some info to enlighten us on 318's use for calling into SF from > outside of CA, or maybe some Bay area Exchange Name history -- (and SF > was probably the only area of the country that used 55X numbers before > All Number Calling -- KLondike-x (55X) WAS used in San Francisco, while > most areas of the country never seemed to use the 55X range prior to > the 1960s). So am I, born in Oakland and raised in the East Bay. I don't remember the 318 area code at all, but I was only 6 in 1951, so that's not surprising. We had the very neat Hayward phone number of LUcerne 2-3456. But sometime, probably the late fifties, many people's phone numbers were changed and ours became BRowning 6-xxxx. I don't know the reason. Maybe a new CO was built. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I meant to comment on this the other day but forgot to do so. Although John Higdon is from the San Jose and San Fransisco area *now*, I don't believe he lived around that area in 1950-60 period. I believe he moved out there only in the latter part of the 1970's. PAT] ------------------------------ Seven-digit dialing between 415 and the Bay Area portion of 408 existed until some time in 1983, and the prefix list in the front of the phone book did not distinguish the area codes either. (In the few cases where duplicate prefixes existed, usually in 415/707 or 408/707, they inserted an asterisk with the note, "Some prefixes serve more than one community.") To my knowledge, there was never seven-digit dialing between 415 and 707 (or 408 and 707, which are not adjacent). However, the split was before I moved here. John David Galt ------------------------------ dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) wrote: > For telecom resellers, PBX administrators, COCOT-owners and such, > there is generally no other option than to completely block calls to > 900, 976, and now, 500 numbers. If credit-card billing is accepted to > these numbers, then 0+ calls to such numbers may be allowed if > billed-number screening is also effective. I gather that there are some tech support services offered via 900 numbers, as well as some fax-on-demand services that also use a 900 number. Since these may be "legitimate" business services I was wondering if call blocking is (generally) sophisticated enough to permit blocking of, say, all 900 numbers except an approved list of legit numbers. Are most people stuck with all or nothing blocking? Was MCI's directory assistance 900 service badly damaged by call blocking by businesses? Also, while on the general topic of, uhh, entertainment services via telephone, I am aware that some such service providers have resorted to deals with foreign country telephone companies to avoid 900/976 style blocking. I am curious about why we have, as far as I know, thus far been spared a 10-XXX (appropiate, yes?) phone service? Does the FCC sufficiently regulate long distance companies to prohibit "dial 10-HOT-SEX-TALK" or have other mechanisms been easier to implement for the 900 industry? John Briggs (jebriggs@indirect.com AZ, USA) ------------------------------ Thomas Chen wrote: > How can one determine whether certain numbers are within the calling > area and certain numbers are not? Tom, A phone number is comprised of NPA-NXX-EXTN. Your local telco will have a list of the NPA-NXX's that are local. All other NPA-NXX's are toll and will be charged at different rates. Your phone book may have the list but usually not. By the way, I suggest dialling your long distance carrier's code prior to making those calls that are not considered local by your telco. This will save you big bucks. Just dial 10XXX before dialing your number where: XXX is 222 for MCI, 333 for Sprint, and 288 for AT&T. Hope this helps, Jim ------------------------------ In article Thomas Chen writes: > How can one determine whether certain numbers are within the calling > area and certain numbers are not? In Massachusetts, the list depends on the calling plan you've signed up for. There are also two local calling areas, called Zone 1 and Zone 2; the definition of these zones depends on the calling exchange, and anything not in one of the zones is long distance. Zone 1 is also divided into Local and Other. The service levels in the Boston Metropolitan area include: ·_ * Measured: all calls are toll calls, with the rate depending on the zone; * Unlimited: unlimited, untimed calls to Local Zone 1, otherwise like Measured; * Measured Circle: Measured or Unlimited, plus 2 hours/month of calls to exchanges outside Local Zone 1 but within 25 miles; * Circle: Unlimited calls within 20 miles; * Suburban: unlimited calls within your own exchange and to Metropolitan Boston exchanges *except* for Boston Central exchanges (I can't imagine why anyone would get this -- who *doesn't* call Boston?); * Metropolitan: unlimited calls to Metropolitan Boston and selected exchanges depending on where you're calling from; * Bay State East: unlimited calls to Metropolitan Boston plus 2 hours/month of calls to other exchanges in Eastern Massachusetts *except* 9AM-Noon weekdays. All the relevant exchanges and rates are listed in the local phone books. Barry Margolin BBN PlaNET Corporation, Cambridge, MA barmar@bbnplanet.com Phone (617) 873-3126 - Fax (617) 873-5124 ------------------------------ Tony Harminc (>) commented on Richard Barry's (>>) words: >> Most European numbering plans have the following characteristics: >> *Hierarchical area code structure* (like the US Zip code. While one >> mightn't know where Zip 90234 is precisely, even a non-American can >> guess that it is on the West coast and probably in California. >> Someone who knows California can probably guess it is in the LA area, >> etc.) This structure follows on to some extent from the country code >> layout (eg all country codes beginning with 3 are in Europe). > The French system is nothing like this. The Departement numbers > are scattered randomly around the country, so you can't tell where > a number is unless you have memorized the list. The department numbers (which were originally assigned alphabetically; since then additions and renamings have spoiled the regularity) have also never had anything to do with telephone area codes. The 1985 reorganisation was prompted to a large extent by the fact that all possible area codes had been assigned at that point. Strange situations resulted, with (7) for the city of Lyon but (76) for Grenoble (which meant that Lyon numbers could and did have 7 digits, but that they could not begin with 6). Tony Harminc's remark is pertinent