From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Wed Sep 13 22:29:21 1995 by 1995 22:29:21 -0400 telecomlist-outbound; Wed, 13 Sep 1995 18:38:13 -0500 1995 18:38:11 -0500 To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu TELECOM Digest Wed, 13 Sep 95 18:38:00 CDT Volume 15 : Issue 380 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: An Idea for LECs to Communicate Area Code Splits Nationally (M Cuccia) Re: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Dik Winter) Re: Area Code Crisis -- A Different Viewpoint (Martin D. Kealey) Re: Variable Length Phone Numbers (Dik Winter) Re: Variable Length Phone Numbers (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: War on Payphones (coyne@thing1.cc.utexas.edu) Re: War on Payphones (Bob Schwartz) Re: War on Payphones (db@barc.com) Who is VolTelecom? (Mark E. Kaminsky) Information on GeoTel Requested (Ken Lubar) Discouraging Small Users (Wes Leatherock) Simulation of SDL-Diagrams? (Roland Welte) LATA/Exchange Boundary Maps Wanted (Craig Macfarlane) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Here in Louisiana (and other SCBell/BellSouth states?), business class of service customers DO receive a small page in their monthly bill showing new NXX codes within NPA's in Bell South states, whether the NXX is to a Bell South exchange or to an independent telco exchange. The idea is for PBX administrators to program in any necessary new dialing/code information. I know that NPA 334 was listed in these fliers back in late 1993 and during 1994 as a new areacode for Alabama (SCBell/BellSouth). I don't know if any new NPA's for NON-BellSouth states have also been listed in those fliers. BTW, there is usually a note in the flier which states that the complete North American Numbering Plan NPA and NXX information can be obtained (for a cost) from Bellcore and continues on with the areacode (and address?) for Bellcore's Traffic Routing Administration. But I think that all local telcos within North America SHOULD give at least new NPA information for any new NPA's anywhere in the North American system. I remember when Virginia had their 703 split to 703 & 804 some 20+ years ago, South Central Bell's 'Louisiana Bell Notes' monthly bill insert gave that information. Yes, this was still when we had a 'corporate' Bell System, some 10+ years prior to Greene's divestiture of the Bell System, but let' remember that Area Code information is Carrier NEUTRAL! Bellcore is one of the 'co-ordinating' entities for North American telephony- It IS owned 1/7th each by the seven divested Regional Bell Corporations, but IT is part of the NPA assignments- and most people get their dialtone (or their phone rings) from their own local telco. BTW, the local telcos DO give a US/Canada map of NPA's in the front of their local directories. However, in Louisiana (and other SCBell states?), there is a notice stating "Areacodes for places not listed..." (a small town not able to have its dot on the map or name in the list) "...can be obtained from *Directory-Assistance*." We get ONE free available call to 1-411 every month. Any calls above and beyond that (in Louisiana) are 31-cents. (and automated voice instructions are NOW being used here, too). Try calling 1-411 and asking for an areacode for ANY town outside of your own state/lata (even for a MAJOR metro area) and you'll probably get the response that you should call your LD company! And, either lose your free call or chalk-up another 31-cents! (of course, you CAN demand credit). I've even dialed a single-0 and asked for NPA info. Instead of her connecting me with AT&T or asking me what carrier I wanted for a 00 operator, she just put me through to Directory and (if it answered) set it to charge me 31- cents PLUS a 30-cents 'Operator Assistance service charge'!!! (I did call and get credit, however!) I have mentioned this BLATANTLY ERRONEOUS information to the Public Service Commission (on a few occasions over the past 10 years) but nothing has been done yet! Is Bell just trying to charge 31-cents to people who are unwitting? I don't normally call 1-411 on my own anymore, but it only a few years ago, SCBell did NOT itemize your 411 calls with time & date. They gave you only the number of times you called 411 in that billing month (at 31-cents/call minus your one free) and the total amount! Even AT&T carried (NPA)-555-1212 calls (when Bell did more of the AMA tracking for AT&T a few years back) were just 'lumped' togather. There was NO itemization for time, date, nor NPA-itself that was called. Now, AT&T does more AMA tracking of its carried calls, and it is itemized as such here in Louisiana on the AT&T pages of my monthly SCBell bill. But back to the (erroneous) instructions stating that Directory Assistance is to be called for 'areacodes for places not listed'. People would be dialing Information (Directory Assistance), being told that they should call their long- distance company (and probably dialing single-0 anyway thinking that the 0 Operator is long-distance), being charged 31-cents since DA returned answer supervision to the AMA machine, and not finding out about the charge until they get their bill. If all 411 charges are lumped togather as a sum total, they would have a bit of a problem trying to determine WHY they are charged and getting credit. But is it because Bell really WANTS it that way!?!?! My two-cents. My views are my own, and not *necessarily* that of anyone else. 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 ------------------------------ Larry Ludwick and Tye McQueen both had something to this to which I wish to reply: Larry: >> Well, why should seven and eight digit versions of local >> numbers be any harder to deal? As long as no short number >> ever forms a prefix for any longer number, the switch can >> always tell how many more digits to expect after the first >> few digits. > I'm not sure I understand this one. If all (or most) seven digit > numbers are in use (which is the only reason anyone would want an > eight digit number in the first place), then all eight digit numbers > would have the complication of having their fist seven digits be a > working station somewhere else. This is were you surmise wrong. In Europe the digit length is not extended when the number of phone numbers runs out but fairly long before that time (in most cases no local number starts with a particular digit). For instance in Amsterdam we had for a long time 5 and 6 digit numbers. 5 digit numbers started with 5 and 6 digit numbers with 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9. The phone company was careful not to assign any number starting with 35. When a shortage of phone numbers was imminent, all numbers starting with 5 got a 3 prepended; this freed leading digit 5 (with leading digit 6 still free). At that time all numbers were 6 digits. Still later new numbers were introduced: 7 digit numbers starting with 5; so at that time there were 6 and 7 digit numbers. At *no* time a shorter number was the initial part of a longer number. The key is that you do not start with longer numbers when all or most shorter numbers are exhausted but that you allow a much longer time. Tyne: > This is probably at least partially because Americans are used to > _not_ entering "#" after dialing numbers. I would like to adjust that. Most people all over the world do not enter "#" after dialling a number. I do not because I can't. My rotary dials do not have the ability to dial "#". (Yes, I have two telephones, both have rotary dials, can be quite bothersome with some menu driven systems, but not with others.) Still I never experience a time-out. dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl ------------------------------ dmcmahon@edlgu4.ericsson.se (Denis McMahon) wrote: > in the UK we have a mix of 10 and 11 digit national numbers, and that > means that +44 can be followed by either 9 or 10 digits!! > This means that for calls to the UK, either the shorter number length > has to time out, or analysis has to be done at the next digit - which > is another ten lines of data to maintain in every switch worldwide > that supports international dialing! Is already done routinely, mainly to avoid having to deal with guaranteedly invalid numbers. For example, two months ago I was blocked by my *local* switch from dialing +44-701-xxxxxxx for a friend's "personal" number in the UK. Now, I know the UK is a "special case" since they've just had a big shake-up, but similar blocking occur on invalid area codes in other countries; eg, I get a local intercept if I try +1-0000000000 or +1-9999999999. On the other hand, waiting for a five second digit timeout on an international call isn't that big a deal -- calls to some places may take another 20 seconds to start ringing anyway ... As far as I can tell, depending on carrier, this is the default for most international calls from here (dial, wait five seconds, click, local intercept). ------------------------------ Linc Madison: > The advantage of this scheme is that the originating switch does not > need to open a path all the way to the terminating switch until dialing > has been completed. The originating switch stores the entire number and > then opens a path and sends it along its way, or may open a path part > way through the dialing process and pass the initial digits and then > pass the remaining digits in real time. In either case, it knows when > dialing is complete and can take the dialing register off that line. > Other countries have systems that use variable-length numbers without > requiring time-outs, because they open the path as the subscriber dials > and the terminating switch returns an indication that dialing has been > completed. Indeed. I agree with your