to French postal codes (which are based on the departement numbers), but that is not very relevant to telecom. [About variable length numbers] > This is terrible idea, for the one simple reason that telephones don't > have Enter keys. So the switch has to decide when you've finished > dialing by some means, usually a timeout. Or if the switch is smart > enough it may be able to avoid timeouts on certain calls, but the > result is inconsistent behaviour. Here in Italy, where variable-length numbers are the norm, the system is constructed so that it is always possible in principle to determine from the digits dialled so far whether the number is complete or not. That is, 2345 67 and 2345 678 cannot both be valid numbers, but you can have 2345 67 and 2345 680, 2345 681, etc. In theory, this means that timeouts are never absolutely necessary. Of course for long distance calls it will not be practical for the originating exchange to store the detailed number length tables for every possible remote exchange, but the information can be requested from the destination exchange during call setup. I don't know whether this is actually being done: I'm not obsessed with having the shortest possible call setup time myself. (Even a timeout would be much shorter than the time spent waiting for the person at the other end to pick up the phone.) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, telephones do have 'enter' keys > or 'carriage return' keys. It is the '#' key located underneath the '9'. Irrelevant to the discussion of variable length numbers in Europe: my switch doesn't interpret the # key that way, and attempts to use it are treated as misdialed numbers. But I know it works in the USA. > So why don't we have telephone numbers of any length with the understanding > that when the subscriber has finished giving the instructions, a # is used > to indicate conclusion. The network would then process what had been given > in the proper context. PAT] I suspect that the cost of reprogramming all that data entry software that expects NXX-NXX-XXXX for phone numbers is the real reason the USA are trying to stick to 3+7 for as long as possible. As you note, there is no intrinsic reason from the point of view of the network itself. (Related question: why are the USA still using only nine digits for Social Security Numbers, despite all the obvious shortcomings?) ------------------------------ Since I have made recent posts on Mexico, TWX, and the use of 318 for San Francisco, and since I mentioned (in "809 in Jeopardy") the 'replace' code for "Caller-Pays-800" including the 'self-assigned' use of 300 & 400 by Caribbean countries/islands for "caller-pays-800", I wanted to mention some *other* special NPA codes. I had mentioned about 880 being planned as a *standard* replace-type of code if the caller wants to pay for an 800 number not available from his calling area (at least from International/Overseas). At the time I posted this to TD, I stated that I didn't know what was going to be used for the 'replace' code for the new toll-free 888 code. Recently, one of my free mailings from Bellcore stated that 881 is being planned for 'replace' for Caller-Pays-888. NOW, I do NOT know how this will 'interwork' with the 'mark-sense' codes for billing- identification purposes for remote manual operator-connect-only 'Ring-Down' points. 880 is NOT used for ring-down points, but 881-XXX IS! Also, 888-XXX is used as well! We have had 800 for Toll Free since circa 1966/67. 900 was reserved for 'mass-calling' as a 'choke' code in 1970, but its use as a nationwide or continentwide PAY-PAY-PAY-per-call special areacode didn't come into use until around 1981 or 82. There were the TWX codes, 510, 610, 710, 810, 910. 610 remained the Canadian TWX (and later Data services) until it was splash cut to 600 in 1993. 510, 710, 810, 910 (while probably still used on the now-again AT&T 'non-telco' TWX/Telex-II) were 'removed' from the DDD Telephone Switching Network by 1982 or so and along with 610 have been re-assigned as regular telephone NPA's. Specifically, 710 was reassigned circa 1983 to the US Federal Government, but it was about 10 years before many of us saw any other reference to it (for the GETS-Government Emergency Telephone Service/System), and that is *still* somewhat unspecified. We have *also* known about 700 since around 1983/84, being reserved for 'carrier-services' sometime around divestiture. I understand that Canada is now using 700 numbers, similar to the way we use them here. And, of course, there is the 500 special areacode. There is yet *another* special areacode, and its details/assignments are still somewhat cloudy. Back in 1993, Bellcore reserved the 456 (new format) areacode for "International Inbound" purposes. There IS a NANPA IL (Information Letter) explaining it, as well as mailings from ICCF/INC. It will be assigned to carriers, *similar* to the way 500-NXX, 600-NXX, 900-NXX are being assigned now, and (prior to portability), 800-NXX; HOWEVER, due to some foreign telco or International Carrier code translations, a carrier requesting 456-NXX codes will be assigned a *block-of-ten* NXX codes- the carrier will have ALL TEN codes within a particular 456-NX. I haven't purchased a Bellcore TRA LERG or INPG (or other product) in almost a year, but there was NO listing of any 456-NX(X) assignments when I purchased them last December. Incidently, there were also no assignment listings of any 555-XXXX (for ANY NPA) in them neither. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1- 2497 WORK: mcuccia@law.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241- 2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865- 5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I first made mention of '710' here as the code for 'Special Government Services' or 'Government Special Services' I had someone write me to say they had contacted a friend or relative working at the Pentagon to ask for more details about it, possibly to report in an article in the Digest. My correspondent said his contact at the Pentagon almost choked when he found out that 'other people' knew about it. Supposedly it is a highly classified secret matter. Despite various requests and hints that more information for readers here would be very much appreciated, no one yet has ever responded in a definitive way to explain the workings of 710; how it is (to be) used, etc. I wish someone who actually knew something about it would write an article. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #366 ******************************