assesment of the different schemes but would like to point out another difference. If variable length numbers are used by the system, the system also allows an intercept on the first digit that violates a valid phone number. For instance, if I dial "1" overhere I get an immediate intercept. Same happens with all other digits except "0", "4", "5" and "6". (Since we have gone to seven digits local all local numbers start with "4", "5" or "6".) But when going non-local there is a big advantage. When I dial "0" (non-local access) followed by "291" I get an immediate intercept warning me that the area code is not in use. This is because the terminating "1" is not a valid part. This is not done locally but by the compelled forward and back-signalling of digits. And it makes it easy to add area codes. There is only one switch that must be updated; the switch that handles the initial part. Compare this to the US where due to late update of switches some of the new area codes can not be dialled. dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl ------------------------------ In article 6@eecs.nwu.edu, naddy@mips.pfalz.de (Christian Weisgerber) writes: > Recently, comp.dcom.telecom has seen some talk on the viability of > variable length phone numbers within a country (or any specific > network, for that matter). Many posters, especially those from North > America, insist on their belief that phone numbers have to be of > constant length, otherwise one must have timeouts etc. Cellular switches can handle call setup with variable length phone numbers since the numbers are sent "en-bloc", eg. the number is entered at a cell phone and then the SEND key sends the numbers in a block over the air waves to the switch. > First, let me state that I see *no reason whatsoever* why there can't be > variable length phone numbers or why a switch would have to know the > total length of the number. If you think there is a need for such > restrictions, please explain why you think so. Your reasons are not > obvious. A landline switch with line terminations must provide inter-digit timing, or the dialer must terminate the phone number with the End-Of-Dialing indicator such as the # number on a touch-tone phone. Rotary dial phones cannot dial #, so inter-digit timing is needed to determine that no further digits are coming in. This timer is only needed for variable length numbers that have conflicts such as: 312-456-1234 and 312-456-123. For this sequence, the inter-digit timer is only needed on the 9th digit. The timer is typically set to 2 seconds, which means there is an additional 2 second call setup delay for conflicting number sequences that are not terminated by a # digit. Jeffrey Rhodes at jcr@creator.nwest.mccaw.com or if that doesn't work: jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ In article henry@q.com (henry mensch) writes: >> I called the telco to complain and they explained to me that this was >> done purposely because that telephone is in "a high-crime area". So This attribution looks wrong, but it does not matter. What difference does it make to drug dealers whether or not they can use the key pad? I am not a drug dealer myself, and I do not have any friends in that trade, but I am quite curious about this. What is there in the basic procedure of dealing drugs as practiced in high crime or any other area that makes it telecommunication dependent? I can see that you have to have a phone for carriage trade clientel that wants delivery service. Why do you need one to sit out on a street corner and deal drugs or sex or anything else? Are they phoning in mastercard approvals? Are they back ordering out-of-stock products? Are they checking customer references? Are they getting up to the minute price quotations from the Columbian drug exchange? Are they checking on drug interactions with the poison control center? Do they need it to call 911? What are they doing on the phone that is so vital to their trade? Somebody please enlighten me. ------------------------------ In article , bob@bci.nbn.com (Bob Schwartz) wrote: > It occured to me that pay phones could be getting removed from poor > neighborhoods in order to stimulate the new instalation of LIFELINE > service! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Could be, but Lifeline service is not a > big profit center. IBT had to be 'encouraged' by the Illinois Commerce > Commission before they would do much with it. Seems like a hard way to > earn a profit if you ask me. You could be right though. PAT] Now it becomes more clear. The FCC has an ongoing investigation of UNIVERSAL service. Lifeline was a wrong (but perhaps related) thought. At the heart of the investigation are demographic revelations that ubiquity of service is fast becoming a myth when gauged by the inner cities. Second to that is the pressure LECs, who are negotiating to let competition into their markets, are putting on legislators and comissioners around the issue of Lifeline service and forcing would be competitors to both offer it and or to mandate contribution through a universal service pool. As long as LECs must offer this service then úÿ would be competitors must too. This alone would have an effect on the capital structure of would-be competitors and serve to inflate their rates. It's not so much a way to earn a profit as a way to placate the investigators AND to kill competitors' cash in one fell swoop and it's all wraped / warped up with politics, and the war on drugs. There are just too many arguments peircing the veneer like the lack of safety (911), pocket dialers etc. for the war on drugs to be the full reason for the elimination of so many PROFITABLE payphones. It's typical, and smart, telco style to get someone else to tell them to do what they want to do anyway. Regards, *BOB* ------------------------------ In , slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) writes: > I sure don't know where they come up with the idea that shunting the pad > after connect will help fight crime. For less then $20.00 you can get a > portable Touch Tone generator about the size of a small calculator and > for a little more one with lots of memory. I'm sure the drug dealers have > the best. I was forced to get one because of the COT's. He did mention he was in the L.A. area when that happened. I wonder if he was in one of the GTE service areas instead of PacBell. I grew up in one, and they always 'disabled' the tone pad after the call was made ... it was more the switch then 'intentional', if I recall. . I do remember that the 'touch tone' wasn't real, but converted to pulse. They still use these switches in GTE land in Indiana where I grew up. I woudln't doubt that they do still have the ancient hardware in CA as well. ------------------------------ Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of this company? They have been working in manholes in Santa Clara, CA (one of their trucks here has a South Carolina license plate; that's what got me curious: I thought commercial vehicles would have to get a CA plate right away - here, private vehicles can keep their current plate until it expires) across the street from the Great America amusement park, and in Sunnyvale, CA, along the Cal Train (Southern Pacific?) railroad tracks. Mark Kaminsky ------------------------------ Pat - Perhaps one of your readers could shed some light on a new company called GeoTel. As far as I can tell, they are developing a software/hardware system that allows real-time, call-by-call routing of 800 number calls. For example, using a database lookup, independent of the 800 number dialed, a call could be routed to the dealer that served the customer last time, or deadbeat customers could be routed directly to the collections department. Looks like it works nationally, and hooks directly into the signaling system of the carriers. I would be interested in hearing if any of your readers have used the system, or have any experience with its reliability. Thanks, Kenneth Lubar EMI One Appleton Street Boston, MA 02116 Phone: +1 617 451-9451 x-126 Fax: +1 617 451-1193 Email: klubar@emiboston.com ------------------------------ Recently I got a notice in my AT&T Universal Card (Visa card) bill that "any current AT&T Universal Card calling card discount will no longer be available." (My account provides -- or provided -- for a 10 per cent discount [from what?] on credit card calls made with the AT&T Visa card.) Now "you'll be guaranteed competitive AT&T calling card rates on your first $10 of qualifying calling card calls each month, and enjoy up to 25 per cent savings when you make over $10 in qualifying credit card calls." Note the "UP TO"; it doesn't say what "savings" is actually applicable. It probably depends on volume, but doesn't say so, or what the lowest tier "savings" is and how much you have to use to get 25 per cent. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu wes.leatherock@f2001.n147.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ I am looking for PC-Software that would allow me to simulate a protocol which has been described with SDL symbols. I am primarily interrested in simulating SDL diagrams and not their code generation. Any comments, pointers and help with this will be greatly appreciated. Roland ------------------------------ Hi Folks, I'm looking for boundary maps that show exchanges as well as the LATAs for the northeastern US. My ideal would be PS or some other computer useable format, but any pointers would help a great deal! Thanks, Craig Macfarlane The Internet Access Company Director of Services 175 Great Road, Bedford MA 01730 http://www.tiac.net/ 617-276-7200v 617-275-2224fax ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #380 ******************************